DC Sniper put to death

[Hielor]

No. That's a straw man.

The criminal justice system has to operate under the principal of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but the difference is that the state has robbed one only of their rights as citizens, not their right to life. When an innocent man is arrested, his situation can have a legal remedy. When an innocent man is killed there is no legal remedy.

At which point you are providing convicted murderers with decent food, lodging, health care, entertainment, and education for the rest of their lives.

Brilliant plan.

 

[Ghostrider]

The criminal justice system has to operate under the principal of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but the difference is that the state has robbed one only of their rights as citizens, not their right to life. When an innocent man is arrested, his situation can have a legal remedy. When an innocent man is killed there is no legal remedy.

Again, it's not a due process issue but a punishment issue. If the conviction and trial are unjust, then even frowning at the defendant would be out of line.

And if you've put an innocent man behind bars for 20+ years, have you not deprived him of his life? Because he'll never get another one. What life he has now is ruined beyond remedy.

 

[insanity]

Again, it's not a due process issue but a punishment issue. If the conviction and trial are unjust, then even frowning at the defendant would be out of line.

And if you've put an innocent man behind bars for 20+ years, have you not deprived him of his life? Because he'll never get another one. What life he has now is ruined beyond remedy.

The issue, in my mind, is about the state killing someone in my name. I'm personally not comfortable with the idea of a conviction being absolute enough to ensure that innocents are not murdered.

 

[Ghostrider]

The issue, in my mind, is about the state killing someone in my name.

Well, in this case rest assured: if you live in the same universe as I do, the state does absolutely NOTHING in your name. It may claim to, but it's not the case. And if your country doesn't have the death penalty, it will still do stuff that will turn your stomach over.

I'm personally not comfortable with the idea of a conviction being absolute enough to ensure that innocents are not murdered.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of a conviction being absolute enough to insure that an innocent life is not destroyed at all but, again, it's not a punishment but a procedural issue.

 

[tblaxland]

At which point you are providing convicted murderers with decent food, lodging, health care, entertainment, and education for the rest of their lives.

Brilliant plan.

So what? Frankly, I am quite comfortable with that, given the alternatives. I don't think I could phrase it better than Justice Michael Kirby:

Prisoners are human beings. In most cases, they are also citizens of this country, "subjects of the Queen" and "electors" under the Constitution. They should, so far as the law can allow, ordinarily have the same rights as all other persons before this Court. They have lost their liberty whilst they are in prison. However, so far as I am concerned, they have not lost their human dignity or their right to equality before the law.

---------- Post added at 19:46 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------

And if you've put an innocent man behind bars for 20+ years, have you not deprived him of his life? Because he'll never get another one. What life he has now is ruined beyond remedy.

If you set him free, even at advanced age, he will have more of a life than if he were dead. I know what I would prefer, if I happened to be in those shoes.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Ironically, the reason that you can't get rid of the others is that there are requirements to be humane to prisoners.

With the number of long term penalties people get sentenced to in the USA (and the ridiculous law allowing the composite terms to sum up in total terms like 100 or 250 years) - that's instead of incarcerating forever only most outright scums - yes, you have to be humane towards all that bunch.

 

[Ghostrider]

If you set him free, even at advanced age, he will have more of a life than if he were dead. I know what I would prefer, if I happened to be in those shoes.

To do what, spend the rest of his shortened life in poverty and bitter resentment over the life he's been denied for nothing? I don't say it's better to kill a man, but that due diligence during the procedural phase should be exercised even when death penalty is not contemplated. You're always wrecking another man's life.

As for me, I know that once out I'd get myself a good set of surgical instruments and pay a house call to the judge who put me behind bars, if he's still alive. If not, next of kin. I'd freaking go Vincent Price on his ass.

 

[Urwumpe]

Lets call life-long prison of a innocent person a lesser evil. 20 years is extreme, but what if it takes just 2 years for finding out that the person is innocent? Would that be a irreplaceable loss? Something that the state can not compensate?

Ghostrider: I wouldn't get the judge, I would concentrate on the general attorney. The judge is usually replaceable in such cases.

 

[Ghostrider]

Ghostrider: I wouldn't get the judge, I would concentrate on the general attorney. The judge is usually replaceable in such cases.

Yes, but going Vincent Price on a DA gives you less street cred and is low on the lulz.

 

[RisingFury]

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?

There are ways of removing such people without killing them

 

[SiberianTiger]

As a legend goes, Joe liked to say: "No man, no problem"

 

[Ghostrider]

There are ways of removing such people without killing them

Yes, but we've been recently notified that sending them off to parallel universes is not acceptable anymore. Sending particularly evil people to otherwise fine universes results in goatees sprouting up there like mushrooms.

 

[Artlav]

It sounds like prohibiting everyone to open doors instead of hanging some locks where it matters.

Why is there so little research on why the nasty crimes happen in the first place?
How does a man gets so broken he starts shooting left and right?

 

[RisingFury]

How does a man gets so broken he starts shooting left and right?

Oh, just ask highschool or university students. Latelly there's a high chance one might answer correctly...

 

[Artlav]

Oh, just ask highschool or university students. Latelly there's a high chance one might answer correctly...

Yes, and their "answers" are distinctly different from the official explanations.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, and their "answers" are distinctly different from the official explanations.

Official answers : Computer games, Heavy metal, Beatles, Feminism, Books, Drugs, Sex before Marriage, obsessed by a demon...

 

[Ghostrider]

Official answers : Computer games, Heavy metal, Beatles, Feminism, Books, Drugs, Sex before Marriage, obsessed by a demon...

... Big bunny by the name of Frank told me to. He also says the world's gonna end.

 

[Hielor]

So what? Frankly, I am quite comfortable with that, given the alternatives.

Because society does not treat non-criminals as humanely.

Many people live in poverty, lacking health care, sufficient food, or even a safe place to live. They've done nothing wrong, certainly not killed anyone.

It appals me that society treats convicted murderers better than it treats the poor, who have violated no laws. There is something terribly wrong with such a society, I think.

 

[Linguofreak]

2nd: the right of the state to take out lives of its citizens is a rudiment of times when the power was believed to be of divine origin. A cavemen's chieftain, a pharao, a king crowned by Pope - all those historical characters could believe that people they ruled were their property they could freely dispose of.

At first I passed this over, but I just had a thought:

I don't think it's so much a matter of whether citizens are considered the property of the leaders of the state. I think it's more a matter of whether there is hope and fear of divine judgement. If so, you will see the following beliefs:

1. An innocent condemned to death has nothing to fear: His life is over, but he will be exonerated before God, and may well be rewarded for bearing ill treatment well.

2. A guilty person will answer before God whether or not he is convicted and punished, but conviction and punishment forces him to face his crimes and gives him the opportunity (whether he takes it or not) to repent.

3. An official who negligently or intentionally condemns an innocent person to death will answer to God, as will an official that negligently or intentionally fails to convict or level proper punishment against a guilty person.

4. Officials who convict the guilty and acquit the innocent will be rewarded by God.

Since I hold these beliefs, I remain fairly pro-death penalty, but it does help to explain to me why the death penalty has become such anathema in Western culture, where these beliefs are increasingly absent.

 

[Ghostrider]

Keep in mind that God doesn't like it one bit when you rely on Her for everything, especially in matters of life and death.