Scott Peterson Poll: Life or Death?

[Ed]

From what I've read. E.g., Albert Fish was thrilled to experience the electric chair.

Most killers have led terrible lives, with abuse from childhood. Beatings, rapes, drug abuse, violence.

Yet, they seem to try to avoid death. Very few actually stop the appeals process to that they can die. I think that you are extrpolating beyond the data.

 

[BPSCG]

From what I've read. E.g., Albert Fish was thrilled to experience the electric chair.

I read lots of stuff, too.

Do you have any citations that give evidence that most killers want to die? Seems to me that if killers find death to be a relief, they'd tell their lawyers to stop filing appeals. Or they'd go out in a blaze of gunfire with the local constables.

And if killers want to die, and the rest of us want them to die also, then why does CFLarsen want to deny them their wish?

Most killers have led terrible lives, with abuse from childhood. Beatings, rapes, drug abuse, violence.

I'm sure they do. Maybe we should only execute the ones who've had lives of privilege.

 

[BPSCG]

This didn't necessarily make me sad but I think it points to a flaw in the jury system that allows emotion to influence a decision. There could be many reasons why someone does not demonstrate emotion in these situation and only one of them is that they are simply cold blooded killers. Regarding the jury systme, I do not have another system to offer that I would consider better than a jury system.

Fox News analyst said yesterday the juror interviews could only help Peterson. Said defense lawyers would be poring over the interviews to find something that would lay the groundwork for an appeal. In particular, he emphasized that if it came out that the jury based their decision in part because they hated Peterson (and it seems they did, from their expressions throughout the trial), that would be grounds for an appeal, since they're supposed to decide based strictly on the facts of the case, not on whether or not they like the defendant.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have any citations that give evidence that most killers want to die? Seems to me that if killers find death to be a relief, they'd tell their lawyers to stop filing appeals. Or they'd go out in a blaze of gunfire with the local constables.

What makes you think that those who do go out in a blaze of gunfire didn't want to die?

And if killers want to die, and the rest of us want them to die also, then why does CFLarsen want to deny them their wish?

Because it is inhumane to take lives.

I'm sure they do. Maybe we should only execute the ones who've had lives of privilege.

I'm not saying that it's an excuse. But it's an explanation.

 

[BPSCG]

What makes you think that those who do go out in a blaze of gunfire didn't want to die?

You misunderstand my point. If your hypothesis is correct - that most murderers find being executed a relief, an escape from a miserable life - then 1) you'd see a lot more murderers trying to murder well-armed policemen instead of unarmed convenience store clerks, and 2) they would not appeal their convictions.

Yet very few would-be murderers go into police stations guns blazing. And when convicted, the vast majority of them go through every appeal available to them. This supports the hypothesis that most murderers want very much to live. Your hypothesis is supported so far by one anecdote and a vague reference to "what I've read."

Because it is inhumane to take lives.

If a murderer wants to die and end his miserable, suffering existence, then how is it inhumane to execute him? I submit to you that it is inhumane to not execute such a person.

 

[varwoche]

I have always been opposed to the death penalty simply because if you make a mistake there is nothing you can do to correct it.

For this reason, in my view, the death penalty is profoundly immoral. A justice system that inevitably executes the occasional innocent should be unacceptable in a democratic, civilized society. (And is, in most of them.)

add: list of countries w/capital punishment

 

[Number Six]

For this reason, in my view, the death penalty is profoundly immoral. A justice system that inevitably executes the occasional innocent should be unacceptable in a democratic, civilized society. (And is, in most of them.)

Any justice system (or any system at all) inevitably will make mistakes. I can see how it would make sense to say "We shouldn't have the death penalty because mistakes are inevitable and a mistake in execution goes beyond the kind of mistakes that are acceptable in our society" but I don't think it makes sense to say "We shouldn't have the death penalty because mistakes are inevitable." That make sound like semantics but my point is that the latter is pointlessly idealistic. By its logic we should never put anyone in jail for anything because mistakes are inevitable.

Also, regarding whether death row inmates look at death as a relief or not, I think that fact that most of them appeal for decades and decades is pretty clear evidence that they'd rather live in prison than be executed. Sure, a few welcome it, but most of them consider execution worse than life in prison.

 

[varwoche]

Any justice system (or any system at all) inevitably will make mistakes. I can see how it would make sense to say "We shouldn't have the death penalty because mistakes are inevitable and a mistake in execution goes beyond the kind of mistakes that are acceptable in our society" but I don't think it makes sense to say "We shouldn't have the death penalty because mistakes are inevitable." That make sound like semantics but my point is that the latter is pointlessly idealistic. By its logic we should never put anyone in jail for anything because mistakes are inevitable.

I omitted a key point: incarcertation is reversible, death is not.

 

[Number Six]

I omitted a key point: incarcertation is reversible, death is not.

Someone can be let out of jail but the time they've spent in jail can't be given back to them. I'm just saying that an argument that execution is wrong because it leads to errors of a certain seriousness makes sense but an argument that execution is wrong because it leads to errors does not make sense. Everything leads to some errors. The argument should be that the errors that the death penalty leads to are more serious than should be tolerated.

 

[Luke T.]

add: list of countries w/capital punishment

You mean "we should be more like Europe", right?

 

[Ed]

Any justice system (or any system at all) inevitably will make mistakes. I can see how it would make sense to say "We shouldn't have the death penalty because mistakes are inevitable and a mistake in execution goes beyond the kind of mistakes that are acceptable in our society" but I don't think it makes sense to say "We shouldn't have the death penalty because mistakes are inevitable." That make sound like semantics but my point is that the latter is pointlessly idealistic. By its logic we should never put anyone in jail for anything because mistakes are inevitable.

Also, regarding whether death row inmates look at death as a relief or not, I think that fact that most of them appeal for decades and decades is pretty clear evidence that they'd rather live in prison than be executed. Sure, a few welcome it, but most of them consider execution worse than life in prison.

Suppose there is no mistake? Suppose the person is caught dead to rights?

 

[crimresearch]

The other question people seem to be dancing around is what is the purpose of the criminal justice system (and therefore life imprisonment or the death penalty).
In my view I see three potential purposes (with the caveat that these purposes sometimes change depending on the crime and overlap):

-Rehabiliation
-Punishment (which can relate to rehabilitation in the form of negative reinforcement or is it simply about revenge)
-Removal of dangerous individuals from society

Where does the death penalty fall in these? For some it appears to be about punishment (I don't see how it can be about rehabilitation unless you believe in an after life.) However, for me, it only makes sense when you are talking about reducing costs and removing dangerous individuals from society.

Punishment and negative reinforcement are different things.
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/proj/nru/nr.html

Perhaps you meant negative consequences?

In any case, the death penalty doesn't alter future behavior, because there isn't any after it is applied.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I'm against capital punishment in all cases but I do find it funny people who say something to this effect:

"I'm against capital punishment but he should be forced to live in a 8x6 cell with the screams of babies and women piped in 24 hours a day and have his cell wallpapered with the autopsy pictures of his wife and baby"



overheard in my office earlier today with several people nodding their approval.

 

[Ed]

I am against CP. I would be happier if the perps were never heard from again. Geraldo interviewing Charlie Manson? Please.

 

[Beleth]

To most murderers, death is hardly a punishment. Far too often, it is a relief. Either way, it solves nothing. There is no justice in death, regardless of how and why it was achieved.

Keeping them alive, making them listen to the cries and sorrows of the relatives of their victims, each and every day, is just punishment. It is much, much harder than merely offing them, in a procedure that precious few have the guts to experience.

So you would have the relatives of the victims cry for the rest of the murderer's life? Have you considered the closure which the death of a murderer brings to the families?

Sometimes, death is more humane than life in prison. Not for the murderer; for society at large. As I mentioned in the other thread, I think Timothy McVeigh is an excellent example of this.

That said, I still don't think the DP was warranted for Peterson. It sounds like this decision was reached mainly because of the lack of emotion he displayed during the trial, and speaking as someone who was the jury foreman on a murder trial*, that simply wouldn't cut it for me.



[*] Not the triple murder I mentioned in the other Peterson thread; a different one.

 

[varwoche]

You mean "we should be more like Europe", right?

Yes. And less like Syria, North Korea, Iran, Mynamar and Chad.

 

[Luke T.]

Yes. And less like Syria, North Korea, Iran, Mynamar and Chad.

Maybe they are trying to be more like us.

add: list of countries that have Coca-Cola

 

[CFLarsen]

So you would have the relatives of the victims cry for the rest of the murderer's life? Have you considered the closure which the death of a murderer brings to the families?

Society does not merely punish criminals to bring justice to the victims. It also brings justice to society itself.

Sometimes, death is more humane than life in prison. Not for the murderer; for society at large. As I mentioned in the other thread, I think Timothy McVeigh is an excellent example of this.

On the contrary: He is now a martyr, who died for his cause. Keeping him in prison is far more devastating for his "fame".

That said, I still don't think the DP was warranted for Peterson. It sounds like this decision was reached mainly because of the lack of emotion he displayed during the trial, and speaking as someone who was the jury foreman on a murder trial*, that simply wouldn't cut it for me.

Which is yet another reason why the death penalty should be abolished. The jury convicts him because he is not crying his eyes out? What about convicting him based on the evidence?

"Hey, this guy does not show remorse! Let him ride the lightning!"

 

[Beleth]

Society does not merely punish criminals to bring justice to the victims. It also brings justice to society itself.

Yup. That's pretty much what I said in the sentence under the one you quoted.

On the contrary: He is now a martyr, who died for his cause. Keeping him in prison is far more devastating for his "fame".

What cause?

You realize he was executed 3 1/2 years ago, don't you? What further terrorist acts has his execution brought about?

If anything, McVeigh's case shows that the right course of action is to bring the guilty parties to trial and justice, and not perform "field justice" like what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those were the martyrs. David Koresh's death spawned McVeigh. McVeigh's death spawned... who?

Which is yet another reason why the death penalty should be abolished. The jury convicts him because he is not crying his eyes out? What about convicting him based on the evidence?

"Hey, this guy does not show remorse! Let him ride the lightning!"

Calm down, sir.
The death penalty should not be abolished. The boundaries on its use need to reined in a little is all.

 

[CFLarsen]

What cause?

Federal oppression. Waco, Ruby Ridge, general hatred of da gubmint.

You realize he was executed 3 1/2 years ago, don't you? What further terrorist acts has his execution brought about?

If anything, McVeigh's case shows that the right course of action is to bring the guilty parties to trial and justice, and not perform "field justice" like what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those were the martyrs. David Koresh's death spawned McVeigh. McVeigh's death spawned... who?

Can we trust a time limit? WTC was bombed in 1993, and 8 years later, the towers came down. It hasn't been 8 years since McVeigh was executed.

Calm down, sir.
The death penalty should not be abolished. The boundaries on its use need to reined in a little is all.

I am very calm. How do you suggest a situation like Peterson is avoided in the future? Should his sentence be overturned?