Ok, why should *this* guy live?

[dtugg]

Just because a state or country makes it legal, doesn't make it right.

It makes it not murder.

The basic principle of murder is still being implemented.

Well then locking somebody up in prison makes it the same principal as kidnapping. But apparently that's allowed?

What is your point? The same thing can be achieved by sentencing someone to life in prison with no chance of parole.

Plenty of murders have killed and committed other violent crimes in prison. If they are dead, they cannot.

With a capital murder charge, they are normally segregated from general population.

If they are on death row, maybe. But usually most murderers are with the general population unless they prove themselves to be a danger to other inmates.

 

[dtugg]

So it's not deterrence, it's revenge pure and simple? I agree. I'm just glad I don't live in such a vengeful country.

Did you neglect to read the first sentence? It is a 100% effective deterrent against the person it is applied to.

 

[lionking]

Did you neglect to read the first sentence? It is a 100% effective deterrent against the person it is applied to.

I saw it. In debates like this "deterrence" refers to discouragement of those contemplating the crime of murder. It's good to know that you see through the emptiness of this justification. Vengence is all that's left.

 

[dtugg]

You want to explain how protecting society by making sure that a murderer can never murder again qualifies as vengeance?

 

[Arcade22]

And what happens when (not if) the state finds and kills the wrong person for such crimes?

Everything continues as normal. Most people aren't absolutist that need there
to be a 0% fault rate. This is why you put adequate checks into the law so you can decrease the likeliness that someone who is innocent is executed.

 

[richardm]

- Barry Gibbs, freed after 19 years in jail, after the only witness against him admitted that he had been coerced by the cops to essentially commit perjury

I thought the Bee Gees had gone quiet for a while.

You want to explain how protecting society by making sure that a murderer can never murder again qualifies as vengeance?

How is it not? You have the murderer safely locked up and out of society. He cannot bother society again while you keep him locked up. How is taking him from that position and killing him adding anything other than vengeance? Besides, that is the whole point behind "an eye for an eye", surely?

This is why you put adequate checks into the law so you can decrease the likeliness that someone who is innocent is executed.

Or you can just leave out the execution part and eliminate the possibility altogether. Why is it so vital that you must execute the 0.01% of murderers whose cases seem to be beyond doubt?

 

[Arcade22]

Killing is wrong. Whatever the reason.

Nonsense. I believe that killing someone can be extremely moral, it all depends on who you kill.

 

[dtugg]

How is it not? You have the murderer safely locked up and out of society. He cannot bother society again while you keep him locked up. How is taking him from that position and killing him adding anything other than vengeance? Besides, that is the whole point behind "an eye for an eye", surely?

I see.

So nobody has ever escaped from prison?

Or murdered prison staff and/or other inmates in prison?

Or run criminal gangs from inside prison?

Nope. Never happens.

 

[NYCEMT86]

It makes it not murder.

The basic principle still exists. The state is killing somebody and hiding behind a law to make it legally right.

Well then locking somebody up in prison makes it the same principal as kidnapping. But apparently that's allowed?

I don't disagree with that at all, but there is an extreme difference between imprisonment/kidnapping and capital punishment/murder.

Plenty of murders have killed and committed other violent crimes in prison. If they are dead, they cannot.

Source?

If they are on death row, maybe. But usually most murderers are with the general population unless they prove themselves to be a danger to other inmates.

If you are a violent offender facing life in prison with no chance of parole you will be segregated from the general population. A lot of what factors into segregation is criminal history and the nature of the crime they are being incarcerated for.

 

[dtugg]

The basic principle still exists.

If basic principal means that somebody is killed, well obviously.

The state is killing somebody and hiding behind a law to make it legally right.

Is the state kidnapping somebody when they imprison that person and hiding behind the law to make it legally right? They must be according to your logic.

I don't disagree with that at all, but there is an extreme difference between imprisonment/kidnapping and capital punishment/murder.

Why? Both are exactly proportional to the crimes committed.

Source?

You really want a source showing that there are violent crimes committed in prison in the US? Really?

If you are a violent offender facing life in prison with no chance of parole you will be segregated from the general population. A lot of what factors into segregation is criminal history and the nature of the crime they are being incarcerated for.

Source?

 

[HansMustermann]

Really? Was executing Cameron Todd Willingham exactly proportional to the fact that he had _not_ actually killed his children? Please explain to me in detail how that works.

 

[dtugg]

Really? Was executing Cameron Todd Willingham exactly proportional to the fact that he had _not_ actually killed his children? Please explain to me in detail how that works.

I am not sure who that is. But I am talking about in theory; ie the person is actually guilty. I've already said the possibility that an innocent person may be executed is the only reason that I am hesitant about the death penalty. If we could know for certain if somebody was guilty I would be in favor of automatic death sentences for everybody guilty of first-degree murder.

 

[HansMustermann]

It's on the previous page of this thread, along with a few other examples of bad justice.

And, well, theoretical possibilities are always good for philosophy, but at some point we have to be pragmatic and look at what _is_ the situation. And a ridiculous number of people ended up on the death row, only to be proven later innocent. We're not even talking about the realm of possibility. It's very much a certainty that a number of people are convicted for a murder they never commited.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let me say this again: the lesser included offense is the same as the greater offense for purposes of double jeopardy. Once you're tried for one of them, that's it.

And that is what I thought. The thing is that people were being unclear about if he had been convicted of first degree murder when his letter let them charge him with capital murder.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The death penalty isn't about revenge. The fact that people opposing the death penalty say the guy should be suffering in any number of ways prooves that...

It is the only arguement for it that is really supportable. Well unless that one study from texas is close to right. But then killing the inocent will be as much of a deterance factor as killing the guilty, so it means we don't need to be too concerned about that. The goal is achieved if they are guilty or innocent.

The death penalty isn't murder either unless you're claiming self defense as murder. Yes - it's self defense. If a person is found to be at the point that no matter what, he will inflict harm onto others then society has a right to take them out first and cast them away.

That is not the standard of any death penalty law though. The whole no matter what thing is not a determination made, just the severity of the crimes they allready commited.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Death is more economical.
Why pay tens of thousands to support him in prison when you can spend a few cents on a bullet to just put him down?
Society shouldn't have to pay for his crimes as well...especially in the literal sense...
Obviously he's human waste, I think sympathy is too good for him.
Might make me a jerk, but I would expect no less for myself, my family or anyone else...

Well if you get rid of due process that would be correct. But all the legal challanges like this one, you spend a lot more killing someone than imprisoning them for life.

Now if we let the police exicute who they wanted like your situation suggests, it would be cheaper.

 

[luchog]

Quick point: SCOTUS denied cert. So SCOTUS didn't and won't hear the case. Denying cert doesn't imply that SCOTUS agrees; it just means they're not willing to deal with the case.

No, not what that means.

SCOTUS refusing to hear a case means that they do not feel there is sufficient merit in the argument to justify hearing the case.

 

[luchog]

It is the only arguement for it that is really supportable.

No revenge is harly the only, or most, supportable argument. The most supportable argument in favour of the death penalty is that it permanently removes from society an individual who has been adequately demonstrated to be a clear and present danger to the safety and security of the members of that society. This is why circumstances and remorse are critical factors during sentencing. A single crime of passion with remorse is far less indicative of an ongoing threat to society than serial aggravated murder. As long as an individual is only imprisoned, there will always remain the chance that they may eventually make their way back into society through escape or a misguided parole; and continue to cause harm.

Whether the death penalty is a suitable practical punishment is a different issue entirely, given the inherent fallability of humans and human institutions. In the case of erroneous life imprisonment, release and at least a token restitution is possible at any time. This is obviously not the case with capital punishment.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dirtball

I see it is already addressed, but still:

Showing even the worst dirtball is a false dilemma in the discussion of capital punishment. There are plenty of people in prisons and elswhere whose demise few people would lament. I even guess some 'deserve to die'.

However, the proper question should be: Is this person really worth having death penalty for? Do we really want to have death rows, executioners, and the risk of one day executing an innocent person by mistake, just to do away with this person? - Or do we just let him drag his miserable life to its natural end in a prison (which is arguably a worse punishment)?

Hans

 

[Beerina]

Because capital punishment is wrong.

Evidence?