Ok, why should *this* guy live?

[MRC_Hans]

Life in prison is only arguably worse until you give people a choice, then they usually choose it (though, we should note, not always. Some give up their appeals deliberately.)

Yes, people will mostly cling to life, whatever the conditions.

I am fine with arguments that there might be a wrongful execution.

In fact there almost certainly will.

I am also fine with arguments about unequal application of the law based on race, especially when taking into account the severity of the crime, and the only two differentiating factors are the race of the killer and the victim.

I think race inequality is a general issue, not just tied to death penalty.

I am even fine with discussions of the propriety of giving the government this power -- I've often suggested Europeans are so much more against it because they have had political executions quite literally in living memory.

Actually, I think Europeans generally have more faith in their government than US citizens, but I may be wrong.

I just don't like people masking a general queasiness to the death penalty with these arguments, which aren't the core of why they have their position.

Erh, and how exactly can you know other people's motives? I think that is a very patronizing position: "Yeah, your arguments would be good enough, but those are not your real reasons."

Please spare us that.

Hans

 

[HansMustermann]

So what exactly do 'you people' propose should be done to this guy if a sanctioned 'killing' is so out of the question? Release him? That would definitely suffice for the 'no death penalty at any cost' requirement. No seriously, life in prison? Right? And thus you'd agree (by default or decree) the 'justice system' does have the right to take away all his life's liberties and/or otherwise make his life hell - it's just not entitled to take his actual life!

My question is why - or why not? When it comes to justice, why do you draw the line there? And yes I do understand the subtle (and not so) differences between 'life and death' blah blah blah... More to the point, there's absolutely nothing a human 'perpetrator' could ever do within this worldly existence where you would approve of a 'death sentence' against said perpetrator as punishment? As long as he's always left breathing you're OK with it, regardless of the nature of the crimes? Or is it that us 'mere mortals' just don't (or can't) possess the right to command another human's death as punishment for their misdeeds...EVER? Even when the major religions otherwise condone/promote humans assessing punishment on other humans, including death?! Or is it all more simply the notion that 'crime and punishment' is just so last century?

I mean, I doubt many people could find any true 'redeeming value' in this particular 'dirtball', considering his crimes of murder, rape and general mayhem, so as to justify keeping him alive if the better choice in the real world is death. Oh that's right, all men are created equal under g...whoops!

Honest, just trying to understand here.

Horrible cases make bad case law.

The problem is that laws made for dirtballs like this one, also end up applied to people who aren't nearly as big dirtballs, or when we aren't even sure if they're the right dirtball.

And the crux of the problem is exactly that certainty you seem to have that you somehow _know_ he did all that, and can base an "X => Y" on that proposition X. The fact of the matter is that we've been wrong too often before.

Similar self-righteous fist-shaking could have been done about Cameron Todd Willingham, really. I mean, would you allow a dirtball who burned his 3 children alive to live? Too bad it turned out that he _didn't_. But only after he had already been executed.

Would you allow a dirtball like Robert Hubert to live after he set a major city on fire? Good think they hanged the scumbag, eh? Too bad he wasn't even in the city when that happened.

Would you allow a dirtball like the murderer of Elizabeth Ann Short live? I mean, she had her breasts cut off, the initials of her nickname carved into her leg, her face slashed from the edges of the mouth to the ears, was cut in half, and dumped by the roadside. The stuff of horrors. Surely the murderer should swing from the gallows, right? Well, which of them are you going to hang? There are some 50 people who confessed the murder.

 

[GreNME]

So what exactly do 'you people' propose should be done to this guy if a sanctioned 'killing' is so out of the question? Release him? That would definitely suffice for the 'no death penalty at any cost' requirement. No seriously, life in prison? Right? And thus you'd agree (by default or decree) the 'justice system' does have the right to take away all his life's liberties and/or otherwise make his life hell - it's just not entitled to take his actual life!

A man who is in prison can be let out of prison. One can't give a guy reprieve from being dead. I'll ask you the same question I've already asked (at least) twice so far in this thread: if taking a murderer's life is justifiable, what makes taking a thief's hands or a liar's/cheater's/scammer's tongue, or a speeder's foot, and so on and so forth? The principle is the same-- the punishment fits the crime and it should certainly have a deterrence effect-- so what makes the death penalty different in your summation?

My question is why - or why not? When it comes to justice, why do you draw the line there? And yes I do understand the subtle (and not so) differences between 'life and death' blah blah blah... More to the point, there's absolutely nothing a human 'perpetrator' could ever do within this worldly existence where you would approve of a 'death sentence' against said perpetrator as punishment? As long as he's always left breathing you're OK with it, regardless of the nature of the crimes? Or is it that us 'mere mortals' just don't (or can't) possess the right to command another human's death as punishment for their misdeeds...EVER? Even when the major religions otherwise condone/promote humans assessing punishment on other humans, including death?! Or is it all more simply the notion that 'crime and punishment' is just so last century?

Again, you're saying "why not" to the punitive qualities of the death penalty, but I guarantee you're not in favor of taking people's limbs or body parts for other crimes, yet that's the same type of final punishment based on the same principle. The "why not" is simple: you can't offer a consistent reason to be completely and finally punitive in one sense while not also being so in other cases.

I mean, I doubt many people could find any true 'redeeming value' in this particular 'dirtball', considering his crimes of murder, rape and general mayhem, so as to justify keeping him alive if the better choice in the real world is death. Oh that's right, all men are created equal under g...whoops!

Honest, just trying to understand here.

What you're doing is mistaking my questioning of the reasons for the death penalty with having a shred of compassion for worthless pieces of skin like the character in the original post, and that's what you're trying to understand. You're basically relying on ad hominem reasoning when you do this, and you still can't answer my challenge about why we don't use the same punitive principle for more crimes. You still can't explain the inconsistency for why the state should be allowed to execute irrevocable punishments, cost and logic be damned.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If it is not, is it easier to let the innocent free, or bring the dead back to life?

It's just as hard to give an innocent man back the years of his life that he was in prison as it is to bring him back to life. Both punishments, once carried out, are similarly permanent unless you believe in time travel.
Admittedly, taking away someone's entire life is worse than taking away years of their life. Capital punishment is supposed to be worse.
But anyone who believes twenty years spent in prison can be undone is sorely missing the realities of prison and the world outside it.

 

[CatInTheBag]

It's just as hard to give an innocent man back the years of his life that he was in prison as it is to bring him back to life. Both punishments, once carried out, are similarly permanent unless you believe in time travel.
Admittedly, taking away someone's entire life is worse than taking away years of their life. Capital punishment is supposed to be worse.
But anyone who believes twenty years spent in prison can be undone is sorely missing the realities of prison and the world outside it.

The state might compensate them in other ways.

I'm not sure I've heard the argument of capital punishment being acceptable because time travel is impossible, but I'm always open to new ideas.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The state might compensate them in other ways.

There's no way for the state to compensate them for what they've lost.
Which is the whole point -- neither prison nor execution is something you can undo.

 

[GreNME]

There's no way for the state to compensate them for what they've lost.
Which is the whole point -- neither prison nor execution is something you can undo.

You're avoiding now. The state is required to compensate prisoners they release on wrongful convictions, even here in Texas. The point is that freedom taken away can be given back, so you're incorrect about being able to undo such a thing. You've also still failed to explain why the death penalty is okay but the other punitive actions I mentioned earlier are not. Surely you believe cutting a thief's hands off is not a justifiable punishment, correct?

 

[AvalonXQ]

The point is that freedom taken away can be given back, so you're incorrect about being able to undo such a thing.

You can't give back the years a man lost, no matter how much money you give him.
You can't give back a man's life by compensating his heirs, either.
Time spent in prison is just as permanently lost as a life to execution. It's just a less severe loss.

 

[GreNME]

Can you please stop avoiding my question?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Can you please stop avoiding my question?

I've responded to your question by pointing out that execution is not the only thing that we do that we are unable to undo.
In fact, I'd argue that probably the only punishment we're really able to undo is fining someone. Since they only thing the state can give you is money, the only thing the state can undo is taking away your money.

 

[GreNME]

I've responded to your question by pointing out that execution is not the only thing that we do that we are unable to undo.
In fact, I'd argue that probably the only punishment we're really able to undo is fining someone. Since they only thing the state can give you is money, the only thing the state can undo is taking away your money.

You're still avoiding. That's not the question I'm talking about. I've even repeated the question already.

Do you or do you not consider taking the hands from someone convicted of stealing wrong, and if so what separates such a thing from the death penalty?

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, of course you can't completely undo it, but you can at least limit the damage. An execution is pretty much a case of that's that.

 

[GreyICE]

It's just as hard to give an innocent man back the years of his life that he was in prison as it is to bring him back to life. Both punishments, once carried out, are similarly permanent unless you believe in time travel.
Admittedly, taking away someone's entire life is worse than taking away years of their life. Capital punishment is supposed to be worse.
But anyone who believes twenty years spent in prison can be undone is sorely missing the realities of prison and the world outside it.

No, years in prison cannot be given back. But it beats being dead.

Death is permanent.

 

[AvalonXQ]

No, years in prison cannot be given back. But it beats being dead.

Yes, it does. Which is why death is considered a more severe punishment.

Death is permanent.

Time spent in prison is also permanent.

 

[CatInTheBag]

There's no way for the state to compensate them for what they've lost.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or obtuse? Of course they can be compensated. Not being able to give them the time back does not mean not being able to compensate them.

Which is the whole point -- neither prison nor execution is something you can undo.

On the basis of your flawed initial statement, maybe, but not on the basis of compensation being possible.

It's not possible, for example, to compensate a dead person.

 

[Finster]

Which is the whole point -- neither prison nor execution is something you can undo.

You can change somebodies current condition from being in prison to not being in prison. You can't change somebody from being dead to not being dead.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or obtuse?

No. Leave off your faux outrage that I'm not bowing to the wisdom of your points quickly enough.

Of course they can be compensated. Not being able to give them the time back does not mean not being able to compensate them.

That's true. And the heirs of the wrongfully executed can be compensated as well.
But in neither case can the punishment be undone.
I don't know about you, but I can't actually think of an amount of money that would be worth losing the first ten years of a daughter's childhood, or five years with my wife. I might be able to come up with a sum that would be worth the loss of friends, community, the trust and respect built up with people, etc. -- but it would almost certainly be more money than they'd give me.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You can change somebodies current condition from being in prison to not being in prison.

... which means that, if the sentence has not been fully carried out yet, you can fail to carry out the remainder. You can't undo what's already been done.
The real difference here is that a) a prison sentence is carried out over time, not all at once, and b) carrying out a long prison sentence will often (not always, but often) take longer than carrying out the execution.
In both cases, you can't undo the punishment. In both cases, you can stop punishment if all of the punishment has not been carried out.

 

[qayak]

Of course they can be compensated. Not being able to give them the time back does not mean not being able to compensate them.

Exactly. We spend roughly 1/3 of our life working which we can never get back but we get compensated for it.

 

[qayak]

... which means that, if the sentence has not been fully carried out yet, you can fail to carry out the remainder. You can't undo what's already been done.

Nobody made the claim you could. Compensation doesn't mean returning the time which is why it's called "compensation."

The real difference here is that a) a prison sentence is carried out over time, not all at once, and b) carrying out a long prison sentence will often (not always, but often) take longer than carrying out the execution.

No. The difference is that in one scenario the prisoner ends up dead. In the other they are still alive.

In both cases, you can't undo the punishment. In both cases, you can stop punishment if all of the punishment has not been carried out.

No one said they could undo the punishment. In one case you can compensate a wrongly convicted person, in the other you can't. It might not be ideal but, it beats the crap out of being dead.