Scott Peterson must DIE!

[RussDill]

the thought that there is a chance, however remote that chance may be, that an innocent person could be put to death by a legal system should be heinous to people too.

Equally heinous is the chance that an innocent person could be put in prison for life with no chance of parole. Especially if they are wrongly convicted of a crime that even prisoners find heinous.

 

[Xeriar]

If he gets life imprisonment justice will be served. Executing him accomplishes nothing except satisfying our need for vengeance and that shouldn't be the goal of our justice system.

I'm fine with this as long as you volunteer to pay for it.

 

[Xeriar]

Equally heinous is the chance that an innocent person could be put in prison for life with no chance of parole. Especially if they are wrongly convicted of a crime that even prisoners find heinous.

I've heard that lawyers consider it a badge of honor to succesfully defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent.

This is unfortunately fourth hand knowledge, but it would explain a lot.

 

[Bearguin]

Equally heinous is the chance that an innocent person could be put in prison for life with no chance of parole. Especially if they are wrongly convicted of a crime that even prisoners find heinous.

I think this is slightly less heinous as it can be corrected and reversed. I understand what you are implying about somone with such a conviction being killed in prison, but they get so much protection etc. Robert Clifford Olson is still alive and he did far worse.

If, by some strange feat, Olson was found innocent (hard to imagine as he led the police to 11 bodies) he could be released.

So, I'd rather have Olson in jail then David Milgaard dead.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I'm fine with this as long as you volunteer to pay for it.

he's going to be on death row for 20 years. With the cost of appeals this may very well be the more expensive of the two possible sentences.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Convicted of two counts of Capital Murder? Absolute fact.

Are you sure?

And of course it's spelled out to be an acceptable form of punishment for treason in the Constitution.

Where?

2. "We didn't execute him...because it was too expensive." is a slap in the face of all ethical arguments in favor of it.

Why?

3. Which are both A. Deterrence, and B. Punishment. If you're convinced it's good for either, is cost even relevant?

There are some who are strongly for it, and those that are strongly against it. Maybe I'm being too much of a mathematician here, but the Intermediate Value Theorem suggests there should be a position right in the middle, where any further consideration, no matter how slight, would tip the balance. So can you really rule out the possibility that cost might end up being the determining factor?

 

[Zep]

I happen to agree with some earlier posters:

The death penalty is irreversible. So you need to be goddamned certain they are genuinely guilty, which is not always possible. The death penalty is not a punishment or a deterrent - some people actually seek death as a release of some sort. It's simply formalised revenge enacted by the state, it's very expensive, and contrary to TV dramas it rarely gives "closure".

There are other ways to punish people for doing heinous(?) crimes. Permanent distant removal from society is one I prefer. I'll bet there are plenty of tiny islands in the Bering Sea that could do with a population implant of just one human. Or some penguin rookeries in Antarctica that could do with a clean with a toothbrush (and to eat, first catch your penguin...).

But really, once this guy enters the prison population, he will come under "prisoners' law" - and become someone's "little flower" for years. And that sounds a lot more like "punishment" than a needle in the arm and a short, painless ride to oblivion.

 

[Grammatron]

I happen to agree with some earlier posters:

The death penalty is irreversible. So you need to be goddamned certain they are genuinely guilty, which is not always possible. The death penalty is not a punishment or a deterrent - some people actually seek death as a release of some sort. It's simply formalised revenge enacted by the state, it's very expensive, and contrary to TV dramas it rarely gives "closure".

There are other ways to punish people for doing heinous(?) crimes. Permanent distant removal from society is one I prefer. I'll bet there are plenty of tiny islands in the Bering Sea that could do with a population implant of just one human. Or some penguin rookeries in Antarctica that could do with a clean with a toothbrush (and to eat, first catch your penguin...).

That's illegal in USA as it falls under cruel and unusual.

But really, once this guy enters the prison population, he will come under "prisoners' law" - and become someone's "little flower" for years. And that sounds a lot more like "punishment" than a needle in the arm and a short, painless ride to oblivion.

And if he's innocent you now subjected someone to a years/lifetime of torture if not murder. That's a wonderfull system...but hey, at least the state didn't kill him.

 

[aerocontrols]

But really, once this guy enters the prison population, he will come under "prisoners' law" - and become someone's "little flower" for years. And that sounds a lot more like "punishment" than a needle in the arm and a short, painless ride to oblivion.

My support/opposition for the death penalty waxes and wanes, but tacit support for prison rape is always pretty disgusting.