Would you support Capital Punishment for cases like these?
Yes
19.8% (18)
19.8% (18)
No
74.7% (68)
74.7% (68)
Maybe
5.5% (5)
5.5% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Question for all Anti-Death Penalty Folks

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

So what you're asking us is whether we think the criminally insane should be executed, even though we usually consider the insane unable to carry guilt because, well, they're insane?

nyysjan:

TheIronRuler:

Vegosiux:

That's taking a shortcut. I am asking for a way to reduce costs without taking shortcuts. Because legal shortcuts aren't a can of worms you want to open.

.
Why is that? When you take out animals before you slaughter them you jam a bullet in their heads. They feel a hard sting and then they're dead. Why not replicate the same thing here? Much more effective than hanging or poisonous gas. We don't do that to kill out cattle, do we?

How many innocents you are willing to kill to save costs?

.
All of them.
.

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

Vegosiux:

That's taking a shortcut. I am asking for a way to reduce costs without taking shortcuts. Because legal shortcuts aren't a can of worms you want to open.

.
Why is that? When you take out animals before you slaughter them you jam a bullet in their heads. They feel a hard sting and then they're dead. Why not replicate the same thing here? Much more effective than hanging or poisonous gas. We don't do that to kill out cattle, do we?

Dude, the costs come from all the appeals, jury-time, housing, judges and committees having to review the case, etc, etc, etc. And I am willing to bet that NO DP-case comes without an appeal.

You can't just go "No, he's doomed. -BAM-", it would be an insane system.

.
Ever seen an execution? Best if after the trial and the failed appeal you could put him out of his misery.
.

Chris Mosher:

TheIronRuler:

Bullet==>Head, Burial fees.
Is that too much to ask?

You seem to be missing the point that humans are fallible and that this extends to our systems, like our justice system. We needs the checks and balances to ensure that the person is indeed guilty. Or are your saying that you see them as unnecessary?

.
Oh, I didn't say that you kill him right after the appeal, but in this case it seems like he did it without a shadow of a doubt. It's either the loony bin or death for him.
.

Vegosiux:

TheIronRuler:

Why is that? When you take out animals before you slaughter them you jam a bullet in their heads. They feel a hard sting and then they're dead. Why not replicate the same thing here? Much more effective than hanging or poisonous gas. We don't do that to kill out cattle, do we?

Ummm...remind me, when did the thread go from death penalty to meat processing industry?

.
Efficiency is sometimes brutal. We can take some lessons from that industry.

Find an abandoned or uninhabited island, and drop all violent offenders, lifers, or death penalty eligible criminals on the island and forget them. Monitor the island to ensure that none try to escape, but give them nothing. Let them live or die on their own initiative.

No Escape - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Escape

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

.
Why is that? When you take out animals before you slaughter them you jam a bullet in their heads. They feel a hard sting and then they're dead. Why not replicate the same thing here? Much more effective than hanging or poisonous gas. We don't do that to kill out cattle, do we?

Dude, the costs come from all the appeals, jury-time, housing, judges and committees having to review the case, etc, etc, etc. And I am willing to bet that NO DP-case comes without an appeal.

You can't just go "No, he's doomed. -BAM-", it would be an insane system.

.
Ever seen an execution? Best if after the trial and the failed appeal you could put him out of his misery.

Yeees, except even ONE appeal takes a shit-load of time and costs a shit-load of money, and in the US, you can (sometimes) get several. So yeah, unless you wanna ditch the appeal-system, you are gonna have to live with the costs.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Find an abandoned or uninhabited island, and drop all violent offenders, lifers, or death penalty eligible criminals on the island and forget them. Monitor the island to ensure that none try to escape, but give them nothing. Let them live or die on their own initiative.

No Escape - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Escape

All "violent offenders"?
Surely, you jest.

Realitycrash:

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Find an abandoned or uninhabited island, and drop all violent offenders, lifers, or death penalty eligible criminals on the island and forget them. Monitor the island to ensure that none try to escape, but give them nothing. Let them live or die on their own initiative.

No Escape - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Escape

All "violent offenders"?
Surely, you jest.

.
No, We can also put cameras there and make it into a new reality show sponsored by the US government!
...
I'm serious. Lets do it. St. Helen isn't waiting to be inhabited, or you can just pick a Hawaiian or Samoan island.
.

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

Dude, the costs come from all the appeals, jury-time, housing, judges and committees having to review the case, etc, etc, etc. And I am willing to bet that NO DP-case comes without an appeal.

You can't just go "No, he's doomed. -BAM-", it would be an insane system.

.
Ever seen an execution? Best if after the trial and the failed appeal you could put him out of his misery.

Yeees, except even ONE appeal takes a shit-load of time and costs a shit-load of money, and in the US, you can (sometimes) get several. So yeah, unless you wanna ditch the appeal-system, you are gonna have to live with the costs.

.
Make the death penalty trial with several judges (7 or 9) so that their decision wouldn't be pulled to an appeal court because of the number of judges. Sure it's plenty of people but how many death penalty cases do you get a year?

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Find an abandoned or uninhabited island, and drop all violent offenders, lifers, or death penalty eligible criminals on the island and forget them. Monitor the island to ensure that none try to escape, but give them nothing. Let them live or die on their own initiative.

No Escape - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Escape

All "violent offenders"?
Surely, you jest.

.
No, We can also put cameras there and make it into a new reality show sponsored by the US government!
...
I'm serious. Lets do it. St. Helen isn't waiting to be inhabited, or you can just pick a Hawaiian or Samoan island.
.

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

.
Ever seen an execution? Best if after the trial and the failed appeal you could put him out of his misery.

Yeees, except even ONE appeal takes a shit-load of time and costs a shit-load of money, and in the US, you can (sometimes) get several. So yeah, unless you wanna ditch the appeal-system, you are gonna have to live with the costs.

.
Make the death penalty trial with several judges (7 or 9) so that their decision wouldn't be pulled to an appeal court because of the number of judges. Sure it's plenty of people but how many death penalty cases do you get a year?

Now you are proposing changes to the system, though, and that's something wholly different than saying "Why can't we just execute them?".
See, there is probably a reason as to why such a system isn't already in place, but you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable in the US-lawsystem than me.

And oh..http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2012

Please note the part that says "Years From Sentence to Execution". It's GOD-DAMN LONG. The shortest is six years. So yeah, appeals take time, and the system is backed up.

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

All "violent offenders"?
Surely, you jest.

.
No, We can also put cameras there and make it into a new reality show sponsored by the US government!
...
I'm serious. Lets do it. St. Helen isn't waiting to be inhabited, or you can just pick a Hawaiian or Samoan island.
.

Realitycrash:

Yeees, except even ONE appeal takes a shit-load of time and costs a shit-load of money, and in the US, you can (sometimes) get several. So yeah, unless you wanna ditch the appeal-system, you are gonna have to live with the costs.

.
Make the death penalty trial with several judges (7 or 9) so that their decision wouldn't be pulled to an appeal court because of the number of judges. Sure it's plenty of people but how many death penalty cases do you get a year?

Now you are proposing changes to the system, though, and that's something wholly different than saying "Why can't we just execute them?".
See, there is probably a reason as to why such a system isn't already in place, but you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable in the US-lawsystem than me.

And oh..http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2012

Please note the part that says "Years From Sentence to Execution". It's GOD-DAMN LONG. The shortest is six years. So yeah, appeals take time, and the system is backed up.

.
I was initially proposing that the method of death here should be a bullet in the head, not that there shouldn't be any appeals.

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

.
No, We can also put cameras there and make it into a new reality show sponsored by the US government!
...
I'm serious. Lets do it. St. Helen isn't waiting to be inhabited, or you can just pick a Hawaiian or Samoan island.
.

.
Make the death penalty trial with several judges (7 or 9) so that their decision wouldn't be pulled to an appeal court because of the number of judges. Sure it's plenty of people but how many death penalty cases do you get a year?

Now you are proposing changes to the system, though, and that's something wholly different than saying "Why can't we just execute them?".
See, there is probably a reason as to why such a system isn't already in place, but you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable in the US-lawsystem than me.

And oh..http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2012

Please note the part that says "Years From Sentence to Execution". It's GOD-DAMN LONG. The shortest is six years. So yeah, appeals take time, and the system is backed up.

.
I was initially proposing that the method of death here should be a bullet in the head, not that there shouldn't be any appeals.

...Dude, it's probably cheaper to go with lethal injection, not to mention that the bullet-to-head isn't certain to kill them, which may then lead to a case of cruel and unusual punishment if you have to fire again.

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

Now you are proposing changes to the system, though, and that's something wholly different than saying "Why can't we just execute them?".
See, there is probably a reason as to why such a system isn't already in place, but you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable in the US-lawsystem than me.

And oh..http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2012

Please note the part that says "Years From Sentence to Execution". It's GOD-DAMN LONG. The shortest is six years. So yeah, appeals take time, and the system is backed up.

.
I was initially proposing that the method of death here should be a bullet in the head, not that there shouldn't be any appeals.

...Dude, it's probably cheaper to go with lethal injection, not to mention that the bullet-to-head isn't certain to kill them, which may then lead to a case of cruel and unusual punishment if you have to fire again.

.
It works in the meat processing industry and over there cattle die the second they get the iron pellet in their brains. It's not a bullet from a gun as if an execution on the field, but a machine or a placement that knows exactly where to shoot.

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

.
I was initially proposing that the method of death here should be a bullet in the head, not that there shouldn't be any appeals.

...Dude, it's probably cheaper to go with lethal injection, not to mention that the bullet-to-head isn't certain to kill them, which may then lead to a case of cruel and unusual punishment if you have to fire again.

.
It works in the meat processing industry and over there cattle die the second they get the iron pellet in their brains. It's not a bullet from a gun as if an execution on the field, but a machine or a placement that knows exactly where to shoot.

Okay, fine. We now have bullet in head > Lethal Injection.
Congrats, that expense is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the total expenses that is the DP.
Your point?

Godavari:
The kid is clearly mentally screwed up in some way. I don't think it's right to assign the death penalty to someone who's clearly not in control of their own faculties. Furthermore, I question your assertion that he will NEVER be rehabilitated. I don't think there's any evidence suggesting that (the one article you linked certainly didn't say anything about it).

This pretty much sums up my position as well. Not to mention that when death penalty is on the table, there is always the chance for someone to be wrongly executed. Working with hypotheticals like 'clearly guilty' just doesn't work in a practical application.

Also, I pulled this link from the thread in the Off Topic forum, for anyone that wants to listen to the entire audio.

http://soundcloud.com/christin-coyne/jake-evans-911-call

edit: link to original thread http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.390315-Jake-Evans-17-tells-911-he-shot-and-killed-mother-and-sister

I also find the level of callousness and lack of empathy especially concerning from a few of the posters in this thread.

TheIronRuler:
I was initially proposing that the method of death here should be a bullet in the head, not that there shouldn't be any appeals.

A lethal injection costs less than $100. I mean, sure, a bullet is probably cheaper, but it's not the execution method that causes the incredibly high costs of the death penalty. It's the appeals (and legal fees associated with them).

I'm not sure where I stand on the death penalty. For a case like this, no. Maybe life (or a long ass time) in prison, but who has the right to determine if someone else should live or die? But for people who would serve life in prison without any option for parole, I could be in favor of letting them choose the death penalty instead.

So anyone who voted yes on the poll, congrats, you voted to murder a child. A child who committed a case where everything seems to point towards a severe mental disorder, since random unexplainable violence never happens unless a mental disorder is at work. A motive is always needed.

This means that the odds are quite big that if you treated and cured the personality disorder which caused the killing, you could turn the killer into a harmless upstanding citizen.

Why vote to murder someone who can be rehabilitated?

Jux:
http://soundcloud.com/christin-coyne/jake-evans-911-call
edit: link to original thread http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.390315-Jake-Evans-17-tells-911-he-shot-and-killed-mother-and-sister
I also find the level of callousness and lack of empathy especially concerning from a few of the posters in this thread.

Thanks a bunch for that link.

But why should we rehabilitate them and give the killer another "chance"?

That just makes no sense to me....at all. Rehabilitation should only be reserved for small/petty crimes that don't do grievous harm to other people (like robbery and all since there are socio-economic forces that may be mitigating factors) and maybe Manslaughter.

But hell, murders and rapists. Fuck'em, lock'em up and throw away the key (or put them down).

lordbyron227:
But why should we rehabilitate them and give the killer another "chance"?

That just makes no sense to me....at all. Rehabilitation should only be reserved for small/petty crimes that don't do grievous harm to other people (like robbery and all since there are socio-economic forces that may be mitigating factors) and maybe Manslaughter.

But hell, murders and rapists. Fuck'em, lock'em up and throw away the key (or put them down).

..Because if we cure them, they will benefit society? They will start doing GOOD other than HARM. In fiscal terms, they will stop COSTING us money but instead MAKING us money by working, thus rendering their services possible and generating taxes.
Surely you see the point with rehabilitation?
Why would we want to cause MORE harm than good?

Realitycrash:

lordbyron227:
But why should we rehabilitate them and give the killer another "chance"?

That just makes no sense to me....at all. Rehabilitation should only be reserved for small/petty crimes that don't do grievous harm to other people (like robbery and all since there are socio-economic forces that may be mitigating factors) and maybe Manslaughter.

But hell, murders and rapists. Fuck'em, lock'em up and throw away the key (or put them down).

..Because if we cure them, they will benefit society? They will start doing GOOD other than HARM. In fiscal terms, they will stop COSTING us money but instead MAKING us money by working, thus rendering their services possible and generating taxes.
Surely you see the point with rehabilitation?
Why would we want to cause MORE harm than good?

And to use your analogy, if even "one" of them relapses and murders/rapes another innocent person, then you fucked up and it was not worth the 100 that did good (this is an EXTREMELY inflated number, people who are "rehabilitated" are usually much younger, and they are the EXCEPTION, not the rule when it comes to crimes this fucked up).

NotALiberal:

Realitycrash:

lordbyron227:
But why should we rehabilitate them and give the killer another "chance"?

That just makes no sense to me....at all. Rehabilitation should only be reserved for small/petty crimes that don't do grievous harm to other people (like robbery and all since there are socio-economic forces that may be mitigating factors) and maybe Manslaughter.

But hell, murders and rapists. Fuck'em, lock'em up and throw away the key (or put them down).

..Because if we cure them, they will benefit society? They will start doing GOOD other than HARM. In fiscal terms, they will stop COSTING us money but instead MAKING us money by working, thus rendering their services possible and generating taxes.
Surely you see the point with rehabilitation?
Why would we want to cause MORE harm than good?

And to use your analogy, if even "one" of them relapses and murders/rapes another innocent person, then you fucked up and it was not worth the 100 that did good (this is an EXTREMELY inflated number, people who are "rehabilitated" are usually much younger, and they are the EXCEPTION, not the rule when it comes to crimes this fucked up).

Difference is that we chose to believe Innocent Until Proven Guilty, and that a person can pay off his crime.
Afteral, who most frequently commits crimes? Why, it is criminals who have already been sentenced!
So in reality, if we want to believe that people CAN'T rehabilitate, and it isn't worth trying, then to play it safe, we should put them all in for life.

lordbyron227:
But why should we rehabilitate them and give the killer another "chance"? That just makes no sense to me....at all.

Maybe, you know, because people can be rehabilitated. That you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible.

Additionally, how civilised are we if we murder people for committing crimes?

NotALiberal:

EDIT: I am of course talking theoretically, as in: Why would you oppose the death penalty for an airtight case like this? Or why wouldn't you? Seeing as the vast majority of this site is anti-death penalty, why are you anti death penalty in cases like this, where the death penalty would be justifiable? Is it because of the fact that far too many innocents die as a result of wrongful convictions? Or is just an arbitrary line in the sand you draw because it makes you feel bad?

i do not accept the assertion that the death penalty is acceptable under any circumstances. i don't think any state should have the moral authority to execute people.

If you are to put harsher punishments for people you are sure committed the crime, are you not saying that the lesser punishments reflects a greater element of doubt? Not a lesser crime, less surety that the punishment is just to begin with. Should we likewise split not guilty into "not guilty", "probably not guilty" and "maybe not guilty", and start giving small punishments to people not found guilty?

Im not sure where I stand on this issue when talking about people I have never met.I know that if someone killed my family I would probably want them to be executed but viewing it from a distance I not so sure that the death penalty is a good idea although I can see the appeal. What I am positive of is that if something like this happened to the people posting on this forum their opinions on the matter would change so fast your head would spin.

INB4 flimsy denials

chapaca Shoot through

NotALiberal:

This kid will NEVER be rehabilitated, he's clearly screwed in the head. He should never ever be released into the public again, and he himself admitted he did it (murdered his own sister and mother in cold blood and then cooly admitted it over the phone), with all the evidence also pointing to him. Would you oppose the death penalty for someone like him?

Yes, I would oppose it since there's nothing to be gained by his death. Sitting in a cell we're just as safe from him as with him dead.

TheIronRuler:

nyysjan:

TheIronRuler:

.
Why is that? When you take out animals before you slaughter them you jam a bullet in their heads. They feel a hard sting and then they're dead. Why not replicate the same thing here? Much more effective than hanging or poisonous gas. We don't do that to kill out cattle, do we?

How many innocents you are willing to kill to save costs?

.
All of them.

Are you advocating that we should just kill people with no concern on wether or not they are actually guilty, because it's cheaper than making sure only the guilty get excecuted?

NotALiberal:
So I read this story, and though I personally am anti-death penalty because it's far too easy to condemn an innocent person to death, cases like these make me question that.

This kid will NEVER be rehabilitated, he's clearly screwed in the head. He should never ever be released into the public again, and he himself admitted he did it (murdered his own sister and mother in cold blood and then cooly admitted it over the phone), with all the evidence also pointing to him. Would you oppose the death penalty for someone like him?

911: What's the emergency?

Evans: Uh, I just killed my mom and my sister.

911: What? How did you do that?

Evans: Uh, I shot them with a .22 revolver.

911: Are you sure they're dead?

Evans: They're dead.

911: Were your mom and sister in their beds?

Evans: I don't know. This is going to really mess me up in the future. I told my sister that my mom needed her. She was in her room, and she came out of her room, and I shot her. And she rolled down the stairs and I shot her again. And then I went down and I shot my mom maybe three or four times, but I'll never forget this. My sister, she came downstairs and she was screaming and I was telling her that I'm sorry but just to hold still - that, you know, I was just going to make it go away. But she kept on freaking out, but she finally fell down and I shot her in the head about, probably, three or four times.

I wouldn't be opposed to someone quickly offing this kid, for what it's worth.

Captcha: Tastes like chicken. What.The.Fuck. Captcha.

EDIT: I am of course talking theoretically, as in: Why would you oppose the death penalty for an airtight case like this? Or why wouldn't you? Seeing as the vast majority of this site is anti-death penalty, why are you anti death penalty in cases like this, where the death penalty would be justifiable? Is it because of the fact that far too many innocents die as a result of wrongful convictions? Or is just an arbitrary line in the sand you draw because it makes you feel bad?

Yes, just an arbitrary line we draw because we feel bad, what an accurate and not even slightly biased characterization of a complex and reasoned ethical position. I am being sarcastic.

Even leaving aside the substantial potential for innocent people to be executed, even assuming we were capable of determining a person's guilt with 100%, completely impartial accuracy, it would still be wrong to execute people, because that's the only rationally consistent position to hold if it's also considered wrong to murder people.

The purpose of the justice system is to discourage criminality, eliminate recidivist attitudes in those who are not discouraged initially, and protect society from those who cannot ever be discouraged. None of those objectives require state-murder, because it would be monstrously excessive in the first two cases, and life imprisonment satisfies the third. When you get right down to the root of it, support for the death penalty comes from a base desire for vengeance, and that has no place in a supposedly fair and impartial legal construct.

Further, in this specific case you mention, if that sequence of events is accurate, that person belongs in a high-security mental institution, not a prison, and certainly not an execution chamber.

The best way to show our opposition to murder is to execute someone?

NotALiberal:
and though I personally am anti-death penalty

You could have fooled me.

You cannot be against the death penalty....except when you think it is fine to execute someone. By definition that makes you for the death penalty.

The type of language you use is textbook stuff that you see from those in favour of state sanctioned murder. I'm just saying, the views you have expressed in this thread are the type of views that the people who are pro-murder justify their stance with. Your proclaimed stance on the issue does not match your views.

Blablahb:
So anyone who voted yes on the poll, congrats, you voted to murder a child.

Correction: Voted to have a legally controlled system execute a guilty criminal.

A child who committed a case where everything seems to point towards a severe mental disorder.

I fail to see why this matters. A child murdered two inoccent people in cold blood. Mental disorder or no they are a danger to society and it is best to be rid of them.

This means that the odds are quite big that if you treated and cured the personality disorder which caused the killing, you could turn the killer into a harmless upstanding citizen.

False. Personality disorders and more specifically personality disorders concerning a lack of empathy (e.g. psychopathy) are the most difficult to treat and also lack any kind of obvious 'cure'.

Leadfinger:
The best way to show our opposition to murder is to execute someone?

The best way to deal with a criminal who captures people and imprisons them against their will is to capture them and imprison them against their will?

pyrate:
The type of language you use is textbook stuff that you see from those in favour of state sanctioned murder. I'm just saying, the views you have expressed in this thread are the type of views that the people who are pro-murder justify their stance with. Your proclaimed stance on the issue does not match your views.

Plus in the other topic he claimed to be 'pro-life' and justified letting a 16 year old girl die because the alternative was her getting an abortion.

Hypocrisy for the win.

Wombok:
Correction: Voted to have a legally controlled system execute a guilty criminal.

Yeah, that's what I said, murder a child.

Wombok:
I fail to see why this matters. A child murdered two inoccent people in cold blood. Mental disorder or no they are a danger to society and it is best to be rid of them.

Well, if you only care about blind barbaric vengeance, and not about preventing crime and stopping it, then I guess it doesn't matter. For the rest of the world however, it's important, because if he committed those acts because he's suffering from a serious personality disorder, for one thing he's not accountable for his acts, secondly, it means if you cure the disorder, he's an upstanding citizen.

I fail to see how "You fell ill, so you must die" is a valid argument, so no case to be made for the death penalty here.

And 'get rid of them'? You're talking about killing someone. Your use of wildly inaccurate terms suggests you have no experience or empathy with the topic at all.

Wombok:
False. Personality disorders and more specifically personality disorders concerning a lack of empathy (e.g. psychopathy) are the most difficult to treat and also lack any kind of obvious 'cure'.

Proof please? Because I know for a fact justicial psychiatric care in the Netherlands boasts rather high succes rates. Plus the ones on which it fails aren't murdered like we're a bunch of savages, they're placed in what's called TBS Longstay, which is effectively life in prison, except there's facilities and skilled people around to deal with

Quite unlike the US where mentally deranged inmates ussually receive no care and are just kept sedated permanently or met with brutal violence which only makes the situation worse for everyone involved.

I don't doubt the kid is insane, but technically, anyone that commits any crime, however small, is not fully self actualized. Was he legally sane? Sounds like it. He came up with a plan to make sure he could get the drop on his victims, took actions to ensure their death and understood the consequences of his actions. Sounds like a perfect death penalty candidate to me. Keeping him alive is a waste and dangerous. Better to put two in his hat and charge the estate for costs.

Blablahb:

Wombok:
Correction: Voted to have a legally controlled system execute a guilty criminal.

Yeah, that's what I said, murder a child.

False. Murder is by definition the 'unlawful' killing of someone. This would be a lawfully sanctioned execution.

Well, if you only care about blind barbaric vengeance,

If you wish to have a discussion please remain civil. Misrepresentations of opinion and namecalling only hurt your point and make you look childish.

This has nothing to do with "vegeance" as I have no personal stake in the matter. It is simply me eliminating the problem at the source in the most effective way possible.

For the rest of the world however, it's important, because if he committed those acts because he's suffering from a serious personality disorder, for one thing he's not accountable for his acts,

Why not?

secondly, it means if you cure the disorder, he's an upstanding citizen.

Personality disorders don't just "go away". At best they're held at bay.

I fail to see how "You fell ill, so you must die" is a valid argument, so no case to be made for the death penalty here.

That's because it is in no shape or form what I actually said.

Proof please? Because I know for a fact justicial psychiatric care in the Netherlands boasts rather high succes rates.

- http://ramas.co.uk/report3.pdf
- http://www.sociopathworld.com/2010/08/psychopath-problem.html

Those were just two I picked at random after a quick google search of 'treatment for psychopathy" and "psychopathy cure".

Wombok:
I fail to see why this matters. A child murdered two inoccent people in cold blood. Mental disorder or no they are a danger to society and it is best to be rid of them.

I suppose we should stroll into a couple asylums then and hang half the patient population then?

False. Personality disorders and more specifically personality disorders concerning a lack of empathy (e.g. psychopathy) are the most difficult to treat and also lack any kind of obvious 'cure'.

Again, since when do you routinely execute criminally insane people? This is news to me.

The best way to deal with a criminal who captures people and imprisons them against their will is to capture them and imprison them against their will?

Coincidence and you know it.

The best way to deal with someone who raped someone is to rape them? The best way to deal with someone who mutilate someone is to mutilate them? The best way to deal with someone who committed fraud is to...umm, doublecross them?

NotALiberal:

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? I said I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that an innocent person may be wrongly condemned. However, for nut cases like these, who we know are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? Not a single fuck would be given if this kid was executed quickly on the spot.

Well I don't know it "without a shadow of a doubt". Neither do you. Well sure, you'e going to argue "he confessed." Fine fine, I concede, I mean, there's not like there ever was a case with a false confession involved.

So no, we don't know this "without a shadow of a doubt."

Wombok:

This has nothing to do with "vegeance" as I have no personal stake in the matter. It is simply me eliminating the problem at the source in the most effective way possible.

YOU eliminating a problem? May I ask, how are you actively doing anything to "eliminate a problem"? Last time I checked, sitting in front of a computer screen saying someone should eliminate a problem didn't do much for eliminating that problem.

But hey, if you give yourself credit for something simply because you said it should happen, more power to you.

NotALiberal:

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? I said I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that an innocent person may be wrongly condemned. However, for nut cases like these, who we know are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? Not a single fuck would be given if this kid was executed quickly on the spot.

Now get the fuck outta here with that condescending bullshit. You're not as "intelligent" as you believe, and you can't "read my intentions" based off my wording.

Clearly his mental state is at question here, which in turns puts into question his guilt. Under US law he cannot be held accountable for his actions if his mental state was/is severely impaired.

The issue with 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' is who decides when that is? All you are doing is drawing an arbitrary line on the level of guilt. The US does not have different levels of guilt, you are either guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not guilty. There is no 99% guilty or 100% guilty, just guilty.

To decide that some people are more guilty than others is just introducing another judgement into the system which creates another situation in which the wrong decision can be made.

I will repeat myself, all you are saying is 'I do not agree with the death penalty, except when I think it is fine to execute someone'. It is like saying 'I don't like pickles, except when I feel like eating pickles'. If someone said that you would not hesitate to point out the contradiction in their statement.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked