Ok, why should *this* guy live?

[Rasmus]

Perhaps this is getting a little off topic with the original scheme of the thread but I'm curious as to how many feel about varying degrees of punishment per the same crime. For instance someone kills another person by accident, or twelve people by accident do they receive the same punishment? How about if a serial killer is convicted of 30 killings/rapes/thefts in comparison to a wife shooting her husband because he cheated. Do they receive the same punishment?

I am not even certain if those are still "the same crimes".

Certain who decides, and how its decided is a debate of its own. I would hope that capital punishment would only be invoked in the most extreme cases.

Which do you think those are?

Did you know that in the UK capital punishment was abolished for murder before it was removed for the more serious crimes of high treason and piracy?

Certainly any form of "justice" is open to mistakes or wrongly punished individuals. People are killed by accident every day in our society. Do we need to change our society because of it? How many rights do you have after you've commited a crime killing/raping many innocent people? (not by accident, but with intent)

You keep nearly all of your rights.

The man described in this thread certainly isnt someone I would feel any guilt or regret about should he be terminated under such a law. Too bad his victims didnt get the same consideration hes getting.

Yes, that is too bad indeed. It's putting it far too lightly. I couldn't agree more.

But do you actually think you are doing anything about that when you have their murderer killed? They are still just as dead - and now, some will look at the executioners and have pretty much the same sentiments about them: Too bad their victims didn't get more consideration.

What bugs me about capital punishment is not so much that we might execute someone who's innocent. Yes, it makes it worse, and you can't make up to the dead and what not. All valid points, but you cannot make up to anyone who innocently serves 20 years and simply dies after the first twelve, either. (How many people die of natural cases on death row, anyway? If it takes decades to have somene executed then surely some must just get too old, right?)

Anway, what bothers me is that to allow capital punishment you need to make human life disposable. That opens a nasty can of worms, because it takes you straight into having to decide when it's okay to kill someone. And I think that is not an easy question at all.

What do you kill for?

Murder? The British would have been disagreeing. (Is it a myth that the worst crime in Sparta was fleeing your enemy rather than murdering a fellow citicen?)

Or only for mass murder? what makes a guy who kills 10 people so much worse than someone who kills only 7 or 8?

Sexual abuse of children? It's a crime where people often demand capital punishment - of course, it's easy to forget that the vast majority of these cases are not TVesk versions with abductions, years of slavery and ultimately, death. And it's jsut as easy to forget that not all sexual abuse of children is going to even affect them in the long term. So why kill someone who raped a child that does not ultimately suffer from it, but let live someone who rapes a grown woman and ruins her life?

Or do you go and include rapists on the list of people to kill? Then, who are you not willing to kill?

 

[Rolfe]

Did you know that in the UK capital punishment was abolished for murder before it was removed for the more serious crimes of high treason and piracy?

You forgot the rape of the Princess Royal! Indeed it might even have been any illicit sexual relationship with the Princess Royal.

There was a time when Tim Laurence could legally have been executed, although a serial killer-torturer couldn't.

Rolfe.

 

[HansMustermann]

Wait, are you saying murders or rapes never occur in prison? Perhaps not at the hands of inmates on death row... then again, that would just mean we need more people on death row.

Actually it just means "high security prison", really. And it still would cost less than the death penalty exercise.

 

[Rasmus]

You forgot the rape of the Princess Royal!

No, I just knew that - wikipedia hints that it was a special case of high treason, though.

 

[JcR]

I am not even certain if those are still "the same crimes".

Me to...
The law doesn't see them as the same crime. Like I said! The laws will distinguish between them. First of all Killing one or a dozen people by accident is not premeditated murder. (More than likely a manslaughter case)
Serial killings, would definitely fall under premeditated category.
A wife killing her cheating husband? Could be aggravated assault, planned murder, an accident; all we know here is she killed him.
Every case above will have different circumstances of course.
One kills 12 people in a vehicle accident is just that, but if the driver was intoxicated, reckless and careless this may lead to some degree of manslaughter charge or even a non-premeditated murder case...Premeditated if you can establish this. This would depend on the facts (or should say evidence) brought forward in each case.

I believe if even one innocent is sitting on death row is a good reason for sentences of life incarcerated; and let the appeals come forth.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

And what exactly is wrong with revenge?

I believe that quote can be found in the Suicide Bomber's Guide to Why We Blow Things Up, but I don't think it's a basic tenet of the Constitution.

(snip)
Well, you said, "either it's unlawful to kill someone or it's not." Apparently this is not what you meant.

I think we are talking two different things, no? Self defense, and I mean under only the most narrow of definitions in protecting one's self from mortal danger, is different than premeditated murder, whether by the state or an individual.

I don't see it as about revenge, or at least not mostly. I see it as removing a dangerous person from the world permanently so there is no possibly way he can ever hurt anyone again. Even people in prison for life w/ no parole can escape or kill people in prison.

I'm for no parole and I would say that we could run our prisons better, but I don't think an inadequate prison system is justification for capital punishment.

That's also a good point. I think you may be right on this.

I believe I have seen the statistics, but it's been a while.

Well, I mean, it's obvious. Places that have the death penalty have such a low rate of commission of capital crimes, because the death penalty is such an excellent defense.

Oh, wait....

Rolfe.

Rolfe's point...

 

[Pedro De Mello]

If he dies, his pain ceases.

If he lives, keep him in a nightmare and he shall pay the price.

Either way, capital punishment is better than sentence-for-life, in my opinion.

 

[fuelair]

Because we want society to be better then him?

It is if it removes him from it. Completely. Permanently.

 

[Minadin]

Bzzzt!!

His time is up.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Bzzzt!!

His time is up.

Thank you for playing. Here are your parting gifts.

 

[Drudgewire]

"Do you just hate yourself for being so stupid ... and saving me?"

 

[Accidental Martyr]

One of the comments on the site:
randyman11
I would have been happy to supply my jumper cables and fry him slowly using the electricity generated from my truck with his feet in buckets of water and my truck stereo blasting GOD BLESS THE U.S.A as I'm drinking a cold beer. Then after he slowly fried like a piece of chicken, I would let the victim's family run over his dead carcass with my truck.

 

[gumboot]

I thought someone could be tried for a crime, again, if new evidence came about to make such a trial worthwhile.

In most countries they can, but not in the USA and a few others. I don't think a confession from the alleged offender would qualify though - most countries that allow such re-trials have pretty stringent requirements and the new evidence would probably need to be some sort of pretty solid physical evidence that contradicted a previously accepted fact of the case - for example video evidence that refuted the defendant's alibi.

A confession can, of course, be false, and so wouldn't qualify as convincing evidence, unless, perhaps, it was a confession that had been made prior to the original trial, but not known at the time (say he made a video diary confessing his crime but hid it).

 

[gumboot]

Perhaps this is getting a little off topic with the original scheme of the thread but I'm curious as to how many feel about varying degrees of punishment per the same crime. For instance someone kills another person by accident, or twelve people by accident do they receive the same punishment? How about if a serial killer is convicted of 30 killings/rapes/thefts in comparison to a wife shooting her husband because he cheated. Do they receive the same punishment?

Certain who decides, and how its decided is a debate of its own. I would hope that capital punishment would only be invoked in the most extreme cases. Certainly any form of "justice" is open to mistakes or wrongly punished individuals. People are killed by accident every day in our society. Do we need to change our society because of it? How many rights do you have after you've commited a crime killing/raping many innocent people? (not by accident, but with intent)

The man described in this thread certainly isnt someone I would feel any guilt or regret about should he be terminated under such a law. Too bad his victims didnt get the same consideration hes getting.

New Zealand differs from the USA quite dramatically in this regard, in that we count every criminal act as a separate crime, and each act is charged and tested in court independently.

In the USA there's more of a cumulative crime whereby the addition of other criminal acts makes the overall crime more serious, but it's counted as a single crime.

For example in the OP case, in NZ the individual would be charged with three separate charges: Murder (of Girl A), Sexual Violation (of Girl B), and Burglary. In addition there'd probably be a host of other charges like assault, inflicting grievous bodily harm, and so forth (on potentially girl A and B). Often these minor charges are laid first so police can arrest the suspect early and advance their investigation of the more serious crimes. In many cases those early "holding" crimes are later dropped (particularly if they have no direct bearing on the more serious crime - say a suspected murderer being held on drug possession charges).

If the events followed on as per the OP, an appeal would have quashed the Sexual Violation charge, but not the Murder charge, so the sentence for murder would still stand (there's only one mandatory sentence for murder in NZ) and later bringing an additional Attempted Sexual Violation (plus assault, grevious bodily harm, etc) against Girl A would not count as Double Jeopardy at all.

(Interestingly, this way of counting crime is the reason NZ's violent crime statistics seem quite high compared to nations like the USA) as a single criminal "event" can result in half a dozen or more "crimes" being counted in the crime statistics.

In your examples above, someone who accidentally kills 12 people through negligence of some sort would be charged with twelve separate counts of Manslaughter, and would be liable for punishment on each separate count. They could also be found guilty of some and not guilty for others. This has the added benefit that if the evidence is weak for the most serious crime, you don't run the risk of the accused walking away free - you can still get them on the lesser charges.

Likewise a Serial Killer or Serial Rapist would be convicted for multiple crimes and face punishment for each crime separately.

Usually crimes will be served concurrently, and in the case of murder + other crimes, the mandatory sentence for murder is life, so the other crimes only serve to affect the non-parole period. There are exceptions, however.

For example, in New Zealand rape (called sexual violation) has a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Yet on 17 and 30 July 1995, Joseph Stephenson Thompson pleaded guilty to a total of 146 charges (believed to be the most ever pleaded guilty in a Commonwealth country) including 61 counts of sexual violation for which his maximum sentence was 20 years on each charge (the other charges were lesser crimes such as attempted sexual violation, unlawful sexual connection, assault, etc).

He was ultimately sentenced to 30 years in prison, with a mandatory non-parole period of 25 years.