DC Sniper put to death

[replicant]

They put the "mastermind" of the DC sniper attacks to death last night. I must say that I shed no tears. I lived through that. Two days after I moved my wife and my then 6 month old son to Dulles/Herndon area for my new job, that started. It was the longest two months of my entire life.

 

[eveningsky339]

Can't say he didn't deserve it.

 

[jinglesassy]

good riddance sniper

 

[Linguofreak]

That's one of the faster executions we've had recently. Less than a decade from sentence to execution...

 

[insanity]

Can't say he didn't deserve it.

That is true, but the death penalty is still immoral.

 

[Urwumpe]

I can't believe in any person on this planet deserving death. The 911 attackers also thought that the people in the WTC deserved death. Was it right? Did they deserve it?

They deserved punishment, that is sure, but any death is a loss...may it be the enemy soldier, who just fought on the wrong side of the trench (Especially on this day) or the insane criminal, who can't control his actions anymore.

 

[Oceanic]

That is true, but the death penalty is still immoral.

i can't agree more, i really can't.

 

[Star Voyager]

When you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

 

[Hielor]

Which is more "moral:"
To remove from society a person who is incapable of being a contributing member of that society and by his very presence causes pain and suffering for others?

Or to have the rest of society subsidize the continued existence (and comfortable living) of such persons?

 

[jedimaster1214]

I remember when the shootings happened.... I was on the way home from my grandparents house outside DC. We passed by (i later learned) near where the shooters car was at the time. And about an hour later i saw about 10 police cars go by.... I was about 8 at the time and didn't really care. But my parents were really worried all of the way home.

 

[Star Voyager]

Which is more "moral:"
To remove from society a person who is incapable of being a contributing member of that society and by his very presence causes pain and suffering for others?

Or to have the rest of society subsidize the continued existence (and comfortable living) of such persons?

The former because killing innocent people is wrong. In order to prevent that person from killing again is to kill them.

 

[Urwumpe]

Which is more "moral:"
To remove from society a person who is incapable of being a contributing member of that society and by his very presence causes pain and suffering for others?

So, a society should have the right to violently purge itself of all useless members? Opens a can of worms. What if people that need welfare are considered incapable of contributing?

And what if you kill somebody who did not commit a crime, can you revert your decision up on better knowledge? Or do you start a new case in court, seeking the killer of the illegally executed citizen?

Or to have the rest of society subsidize the continued existence (and comfortable living) of such persons?

If you think that prison is a comfortable living... most people who have been there consider it a punishment.

Also, we have also a guy here, who is shooting at cars driving on the local A395 highway, who is still not caught, but also not yet caused fatalities.

 

[eveningsky339]

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

If you think that prison is a comfortable living... most people who have been there consider it a punishment.

The free healthcare and dental is pretty nice though. I wish I could have similar benefits from my employer.

 

[Hielor]

So, a society should have the right to violently purge itself of all useless members? Opens a can of worms. What if people that need welfare are considered incapable of contributing?

Someone such as this is worse than "useless" and is in fact a detriment to the society. There is a difference between not contributing and contributing negatively.

And what if you kill somebody who did not commit a crime, can you revert your decision up on better knowledge? Or do you start a new case in court, seeking the killer of the illegally executed citizen?

Not ever dispensing justice because you might be wrong is a good way to ensure that justice is never dispensed. We might be wrong about that person we send to prison, and since they wouldn't be get back the years of their life they spent in prison, would you start a new court case against the person who illegally confined them for years?

If you think that prison is a comfortable living... most people who have been there consider it a punishment.

Prison guarantees you food, health care, a place to sleep, and (often productive) ways to occupy your time, and the rest of society is paying for it all (at least, that's how it works in America, I don't know about everywhere else and I've never personally been to prison).

That's a whole lot nicer than a lot people who aren't in prison have it.

 

[Linguofreak]

And what if you kill somebody who did not commit a crime, can you revert your decision up on better knowledge? Or do you start a new case in court, seeking the killer of the illegally executed citizen?

Well, this wouldn't apply to all cases of mistaken executions, but my opinion is that perjury should carry a sentence equal to the sentence given out in the case in which perjury was committed: If you lie in court and someone gets executed as a result, you get executed.

 

[Star Voyager]

That seems fair, too.

 

[Zeehond]

I am against the death penalty because it is irreversible and I have trouble with the morality of killing a human being. A practical point is that the cost of the death penalty is often significantly higher than the cost of incarceration for life.

 

[Tomato3017]

I had the idea awhile back about banning the death penalty. The only time it would apply is if you we're in prison for life without parole and kill again(not in Self-Defense). That would be an automatic Death Penalty in my book, keeps "lifers" from killing people just because it can't get any worse for them. At least in states where the death penalty is banned(aka Michigan).

 

[Hielor]

A practical point is that the cost of the death penalty is often significantly higher than the cost of incarceration for life.

I find this very strange, and if it's true, then we need to find new and more efficient ways to kill people (there's a hint of sarcasm there).

Keeping someone clothed, fed, and in good health for the rest of their life would easily cost several hundred thousand dollars, I think. Yay for burdens on society, and criminals getting a free ride in life.

 

[insanity]

I'll outline my basic opposition to the death penalty:

1. Is it not an effective deterrent against crime. While there is no empirical data to justify the claim, I think the comparative rates of crimes in capital punishment vs. non-capital punishment states is negligible. If we look further at countries, then this is even more negligible.

2. There is always a degree of doubt in the verdict of a jury. If one human being is innocently executed in my name then I'm not comfortable having any human being be killed. Remember that states draw their legitimacy from the monopoly of force (in other words, they can kill and not get punished) and any coercion is done in the name of the citizens.

3. It is not cost-effective. Studies have shown that it costs the taxpayer more to kill someone than to incarcerate them for life.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

4. The idea of an eye for an eye is a little outdated. The cliche Ghandi quote still applies, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

So what does society get for killing people?

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

I find this very strange, and if it's true, then we need to find new and more efficient ways to kill people (there's a hint of sarcasm there).

Keeping someone clothed, fed, and in good health for the rest of their life would easily cost several hundred thousand dollars, I think. Yay for burdens on society, and criminals getting a free ride in life.

You can thank the United States Constitution for that. Take it up with Madison.