Missouri to execute old man missing part of his brain

[grue 1]

Rick

***I used to be FOR the death penalty. Now I am strongly against it.

I am in the same boat Robert. The more mistakes I see made in the judicial system the less I can get behind the death penalty as an option.


Does the state (sometimes knowingly and ) wrongfully prosecute persons for a crime they did not commit? Yes.

Does the state sometimes succeed at this? Yes.

Can the act of execution be reversed? No.

Thus, I cannot support the death penalty, because by doing so I am supporting non-defensive homicide by the state.

Further, there's no evidence to support it as a deterrent (and people who think it does are probably delusional. Who the hell has ever been in the red mist and thought "wait, hang on, does this state have the death penalty or will I just get life in prison?) , which means that the only thing left supporting it is to satiate the bloodthirsty and vengeance-seekers.

cavete terrae.

[BIGUN 1,069]

No facts or evidence to dispute that old age claim; just more empty rhetoric.

You don't have to be afraid of finding out that you're wrong, you know.

Many a conservative on here has reversed their thoughts on capital punishment.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[grue 1]

BIGUN

No facts or evidence to dispute that old age claim; just more empty rhetoric.

You don't have to be afraid of finding out that you're wrong, you know.

Many a conservative on here has reversed their thoughts on capital punishment.

I'm an old school conservative when it comes to wanting small government and to be left the fuck alone (I'm not really "conservative" like the word has come to mean. I don't care who's sticking his dick or her tongue where, who's marrying whom, I don't give a damn if people get abortions and I sure as hell don't care what a bunch of asswipes are doing in other countries). I used to be heavily in favor of the death penalty until I stopped letting emotion into the equation. On a purely logical level, the death penalty is pretty ridiculous.

cavete terrae.

[BIGUN 1,069]

Same here.

A permanent solution demands a perfect process. We don't have that.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Stumpy 256]

BIGUN

No facts or evidence to dispute that old age claim; just more empty rhetoric.

Huh? I cited a study that is just as valid as yours actually - probably more so since it doesn't come from a site with a clear pro or anti gun agenda.

Quote

You don't have to be afraid of finding out that you're wrong, you know.

I'm not in the slightest bit concerned about that.

Quote

Many a conservative on here has reversed their thoughts on capital punishment.

Good on them. Besides, you mistake me. In 3 of the 4 countries I have lived in I am viewed as conservative/right of center. Only in the US would I be viewed as left. I'm a gun owner myself, however the self defence argument is a nonsense. (as is the protecting against a tyrannical government one but thats another story). I actually have no aversion to the second, however I do have an allergy to bullshit arguments like more guns = less crime. Look at the facts - it's patently false.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[ryoder 1,398]

jakee

Quote

The "part of his brain missing" goes back to a saw mill accident in the early 70's, and he shot the cop in what, 1996?

I'd say he knew exactly what the fuck he was doing.

Yeah, 'cos the one thing everyone knows about partial lobotomies is that eventually you get better.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jdkalou 0]

AND, the wheels on the bus go round and round...........................

[rehmwa 2]

grue

On a purely logical level, the death penalty is pretty ridiculous.

Removing a known threat permanently from society is a rational statement. Noting that it can't be reversed in the case of making an error is a rational statement.

Oversimplifying the DP as "vengeance" by the "bloodthirsty" is just as bad as proponents calling opponents' arguments "half measures" and the opponents themselves "whiny" and "rationalizers". It keeps the logical portions of both sides from being discussed rationally.

It's a crappy way to debate to minimize any opposing view rather than trying to understand it and disagree with it based on the merits of ones own positions. Of course, Speaker's Corner wouldn't exist then...

I agree with your 'old school' conservative positions for sure.

DP - I am neither heavily for or against it. I am definitely tired of listening to the weak and emotional posturing arguments of people trying to debate both sides. The issue is the application of the penalty and whether there is an acceptable error level or none at all. Or, in some cases, similar to the Pro-Life abortion folks, there is no middle ground and it's just a visceral moral reaction to it. Application and proof are the real problems if a society wants to have them. I'm not convinced that we are able to do it right except in the most extreme and excessively proven cases. I don't think deterrence is even an argument in the debate, only the relative benefit of deleting a societal threat vs the very serious downsides to making a mistake.

I lean towards having it as an option, and then requiring a ridiculous level of proof to even consider choosing that option. Then doing it quietly and not publicly.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Stumpy

I'm a gun owner myself, however the self defence argument is a nonsense.

thank you, same here. To me it's an issue of private property ownership for people with no felonious history. Period.

The self defense argument is a tangential tactic that I believe weakens the debate - true or not, frankly. And it's a bit of tough guy posturing, on both sides of that debate, which then makes it plain immature to engage in.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,427]

>Thus, I cannot support the death penalty, because by doing so I am
>supporting non-defensive homicide by the state.

Beyond that, from a purely utilitarian perspective, life in prison is cheaper. And he is permanently removed from society in either case. Heck, tell everyone he's dead then lock him up forever. The DP folks are happy, and society wastes less money overall on criminals.

[millertime24 8]

Quote

Beyond that, from a purely utilitarian perspective, life in prison is cheaper. And he is permanently removed from society in either case.

I fail to see how paying to keep someone alive in captivity cost more than a $0.10 bullet and a few lbs of propane.

Muff #5048

[billvon 2,427]

>I fail to see how paying to keep someone alive in captivity cost more than a
>$0.10 bullet and a few lbs of propane.

Because just shooting someone in the head who you think might have committed a crime not considered justice in the US. (Which is, in 99.99% of the cases, a very good thing.)

But don't take my word for it; do your own research. Some links to start you off below.

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/15519792/what-costs-more-the-death-penalty-or-life-in-prison

[millertime24 8]

I never said "might". I'm talking about the ones who are guilty. As in no doubt at all of their guilt. Murderers, rapists, and thieves get the same punishment.

Muff #5048

[DanG 1]

Quote

I'm talking about the ones who are guilty. As in no doubt at all of their guilt.

There is no legal standard for that. The best we have is, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

- Dan G

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

Which argument are you making?

That there is danger in having a gun present in a home? (True)

Or that guns are used against the homeowner and in crimes far more than they are used for defense? (False)

Those are two very different arguments.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

I'm talking about the ones who are guilty. As in no doubt at all of their guilt.

There is no legal standard for that. The best we have is, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You missed his point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

You missed his point

Look who's the mind reader now

What point of his do you think I missed?

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

You missed his point

Look who's the mind reader now

What point of his do you think I missed?

there are cases, where there is NO DOUBT of who commited the crime. Either by admission or by tape.
And he was saying, as I have also said, if there is no doubt he/I have no problem with the death penalty

the beyond a resonable doubt is the legal term/line
Again, that is not what he was talking about IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

there are cases, where there is NO DOUBT of who commited the crime. Either by admission or by tape.

Admission is not infrequently unreliable, for various case by case reasons.
(Re: tape, I presume you mean video of the actual act, thus eliminating all doubt about the physical act.)

Quote

if there is no doubt he/I have no problem with the death penalty

For discussion's sake, let's assume a situation of zero doubt as to either physical guilt or the perp's state of mind, no mitigating circumstances, and plenty of aggravating circumstances. I'd still oppose the DP, not out of any bleeding heart for the perp, but because I feel it reduces society to the level of the murderer. As an individual, especially if the victim was a loved one, my raw emotions would kick in, and I'd want to see him fry. But organized society is supposed to operate on a higher level than the mere individual.

[rushmc 18]

Andy9o8

Quote

there are cases, where there is NO DOUBT of who commited the crime. Either by admission or by tape.

Admission is not infrequently unreliable, for various case by case reasons.
(Re: tape, I presume you mean video of the actual act, thus eliminating all doubt.)

Quote

if there is no doubt he/I have no problem with the death penalty

For discussion's sake, let's assume a situation of zero doubt as to either physical guilt or the perp's state of mind, no mitigating circumstances, and plenty of aggravating circumstances. I'd still oppose the DP, not out of any bleeding heart for the perp, but because I feel it reduces society to the level of the murderer. As an individual, especially if the victim was a loved one, my raw emotions would kick in, and I'd want to see him fry. But organized society is supposed to operate on a higher level than the mere individual.

I respect and can even relate to your position

As for me, IF there is NOT ONE BIT OF DOUBT and the crime is heinous enough, I vote to put them down. Organized society has an obligation to do this in some cases. IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

there are cases, where there is NO DOUBT of who commited the crime.

No, there is always some doubt.

Quote

Either by admission...

Admissions can be coerced, or the result of mental problems.

Quote

...or by tape.

Tapes don't show the whole story. If you only had tape to go by, the beating of Rodney King would be an open and shut case. The police were clearly seen beating him on tape. As you know, there were extenuating circumstances that weren't shown on tape. Tape never tells the whole story.

Quote

the beyond a resonable doubt is the legal term/line

Yes, it is. And the death penalty is part of the legal process. You can't separate the two.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

there are cases, where there is NO DOUBT of who commited the crime.

No, there is always some doubt.wrong

Quote

Either by admission...

Admissions can be coerced, or the result of mental problems.there are always exceptions to be considered

Quote

...or by tape.

Tapes don't show the whole story. If you only had tape to go by, the beating of Rodney King would be an open and shut case. The police were clearly seen beating him on tape. As you know, there were extenuating circumstances that weren't shown on tape. Tape never tells the whole story.agreed, but again you go to the exceptions. If there are doubts then I would not vote to put them down

Quote

the beyond a resonable doubt is the legal term/line

Yes, it is. And the death penalty is part of the legal process. You can't separate the two.

The legal process and reality can be and are sepeated daily

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,257]

millertime24

I never said "might". I'm talking about the ones who are guilty. As in no doubt at all of their guilt.

And you get to that point without spending money... how?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

there are cases, where there is NO DOUBT of who commited the crime. Either by admission

You think a confession of guilt removes all doubt? That is painfully naive.

Quote

the beyond a resonable doubt is the legal term/line

So where's the legal term/line for beyond all doubt? How do you codify that?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[normiss 622]

Sometimes, the only difference in guilt and innocence, is timing.