Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[nismaratwork]

Sure, I agree. But in this case would you gimme a break with "Who are you to think X should be executed or not" ? Please. Understand the basic political mechanism, and don't put dummy question like "who are you ... "

I'm responding directly to your assertion that humans aren't special (I agree). I understand how politics works, but you need to practice rhetoric and logic... the "dummy question" as you put it, is one you created with your own arguments... without them, I couldn't realistically put that to you. Who are you to decide what is an appropriate punishment, or even form an opinion or participate in a political process? This whole thread is about digging deeper, and you seem to want to do the oppossite.

I'm not trying to piss you off, or get on your case, but I'm really wondering why you're having this discussion at all. You're saying that your views are yours to have, and I agree, but the whole point here is discussing, evaluating, and thinking about our various views. If you feel that yours are unchanging; neither right or wrong, but rather yours and that's it... what are we to gain from talking about this?

 

[nismaratwork]

To hammer my political ideas in the heads of as many ppl as possible.

Oh.

DanP, would it hurt to have a discussion in good faith, and do more than just hammer away at your ideas? I think we all have a good notion of what you believe is right, so, can we move beyond that? It doesn't make your point stronger if you can't discuss its underpinnings, rather it weakens it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Excellent post #305 nismaratwork.

Thank you very much Skeptic2, I've enjoyed reading yours as well.

 

[DanP]

I'm responding directly to your assertion that humans aren't special (I agree). I understand how politics works, but you need to practice rhetoric and logic... the "dummy question" as you put it, is one you created with your own arguments... without them, I couldn't realistically put that to you.

You still cant. You didn't offered anything else than empty words, no proofs , just opinions. More than that you have the audacity to claim that some humans "talk themselves into believing that death penalty is the right way". Who the heck are you to say that ? To ask your own dummy question ...

 

[nismaratwork]

You still cant. You didn't offered anything else than empty words, no proofs , just opinions. More than that you have the audacity to claim that some humans "talk themselves into believing that death penalty is the right way". Who the heck are you to say that ? To ask your own dummy question ...

The answer to the question is that I'm not someone special, but anyone can ask that question of anyone else and I'm willing to discuss the issue with others, not just "pound" my ideas with utter confidence. Who am I?... one guy, and that's why I seek the views and analysis of my fellow man and woman when considering these kinds of issues. See... not a dummy question at all.

 

[DanP]

The answer to the question is that I'm not someone special, but anyone can ask that question of anyone else and I'm willing to discuss the issue with others, not just "pound" my ideas with utter confidence. Who am I?... one guy, and that's why I seek the views and analysis of my fellow man and woman when considering these kinds of issues. See... not a dummy question at all.

The question was purely rhetoric, I didn't expected an answer. But at least you gave an honest one.

To alleviate a bit from your bedazzlement, I will repeat something I stated earlier in this thread and maybe you didn't see it.

It is my utmost conviction that cold justice must be served before any other purpose of punishment is considered. I stated, and I repeat here, that my goal is not to create a better society, and justice must be always served. That letting a major crime unpunished, or taking the risk that 1 single criminal after paroled will strike again, it's a price to steep to be payed regardless of outer outcomes.

You and others seem much more interested than me to create a better society. It's a noble goal. I am not really interested in it. I am not interested in rehabilitation of criminals and rapists. I am interested in their apprehension and their punishment to the maximum extent possible under the realm's laws.

 

[mheslep]

Legal homicide does not make anyone a killer :P That's the irony.

...does not make anyone a murderer. Of course someone kills.

 

[DanP]

...does not make anyone a murderer. Of course someone kills.

Yes, thanks for the correction. You are right

 

[nismaratwork]

The question was purely rhetoric, I didn't expected an answer. But at least you gave an honest one.

To alleviate a bit from your bedazzlement, I will repeat something I stated earlier in this thread and maybe you didn't see it.

It is my utmost conviction that cold justice must be served before any other purpose of punishment is considered. I stated, and I repeat here, that my goal is not to create a better society, and justice must be always served. That letting a major crime unpunished, or taking the risk that 1 single criminal after paroled will strike again, it's a price to steep to be payed regardless of outer outcomes.

You and others seem much more interested than me to create a better society. It's a noble goal. I am not really interested in it. I am not interested in rehabilitation of criminals and rapists. I am interested in their apprehension and their punishment to the maximum extent possible under the realm's laws.

I believe this is your conviction, but I don't understand it, and you seem to be saying it is your conviction and believe because it is. If you want to spread that belief it would probably help to formulate it in a fashion that allows others, such as myself, to understand it. You say you don't have much interest in seeing a better society, but then what motive do you have for addressing crime at all? To me, this seems like a contradiction that I might not be understanding. I can accept that we'll never agree on this, but I'd still like to understand why you believe what you do.

 

[nismaratwork]

...does not make anyone a murderer. Of course someone kills.

I did say murder in my post... I should stand corrected and refer instead to homicide. That's my bad actually.

 

[mheslep]

Pop media reference:
Lee Marvin as the Sergeant in the film The Big Red 1

Griff: I can't murder anybody.
The Sergeant: We don't murder; we kill.
Griff: It's the same thing.
The Sergeant: The hell it is, Griff. You don't murder animals; you kill 'em.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080437/quotes

 

[granpa]

whats considered to be 'cut and dried' has a way of being not very 'cut and dried'.

 

[nismaratwork]

whats considered to be 'cut and dried' has a way of being not very 'cut and dried'.

Only beef jerky and preserved fruits!

 

[DanP]

You say you don't have much interest in seeing a better society, but then what motive do you have for addressing crime at all?

A society, even in a steady state, will always have need for a framework(s) for apprehension of members who committed a criminal offense and their prosecution. The activity of a DA ,for example, does not need to be motivated by higher motives, such as creating a better society. You prosecute , representing the government, within the legal framework in existence. This is your job.

The mere existence of someone who engaged in violent crimes at large, in the wild, endangering the well being of others, is reason enough to apprehend him and prosecute him. He exists, hence he must apprehended. I seek no higher morale than this and no false pretenses of "creating a better society".

 

[CheckMate]

Death penalty in that case works.

If you let the guilty go, they will commit the same atrocities.

If you put them in jail, you spend money for no reason and there's a possibility they can escape. And they can also commit atrocities to other inmates who did not commit murder or rape.

If you kill them, you solve all previous problems.

 

[nismaratwork]

Death penalty in that case works.

If you let the guilty go, they will commit the same atrocities.

If you put them in jail, you spend money for no reason and there's a possibility they can escape. And they can also commit atrocities to other inmates who did not commit murder or rape.

If you kill them, you solve all previous problems.

21 pages of discourse... I'm amazed none of us considered your 'modest proposal'.

Tell me, did you bother to read anything but the title of this thread before you resurrected it?!

 

[Ken Natton]

If you kill them, you solve all previous problems.

The primary flaw in your reasoning is the notion that killing them is free of adverse consequences.

 

[mugaliens]

I believe in accountability, and for some crimes death is a fit punishment.

After sifting through many comments on this rather proflic thread, many of which are all over the map, it was nice to stumble across your succinct statement of belief. :)

I'm interested in hearing why you believe this to be true.

One case where I would support the death penalty stems from a video link a friend sent me. It's far too graphic to share here on PF. Essentially, some robbers chased a guy into the entrance to a mall, shot him a couple of times, then took the bag which he was still holding.

Mission accomplished, right?

No. One of the robbers stepped outside the entrance, then back to where the guy lay, severely injured, and proceeded to shoot him several more times. The victim had clearly expired by then, but the robber still wasn't done. He walked over and kicked him several times, then leaned over and shot him in the head at very close range twice more.

Aggravated murder, and everything, including the perp's face, caught on videotape, no less.

I would support clearing him of insanity before breakfast, followed by a swift trial (just how long does it take to show a 46-second video?), and same-day sentencing, with capital punishment to be administered before sundown.

I would absolutely not support this 20-something rotting in jail at taxpayers' expense for the next 50 to 80 years, particularly when the US already has, at 737 people per 100,000 population, the highest rate of incarceration of any developed country.

One thing really concerns me is the means of capital punishment. Just because someone committed a heinous crime doesn't mean their execution should be anything but humane. I support the idea that a prisoner should be given the option of being administered gaseous anesthesia before lethal injection.

 

[JaredJames]

One thing really concerns me is the means of capital punishment. Just because someone committed a heinous crime doesn't mean their execution should be anything but humane. I support the idea that a prisoner should be given the option of being administered gaseous anesthesia before lethal injection.

As much as I dislike seeing people in any form of pain or suffering, I have to look at the way their victim died along with the circumstances surrounding it and consider why this person deserves to die painlessly. Did they consider their method of murder humane? Did they think of the suffering of the person they murdered?

I think the stress and suffering of the person in the run up to the execution and then the actual event are all deserved. After all, they brought it on themselves. I don't understand how anyone can defend a murderer (so far as the 'pain and suffering' they may encounter goes).

 

[granpa]

It could, not unreasonably, be argued that anyone who commits murder is, by virtue of that fact alone, 'insane'.

 

[DanP]

As much as I dislike seeing people in any form of pain or suffering, I have to look at the way their victim died along with the circumstances surrounding it and consider why this person deserves to die painlessly. Did they consider their method of murder humane? Did they think of the suffering of the person they murdered?

You got to be garbageting me. Just execute, we are not torturers.

 

[DanP]

After sifting through many comments on this rather proflic thread, many of which are all over the map, it was nice to stumble across your succinct statement of belief. :)

I'm interested in hearing why you believe this to be true.

One case where I would support the death penalty stems from a video link a friend sent me. It's far too graphic to share here on PF. Essentially, some robbers chased a guy into the entrance to a mall, shot him a couple of times, then took the bag which he was still holding.

Mission accomplished, right?

No. One of the robbers stepped outside the entrance, then back to where the guy lay, severely injured, and proceeded to shoot him several more times. The victim had clearly expired by then, but the robber still wasn't done. He walked over and kicked him several times, then leaned over and shot him in the head at very close range twice more.

Aggravated murder, and everything, including the perp's face, caught on videotape, no less.

I would support clearing him of insanity before breakfast, followed by a swift trial (just how long does it take to show a 46-second video?), and same-day sentencing, with capital punishment to be administered before sundown.

I would absolutely not support this 20-something rotting in jail at taxpayers' expense for the next 50 to 80 years, particularly when the US already has, at 737 people per 100,000 population, the highest rate of incarceration of any developed country.

One thing really concerns me is the means of capital punishment. Just because someone committed a heinous crime doesn't mean their execution should be anything but humane. I support the idea that a prisoner should be given the option of being administered gaseous anesthesia before lethal injection.

Upload it on a public FTP and post post the link to it together with a NSFW comment, so more sensitive souls can avoid it.

 

[JaredJames]

You got to be garbageting me. Just execute, we are not torturers.

I'm not advocating making their deaths long and painful. I completely agree, make it quick and get it over with, but I don't know why people keep argue they should administered any form of anesthesia / painkiller. If the lethal injection / gas / electric chair does inflict some pain for the short time it takes, then so be it. They deserve that at the very least. (I abhor murder and don't like the idea of spending a single tax payers penny on locking them up.)

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not advocating making their deaths long and painful. I completely agree, make it quick and get it over with, but I don't know why people keep argue they should administered any form of anesthesia / painkiller. If the lethal injection / gas / electric chair does inflict some pain for the short time it takes, then so be it. They deserve that at the very least. (I abhor murder and don't like the idea of spending a single tax payers penny on locking them up.)

I've fully outlined my views in many many pages here, so I'm not going to debate the issue again. You've added a new element here; DanP has been clear: He has a sense of justice that is uncompromising and doesn't allow for mercy for convicted killers, rapists (and such), mental issues aside. I disagree, but let's work from that base: reciprocity... an eye for an eye.

Do you want these people dead so they're no longer a burden on the system, and because you have said, you abhor their crime, or do you want them to pay beyond simply being killed? It's virtually no effort to sedate someone, so the only reason to do otherwise is the express request of the condemned, or a desire to make them suffer beyond the knowledge of impending death.

If you believe in reciprocity, I understand even though I disagree, but wanting to inflict pain, or to allow pain to be inflicted needlessly is, as DanP says, a kind of torture.

 

[JaredJames]

I've fully outlined my views in many many pages here, so I'm not going to debate the issue again. You've added a new element here; DanP has been clear: He has a sense of justice that is uncompromising and doesn't allow for mercy for convicted killers, rapists (and such), mental issues aside. I disagree, but let's work from that base: reciprocity... an eye for an eye.

Do you want these people dead so they're no longer a burden on the system, and because you have said, you abhor their crime, or do you want them to pay beyond simply being killed? It's virtually no effort to sedate someone, so the only reason to do otherwise is the express request of the condemned, or a desire to make them suffer beyond the knowledge of impending death.

If you believe in reciprocity, I understand even though I disagree, but wanting to inflict pain, or to allow pain to be inflicted needlessly is, as DanP says, a kind of torture.

I agree, no mercy.

I want them gone so they're no longer a burden on the system / threat to others (if released). I don't want them to put under unnecessary pain due to prolonging the death, and if there was a quick and painless 'instant kill' solution then I'd certainly back it. However, as it stands, I don't see why a few minutes of discomfort is that much of a problem given what they've done to end up in that situation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree, no mercy.

I want them gone so they're no longer a burden on the system / threat to others (if released). I don't want them to put under unnecessary pain due to prolonging the death, and if there was a quick and painless 'instant kill' solution then I'd certainly back it. However, as it stands, I don't see why a few minutes of discomfort is that much of a problem given what they've done to end up in that situation.

OK, I understand your position, thanks for the clarification!

 

[mugaliens]

As much as I dislike seeing people in any form of pain or suffering, I have to look at the way their victim died along with the circumstances surrounding it and consider why this person deserves to die painlessly. Did they consider their method of murder humane? Did they think of the suffering of the person they murdered?

I think the stress and suffering of the person in the run up to the execution and then the actual event are all deserved. After all, they brought it on themselves. I don't understand how anyone can defend a murderer (so far as the 'pain and suffering' they may encounter goes).

I hear (I think) where you're coming from. I also think that as a civilized society, we absolutely must be able to separate retribution from justice, and for that matter, even justice from punishment.

I think any advanced society would distance themselves from both the crime as well as the nature of the crime, and simply exact punishment, particularly capital punishment, on the basis of the crime that was committed and the verdict, and nothing more.

 

[mugaliens]

And how about for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_re_us/us_home_invasion" ? The case is clearly cut and dry, and quite horrific at that.

"Last year, Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed a bill that would have abolished the death penalty in Connecticut, saying the state cannot tolerate people who commit particularly heinous murders."

I'd say this qualifies, and is a prime candidate for exercising Connecticut's death penalty law.

 

[DanP]

And how about for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_re_us/us_home_invasion" ? The case is clearly cut and dry, and quite horrific at that.

A paroled burglar ...

Yes, this is what happens when soft souls let ppl out of prisons.

Combined Murder , sexual assault , breaking entry, assault with a weapon ... I hope they'll just put a bullet into his nape and dispose of the body, fast. Or preferably let the survivor of the assault kill him if he so desires.
We need capital punishment. We need to kill perpetrators of crimes such as this one.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, this is what happens when soft souls let ppl out of prisons.

Combined Murder , sexual assault , breaking entry, assault with a weapon ... I hope they'll just put a bullet into his nape and dispose of the body, fast. Or preferably let the survivor of the assault kill him if he so desires.
We need capital punishment. We need to kill perpetrators of crimes such as this one.

Bolded part is more like Sharia law than US law.

 

[JaredJames]

Bolded part is more like Sharia law than US law.

I agree.

I do accept the death penalty as a suitable punishment for truly horrific crimes, but I would never advocate having the victim (or relevant persons) enact the sentence. It is the justice systems place to assign and carry out punishment.

 

[DanP]

Bolded part is more like Sharia law than US law.

Really ? Dont bring Sharia into this. Dont bring any religious laws into this. It has no place.

Btw, wouldn't you like to kill the perpetrator with your own hands if it would be your daughters who suffocated and burnt alive, your women, your wife, which was raped for hours and killed slowly ? Think about it, how would you feel to be your family there, victims of crime, and not a tabloid news story which you can dismiss, thinking in the back of your mind .. "this will never happen to me" ?

 

[DanP]

I agree.

I do accept the death penalty as a suitable punishment for truly horrific crimes, but I would never advocate having the victim (or relevant persons) enact the sentence. It is the justice systems place to assign and carry out punishment.

Hihihi. The system doesn't kill. Humans do. Somebody has to start the lethal injection process.

 

[Andre]

So far I did not contribute to this thread with commonalities but I stumbled upon something interesting. Groupthink in jury's. Obviously the groupthink factors, in combination with the power of fallacies in the argumention may lead to the convincing impression that an innocent is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

http://www.ijar.lit.az/pdf/1/2009(1-24).pdf

..attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and their Innocence Project at Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School, have used DNA evidence to help free 175 individuals who were imprisoned after being wrongly convicted of crimes, 14 of whom were on death row...

 

[DanP]

So far I did not contribute to this thread with commonalities but I stumbled upon something interesting. Groupthink in jury's. Obviously the groupthink factors, in combination with the power of fallacies in the argumention may lead to the convincing impression that an innocent is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

http://www.ijar.lit.az/pdf/1/2009(1-24).pdf

So does other psychological biases. A whole bunch of them. Race bias maybe one of the most important. But those in itself are not reason enough to eliminate death penalty.