Ok, why should *this* guy live?

[zooterkin]

I don't have any moral issue with the decision to make life in prison without parole the capital punishment.

What?

 

[AvalonXQ]

"Capital punishment" literally means the final, most extreme punishment. Right now, our capital punishment is execution, but I don't have an issue with making life in prison without parole our capital punishment instead.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Wikipedia appears to disagree with your reinterpretation. Perhaps if you replaced "capital punishment" with "ultimate sanction"?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Wikipedia appears to disagree with your reinterpretation. Perhaps if you replaced "capital punishment" with "ultimate sanction"?

Yes, upon further examination it appears that the etymology of the term "capital punishment" doesn't have to do with it being the final or most extreme punishment but actually refers specifically to taking a life. My mistake.

 

[Cainkane1]

I can't understand why execution this animal is so important. He dies he quits suffering. Thats the way I feel about a young punk murderer I help send up for life for murdering a pizza delivery girl. He's been in 20 years and he's 35. He has nothing to look forward to.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Why does he have nothing to look forward to?

 

[Morrigan]

You assume that you can hand the state a weapon like 'the right to kill criminals' and have them use it as you wish in all cases, ever, no matter what.

Why would I assume such a thing?

As many people have said many times, it assumes a high degree of perfection from the government. Any degree of perfection is a tad unreasonable.

Not really. We "hand the state" a weapon like "the right to imprison criminals for life", but it doesn't follow that we also let them "use it as you wish in all cases no matter what" or that "a high degree of perfection" is required.

I can't understand why execution this animal is so important.

If he dies, he will never murder anyone again.

He dies he quits suffering.

So, it does seem like many opponents to the death penalty feel not that it's too cruel but rather, that it's not cruel enough, huh?

 

[River]

Capital punishment is medieval.

Kill/rape my kids and I'll go medieval on your ass muwahahahah.

Seriously though, is murdering and raping a child any less or more medieval? Why does the person convicted of such a crime deserve any better than the victim/victims they inflicted their wrath upon?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Seriously though, is murdering and raping a child any less or more medieval? Why does the person convicted of such a crime deserve any better than the victim/victims they inflicted their wrath upon?

Because what he did to them tells us what kind of person he is. What we do to him tells us what kind of people we are.

 

[HansMustermann]

Not really. We "hand the state" a weapon like "the right to imprison criminals for life", but it doesn't follow that we also let them "use it as you wish in all cases no matter what" or that "a high degree of perfection" is required.

You need either a high degree of perfection _or_ to be prepared to accept that some will get that punishment while innocent. For a lot of us the idea of the system killing innocents is not palatable at all, hence the other requirement. But if you can shrug off a few fried innocents as unimportant, sure, then you can have as low accuracy as you wish. After all, all that even less perfection means is just even more executed innocents.

If he dies, he will never murder anyone again.

So, again, if preventing the death of another innocent is the actual reason, why should we give the state the right to kill a few innocents?

An, again, please point me at any murders that happened on the death row. Otherwise it seems to me like we already know how to build a prison where those guys will never murder anyone again, and the extra step of actually killing them isn't actually making any difference.

 

[River]

Because what he did to them tells us what kind of person he is. What we do to him tells us what kind of people we are.

Which is (IMHO) exactly why we should do away with him. Giving a more passive response only encourages the chances he could murder again (in prison) and also gives that inmate the possibility of a long natural life where he can write a book, or say... contact his family... or meet with his wife and or girlfriend, or relatives. He can create art, or music. He can watch television, and make phone calls.

None of which his victim/victims can still do. Is this what you call fair punishment? Really?

 

[jdp]

Which is (IMHO) exactly why we should do away with him. Giving a more passive response only encourages the chances he could murder again (in prison) and also gives that inmate the possibility of a long natural life where he can write a book, or say... contact his family... or meet with his wife and or girlfriend, or relatives. He can create art, or music. He can watch television, and make phone calls.

None of which his victim/victims can still do. Is this what you call fair punishment? Really?

And what if the wrong person is convicted and executed?

 

[River]

And what if the wrong person is convicted and executed?

Under the circumstances I've described where this type of punishment should be invoked there would be substantial evidence (including DNA and or confession along with corroborative evidence) to try and eliminate that possibility. As I also said previously, people are killed every single day by "accident" in our society. Does this mean we need to change our society so this NEVER happens? To what extreme do we go?

 

[GreyICE]

Under the circumstances I've described where this type of punishment should be invoked there would be substantial evidence (including DNA and or confession along with corroborative evidence) to try and eliminate that possibility. As I also said previously, people are killed every single day by "accident" in our society. Does this mean we need to change our society so this NEVER happens? To what extreme do we go?

I'd say we go to the extreme of avoiding voluntary termination of people's lives when a sensible and sane alternative that does NOT involve terminating their lives exists.

I mean it's kinda radical here, but it might just save innocent people from avoidable death.

Also the death penalty exists, and does not operate as you say it does (mostly it executes poor people and non-white people) so I think we have to speculate with the system we have, not the magical one that works.

 

[jdp]

Under the circumstances I've described where this type of punishment should be invoked there would be substantial evidence (including DNA and or confession along with corroborative evidence) to try and eliminate that possibility. As I also said previously, people are killed every single day by "accident" in our society. Does this mean we need to change our society so this NEVER happens? To what extreme do we go?

I think I'll have to second what greyICE pointed out. How can we compare an accidental death, say by car accident or whatever, to a deliberate execution? In the latter case we are using a system whose purpose is to lead someone to death which we know makes mistakes. The former cases are simply accidents.

 

[HansMustermann]

Under the circumstances I've described where this type of punishment should be invoked there would be substantial evidence (including DNA and or confession along with corroborative evidence) to try and eliminate that possibility. As I also said previously, people are killed every single day by "accident" in our society. Does this mean we need to change our society so this NEVER happens? To what extreme do we go?

DNA or other high-tech/science evidence... unfortunately, they open their own can of worms. It's often

A) easier to game; I've already given a trivial way to plant DNA evidence. It doesn't even take some high-tech lab and an evil genius to do so. Any junkie off the street can do so at their next crime.

B) easier to BS a jury with. As was proven repeatedly in cases where some "expert witness" totally shovelled it to a jury of non-experts.

Cameron Todd Willingham for example was convicted and executed based on the testimony of such an "expert" about the fire at his home. Except it turned out that the "expert" didn't even know elementary physics. But the jury obviously knew even less.

Or Rolfe already gave a better example of one forensics expert which fed BS and secured wrongful convictions in a bunch of cases.

DNA is another case where basically it's already been used to BS _both_ ways. The average guy or gal on the street doesn't understand jack squat about what it does, and those who think they do... well, see the Dunning-Kruger effect. They just feel smart enough to fill in blanks they aren't really qualified to fill. So basically depending on who has the better lawyer, you can either make a jury believe it is some infallible "he did it" sign from heavens (it's not), or convince them that it's no better than a ouija board (it is.)

Plus, most importantly, the tools are getting better, but they're still used and occasionally gamed by people. Unless we somehow get a better kind of people, the process isn't going to get any better. It's already as over the top as it can get, and it still fails often enough and miserably enough. I don't see how it can be made any better.

 

[GreNME]

Certainly... Reason being that not every murder case would be worthy of a death sentence, or every crime of the same nature deserve the exact punishment regardless of the details. Capital punishment should only be invoked in the most heinous of those. For instance - a 10 year old caught stealing a pack of gum from the local convenient store does not deserve the same punishment as someone caught stealing an entire warehouse full of electronics, or a truck load of luxury cars etc. There are differing degrees of severity apparenty with all types of crime. There should also be in the punishments...

So you're okay with the concept of taking the hands off some thieves? What about a thief who steals a shipment of baby bottles or penicillin?

Hypothetical question here: If you had to face either fate, which would you choose for yourself? Life in prison? Death penalty?

More likely than not life in prison. Your explanation about why that matters makes no sense... perhaps you could try again.

I'm just not passive enough to agree with life in prison being enough punishment in some cases. That being said, not all murder cases are deserving of capital punishment. Only the most heinous acts deserve the most heinous punishments. (IMHO)

Nice ad hominem reasoning there. There's nothing passive about my position on the matter. Again, I said quite plainly that the dude in the OP doesn't deserve to breath. However, that doesn't translate to my thinking the state should have the power, accuracy, or authority to make that happen, nor do I feel a jury of peers adequate to determine whether or not the state is eligible to carry it out. Life without parole isn't a passive sentence by a long shot, it's an active sentence that holds the convicted to their sentence without recourse. Implying otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Morrigan]

You need either a high degree of perfection _or_ to be prepared to accept that some will get that punishment while innocent. For a lot of us the idea of the system killing innocents is not palatable at all, hence the other requirement.

I understand that. And I don't fundamentally disagree. The risk in getting the wrong person is IMO the only valid argument against the death penalty.

But if you can shrug off a few fried innocents as unimportant, sure, then you can have as low accuracy as you wish.

That seems like a false dichotomy. I don't think "a few friend innocents are unimportant", so I would definitely require very high accuracy. Depending on the accuracy of modern forensics, I would be willing to accept a very, very small margin of error. How much has DNA evidence helped in accuracy, anyway?

An, again, please point me at any murders that happened on the death row. Otherwise it seems to me like we already know how to build a prison where those guys will never murder anyone again, and the extra step of actually killing them isn't actually making any difference.

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.

 

[Rolfe]

No, I think he's pointing out that if it's possible to run prison facilities in which rapes and murders don't happen (death row), then it's possible to extend these facilities to any class of prisoners the law decides should be kept in such conditions.

Having said that, I wouldn't condone extended psychological torture as a punishment regime either.

Rolfe.

 

[DC]

Kill/rape my kids and I'll go medieval on your ass muwahahahah.

Seriously though, is murdering and raping a child any less or more medieval? Why does the person convicted of such a crime deserve any better than the victim/victims they inflicted their wrath upon?

why sink to their low level? we shouldnt. and i think live long prison (like in the US, you will be in prison until you die, not like it is here, prison for live is just a few years) is far more punishment than death.