The world is a little better place today

[bodyman5001]

After reading this, I feel just a bit better than I did this morning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/texas_execution

Does stuff like this change anyone's view of the death penalty?

Anyone not for it even in this case?
Anyone think it wasn't enough of a sentence?

 

[Minstrel]

After reading this, I feel just a bit better than I did this morning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/texas_execution

Does stuff like this change anyone's view of the death penalty?

Anyone not for it even in this case?
Anyone think it wasn't enough of a sentence?

I'm not for it. For me, it's not a function of the crime, I simply don't feel society has the ethical right to take life. Just because society as a whole agrees on it (by proxy, through the government and justice system) doesn't, in my opinion, give it a greater ethical justification than a citizen who murders someone because he/she felt their victim deserved to die.

 

[maxiep]

I'm actually against the death penalty. I have three primary reasons:

1. Death is too good for these maggots. Either there's an afterlife or there isn't. If there isn't, then death is often a relief. If there is, what's a few decades when compared with eternity?

2. It's more expensive to kill someone than it is to lock them up without hope for parole.

3. It's the one penalty that's irrevocable. It was found in Illinois a few years ago that there were several people on DR who weren't guilty of the crimes with which they were charged.

Let's make one thing clear, however. I want to ensure the prisoners given life sentences give exactly that--their life. I want every bit of joy and pleasure they may ever experience in prison wrenched from them.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I am for the death penalty under certain circumstances.

But I don't take any pleasure in knowing someone died. This is sad on many levels.

 

[bodyman5001]

I'm actually against the death penalty. I have three primary reasons:

1. Death is too good for these maggots. Either there's an afterlife or there isn't. If there isn't, then death is often a relief. If there is, what's a few decades when compared with eternity?

2. It's more expensive to kill someone than it is to lock them up without hope for parole.

3. It's the one penalty that's irrevocable. It was found in Illinois a few years ago that there were several people on DR who weren't guilty of the crimes with which they were charged.

Let's make one thing clear, however. I want to ensure the prisoners given life sentences give exactly that--their life. I want every bit of joy and pleasure they may ever experience in prison wrenched from them.

I mostly agree with this but I have another reason as well.

As for each point..

1. Pretty much totally agree with that, which is why I never make fun of religious people. If they are right, good for them.

2. This one I wouldn't really care about

3. THIS is the one that makes it hard for me to be for it in general. I know that people are wrongly convicted and I couldn't imagine what it would be like to be executed if you were innocent. I believe that there should be a way higher burden of proof for the death penalty such as one of any of the following.....

1. Have it on video tape (probably can't use this with video technology that exists today)
2. Have real hard evidence and guy admits to the crime.

So basically I agree with you in general and yet disagree with its go time....I am GLAD that fucker is dead.

Your test said I am a centrist, wonder if this fits?

 

[bodyman5001]

I'm not for it. For me, it's not a function of the crime, I simply don't feel society has the ethical right to take life. Just because society as a whole agrees on it (by proxy, through the government and justice system) doesn't, in my opinion, give it a greater ethical justification than a citizen who murders someone because he/she felt their victim deserved to die.

That seems completely logical but I think human beings as a whole tend to take great pleasure in revenge. I do, I admit.

 

[GMJ]

I think that if someone commits murder, and it can be proved without a doubt that it was their intention to kill that person, they should receive the death penalty.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think that if someone commits murder, and it can be proved without a doubt that it was their intention to kill that person, they should receive the death penalty.

So if someone breaks into my house and is armed, on drugs and there are other people in the house including children. I shoot him with the intention to kill him. I should get the death penalty?

 

[bodyman5001]

So if someone breaks into my house and is armed, on drugs and there are other people in the house including children. I shoot him with the intention to kill him. I should get the death penalty?

I don't think that fits the legal definition of murder....

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't think that fits the legal definition of murder....

OK. Someone who gets repeatedly raped by a relative when they are a child. When they become an adult, they are all messed up in the head and seek out and kill the person that abused them for years.

Death Penalty?

 

[bodyman5001]

OK. Someone who gets repeatedly raped by a relative when they are a child. When they become an adult, they are all messed up in the head and seek out and kill the person that abused them for years.

Death Penalty?

Not in a million years.

This is the problem with the death penalty for shizzle, all kinds of mitigating circumstances.

Did I just use snoop dogg lingo and the term mitigating circumstances in the same sentence? Did I spell it right and did it make sense?

 

[Ed O]

OK. Someone who gets repeatedly raped by a relative when they are a child. When they become an adult, they are all messed up in the head and seek out and kill the person that abused them for years.

Death Penalty?

I say yes.

Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow, but I don't have any problem punishing for an act, irrespective of whether the person was competent or not. I don't mind punishing for an act that, at a cosmic level, was a type of justice.

I personally think that many kinds of murder should result in the death penalty for the convicted. I know that some people will be falsely accused and occasionally falsely killed by the state (although, as I understand it, no one has been proven innocent after punished capitally in the US). That's sad, but we accept imperfections every day in almost every walk of life, and I don't see why capital punishment should be different.

Ed O.

 

[maxiep]

Your test said I am a centrist, wonder if this fits?

Perhaps you placed the map of your ideology on his face and it made a convenient crosshair? My ideology would have missed high and to the right.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I support the death penalty for cases of aggravated first degree murder. I also think the evidence must be compelling and I also think the family of the victim ought to have the opportunity to throw the switch.

 

[CelticKing]

I support the death penalty for cases that the criminal has killed 1+ person, where it wasn't an accident of some kind (car, gun accident, etc), in cases where you know that person is a criminal and will never change.

The rest should get life in prison, or whatever else they get from the judge.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think it is hard to make bright line kind of rules when it comes to the state taking someone's life. There are so many different senarios that come up.

But in effect is the state commiting murder when tehy take someone's life? It is a planned and intentional death the state is doing. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, but to get to the extreme where the government is particpating in murder, it should be reserved for the most henious acts of murder by the individual, IMO.

 

[Denny Crane]

So if someone breaks into my house and is armed, on drugs and there are other people in the house including children. I shoot him with the intention to kill him. I should get the death penalty?

It's self defense, which is what the death penalty is. Someone breaks into the house of society, is armed, on drugs, and there are other people in society's house including children.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think it is hard to make bright line kind of rules when it comes to the state taking someone's life. There are so many different senarios that come up.

But in effect is the state commiting murder when tehy take someone's life? It is a planned and intentional death the state is doing. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, but to get to the extreme where the government is particpating in murder, it should be reserved for the most henious acts of murder by the individual, IMO.

No Person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without Due Process.

No matter how imperfect Due Process may be, unless it's an utter sham, the constitution considered it from day 1.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

It's self defense, which is what the death penalty is. Someone breaks into the house of society, is armed, on drugs, and there are other people in society's house including children.

My only point with taht senario is some said that they think anytime someone commits murder, that person should be executed.

I gave an example where I don't think the death penalty would be fair. If you say it's not murder it is self-defense, well without getting into all the legal defintions, I gave another example.

My only point is there are sitautions where someone commits murder that I do not think the death penalty is justified.

 

[Denny Crane]

My only point with taht senario is some said that they think anytime someone commits murder, that person should be executed.

I gave an example where I don't think the death penalty would be fair. If you say it's not murder it is self-defense, well without getting into all the legal defintions, I gave another example.

My only point is there are sitautions where someone commits murder that I do not think the death penalty is justified.

Death penalty is not justified in cases of self defense. In fact, you probably get off with no charge, unless you do something premeditated.

There's lots of situations where killing is allowed. The executioner isn't put on trial. A soldier in the field that kills an enemy soldier. Self defense, as you mentioned. Abortion.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Death penalty is not justified in cases of self defense. In fact, you probably get off with no charge, unless you do something premeditated.

There's lots of situations where killing is allowed. The executioner isn't put on trial. A soldier in the field that kills an enemy soldier. Self defense, as you mentioned. Abortion.

Well I don't think dealth penalty should be justified in a lot of situations, not just self defense or even where killing is allowed. I think there are times people commit murder (with no legal defenses) that should not be subject to the death penalty. That was my only point . . . that I'm obviously not stating clearly. : )

 

[Denny Crane]

Well I don't think dealth penalty should be justified in a lot of situations, not just self defense or even where killing is allowed. I think there are times people commit murder (with no legal defenses) that should not be subject to the death penalty. That was my only point . . . that I'm obviously not stating clearly. : )

The death penalty IS rare. There's been something like 4,000 total executions in the USA since 1900.

I'm helping you out here, I think we are in violent agreement.

 

[MikeDC]

I've got mixed feelings.

There are plenty of specific instances in which I have no problem with it, but as a general rule, I don't think society is capable of administering capital punishment fairly or efficiently, so I don't think we should use it. I don't mind putting unrepentent murderers of the innocent to death, but in practice it's much more expensive than the benefit society gets from it, and despite all the expense it's still not done very fairly; we generally end up executing only the stupidest murderers rather than the ones who are probably most deserving.

 

[mook]

I'm an avid hunter, so killing things doesn't really make me squeamish. I just don't think it's something that improves our sense of humanity, in addition to the great reasons already listed.

I wonder why nobody has ever argued for just sticking the worst of the worst in a big room and putting them all in medically-induced comas. I would think it'd be a lot cheaper to house them, they'd be no danger to anyone, there's no real opportunity for them to enjoy life, and if you discovered they were innocent you could always revive them.

You hire one doctor and a small staff of assistants to monitor them and change bedpans/feeding tubes/etc and that's it. Could be very minimal security needed.

 

[Minstrel]

It's self defense, which is what the death penalty is. Someone breaks into the house of society, is armed, on drugs, and there are other people in society's house including children.

I don't think the death penalty can be justified as an extended form of "societal self-defense." Jailing them accomplishes the self-defense.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

OK, I'll display my ignorance. Why does it cost more to kill someone than house them for the rest of their life?

 

[Real]

I'm a supporter of the death penalty. I think it should definitely be an option at all times.

 

[huevonkiller]

I've got mixed feelings.

There are plenty of specific instances in which I have no problem with it, but as a general rule, I don't think society is capable of administering capital punishment fairly or efficiently, so I don't think we should use it. I don't mind putting unrepentent murderers of the innocent to death, but in practice it's much more expensive than the benefit society gets from it, and despite all the expense it's still not done very fairly; we generally end up executing only the stupidest murderers rather than the ones who are probably most deserving.

Yes I have very similar concerns as well, which is why I'm probably against it. I certainly think some people deserve it, but I'm afraid of the collateral damage.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think the death penalty can be justified as an extended form of "societal self-defense." Jailing them accomplishes the self-defense.

By definition, the death penalty is an extended form of "societal self defense" just as jailing people for lesser crimes is.

 

[Denny Crane]

OK, I'll display my ignorance. Why does it cost more to kill someone than house them for the rest of their life?

Because of the jail facility costs, the court costs for all the appeals, and that kind of thing.