Against the Death Penalty

[Unknown Soldier]

If society condones killing the enemy in wars,
Why don't we conscript serial killers?

We don't need to when we can make as many as we want.

 

[DBT]

Yet, in principle, you become the monster. You kill not out of self defence, but mere expediency.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

You kill because it suits you. You kill because you think it solves a problem and you find that satisfying.

The execution of these monsters gets them out of the way and they are not going to be a burden on the prison system. I don't get any satisfaction or gratification from the death of these monsters. They have proved to be a grave danger to society and always will be. The most efficient way of dealing with them is to off them. If you are squeamish about it, provide them with the means to kill themselves. I am sure a decent number of them would opt for suicide rather than sit in prison for decades.

Obviously you do get satisfaction, otherwise you wouldn't support capital punishment, where the act is brutal, mistakes are made and innocent people have been executed.

It is the act of execution and the willingness to kill, to execute, not for justice or self defence, but mere expediency that makes your position immoral.

 

[TomC]

It is the act of execution and the willingness to kill, to execute, not for justice or self defence, but mere expediency that makes your position immoral.

I understand why ancient primitive people operated that way. They didn't have the resources or sophistication available now. There are tons similar moral issues. But we can do much better today.

As @Tigers! points out, there are still issues like recidivism. We need to work on those, going forward, as well. But state sanctioned killings don't help.
Tom

 

[TSwizzle]

Yet, in principle, you become the monster. You kill not out of self defence, but mere expediency.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

You kill because it suits you. You kill because you think it solves a problem and you find that satisfying.

The execution of these monsters gets them out of the way and they are not going to be a burden on the prison system. I don't get any satisfaction or gratification from the death of these monsters. They have proved to be a grave danger to society and always will be. The most efficient way of dealing with them is to off them. If you are squeamish about it, provide them with the means to kill themselves. I am sure a decent number of them would opt for suicide rather than sit in prison for decades.

Obviously you do get satisfaction, otherwise you wouldn't support capital punishment,

I get no more satisfaction at the thought of a monster being executed than I do when I take a shit.

where the act is brutal, mistakes are made and innocent people have been executed.

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

Good luck crafting super-selective criminal codes that will a) target only the 'truly guilty' and b) eliminate the prosecutorial abuses that put the documented exonerees on Death Row. Conservative courts in recent decades have narrowed the window on appeals and in some cases put deadlines on putting new exculpatory evidence into an appeal. The search for a perfect death penalty is illusory.

 

[TSwizzle]

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

Good luck crafting super-selective criminal codes that will a) target only the 'truly guilty' and b) eliminate the prosecutorial abuses that put the documented exonerees on Death Row. Conservative courts in recent decades have narrowed the window on appeals and in some cases put deadlines on putting new exculpatory evidence into an appeal. The search for a perfect death penalty is illusory.

It's something that can be worked on. I don't think it is impossible.

 

[thebeave]

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

Good luck crafting super-selective criminal codes that will a) target only the 'truly guilty' and b) eliminate the prosecutorial abuses that put the documented exonerees on Death Row. Conservative courts in recent decades have narrowed the window on appeals and in some cases put deadlines on putting new exculpatory evidence into an appeal. The search for a perfect death penalty is illusory.

The idea that life in prison without parole is somehow preferable to the death penalty, because there's a chance the person might not be guilty has always been problematic for me. Either way, their life is ruined. Can you imagine being found innocent after being locked up your whole adult life (say 50 years) and then being told, "Hey, good news! We just found the real killer. You're free to go! Aren't you glad we didn't execute you way back when?!"

 

[ideologyhunter]

The exonerees I met and talked with got out with a mission to tell their stories to the public (which is why they were at the speaking event I attended.) One of them had an ongoing lawsuit against the state (Ohio) to get compensation. All of them mentioned how they came out with no tech skills because computers had taken over daily life. All of them found it difficult to find good jobs. But their lives were not 'ruined' -- they all had hopes of getting back to stable lives, and many of them were able to return to families who helped out. They were keenly aware of the lost time, but surprisingly upbeat about their abilities and the promise of a future. Yes, it would suck to be imprisoned unfairly, but it beats being given a lethal injection.

 

[TomC]

The idea that life in prison without parole is somehow preferable to the death penalty, because there's a chance the person might not be guilty has always been problematic for me. Either way, their life is ruined.

So much this!^^^^
When Timothy McVeigh said, "I'd rather be dead than spend the rest of my life in prison." I thought that very sensible. A lot like a terminal cancer patient who has no worthwhile life to live. I'd probably feel the same way.

Figure out the most humane way to give them their wish and get on with it.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the mid-90s, two professors at Northwestern (Lawrence Marshall and David Protess) assigned their journalism students the project of investigating capital murder convictions (mainly from Cook County) where there was alleged error. In 1996, they got two men exonerated on a murder charge (two others with life sentences from the same case were also exonerated.) A few years later, a convict named Anthony Porter was exonerated two days before he was scheduled to be executed. The students often investigated cases in which there never had been a shred of physical evidence, prosecutors relying instead on witness statements (some of them proven to be perjury by the students) or incriminating accusations made by felons. The calculated error rate in capital convictions in Illinois since the resumption of the death penalty in, I think, 1973: 6%. And if it is "only" 6%, then one out of every 16 people on death row was innocent. That statistic was so outrageous that Gov. Ryan declared a moratorium on executions in Illinois in 2000. Just imagine the cases that never had the attention of a class of college students -- and imagine the standard of prosecutorial fairness and diligence if college undergrads can find proof of false conviction. If you're convicted and put on Death Row, your fate also depends on the temperament of your state's governor. Bush II as Texas governor was notoriously cavalier about clemency appeals -- he had a boilerplate response which was that the convicts had already had fair access to the Texas justice system, and he wasn't going to intervene.

Indeed, which is why the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases where innocence is impossible.

Unfortunately, the extreme cases tend to be ones where there are often flaws. Something horrible happened, there's a great pressure to punish the guilty--but a DA who says "wait, we aren't sure this is the guy" is liable to get thrown out of office.

 

[bilby]

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

Good luck crafting super-selective criminal codes that will a) target only the 'truly guilty' and b) eliminate the prosecutorial abuses that put the documented exonerees on Death Row. Conservative courts in recent decades have narrowed the window on appeals and in some cases put deadlines on putting new exculpatory evidence into an appeal. The search for a perfect death penalty is illusory.

It's something that can be worked on. I don't think it is impossible.

Mate, you don't think climate change is a problem; You don't think the Daily Mail is a worthless rag; And you don't think that the Covid lockdowns saved lives.

The utter shit that you don't think is NOT a guide to reality.

 

[DBT]

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

Good luck crafting super-selective criminal codes that will a) target only the 'truly guilty' and b) eliminate the prosecutorial abuses that put the documented exonerees on Death Row. Conservative courts in recent decades have narrowed the window on appeals and in some cases put deadlines on putting new exculpatory evidence into an appeal. The search for a perfect death penalty is illusory.

The idea that life in prison without parole is somehow preferable to the death penalty, because there's a chance the person might not be guilty has always been problematic for me. Either way, their life is ruined. Can you imagine being found innocent after being locked up your whole adult life (say 50 years) and then being told, "Hey, good news! We just found the real killer. You're free to go! Aren't you glad we didn't execute you way back when?!"

Perhaps the question of whether life is worth living or not is up to the prisoner, just as it is with the rest of us, and not for someone else to decide.

 

[DBT]

Yet, in principle, you become the monster. You kill not out of self defence, but mere expediency.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

You kill because it suits you. You kill because you think it solves a problem and you find that satisfying.

The execution of these monsters gets them out of the way and they are not going to be a burden on the prison system. I don't get any satisfaction or gratification from the death of these monsters. They have proved to be a grave danger to society and always will be. The most efficient way of dealing with them is to off them. If you are squeamish about it, provide them with the means to kill themselves. I am sure a decent number of them would opt for suicide rather than sit in prison for decades.

Obviously you do get satisfaction, otherwise you wouldn't support capital punishment,

I get no more satisfaction at the thought of a monster being executed than I do when I take a shit.

where the act is brutal, mistakes are made and innocent people have been executed.

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

Whether you give a shit or not, the act of taking someone life is brutal regardless of how clinically or 'gently' the act may be carried out.

 

[TSwizzle]

Whether you give a shit or not, the act of taking someone life is brutal regardless of how clinically or 'gently' the act may be carried out.

In your opinion but I disagree.

 

[thebeave]

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

Good luck crafting super-selective criminal codes that will a) target only the 'truly guilty' and b) eliminate the prosecutorial abuses that put the documented exonerees on Death Row. Conservative courts in recent decades have narrowed the window on appeals and in some cases put deadlines on putting new exculpatory evidence into an appeal. The search for a perfect death penalty is illusory.

The idea that life in prison without parole is somehow preferable to the death penalty, because there's a chance the person might not be guilty has always been problematic for me. Either way, their life is ruined. Can you imagine being found innocent after being locked up your whole adult life (say 50 years) and then being told, "Hey, good news! We just found the real killer. You're free to go! Aren't you glad we didn't execute you way back when?!"

Perhaps the question of whether life is worth living or not is up to the prisoner, just as it is with the rest of us, and not for someone else to decide.

Interesting idea. Maybe that could work...give them the choice of life in prison or death. Would be interesting to see what people prefer.

 

[DBT]

The execution need not be brutal. As I said earlier, the death sentence should only apply to extreme cases, Gacy, Bundy etc.

Good luck crafting super-selective criminal codes that will a) target only the 'truly guilty' and b) eliminate the prosecutorial abuses that put the documented exonerees on Death Row. Conservative courts in recent decades have narrowed the window on appeals and in some cases put deadlines on putting new exculpatory evidence into an appeal. The search for a perfect death penalty is illusory.

The idea that life in prison without parole is somehow preferable to the death penalty, because there's a chance the person might not be guilty has always been problematic for me. Either way, their life is ruined. Can you imagine being found innocent after being locked up your whole adult life (say 50 years) and then being told, "Hey, good news! We just found the real killer. You're free to go! Aren't you glad we didn't execute you way back when?!"

Perhaps the question of whether life is worth living or not is up to the prisoner, just as it is with the rest of us, and not for someone else to decide.

Interesting idea. Maybe that could work...give them the choice of life in prison or death. Would be interesting to see what people prefer.

Sure, but I wouldn't want the judicial system to make a call on whether someone's life is worth living as a criteria for execution.

 

[DBT]

Whether you give a shit or not, the act of taking someone life is brutal regardless of how clinically or 'gently' the act may be carried out.

In your opinion but I disagree.

Killing someone, the nature of taking a life, is an act that has its own conditions. The nature of the act of killing someone is not subject to my opinion or yours,

 

[TSwizzle]

Whether you give a shit or not, the act of taking someone life is brutal regardless of how clinically or 'gently' the act may be carried out.

In your opinion but I disagree.

Killing someone, the nature of taking a life, is an act that has its own conditions. The nature of the act of killing someone is not subject to my opinion or yours,

Everything is subject to someone’s opinion.

 

[TomC]

Whether you give a shit or not, the act of taking someone life is brutal regardless of how clinically or 'gently' the act may be carried out.

In your opinion but I disagree.

Killing someone, the nature of taking a life, is an act that has its own conditions. The nature of the act of killing someone is not subject to my opinion or yours,

Everything is subject to someone’s opinion.

But some moral opinions are more primitive and ugly than others.
Tom

 

[DBT]

Whether you give a shit or not, the act of taking someone life is brutal regardless of how clinically or 'gently' the act may be carried out.

In your opinion but I disagree.

Killing someone, the nature of taking a life, is an act that has its own conditions. The nature of the act of killing someone is not subject to my opinion or yours,

Everything is subject to someone’s opinion.

The act of killing someone, how it is carried out, the finality of death, is what it is regardless of anyone's opinion. Opinion doesn't alter the facts of execution.