The Death Penalty

hedonist

Pingfah wrote:

There is no place for emotional outbursts in the justice system. Emotions cloud judgement, they must be set aside.

A fair justice system is a rational, logical one, not one based upon our "feelings".

Emotional "outbursts", no (although perfectly understood how they'd happen as we're not robots)...but there've been many a trial where the victims' families can speak their mind and heart when it comes to sentencing these sick fucks.

Pingfah

Of course, victim impact is important too, but there's a good reason why we don't let victims, or those personally affected by the case decide upon sentencing. They are not rational or objective, we need objective minds to decide these sorts of things.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pdalowsky wrote:

of course there is no right or wrong answer.

Im not a fan of either punishments, but the death sentence stands out as a hideous form of punishment to me as it involves both instant death and mental torture combined. OK the torture is brief, but that person on the day or week leading to his execution knows that as the seconds tick down he is closer to a pre determined date of death. When they come to collect him for the 'walk'.....that must be horrendous. I know these people committed awful crimes, but I find it uncomprehend able to be in that situation knowing you would die in an hours time.

The Petit girls faced much worse. Keep them in mind when you are feeling sorry for these depraved losers.

As much as an execution and the wait for it might be difficult for people such as these two bags of shit... oh well. These assholes didn't need to be sentenced to death. If they had only acted like half a human being we wouldn't be discussing them right now. Go ahead and rob the place... but just stop yourself from raping the girls and lighting them on fire to burn alive.

I feel that many DP opponents would change their minds- just like the religious Petit family has done- if it was them lying awake at night thinking of their daughter, after having been raped and tormented, struggling to walk while burning alive (not to mention the other daughter and wife who had their ordeals as well).

I offer full support for people such as William Petit. Will the execution of these two ease your suffering somewhat, William? Yes? Then you may have it. What's that, Joshua? You wish for forgiveness? Sorry. No apology can excuse your heinous act.

Pingfah

There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Pingfah wrote:

Of course, victim impact is important too, but there's a good reason why we don't let victims, or those personally affected by the case decide upon sentencing. They are not rational or objective, we need objective minds to decide these sorts of things.

By objective minds do you mean only minds that are strongly opposed to the DP? The process that served this case decided to sentence these murderers to death.

And it would be impossible for any human being to remain unaffected by such an event. You don't think jurors were personally affected by the case they were weighing in on after seeing crime scene photos and hearing horrific testimony? The very nature of such crimes cannot be ignored when deciding how to respond. Of course removing elements of the crime would work well for the defence by not damning the accused and emotionally influencing jurors; but I don't think sugar coating murders is in the interest of justice. If a panel of jurors and a judge is sickened by what they have learned throughout a trial... then there is a reason for this and they should respond accordingly.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Pingfah wrote:

There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?

Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.

Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.

pdalowsky

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

pdalowsky wrote:

of course there is no right or wrong answer.

Im not a fan of either punishments, but the death sentence stands out as a hideous form of punishment to me as it involves both instant death and mental torture combined. OK the torture is brief, but that person on the day or week leading to his execution knows that as the seconds tick down he is closer to a pre determined date of death. When they come to collect him for the 'walk'.....that must be horrendous. I know these people committed awful crimes, but I find it uncomprehend able to be in that situation knowing you would die in an hours time.

The Petit girls faced much worse. Keep them in mind when you are feeling sorry for these depraved losers.

As much as an execution and the wait for it might be difficult for people such as these two bags of shit... oh well. These assholes didn't need to be sentenced to death. If they had only acted like half a human being we wouldn't be discussing them right now. Go ahead and rob the place... but just stop yourself from raping the girls and lighting them on fire to burn alive.

I feel that many DP opponents would change their minds- just like the religious Petit family has done- if it was them lying awake at night thinking of their daughter, after having been raped and tormented, struggling to walk while burning alive (not to mention the other daughter and wife who had their ordeals as well).

I offer full support for people such as William Petit. Will the execution of these two ease your suffering somewhat, William? Yes? Then you may have it. What's that, Joshua? You wish for forgiveness? Sorry. No apology can excuse your heinous act.

well, I cant disagree with any of that. I do know for a fact that when considering these things subjectively, my whole stance changes. And that's the problem.....I always try and remain objective, but if this was my family....I know NOTHING would make me sane ever again. Its horrendous, and whilst I know little of this case, I have read enough here to know that these people technically revoked their human rights when they acted in a way that revoked their victims.

Im not saying what my beliefs are are correct or even make sense. Im just typing down my thought process......should we care what these people go through on their walk to death? I dunno, but im that type of person who struggles with the concept of death generally, so to place that on someone, even a monster and schedule is hard for me to comprehend.

Do I think these people deserve any better? No, but that doesn't make it easier to digest.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pdalowsky wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

pdalowsky wrote:

of course there is no right or wrong answer.

Im not a fan of either punishments, but the death sentence stands out as a hideous form of punishment to me as it involves both instant death and mental torture combined. OK the torture is brief, but that person on the day or week leading to his execution knows that as the seconds tick down he is closer to a pre determined date of death. When they come to collect him for the 'walk'.....that must be horrendous. I know these people committed awful crimes, but I find it uncomprehend able to be in that situation knowing you would die in an hours time.

The Petit girls faced much worse. Keep them in mind when you are feeling sorry for these depraved losers.

As much as an execution and the wait for it might be difficult for people such as these two bags of shit... oh well. These assholes didn't need to be sentenced to death. If they had only acted like half a human being we wouldn't be discussing them right now. Go ahead and rob the place... but just stop yourself from raping the girls and lighting them on fire to burn alive.

I feel that many DP opponents would change their minds- just like the religious Petit family has done- if it was them lying awake at night thinking of their daughter, after having been raped and tormented, struggling to walk while burning alive (not to mention the other daughter and wife who had their ordeals as well).

I offer full support for people such as William Petit. Will the execution of these two ease your suffering somewhat, William? Yes? Then you may have it. What's that, Joshua? You wish for forgiveness? Sorry. No apology can excuse your heinous act.

well, I cant disagree with any of that. I do know for a fact that when considering these things subjectively, my whole stance changes. And that's the problem.....I always try and remain objective, but if this was my family....I know NOTHING would make me sane ever again. Its horrendous, and whilst I know little of this case, I have read enough here to know that these people technically revoked their human rights when they acted in a way that revoked their victims.

Im not saying what my beliefs are are correct or even make sense. Im just typing down my thought process......should we care what these people go through on their walk to death? I dunno, but im that type of person who struggles with the concept of death generally, so to place that on someone, even a monster and schedule is hard for me to comprehend.

Do I think these people deserve any better? No, but that doesn't make it easier to digest.

PD...

This is all discussion. All on this forum are not the people we need to be worrying about- we have all taken time and energy to discuss a controversial topic. I sincerely value every effort and appreciate the efforts made on the part of others to have me think about my position. I have my view and you have yours. Neither is right or wrong- they are just our personal feelings on a difficult subject.

In the first post, I spoke to the fact that the film did make me think about and acknowledge the contrasting viewpoint to mine. I just remain steadfast in my position to be firmly entrenched in the corner of those who never asked for what they got and are suffering the most.

If people would just treat each other better... we wouldn't need to discuss what to do with them after the fact. Nobody wants to deal with a couple of depraved murderers... we are forced to deal with them. This point is where people differ.

I'm not saying execution is definitively right or wrong... I believe it is and arguing for it is a method of checking myself.

pdalowsky

again, another excellent post.

I have spent a lot of years opposed to the death penalty, however coming here and seeing the flipside is interesting as a gauge on the strength of my feelings and conviction. It is impossible to disagree with many a post here which favours the DP.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Godfather. wrote:

I just had an "early morning w/ no coffee yet thought"..
it seems as though the people on the train aginst the death penalty use the argument of life in solitary confinement
or in a small prison sell which is more painfull than death and in my mind that is a form of torture...is it not ? and some of those people that argue for life rather than the death penalty also argue that water bording and other forms of torture to get info from terorist is wrong...so which is it death or a life time torture ? I'm sure that if most of you worked in the prison system and were witness to the sanity of a man slowly rotting in a cell and hearing the screams of mental pain and suffering you may re-think your stance on the issue...maybe ?

Godfather.

I can't speak for anyone on the issue but myself, but when I say that solitary is worse than death, I mean that not to placate myself, it's more of a way to tell people who are pro-DP that that should be enough for them.

I am against all mental and physical torture of any means. I do not believe the ends justify the means.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pingfah wrote:

There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?

Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.

Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.

I think pingfah's point is that if you start letting the victims decide the fate, you can't have it only one way.

Pingfah

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pingfah wrote:

Of course, victim impact is important too, but there's a good reason why we don't let victims, or those personally affected by the case decide upon sentencing. They are not rational or objective, we need objective minds to decide these sorts of things.

By objective minds do you mean only minds that are strongly opposed to the DP? The process that served this case decided to sentence these murderers to death.

I'm not disputing the correctness of the sentence, it was on the table, the judge handed it down, fair enough that's his job. I just don't think it should have been on the table.

Had the trial happened somewhere else, it would not have been on the table, but I would still want a Judge to determine the sentence based on law and procedure, rather than his personal feelings on the matter or how sorry for the victims he feels.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pingfah wrote:

There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?

Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.

Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.

You're right, it is ridiculous, but you were the one who said DP opponents might react differently if it was them, there are many examples where the precise opposite is true. The fact that I might let my emotions get the better of my principles, is precisely the reason why I would not support giving the victims the choice over whether the death penalty is applied. Emotional gut reactions are not a reasonable basis for a consistent and fair system of justice.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pingfah wrote:

There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?

Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.

Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.

I think pingfah's point is that if you start letting the victims decide the fate, you can't have it only one way.

Victims shouldn't singularly decide fates. This was never expressed. Their needs must be considered when determining fates though- they should not be a factor eliminated from the spectrum of outcomes because they might be emotional- of course they are going to be emotional. This fact doesn't make them irrelevant.

If a grieving father is insistent upon execution given what has happened... then this must be strongly considered when determining the sentencing. And, working both ways (as I said in my response): if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Pingfah wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pingfah wrote:

Of course, victim impact is important too, but there's a good reason why we don't let victims, or those personally affected by the case decide upon sentencing. They are not rational or objective, we need objective minds to decide these sorts of things.

By objective minds do you mean only minds that are strongly opposed to the DP? The process that served this case decided to sentence these murderers to death.

I'm not disputing the correctness of the sentence, it was on the table, the judge handed it down, fair enough that's his job. I just don't think it should have been on the table.

Had the trial happened somewhere else, it would not have been on the table, but I would still want a Judge to determine the sentence based on law and procedure, rather than his personal feelings on the matter or how sorry for the victims he feels.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pingfah wrote:

There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?

Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.

Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.

You're right, it is ridiculous, but you were the one who said DP opponents might react differently if it was them, there are many examples where the precise opposite is true. The fact that I might let my emotions get the better of my principles, is precisely the reason why I would not support giving the victims the choice over whether the death penalty is applied. Emotional gut reactions are not a reasonable basis for a consistent and fair system of justice.

Except that 'emotional gut reactions' are in the moment when the news has been provided to you that your children have been murdered. Several years later... the 'moment' is no longer in the 'gut reaction' mode. It's in the 'seeking appropriate justice' mode.

DP opponents always talk about removing emotion and moving forward objectively. To my way of thinking, if this should be our method of operation... maybe we should also not disclose details of the murders. Instead of revealing that the 11 year old girl was raped and burned alive with cold depravity... maybe we should we just say, "Subject X was placed to rest?" Don't let any gory details affect our judgement as well? Would this serve justice? It's safe to say it would serve those convicted of gruesome crimes. Is this something you would like to see?

The emotions of the survivors and the nature of the crime must be factored in when sentencing murderers. This is part in parcel.

Pingfah

Well now you are being silly, the details of the crime are inextricable from the evidence. Of course they must all be examined. And for most people there is never a point at which the murder of their child is not going to provoke a gut emotional reaction.

But if you are applying the death penalty based on a victim's request, where otherwise you might not, that IS giving the victim effective power over life and death is it not?

I agree that to some extent victims should be taken into account, if only to give them a voice for catharsis, but not where the life or death of the perpetrator is at stake. I don't think the government should have that power, so why on earth would I think a member of the public should have it?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Pingfah wrote:

Well now you are being silly, the details of the crime are inextricable from the evidence. Of course they must all be examined. And for most people there is never a point at which the murder of their child is not going to provoke a gut emotional reaction.

But if you are applying the death penalty based on a victim's request, where otherwise you might not, that IS giving the victim effective power over life and death is it not?

I agree that to some extent victims should be taken into account, if only to give them a voice for catharsis, but not where the life or death of the perpetrator is at stake. I don't think the government should have that power, so why on earth would I think a member of the public should have it?

I'm saying that a victim's needs must be factored into sentencing. I'm not necessarily saying they should be the sole determinant. A parent of a child killed by a drunk driver would have to live with a prison sentence for their child's murderer. A parent of a child that was raped and mutilated might expect a little more given the nature of the crime. I wish to take nothing away from the countless heart broken parents who have lost a child to a drunken driver; but a cold, sinister and depraved act is a slightly different animal and should be treated accordingly.

I hope you are not suggesting we simply placate survivors? Let them say what we know they are thinking, pat them on the head, excuse them from the court room, and get on with business?

Pingfah

For the most part I trust that we have a justice system that can determine the correct sentence regardless, and if we don't, we should have.

A depraved murder is a depraved murder, regardless of how the relatives of the victim feel about it. Is it reasonable that somebody should get a lesser sentence for the same crime, just because there was no victim there to advocate for a harsher penalty? Sentences should be determined based on the crime.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Pingfah wrote:

For the most part I trust that we have a justice system that can determine the correct sentence regardless, and if we don't, we should have.

A depraved murder is a depraved murder, regardless of how the relatives of the victim feel about it. Is it reasonable that somebody should get a lesser sentence for the same crime, just because there was no victim there to advocate for a harsher penalty? Sentences should be determined based on the crime.

Exactly!

This is why I feel when two guys break into a house, rape women and children, and light them on fire to die... they should be sentenced to death.

chadwick

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pingfah wrote:

For the most part I trust that we have a justice system that can determine the correct sentence regardless, and if we don't, we should have.

A depraved murder is a depraved murder, regardless of how the relatives of the victim feel about it. Is it reasonable that somebody should get a lesser sentence for the same crime, just because there was no victim there to advocate for a harsher penalty? Sentences should be determined based on the crime.

Exactly!

This is why I feel when two guys break into a house, rape women and children, and light them on fire to die... they should be sentenced to death.

makes perfect sense to me

Pingfah

That's fine, but the existence of the death penalty is a completely different argument to that of victim impact sentencing.