revenge is not wrong. sure it can be done better or for worse. in many cases revenge would be a beautiful thing. there are many levels of revenge as each situation would be different. my beliefs are that well deserved violence helps keep nasty bullshit in check. it also rids decent living from evil ass dudes.
oh my, here i am talking the milder stuff.
the death penalty is not revenge at all. it is more of a cleansing the world of freaks, monsters & maniacs who have taken extreme joy in hurting, killing & destroying decent lives. this is very good, to put these dangerous souls to rest
The parents of the 3 year old that was raped and murdered must be overjoyed. But who cares about those grieving, bloodlusting 'savages' that wish death for the poor soul who raped and mutilated their child... right Know1 and RG? It's pretty easy to scoff at others for abhorring the most depraved acts and their perpetrators when one believes in 'fluff'. You know... really fancy sounding stuff with no practicality to it?
Know... you've been spouting a bit of fluff these past days. I noticed you never responded to the comment I made to the ridiculous one you posted earlier when you said violence as a response to anything is wrong. I had responded by saying that the allied response to Nazi Germany's aggression was wrong then? That tyranny and evil should have been allowed to run its course? I think you need to re-think your position- it's been really poorly formed. Unless, of course, you are a monk and really walking the walk.
Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford. The rapist and murderer of a child has no place on this earth... period. Some crimes demand a punishment that fits the nature of the crime.
This is a financial move and not a moral one. The victims and their survivors in this case are denied justice because the state wishes to save money. If it wants to save money... then do it. Why such a ridiculous process? When people are caught red-handed with severed heads in their fridges or caught escaping the scene laughing and high fiving after raping and murdering three women... well... one woman and two young girls (such as the Cheshire murderers)... then to my way of thinking... the process can be really quick. Really quick.
Lastly, how flawed is the following rationale for change: people with less income and less money to spend on their defence are more likely to get the death penalty, and whether or not someone gets the death penalty can depend on which county their crime occurs in?
In essence, this is saying: some psychopaths can't afford the lawyers to protect them from the death penalty and others can. It's not fair to the poor psychopaths that they can't afford the legal team to protect them from the penalty some seek after they have committed their crimes.
You don't want to die via state execution? Leave other people's kids alone.
a father or mother has the high ground & if they like, they can put a round through their child's rapist/killer. to me this makes a lot of sense. if i had a child & some nasty bastard violated my child i would without hesitation place a bullet into their stupid ass skull. i also highly doubt i'd see 13 seconds of prison time
thirty bills unpaid... you're fantastic & i enjoy your writing & beliefs
Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford.
This is absolutely disingenuous. Being against the death penalty does not imply that you "feel sorry" for criminals, and nobody you are arguing against said anything of the sort.
It completely undermines the integrity of the rest of your point when you resort to strawman arguments such as this.
Know... you've been spouting a bit of fluff these past days. I noticed you never responded to the comment I made to the ridiculous one you posted earlier when you said violence as a response to anything is wrong. I had responded by saying that the allied response to Nazi Germany's aggression was wrong then? That tyranny and evil should have been allowed to run its course? I think you need to re-think your position- it's been really poorly formed. Unless, of course, you are a monk and really walking the walk.
Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford. The rapist and murderer of a child has no place on this earth... period. Some crimes demand a punishment that fits the nature of the crime.
Sorry - I didn't ignore it on purpose. I don't recall seeing it although I've answered that question many years ago as well.
I think there is a BIG difference between an event like Nazi Germany or even as small as an individual kidnapping occurring that it's at least somewhat justified in my mind to save people or individuals who are in harms way or in serious danger of being killed. If that means using deadly force is the only option that will work, then I can see that.
But...that's a TON different than an individual who is already apprehended, behind bars and in no danger to anyone anymore. If you kill them at that point, it is revenge murder in my mind. It serves no purpose and drags those who are looking forward to that person being executed down to a similar level.
I also never said I felt sorry for any of the killers.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford.
This is absolutely disingenuous. Being against the death penalty does not imply that you "feel sorry" for criminals, and nobody you are arguing against said anything of the sort.
It completely undermines the integrity of the rest of your point when you resort to strawman arguments such as this.
No... but they said: getting revenge is wrong and I think people who seek it are no better than those who did the initial act.
So... the implication here is what? People who seek an appropriate level of justice for raped, murdered and mutilated children are as bad as the people who have committed these acts?
The 'other' post claimed: the savages though can take heart in the fact that prison is worse than death.
So what is this implying? People who think that heinous crimes should not be met with the same punishment we reserve for drug dealers are savages?
So... try to reserve judgement on people's tactics in a manner that isn't strictly fit to suit your beliefs, Ping. You never bothered to address those posts for their weak efforts to paint DP proponents as 'less than satisfactory' (to put it mildly).
My post stands and is more than legitimate. There are people who feel sorry for these losers. I have illustrated several cases where, for example, some idiot marries some depraved murderer.
Just on the radio coming to work today... a shitbagger named Allan Schoeneborn had previously murdered his three children in a rage- angry at his ex-wife. It was a messy and wet crime committed by an animal. The courts laughably found him not criminally responsible- they love doing that for drug addicts. And, bleeding heart idiots eagerly campaigned to grant him day passes to which, astonishingly, they were afforded. Of course... the public become outraged and the courts quickly rescinded their decision. Now, he's making the news again... he wishes to be transferred to Winnipeg so he can be closer to his mom.
What's my point? It should be obvious. Some people have their heads shoved squarely up their asses and are completely out of touch with reality. This guy should die. His crime is not a 'run-of-the-mill' crime- it is an obscenity to which had the effect of eroding the fabric of our society. To reflect our level of disdain for such a brutal act... we needed to respond with a punishment befitting of the crime.
Not day passes, three square meals a day, internet, books, and counselling.
the death penalty is not revenge at all. it is more of a cleansing the world of freaks, monsters & maniacs who have taken extreme joy in hurting, killing & destroying decent lives. this is very good, to put these dangerous souls to rest
Chadwick: How easy and simplistic - and how mindlessly fantasist - to simply reclassify criminals as "freaks, monsters & maniacs". Means you can disingenuously convince yourself you are justified in dismissing everything without having to engage with anything so inconvenient as rational, reasonable or logical debate. Carry on, by all means, but don't imagine that you are making anything remotely like a convincing or even sensible case.
So... the implication here is what? People who seek an appropriate level of justice for raped, murdered and mutilated children are as bad as the people who have committed these acts? ...
What's my point? It should be obvious. Some people have their heads shoved squarely up their asses and are completely out of touch with reality. This guy should die. His crime is not a 'run-of-the-mill' crime- it is an obscenity to which had the effect of eroding the fabric of our society. To reflect our level of disdain for such a brutal act... we needed to respond with a punishment befitting of the crime.
And who's to say that execution is the only "appropriate level of justice" for such acts? I have yet to come across a single rationally legitimate argument for how execution is actually the "appropriate level of justice" - mainly because the "justifications" for the death penalty are usually couched in subjective, violent, highly emotional, deeply irrational language about "scum", "shitbaggers", "bleeding heart idiots" and all of the rest of it - the kind of approach that is never going to have any hope of success in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
It also illustrates a profound lack of comprehension of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge". Of course, someone like Chadwick tries to say that the distinction doesn't matter because revenge is fine but the rambling incoherence of his argument doesn't really do that case any favours.
So here's the key thing about the distinction - justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. If our (understandable and legitimate) outrage at the heinousness, brutality, obscenity of a crime becomes the deciding factor in whether someone lives or dies, then that - by the definition of "justice" - cannot be justice. It can only be revenge. And there is no "revenge" system - there is a justice system, whose business it is to make impartial, even-handed and rational pronouncements on justice. It is not its business to base its actions on our outrage or "our level of disdain for such a brutal act". Because if it is, it is redundant, it has failed to administer actual meaningful justice, and we are left with no more than a proxy for vigilantism. And that's what would really erodes the "fabric of our society."
The death penalty is a fundament failure to apply - or even understand - the meaning of justice. That is what is out of touch with reality. The reality is the death penalty does not work on any level (though I expect someone - presumably Chadwick - will bludgeon in the facetious point that "well, it worked for that dead scumbag.") - it does not reduce violent crime, it is arbitrarily administered, it does not in any meaningful way "fit the crime", it is indefensibly expensive, it creates even more bereaved families, it is administered in the most profoundly unjust ways (regardless of guilt, the poor and minorities are massively more likely to be put to death than wealthy white people for the same crimes). It can never be made infallible, and it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes. Quite simply, it contradicts every single necessary criterion of justice.
Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford.
This is absolutely disingenuous. Being against the death penalty does not imply that you "feel sorry" for criminals, and nobody you are arguing against said anything of the sort.
It completely undermines the integrity of the rest of your point when you resort to strawman arguments such as this.
No... but they said: getting revenge is wrong and I think people who seek it are no better than those who did the initial act.,
Which is nothing at all like saying you feel sorry for them.
So... try to reserve judgement on people's tactics in a manner that isn't strictly fit to suit your beliefs, Ping. You never bothered to address those posts for their weak efforts to paint DP proponents as 'less than satisfactory' (to put it mildly).
Don't try to undermine and distract from my point by criticising me for not addressing different points, that is, once again, totally disingenuous.
My post stands and is more than legitimate. There are people who feel sorry for these losers. I have illustrated several cases where, for example, some idiot marries some depraved murderer.
Your post does not stand, and is not legitimate because you are not arguing with those people, you are attempting to misrepresent the opinions of people right here to further your own argument. It's a shame you can't just admit to your shitty behaviour and rectify it, instead of dissembling even further.
the death penalty is not revenge at all. it is more of a cleansing the world of freaks, monsters & maniacs who have taken extreme joy in hurting, killing & destroying decent lives. this is very good, to put these dangerous souls to rest
Chadwick: How easy and simplistic - and how mindlessly fantasist - to simply reclassify criminals as "freaks, monsters & maniacs". Means you can disingenuously convince yourself you are justified in dismissing everything without having to engage with anything so inconvenient as rational, reasonable or logical debate. Carry on, by all means, but don't imagine that you are making anything remotely like a convincing or even sensible case.
So... the implication here is what? People who seek an appropriate level of justice for raped, murdered and mutilated children are as bad as the people who have committed these acts? ...
What's my point? It should be obvious. Some people have their heads shoved squarely up their asses and are completely out of touch with reality. This guy should die. His crime is not a 'run-of-the-mill' crime- it is an obscenity to which had the effect of eroding the fabric of our society. To reflect our level of disdain for such a brutal act... we needed to respond with a punishment befitting of the crime.
And who's to say that execution is the only "appropriate level of justice" for such acts? I have yet to come across a single rationally legitimate argument for how execution is actually the "appropriate level of justice" - mainly because the "justifications" for the death penalty are usually couched in subjective, violent, highly emotional, deeply irrational language about "scum", "shitbaggers", "bleeding heart idiots" and all of the rest of it - the kind of approach that is never going to have any hope of success in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
It also illustrates a profound lack of comprehension of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge". Of course, someone like Chadwick tries to say that the distinction doesn't matter because revenge is fine but the rambling incoherence of his argument doesn't really do that case any favours.
So here's the key thing about the distinction - justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. If our (understandable and legitimate) outrage at the heinousness, brutality, obscenity of a crime becomes the deciding factor in whether someone lives or dies, then that - by the definition of "justice" - cannot be justice. It can only be revenge. And there is no "revenge" system - there is a justice system, whose business it is to make impartial, even-handed and rational pronouncements on justice. It is not its business to base its actions on our outrage or "our level of disdain for such a brutal act". Because if it is, it is redundant, it has failed to administer actual meaningful justice, and we are left with no more than a proxy for vigilantism. And that's what would really erodes the "fabric of our society."
The death penalty is a fundament failure to apply - or even understand - the meaning of justice. That is what is out of touch with reality. The reality is the death penalty does not work on any level (though I expect someone - presumably Chadwick - will bludgeon in the facetious point that "well, it worked for that dead scumbag.") - it does not reduce violent crime, it is arbitrarily administered, it does not in any meaningful way "fit the crime", it is indefensibly expensive, it creates even more bereaved families, it is administered in the most profoundly unjust ways (regardless of guilt, the poor and minorities are massively more likely to be put to death than wealthy white people for the same crimes). It can never be made infallible, and it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes. Quite simply, it contradicts every single necessary criterion of justice.
Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.
excellent post Mr wolf! way to give rational reasons in lieu of shouting your opinion as fact like most of us lol "it can never be reversed in the UNAVOIDABLE instance of mistakes"
as a side-note, here in the "free" US we have more prisoners per capita than anybody else and our prisons shouldn't be full of non-violent drug offenders anyways so the argument that killers deserve worse than prison just doesn't work for me. as i said before prison is a worse punishment than death, which is the end of suffering. unless you believe God likes to burn people, then I guess it makes sense. It seems to me that many don't really just want killers dead, they want to be the ones to kill them. It's always fantasizing about a bullet in the brain, I see that everywhere. If you are the victim of these heinous crimes by all means use that bullet and I won't say a word. Otherwise, it just sounds to me like a murder fantasy with a justification tagged on at the end.
the death penalty is not revenge at all. it is more of a cleansing the world of freaks, monsters & maniacs who have taken extreme joy in hurting, killing & destroying decent lives. this is very good, to put these dangerous souls to rest
Chadwick: How easy and simplistic - and how mindlessly fantasist - to simply reclassify criminals as "freaks, monsters & maniacs". Means you can disingenuously convince yourself you are justified in dismissing everything without having to engage with anything so inconvenient as rational, reasonable or logical debate. Carry on, by all means, but don't imagine that you are making anything remotely like a convincing or even sensible case.
So... the implication here is what? People who seek an appropriate level of justice for raped, murdered and mutilated children are as bad as the people who have committed these acts? ...
What's my point? It should be obvious. Some people have their heads shoved squarely up their asses and are completely out of touch with reality. This guy should die. His crime is not a 'run-of-the-mill' crime- it is an obscenity to which had the effect of eroding the fabric of our society. To reflect our level of disdain for such a brutal act... we needed to respond with a punishment befitting of the crime.
And who's to say that execution is the only "appropriate level of justice" for such acts? I have yet to come across a single rationally legitimate argument for how execution is actually the "appropriate level of justice" - mainly because the "justifications" for the death penalty are usually couched in subjective, violent, highly emotional, deeply irrational language about "scum", "shitbaggers", "bleeding heart idiots" and all of the rest of it - the kind of approach that is never going to have any hope of success in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
It also illustrates a profound lack of comprehension of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge". Of course, someone like Chadwick tries to say that the distinction doesn't matter because revenge is fine but the rambling incoherence of his argument doesn't really do that case any favours.
So here's the key thing about the distinction - justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. If our (understandable and legitimate) outrage at the heinousness, brutality, obscenity of a crime becomes the deciding factor in whether someone lives or dies, then that - by the definition of "justice" - cannot be justice. It can only be revenge. And there is no "revenge" system - there is a justice system, whose business it is to make impartial, even-handed and rational pronouncements on justice. It is not its business to base its actions on our outrage or "our level of disdain for such a brutal act". Because if it is, it is redundant, it has failed to administer actual meaningful justice, and we are left with no more than a proxy for vigilantism. And that's what would really erodes the "fabric of our society."
The death penalty is a fundament failure to apply - or even understand - the meaning of justice. That is what is out of touch with reality. The reality is the death penalty does not work on any level (though I expect someone - presumably Chadwick - will bludgeon in the facetious point that "well, it worked for that dead scumbag.") - it does not reduce violent crime, it is arbitrarily administered, it does not in any meaningful way "fit the crime", it is indefensibly expensive, it creates even more bereaved families, it is administered in the most profoundly unjust ways (regardless of guilt, the poor and minorities are massively more likely to be put to death than wealthy white people for the same crimes). It can never be made infallible, and it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes. Quite simply, it contradicts every single necessary criterion of justice.
Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.
This is a well-written post.
I have three comments to make regarding it:
Firstly, on this forum, my posts are not designed to change anyone's minds. If someone changes their mind... then this is their doing on their terms. My posts are placed in threads to reflect my position and beliefs. You don't have to like them or my vernacular.
Second, you state: justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. Then tell me... how is the prison sentence afforded to Clifford Olson (lavish with luxuries and the best medical care we can offer a person) for raping, torturing, and murdering 11 young children exactly 'equitable'.
Third, when you state it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes, I do pause for thought.
excellent post Mr wolf! way to give rational reasons in lieu of shouting your opinion as fact like most of us lol "it can never be reversed in the UNAVOIDABLE instance of mistakes"
Chadwick an eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Thirty Bills Unpaid is an awesome username, sir. My sincerest apologies if your deep anger stems from a violent crime perpetrated against someone you love. In that case, we can all sympathize with you. Otherwise, your anger is slightly disproportionate, which we can also all sympathize with. If we didn't have frustrations to relieve we wouldn't spend time in debate forums! My brother was wrongfully convicted of murder by the prosecutor who RAILROADED! Timothy Masters in Colorado. A google search will tell you more details, but if you wish to take my word for it, I will simply say that he (masters) was convicted on ZERO evidence by a prosecutor who magically managed to convict someone in every instance of murder in Larimer County. My brother was also among the victims, and he took his life after 8 years of solitary confinement ground his brilliant mind into a sad mess. Every trick you can imagine a lawyer knowing was used, including mash-ups of interrogations made to resemble a confession, a montage of pictures of the crime scene with out of context clips in the same style, and character assassinations of defense witnesses. The jury, of course, was instructed to "forget" that they had seen these images, and also to forget that the newspapers had declared him guilty already. As if you can forget a crime scene photo. I was not there the night that this poor person was brutally murdered, and therefore I can never say who did the crime but I can say with 100% certainty that they did not prove his guilt in any way. Ok that got long, anyways, THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN AMERICA! this alone is reason not to execute.
as a side-note, here in the "free" US we have more prisoners per capita than anybody else and our prisons shouldn't be full of non-violent drug offenders anyways so the argument that killers deserve worse than prison just doesn't work for me. as i said before prison is a worse punishment than death, which is the end of suffering. unless you believe God likes to burn people, then I guess it makes sense. It seems to me that many don't really just want killers dead, they want to be the ones to kill them. It's always fantasizing about a bullet in the brain, I see that everywhere. If you are the victim of these heinous crimes by all means use that bullet and I won't say a word. Otherwise, it just sounds to me like a murder fantasy with a justification tagged on at the end.
Horrific personal history you have shared with us here, RG. Later in the day, I plan on searching the case you have referenced.
I'll take your word for it though and I would expect you to hold your views as you do- I don't blame you for doing so.
Remember... if you have read through these pages at all... I have always suggested the DP be reserved for the 'special' cases. Among the criteria I have suggested that would be a qualifying attribute is irrefutable guilt (such as the two scenarios I mentioned in one of my last posts).
yeah i cant believe i even posted that! very personal...i guess it was needed and i know even if i disagree vehemently with someone here, i would still want to stand next to you all at a show and enjoy the greatest band that was or will be!!! i like that we can disagree, and even get a little heated at each other and be better for it. I never found that online before!
I say irrefutable guilt is all but non-existent! And despite my precipitous walk on the high-road, my savage, bloodlusty side is satisfied knowing the guilty will be raped and beat and demeaned at every turn! But I always must end with compassion and mourn the persecuted.
hey, my beliefs are mine. i will strike out to defend myself, my loved ones & others who may not be capable of defending themselves like children. i fully believe evil shits exist & get no better satisfaction than causing agony. these folks are defects & dangerous.
reprehensible acts where they are caught red handed... yeah
Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford.
This is absolutely disingenuous. Being against the death penalty does not imply that you "feel sorry" for criminals, and nobody you are arguing against said anything of the sort.
It completely undermines the integrity of the rest of your point when you resort to strawman arguments such as this.
No... but they said: getting revenge is wrong and I think people who seek it are no better than those who did the initial act.,
Which is nothing at all like saying you feel sorry for them.
So... try to reserve judgement on people's tactics in a manner that isn't strictly fit to suit your beliefs, Ping. You never bothered to address those posts for their weak efforts to paint DP proponents as 'less than satisfactory' (to put it mildly).
Don't try to undermine and distract from my point by criticising me for not addressing different points, that is, once again, totally disingenuous.
My post stands and is more than legitimate. There are people who feel sorry for these losers. I have illustrated several cases where, for example, some idiot marries some depraved murderer.
Your post does not stand, and is not legitimate because you are not arguing with those people, you are attempting to misrepresent the opinions of people right here to further your own argument. It's a shame you can't just admit to your shitty behaviour and rectify it, instead of dissembling even further.
Fair enough. If the delivery of my message has got you in a tizzy, I'll rescind what I considered a rather benign comment to Know about feeling sorry for murderers.
But as I do this... let's also acknowledge the fact that you remained very complacent with other somewhat muddied tactics on the part of the people you are now carrying the torch for: when they referred to proponents of the dp as 'savages' and 'no better than the killers'.
Hmmm. Consider the exchanges here. One side aggressively initiates a mud slinging affair by calling their opponents a 'savage' and then labelling them as 'being on the same level as a serial murderer'. The other side responds in kind to these charges by stating their opponent is 'feeling sorry for murderers'. And... Ping gets himself worked up about the retort and spins it to suggest this was 'shitty behaviour' with the ultimate design of misrepresenting the opinions of his opponents.
To my way of thinking, if a person wishes to anoint themselves as a board tactic monitor as you have seen fit to do, Ping, then they should likely do so in an unbiased manner... otherwise... their righteousness comes across as self-serving: attacking only the cheaper tactics employed by the side they disagree with.
I'll stop there, given I have enjoyed your contributions on this site immensely and hope to do so in the future.
yeah i cant believe i even posted that! very personal...i guess it was needed and i know even if i disagree vehemently with someone here, i would still want to stand next to you all at a show and enjoy the greatest band that was or will be!!! i like that we can disagree, and even get a little heated at each other and be better for it. I never found that online before!
I say irrefutable guilt is all but non-existent! And despite my precipitous walk on the high-road, my savage, bloodlusty side is satisfied knowing the guilty will be raped and beat and demeaned at every turn! But I always must end with compassion and mourn the persecuted.
you're satisfied knowing the guilty are raped & beaten i'd personally never wish rape on even the most vile of beasts isn't that kind of sick & lower than low, vile & just plain fucked up? i would however be satisfied if they got their small brain smoked
And who's to say that execution is the only "appropriate level of justice" for such acts? I have yet to come across a single rationally legitimate argument for how execution is actually the "appropriate level of justice" - mainly because the "justifications" for the death penalty are usually couched in subjective, violent, highly emotional, deeply irrational language about "scum", "shitbaggers", "bleeding heart idiots" and all of the rest of it - the kind of approach that is never going to have any hope of success in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
It also illustrates a profound lack of comprehension of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge". Of course, someone like Chadwick tries to say that the distinction doesn't matter because revenge is fine but the rambling incoherence of his argument doesn't really do that case any favours.
So here's the key thing about the distinction - justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. If our (understandable and legitimate) outrage at the heinousness, brutality, obscenity of a crime becomes the deciding factor in whether someone lives or dies, then that - by the definition of "justice" - cannot be justice. It can only be revenge. And there is no "revenge" system - there is a justice system, whose business it is to make impartial, even-handed and rational pronouncements on justice. It is not its business to base its actions on our outrage or "our level of disdain for such a brutal act". Because if it is, it is redundant, it has failed to administer actual meaningful justice, and we are left with no more than a proxy for vigilantism. And that's what would really erodes the "fabric of our society."
The death penalty is a fundament failure to apply - or even understand - the meaning of justice. That is what is out of touch with reality. The reality is the death penalty does not work on any level (though I expect someone - presumably Chadwick - will bludgeon in the facetious point that "well, it worked for that dead scumbag.") - it does not reduce violent crime, it is arbitrarily administered, it does not in any meaningful way "fit the crime", it is indefensibly expensive, it creates even more bereaved families, it is administered in the most profoundly unjust ways (regardless of guilt, the poor and minorities are massively more likely to be put to death than wealthy white people for the same crimes). It can never be made infallible, and it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes. Quite simply, it contradicts every single necessary criterion of justice.
Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.
This is a well-written post.
I have three comments to make regarding it:
Firstly, on this forum, my posts are not designed to change anyone's minds. If someone changes their mind... then this is their doing on their terms. My posts are placed in threads to reflect my position and beliefs. You don't have to like them or my vernacular.
Second, you state: justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. Then tell me... how is the prison sentence afforded to Clifford Olson (lavish with luxuries and the best medical care we can offer a person) for raping, torturing, and murdering 11 young children exactly 'equitable'.
Third, when you state it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes, I do pause for thought.
Thank you.
On your first point, I can't argue with that - that's absolutely your prerogative and right, and good of you to lay it out like that.
Second: I don't know this case, and I don't know what luxuries you're talking about. Nevertheless, at no point did I say that the system as it exists now always offers the best justice. But it does not follow that execution is therefore justified. It makes no sense to say "well, if he is getting more luxuries than he deserves, then the only alternative is to kill him." So I don't really get how that has any bearing on the rights or wrongs of the death penalty. If your legal, penal, or judiciary system doesn't work, or if it is inefficient or "inequitable", then fix it. But there is no correlation and no logic in jumping to the conclusion that we can therefore justify an even more broken, even more inequitable penalty, which once administered has no chance of being reformed. As for his having healthcare, health is not a luxury - it is a human right, and human rights are not dependent on your actions - you have them by the very nature of your existence, regardless of what you have done or who you are. Also, you describe Clifford Olsen's conditions almost as if he was being rewarded for his crime. Something that people who tend to use this argument from outrage at the supposed luxuries of prison life almost always overlook is the penalty itself: the deprivation of liberty, the imprisonment itself, the removal of freedom of movement. And I think rgambs story of his brother shows the reality of that.
Third: what are you pausing for thought about? How will you ensure that the death penalty will be 100% foolproof, that there will never be an error made? Again, I point to rgambs story. How many other cases of people being exonerated after being sentenced to death have there been? Now imagine that the US capital system worked more efficiently and death row prisoners didn't languish for decades before being put to death. What if they were killed before the evidence that exonerated them came to light? There is no way to correct those errors. Can you guarantee a system in which that would never happen? If not, the risk is always there, and if the risk is always there, justice is always undermined.
Unless you can show me that the death penalty is necessary - and I mean that there is no other feasible alternative - then it will always be arbitrary. And by the very fact that some states have it and others don't, by the fact that the vast majority of countries on the planet have abolished the death penalty without their societies collapsing, without the dire predictions of DP advocates coming to pass, then I find it impossible to see how you can make a meaningful case for the death penalty being necessary. And as far as I am concerned, if it cannot be shown to be absolutely necessary to kill a human being, it can never be legitimate to kill a human being. And that goes for states as much as for individuals.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
excellent post Mr wolf! way to give rational reasons in lieu of shouting your opinion as fact like most of us lol "it can never be reversed in the UNAVOIDABLE instance of mistakes"
Chadwick an eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Thirty Bills Unpaid is an awesome username, sir. My sincerest apologies if your deep anger stems from a violent crime perpetrated against someone you love. In that case, we can all sympathize with you. Otherwise, your anger is slightly disproportionate, which we can also all sympathize with. If we didn't have frustrations to relieve we wouldn't spend time in debate forums! My brother was wrongfully convicted of murder by the prosecutor who RAILROADED! Timothy Masters in Colorado. A google search will tell you more details, but if you wish to take my word for it, I will simply say that he (masters) was convicted on ZERO evidence by a prosecutor who magically managed to convict someone in every instance of murder in Larimer County. My brother was also among the victims, and he took his life after 8 years of solitary confinement ground his brilliant mind into a sad mess. Every trick you can imagine a lawyer knowing was used, including mash-ups of interrogations made to resemble a confession, a montage of pictures of the crime scene with out of context clips in the same style, and character assassinations of defense witnesses. The jury, of course, was instructed to "forget" that they had seen these images, and also to forget that the newspapers had declared him guilty already. As if you can forget a crime scene photo. I was not there the night that this poor person was brutally murdered, and therefore I can never say who did the crime but I can say with 100% certainty that they did not prove his guilt in any way. Ok that got long, anyways, THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN AMERICA! this alone is reason not to execute.
as a side-note, here in the "free" US we have more prisoners per capita than anybody else and our prisons shouldn't be full of non-violent drug offenders anyways so the argument that killers deserve worse than prison just doesn't work for me. as i said before prison is a worse punishment than death, which is the end of suffering. unless you believe God likes to burn people, then I guess it makes sense. It seems to me that many don't really just want killers dead, they want to be the ones to kill them. It's always fantasizing about a bullet in the brain, I see that everywhere. If you are the victim of these heinous crimes by all means use that bullet and I won't say a word. Otherwise, it just sounds to me like a murder fantasy with a justification tagged on at the end.
rgambs: that is a shocking and heartbreaking story. I'm really sorry about the loss of your brother.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
And who's to say that execution is the only "appropriate level of justice" for such acts? I have yet to come across a single rationally legitimate argument for how execution is actually the "appropriate level of justice" - mainly because the "justifications" for the death penalty are usually couched in subjective, violent, highly emotional, deeply irrational language about "scum", "shitbaggers", "bleeding heart idiots" and all of the rest of it - the kind of approach that is never going to have any hope of success in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.
This is a well-written post.
I have three comments to make regarding it:
Firstly, on this forum, my posts are not designed to change anyone's minds. If someone changes their mind... then this is their doing on their terms. My posts are placed in threads to reflect my position and beliefs. You don't have to like them or my vernacular.
Second, you state: justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. Then tell me... how is the prison sentence afforded to Clifford Olson (lavish with luxuries and the best medical care we can offer a person) for raping, torturing, and murdering 11 young children exactly 'equitable'.
Third, when you state it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes, I do pause for thought.
Thank you.
On your first point, I can't argue with that - that's absolutely your prerogative and right, and good of you to lay it out like that.
Second: I don't know this case, and I don't know what luxuries you're talking about. Nevertheless, at no point did I say that the system as it exists now always offers the best justice. But it does not follow that execution is therefore justified. It makes no sense to say "well, if he is getting more luxuries than he deserves, then the only alternative is to kill him." So I don't really get how that has any bearing on the rights or wrongs of the death penalty. If your legal, penal, or judiciary system doesn't work, or if it is inefficient or "inequitable", then fix it. But there is no correlation and no logic in jumping to the conclusion that we can therefore justify an even more broken, even more inequitable penalty, which once administered has no chance of being reformed. As for his having healthcare, health is not a luxury - it is a human right, and human rights are not dependent on your actions - you have them by the very nature of your existence, regardless of what you have done or who you are. Also, you describe Clifford Olsen's conditions almost as if he was being rewarded for his crime. Something that people who tend to use this argument from outrage at the supposed luxuries of prison life almost always overlook is the penalty itself: the deprivation of liberty, the imprisonment itself, the removal of freedom of movement. And I think rgambs story of his brother shows the reality of that.
Third: what are you pausing for thought about? How will you ensure that the death penalty will be 100% foolproof, that there will never be an error made? Again, I point to rgambs story. How many other cases of people being exonerated after being sentenced to death have there been? Now imagine that the US capital system worked more efficiently and death row prisoners didn't languish for decades before being put to death. What if they were killed before the evidence that exonerated them came to light? There is no way to correct those errors. Can you guarantee a system in which that would never happen? If not, the risk is always there, and if the risk is always there, justice is always undermined.
Unless you can show me that the death penalty is necessary - and I mean that there is no other feasible alternative - then it will always be arbitrary. And by the very fact that some states have it and others don't, by the fact that the vast majority of countries on the planet have abolished the death penalty without their societies collapsing, without the dire predictions of DP advocates coming to pass, then I find it impossible to see how you can make a meaningful case for the death penalty being necessary. And as far as I am concerned, if it cannot be shown to be absolutely necessary to kill a human being, it can never be legitimate to kill a human being. And that goes for states as much as for individuals.
I hope you were reading my other posts. I had mentioned that in my opinion, the dp should be warranted in only the most heinous of crimes- not for widespread application. In short: serial/mass murders, murders involving children, murders with depravity (torture), and... coupled with irrefutable and damning evidence (heads in the fridge).
Of course nothing is 'necessary' to those unattached to the events. But for those directly involved... there is a level of necessity. Dr. Petit once argued as you do now. He scoffed at the dp for the same reasons. After he was beaten and his wife and two daughters were raped and burned alive... well... he doesn't feel the same anymore. He feels that the dp is 'necessary' for this horrific event. In this case, like others, the dp reflects how we, as a society, feel about the crime and it offers him what he needs to try and minimize the pain of his horrific experience. What do we owe these two violent psychopaths who committed the most ghastly of crimes? What do we owe the victims and their survivors? In too many cases, we tend to ignore the wishes of the survivors and the memory of the dismembered victims and lean towards the murderer's desperate pleas for mercy when determining fate.
I don't eagerly await murderers dying at the hands of the state. But given the reality we are forced to deal with in some cases, I feel we should respond accordingly.
yeah i cant believe i even posted that! very personal...i guess it was needed and i know even if i disagree vehemently with someone here, i would still want to stand next to you all at a show and enjoy the greatest band that was or will be!!! i like that we can disagree, and even get a little heated at each other and be better for it. I never found that online before!
I say irrefutable guilt is all but non-existent! And despite my precipitous walk on the high-road, my savage, bloodlusty side is satisfied knowing the guilty will be raped and beat and demeaned at every turn! But I always must end with compassion and mourn the persecuted.
Absolutely with regards to rocking out at a show.
Irrefutable guilt as I have presented in other recent posts: there is such a thing.
I hope you were reading my other posts. I had mentioned that in my opinion, the dp should be warranted in only the most heinous of crimes- not for widespread application. In short: serial/mass murders, murders involving children, murders with depravity (torture), and... coupled with irrefutable and damning evidence (heads in the fridge).
Of course nothing is 'necessary' to those unattached to the events. But for those directly involved... there is a level of necessity. Dr. Petit once argued as you do now. He scoffed at the dp for the same reasons. After he was beaten and his wife and two daughters were raped and burned alive... well... he doesn't feel the same anymore. He feels that the dp is 'necessary' for this horrific event. In this case, like others, the dp reflects how we, as a society, feel about the crime and it offers him what he needs to try and minimize the pain of his horrific experience. What do we owe these two violent psychopaths who committed the most ghastly of crimes? What do we owe the victims and their survivors? In too many cases, we tend to ignore the wishes of the survivors and the memory of the dismembered victims and lean towards the murderer's desperate pleas for mercy when determining fate.
I don't eagerly await murderers dying at the hands of the state. But given the reality we are forced to deal with in some cases, I feel we should respond accordingly.
Yes, I was reading your other posts. And I am glad that unlike some on here, you are not baying for the blood of every murderer, that you can debate reasonably.
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree for all the reasons I stated in my previous post. By allowing the death penalty for "the most heinous of crimes", you are bringing subjective value judgments back into it. And justice, as I've already said, cannot be subjective. If we say that we should kill those who commit crimes that most offend our sense of decency, most sicken and horrify us - serial/mass murders, murders involving children, murders with depravity, and heads in the fridge - we're just back to saying outrage decides who lives and who dies. And I've already pointed out why that cannot be just.
The same thing goes for your example of Dr Petit. It's a common question from DP advocates - "how would you feel if it was your family?" - and my answer is the same: I don't know how I would feel. I may very well be so outraged and angry and helpless that I would want them to suffer. I hope I never have to find out how I would react. But the fact is: it would not be up to me. in this context, the purpose of the state is to ensure that dispassionate, objective, logical reason - in short justice - prevails, over anger and vengeance.
I also often hear DP advocates accuse opponents of pitying the criminal instead of the family, and I think for the most part - and certainly in my case - it is an unfair and untruthful accusation. I have written to many state governors and ambassadors with regards to halting imminent executions, and I always, always make sure to state from the outset that I in no way want to understate the seriousness of the crime or the grief and pain caused to the family. But the fact remains: it is not for the state to fulfil "the wishes of the family". justice systems are not about what is owed to the family or anyone. Were it to do so, it would become - as I already said - nothing more than a proxy for a vigilante society. Its role is to administer objective, rational and dispassionate justice.
The families of murdered victims may feel that for themselves it is "necessary" for them to get closure. But that again is subjective. It is not in any sort of legal way objectively necessary in a way that would justify killing the criminal. I have come across examples of families who desperately wanted the death penalty but then found it did not bring closure as they were still left with their loss. Some families may feel closure, but it does not follow that the execution was "necessary" to gain that closure. Other families in other states and in other countries that have abolished the death penalty (like my own) will report that they felt a sense of closure to see the murderer of their loved one locked away where he could not visit their pain on any other families. So it is subjective. And if it is subjective, it cannot be necessary.
The thing is; if the death penalty is the ultimate penalty, people who feel they have suffered the ultimate hurt in having those they love torn away from them in a violent and horrific way, will often feel that only the ultimate penalty can balance that out. If the death penalty is not an option and the ultimate penalty is life in prison, people will generally feel (not always, because like I say, it's subjective and people's emotional responses are different) that justice has been done when they get the ultimate penalty available to them - life in prison. Again, this just shows that it is not necessary. And if it is not necessary to kill a person, it cannot be legitimate to kill them.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I hope you were reading my other posts. I had mentioned that in my opinion, the dp should be warranted in only the most heinous of crimes- not for widespread application. In short: serial/mass murders, murders involving children, murders with depravity (torture), and... coupled with irrefutable and damning evidence (heads in the fridge).
I don't eagerly await murderers dying at the hands of the state. But given the reality we are forced to deal with in some cases, I feel we should respond accordingly.
Yes, I was reading your other posts. And I am glad that unlike some on here, you are not baying for the blood of every murderer, that you can debate reasonably.
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree for all the reasons I stated in my previous post. By allowing the death penalty for "the most heinous of crimes", you are bringing subjective value judgments back into it. And justice, as I've already said, cannot be subjective. If we say that we should kill those who commit crimes that most offend our sense of decency, most sicken and horrify us - serial/mass murders, murders involving children, murders with depravity, and heads in the fridge - we're just back to saying outrage decides who lives and who dies. And I've already pointed out why that cannot be just.
The same thing goes for your example of Dr Petit. It's a common question from DP advocates - "how would you feel if it was your family?" - and my answer is the same: I don't know how I would feel. I may very well be so outraged and angry and helpless that I would want them to suffer. I hope I never have to find out how I would react. But the fact is: it would not be up to me. in this context, the purpose of the state is to ensure that dispassionate, objective, logical reason - in short justice - prevails, over anger and vengeance.
I also often hear DP advocates accuse opponents of pitying the criminal instead of the family, and I think for the most part - and certainly in my case - it is an unfair and untruthful accusation. I have written to many state governors and ambassadors with regards to halting imminent executions, and I always, always make sure to state from the outset that I in no way want to understate the seriousness of the crime or the grief and pain caused to the family. But the fact remains: it is not for the state to fulfil "the wishes of the family". justice systems are not about what is owed to the family or anyone. Were it to do so, it would become - as I already said - nothing more than a proxy for a vigilante society. Its role is to administer objective, rational and dispassionate justice.
The families of murdered victims may feel that for themselves it is "necessary" for them to get closure. But that again is subjective. It is not in any sort of legal way objectively necessary in a way that would justify killing the criminal. I have come across examples of families who desperately wanted the death penalty but then found it did not bring closure as they were still left with their loss. Some families may feel closure, but it does not follow that the execution was "necessary" to gain that closure. Other families in other states and in other countries that have abolished the death penalty (like my own) will report that they felt a sense of closure to see the murderer of their loved one locked away where he could not visit their pain on any other families. So it is subjective. And if it is subjective, it cannot be necessary.
The thing is; if the death penalty is the ultimate penalty, people who feel they have suffered the ultimate hurt in having those they love torn away from them in a violent and horrific way, will often feel that only the ultimate penalty can balance that out. If the death penalty is not an option and the ultimate penalty is life in prison, people will generally feel (not always, because like I say, it's subjective and people's emotional responses are different) that justice has been done when they get the ultimate penalty available to them - life in prison. Again, this just shows that it is not necessary. And if it is not necessary to kill a person, it cannot be legitimate to kill them.
You have alluded to the level of pain some survivors are left with and to the possibility that you might find yourself in a different mindset than you are now (like Petit found). I contend it is much easier to speak to the wrongdoings of the death penalty- far removed from the pain of the crime- than it is from a more 'personalized' position. I recognize there are some cases of individuals, whose children have been taken from them, that have spoken against executing the killer of their loved ones; however, in my experience, it at least appears that the overwhelming majority of parents and the like have felt a disconnect between the penal system and themselves with regards to what justice should look like. In short, they feel as if justice has not been served by affording the person who raped and murdered their child a prison term- the same penalty a thief or drug dealer might incur.
And, once imprisoned, the families are not then simply left to their suffering. Instead, they are subjected to further pain as they feel the need to attend parole hearings to protest the release of the 'changed man'. In some cases, they are tortured further by the actions of their killer while he sits in prison. I have already documented Olson's brutal prison behaviour (10-20 pages ago) and have also submitted the brutal case of Richard Allen Davis who's court room conduct was nothing short of despicable.
Lastly, calling the dp 'vengeance' is a little dramatic. One could call prison vengeance as a response to a crime. And to say that families' emotional responses should not be a factor when considering what justice should be is minimizing their suffering to the benefit of the murderer.
If I have not made it clear to this point, the bottom line for me is as follows:
The very nature of the crime should determine what type of consequence should follow. A drug dealer killing another drug dealer in a gun fight is one thing. Michael Rafferty, raping and murdering 8 year old Tori Stafford, is quite another. For me, Rafferty's obscenity cannot be tolerated and I would prefer him put to death for his sick depravity. For others, including the ones that make the laws unfortunately, Rafferty's brutal offence is not enough to warrant execution.
Perhaps it is a blind spot in my composition. I simply cannot get my head around that level of leniency or toleration afforded to some of our most vile people no matter how hard I try. And I say 'leniency or toleration' because, no matter how some opponents of the dp wish to convey the fact that they are just as hard on crime and feel just as strongly about such crimes as proponents do... I'm not buying it because to me... they don't.
Regardless, you clearly have your well thought out position and I have mine. I'll respectfully leave you to yours.
You have alluded to the level of pain some survivors are left with and to the possibility that you might find yourself in a different mindset than you are now (like Petit found). I contend it is much easier to speak to the wrongdoings of the death penalty- far removed from the pain of the crime- than it is from a more 'personalized' position. I recognize there are some cases of individuals, whose children have been taken from them, that have spoken against executing the killer of their loved ones; however, in my experience, it at least appears that the overwhelming majority of parents and the like have felt a disconnect between the penal system and themselves with regards to what justice should look like. In short, they feel as if justice has not been served by affording the person who raped and murdered their child a prison term- the same penalty a thief or drug dealer might incur.
And, once imprisoned, the families are not then simply left to their suffering. Instead, they are subjected to further pain as they feel the need to attend parole hearings to protest the release of the 'changed man'. In some cases, they are tortured further by the actions of their killer while he sits in prison. I have already documented Olson's brutal prison behaviour (10-20 pages ago) and have also submitted the brutal case of Richard Allen Davis who's court room conduct was nothing short of despicable.
Lastly, calling the dp 'vengeance' is a little dramatic. One could call prison vengeance as a response to a crime. And to say that families' emotional responses should not be a factor when considering what justice should be is minimizing their suffering to the benefit of the murderer.
If I have not made it clear to this point, the bottom line for me is as follows:
The very nature of the crime should determine what type of consequence should follow. A drug dealer killing another drug dealer in a gun fight is one thing. Michael Rafferty, raping and murdering 8 year old Tori Stafford, is quite another. For me, Rafferty's obscenity cannot be tolerated and I would prefer him put to death for his sick depravity. For others, including the ones that make the laws unfortunately, Rafferty's brutal offence is not enough to warrant execution.
Perhaps it is a blind spot in my composition. I simply cannot get my head around that level of leniency or toleration afforded to some of our most vile people no matter how hard I try. And I say 'leniency or toleration' because, no matter how some opponents of the dp wish to convey the fact that they are just as hard on crime and feel just as strongly about such crimes as proponents do... I'm not buying it because to me... they don't.
Regardless, you clearly have your well thought out position and I have mine. I'll respectfully leave you to yours.
Again, I get what you're saying and why - but the fact is, there's nothing here that I haven't already answered in my previous posts. For all the reasons I stated before, how horrified we are by someone's crimes simply does not confer upon us the subjectively determined right to decide whether they should live or die. They didn't have the right to kill, and we have no justification to claim the right to kill them. It is an inescapable double standard that can never manifest meaningful justice.
I absolutely understand (and share) your abhorrence at such crimes. I admire your empathy for the victims' families. But again, for all the reasons I've already stated, those cannot be legitimate justification for killing someone - regardless of how much thet might disgust us.
My bottom line is this: your position is based on emotive response to the horror of the crime. While that is valid for you to feel - or me, or victims families - it is not valid for the judiciary to act on emotive response. In fact, it is its explicit responsibility not to. Because to do so would - by definition - be injustice.
When I say the death penalty is vengeance, this is what I mean - it is based on our anger, our outrage, our desire for retribution. That is vengeance , no? But that is not and cannot be the legitimate motivating factor in justice, if justice is to mean anything.
But now I'm repeating myself. I respect your opinion. But I don't see anything in your opinion that addresses the fatal inconsistencies in the death penalty system that I've been trying to point out here.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
You have alluded to the level of pain some survivors are left with and to the possibility that you might find yourself in a different mindset than you are now (like Petit found). I contend it is much easier to speak to the wrongdoings of the death penalty- far removed from the pain of the crime- than it is from a more 'personalized' position. I recognize there are some cases of individuals, whose children have been taken from them, that have spoken against executing the killer of their loved ones; however, in my experience, it at least appears that the overwhelming majority of parents and the like have felt a disconnect between the penal system and themselves with regards to what justice should look like. In short, they feel as if justice has not been served by affording the person who raped and murdered their child a prison term- the same penalty a thief or drug dealer might incur.
And, once imprisoned, the families are not then simply left to their suffering. Instead, they are subjected to further pain as they feel the need to attend parole hearings to protest the release of the 'changed man'. In some cases, they are tortured further by the actions of their killer while he sits in prison. I have already documented Olson's brutal prison behaviour (10-20 pages ago) and have also submitted the brutal case of Richard Allen Davis who's court room conduct was nothing short of despicable.
Lastly, calling the dp 'vengeance' is a little dramatic. One could call prison vengeance as a response to a crime. And to say that families' emotional responses should not be a factor when considering what justice should be is minimizing their suffering to the benefit of the murderer.
If I have not made it clear to this point, the bottom line for me is as follows:
The very nature of the crime should determine what type of consequence should follow. A drug dealer killing another drug dealer in a gun fight is one thing. Michael Rafferty, raping and murdering 8 year old Tori Stafford, is quite another. For me, Rafferty's obscenity cannot be tolerated and I would prefer him put to death for his sick depravity. For others, including the ones that make the laws unfortunately, Rafferty's brutal offence is not enough to warrant execution.
Perhaps it is a blind spot in my composition. I simply cannot get my head around that level of leniency or toleration afforded to some of our most vile people no matter how hard I try. And I say 'leniency or toleration' because, no matter how some opponents of the dp wish to convey the fact that they are just as hard on crime and feel just as strongly about such crimes as proponents do... I'm not buying it because to me... they don't.
Regardless, you clearly have your well thought out position and I have mine. I'll respectfully leave you to yours.
Again, I get what you're saying and why - but the fact is, there's nothing here that I haven't already answered in my previous posts. For all the reasons I stated before, how horrified we are by someone's crimes simply does not confer upon us the subjectively determined right to decide whether they should live or die. They didn't have the right to kill, and we have no justification to claim the right to kill them. It is an inescapable double standard that can never manifest meaningful justice.
I absolutely understand (and share) your abhorrence at such crimes. I admire your empathy for the victims' families. But again, for all the reasons I've already stated, those cannot be legitimate justification for killing someone - regardless of how much thet might disgust us.
My bottom line is this: your position is based on emotive response to the horror of the crime. While that is valid for you to feel - or me, or victims families - it is not valid for the judiciary to act on emotive response. In fact, it is its explicit responsibility not to. Because to do so would - by definition - be injustice.
When I say the death penalty is vengeance, this is what I mean - it is based on our anger, our outrage, our desire for retribution. That is vengeance , no? But that is not and cannot be the legitimate motivating factor in justice, if justice is to mean anything.
But now I'm repeating myself. I respect your opinion. But I don't see anything in your opinion that addresses the fatal inconsistencies in the death penalty system that I've been trying to point out here.
But the comments you have made are based on your value set. They are not definitive, nor are they absolute, and they do not nullify what I or others have said or believe to the contrary.
I have not failed to see what you are getting at. I have heard that same arguments many times centered around the notion that we don't sink to the murderer's level and we hold ourselves to a higher standard; however, as I have stated and that you have acknowledged, it's easy to do when it's not our child that's been the victim.
And my position is not based solely on emotive response. It is said that for every action in this universe... there is an equal and opposite reaction. You have never addressed the point I have made a couple of times now: how is it 'justice' giving a depraved murderer the same sentence that we give thieves and drug dealers? In reality, a clinical execution is a far, far better fate than what people such as Olson afforded their random victims while pursuing their pleasures and to me, this should be the extent of our mercy.
But the comments you have made are based on your value set. They are not definitive, nor are they absolute, and they do not nullify what I or others have said or believe to the contrary.
Not so. Yes, of course, I am expressing my opinion. But in a large part my opinion is Based not just on my value set but on legal and logical and linguistic facts which are definitively provable. "Justice" has an absolute and objective definition, which is demonstrably inconsistent with the facts of the death penalty, and those facts are fully independent of my value set.
I have not failed to see what you are getting at. I have heard that same arguments many times centered around the notion that we don't sink to the murderer's level and we hold ourselves to a higher standard; however, as I have stated and that you have acknowledged, it's easy to do when it's not our child that's been the victim.
And as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is the law is not, and should not, be based on how we as individuals feel whether is our child or not. Every victim is someone's child. That does not in any way validate the death penalty as the necessary response. What you are presenting is a false argument. Your conclusion does not in any way follow from your premise. This is not just the expression of my value set. This is the very essence of the objective meaning of justice. If you follow your logic through as the basis of the death penalty, it necessarily renders the concept of justice null and void.
You have never addressed the point I have made a couple of times now: how is it 'justice' giving a depraved murderer the same sentence that we give thieves and drug dealers? In reality, a clinical execution is a far, far better fate than what people such as Olson afforded their random victims while pursuing their pleasures and to me, this should be the extent of our mercy.
Actually, I did address that point, just not in that particular context. I said that the flaws that may exist in the current legal or penal system does not justify administering an even more flawed - and irreversible - penalty. My comments about where we draw the line, how.we define what our ultimate penalty is are wholly relevant here. And if our ultimate penalty is life in prison (which though the bloodthirsty want to portray as being some luxurious cakewalk is a pretty severe penalty) then that is what is administered for the most serious crimes. Again, it simply does not logically follow in any.meaningful way that because we jailed a drug dealer for that we are justified in killing a killer. It is completely specious reasoning. You could just as easily follow that rationale to say "well how do you justify the same death penalty for this child killer as for.the guy who raped the child first?" The same logical fallacies arise. So where do you draw the line in the barbarity of the punishment to fit the barbarity of the crime? Because you have to draw it somewhere. For me, I suggest we draw it at not killing people, since that has time and again proven to be entirely ineffective and logically hypocritical, and since not you or anyone else has provided a single logically sound argument to legitimately justify it.
And as for "the extent of our mercy" and comparing the.punishment to.the depravity of the crime - that just falls back into the same old tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye confusion of vengeance for justice that I've gone over and over.
By the way, there are plenty of points that I've made that you haven't addressed - the huge range of systematic failures in the capital system, the lack of any evidence of deterrence, the unavoidable possibility of irreversible errors; the evidence of the unnecessariness of the death penalty from countless other countries who have abolished the death penalty without adverse consequence...
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
serial rapists have not killed anyone yet deserve a closed black curtain. child predators have abused countless innocent lives, yet have not literally stopped precious little child beating hearts & have caused huge damage.
many of these dangerous folks have been in & out of jails, prisons, countless rehabilitation programs & other programs & institutations of some kind all their lives. something is not working. could it be the nasty felon's brain & soul are not firing on all cylinders & never will as they are career criminals or life long sickos?
i respect a murderer who killed a fellow man @ a (illegal) back-room gambling table in chicago out of self defense as everyone in the room is packing heat & things fell apart. this man does not deserve the death penalty
child predators, serial rapists or nasty ass rapists in general, beating women & so on... forget about it. these animals deserve to be put down as if a dying & sick dog
But the comments you have made are based on your value set. They are not definitive, nor are they absolute, and they do not nullify what I or others have said or believe to the contrary.
Not so. Yes, of course, I am expressing my opinion. But in a large part my opinion is Based not just on my value set but on legal and logical and linguistic facts which are definitively provable. "Justice" has an absolute and objective definition, which is demonstrably inconsistent with the facts of the death penalty, and those facts are fully independent of my value set.
I have not failed to see what you are getting at. I have heard that same arguments many times centered around the notion that we don't sink to the murderer's level and we hold ourselves to a higher standard; however, as I have stated and that you have acknowledged, it's easy to do when it's not our child that's been the victim.
And as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is the law is not, and should not, be based on how we as individuals feel whether is our child or not. Every victim is someone's child. That does not in any way validate the death penalty as the necessary response. What you are presenting is a false argument. Your conclusion does not in any way follow from your premise. This is not just the expression of my value set. This is the very essence of the objective meaning of justice. If you follow your logic through as the basis of the death penalty, it necessarily renders the concept of justice null and void.
You have never addressed the point I have made a couple of times now: how is it 'justice' giving a depraved murderer the same sentence that we give thieves and drug dealers? In reality, a clinical execution is a far, far better fate than what people such as Olson afforded their random victims while pursuing their pleasures and to me, this should be the extent of our mercy.
Actually, I did address that point, just not in that particular context. I said that the flaws that may exist in the current legal or penal system does not justify administering an even more flawed - and irreversible - penalty. My comments about where we draw the line, how.we define what our ultimate penalty is are wholly relevant here. And if our ultimate penalty is life in prison (which though the bloodthirsty want to portray as being some luxurious cakewalk is a pretty severe penalty) then that is what is administered for the most serious crimes. Again, it simply does not logically follow in any.meaningful way that because we jailed a drug dealer for that we are justified in killing a killer. It is completely specious reasoning. You could just as easily follow that rationale to say "well how do you justify the same death penalty for this child killer as for.the guy who raped the child first?" The same logical fallacies arise. So where do you draw the line in the barbarity of the punishment to fit the barbarity of the crime? Because you have to draw it somewhere. For me, I suggest we draw it at not killing people, since that has time and again proven to be entirely ineffective and logically hypocritical, and since not you or anyone else has provided a single logically sound argument to legitimately justify it.
And as for "the extent of our mercy" and comparing the.punishment to.the depravity of the crime - that just falls back into the same old tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye confusion of vengeance for justice that I've gone over and over.
By the way, there are plenty of points that I've made that you haven't addressed - the huge range of systematic failures in the capital system, the lack of any evidence of deterrence, the unavoidable possibility of irreversible errors; the evidence of the unnecessariness of the death penalty from countless other countries who have abolished the death penalty without adverse consequence...
See... the thing is I have addressed these points several times throughout these 45+ pages. You have been very reasonable with your discussion so I don't want to come across as uninterested, but I have done this dance a few times and it always ends up the same.
For example, when one suggests that there is no evidence to deterrence, I contributed a credible study which presented findings that showed the dp did work as a deterrence. The study presented findings that suggested the reason why some statistics suggest it doesn't act as a deterrent is the intermittent and inconsistent usage of it led to skewed numbers. I'm not advocating for such widespread usage, but think about it- common sense can tell you that these findings are not far-fetched given the limiting factors associated with the usage of it.
I have spoke to the irreversability factor by stating that it should only be applied in cases that met certain criteria including 100% certainty (remember the 'heads in the fridge' or the reference to the Cheshire murders)? Further, the advancements of forensics science have become significant- to the point where we now see the same science absolve wrongfully convicted people with the 'old methodology'. I surmise that in time, the wrongfully convicted numbers we have experienced in the past will have abated significantly. I have also stated that this very premise is the one that gives me pause for thought.
You aren't completely safe arguing that you stand on legal grounds with your stance because there are states that legally exercise the dp; therefore, both positions can boast legal backing to some degree.
It's interesting that one can place a ceiling on punishment, when there is no ceiling on crime. It simply doesn't equate: Chadwick's scenario of a backroom gambling table murder in Chicago is different than the abduction, rape and murder of an 8 year old child. One murder victim placed themselves in a dangerous setting assuming a level of risk, while the other was trying to get home from school and was preyed upon by a sadistic maniac.
Comments
oh my, here i am talking the milder stuff.
the death penalty is not revenge at all. it is more of a cleansing the world of freaks, monsters & maniacs who have taken extreme joy in hurting, killing & destroying decent lives. this is very good, to put these dangerous souls to rest
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
The parents of the 3 year old that was raped and murdered must be overjoyed. But who cares about those grieving, bloodlusting 'savages' that wish death for the poor soul who raped and mutilated their child... right Know1 and RG? It's pretty easy to scoff at others for abhorring the most depraved acts and their perpetrators when one believes in 'fluff'. You know... really fancy sounding stuff with no practicality to it?
Know... you've been spouting a bit of fluff these past days. I noticed you never responded to the comment I made to the ridiculous one you posted earlier when you said violence as a response to anything is wrong. I had responded by saying that the allied response to Nazi Germany's aggression was wrong then? That tyranny and evil should have been allowed to run its course? I think you need to re-think your position- it's been really poorly formed. Unless, of course, you are a monk and really walking the walk.
Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford. The rapist and murderer of a child has no place on this earth... period. Some crimes demand a punishment that fits the nature of the crime.
This is a financial move and not a moral one. The victims and their survivors in this case are denied justice because the state wishes to save money. If it wants to save money... then do it. Why such a ridiculous process? When people are caught red-handed with severed heads in their fridges or caught escaping the scene laughing and high fiving after raping and murdering three women... well... one woman and two young girls (such as the Cheshire murderers)... then to my way of thinking... the process can be really quick. Really quick.
Lastly, how flawed is the following rationale for change: people with less income and less money to spend on their defence are more likely to get the death penalty, and whether or not someone gets the death penalty can depend on which county their crime occurs in?
In essence, this is saying: some psychopaths can't afford the lawyers to protect them from the death penalty and others can. It's not fair to the poor psychopaths that they can't afford the legal team to protect them from the penalty some seek after they have committed their crimes.
You don't want to die via state execution? Leave other people's kids alone.
thirty bills unpaid... you're fantastic & i enjoy your writing & beliefs
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
It completely undermines the integrity of the rest of your point when you resort to strawman arguments such as this.
I think there is a BIG difference between an event like Nazi Germany or even as small as an individual kidnapping occurring that it's at least somewhat justified in my mind to save people or individuals who are in harms way or in serious danger of being killed. If that means using deadly force is the only option that will work, then I can see that.
But...that's a TON different than an individual who is already apprehended, behind bars and in no danger to anyone anymore. If you kill them at that point, it is revenge murder in my mind. It serves no purpose and drags those who are looking forward to that person being executed down to a similar level.
I also never said I felt sorry for any of the killers.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So... the implication here is what? People who seek an appropriate level of justice for raped, murdered and mutilated children are as bad as the people who have committed these acts?
The 'other' post claimed: the savages though can take heart in the fact that prison is worse than death.
So what is this implying? People who think that heinous crimes should not be met with the same punishment we reserve for drug dealers are savages?
So... try to reserve judgement on people's tactics in a manner that isn't strictly fit to suit your beliefs, Ping. You never bothered to address those posts for their weak efforts to paint DP proponents as 'less than satisfactory' (to put it mildly).
My post stands and is more than legitimate. There are people who feel sorry for these losers. I have illustrated several cases where, for example, some idiot marries some depraved murderer.
Just on the radio coming to work today... a shitbagger named Allan Schoeneborn had previously murdered his three children in a rage- angry at his ex-wife. It was a messy and wet crime committed by an animal. The courts laughably found him not criminally responsible- they love doing that for drug addicts. And, bleeding heart idiots eagerly campaigned to grant him day passes to which, astonishingly, they were afforded. Of course... the public become outraged and the courts quickly rescinded their decision. Now, he's making the news again... he wishes to be transferred to Winnipeg so he can be closer to his mom.
What's my point? It should be obvious. Some people have their heads shoved squarely up their asses and are completely out of touch with reality. This guy should die. His crime is not a 'run-of-the-mill' crime- it is an obscenity to which had the effect of eroding the fabric of our society. To reflect our level of disdain for such a brutal act... we needed to respond with a punishment befitting of the crime.
Not day passes, three square meals a day, internet, books, and counselling.
It also illustrates a profound lack of comprehension of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge". Of course, someone like Chadwick tries to say that the distinction doesn't matter because revenge is fine but the rambling incoherence of his argument doesn't really do that case any favours.
So here's the key thing about the distinction - justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. If our (understandable and legitimate) outrage at the heinousness, brutality, obscenity of a crime becomes the deciding factor in whether someone lives or dies, then that - by the definition of "justice" - cannot be justice. It can only be revenge. And there is no "revenge" system - there is a justice system, whose business it is to make impartial, even-handed and rational pronouncements on justice. It is not its business to base its actions on our outrage or "our level of disdain for such a brutal act". Because if it is, it is redundant, it has failed to administer actual meaningful justice, and we are left with no more than a proxy for vigilantism. And that's what would really erodes the "fabric of our society."
The death penalty is a fundament failure to apply - or even understand - the meaning of justice. That is what is out of touch with reality. The reality is the death penalty does not work on any level (though I expect someone - presumably Chadwick - will bludgeon in the facetious point that "well, it worked for that dead scumbag.") - it does not reduce violent crime, it is arbitrarily administered, it does not in any meaningful way "fit the crime", it is indefensibly expensive, it creates even more bereaved families, it is administered in the most profoundly unjust ways (regardless of guilt, the poor and minorities are massively more likely to be put to death than wealthy white people for the same crimes). It can never be made infallible, and it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes. Quite simply, it contradicts every single necessary criterion of justice.
Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Don't try to undermine and distract from my point by criticising me for not addressing different points, that is, once again, totally disingenuous.
Your post does not stand, and is not legitimate because you are not arguing with those people, you are attempting to misrepresent the opinions of people right here to further your own argument. It's a shame you can't just admit to your shitty behaviour and rectify it, instead of dissembling even further.
=D>
way to give rational reasons in lieu of shouting your opinion as fact like most of us lol
"it can never be reversed in the UNAVOIDABLE instance of mistakes"
as a side-note, here in the "free" US we have more prisoners per capita than anybody else and our prisons shouldn't be full of non-violent drug offenders anyways so the argument that killers deserve worse than prison just doesn't work for me. as i said before prison is a worse punishment than death, which is the end of suffering. unless you believe God likes to burn people, then I guess it makes sense.
It seems to me that many don't really just want killers dead, they want to be the ones to kill them. It's always fantasizing about a bullet in the brain, I see that everywhere. If you are the victim of these heinous crimes by all means use that bullet and I won't say a word. Otherwise, it just sounds to me like a murder fantasy with a justification tagged on at the end.
This is a well-written post.
I have three comments to make regarding it:
Firstly, on this forum, my posts are not designed to change anyone's minds. If someone changes their mind... then this is their doing on their terms. My posts are placed in threads to reflect my position and beliefs. You don't have to like them or my vernacular.
Second, you state: justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. Then tell me... how is the prison sentence afforded to Clifford Olson (lavish with luxuries and the best medical care we can offer a person) for raping, torturing, and murdering 11 young children exactly 'equitable'.
Third, when you state it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes, I do pause for thought.
I'll take your word for it though and I would expect you to hold your views as you do- I don't blame you for doing so.
Remember... if you have read through these pages at all... I have always suggested the DP be reserved for the 'special' cases. Among the criteria I have suggested that would be a qualifying attribute is irrefutable guilt (such as the two scenarios I mentioned in one of my last posts).
Again, sorry for your pain.
I say irrefutable guilt is all but non-existent! And despite my precipitous walk on the high-road, my savage, bloodlusty side is satisfied knowing the guilty will be raped and beat and demeaned at every turn!
But I always must end with compassion and mourn the persecuted.
reprehensible acts where they are caught red handed... yeah
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
But as I do this... let's also acknowledge the fact that you remained very complacent with other somewhat muddied tactics on the part of the people you are now carrying the torch for: when they referred to proponents of the dp as 'savages' and 'no better than the killers'.
Hmmm. Consider the exchanges here. One side aggressively initiates a mud slinging affair by calling their opponents a 'savage' and then labelling them as 'being on the same level as a serial murderer'. The other side responds in kind to these charges by stating their opponent is 'feeling sorry for murderers'. And... Ping gets himself worked up about the retort and spins it to suggest this was 'shitty behaviour' with the ultimate design of misrepresenting the opinions of his opponents.
To my way of thinking, if a person wishes to anoint themselves as a board tactic monitor as you have seen fit to do, Ping, then they should likely do so in an unbiased manner... otherwise... their righteousness comes across as self-serving: attacking only the cheaper tactics employed by the side they disagree with.
I'll stop there, given I have enjoyed your contributions on this site immensely and hope to do so in the future.
you're satisfied knowing the guilty are raped & beaten
i'd personally never wish rape on even the most vile of beasts
isn't that kind of sick & lower than low, vile & just plain fucked up?
i would however be satisfied if they got their small brain smoked
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
On your first point, I can't argue with that - that's absolutely your prerogative and right, and good of you to lay it out like that.
Second: I don't know this case, and I don't know what luxuries you're talking about. Nevertheless, at no point did I say that the system as it exists now always offers the best justice. But it does not follow that execution is therefore justified. It makes no sense to say "well, if he is getting more luxuries than he deserves, then the only alternative is to kill him." So I don't really get how that has any bearing on the rights or wrongs of the death penalty. If your legal, penal, or judiciary system doesn't work, or if it is inefficient or "inequitable", then fix it. But there is no correlation and no logic in jumping to the conclusion that we can therefore justify an even more broken, even more inequitable penalty, which once administered has no chance of being reformed. As for his having healthcare, health is not a luxury - it is a human right, and human rights are not dependent on your actions - you have them by the very nature of your existence, regardless of what you have done or who you are. Also, you describe Clifford Olsen's conditions almost as if he was being rewarded for his crime. Something that people who tend to use this argument from outrage at the supposed luxuries of prison life almost always overlook is the penalty itself: the deprivation of liberty, the imprisonment itself, the removal of freedom of movement. And I think rgambs story of his brother shows the reality of that.
Third: what are you pausing for thought about? How will you ensure that the death penalty will be 100% foolproof, that there will never be an error made? Again, I point to rgambs story. How many other cases of people being exonerated after being sentenced to death have there been? Now imagine that the US capital system worked more efficiently and death row prisoners didn't languish for decades before being put to death. What if they were killed before the evidence that exonerated them came to light? There is no way to correct those errors. Can you guarantee a system in which that would never happen? If not, the risk is always there, and if the risk is always there, justice is always undermined.
Unless you can show me that the death penalty is necessary - and I mean that there is no other feasible alternative - then it will always be arbitrary. And by the very fact that some states have it and others don't, by the fact that the vast majority of countries on the planet have abolished the death penalty without their societies collapsing, without the dire predictions of DP advocates coming to pass, then I find it impossible to see how you can make a meaningful case for the death penalty being necessary. And as far as I am concerned, if it cannot be shown to be absolutely necessary to kill a human being, it can never be legitimate to kill a human being. And that goes for states as much as for individuals.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
weaksauce
Of course nothing is 'necessary' to those unattached to the events. But for those directly involved... there is a level of necessity. Dr. Petit once argued as you do now. He scoffed at the dp for the same reasons. After he was beaten and his wife and two daughters were raped and burned alive... well... he doesn't feel the same anymore. He feels that the dp is 'necessary' for this horrific event. In this case, like others, the dp reflects how we, as a society, feel about the crime and it offers him what he needs to try and minimize the pain of his horrific experience. What do we owe these two violent psychopaths who committed the most ghastly of crimes? What do we owe the victims and their survivors? In too many cases, we tend to ignore the wishes of the survivors and the memory of the dismembered victims and lean towards the murderer's desperate pleas for mercy when determining fate.
I don't eagerly await murderers dying at the hands of the state. But given the reality we are forced to deal with in some cases, I feel we should respond accordingly.
Irrefutable guilt as I have presented in other recent posts: there is such a thing.
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree for all the reasons I stated in my previous post. By allowing the death penalty for "the most heinous of crimes", you are bringing subjective value judgments back into it. And justice, as I've already said, cannot be subjective. If we say that we should kill those who commit crimes that most offend our sense of decency, most sicken and horrify us - serial/mass murders, murders involving children, murders with depravity, and heads in the fridge - we're just back to saying outrage decides who lives and who dies. And I've already pointed out why that cannot be just.
The same thing goes for your example of Dr Petit. It's a common question from DP advocates - "how would you feel if it was your family?" - and my answer is the same: I don't know how I would feel. I may very well be so outraged and angry and helpless that I would want them to suffer. I hope I never have to find out how I would react. But the fact is: it would not be up to me. in this context, the purpose of the state is to ensure that dispassionate, objective, logical reason - in short justice - prevails, over anger and vengeance.
I also often hear DP advocates accuse opponents of pitying the criminal instead of the family, and I think for the most part - and certainly in my case - it is an unfair and untruthful accusation. I have written to many state governors and ambassadors with regards to halting imminent executions, and I always, always make sure to state from the outset that I in no way want to understate the seriousness of the crime or the grief and pain caused to the family. But the fact remains: it is not for the state to fulfil "the wishes of the family". justice systems are not about what is owed to the family or anyone. Were it to do so, it would become - as I already said - nothing more than a proxy for a vigilante society. Its role is to administer objective, rational and dispassionate justice.
The families of murdered victims may feel that for themselves it is "necessary" for them to get closure. But that again is subjective. It is not in any sort of legal way objectively necessary in a way that would justify killing the criminal. I have come across examples of families who desperately wanted the death penalty but then found it did not bring closure as they were still left with their loss. Some families may feel closure, but it does not follow that the execution was "necessary" to gain that closure. Other families in other states and in other countries that have abolished the death penalty (like my own) will report that they felt a sense of closure to see the murderer of their loved one locked away where he could not visit their pain on any other families. So it is subjective. And if it is subjective, it cannot be necessary.
The thing is; if the death penalty is the ultimate penalty, people who feel they have suffered the ultimate hurt in having those they love torn away from them in a violent and horrific way, will often feel that only the ultimate penalty can balance that out. If the death penalty is not an option and the ultimate penalty is life in prison, people will generally feel (not always, because like I say, it's subjective and people's emotional responses are different) that justice has been done when they get the ultimate penalty available to them - life in prison. Again, this just shows that it is not necessary. And if it is not necessary to kill a person, it cannot be legitimate to kill them.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
You have alluded to the level of pain some survivors are left with and to the possibility that you might find yourself in a different mindset than you are now (like Petit found). I contend it is much easier to speak to the wrongdoings of the death penalty- far removed from the pain of the crime- than it is from a more 'personalized' position. I recognize there are some cases of individuals, whose children have been taken from them, that have spoken against executing the killer of their loved ones; however, in my experience, it at least appears that the overwhelming majority of parents and the like have felt a disconnect between the penal system and themselves with regards to what justice should look like. In short, they feel as if justice has not been served by affording the person who raped and murdered their child a prison term- the same penalty a thief or drug dealer might incur.
And, once imprisoned, the families are not then simply left to their suffering. Instead, they are subjected to further pain as they feel the need to attend parole hearings to protest the release of the 'changed man'. In some cases, they are tortured further by the actions of their killer while he sits in prison. I have already documented Olson's brutal prison behaviour (10-20 pages ago) and have also submitted the brutal case of Richard Allen Davis who's court room conduct was nothing short of despicable.
Lastly, calling the dp 'vengeance' is a little dramatic. One could call prison vengeance as a response to a crime. And to say that families' emotional responses should not be a factor when considering what justice should be is minimizing their suffering to the benefit of the murderer.
If I have not made it clear to this point, the bottom line for me is as follows:
The very nature of the crime should determine what type of consequence should follow. A drug dealer killing another drug dealer in a gun fight is one thing. Michael Rafferty, raping and murdering 8 year old Tori Stafford, is quite another. For me, Rafferty's obscenity cannot be tolerated and I would prefer him put to death for his sick depravity. For others, including the ones that make the laws unfortunately, Rafferty's brutal offence is not enough to warrant execution.
Perhaps it is a blind spot in my composition. I simply cannot get my head around that level of leniency or toleration afforded to some of our most vile people no matter how hard I try. And I say 'leniency or toleration' because, no matter how some opponents of the dp wish to convey the fact that they are just as hard on crime and feel just as strongly about such crimes as proponents do... I'm not buying it because to me... they don't.
Regardless, you clearly have your well thought out position and I have mine. I'll respectfully leave you to yours.
I absolutely understand (and share) your abhorrence at such crimes. I admire your empathy for the victims' families. But again, for all the reasons I've already stated, those cannot be legitimate justification for killing someone - regardless of how much thet might disgust us.
My bottom line is this: your position is based on emotive response to the horror of the crime. While that is valid for you to feel - or me, or victims families - it is not valid for the judiciary to act on emotive response. In fact, it is its explicit responsibility not to. Because to do so would - by definition - be injustice.
When I say the death penalty is vengeance, this is what I mean - it is based on our anger, our outrage, our desire for retribution. That is vengeance , no? But that is not and cannot be the legitimate motivating factor in justice, if justice is to mean anything.
But now I'm repeating myself. I respect your opinion. But I don't see anything in your opinion that addresses the fatal inconsistencies in the death penalty system that I've been trying to point out here.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I have not failed to see what you are getting at. I have heard that same arguments many times centered around the notion that we don't sink to the murderer's level and we hold ourselves to a higher standard; however, as I have stated and that you have acknowledged, it's easy to do when it's not our child that's been the victim.
And my position is not based solely on emotive response. It is said that for every action in this universe... there is an equal and opposite reaction. You have never addressed the point I have made a couple of times now: how is it 'justice' giving a depraved murderer the same sentence that we give thieves and drug dealers? In reality, a clinical execution is a far, far better fate than what people such as Olson afforded their random victims while pursuing their pleasures and to me, this should be the extent of our mercy.
And as for "the extent of our mercy" and comparing the.punishment to.the depravity of the crime - that just falls back into the same old tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye confusion of vengeance for justice that I've gone over and over.
By the way, there are plenty of points that I've made that you haven't addressed - the huge range of systematic failures in the capital system, the lack of any evidence of deterrence, the unavoidable possibility of irreversible errors; the evidence of the unnecessariness of the death penalty from countless other countries who have abolished the death penalty without adverse consequence...
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
many of these dangerous folks have been in & out of jails, prisons, countless rehabilitation programs & other programs & institutations of some kind all their lives. something is not working. could it be the nasty felon's brain & soul are not firing on all cylinders & never will as they are career criminals or life long sickos?
i respect a murderer who killed a fellow man @ a (illegal) back-room gambling table in chicago out of self defense as everyone in the room is packing heat & things fell apart. this man does not deserve the death penalty
child predators, serial rapists or nasty ass rapists in general, beating women & so on... forget about it. these animals deserve to be put down as if a dying & sick dog
it is absolutely that simple
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
For example, when one suggests that there is no evidence to deterrence, I contributed a credible study which presented findings that showed the dp did work as a deterrence. The study presented findings that suggested the reason why some statistics suggest it doesn't act as a deterrent is the intermittent and inconsistent usage of it led to skewed numbers. I'm not advocating for such widespread usage, but think about it- common sense can tell you that these findings are not far-fetched given the limiting factors associated with the usage of it.
I have spoke to the irreversability factor by stating that it should only be applied in cases that met certain criteria including 100% certainty (remember the 'heads in the fridge' or the reference to the Cheshire murders)? Further, the advancements of forensics science have become significant- to the point where we now see the same science absolve wrongfully convicted people with the 'old methodology'. I surmise that in time, the wrongfully convicted numbers we have experienced in the past will have abated significantly. I have also stated that this very premise is the one that gives me pause for thought.
You aren't completely safe arguing that you stand on legal grounds with your stance because there are states that legally exercise the dp; therefore, both positions can boast legal backing to some degree.
It's interesting that one can place a ceiling on punishment, when there is no ceiling on crime. It simply doesn't equate: Chadwick's scenario of a backroom gambling table murder in Chicago is different than the abduction, rape and murder of an 8 year old child. One murder victim placed themselves in a dangerous setting assuming a level of risk, while the other was trying to get home from school and was preyed upon by a sadistic maniac.