The Death Penalty

Thirty Bills Unpaid

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

wolfamongwolves said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

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.

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

chadwick

I-)

Thirty Bills Unpaid

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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...

chadwick

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

it is absolutely that simple

Thirty Bills Unpaid

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

chadwick

thirty bills unpaid...

you are level headed, intelligent & a decent man with a big heart. love you, man.

& love to all. even though we may not see eye to eye, i care about my fellow music lovers. some of you all are my friends.
enjoy your night

Thirty Bills Unpaid

chadwick said:

thirty bills unpaid...

you are level headed, intelligent & a decent man with a big heart. love you, man.

& love to all. even though we may not see eye to eye, i care about my fellow music lovers. some of you all are my friends.
enjoy your night

Cheers, Chadwick!

I think you are a little generous with your nice words, but thanks anyways!

And your last statement is what we must all keep in mind when debating these issues. If debate is enjoyable in the least, then this is so because there is an alternative point of view to debate. As such, these alternative positions and the people that hold them must be respected.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

It wasn't a credible study. It was a farcical study. It was a study based on the hypothetical notion that if the DP were to be administered more widely, then we'd see evidence of it's supposed deterrence capability. In other words, kill them all, and kill them regularly, and this would eventually result in the deterrence of future criminals.

All the other studies carried out into this subject, supported by over 80% of criminologists, are based on the facts, and not on fantasies.

Byrnzie

wolfamongwolves said:

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.

Well said.

I think what we have here is those people who, on the one hand, wish to live in a vengeful society, where murder is regarded as a solution, and is carried out both by individuals and by the State - thereby creating a sinister sort of merging of minds, in which an unsaid consensus exists that says that violence, including murder, is an acceptable means of resolving problems - and those who wish to live in a society in which the sanctity of life is held as a given, and in a society which places itself on a higher footing than that of base instincts, such as revenge, retribution, and blood-lust (what some here call 'closure').
When a State begins murdering people in the name of 'justice', that State ceases to stand contrary to, and/or above, the aberrations, passions, and sicknesses, of those it condemns.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

It wasn't a credible study. It was a farcical study. It was a study based on the hypothetical notion that if the DP were to be administered more widely, then we'd see evidence of it's supposed deterrence capability. In other words, kill them all, and kill them regularly, and this would eventually result in the deterrence of future criminals.

All the other studies carried out into this subject, supported by over 80% of criminologists, are based on the facts, and not on fantasies.

Yes... and No.

You are correct suggesting the study is suspect to scrutiny given the fact that it was based on a hypothesis that the Death Penalty was not used in its proper capacity to show its effectiveness as a deterrent.

You are wrong suggesting that studies to the contrary are factual because they too are flawed given they have generated their data under the same weak testing parameters.

Consider Ohio.

Since the state's beginnings in 1803, the state has executed 393 people.

http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public/capital.htm

In 2008, the state reported 543 homicides to the FBI.

http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_HomicidesinOhio2008.pdf

In two centuries, the state has executed 393 people and in one year alone, the state reported 543 homicides.

Do the math: the death penalty in its capacity for Ohio can hardly be measured for its effectiveness given its extremely rare application. So... arguing that the death penalty is not a deterrent is just as dramatically flawed as studies or opinion to the contrary.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

wolfamongwolves said:

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.

Well said.

I think what we have here is those people who, on the one hand, wish to live in a vengeful society, where murder is regarded as a solution, and is carried out both by individuals and by the State - thereby creating a sinister sort of merging of minds, in which an unsaid consensus exists that says that violence is acceptable - and those who wish to live in a society in which the sanctity of life is held as a given, and in a society which places itself on a higher footing than that of base instincts, such as revenge, retribution, and blood-lust (what some here call 'closure').
When a State begins murdering people in the name of 'justice', that State ceases to stand contrary to, and/or above, the aberrations, passions, and sicknesses, of those it condemns.

Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.

I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

It wasn't a credible study. It was a farcical study. It was a study based on the hypothetical notion that if the DP were to be administered more widely, then we'd see evidence of it's supposed deterrence capability. In other words, kill them all, and kill them regularly, and this would eventually result in the deterrence of future criminals.

All the other studies carried out into this subject, supported by over 80% of criminologists, are based on the facts, and not on fantasies.

Yes... and No.

You are correct suggesting the study is suspect to scrutiny given the fact that it was based on a hypothesis that the Death Penalty was not used in its proper capacity to show its effectiveness as a deterrent.

You are wrong suggesting that studies to the contrary are factual because they too are flawed given they have generated their data under the same weak testing parameters.

Consider Ohio.

Since the state's beginnings in 1803, the state has executed 393 people.

http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public/capital.htm

In 2008, the state reported 543 homicides to the FBI.

http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_HomicidesinOhio2008.pdf

In two centuries, the state has executed 393 people and in one year alone, the state reported 543 homicides.

Do the math: the death penalty in its capacity for Ohio can hardly be measured for its effectiveness given its extremely rare application. So... arguing that the death penalty is not a deterrent is just as dramatically flawed as studies or opinion to the contrary.

No, it's not flawed, it's based on the facts. Claiming that if more executions were carried out, it could be shown that the Death Penalty works as a deterrent, is simply resorting to the lowest, and most obvious, sort of disingenuous and slippery lawyers-speak.

The fact is that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. It doesn't work as a deterrent in the U.S or anywhere else. And to suggest that it might function as a deterrent if only more people could be executed is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.

I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.

Except nobody said anything of the sort.

Though as for satisfying the families 'needs' and 'wishes' - i.e, murdering the murderer - Wolf already covered this above. Justice and the Law should not operate on the level of emotions, such as vengeance, and blood-lust.

And not all families of people raped or murdered wish for the guilty party to be executed, and many are vehemently opposed to it. Probably because it solves nothing, and resolves nothing, but just adds another death to the list, and another grieving family to the list.

Doesn't the Bible teach that 'Though shall not kill?' Aren't the words 'In God We Trust' printed on every banknote in the U.S? If you really trust the word of 'God', then you have a strange way of showing it.

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

I know of the studies you are referring to. And I know that far from being credible, they have been widely critiqued for lack of objectivity and questionable methodology. Also, consider last year's meta-study by the National Research Council of all evidence on the deterrence issue from the last 35 years, which concluded that there was no credible studies on deterrence. Here's a line from this article to illustrate the point: "If deterrence worked, how could Texas, which executes a dozen inmates a year, have a higher murder rate than Colorado, which has executed one murderer in more than four decades?"

Let's talk common sense a minute, since you brought it up, and consider what "deterrence" actually means in practice. How likely do you think it is that someone in a murderous rage, someone perhaps fuelled by drugs or alcohol and enough anger to want to kill someone, is going have the clarity of mind and forethought at that moment to stop and weigh up the options, the likelihood of getting caught and executed, and suddenly make a cool-headed decision that they'd better not? Even were it to happen here and there (in for instance Chadwick's backroom gambling table murder), do you think it's reasonable to assume that it happens on a large enough scale to justify a whole death penalty system, with all its monstrous cost and even more monstrous failings? Now consider that scenario in the instance of the people you have been talking about - the worst of the worst - the only ones we should reserve the DP for in your opinion. You call them psychopaths and maniacs, Chadwick says they are sick defects whose brains are not firing on all cylinders. What do you think the likelihood of those people entertaining that cool-headed rational balancing of their options is? Frankly, were the thought of their possible execution in ten or twenty years' time to enter their head at that very moment in even one instance, it would be a miracle.

So please, let's dispense with the deterrence excuse. It is not valid. There is no credible evidence of whether there is a deterrent effect, so citing studies is of little use to your argument. But a little common sense illustrates precisely why we shouldn't expect there to be any deterrent effect.

As to the irreversibility, I have already said come back to me when you can show that there is no danger whatsoever of a mistake. As for smoking gun evidence (head in the fridge) don't make the mistake I am assuming that there is doubt in every case - I am saying nothing of the sort. You are confusing discussion of individual cases with discussion of the practice of the death penalty as a whole. And as for those in individual certainties, I think there are more than enough sound arguments against execution (arguments I have already made) to render the certainty of their guilt a moot point in deciding whether or not they are killed.

Yes, different states and different countries have different laws, but the meaning of justice as being necessarily impartial, dispassionate and equitable is the same in all legal systems. And those principles have to be upheld or it is not justice. That is a logical linguistic legal fact, is it not?

And as to placing a ceiling on punishment, are you actually arguing that there should be none, because there is no ceiling on crime? I'm confused about what you're driving at there, and if it is that - if you are saying "well, they keep doing more and more horrible things, so why can't we?" - then I shouldn't need to point out the complete self-defeating illogicality of that. How plainly can I state this? Because we are not them. Because you are condemning them for their lack of recognition of society's boundaries, at the same time as you are advocating ignoring those boundaries yourself in order to execute them. Society does not operate on the same basis as criminals. That's why they are criminals. They flout the social boundaries that protect our civility. It makes no sense to then argue that we can because they did. That would, as you put it, erode the fabric of our society. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here, because I would have thought that this should have been blindingly obvious. I'll repeat myself: comparing the punishment to the depravity of the crime 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. It is not justice. It cannot be anything but a self-serving aberration of justice.

know1

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.

I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.

But the family's wishes are tied too strongly to emotion and that's exactly why they shouldn't be determining what justice is.

Society would be so much better if people didn't worry about justice and instead worked on achieving some level of forgiveness.