DC sniper to be executed tonight....

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm just looking for an argument from someone as to why it is an acceptable form of sentencing.

Are you looking for a constitutional answer to that question or a great ethical/moral answer to that question?

If it's the former, then you as a student of the US Constitution, should be able to answer it both ways and find equal footing for both, regardless of your own personal beliefs. If it's the the latter, I don't think you'll ever be satisfied with the answer if it doesn't align with your ethics/morals. That's not a cut, that's just the divisiveness of the issue.

I read through the thread and I think Sliver has expressed his points just fine. The bottom line is you don't agree or aren't satisfied with the response.

My own opinion on death row: anything is better than the system they have here in California - biggest death row in the country with such an extensive appeals process that the costs to execute are incredible and the wait for satisfying bloodlust is ridiculous.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

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

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 think its less motivated by vengeance than most think.

Ignoring opinions in regards to the propriety of the Death Penalty one way or the other, I think from the standpoint of a victim's family, every second that their relative's murderer lived, the very life he denied and arbitrarily ended of someone they loved would be an insufferable offense.

Unless you believe in forgiveness and redemption, which no one here does of course, every knows theres no religious posters here.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Are you looking for a constitutional answer to that question or a great ethical/moral answer to that question?

If it's the former, then you as a student of the US Constitution, should be able to answer it both ways and find equal footing for both, regardless of your own personal beliefs. If it's the the latter, I don't think you'll ever be satisfied with the answer if it doesn't align with your ethics/morals. That's not a cut, that's just the divisiveness of the issue.

I read through the thread and I think Sliver has expressed his points just fine. The bottom line is you don't agree or aren't satisfied with the response.

My own opinion on death row: anything is better than the system they have here in California - biggest death row in the country with such an extensive appeals process that the costs to execute are incredible and the wait for satisfying bloodlust is ridiculous.

It's not that I don't agree, I was just hoping to hear more on the whole 'I'm fine with vengeance' viewpoint. I don't understand how people can accept that as a rationale for something in the justice system, but I was hoping to maybe get an insight into the thinking. It's certainly a divisive issue, and I certainly have my own point of view, but I still like to hear actual arguments from the other side of the aisle.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

Whether or not it should be done is certainly a debatable point, however it was not the point you had previously made and has nothing to do with my quoting you.
You asked why the State can rationalize killing, but not citizens; and now you've answered your own question, so I'm glad you figured it out.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

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

The victim's family may feel better-- is that a motivating factor in the justice system? I'd feel better if the kid stole my car was flogged in public instead of getting probation. So should I get my flogging? I've got all the sympathy in the world for the families of the victims, but I don't think executing the guy because it might make them feel better (and really, how much better?) is the way to go.

Hell, it might make them feel worse. Dragging all this stuff up again years later, giving him more time in the sun. If this nut killed one of my family members, I think I'd like the whole thing to end ASAP. Put the guy in his hole and we'll never hear from him again. It's over.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

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?

If he gets life, something has been accomplished -- he's in the slammer. We've accomplished getting him off the streets. What do we accomplish by putting someone in the chair when we know they are stuck in there forever? Is it some sort of, ahem, overkill? We not only need him off the streets, we need him off the bench in the cell?

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

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.

Anyone willing to do something that is a capital offense doesn't care about anything. There is no deterrence for a man who would shoot strangers for no apparent personal gain.

The same can't be said for most other crimes. Hopefully. Considering the both the crime rate and level of incarceration down there, prison doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent, but that's a different story.

I'm not saying punishment or jail doesn't solve anything. I'm saying executing a guy who is never again going to see the light of day doesn't solve anything. He's done, he's finished. His life already is over for all intents and purposes. Killing him doesn't make anything any better.

[GGG]

For the Pro Death Penalty people on the Board.

Is it acceptable to execute and innocent person?

To me this question is far more important then any discussion on the morality of the state killing people. The reality is that innocent people get convicted of crimes and have been executed in the US. DNA is a great example of technology that was unavailable at the time people were convitcted that is now being used to free them. If they have been executed there is no letting them out.

How do those who support the death penalty justify the rare occasions that an inocent person is killed?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by GGG

How do those who support the death penalty justify the rare occasions that an inocent person is killed?

Who cares? They're probably guilty of something else, anyway.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The victim's family may feel better-- is that a motivating factor in the justice system? I'd feel better if the kid stole my car was flogged in public instead of getting probation. So should I get my flogging? I've got all the sympathy in the world for the families of the victims, but I don't think executing the guy because it might make them feel better (and really, how much better?) is the way to go.

Hell, it might make them feel worse. Dragging all this stuff up again years later, giving him more time in the sun. If this nut killed one of my family members, I think I'd like the whole thing to end ASAP. Put the guy in his hole and we'll never hear from him again. It's over.

I think it is a motivating factor of the justice system, although not a major one.
And yes, some victim's families may feel this is worse, and some would be against the death penalty, however I do believe the majority would prefer this. This is the only reason the death penalty makes any sense IMO, but I would also want more research into the impact of it on these families as well.

If he gets life, something has been accomplished -- he's in the slammer. We've accomplished getting him off the streets. What do we accomplish by putting someone in the chair when we know they are stuck in there forever? Is it some sort of, ahem, overkill? We not only need him off the streets, we need him off the bench in the cell?

It may be overkill, but it may also be the most appropriate punishment for the crime, and may contribute even a small amount to giving some closure to the victims families.

Anyone willing to do something that is a capital offense doesn't care about anything. There is no deterrence for a man who would shoot strangers for no apparent personal gain.

The same can't be said for most other crimes. Hopefully. Considering the both the crime rate and level of incarceration down there, prison doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent, but that's a different story.

Agreed this is a different story and death penalty vs jail is irrelevant as a deterrent for people like this. If I am supporting the death penalty (which I'm not sure I am), it's not because of deterrence and I don't think deterrence should enter the debate.

I'm not saying punishment or jail doesn't solve anything. I'm saying executing a guy who is never again going to see the light of day doesn't solve anything. He's done, he's finished. His life already is over for all intents and purposes. Killing him doesn't make anything any better.

The only thing killing him may add is some closure for the families. I don't consider myself a supporter of the Death Penalty (more a person exploring the issue and not 100% decided), but this is the one reason that keeps me from being 100% against it.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by GGG

For the Pro Death Penalty people on the Board.

Is it acceptable to execute and innocent person?

To me this question is far more important then any discussion on the morality of the state killing people. The reality is that innocent people get convicted of crimes and have been executed in the US. DNA is a great example of technology that was unavailable at the time people were convitcted that is now being used to free them. If they have been executed there is no letting them out.

How do those who support the death penalty justify the rare occasions that an inocent person is killed?

Hidden in your post is the answer, how likely nowdays is it to execute an innocent person? Not only DNA but there seems to be cameras on every street, lobby and floors in buildings,taxi cabs..etc. won't be long till theres helmet cams on our pets. you can't hide anymore

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Who cares? They're probably guilty of something else, anyway.

im just shutting down for the night..so this is the last thing im seeing before i go to sleep..thanks for the chuckle..cracked me right up!

[BuzzardsWife]

my last take on this subject.. if u know the punishment is death before you do a crime..don't do it! and if you do, then die! if i know im going to get my hand chopped off for stealing a grape at sobey's..would i be so stupid to do it?????? night all

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by GGG

For the Pro Death Penalty people on the Board.

Is it acceptable to execute and innocent person?

To me this question is far more important then any discussion on the morality of the state killing people. The reality is that innocent people get convicted of crimes and have been executed in the US. DNA is a great example of technology that was unavailable at the time people were convitcted that is now being used to free them. If they have been executed there is no letting them out.

How do those who support the death penalty justify the rare occasions that an inocent person is killed?

The likelihood of you or I or even the black guy down the street being convicted of 1st degree murder and later be found innocent is far smaller than one of us being killed by a murderer. The use of DNA and the increase of media devises within our environment makes the odds for a false charge and conviction even smaller. You are gambling a lot more driving to work every day than you are by living in a State that has capital punishment.

Now driving to work has a great benefit to risk ratio. You expect to get paid but, really aren't worried a bus will hit you on the way. The question with capital punishment is what is the benefit. I mean the risk of a false charge and conviction is very small but, regardless of how small if there is no benefit it is a risk not worth taking. In my mind capital punishment is a benefit in that it is fair. You willfully take a life your life is taken. This basic idea of justice we all learn in childhood. Someone eats your candy; you want their candy is taken away. Fairness isn't revenge. Revenge is looking for extended punishment or torture. The execution of Mohammad didn't make up for the lives that he took. Mohammad couldn't make up for the innocent lives he took but, his death did close the account. The State required Mohammad pay the ultimate price for his murders. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood from "the Unforgiven": "Killing a man takes away everything he's got and everything he will ever have". Mohammad's account is closed.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

And yes, some victim's families may feel this is worse, and some would be against the death penalty, however I do believe the majority would prefer this.

I'm not trying to make a lame old slippery-slope argument here, but by your logic, what the victim of a crime wants to see happen to the criminal becomes a significant factor in the sentence the criminal faces.

We just can't have that. The Death House in Alberta would be filled with vandals, cattle rustlers, tax-cheaters, the tax man, rabble-rousing union organizers and some guy who met Pierre Trudeau at a party.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The likelihood of you or I or even the black guy down the street being convicted of 1st degree murder and later be found innocent is far smaller than one of us being killed by a murderer. The use of DNA and the increase of media devises within our environment makes the odds for a false charge and conviction even smaller. You are gambling a lot more driving to work every day than you are by living in a State that has capital punishment.

Now driving to work has a great benefit to risk ratio. You expect to get paid but, really aren't worried a bus will hit you on the way. The question with capital punishment is what is the benefit. I mean the risk of a false charge and conviction is very small but, regardless of how small if there is no benefit it is a risk not worth taking. In my mind capital punishment is a benefit in that it is fair. You willfully take a life your life is taken. This basic idea of justice we all learn in childhood. Someone eats your candy; you want their candy is taken away. Fairness isn't revenge. Revenge is looking for extended punishment or torture. The execution of Mohammad didn't make up for the lives that he took. Mohammad couldn't make up for the innocent lives he took but, his death did close the account. The State required Mohammad pay the ultimate price for his murders. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood from "the Unforgiven": "Killing a man takes away everything he's got and everything he will ever have". Mohammad's account is closed.

Interesting that "the black guy down the street" is included.

The wisdom of a fictional hitman and candyland justice aside, I find it odd that you put any credence at all into what modern science (in this case DNA evidence) can prove.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not trying to make a lame old slippery-slope argument here, but by your logic, what the victim of a crime wants to see happen to the criminal becomes a significant factor in the sentence the criminal faces.

We just can't have that. The Death House in Alberta would be filled with vandals, cattle rustlers, tax-cheaters, the tax man, rabble-rousing union organizers and some guy who met Pierre Trudeau at a party.

they have had that for ever...they are called victim impact statements.

Its a tough question for me. Is it OK to sentence an innocent man to death or life in prison? Absolutely not.

But because there are different circumstances in different cases, then I certainly understand the punishment should fit the crime. This particular case is a terrific example of just that. The guy was a cold blooded killer who cared about nobody else nor the consequences of his actions on those left behind by his victims. Not all cases are black and white, but this one was.

He did it, there is no question of that. The jurisdiction he did it in, has capital punishment. He received the appropriate sentence when those thing are all taken into account. No longer is he a threat to anyone ever again, something that could not be claimed with a life sentence.

[rubecube]

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

Then that's a flaw in the system and execution of the principle, not in the principle itself.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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?

Yes? He has absolutely no way in which he can physically arm any living person now.

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".

So then you'd be cool if the government looked the other way while this happened?

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.

I don't get this. You'd feel better about it if the government contracted the killing out to a private institution or something?

Originally Posted by Thor

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

I disagree that my taxes should have to be put towards feeding, housing, and caring for convicted murderers. That's not the only reason I'm for the death penatly, but I do feel like a system that actively works to keep these animals alive by using public funds is wrong.

If some psycho kills my family and goes to jail for the rest of his life, he's guaranteed food, shelter, and medical care for the rest of his life - and the kicker is that I technically am paying for it. This doesn't even address the fact that I, as a contributing member of society, am not guaranteed any of these things for the next week, let alone the rest of my life. How is that justice?

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.

The Night Stalker got married a few years back. Charlie Manson sits in prison, watches TV, and answers letters all day. The death penalty is definitely more of a punishment.

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.

So I can only assume you're against abortion and euthanasia, too?

[T@T]

It's not like he would have been put to death but here's another example on how modern technology can save someones bacon.

Facebook saves the day!!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/...ibi/index.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes? He has absolutely no way in which he can physically arm any living person now.

I think they'd probably arranged his circumstances along the lines of not letting that happen.

Originally Posted by rubecube

So then you'd be cool if the government looked the other way while this happened?

No. I might look the other way, but I don't want the whole "society crumbles as government allows citizens to mete out their own brand of justice" thing to happen.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't get this. You'd feel better about it if the government contracted the killing out to a private institution or something?

Of course not. I don't believe in the death penalty.

[FlamesAddiction]

People get convicted without DNA evidence all the time, so the fact the technology exists, doesn't guarentee that it will save innocent people.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not trying to make a lame old slippery-slope argument here, but by your logic, what the victim of a crime wants to see happen to the criminal becomes a significant factor in the sentence the criminal faces.

We just can't have that. The Death House in Alberta would be filled with vandals, cattle rustlers, tax-cheaters, the tax man, rabble-rousing union organizers and some guy who met Pierre Trudeau at a party.

But you just did make a slippery slope argument. Victim impact and victim healing are already factors in sentencing and the justice system. There's no reason for this to lead to the crazy items at the end of your quote.

There's a middle ground between victim's wants not being a factor, and victims wants being an extreme factor. Most things in life fall in middle grounds like this and it doesn't mean we have to fear the dreaded slippery slope.