DC sniper to be executed tonight....

[Thor]

bah thats been corrected.

[burn_this_city]

The guy was a complete lunatic that wanted the world to believe he was executed because he was black. I don't consider him an average deathrow inmate.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm for the death penalty, however the conviction has to be pretty much un-impeachable (sp?) another poster is right, there have been people who have been found innocent after being executed.

However in the cases of the DC Sniper, Ted Bundy, Dahlmer, even our own Clifford Olson, there has to be a higher price paid.

when I talk about punishment for child molesters, I don't mean the death penalty, but to me its the one crime where you should never ever leave prison.

That sets up a pretty dodgy system though, doesn't it? It's like saying "we're pretty sure you did it, so you spend the rest of your life in prison" to one guy and "we know you did it, so you get the chair".

You can't lock up a guy for decades on being pretty sure.

Anyway, this guy was poisoned by the government tonight and died a few hours ago. Who wins here? Who feels better? Who feels safer? Who is safer?

I can understand some of the family members of victims getting satisfaction out of it, but does that really help anything? Nobody's coming back. Nothing has been prevented.

The next lunatic who decides he's going to start shooting random people is not going to think "I could end up on death row if I get caught for this. I should just go to work instead". The next lunatic is a lunatic. He's not thinking clearly if he's planning on killing strangers in the road for no reason.

Executing the next lunatic isn't going to stop the one coming up behind him either.

I don't really see how justice has been served here. The government has killed a man and nothing at all has changed.

[dre]

Its night time, is the a$$hole dead yet?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't really see how justice has been served here. The government has killed a man and nothing at all has changed.

Wrong. The American taxpayers are no longer paying to feed and house this scumbag.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wrong. The American taxpayers are no longer paying to feed and house this scumbag.

That's a tired argument.

The lengthy and costly appeals process, as well as the other aspects of the system, involved in capital punishment cases typically costs taxpayers more than housing an inmate for life. A 2008 study found that Maryland executions have cost approximately $37mil each.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wrong. The American taxpayers are no longer paying to feed and house this scumbag.

How much did the American taxpayers pay to prosecute and convict this scumbug in a capital punishment case?

I'll give you a hint: the average death penalty case in the US costs more than the total cost of lifetime imprisonment without the chance of parole.

[Edit]
Beaten by valo403!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wrong. The American taxpayers are no longer paying to feed and house this scumbag.

Saving money isn't what the justice system is set up for.

The guy is now dead. Is the country safer now than it was eight hours ago?

I'm not shedding any tears over here. If one of his victim's father had jumped out from behind a pillar at the courthouse and shot this guy in the head, I'd shrug my shoulders and say "well, there you go, that makes sense".

I don't like the fact that government can/will/does plan out a specific moment to strap a guy down on the table and inject him with poison until he's dead.

We laugh (or at least shake our heads) at the government. We call them corrupt and foolish as a matter of course. We don't trust them to clear snow off the streets or keep the trains running on time.

But when it comes to letting them kill a man on a gurney in front of a crowd of people in a state-run institution, everything is hunky-dory.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wrong. The American taxpayers are no longer paying to feed and house this scumbag.

You live in a society, in that society there is a social contract. Where in those deemed dangerous are put away, we thus pay for criminals to be kept out of our society.

Now if you are under the illusion its cheaper to kill someone under a capital punishment system (ignoring the fact the error rate of innocents killed), its actually more expensive to kill a death row inmate because of the many appeals.

But yes, lets agree its about taxes

[Zarathustra]

Has anybody considered the fact that for a prisoner like this, prison life would be a living hell? He'd probably spend most of his life in solitary confinement and completely lose his mind. 23 hours a day in a little box with no human interaction.

Which is more of a punishment? Spending your life rotting away in a cell, or dying painlessly by means of lethal injection.

[Schultzie]

Wow, I can't believe this happened all the way back in 2002. I thought it was like 3 years ago. Where does the time go?

[NBC]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's a tired argument.

The lengthy and costly appeals process, as well as the other aspects of the system, involved in capital punishment cases typically costs taxpayers more than housing an inmate for life. A 2008 study found that Maryland executions have cost approximately $37mil each.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

I believe that in certain areas (Texas) this isn't the case. Texas doesn't have a lengthy appeals process, which is the primary reason they execute many more criminals than do other states.

[The Goon]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Has anybody considered the fact that for a prisoner like this, prison life would be a living hell? He'd probably spend most of his life in solitary confinement and completely lose his mind. 23 hours a day in a little box with no human interaction.

Which is more of a punishment? Spending your life rotting away in a cell, or dying painlessly by means of lethal injection.

Yeah, this is along my line of thought. Capital punishment may not be such a punishment after all. It's a nice easy way out for the guy.

Heck, we're all going to die, some of us more tragically and painfully than he did.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by NBC

I believe that in certain areas (Texas) this isn't the case. Texas doesn't have a lengthy appeals process, which is the primary reason they execute many more criminals than do other states.

Texas is among the top 3 states in terms of death row inmates who were exonerated. The fact that this is the case despite a more streamlined process makes me believe that at least one innocent man has died at the hands of the Texas government. In fact, since 1983 at least 5 men have been put to death in Texas while their guilt was in doubt.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/exec...sibly-innocent

[driveway]

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, because it allows the rationalisation of murder.

I used to be pro-death penalty. I thought that certain crimes deserved it, that it was an earned punishment, a just one, and it made economic sense. Then I had this concept explained to me and it really clicked.

All situations in which one human, or group of humans, takes a life is murder - be it in a fit of rage, for religious reasons, as punishment for a crime, in self-defense or in war. Admitedly, within these categories there are shades of murder. However, I feel that it is imperative as a society that we set the bar for acceptable homicide as low as absolutely possible.

If we accept that in certain circumstances we can take a persons life in cold blood, which is what the death penalty is, then we raise the bar above zero. If the bar is not set at zero, if there is any possible gray area, then there is room for individual interpretation about what is and is not acceptable murder. This should not be allowed to happen.

For example: A confessed brutal killer, who would be executed by the state, goes free because their confession is inadmissable in a court of law. Is it justifiable for a private citizen to take this persons life? If it is justifiable for the state, which in a democracy represents the will of private citizens, why not?

This example can be carried further. If the death penalty is legal in a democratic nation, it is one act of legislation away from being applicable to crimes other than murder. From there it's possible - in a democracy - for the scale to slide further and further. We have seen, within this past century, that humans, people who are exactly the same as you and me in every way that matters, have an almost infinite capacity for cruelty.

What concerns me is the moral and philosophical principles behind capital punishment. When one considers that in every single belief system, ethical framework or moral convention that humans have ever created, murder has been a taboo, it seems strange that it's even a question. Since we all seem to be able to agree that the taking of lives is a bad idea, why can't one of the most advanced, free, democratic, and civilized societies that have ever existed at least make the attempt to live up to its own standards?

Humanity advances itself in several key ways, among these are technological development, political organisation and moral action. We can't allow ourselves the easy outs, we have to be demanding of ourselves if we are to have any claim to being moral entities.

This is why I am so very grateful that I live in a nation that has gotten rid of capital punishment.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't really see how justice has been served here. The government has killed a man and nothing at all has changed.

I don't share that view - something very important has changed, which is of course this guy is now dead. He deserved to die for his crimes and it is right that he is now dead. Justice is partly about punishment, and taking away this guy's right to share the same air as the rest of us was the only form of justice he deserved.

Originally Posted by driveway

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, because it allows the rationalisation of murder.

I used to be pro-death penalty. I thought that certain crimes deserved it, that it was an earned punishment, a just one, and it made economic sense. Then I had this concept explained to me and it really clicked.

All situations in which one human, or group of humans, takes a life is murder - be it in a fit of rage, for religious reasons, as punishment for a crime, in self-defense or in war. Admitedly, within these categories there are shades of murder. However, I feel that it is imperative as a society that we set the bar for acceptable homicide as low as absolutely possible.

If we accept that in certain circumstances we can take a persons life in cold blood, which is what the death penalty is, then we raise the bar above zero. If the bar is not set at zero, if there is any possible gray area, then there is room for individual interpretation about what is and is not acceptable murder. This should not be allowed to happen.

For example: A confessed brutal killer, who would be executed by the state, goes free because their confession is inadmissable in a court of law. Is it justifiable for a private citizen to take this persons life? If it is justifiable for the state, which in a democracy represents the will of private citizens, why not?

This example can be carried further. If the death penalty is legal in a democratic nation, it is one act of legislation away from being applicable to crimes other than murder. From there it's possible - in a democracy - for the scale to slide further and further. We have seen, within this past century, that humans, people who are exactly the same as you and me in every way that matters, have an almost infinite capacity for cruelty.

What concerns me is the moral and philosophical principles behind capital punishment. When one considers that in every single belief system, ethical framework or moral convention that humans have ever created, murder has been a taboo, it seems strange that it's even a question. Since we all seem to be able to agree that the taking of lives is a bad idea, why can't one of the most advanced, free, democratic, and civilized societies that have ever existed at least make the attempt to live up to its own standards?

Humanity advances itself in several key ways, among these are technological development, political organisation and moral action. We can't allow ourselves the easy outs, we have to be demanding of ourselves if we are to have any claim to being moral entities.

This is why I am so very grateful that I live in a nation that has gotten rid of capital punishment.

There are about 20 jumps in logic you make in your post. The one I bolded is the biggest one as it completely undermines every single argument in favour of capital punishment by side stepping them without addressing them. In certain cases, many people believe the taking of a life is the right, just thing to do.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't share that view - something very important has changed, which is of course this guy is now dead. He deserved to die for his crimes and it is right that he is now dead. Justice is partly about punishment, and taking away this guy's right to share the same air as the rest of us was the only form of justice he deserved.

And that has changed what exactly? You haven't made an argument for what has changed, you've simply stated a fact. What precisely has been accomplished by this execution that would not have been accomplished by a lifetime in a cold dank cell?

I have never heard a coherent rationale for capital punishment that doesn't reek of vengeance.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Has anybody considered the fact that for a prisoner like this, prison life would be a living hell? He'd probably spend most of his life in solitary confinement and completely lose his mind. 23 hours a day in a little box with no human interaction.

Which is more of a punishment? Spending your life rotting away in a cell, or dying painlessly by means of lethal injection.

I don't really buy that...

There are people in parts of the world whose daily lives are living hells compared to that of inmates in North American prisons, yet they struggle for survival. They endure suffering so that they can have those life moments where they are happy if even for a minute.

People with life sentences don't stay in little boxes for 23 hours a day. They get chores, counsiling, exercise, the chance at developing interpersonal relationships, books, educations... etc. It's still a life worth living for most people.

Don't get me wrong... it would suck to not have freedom and to face the hardships of prison life, but they would still have things to look forward to.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

And that has changed what exactly? You haven't made an argument for what has changed, you've simply stated a fact. What precisely has been accomplished by this execution that would not have been accomplished by a lifetime in a cold dank cell?

I have never heard a coherent rationale for capital punishment that doesn't reek of vengeance.

Yes I know I've simply stated a fact. That's what I was doing in response to the poster that said nothing has changed, when in fact a change had taken place. We took an alive guy and made him dead.

I don't have a problem with vengeance.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't really buy that...

There are people in parts of the world whose daily lives are living hells compared to that of inmates in North American prisons, yet they struggle for survival. They endure suffering so that they can have those life moments where they are happy if even for a minute.

People with life sentences don't stay in little boxes for 23 hours a day. They get chores, counsiling, exercise, the chance at developing interpersonal relationships, books, educations... etc. It's still a life worth living for most people.

Don't get me wrong... it would suck to not have freedom and to face the hardships of prison life, but they would still have things to look forward to.

No offense, but are you familiar with the American prison system?

Such high profile inmates such as this terrorist don't live the average prisoner life. They will be killed if they are within the regular prison population.

The high profile mass murderers are most of the time destined for solitary confinement 23 hours a day. Either that or they live in fear each day of being killed by other prisoners.

There is nothing to look forward to in this situation. We're not talking about a Martha Stewart country club prison here.