posted 04-19- 03:53 PM            

In the case of, oh say Tim McVeigh... I say fry the bastard...slowly.

In many cases though...well, it's a toughy. There are definately folks that are too dangerous to allow to walk around in society...and if locked up they usually just continue to kill while incarcerated - but I'm not totally sure that the state should be the ones doing the execution. Perhaps it should be up to the families of the victims.

That being said, with our current system - I think the death penalty is a neccesary evil. My big problem with it is that there are at least a few innocent people on death row - and that's a major issue. Luckily the number of wrongful convictions is dropping due to better science - but it still is not a 100% sure thing. I don't like the idea of true psychopaths having the possibility of ever getting free but I also am not comfortable with even one innocent being executed. So.... long story short - I'm undecided.

posted 04-19- 04:05 PM               

I consider it a sad, but totally necessary, form of justice to keep a society from destroying itself. That, however, is very superficial. It isn't the death penalty itself that needs examination so much as the system which administers it. IMO, nowhere in the world, where a death penalty is used, is the system using it anywhere close to being efficient and just. That includes the USA.

If administered well, it is - again, IMO - a valid deterrent to the comission of violent crime. Again, that just touches the surface, as the reasons for believing or not believing that run very deep. To get into that subject very deeply, you could find yourself learning more about the human psyche than anyone would ever want to know. As you get answers, and begin to put them together, you may find yourself examining your own beliefs; remember to keep a open mind, and develop your own eventual opinions based on your own experiences, and not those of others.

What a interesting school assignment. Did you pick it, or was it pre-assigned?

------------------
nealg=FC=

posted 04-19- 05:55 PM               

LOL

I don't have an inherent problem with it except for 2 reasons.

1. People are still ending up on death row that arn't guilty and one inoccent person dieing is one to many.

2. We don't know what happens to someone when they die (don't let belifes [religious or otherwise] confuse the issue, WE DON'T KNOW!!!) Is it a punishment if they move on to a better place?

posted 04-19- 06:52 PM            

1. I never have, don't now, and likely never will trust our justice system with that kind of power. The system is comprised of people, people are fallible, thus the system is fallible. I don't know how bad it is elsewhere, but we've had several high profile wrongful conviction cases recently, where guys have spent decades in jail for offenses that I'm pretty sure in the US are capital.

2. It does not work as a deterrent. Yes to law-abiding, rational people who wouldn't commit a crime anyways it makes sense, but those aren't the people holed up in a house with enough ammo to supply a small central american country for a year.

Just my 0.02 cdn

Werner

posted 04-19- 07:10 PM               

LOL

I don't have an inherent problem with it except for 2 reasons.

1. People are still ending up on death row that arn't guilty and one inoccent person dieing is one to many.

2. We don't know what happens to someone when they die (don't let belifes [religious or otherwise] confuse the issue, WE DON'T KNOW!!!) Is it a punishment if they move on to a better place?

posted 04-19- 08:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spanky the Mad Dog:

1. People are still ending up on death row that arn't guilty and one inoccent person dieing is one to many.

---

Spanky if NOT having the death penalty results in one innocent person being murdered by someone who should have been executed, where do you stand?

posted 04-19- 09:05 PM               

I have never been convinced that the death penalty has any deterrant value whatsoever. I do not believe most criminals are concerned with the possiblity of a death penalty as they attempt their crimes.

Lastly, having represented a few accused criminals, I do not beleive that the legal system has adequate protections built in it to ensure that only the guilty are put to death.

As an alternative thought, if you realy want convicted criminals to suffer, them why provide them the release of death? Far better to take from them their lives in a daily reminder of their lack of freedom, choice, and joy. Death is really too easy an escape for a convicted "death row" felon.

posted 04-19- 10:18 PM               

If you feel the goal of Criminal Justice is to punish, then you should feel free to kill or otherwise mistreat the person' caught and convicted. If you feel the goal should be rehabilitation, then the criminal justice system should be unpleasant, but geared to educate and adjust the mindsets of those inside. If you feel the goal is to isolate criminals from the public, then you just need big think walls.

If you believe in predestination or fate, then there is no need to rehabilitate. If you belive in free will and and an essentially "good" primal nature of "man" then you will support rehabillitation. If you believe in a fundimentally "evil" nature of man, then you will not see the sense in rehabilitation, as it would seem pointless on an individual given into his "evil" nature.

The problem in most places is that the society belives in all of these in issues in differeing degrees, so they try all of the aproaches at once. As a result, none work.

I personally think that just as the levels of punishment elevate according to the crime, so should the lack of rehabilitation efforts.

My original post sounds harsh, even to me. I see that method as the resort for those persons who have proven themselves to be beyond rehabilitation, and too dangerous to allow access to the outside world. Persons who have failed efforts to control them or correct them. Persons who have also exausted their legal recourses.

posted 04-19- 10:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry:
Spanky, prison murders happen all the time...and guards and prison staff are always in jeopardy. What if one of them gets killed by your non-executed murderer? Is their innocent death less important than the "mistaken" execution death?

---

Prison guards accept that risk by entering the training process for that job. That's like joining the infantry and getting upset when people start shooting at you in a war, its rediculous, you know that's a risk going into it. Frankly I would be surprised if felons with murder convictions were any more responsible for prison guard murders than, say, mob kingpins or drug traffickers or other people convicted for crimes other than murder. Should we kill them too, for the sake of the prison guards?

I don't think the life of a corrections official is any less important than that of a person innocently sent to his death at the hands of the state, but I think the big difference is that the state is playing god when they use execution as a method of punishment.

I'm going to scare myself and sound leftist here, but if execution cannot possibly 'cleanse' society of those evil elements that commit crime, what about a balanced approach between punishment for the worst offenders (ie: life in prison, and I don't mean "Club Fed."), rehabilitation for petty thieves and their ilk, and prevention at the local level, addressing the societal and socio-economic factors that breed crime.

Now before you flame me as a commie nutjob from that ice-bound socialist country to the north, let me just say that I think in every issue the truth lies somewhere between the rhetoric of both left and right.

Pragmatism, not Idealism.

Werner

posted 04-19- 11:42 PM               

When you go into the hospital for even minor surgery you sign a waiver because there is the "chance" that you may die. Should we ban all medical procedures because of that risk?

Can Goth guarantee that he will get me off if I am charged with a crime, even if death is the penalty? No....but I'd still hire him.

You just don't avoid a behavior because there is a "chance" of an accidental death. If so, stop driving cars, swimming and sky diving.

There are plenty of other sound reasons for arguing against the death penalty, but not because a "mistake" might be made. Very few murderers are ever given capital punishment. The one's that are, are clear cut cases that go through years of appeals in front of numerous judges. It's not just a matter of 12 jurors having a bad day and making a mistake.

I have been intimately involved in a murder trial and you would be amazed at what it takes to convict...and this wasn't even a death penalty case.

posted 04-20- 12:50 AM            

I'm not trying to change your mind Jerry, but I still think you're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about the risk of accidental/wrongful death with capital punishment versus "risky" activities.

So, nicolai, do we get to read the multi-page term paper?

Werner

posted 04-20- 01:28 AM            

Werner

posted 04-20- 08:19 AM            

There will be a moratorium on it soon though..it's already starting to brew.

posted 04-20- 01:40 PM            

Is a soldier who kills in the service of his country a murderer? Or maybe I should make that a bombardier who potentially kills hundreds or even thousands... as this is a flight sim board.

How about a cop who kills in self defense? Or, for that matter anyone who kills to save their own life or others lives?

Perhaps the surgeon who is trying to save your from disease and loses you on the table is a murderer? It is definately arguable that you would have lived longer had the surgery not been done at all...

Murder, as socially defined, is the willing and wanton act of killing for selfish motive or pleasure. (Note: Killing where terrorism is involved falls under murder as well but is treated somewhat differently by our legal system.) The motive behind the death penalty is the protection of other people and society in general - not neccesarily the punishment of the criminal. (Note: I'm not saying that protection of people and society could not be achieved in any other way, but merely that in the past the line of reasoning stated above has been used, loosely, in legal battles to maintain capital punishment.) Under this context the actions of an executioner can be treated no differently than those of a soldier or police officer - both of whom are working to protect the society as whole. That does not neccesarily make the action right - it merely differentiates it from "murder".

-Stark

posted 04-20- 06:32 PM            

To the terrorist they are fighting a war...however, they usually do not openly belong to any known political state (ie. country) and are therefore not afforded the same rights as a captured soldier in time of war (who are usually not tried as murderers). Acts of terrorism are generally treated as a crime against the country as whole instead of an individual and tend to carry more drastic penalties than basic murder.

posted 04-20- 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:
A person convicted of murder and after having
exausted all appeals, etc. allowed by our
system to insure justice is done should be
put to death in the same manner as he killed
his victims. This should be done on TV so
everyone can see what the punishment is for
this crime.

---

I understand your reasoning Smokey, but take this McVeigh for instance - that's what he wants, his execution televised on national tv. Why? Because he will become a martyr, and his death will only spur other "militiamen" on to wage war against your government (demo or rep) by killing more innocent people.

Werner

posted 04-20- 10:01 PM            

Werner

posted 04-22- 07:24 PM            

That's probably true. I guess exicutions in
the old west and public executions involving
the guillotine took on a carnival atmosphere.
I still can't help thinking that most of the
people that view these executions said to
themselves "I don't ever want to do anything
that would put me in that position.".

I think it's gotta act as a deterant and the
more people that see it the more people it
will deter.

I look at it like this. Some guy gets executed,
you read about it in the paper. Big deal.
Some guy runs a red light and gets waxed in
a car wreck and you read about it in the
paper, unless you happen to know the guy it's
the same thing, big deal. However, if you
witnessed that wreck chances are you would
say "I'm never going to run a red light again.". I just think it would be the same
way for executions.