DC sniper to be executed tonight....

[The Yen Man]

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.

If I was a family member of the victim, I'd still rather he be dead.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

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.

Being kept in segregation doesn't mean the same thing as solitary confinement. I understand that prisoners who are in danger are kept segregated from the main population, but I doubt they are locked in solitary for 23 hours a day.

They are still given access to certain things to do (read, write letters, visitations, even TV). I read enough stories about prison life to know that they aren't locked in a box with nothing. If death was really preferable, then why don't more commit suicide?

I would bet segregation is even preferable than general population.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

Why is vengeance an acceptable rationale for a state sponsored killing and not for a killing perpetrated by a citizen?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

If I was a family member of the victim, I'd still rather he be dead.

According the killer's attorney, his client died with "diginity and defiance". He apparently showed no fear and made no last words.

I can't imagine that would have been too satisfying to see him act that way even on his execution. Seeing him display no regret would piss me off even more.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

You answered your own question here. The victims families may feel better, I think I would, and I think they deserve that.

And your argument could be made against any level of imprisonment. If someone gets life in prision: "Nobody's coming back. Nothing has been prevented" so what's the answer then?

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.

Again, same argument can be made against any level of punishment. "I could end up in prison if I get caught for this. I should just go to work instead"
You're argument isn't addressing Capital Punishment vs Incarceration, it's addressing punishment in general, and whether it actually solves anything.

[Zarathustra]

There's something unique about Americans in their relationship with their government. Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a general mistrust/bitterness/ and even hatred toward their own government.

In no other first world nations have I seen this on a regular basis. Americans generally don't trust their own government. Just look to the second amendment for proof of this mistrust.

Maybe this mistrust/hatred/bitterness has to do with the fact that the goverment kills it's own citizens?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by valo403

Why is vengeance an acceptable rationale for a state sponsored killing and not for a killing perpetrated by a citizen?

Doesn't matter if it's vengeance, rehabilitation, protection of society or anything else. The State has powers citizens don't, simple as that.

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

There's something unique about Americans in their relationship with their government. Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a general mistrust/bitterness/ and even hatred toward their own government.

In no other first world nations have I seen this on a regular basis. Americans generally don't trust their own government. Just look to the second amendment for proof of this mistrust.

Maybe this mistrust/hatred/bitterness has to do with the fact that the goverment kills it's own citizens?

I see the same feelings in Canada ie. mistrust/hatred/ bitterness. That's why we have an election every other year it seems. Our gov't is never in power long enough to kill us.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Doesn't matter if it's vengeance, rehabilitation, protection of society or anything else. The State has powers citizens don't, simple as that.

The State has plenty of powers that citizens don't, that's not an argument for the use of those powers. The State has the power to declare war on any nation, to deny civil liberties, and to do pretty much anything that it feels like doing (and don't give me a 'well the constitution protects x argument, the constitution has been amended many times and can be again if 'The State' takes action). Does that make the action right?

Ability to do something doesn't mean that it should be done.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

There's something unique about Americans in their relationship with their government. Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a general mistrust/bitterness/ and even hatred toward their own government.

In no other first world nations have I seen this on a regular basis. Americans generally don't trust their own government. Just look to the second amendment for proof of this mistrust.

Maybe this mistrust/hatred/bitterness has to do with the fact that the goverment kills it's own citizens?

The nation was founded on a mistrust/hatred of government, it seems natural that there will be factions of the population who will continue to feel that way. Having lived in the US for quite a while now I don't think it's a very widespread thing, at least not distrust to a level where people think the government is out to get them. There are plenty of people who don't trust the government to provide for them or to effectively perform their role, but I haven't met many people who have taken that to the next level.

That said, I don't know many people who live in the worst of conditions in the US. I imagine if I drove down to the worst neighborhoods of Detroit the sentiment would be decidedly different.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

Why is vengeance an acceptable rationale for a state sponsored killing and not for a killing perpetrated by a citizen?

I don't even know what you're talking about - I'm sensing a general lack of understanding of how the entire world works coming from everything you say. If you don't know why we live in a society governed by the rule of law versus vigalante justice I don't know what I can do for you.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't even know what you're talking about - I'm sensing a general lack of understanding of how the entire world works coming from everything you say. If you don't know why we live in a society governed by the rule of law versus vigalante justice I don't know what I can do for you.

I'm sensing a general lack of understanding of a simple question.

I'm well aware of how the world works, in particular the legal system. The question is why is vengeance an acceptable rationale for state sponsored killing and not for the acts of a citizen? If the state can kill someone and use the justification of vengeance as a basis for why it is acceptable why can't a citizen use the same justification?

It's not a matter of 'well it's illegal for a citizen to do it'. It's a matter of why is it right for the state to do it and not for a citizen to do the same.

[Sliver]

It's the same reason I can't lock you in my basement for 20 years if I think you've killed a member of my family. We have a legal system that handles punishment.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's the same reason I can't lock you in my basement for 20 years if I think you've killed a member of my family. We have a legal system that handles punishment.

Thanks for that, I was unaware.

You're doing a fine job of not answering the question though. I'll break it down into parts if that helps.

Is it okay for someone to take a life?
Is it okay for the state to take a life?
If you're answer is different to those two questions, why?

Like I said previously, I've yet to hear an argument that isn't based in vengeance, and I'm sorry but a civilized society and legal system should not be based upon the premise of an eye for an eye.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

Thanks for that, I was unaware.

You're doing a fine job of not answering the question though. I'll break it down into parts if that helps.

Is it okay for someone to take a life?
Is it okay for the state to take a life?
If you're answer is different to those two questions, why?

Like I said previously, I've yet to hear an argument that isn't based in vengeance, and I'm sorry but a civilized society and legal system should not be based upon the premise of an eye for an eye.

Is it okay for someone to take a life?
Yes, in certain circumstances.

Is it okay for the state to take a life?
Yes, in certain circumstances.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by valo403

Is it okay for someone to take a life?
Is it okay for the state to take a life?
If you're answer is different to those two questions, why?

But that's like saying:

Is it ok for someone to lock a person up for 20 years?
Is it ok for the state to lock a person up for 20 years?

And yes they're different, because the state (in theory) is supposed to represent the will of the general public. The state has powers which the individual does not. That's how the state enforces laws.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

But that's like saying:

Is it ok for someone to lock a person up for 20 years?
Is it ok for the state to lock a person up for 20 years?

And yes they're different, because the state (in theory) is supposed to represent the will of the general public. The state has powers which the individual does not. That's how the state enforces laws.

If you can't grasp the difference between incarceration and execution there's no where else to go with this discussion.

The question isn't is it okay to punish someone, it's is it okay to kill someone. There's a world of difference there.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Is it okay for someone to take a life?
Yes, in certain circumstances.

Is it okay for the state to take a life?
Yes, in certain circumstances.

Fair enough, I can see that you don't want to address the why question, which is fine. I'm not trying to say that supporting the death penalty is evil, I'm just looking for an argument from someone as to why it is an acceptable form of sentencing.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

Fair enough, I can see that you don't want to address the why question, which is fine. I'm not trying to say that supporting the death penalty is evil, I'm just looking for an argument from someone as to why it is an acceptable form of sentencing.

valo I've tried to address every one of your questions/points/etc. You are impossible to satisfy. I believe it is a fair form of punishment because it is the most extreme thing you can do to a person. Is torture worse? Maybe...probably. But ultimately death is more extreme/final/permanent, which is why I think it is an acceptable form of sentencing.

That is a full and complete answer to your question. Whether or not it satisfies you doesn't matter - just please quit pretending I'm dancing around your questions when I am answering you over and over.

[Calgaryborn]

The punishment for murder should be death.

The State didn't murder this terrorist; they executed him. Our police and our soldiers also kill under direction from the State and we don't consider them murderers. Both of them kill for the protection of property and order more often then it is to preserve life.

You willfully take a life than you have forfeited your life to the State. I don't care which one is more cruel: life in prison or death. Death is a just consequence for murder.