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
 

Simple.

No exceptions.

If you make the exception for this "open and shut" case, you'll make an exception for the next, and pretty soon you'll make an exception for a case that maybe wasn't so open and shut and when, whoops, we've executed an innocent person.

The system will never be 100% perfect because we're not robots. We're imperfect beings and we are bound to make mistakes. Capital punishment can make mistakes that cannot be rectified, and what's the point of it? It doesn't dissuade people from committing crimes. All it does is fulfill a base, counterproductive "eye for an eye" impulse we all have, because our prefrontal-lobes-are-too-small, adrenal-glands-are-too-big monkey brains can be terrible judges for what justice really is.

Also, at least in this case, that person is clearly mentally disturbed and should probably spend the rest of his life confined in a safe place getting the treatment he needs, because he's sick. It's terrible, and it maybe feels like there is no justice, but we don't live in a perfect world.

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

Yes, yes, hide behind semantics. End of the day, you just don't care and argue we should murder a child for a crime he likely wasn't even aware he was committing.

Wombok:
This has nothing to do with "vegeance" as I have no personal stake in the matter.

Then why do you want to see someone dead? Everybody loses in that situation except people who aren't involved and only care about petty revenge.

If you wanted to 'eliminate the problem' of someone most likely suffering from a dangerous personality disorder, you'd advocate psychiatric treatment in a closed facility, and release when cured.

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

Oh yes you did. You said you didn't care this kind of crime and this crime in particular looks very much like it came from mental illness, and you advocated killing him. Thus "You fell ill, now you have to die".

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

Disregarded second link for looking sensationalist and unreliable. The other link draws its conclusions on page 26, and says quite clearly even full-blown psychopaths are treatable. Aftercare treatment is important, and the report questions why so little different treatment, and especially preventive methods have been tried.

Actually, the report even opposes prison sentences for psychopaths. I quote from page 26:

"It is suggested that although patients with the condition have psychopathology from which they suffer and should continue to be offered treatment, compulsory detention in hospital is not the appropriate way of carrying out this task (Grounds, 1987). Dell and Robertson (1988), for example, suggest that legal psychopaths should go to special hospitals only as voluntary patients and after they have been sentenced. If voluntary admission was implemented, hospitals would not be constrained to keep a patient simply because of public safety considerations and they would probably also receive better motivated individuals."

Vegosiux:

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

If they have commited heinous crimes or are a significant burden on society I see no reason not to.

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.

In no shape or form is this what I said.

"There is no known cure for psychopathy" does not in any way equal "I routinely execute criminally insane people".

How your mind made that kind of leap is just baffling.

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?

Clearly my point was lost on you.

What I was pointing out is that the supposed "hypocricy" of killing those who are murderers is as equally hypocritical as imprisoning someone who imprisons people against their will.

After accepting this there's three options you can take:
- you can approve of both execution and imprisonment.
- You can dissaprove of both execution and imprisonment.

[b]OR[/b]

- You can come to the conclusion that goverment sanctioned execution and imprisonment differs from non-government sanctioned execution and imprisonment thereby making your original criticism moot.

pyrate:

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.

This is why I said all of this theoretical, this thread was more to get an idea of why people are anti death penalty.

I know we can't kill this kid, and we can't make exceptions, I just think it would be ideal if we COULD, but I'm fully aware that's not how it works.

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.

Saying I don't agree with the death penalty is different than saying I wouldn't mind seeing this kid killed - by whom is not really of importance.

Wombok:
Mental disorder or no they are a danger to society and it is best to be rid of them.

How are they a danger to society? I mean if we're talking about the death penalty then I assume the person is already caught, and the danger those pose is already no more.
Or do you suggest they are likely to escape at any moment?

Blablahb:

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

Yes, yes, hide behind semantics.

Stating facts is hiding behind semantics?

You're really not helping your case.

End of the day, you just don't care

If I didn't care I wouldn't bother discussing it.

and argue we should murder a child for a crime he likely wasn't even aware he was committing.

He's 17.

Then why do you want to see someone dead? Everybody loses in that situation except people who aren't involved and only care about petty revenge.

Again, if you want to have any kind of adult discussion refrain from the misrepresentations of argument.

This is not revenge as I have no personal stake in the matter. It is simply me supporting laws that deter certain acts and then removing those who commit them.

When I catch a cold I don't "get revenge" on the virus nor do I rehabilitate it, I simply try to get rid of it.

If you wanted to 'eliminate the problem' of someone most likely suffering from a dangerous personality disorder, you'd advocate psychiatric treatment in a closed facility, and release when cured.

My method is quicker and leaves no chance for future crimes from the criminal.

Oh yes you did. You said you didn't care this kind of crime and this crime in particular looks very much like it came from mental illness, and you advocated killing him. Thus "You fell ill, now you have to die".

No.

"You fell ill, now you die" implies I'm executing him for the act of falling ill. The reason for him being executed is because he murdered two people. Illness may be the reason for why he did murder two inoccent people but it is not the reason for his execution.

The other link draws its conclusions on page 26, and says quite clearly even full-blown psychopaths are treatable.

No it does not.

Actually, the report even opposes prison sentences for psychopaths.

Provided that all they've done is be a psychopath.

No one was advocating the imprisonment of psychopaths for simply being psychopaths.

Knight Templar:

How are they a danger to society? I mean if we're talking about the death penalty then I assume the person is already caught, and the danger those pose is already no more.
Or do you suggest they are likely to escape at any moment?

I am suggesting that they [murderers] are a danger to society by virtue of the fact that they murder people and that executing them [murderers] is the best way to be rid of them.

Life imprisonment is an option but on the simple grounds of "should this murderer be executed or imprisoned" I fail to see how the latter option is better.

Wombok:
I am suggesting that they [murderers] are a danger to society by virtue of the fact that they murder people and that executing them [murderers] is the best way to be rid of them.

But how do they still pose a danger once caught?

Knight Templar:

Wombok:
I am suggesting that they [murderers] are a danger to society by virtue of the fact that they murder people and that executing them [murderers] is the best way to be rid of them.

But how do they still pose a danger once caught?

Although caught they are still dangerous people by virtue of the fact that they murder people.

The best way to be rid of said dangerous and guilty people is to simply remove them.

Wombok:
Although caught they are still dangerous people by virtue of the fact that they murder people.

One presumes we're not going to let them do that anymore even if they wanted to, so what is the actual danger?

I'm wondering how many people here voted in the poll that are not anti-death penalty. Might want to change the title of the thread, I think these results are a bit misleading.

Knight Templar:

Wombok:
Although caught they are still dangerous people by virtue of the fact that they murder people.

One presumes we're not going to let them do that anymore even if they wanted to, so what is the actual danger?

I never said they were dangerous to society once locked up. When not locked up they are indeed dangerous to society however when they are locked up they are merely just dangerous people.

My solution was a response to preventing them from being a danger to society, yes locking them up has similar benefits however I fail to see why it is the more optimal solution.

Wombok:

Knight Templar:

Wombok:
Although caught they are still dangerous people by virtue of the fact that they murder people.

One presumes we're not going to let them do that anymore even if they wanted to, so what is the actual danger?

I never said they were dangerous to society once locked up. When not locked up they are indeed dangerous to society however when they are locked up they are merely just dangerous people.

My solution was a response to preventing them from being a danger to society, yes locking them up has similar benefits however I fail to see why it is the more optimal solution.

Because when we kill people, we sometimes get it wrong, for starters. Even if we strip away every other argument against the death penalty, that its barbaric, that it's more expensive to the legal system, we are still left with the FACT that sometimes we get it wrong. Innocent people are executed.

And for that reason alone I cannot under any circumstance endorse the death penalty.

Wombok:
- You can come to the conclusion that goverment sanctioned execution and imprisonment differs from non-government sanctioned execution and imprisonment thereby making your original criticism moot.

This is really weird. Non-goverment imprisonment and execution? You're refering to slavery and murder? That's going really far offtopic because this was about rehabilitation and law.

Wombok:
In no shape or form is this what I said.
"There is no known cure for psychopathy" does not in any way equal "I routinely execute criminally insane people".

That is not true. One post further you literally say you want to kill people for being mentally ill:

Wombok:
"You fell ill, now you die" implies I'm executing him for the act of falling ill. The reason for him being executed is because he murdered two people. Illness may be the reason for why he did murder two inoccent people but it is not the reason for his execution.

Here it is, literal quote. If someone commits a crime, you don't care how easy to fix their problems are or the chances for rehabilitation, they must be killed. That's pretty cruel and uncaring. In many cases you'd end up murdering people for things they don't even remember or had no control over.

You never saw anyone go into a psychosis or any other serious mental problem. I've dealt with a few. Coke fiends, paranoid schizofrenics, two cases of psychosis. Mostly just keeping them in line untill paramedics arrive to take them away either to hospital or a closed institution. And let me tell you, those people haven't got a clue. You'll find more sense at Tea Party rally. Holding them fully responsible for their acts makes no sense, neither do they learn from it.

To give you a good example: A police officer was seriously injured here in 2010. A former professional kickboxer had gotten serious mental problems, and slipped into a psychosis, showing signs of severe paranoia and irrational behaviour.
Two police officers responded to calls about him, and attempted to arrest the man.

He struck one, she fell to the ground, fractured her skull on the pavement and had a severe concussion and likely will never be able to work again.

So yay, bring out the gallows, the wheel, the axe or whatever barbaric ideas the pro-death penalty people have in mind, right?

Not quite. I can explain how this crime happened. For one thing, trying to grab a hold of paranoid people is a bad idea, since such a threatening move confirms their fears. Secondly, a professional fighter doesn't just strike. If you've done it for years, aiming strikes is automatic. I happen to know that police prefer to arrest by grabbing an arm each and using that leverage to force the arms into a position to apply handcuffs. However this involves approaching someone closely with your hands down, and likely they don't hide their chin.

So what happens, a guy who is completely gone and has a lot of strength and a good aim, sees someone approaching in a fashion that's refered to in kickboxing as suicide: hands down, chin up. So he strikes once, hits her jaw, instant knockout, but she'd have been perfectly fine except for a headache, if she hadn't fallen with her head onto a hard surface.

Did the guy mean them any harm? Absolutely not. He was psychotic, had no idea what he was doing. And even then, his violent action will have had the primary intention of getting someone off him, or driving them away, that it ended up that damaging is extremely unfortunate, but more or less by accident.

Unsurprising, the sentencing was only psychiatric treatment and 160 hours community service.

Wombok:
I never said they were dangerous to society once locked up.

So when you said "it is best to be rid of them" you were not referring to the death penalty?
Or do you think they should be killed before being arrested, put on trial and all that jazz?

when they are locked up they are merely just dangerous people.

Dangerous to who? Guards, fellow inmates? That doesn't make them particularly unique.

My solution was a response to preventing them from being a danger to society

Then the death penalty isn't part of the discussion, as they ceased being a danger the moment they were taken into police custody. You are suggesting killing somebody as a solution to a problem that no longer exists.

Jux:
I'm wondering how many people here voted in the poll that are not anti-death penalty. Might want to change the title of the thread, I think these results are a bit misleading.

.
I didn't vote for the poll since it wasn't meant for me, but it didn't stop me from posting.

Blablahb:

Wombok:
- You can come to the conclusion that goverment sanctioned execution and imprisonment differs from non-government sanctioned execution and imprisonment thereby making your original criticism moot.

This is really weird. Non-goverment imprisonment and execution? You're refering to slavery and murder? That's going really far offtopic because this was about rehabilitation and law.

That post was not addressed to you. It was in response to the critism and implied hypocricy of executing those who murder.

Reread what I said in that response and I'm sure you can follow along.

That is not true. One post further you literally say you want to kill people for being mentally ill:

Wombok:
"You fell ill, now you die" implies I'm executing him for the act of falling ill. The reason for him being executed is because he murdered two people. Illness may be the reason for why he did murder two inoccent people but it is not the reason for his execution.

Here it is, literal quote. If someone commits a crime, you don't care how easy to fix their problems are or the chances for rehabilitation, they must be killed.

The first part of your post here is completely different to your second part.

You begin by claiming that I wish to execute people for simply having a mental illness.

== You then post a quote by me ==

After posting the quote you point out that I wish to have people who murder people executed regardless of whether they have a mental illness or not.

Those are two very, very different things.

EDIT: I'll respond to other posts later.

This is one of those cases where the trial is just a formality before they execute the person. There is no doubt of his guilt, he called 911 and said he did it and the evidence was at the crime scene. As a compromise to the pro-rehab people we could work him to death, that way we get some use out of him before he dies. Otherwise just shoot him.

TheIronRuler:

Jux:
I'm wondering how many people here voted in the poll that are not anti-death penalty. Might want to change the title of the thread, I think these results are a bit misleading.

.
I didn't vote for the poll since it wasn't meant for me, but it didn't stop me from posting.

Of course, not saying people shouldn't post that aren't anti-death penalty, I just find it hard to believe that 11 people (9 when I made that post) voted yes. Just seems strange, especially considering the nature of this case. That a supposed anti-death penalty person would vote yes just based on the information we have, before any sort of psych evaluation was done at the very least, seems implausible.

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?

Because at what point does their life add up to a net loss for society? The 2 people that this guy murdered were already productive members of society. His mother and sister could have paid taxes someday too. Which means that no matter how many resources we waste on him, he will never do as much for society than the other two "normal" people he murdered could have done.
The sad fact is, he IS doing more harm than good, simply by being alive.
It is unreasonable to believe that this particular psychotic familicide is ever going to have a net positive effect on society. Hypothetically, he could cure cancer or usher in world peace, but I, for one, am not going to hold my breath.

-redacted, and editing the other post when poss-

BeeGeenie:

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?

Because at what point does their life add up to a net loss for society? The 2 people that this guy murdered were already productive members of society. His mother and sister could have paid taxes someday too. Which means that no matter how many resources we waste on him, he will never do as much for society than the other two "normal" people he murdered could have done.

First off, we don't know this (that he will never do as much good as the two others), but it seems reasonable to assume.
Second, LordByron (and I can't help but finding the name somewhat ironic) seemed to talk about rehabilitation in general, and not just this case.
Third; It's about minimizing losses. Even if we DO accept that he can never fully repay the good that these two people would have generated, he can still get out of prison, which means we don't have to pay that for him, and start generating taxes/offering his services, which is another minimization of losses. On a simple economic stand-point, without moral or humanitarian arguments involved, it's cheaper for us if he manages to be rehabilitated and be a productive member of society, than if he gets stuck in a Psych-ward for life.

I'm talking successful rehabilitation here. It would be more expensive if he got out, and relapsed, than it would be if he were to be stuck in there for life, but that's a whole different question.

Realitycrash:

BeeGeenie:

Realitycrash:

..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?

Because at what point does their life add up to a net loss for society? The 2 people that this guy murdered were already productive members of society. His mother and sister could have paid taxes someday too. Which means that no matter how many resources we waste on him, he will never do as much for society than the other two "normal" people he murdered could have done.

First off, we don't know this (that he will never do as much good as the two others), but it seems reasonable to assume.
Second, LordByron (and I can't help but finding the name somewhat ironic) seemed to talk about rehabilitation in general, and not just this case.
Third; It's about minimizing losses. Even if we DO accept that he can never fully repay the good that these two people would have generated, he can still get out of prison, which means we don't have to pay that for him, and start generating taxes/offering his services, which is another minimization of losses. On a simple economic stand-point, without moral or humanitarian arguments involved, it's cheaper for us if he manages to be rehabilitated and be a productive member of society, than if he gets stuck in a Psych-ward for life.

I'm talking successful rehabilitation here. It would be more expensive if he got out, and relapsed, than it would be if he were to be stuck in there for life, but that's a whole different question.

Yes, but I'm talking about at what point execution is more efficient than attempts at rehabilitation. A swift execution would minimize losses more than a lengthy rehabilitation. Theoretically, he could pay back society, but what makes you think he'll even find a job once he gets out? Will his minimum wage part time job really pay back the expense of keeping him alive and rehabilitated?
How many ex-convicts taking anti-psychotic medications have gone on to be millionaire philanthropists? I'm guessing not many.
Long story short, sometimes it's cheaper to fix your car, and sometimes it's cheaper to just scrap it.
And yes, I did just compare a human life to a car. If you accept current scientific thought, we're all just biological machines anyway.

BeeGeenie:

Realitycrash:

BeeGeenie:

Because at what point does their life add up to a net loss for society? The 2 people that this guy murdered were already productive members of society. His mother and sister could have paid taxes someday too. Which means that no matter how many resources we waste on him, he will never do as much for society than the other two "normal" people he murdered could have done.

First off, we don't know this (that he will never do as much good as the two others), but it seems reasonable to assume.
Second, LordByron (and I can't help but finding the name somewhat ironic) seemed to talk about rehabilitation in general, and not just this case.
Third; It's about minimizing losses. Even if we DO accept that he can never fully repay the good that these two people would have generated, he can still get out of prison, which means we don't have to pay that for him, and start generating taxes/offering his services, which is another minimization of losses. On a simple economic stand-point, without moral or humanitarian arguments involved, it's cheaper for us if he manages to be rehabilitated and be a productive member of society, than if he gets stuck in a Psych-ward for life.

I'm talking successful rehabilitation here. It would be more expensive if he got out, and relapsed, than it would be if he were to be stuck in there for life, but that's a whole different question.

Yes, but I'm talking about at what point execution is more efficient than attempts at rehabilitation. A swift execution would minimize losses more than a lengthy rehabilitation. Theoretically, he could pay back society, but what makes you think he'll even find a job once he gets out? Will his minimum wage part time job really pay back the expense of keeping him alive and rehabilitated?
How many ex-convicts taking anti-psychotic medications have gone on to be millionaire philanthropists? I'm guessing not many.
Long story short, sometimes it's cheaper to fix your car, and sometimes it's cheaper to just scrap it.
And yes, I did just compare a human life to a car. If you accept current scientific thought, we're all just biological machines anyway.

Oh, yes, sometimes, this would probably be cheaper. But there seems to be a whole lot of disagreement about if it isn't actually a whole lot more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison, not mentioning rehabilitation.
But both sides challenge this, and it seems to be unclear which is in the right.

Unless his attorney is an idiot, he won't be given a capital sentence (assuming he was in a state or country with the death penalty). Do you know why? Because He will most likely plead guilty in order to take that off the table, which means no jury, which means no jury sentencing required for capitol punishment (at least in the US).

I agree in the death penalty to a certain extent, if only because being locked in 6x6 room for 75 years seems like a worse fate.

That said, the person in the OP was clearly insane, and should be treated medically... and locked up for all of eternity.

I admit I favor a more draconian system. By all means lets give folks a fair trial, but if they are found guilty, just shoot them and be done with it.

Yes, even with fair trials some people might be wrongfully executed, but society as a whole would benefit. How many resources are people like this worth? Because lets face it, we do not have unlimited resources to throw at every problem. Is this person worth not improving the school system in that state? Are they worth not feeding hungry kids in this country? Or any other social programs which would reduce criminal behavior. (After school programs, education, work programs, more police, etc etc)

mavkiel:
Is this person worth not improving the school system in that state? Are they worth not feeding hungry kids in this country? Or any other social programs which would reduce criminal behavior.

While I find your stance on social security and education system commendable, are you really sure this is where the first and deepest cuts should be made to save money?

Seriously.. this made you question your rejection of the death penalty?

The kid is clearly not of sound mind. From the sounds of the transcript I'd guess he is schitzophrenic or has some kind of personality disorder. Both these things can be treated with varying degrees of effectiveness. The bigger question is whether society could ever accept this person were he to be successfully treated.

It always bothers me when people assume calm behaviour equates to sanity or malice. Excessively and inappropriately calm behaviour is as much an indicator as mental illness as stereotypical 'cuckoo for cocoa puffs' delirium. I don't know, I guess we'll have to see what comes out of it.

And yeah, as other people have mentioned, it generally costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison.

NotALiberal:
This kid will NEVER be rehabilitated, he's clearly screwed in the head.

While he may be "screwed in the head" you can't prove your former statement. On that basis alone no one should be put to death, even in an open and shut case like this. In fact, if he is crazy then he shouldn't be killed since he isn't of sound mind. Who's to say that he couldn't one day be helped by psychiatric treatment and drugs which either exist now or will in the future?

He should never ever be released into the public again

This is why life without parole exists in many countries and every US state.

Vegosiux:

mavkiel:
Is this person worth not improving the school system in that state? Are they worth not feeding hungry kids in this country? Or any other social programs which would reduce criminal behavior.

While I find your stance on social security and education system commendable, are you really sure this is where the first and deepest cuts should be made to save money?

Not the first no, I'd slash the military budget. Imo to many carriers/fighter jets, tanks etc. Imo simply having nukes and the ability to deploy them negates the need to fight any conventional wars.

However, I find spending the cash on these types of criminals distasteful in the extreme. Murder a few people in horrible ways, and get free clothing/food/shelter and occasional entertainment for life (lets not forget medical is covered as well). While elsewhere, even in this country(U.S.) you have folks going without food or shelter. Something about that just strikes me as horribly wrong.

mavkiel:
I admit I favor a more draconian system. By all means lets give folks a fair trial, but if they are found guilty, just shoot them and be done with it.

Yes, even with fair trials some people might be wrongfully executed, but society as a whole would benefit. How many resources are people like this worth? Because lets face it, we do not have unlimited resources to throw at every problem. Is this person worth not improving the school system in that state? Are they worth not feeding hungry kids in this country? Or any other social programs which would reduce criminal behavior. (After school programs, education, work programs, more police, etc etc)

And how many innocent people are you willing to put to death?

mavkiel:

However, I find spending the cash on these types of criminals distasteful in the extreme. Murder a few people in horrible ways, and get free clothing/food/shelter and occasional entertainment for life (lets not forget medical is covered as well). While elsewhere, even in this country(U.S.) you have folks going without food or shelter. Something about that just strikes me as horribly wrong.

Oh, it is horribly wrong, I agree. We're just disagreeing on how to fix it. To an extent, I'm sure we'd agree that better social security would contribute to prevention of some such crimes in the first place.

Jux:

And how many innocent people are you willing to put to death?

If conservative studies are correct, even killing an innocent would deter murder enough to, on balance, save the lives of several others.

If they aren't correct, that is a very difficult question to answer. How many people would I be willing to get killed to maintain speed limits where they are rather than reduce them about everywhere by 10 MPH? A lot of lives would be saved by lowering speed limits, yet we do not for good reasons. Freedom and justice demand certain dangers and sacrifices. My right to walk across a street endangers me, but I demand the right to typically do so.

I demand murderers face a fair, even, swift and reasonably certain death penalty too.

NotALiberal:

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).

"Rehabilitated" or not, this kid doesn't deserve to see the light of day.

You can't "rehabilitate" a rabid dog, the only course of action is to put it down. This kid clearly lacks all empathy, at the very least he should spend the rest of his miserable days in a padded cell with a strait jacket.

I think it's extremely funny, in a very sick way, that the one time rehabilitation instead of punishment should be especially used (if at all possible) as in the case of somebody with an obvious disease... is almost always the last time people will choose to use it.

I'm no medical expert, but I'm clearly seeing something here that should be dealt with by a doctor, a therapist and probably a good deal of medicine, rather than a firing squad.

Or you know, we could go down this path and be seen in the same barbaric light in 20-100 years that we now wag our 'enlightened' fingers at when we see things in the past such as "peine forte et dure" as a legal practice.

Gorfias:

Jux:

And how many innocent people are you willing to put to death?

If conservative studies are correct, even killing an innocent would deter murder enough to, on balance, save the lives of several others.

If they aren't correct, that is a very difficult question to answer. How many people would I be willing to get killed to maintain speed limits where they are rather than reduce them about everywhere by 10 MPH? A lot of lives would be saved by lowering speed limits, yet we do not for good reasons. Freedom and justice demand certain dangers and sacrifices. My right to walk across a street endangers me, but I demand the right to typically do so.

I demand murderers face a fair, even, swift and reasonably certain death penalty too.

Considering that in the past when we had even more severe punishments for crimes that we do now and that the death penalty was pretty wide spread crime was not only not wiped out by deterrence due to fear but actually regularly higher than it is now[1], and that America, one of the last bastions of the death penalty in the First World lags behind its contemporaries in cleaning up violent crime[2][3], I think it's fairly safe to say that killing people, innocent or not, isn't the best way to deter crime.

It's almost like criminal behavior has sources that don't spawn from rational statistical analysis or long term future planning!

You're sure as hell not buying safety with innocent lives. You're actually spending safety with innocent lives. So the idea that we need to fry a couple of innocents to sleep soundly at night is out the window. So why are we doing it? Because we love torture porn?

Your demands for the right to walk across the street safely and your demand that people accused of a crime be killed on the spot don't go hand in hand. Which is it? Do you want to be safer, or do you want to masturbate to the thought of people being killed? Because if it's the latter... I'm not entirely certain at what point you really deserve the 'right' to kill people to endanger yourself and mine.

You can make this into a "If I give up the freedom to murder people for my sick revenge fantasies for a little bit of safety, I deserve neither freedom nor safety!" bullshit sort of thing, I guess. Is that what you're doing?

Your comparison with the speed limit doesn't really even make sense if you think about it. See, allowing you to go faster than 10 miles per hour has uses and conveniences attached that are genuinely commonly thought of as good, like 'getting to places faster than a snail's pace'. There is a reason to give up the 'safety' of going 10 miles per hour (which, by the way isn't really all that statistically safer). Allowing you to murdering people so you can fantasize about it while making us all less safe doesn't have quite the same appeal.

I know that freedom has certain dangers, but I'm not quite sure that your personal revenge fantasies is one of those acceptable dangers.

Vegosiux:

mavkiel:

However, I find spending the cash on these types of criminals distasteful in the extreme. Murder a few people in horrible ways, and get free clothing/food/shelter and occasional entertainment for life (lets not forget medical is covered as well). While elsewhere, even in this country(U.S.) you have folks going without food or shelter. Something about that just strikes me as horribly wrong.

Oh, it is horribly wrong, I agree. We're just disagreeing on how to fix it. To an extent, I'm sure we'd agree that better social security would contribute to prevention of some such crimes in the first place.

I love the implication there isn't that we should treat our citizens better, it's that we should treat our prisoners worse. It's like, he's veering that idea so hard to the right to just try his damnedest to avoid being a decent human being.

Not to mention that even if you're a horrible person and all you care is about the public dollar, rehabilitation when possible cuts costs dramatically where as the death penalty ends up costing the public purse way more than just putting somebody in a cell.

I'm gonna say just up front that it's not hard to get into jail. If you think the deal is that sweet, grow a decent amount of marijuana plants and then flash it around. You don't even have to violate any real moral codes, unless you have some moral code against growing plants that the government will destroy. You could be in jail before I read your reply to this topic and knee deep in all that free heating and cornbread you're so yearning for.

And yet, somehow, I suspect that you won't take my advice on that.

evilthecat:
Seriously.. this made you question your rejection of the death penalty?

The kid is clearly not of sound mind. From the sounds of the transcript I'd guess he is schitzophrenic or has some kind of personality disorder. Both these things can be treated with varying degrees of effectiveness. The bigger question is whether society could ever accept this person were he to be successfully treated.

It always bothers me when people assume calm behaviour equates to sanity or malice. Excessively and inappropriately calm behaviour is as much an indicator as mental illness as stereotypical 'cuckoo for cocoa puffs' delirium. I don't know, I guess we'll have to see what comes out of it.

And yeah, as other people have mentioned, it generally costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison.

It actually screams mental illness way more than 'cuckoo for cocoa puffs' delirium because 'cuckoo' can be a valid response for dealing with trauma like this and being calm and uncaring really isn't.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked