//http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/01/21276779-child-killer-testifies-from-death-row-i-guess-the-lord-hid-my-veins?lite
QuoteA condemned child killer and rapist testified from Ohio's death row Friday in a bid to get his execution postponed because the state plans to use an untested cocktail of drugs for a lethal injection.
Ronald Phillips, who is due to be put to death Nov. 14, told a judge via video hookup that prison doctors couldn't find veins in his arm during a checkup two weeks ago.
"I guess the Lord hid my veins from them," Phillips said, according to The Associated Press. He added that he had a lifelong fear of needles.
Phillips, 40, was sentenced to death for the 1993 rape and beating death of his girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter, Sheila Marie Evans, and he was recently denied clemency.
His lawyers say they have not been given enough time to investigate recent changes to Ohio's execution protocol that might violate Phillips' constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Ohio is one of several states that have been forced to tinker with execution methods because a commonly used drug — pentobarbital — is in short supply after the manufacturer banned its sale to prisons for executions.
The initial plan was to secure pentobarbital from a specialty pharmacy that would make up the lethal dose without oversight by the Food and Drug Administration.
In court papers, Phillips' lawyers said that method was too risky because no one could guarantee the pharmacist would not tamper with the dose to make the execution painful.
"Phillips understands that reasonable people find his crime extremely repugnant, brutal and shocking. He is now learning that an ethically challenged individual may be tabbed to make his execution drugs from scratch," they wrote.
They said there were no precautions in place to stop the druggist from spiking the solution with an ingredient that would "cause excruciating physical pain to Phillips while he is still conscious.
"The net result of this is that Phillips has an extreme fear — not just a substantial risk of that fear—that he will be chemically tortured if and when he is injected with compounded execution drugs."
The story itself is disturbing enough. Then I read the comments, and became even more disturbed. There are literally hundreds of people basically saying they would volunteer to kill him themselves, and as brutally as possible.
This is the kind of case that really tears us all up. He's undeniably a monster who should never see the light of day. What he did was a crime of the worse nature. Will killing him somehow create "justice"? Or will it just take all of society down a notch, closer to his barbaric level? Reading the comments, I am reminded that it is always, always the latter.
QuoteThe story itself is disturbing enough. Then I read the comments, and became even more disturbed. There are literally hundreds of people basically saying they would volunteer to kill him themselves, and as brutally as possible.
I had completely forgotten about this quote till yesterday, but this in my opinion is a good representation on my view on it.
Quote"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzsche
I see very little difference between someone who takes pleasure in hurting people who are weaker and someone who takes pleasure in hurting people who they dislike. History is full of examples of innocent people being hurt because the powers-that-be turned the masses against them and convinced them they were evil or a threat, guilty of a crime against the state or the crime of being a different ethnicity. I would like to be as far away from that mindset as a society as we can possibly get.
The death penalty is nothing more than, "We will cut your hand off for stealing!". When it is a different culture, "NO! That is unacceptable!" yet when we do it... meh?
Quote from: "Shiranu"The death penalty is nothing more than, "We will cut your hand off for stealing!". When it is a different culture, "NO! That is unacceptable!" yet when we do it... meh?
It is more than that.
It is only that if the death penalty is used as a punishment or as revenge, as is chopping someone's hand off.
Killing people as humanely as possible in order to remove them from society is not the same thing, and saying that there is only one motive for it is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
This man was sentenced to death in 1993. Do people think that a quick and painless death is less torturous than waiting 20 years being repeatedly re-sentenced to death and having preparations for your execution being made over and over again only to be called off as they draw near? There's a reason mock executions are considered a form of torture under the geneva convention and living in inhumane conditions on death row and being subjected to what are practically mock executions for 20 years sounds an awful lot like torture to me.
Quote from: "Aroura33"He's undeniably a monster who should never see the light of day. What he did was a crime of the worse nature. Will killing him somehow create "justice"?
Equally, will keeping him in harsh, degrading conditions surrounded by other killers and insane people until he rots and dies create "justice"?
The reality is that "justice" is actually difficult to properly define, and difficult to enact in practice. The law and the penal system are supposed to serve the greater good for society, and as you've said yourself, clearly this man should be forever kept away from society forever. Ask yourself, would killing him as humanely as possible shortly after he'd been sentenced and maybe had ONE appeal be better or worse than what has happened to him over the last 20 years, and which would benefit society more given than millions have probably been spent on his case and his imprisonment by now?
QuoteDo people think that a quick and painless death is less torturous than waiting 20 years being repeatedly re-sentenced to death and having preparations for your execution being made over and over again only to be called off as they draw near?
No, and without a death penalty that would never be an issue.
QuoteEqually, will keeping him in harsh, degrading conditions surrounded by other killers and insane people until he rots and dies create "justice"?
No, but that is a statement on how we need to improve prisons, not lower our morals.
Fine..hang the coward or shoot him. I have no reasons to want to continue his charade..
Fear of needles? Really? Tough shit pal.. I have no problems executing certain people. He's one of them.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Will killing him somehow create "justice"? Or will it just take all of society down a notch, closer to his barbaric level? Reading the comments, I am reminded that it is always, always the latter.
Yes, "justice" will be served. In my view, killing this man is the right thing to do and it should have been done shortly after his conviction. It is right to definitively remove a proven deadly threat from society. Period. Not because you hate him, or because you grieve for the little girl, but because he is a proven threat and there is only one to make sure he will never do it again. Execution is the only responsible and just thing to do.
Bottom line, we need to ensure that this guy will never murder again and that everyone knows, without a doubt, that he will never murder again. Security and peace of mind.
Now if there was some wondrous piece of technology that could prove that he would never harm anyone ever again, and people were convinced, without a doubt, that this technology worked, then an execution wouldn't be necessary.
Morality vs practicality again. I'm not gonna bother dredging up my links again: if you didn't read them in the last thread, too bad.
The reason the death penalty takes so damn long and is so expensive to carry out is because of the appeals process. The death penalty is why we say, "It is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than condemn a single innocent." Unlike any other legal punishment, death kinda has this "no take-backs" policy. Once they're dead, they're dead, and if it later turns out the person was innocent then all the legal system can really do is say, "Oops." With the advent of DNA evidence there have been a number of acquittals in recent decades, and past (and more recent) executions that are now thought to have been wrongful. Wrongful death is generally called "murder," and we consider it to be unacceptable in modern society. It doesn't matter if the state pays restitution, because you'll never get that person back.
Regardless of whether execution in and of itself is moral, for practical reasons I think the death of any innocent is an unacceptable risk. Particularly in the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
Quote from: "Jack89"Now if there was some wondrous piece of technology that could prove that he would never harm anyone ever again, and people were convinced, without a doubt, that this technology worked, then an execution wouldn't be necessary.
Ok, so is execution to protect the public, or to exact revenge? An eye for an eye?
Isn't life in prison without the possibility of parole protecting the public?
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Morality vs practicality again. I'm not gonna bother dredging up my links again: if you didn't read them in the last thread, too bad.
The reason the death penalty takes so damn long and is so expensive to carry out is because of the appeals process. The death penalty is why we say, "It is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than condemn a single innocent." Unlike any other legal punishment, death kinda has this "no take-backs" policy. Once they're dead, they're dead, and if it later turns out the person was innocent then all the legal system can really do is say, "Oops." With the advent of DNA evidence there have been a number of acquittals in recent decades, and past (and more recent) executions that are now thought to have been wrongful. Wrongful death is generally called "murder," and we consider it to be unacceptable in modern society. It doesn't matter if the state pays restitution, because you'll never get that person back.
Regardless of whether execution in and of itself is moral, for practical reasons I think the death of any innocent is an unacceptable risk. Particularly in the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
There is also the risk of a convicted murderer killing again, which is also unacceptable. It happens, probably more than we're willing to admit. Practically speaking, is it "better to let 10 guilty men walk than condemn a single innocent", if one of those guilty men you let walk kills again? How about if 2 kill again?
I've opposed the dp on many grounds before, but I'm also aware there are people just to dangerous to risk walking free ground. People do escape prisons and justice so the bar needs to be very high for execution, but not entirely ruled out.
Quote from: "Jack89"There is also the risk of a convicted murderer killing again, which is also unacceptable. It happens, probably more than we're willing to admit. Practically speaking, is it "better to let 10 guilty men walk than condemn a single innocent", if one of those guilty men you let walk kills again? How about if 2 kill again?
Then they do. Guess what: people get life without parole for worse offences than those with the death penalty
routinely. It's not like the death penalty is 100% removing the most dangerous criminals. If it were, that'd be great: it would also mean our legal system was good enough to screen out the innocent people, which it isn't.
Your solution to the problem of escaped or acquitted criminals killing again is akin to stopping a forest fire by burning down trees: all it does is kill more trees, and it doesn't stop the fire.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Jack89"There is also the risk of a convicted murderer killing again, which is also unacceptable. It happens, probably more than we're willing to admit. Practically speaking, is it "better to let 10 guilty men walk than condemn a single innocent", if one of those guilty men you let walk kills again? How about if 2 kill again?
Then they do.
Have a nice day.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Morality vs practicality again. I'm not gonna bother dredging up my links again: if you didn't read them in the last thread, too bad.
The reason the death penalty takes so damn long and is so expensive to carry out is because of the appeals process. The death penalty is why we say, "It is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than condemn a single innocent." Unlike any other legal punishment, death kinda has this "no take-backs" policy. Once they're dead, they're dead, and if it later turns out the person was innocent then all the legal system can really do is say, "Oops." With the advent of DNA evidence there have been a number of acquittals in recent decades, and past (and more recent) executions that are now thought to have been wrongful. Wrongful death is generally called "murder," and we consider it to be unacceptable in modern society. It doesn't matter if the state pays restitution, because you'll never get that person back.
Regardless of whether execution in and of itself is moral, for practical reasons I think the death of any innocent is an unacceptable risk. Particularly in the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
There is also the risk of a convicted murderer killing again, which is also unacceptable. It happens, probably more than we're willing to admit. Practically speaking, is it "better to let 10 guilty men walk than condemn a single innocent", if one of those guilty men you let walk kills again? How about if 2 kill again?
How often have murderers escaped prison? As far as my googling research takes me, it has happened by one man (more than one time though) in modern American history. And he did not kill while out of prison.
Why is it acceptable to you if the state murders innocent people (and it has), but unacceptable if a murderer gets out and kills innocent people? In either case, innocent people die, but one is ok with you? Why is locking them up for life out of the question?
Neither is ok with me. There are ways to sentence people so they cannot be paroled and will never get out of prison. There are detention facilities that built for high risk prisoners that no one has ever escaped from. Why not use those 2 methods to remove a dangerous person from society, instead of risking killing an innocent person?
A lot of money does go into trying to legally murder a person. Personally, I think a better use of all that money over the last 20 years would have been to study this man as much as possible. MRI's of his brain, chemical studies, psychological studies, interviews with family and friends. Discover what broke in his brain. Was he born a sociopath? Did it happen because of abuse? How extreme was the abuse? Was there never an attempt at intervention?
All of this could, in the future lead us to PREVENT something like this from happening to other people in the future. So not only have we not killed more people, we have saved lives.
You know criminologists 100 years ago had very little information on why people behaved as they did, because most of the world routinely killed them very soon after they were convicted. It has only been since some countries and states have abolished the death penalty that we have made such great strides in understanding how these people work. And you know what? It has helped prevent more crime. Profiling a killer helps catch them quicker. Early intervention with kids displaying certain behavior has prevented them from ever becoming criminals.
But not, lets go back to the barbarity of just killing them. 'Cause that was working so well for humanity the last few thousand years.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Jack89"There is also the risk of a convicted murderer killing again, which is also unacceptable. It happens, probably more than we're willing to admit. Practically speaking, is it "better to let 10 guilty men walk than condemn a single innocent", if one of those guilty men you let walk kills again? How about if 2 kill again?
Then they do.
Have a nice day.
Way to ignore the rest of the post and the context I wrote that in. What, your brain just can't process a legitimate counter-point? You have to quote-mine just to produce a response?
The only thing worse than dishonesty in a debate is cowardice.
Quote from: "Aroura33"How often have murderers escaped prison? As far as my googling research takes me, it has happened by one man (more than one time though) in modern American history. And he did not kill while out of prison.
Not just escapees, there's plenty of murderers that are released and murder again. Google it an you'll see. I'm sure there are many who kill other prisoners as well. Here's an article I found in just a few seconds of searching - //http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html This particular article mentions 31 people dead from killers released from prison. There where quite a few more search results as well.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Why is it acceptable to you if the state murders innocent people (and it has), but unacceptable if a murderer gets out and kills innocent people? In either case, innocent people die, but one is ok with you? Why is locking them up for life out of the question?
Good point. It's a dilemma that I haven't fully come to terms with, to be honest. Neither is OK with me, but locking someone up for life does not remove the threat, which is my primary point.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Neither is ok with me. There are ways to sentence people so they cannot be paroled and will never get out of prison. There are detention facilities that built for high risk prisoners that no one has ever escaped from. Why not use those 2 methods to remove a dangerous person from society, instead of risking killing an innocent person?
The dilemma remains. On the one hand, we have an imperfect trial system that sometimes convicts innocent people, on the other, dangerous criminals are released and allowed to kill again. In many cases they kill again in the prisons you're talking about, no escape or release necessary.
On that note, to make sure a killer can't kill again you would have to isolate him or her from the rest of the prison population. There are some pretty good articles out there on the effects of long term isolation. I can't see long term isolation of guilty or innocent people as being any less barbaric than executing them. I experienced short term isolation in the military during some training and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. In fact, that experience changed my views on incarceration in general.
Quote from: "Aroura33"A lot of money does go into trying to legally murder a person.
I wouldn't call it murder if a person was legally convicted and sentenced, just as I wouldn't call it murder if someone kills an assailant defending themselves or others. I wouldn't call a soldier a murderer either.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Personally, I think a better use of all that money over the last 20 years would have been to study this man as much as possible. MRI's of his brain, chemical studies, psychological studies, interviews with family and friends. Discover what broke in his brain. Was he born a sociopath? Did it happen because of abuse? How extreme was the abuse? Was there never an attempt at intervention?
All of this could, in the future lead us to PREVENT something like this from happening to other people in the future. So not only have we not killed more people, we have saved lives.
You know criminologists 100 years ago had very little information on why people behaved as they did, because most of the world routinely killed them very soon after they were convicted. It has only been since some countries and states have abolished the death penalty that we have made such great strides in understanding how these people work. And you know what? It has helped prevent more crime. Profiling a killer helps catch them quicker. Early intervention with kids displaying certain behavior has prevented them from ever becoming criminals.
But not, lets go back to the barbarity of just killing them. 'Cause that was working so well for humanity the last few thousand years.
Using the cost of the death penalty as an argument seems like you're reaching. Hell, if you want some money for research stop putting dope smokers in jail. Still, you make some good points that I'll have to look at some more. I doubt I'll change my mind, my sentiment on the matter is likely as fixed as yours, so it would be pretty hard to.
Though death penalty is primarily a terrible, terrible idea, there comes a point where we have such horrible massmurderers that I morally have a hard time separating between killing them in a "humane" way, and putting down a rabid dog. However: As long as anyone innocent can be sentenced to death, the risk is, in my opinion, too great - and life-long incarceration is the best option(if determined to be a continued threat to society).
But I do have one question to the people who are against death penalty:
As you know we can already (poorly) film dreams, if there came a point where science became so advanced that we could actually extract defendants memories - screen what happened, and maybe even recover the thoughts they had at the time they commited the murders - which would (theoretically) make it impossible to convict anyone who was not guilty. Would you still be against death penality in all cases?
They won't answer that, I have already tried. If guilt can be proven absolutely and money is no longer the issue... they just stop responding.
Still against it on moral grounds, as I have said before. But it can at least become more debatable.
But just like heaven, that utopia will never exist so I don't worry too much about it.
Quote from: "aitm"They won't answer that, I have already tried. If guilt can be proven absolutely and money is no longer the issue... they just stop responding.
Alright fine, I'll answer:
Your counterpoint to my utilitarian view is to introduce a completely unrelated "moralistic" view. Now I can't speak for anyone else here, nor will I pretend to, but if guilt could be proven absolutely and money is no longer an issue, then sure, go for it. Problem is, that "perfect scenario" can easily be determined not to exist, and it's trivially easy to demonstrate that human nature will never allow it to happen. So we're back to the
actual argument, which is the fact that the death penalty presents the unacceptable risk of a wrongful execution.
Quote from: "aitm"They won't answer that, I have already tried. If guilt can be proven absolutely and money is no longer the issue... they just stop responding.
They meaning people who are opposed?
I don't think this assertion is fair at all, you big weiner head. I answered this question in the last thread: It is fundamentally wrong IMO to kill another person for any reason other than self defense. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to but that doesn't give me the right to.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Problem is, that "perfect scenario" can easily be determined not to exist, .
I disagree my fine feathered friend. It can exist, and rather easily, and I believe it will exist when we abandon circumstantial evidence in any aspect of the death penalty. Methods can be used to determine 100% guilt. Those are indeed very strict methods that must meet very strict standard, but they can be achieved. And in all of those methods circumstantial evidence must be discarded, and absolute proof of each point must be given. Emotion is the number one reason to want to execute someone, remove the rhetoric of circumstantial bull-crap with positive proof and we have clear conscience. And before you go off.... I demand absolute proof prior to execution.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "aitm"They won't answer that, I have already tried. If guilt can be proven absolutely and money is no longer the issue... they just stop responding.
It is fundamentally wrong IMO to kill another person for any reason other than self defense.
That is a mere opinion, nothing more.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Problem is, that "perfect scenario" can easily be determined not to exist, .
I disagree my fine feathered friend. It can exist, and rather easily, and I believe it will exist when we abandon circumstantial evidence in any aspect of the death penalty. Methods can be used to determine 100% guilt. Those are indeed very strict methods that must meet very strict standard, but they can be achieved. And in all of those methods circumstantial evidence must be discarded, and absolute proof of each point must be given. Emotion is the number one reason to want to execute someone, remove the rhetoric of circumstantial bull-crap with positive proof and we have clear conscience. And before you go off.... I demand absolute proof prior to execution.
And yet, curiously, you have omitted what you would consider "absolute proof" and "circumstantial evidence."
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Problem is, that "perfect scenario" can easily be determined not to exist, .
I disagree my fine feathered friend. It can exist, and rather easily, and I believe it will exist when we abandon circumstantial evidence in any aspect of the death penalty. Methods can be used to determine 100% guilt. Those are indeed very strict methods that must meet very strict standard, but they can be achieved. And in all of those methods circumstantial evidence must be discarded, and absolute proof of each point must be given. Emotion is the number one reason to want to execute someone, remove the rhetoric of circumstantial bull-crap with positive proof and we have clear conscience. And before you go off.... I demand absolute proof prior to execution.
And yet, curiously, you have omitted what you would consider "absolute proof" and "circumstantial evidence."
well circumstantial is, I thought, obvious. I would like to see a criteria established of which a certain amount must be met to send someone to big ole hole in the ground.
1) Eyewitness by two or more
2) Video evidence
3) Audio evidence
4) Forensic evidence at the crime scene
5) Forensic evidence that can be directly linked (such as DNA found in a car trunk, basement, fingernails)
6) Victims statement
7) Guilty admission
You get 5 of those and I am pretty sure we got the right fuck. But you must establish 5. And shit like, "he hated that bitch" or "he was in the neighborhood" or "his car is white with black spots" or "he is the only black guy in the state" or "he is seen going into the elevator" simply isn't enough.
Quote from: "aitm"well circumstantial is, I thought, obvious. I would like to see a criteria established of which a certain amount must be met to send someone to big ole hole in the ground.
Not as obvious as you seem to think, as I will soon demonstrate.
Quote from: "aitm"1) Eyewitness by two or more
Eyewitness testimony has been repeatedly proven to be unreliable, regardless of how many people you question. Ask 10 different people, you'll get 10 different stories.
Quote from: "aitm"2) Video evidence
Fair enough.
Quote from: "aitm"3) Audio evidence
Only when accompanied by video, otherwise you get shit like the George Zimmerman case where everyone has their own take on what the hell's going on.
Quote from: "aitm"4) Forensic evidence at the crime scene
5) Forensic evidence that can be directly linked (such as DNA found in a car trunk, basement, fingernails)
Grouped these together because it's basically saying the same thing.
A lot of "forensic evidence" falls under your category of "circumstantial." DNA is only absolute evidence if all variables not related to murder can be eliminated. (And given the personal nature of many murders, this is often not possible.)
Quote from: "aitm"6) Victims statement
Less reliable than eyewitness testimony. Look up a book called "Picking Cotton," which was co-authored by a rape victim and the man she falsely accused. There's been a lot of research done on the unreliability of memory over the past couple decades that absolutely applies to your arguments.
Quote from: "aitm"7) Guilty admission
Can be coerced for a plea deal, which wouldn't happen in a death penalty case for obvious reasons.
Quote from: "aitm"You get 5 of those and I am pretty sure we got the right fuck.
The only one qualifying as "absolute evidence" is video, and even then it has to show the full incident to get the context. Additionally, nothing you've presented here goes above and beyond the evidence actually presented in death penalty cases. The evidence goes through the wringer so much that your standards are eventually met anyway, and yet mistakes are still made. So really, you've presented an argument my utilitarian stance has already countered in its entirety. :-|
By some standards here nobody would so much as ever be convicted of a speeding ticket much less a capital offense.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Problem is, that "perfect scenario" can easily be determined not to exist, .
I disagree my fine feathered friend. It can exist, and rather easily, and I believe it will exist when we abandon circumstantial evidence in any aspect of the death penalty. Methods can be used to determine 100% guilt. Those are indeed very strict methods that must meet very strict standard, but they can be achieved. And in all of those methods circumstantial evidence must be discarded, and absolute proof of each point must be given. Emotion is the number one reason to want to execute someone, remove the rhetoric of circumstantial bull-crap with positive proof and we have clear conscience. And before you go off.... I demand absolute proof prior to execution.
That explains the americans perfect track record of never executing an innocent man.
This page (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution) has a few errors in need of correction!
QuoteAs you know we can already (poorly) film dreams, if there came a point where science became so advanced that we could actually extract defendants memories - screen what happened, and maybe even recover the thoughts they had at the time they commited the murders - which would (theoretically) make it impossible to convict anyone who was not guilty. Would you still be against death penality in all cases?
Memories are incredibly unreliable. Conceptually; if we can determine guilt 100% then it would still not make sense to kill these people, but rather we should study them until we figure out how to fix the issue to keep it from happening again. Both for them
and for others walking around. Practically, mind-reading is not the way to go because people's memories are not reliable, even if you read them directly from the brain.
I think execution should be an option given to anyone sentenced to life in prison especially young inmates who would otherwise be subjected to an extremely violent life, being repeatedly raped with absolutely no place to get away because for many that's what life is which is FAR more cruel and unusual punishment than execution.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "aitm"They won't answer that, I have already tried. If guilt can be proven absolutely and money is no longer the issue... they just stop responding.
It is fundamentally wrong IMO to kill another person for any reason other than self defense.
That is a mere opinion, nothing more.
Well sure it is. That is why I said "IMO". Your viewpoint is also opinion. Isn't that what the discussion is about?
Quote from: "Mermaid"Well sure it is. That is why I said "IMO". Your viewpoint is also opinion. Isn't that what the discussion is about?
Indeed. There seems to be however, a underlying belief by some that humanity is some glorious moral creature befitting the title of a creation of a god when we are far more vicious than any other animal. I for one think we not only have a obligation but a duty to execute this scum factor that slithers around butchering people for no reason. It is a matter of making sure we have the correct fuck before we off it.
I have no issue with anyone wanting to play with his brain all they want to see why "it" does what it does as long as it doesn't do it again.
And it appears the largest issue is killing the wrong guy. I agree, so we don't kill the wrong "it" anymore. Therein lies the issue, not the penalty.
Gawd.. I hate when I agree with you completely aitm, but yeah.. you're right. Maybe we've been exposed to more true shithead rotten motherfuckers than most.. who knows?
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"By some standards here nobody would so much as ever be convicted of a speeding ticket much less a capital offense.
Only if you're reading these standards out of context. I outlined earlier that getting the wrong guy in a death penalty case is unacceptable, as it's the only penalty that isn't reversible by any means.
QuoteI have no issue with anyone wanting to play with his brain all they want to see why "it" does what it does as long as it doesn't do it again.
So you'd consider brain re-wiring that ensures "it" doesn't do "it" again just as valid as the death penalty? (Again; under the assumption that we know it'll work of course. We're still doing hypotheticals.)
I'd also like to point out that you guys are awfully eager to see the death penalty continue despite there being no consistent criteria for receiving it. People who have committed worse crimes get life without parole as a matter of routine, even in the current system. The death penalty tends to be determined more by how personal the case is to people than by how heinous the actual act was.
Assuming we could gather evidence with the 100% certainty required for a sentence with no take-backs, what would your criteria be for receiving the death penalty?
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"By some standards here nobody would so much as ever be convicted of a speeding ticket much less a capital offense.
Only if you're reading these standards out of context. I outlined earlier that getting the wrong guy in a death penalty case is unacceptable, as it's the only penalty that isn't reversible by any means.
If you accidentally convict someone for doing 75 in a 70 zone, you can always give the money back to them if you're wrong.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Mermaid"Well sure it is. That is why I said "IMO". Your viewpoint is also opinion. Isn't that what the discussion is about?
Indeed. There seems to be however, a underlying belief by some that humanity is some glorious moral creature befitting the title of a creation of a god when we are far more vicious than any other animal. I for one think we not only have a obligation but a duty to execute this scum factor that slithers around butchering people for no reason. It is a matter of making sure we have the correct fuck before we off it.
I have no issue with anyone wanting to play with his brain all they want to see why "it" does what it does as long as it doesn't do it again.
And it appears the largest issue is killing the wrong guy. I agree, so we don't kill the wrong "it" anymore. Therein lies the issue, not the penalty.
That's nice rhetoric. Now answer my points. I have demonstrated that nothing you have proposed gives the necessary certainty to institute a penalty with no take-backs, nor, for that matter, is actually any different than the current system in place. If you have a rebuttal, I'd be glad to hear it. If you don't, you need to recognize that rhetoric like this is going to have to stop, because it's been thoroughly trounced.
[snip]
There is no such thing as 100% certainty. Even if you could extract memories, and be certain somehow they are accurate, evidence can be tampered with. The moment humans discover a new more reliable type of evidence, humans also figure out a way to use it to their own ends. Even in cases of dna and video tape, it has been known to happen that the actual perp, and sadly, the police hell bent on a conviction, alter the evidence or set someone up. And as far as I know, there is no way to prevent those things, and so wrongful convictions are inevitable.
However, just to prove your assertion that none of us who are against the death penalty will answer you, I will ALSO, answer. Everyone else has, but lets just be clear that was a stupid shit thing to say. Even if there was 100% proof of guilt, it is still wrong to take another human life against their will except in self defense, if there is another option. And there are other options, such as life in prison. Also, my argument about studying them being more useful to society than killing them still stands.
As to the points made by others that people get out of prison, that is something I would absolutely advocate to change. Life without possibility of parole should be used in cases where the death penalty currently is.
The problem of them killing inside prison is a thornier one. I agree constant solitary is inhumane. Medication, therapy, and mostly isolation with heavily guarded outside time could be a solution. E-visiting could be another. Never let them out of their cell, but allow exploration of the prison via some virtual means. There are people with some illnesses that have to live that way, and it does work for them. My point being, solitary is not the only option.
I would possibly agree with whoever said that they should retain the right to end their own life, I mean have it medically ended. People sentanced to life in prison without parole should, I agree, after a certain period of time like 2 or 3 years, be given that option. I am a little iffy on this because it does open up the possibility of innocent people depressed by wrongful conviction to suicide. But it is something that should at least be explored.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Yes... as I said, the death penalty is the only penalty that can't be reversed by any means. Did you forget your reading glasses at home or something? I mean, at what point did you think "death penalty" meant "a fucking speeding ticket?" Did I mistype, or are you just that bad at reading? :evil:
I was underscoring your point. Not trying to undermine it.
Quote from: "Aroura33"There is no such thing as 100% certainty.
Yeah, but if there were, then we could execute murderers before they even harmed anyone! And I reckon that most people would be in favour of that.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Yes... as I said, the death penalty is the only penalty that can't be reversed by any means. Did you forget your reading glasses at home or something? I mean, at what point did you think "death penalty" meant "a fucking speeding ticket?" Did I mistype, or are you just that bad at reading? :evil:
I was underscoring your point. Not trying to undermine it.
That wasn't clear from your wording, but alright. I'll blank out the post.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"That's nice rhetoric. Now answer my points.
You seem to be under the impression that I am offering the solution, I am not, I have suggested what may work better. My whole argument (since this and the last three threads I have stated the same thing), and let me repeat that since it seems to be lost time and again, is that IF we can proof conclusively someone's guilt than I have no issue killing them. I have said this several times and people keep saying , yeah but.... yeah but... well no shit. Of course we don't want to kill innocent people. And it is irrelevant if we don't have a working policy or if indeed it is ever possible. And I don't care what or if or when we have the money, that is not my point. I am not arguing the obvious of what it is now. If we can find conclusive proof then kill the "it".
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"That's nice rhetoric. Now answer my points.
You seem to be under the impression that I am offering the solution, I am not, I have suggested what may work better. My whole argument (since this and the last three threads I have stated the same thing), and let me repeat that since it seems to be lost time and again, is that IF we can proof conclusively someone's guilt than I have no issue killing them. I have said this several times and people keep saying , yeah but.... yeah but... well no shit. Of course we don't want to kill innocent people. And it is irrelevant if we don't have a working policy or if indeed it is ever possible. And I don't care what or if or when we have the money, that is not my point. I am not arguing the obvious of what it is now. If we can find conclusive proof then kill the "it".
Again, nice rhetoric. You seem to be under the impression that I am misinterpreting your argument. I understand it perfectly. But there is no way for your criteria of "absolute proof" to be fulfilled, which was the point of my last response. If there's no way for your position on the issue to be put into practice, it is
pointless to argue that position.
Now if you're quite done repeating yourself, do you have an actual way for your position to be put into practice? If you don't, then stop repeating it, because it's a worthless stance to take.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI have no issue with anyone wanting to play with his brain all they want to see why "it" does what it does as long as it doesn't do it again.
So you'd consider brain re-wiring that ensures "it" doesn't do "it" again just as valid as the death penalty? (Again; under the assumption that we know it'll work of course. We're still doing hypotheticals.)
No, we look at their brain to see if it offers any clues, THEN kill it. I'm all for science.
Why would you kill it if you could rewire it to never kill again? That's not in any way more effective or anything.
Quote from: "Plu"Why would you kill it if you could rewire it to never kill again? That's not in any way more effective or anything.
Sorry, I mis-read that part about the hypotheticals. I was getting a wedgie over my own. Certainly seems like a good idea, although I would be pretty uncomfortable with living around the person non-the-less, and I am pretty sure most would as well.
Yeahhh..now you're delving into science FICTION, rewiring murderous minds to all sing Kumbya.. :roll:
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Plu"Why would you kill it if you could rewire it to never kill again? That's not in any way more effective or anything.
Sorry, I mis-read that part about the hypotheticals. I was getting a wedgie over my own. Certainly seems like a good idea, although I would be pretty uncomfortable with living around the person non-the-less, and I am pretty sure most would as well.
You should watch the Babylon 5 episode, "Passing Through Gethsemane." It explores a hypothetical punishment called "death of personality," which involves a mindwipe followed by brain reprogramming.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Yeahhh..now you're delving into science FICTION, rewiring murderous minds to all sing Kumbya.. :roll:
Equally science fiction as "100% certain of guilt", really.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Even if there was 100% proof of guilt, it is still wrong to take another human life against their will..
I will disagree, as I said, I think we have an obligation even a duty to do so.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteDo people think that a quick and painless death is less torturous than waiting 20 years being repeatedly re-sentenced to death and having preparations for your execution being made over and over again only to be called off as they draw near?
No, and without a death penalty that would never be an issue.
It wouldn't with a death penalty that was implemented differently either.
You are doing the logical equivalent of pointing out that there problems with prisons so we should let murders walk free and not use prisons.
As I have pointed out in another thread, taking the example of a capital punishment system which has been implmented pretty terribly by just about every imaginable metric, that is part of a wider justice system which is also considered to be pretty bad compared to those of other developed countries cannot be used to demonstrate that capital punishment itself is definitely a bad idea in itself.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteEqually, will keeping him in harsh, degrading conditions surrounded by other killers and insane people until he rots and dies create "justice"?
No, but that is a statement on how we need to improve prisons, not lower our morals.
"lower our morals".
Nice vague, moralistic fallacy you've got going on there.
All of the language you use is deliberately aimed at making those who even consider capital punishment with an open mind seem immoral and as though they think human life is cheap. It is not a fair way to debate, nor is it a clear way to articulate yourself.
The US taxpayer has wasted VAST, VAST, VAST amounts of money on just this one man who raped and murdered a 3 year old. This is clearly a big problem. As you've already been asked, do you have a better solution to the problem of billions being wasted on those who harmed society in the first place, rather than being spent on improving it than capital punishment, or a genuine criticism of capital punishment itself as an idea, or a reason why this problem should not or cannot be addressed? Or are you just going to go "you think killing is cheap and you're immoral" just because I'm willing to weigh up the pros and cons of something and leave it at that?
Quote from: "Aroura33"Even if there was 100% proof of guilt, it is still wrong to take another human life against their will except in self defense, if there is another option.
What makes that a fact rather than just what you think?
I could equally say "it is wrong to confine someone in a small space and take away a human's freedom against their will". We do that as a society though as it is necessary for the greater good.
"It is wrong to take a human being's possessions and money against their will" most societies still give out fines though.
So, please define an action that is "wrong", and explain why this one particular wrongdoing is unacceptable but others are.
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he ever will have."
Quote from: "Jmpty""It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he ever will have."
Very good, and the penalty for that should be at least as somewhat, kinda equal.
If the penalty for murdering an innocent person is the death penalty, should judges who condemn people to death and later learn they they were innocent face the death penalty?
Quote from: "Shiranu"If the penalty for murdering an innocent person is the death penalty, should judges who condemn people to death and later learn they they were innocent face the death penalty?
excellant idea shir, that would cut down the crappy excessive use of circumstantial bull shit.
Quote from: "aitm"And it appears the largest issue is killing the wrong guy. I agree, so we don't kill the wrong "it" anymore. Therein lies the issue, not the penalty.
Not with me. I think the largest issue is that killing people because they killed people is not going to solve any problems. If it's wrong to kill people, I think it's wrong to kill people for revenge.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Jmpty""It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he ever will have."
Very good, and the penalty for that should be at least as somewhat, kinda equal.
Why? What did you accomplish by making the penalty equal to the crime, except biblical style justice?
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Aroura33"Even if there was 100% proof of guilt, it is still wrong to take another human life against their will except in self defense, if there is another option.
What makes that a fact rather than just what you think?
I could equally say "it is wrong to confine someone in a small space and take away a human's freedom against their will". We do that as a society though as it is necessary for the greater good.
"It is wrong to take a human being's possessions and money against their will" most societies still give out fines though.
So, please define an action that is "wrong", and explain why this one particular wrongdoing is unacceptable but others are.
You are right, i should have specified it is my opinion, not a fact.
But the FACT that it is better to study them then kill them and toss away the corpse stands.
Why is it wrong to kill a person who is not an immediate threat to us? Good question. It is illegal almost everywhere, unless that person has committed and been convicted of their own crime. Men who beat their wives and threaten to kill them, if the wife kills him in his sleep, it is still murder, and she will be prosecuted for it, even though he was more of a danger to her than Charles Manson is to any of us right this moment. Yet it is acceptable to kill someone like Charles Manson, but not the abusive husband.
Violence begets violence. READ THE DAMN COMMENTS IN THE ARTICLE. I beg you. That is why I started this thread. It's sick and disturbing that this country is overflowing with people EAGER to do violence to another human being. Hundreds of volunteers to shoot this man themselves, though he has done them no personal wrong.
THAT is why it is wrong for the state to condone it, and why it is wrong in general, and why more and more places around the world are abolishing the death penalty. Because it lets the monster out in everyone, it makes it ok and socially acceptable to want to
torture and kill someone else.
It is wrong to take a life if there is another option because in EVERY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, almost all societies deem it so. I didn't decide that. Everyone else did, over the course of millenia. I'm just actually following it through, instead of selecting one group to make the exception out of. And in all seriousness, you will see that most progressive countries are abolishing the death penalty. These would be the secular European ones, and such. Only in America are people lined up to execute these folk themselves, and call them "it". It's easier to kill something if you don't even associate it as human. Classic. It's sick.
It is wrong for the state to do it because there are numerous people who disagree with it, yet the blood of those people is still on my hands because my taxes went to kill a man.
If there is the option to lock them up for life,can you tell me why killing them (when most would prefer life, even in solitary, or they wouldn't be appealing it for 20 years so don't give me that bullshit argument again), is right?
If wrongful death occurs in the case of capitol punishment, and people like AITM are all for shooting the judge, and I guess the jury too, and maybe the lawyers? The families? The cops involved in investigating it? How about all of us who paid for it? We all let the wrong man die. We are all guilty of at least neglegent homicide.
So yeah....for all of those reasons, it is wrong.
Humans are quite capable and quite often do things to each other far worse than execution of societies cruelest citizens. I'll never rule execution out, but the bar needs set high.
How can execution possibly be as cruel as people who start wars purely for personal gain or the often over the top actions of those who find killing in war some sort of sick thrill, usually for profit? Someone who causes untold suffering and death somehow deserves to live and be 'studied'? Fuck that.
Quote from: "Plu"Why would you kill it if you could rewire it to never kill again?
How do you rewire? Can all be rewired?
Quote from: "Shiranu"If the penalty for murdering an innocent person is the death penalty, should judges who condemn people to death and later learn they they were innocent face the death penalty?
Why do you think that judges are fools? They give benefit of doubt if there is any.
In India, it is given to 'rarest of rare' brutal cases, not just for a murder or a rape. We have 1220 million people to worry about. Soft tactics do not work. That is considered a weakness. IMHO, it is fair enough.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Quote from: "Plu"Why would you kill it if you could rewire it to never kill again?
How do you rewire? Can all be rewired?
It's part of the hypothetical. So I don't know how, but assume that it can be done.
Quote from: "Aroura33"You are right, i should have specified it is my opinion, not a fact.
But the FACT that it is better to study them then kill them and toss away the corpse stands.
In some cases it is better for society to learn from the perpetrator, I agree.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Why is it wrong to kill a person who is not an immediate threat to us? Good question. It is illegal almost everywhere, unless that person has committed and been convicted of their own crime. Men who beat their wives and threaten to kill them, if the wife kills him in his sleep, it is still murder, and she will be prosecuted for it, even though he was more of a danger to her than Charles Manson is to any of us right this moment. Yet it is acceptable to kill someone like Charles Manson, but not the abusive husband.
Violence begets violence. READ THE DAMN COMMENTS IN THE ARTICLE. I beg you. That is why I started this thread. It's sick and disturbing that this country is overflowing with people EAGER to do violence to another human being. Hundreds of volunteers to shoot this man themselves, though he has done them no personal wrong.
THAT is why it is wrong for the state to condone it, and why it is wrong in general, and why more and more places around the world are abolishing the death penalty. Because it lets the monster out in everyone, it makes it ok and socially acceptable to want to torture and kill someone else.
I did read the comments.
Having the death penalty does not necessarily make it socially acceptable to want to torture people, that is a baseless claim. I live in a European country without the dealth penalty and guess how the online comments read when a person like this is sentenced to life in prison?
Quote from: "Aroura33"It is wrong to take a life if there is another option because in EVERY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, almost all societies deem it so. I didn't decide that. Everyone else did, over the course of millenia. I'm just actually following it through, instead of selecting one group to make the exception out of. And in all seriousness, you will see that most progressive countries are abolishing the death penalty. These would be the secular European ones, and such. Only in America are people lined up to execute these folk themselves, and call them "it". It's easier to kill something if you don't even associate it as human. Classic. It's sick.
Ok, so the society which you and I both agree is dealing with this situation completely terribly right now has decided that something's unequivocably wrong and we just accept that without questioning it? Also, I think you'll find that if you look back over the last couple of milennia back to when recorded history began, we've been slaughtering eachother in droves.
I'm not telling you what is right and what is wrong I'm just trying to approach the debate with an open mind rather than with preconcieved notions of what is right and what is wrong. If we're going to establish, as a society, that something is without any shadow of doubt completely wrong, it should be thought about very carefully and absolutely open to questioning and probing if we're then going to base all of our decisions on that.
The justice system is set up with the aim of helping society overall. Punishments are dealt out and people are isolated from society (which are bad things to do to them) because doing these things is for the greater good of society. I am pointing out that had this man been executed in 1993 or 1994, the same effect would have been achieved ie. isolating him from society so he can do no more harm, but without spending probably millions and millions on him over 20 years. This money could be spent elsewhere, helping the needy, so there would be a net benefit to society.
Now, I am completely open to criticism of this idea, genuine reasons why although this solution seems to be better, it is either not good for society or it would be better but it should not be done for a moral or other reason. However, simply stating that it shouldn't be done because it is wrong and that is that is not a complete argument. Now do you see where I'm coming from?
Quote from: "Aroura33"It is wrong for the state to do it because there are numerous people who disagree with it, yet the blood of those people is still on my hands because my taxes went to kill a man.
Well now you're essentially arguing that democracy is fundamentally wrong. Democracy only works if voters accept that if their politicians, parties and policies do not win, those who do win and their actions are legitimate. If 75% of the country votes for a policy, or a law, and the other 25% argue that it is not a legitimate law and reject it, society simply would not work.
However, I do agree that if the issue capital punishment were put to the vote, and a large majority did not support it, then likewise rejecting this would be the same thing. Rejecting it is illegitimate and trying to convince others to change their views are not the same thing though.
So, in a democratic country, your only options are to vote against something you don't like, and non-threateningly try to convince others that your view is correct.
Quote from: "Aroura33"If there is the option to lock them up for life,can you tell me why killing them (when most would prefer life, even in solitary, or they wouldn't be appealing it for 20 years so don't give me that bullshit argument again), is right?
My case for the death penalty being
worth considering as a potential option revolves solely around the net benefit to society that comes from reducing the spending of a huge proportion of the country's overall wealth on people who do not deserve this spending nearly as much as the vulnerable members of a society who need help.
Regardless of whether or not people think that it would be an acceptable solution, it seems silly to disagree that spending VAST sums more on murderers than the homeless and vulnerable is a problem. It IS a problem, and we should explore every possible way of changing this, from making prison cheaper to crime reduction to rehabilitation programmes to capital punishment. Exploring a select few solutions is simply closed-minded.
Quote from: "Aroura33"If wrongful death occurs in the case of capitol punishment, and people like AITM are all for shooting the judge, and I guess the jury too, and maybe the lawyers? The families? The cops involved in investigating it? How about all of us who paid for it? We all let the wrong man die. We are all guilty of at least neglegent homicide.
I don't know. I do not have a whole legal framework for it all worked out in my head.
My argument is that it is worth considering as an option unless someone can come up with a logically sound and complete reason why it isn't even worth exploring.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Yeahhh..now you're delving into science FICTION, rewiring murderous minds to all sing Kumbya.. :roll:
Equally science fiction as "100% certain of guilt", really.
I'm 100% certain of the guy who repeatedly kicked me in the face and broke my eye socket in 3 places. It could easily have killed me. How is 100% certainty of murder so unbelievable? The Aurora shooter.. It's 100% certain he's guilty so explain the purpose to keeping him alive at tax payer expense to 'study' makes any fucking sense. Suppose your wife had been shot dead in front of your eyes by him. I see no redeeming value with these kind of people and that's not to mention life in a high security prison is far from non cruel punishment. It's extremely violent and every bit as cruel as most anything I can think of.
Yeah, there are a few exceptions where the guily is pretty clear. But it seems A) silly to make laws based on that and B) really hard because you can't even really make laws based on that.
Most cases involve no way to be sure.
Aroura33 wrote:
QuoteIf wrongful death occurs in the case of capitol punishment, and people like AITM are all for shooting the judge, and I guess the jury too, and maybe the lawyers? The families? The cops involved in investigating it? How about all of us who paid for it? We all let the wrong man die. We are all guilty of at least neglegent homicide.
of course, and we shoot the kids and cats and puppy dogs and skin the toads in the trees and shit on the sidewalk and throw rocks at the moon and then we really get mean.....
Morally, I am not at all opposed to execution. Some people in this world I do feel do deserve to be executed. The Himmlers, the Mansons, the Bin Ladens, the Pol Pots...these people do not deserve mercy. They don't deserve hatred either, not because they don't merit being hated but rather because that is giving them more power than they deserve. To me, it's simply a matter of realizing that we truly have monsters among us and that it is for our betterment than these monsters be removed from the gene pool.
Now...that being said, given our current state of affairs, I am of the opinion it is better to simply lock them up the rest of their lives and put their asses to work in some productive way for society than it is to execute them given the expense and given that our means of weeding out the truly guilty from those who are actually innocent is incredibly bad. I feel that if we execute even one innocent person, then our system has failed.
If we had a 100% full proof way to determining guilt? I'd have no issue sending the monsters to the chopping block. But we don't (short of a confession at which case: to the guillotine you go), and we probably never will.
As for this guy? I fully feel he deserves to die but it's not up to me, and I imagine we probably would have been better off just putting him in for life and having him dig ditches or whatever the hell convicts are set to do.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"tinker683, just out of curiosity, do you think George W. Bush deserves to be executed?
That's debatable. While I don't share his views or agree with his reasons for going to war, I know that many can and will make the case that we had to engage the Afghanistan/Iraq wars to protect our own national security.
Again, I think that's bullocks but that's just me.
Me personally though, Yes I do. He and Cheney both.
They'll never be tried nor executed because the US government will never admit to the guilt so it's an exercise in speculation.
How would you go about ensuring that a confession was genuine and was not made by someone who is not of sound mind, or that it was not extracted by force, intimidation or threat?
White supremacist Joseph Paul Franklin was executed in MO today. He was best known for shooting Larry Flint, but also shot and killed about 20 others targeting Jews and black people.
He finally ran out of appeals and SCOTUS turned down his last appeal.
In this case I find little fault in executing this guy, but I'm sure many of you think he still had some value. :roll:
http://m.news.stlpublicradio.org/?utm_r ... bile/31575 (http://m.news.stlpublicradio.org/?utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnews%2Fi%2Fstory%3Fpz%3D1%26cf%3Dall%26ned%3Dus%26hl%3Den%26topic%3Dh%26num%3D10%26ncl%3DdtN_oRMe_U6zICMItEVdFmcFI16NM%26cf%3Dall%26start%3D20#mobile/31575)
If he is killed because of a belief, how are we any different just because it is legal? It isn't his worth that makes it OK, but our humanity that he was lacking that makes it wrong. If I had met him on the street knowing what he did and killed him I would be as guilty as he was under the law wouldn't I? Solitary
I don't split these hairs Solitary. This is not a case of just dragging some schmoe off the streets at random to kill.. but that's basically what he did.
I agree the bar needs to be set VERY high for executions, but he meet that bar.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"White supremacist Joseph Paul Franklin was executed in MO today. He was best known for shooting Larry Flint, but also shot and killed about 20 others targeting Jews and black people.
He finally ran out of appeals and SCOTUS turned down his last appeal.
In this case I find little fault in executing this guy, but I'm sure many of you think he still had some value. :roll:
http://m.news.stlpublicradio.org/?utm_r ... bile/31575 (http://m.news.stlpublicradio.org/?utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnews%2Fi%2Fstory%3Fpz%3D1%26cf%3Dall%26ned%3Dus%26hl%3Den%26topic%3Dh%26num%3D10%26ncl%3DdtN_oRMe_U6zICMItEVdFmcFI16NM%26cf%3Dall%26start%3D20#mobile/31575)
Larry Flint himself actively campaigned to spare that man the death sentence.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"In this case I find little fault in executing this guy, but I'm sure many of you think he still had some value. :roll:
If it isn't clear by now that most of us are
not advocating the "value" of people like him, you need to step out of the debate.
Hey, I still have conflict in my own mind regarding the death penalty, but death occurs regularly and quite often is much more violent than the way it's carried out by the criminal justice system.
I am NOT a big time death penalty advocate, but do think there's a time and place for it. If anyone is under the impression killing can be stopped I'll sell you some mountainside, beachfront property in the middle of Nebraska... CHEAP!
Quote from: "Solitary"If he is killed because of a belief, how are we any different just because it is legal? It isn't his worth that makes it OK, but our humanity that he was lacking that makes it wrong. If I had met him on the street knowing what he did and killed him I would be as guilty as he was under the law wouldn't I? Solitary
If you met him on the street, dragged him into your basement and locked him there for the rest of his life you'd also be guilty in the eyes of the law but I don't see you nor anyone else in this thread advocating not putting murderers in prison.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Solitary"If he is killed because of a belief, how are we any different just because it is legal? It isn't his worth that makes it OK, but our humanity that he was lacking that makes it wrong. If I had met him on the street knowing what he did and killed him I would be as guilty as he was under the law wouldn't I? Solitary
If you met him on the street, dragged him into your basement and locked him there for the rest of his life you'd also be guilty in the eyes of the law but I don't see you nor anyone else in this thread advocating not putting murderers in prison.
:-? And your point is? Of course I think they should be in prison to protect society. Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Solitary"If he is killed because of a belief, how are we any different just because it is legal? It isn't his worth that makes it OK, but our humanity that he was lacking that makes it wrong. If I had met him on the street knowing what he did and killed him I would be as guilty as he was under the law wouldn't I? Solitary
If you met him on the street, dragged him into your basement and locked him there for the rest of his life you'd also be guilty in the eyes of the law but I don't see you nor anyone else in this thread advocating not putting murderers in prison.
:-? And your point is? Of course I think they should be in prison to protect society. Solitary
My point is that making the case that vigilantism is wrong doesn't reflect on whether or not capital punishment is wrong at all.
You are comparing killing someone in the street in the name of justice and a state-sanctioned punishment after a trial in order to show that the state-sanctioned punishment is wrong, which doesn't follow.
Franklin wasn't executed for his beliefs. He was executed for wantonly killing about 20 people. While I don't feel one iota safer because of it I feel no remorse.
Oh boy! I love this thrzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I don't think it's about the value of a person. He was a dirtbag of the worst magnitude. There is no question about that.
I just do not think punishment for killing people by killing people is right. I just don't.
So our lives would have been enriched || <-- almost that much if Joseph Franklin was still alive.. gotcha..
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"So our lives would have been enriched || <-- almost that much if Joseph Franklin was still alive.. gotcha..
crap.
so that presents an interesting scenario...
we already know how popular Hitler is dead, how popular do you think he would be if he was still alive and in a prison somewhere?
:-? And your point is? Of course I think they should be in prison to protect society. Solitary[/quote]
My point is that making the case that vigilantism is wrong doesn't reflect on whether or not capital punishment is wrong at all.
You are comparing killing someone in the street in the name of justice and a state-sanctioned punishment after a trial in order to show that the state-sanctioned punishment is wrong, which doesn't follow.[/quote]
I have no idea what you are saying! Where have I said killing someone on the street is justice. I don't believe there is such a thing as justice, by trial or not, only injustice. What people call justice is really retribution learned from religious texts. As much as I hate OJ, is it justice to his children if he had been found guilty for murder and executed? :roll: Capital punishment is wrong because it is based on the idea of punishment, retribution and irrationality, and not to protect society, and just because it is sanctioned by the State does not make it right anymore than if I did it---which was my point.
If it was one of my loved ones all bets are off. :evil: Are our laws supposed to be based on personal emotionalism, or be rational and protect society. Why the hell are hardened criminal let out of prison when they are a threat, and people that haven't hurt anyone get life? Lawyers, Psychiatrist, that believe hardened criminals are rehabilitated because they found God in prison, and who has the most money or prestige. Solitary