Death Penalty

[Warp12]

A bigger can of worms than sending someone straight to the guillotine because they're "obviously" guilty and "obviously" deserve it? The expensive safeguards exist for a reason.

Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Based on the evidence accumulated in Gacy's case, I don't see any need for overwhelming expense or delay in his execution. He was on death row for 14 years, ridiculously. But that is a different can of worms.

No, that is the can of worms needed once you decide to kill people.

So, you would rather see him rot in jail, as that amounts to a greater punishment, in your mind?

I don’t see death as any more punishment.

Why would I read the New Testament?

To help you think more about your wallet.

 

[Olmstead]

Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years.

If you change the appeals procedure based on how obvious someone's guilt is during the initial trial, what's the point of the appeals procedure? We already know they're all guilty, the initial trial says so.

 

[Warp12]

If you change the appeals procedure based on how obvious someone's guilt is during the initial trial, what's the point of the appeals procedure? We already know they're all guilty, the initial trial says so.

Again, that is a big topic that relates to the overall "system" and charges that can be levied. I might argue that a revamp as related to capital punishment, and in what cases it may be sought, could speed up the process in a just manner.

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

 

[Venom]

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

Please stop reading minds, you suck at it.

 

[Warp12]

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

Please stop reading minds, you suck at it.

I'll take it you have no ethical issues with capital punishment, then? Cool. Finally, a common ground.

 

[AmyStrange]

Again, that is a big topic that relates to the overall "system" and charges that can be levied. I might argue that a revamp as related to capital punishment, and in what cases it may be sought, could speed up the process in a just manner.

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

I look at all the procedures and appeals as a safeguard in case I am ever accused of a crime.

TBH, I am against the death penalty, but at the same time, I waver a little when it comes to folks like Gacy or Bundy, although, when it came to Gary Ridgway not getting it, I can understand the need to give the families closure.

What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty.

That seems hypocritical to me.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I'll take it you have no ethical issues with capital punishment, then? Cool. Finally, a common ground.

No. Your logic is abysmal.

I shed no tears for murderers who are executed, but I am still against the death penalty.

You seem unable (or unwilling) to accept the fact that someone might disagree with the state having the power to do things, even if the result happens to favor their personal wants or desires at the time.

 

[bobdroege7]

I would like to see us take all the prosecutors that have put people on death row that were later exonerated and found innocent and randomly hang one each year.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years.

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

Ah yes, the picked this one back on the first page.

There will be plenty of people who will try to equate "opposition to death penalty" with "bleeding heart liberal wants to set all child-molesters, rapists and murderers (proven or otherwise) free".

Uh...no. That's all sorts of logical fallacies right there, not to mention being wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13726575#post13726575

 

[Warp12]

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

Ah yes, the picked this one back on the first page.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13726575#post13726575

The problem is, numerous people have already expressed their objection to capital punishment, even in the most egregious of cases. Sanctity of life, you see.

 

[Blue Mountain]

What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty.

That seems hypocritical to me.

I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Those who oppose abortion are against killing a person (we can argue about when an embryo becomes a human; for me that's in the third trimester) who is innocent of wrongdoing; there are no judgements against him or her. For the death penalty, the person has been judged and found no longer worthy of living due to some heinous act.

An interesting perspective on this is, surprisingly, from the Bible. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 20), people who have committed a capital crime and are put to death are said to have "their blood on their own heads." That is, not only are they guilty of whatever crime for which they were executed, they are also guilty of murder—their own, for having committed the crime in the first place.

Having said all that, I'm against the death penalty for reasons already discussed here: the fact the sentence cannot be undone, the fact that once the person is dead the punishment has ceased, and, in rare cases, the possibility on the part of the criminal for understanding and repentance.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Your turn to answer

Maybe it isn't helpful to you, or your position. That is about the only justification for your avoidance, as I see it.

It is a pretty simple question, and several others had no issue with providing an answer. My final attempt: Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you?

Warp12,

I see death by execution and life imprisonment as roughly equally severe penalties; therefore, I am emotionally indifferent to which outcome Gacy received (I like the way The Gold Country put it in comment #89). Again, the problem with only arguing only about Gacy is that it ignores that the death penalty cannot be limited only to the Gacy's of the world. Bringing up Gacy appeals to one's emotions, not to facts or logic. It is a puerile argument.

In addition you have avoided serious discussion of the various arguments that have been put forth against the death penalty or simply denied that the problem existed. Let me list those that I offered:

1. Some innocent people will be executed.*
2. The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment.
3. The threat of the death penalty has been used to coerce people into giving false testimony against others.

If a DP-supporter does not deny the existence of these problems, then he or she must have arguments to the effect that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I am all ears.

*Regarding (1) I remember George HW Bush answering the question of possibly innocent people being executed with a question, asking the interviewer to name any innocent people executed. In the last 30 odd years, the goalposts got moved.
EDT
Justice Scalia implied that no innocent person has been executed: "'It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit,' Scalia wrote in the 2006 Kansas v. Marsh case. 'If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.'"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Justice Scalia's example

I offer the Henry Lee McCollum case to point out that the death penalty is sometimes meted out when the crime is particular heinous, not when the certainty of guilt is particularly high.

"As regular readers may recall, Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death." MSNBC

"'For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,' Scalia wrote in Callins v. Collins. 'How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!'
He was referring to Henry Lee McCollum, who at the time had already been on death row for 12 years. McCollum's conviction was overturned on Tuesday when DNA evidence implicated another man in the case. McCollum had been on death row for almost 30 years." Huffpost For more on the McCollum/Brown Case see this link.

Earlier I offered the James Earhart case. He was convicted primarily on the basis of a forensic technique (comparative bullet lead analysis, also known as compositional bullet lead analysis) that was said to be probably not salvageable by the 2016 PCAST report. I am not certain that he was factually innocent or guilty, but I am certain about one thing.

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Those who oppose abortion are against killing a person (we can argue about when an embryo becomes a human; for me that's in the third trimester) who is innocent of wrongdoing; there are no judgements against him or her. For the death penalty, the person has been judged and found no longer worthy of living due to some heinous act.

An interesting perspective on this is, surprisingly, from the Bible. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 20), people who have committed a capital crime and are put to death are said to have "their blood on their own heads." That is, not only are they guilty of whatever crime for which they were executed, they are also guilty of murder—their own, for having committed the crime in the first place.

Having said all that, I'm against the death penalty for reasons already discussed here: the fact the sentence cannot be undone, the fact that once the person is dead the punishment has ceased, and, in rare cases, the possibility on the part of the criminal for understanding and repentance.

Interesting take and thank you for your input, but it still seems hypocritical to me, and one of those reasons is because most are more than happy to force a woman to have a baby (some for religious reasons), but won't help them afterwards which seems to go against this specific christian belief:

Matthew 25: 42-45
“For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’”

I'm not a believer in organized religion, but I thought Jesus was a pretty cool dude.

 

[Warp12]

I offer the Henry Lee McCollum case to point out that the death penalty is sometimes meted out when the crime is particular heinous, not when the certainty of guilt is particularly high.

"As regular readers may recall, Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death." MSNBC

"'For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,' Scalia wrote in Callins v. Collins. 'How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!'
He was referring to Henry Lee McCollum, who at the time had already been on death row for 12 years. McCollum's conviction was overturned on Tuesday when DNA evidence implicated another man in the case. McCollum had been on death row for almost 30 years." Huffpost For more on the McCollum/Brown Case see this link.

Earlier I offered the James Earhart case. He was convicted primarily on the basis of a forensic technique (comparative bullet lead analysis) that was said to be probably not salvageable by the 2016 PCAST report. I am not certain that he was factually innocent or guilty, but I am certain about one thing.

That conviction was in the early 80's, and did not rely on such things as modern DNA proof. Now, how exactly does that factor into a case like Gacy's?

How do you feel about Dahmer's execution?

 

[Warp12]

I look at all the procedures and appeals as a safeguard in case I am ever accused of a crime.

TBH, I am against the death penalty, but at the same time, I waver a little when it comes to folks like Gacy or Bundy, although, when it came to Gary Ridgway not getting it, I can understand the need to give the families closure.

What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty.

That seems hypocritical to me.

Because executing a mass-murderer is mostly the same as being against the termination of the unborn.

 

[AmyStrange]

That conviction was in the early 80's, and did not rely on such things as modern DNA proof. Now, how exactly does that factor into a case like Gacy's?

How do you feel about Dahmer's execution?

Dahmer wasn't executed by the state. He was beaten to death by a fellow inmate.

 

[AmyStrange]

Because executing a mass-murderer is mostly the same as being against the termination of the unborn.

Mostly the same? What do you mean?