Let's talk death penalty

[LittleLightShining]

I used to be for the death penalty but I realized that that position was at odds with my pro-life stance on abortion and anti-war position.

Last year a 12 yo girl was sexually abused and murdered by her uncle in VT. The US Attorney released a statement today stating that they are seeking the death penalty if the guy is found guilty (which he most likely will be). After the murder the state legislature passed a law requiring a mandatory 25 year minimum sentence for child sex abuse with death resulting.

Here's the statement: (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vt/press/releases/20090825_jacques.html)


August 25, 2009
UNITED STATES WILL SEEK DEATH PENALTY FOR JACQUES

The United States Attorney announced today that the United States will seek the death penalty for Michael Jacques, 43, of Randolph, Vermont, if he is convicted of kidnapping resulting in the death of Brooke Bennett, as alleged in Count 1 of the October, 2008 federal Indictment.

Today the United States filed a “Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death” in the Jacques case, stating that the Government believes that the circumstances of the offense are such that, if Jacques is convicted of kidnapping resulting in Brooke Bennett’s death as charged, a sentence of death is justified under the Federal Death Penalty Act, and that the Government will seek a sentence of death.

In October, 2008, a Federal Grand Jury sitting in Rutland handed up a six-count Indictment charging Jacques with the kidnapping of Brooke Bennett, age 12, which resulted in her death. The Indictment also charged Jacques with the production and possession of child pornography. The Grand Jury also issued a “Notice of Special Findings,” making Jacques eligible for a sentence of death if convicted of the kidnapping charge. Jacques is detained in the custody of the United States Marshals Service.

According to the Indictment, in 2003, Jacques intimidated, deceived and persuaded a then nine-year-old girl into believing that a powerful organization named “Breckenridge” would harm or kill her and her family if she did not engage in sex acts with Jacques. The indictment further alleges that between 2003 and 2008, Jacques sent numerous emails and text messages from fictitious characters (such as Eric and Charles) supposedly associated with Breckenridge to this juvenile. As a result, Jacques succeeded in causing this juvenile to submit to ongoing Breckenridge directives, including allowing Jacques to videotape himself having sex with the juvenile. The Indictment further alleges Jacques drugged the child before sexually assaulting her.

According to the Indictment, Jacques also convinced the juvenile that Breckenridge sometimes “terminated” girls in the program and that the juvenile might have to assist in the planning of such a termination (but not participate in the actual termination). In early 2008, Jacques sent the juvenile a series of emails purportedly from Breckenridge operatives telling the juvenile that Brooke Bennett had been designated for termination because she was causing significant problems for the juvenile’s father, resulting in him becoming suicidal. The Indictment further alleges that in May and June 2008, Jacques sent numerous emails to the juvenile, purportedly from Breckenridge operatives, stating that she was expected to assist Jacques in abducting Brooke Bennett and turning her over to Breckenridge operatives.

The Indictment further alleges that on June 24, 2008, Jacques lured Brooke Bennett to his residence, with the assistance of the juvenile, by leading Brooke Bennett to believe that she would be a guest at a pool party there the following day. On June 25, 2008, Jacques drove Brooke Bennett to the Cumberland Farms convenience store in Randolph, Vermont, and left her there to create the pretense that he was ending his contact with her. The Indictment also alleges that shortly after leaving Brooke Bennett at the store, Jacques picked her up not far from the store and brought her back to his house. Once at his house, Jacques instructed the juvenile to leave. The Indictment goes on to allege that Jacques then drugged, sexually assaulted, and murdered Brooke Bennett.

The Vermont Medical Examiner determined that Brooke Bennett’s death was caused by strangulation and smothering due to a plastic bag over her head and around her neck.

In its Notice of Special Findings with respect to the kidnapping charge, the Grand Jury alleges, among other things, that Jacques (1) intentionally killed Brooke Bennett, (2) intentionally inflicted serious bodily injury that resulted in the death of Brooke Bennett, (3) committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner, (4) committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of Brooke Bennett, and (5) committed the offense against a victim that was particularly vulnerable due to youth or infirmity.

Under federal law, the Attorney General of the United States makes the decision whether the United States will seek the death penalty in an eligible case after a thorough review of the facts and law. In a letter dated August 14, 2009, the Attorney General notified the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Vermont that the United States would seek the death penalty in the Jacques case. In the “Notice” filed today, the United States repeated the Special Findings alleged in the Indictment, and added a series of “Non-Statutory Aggravating Factors” as the basis for the imposition of the death penalty. The Notice alleges 17 additional aggravating factors.

The United States Attorney cautioned that an indictment is only a method of bringing charges and is not proof of guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Vermont State Police, and the Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Jacques is represented by Federal Public Defender Michael L. Desautels and Montclair, New Jersey attorneys David A. Ruhnke and Jean D. Barrett.

The United States Attorney will have no further comment on today’s Notice.

On the one hand, this guy is the lowest of the low and he should definitely pay for this. On the other hand, I resent that the taxpayers should have to provide room and board for this scumbag for at least the next 25 years.

What do you think?

[coyote_sprit]

If you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty(semen, hard DNA, etc.), kill the bastard. If not release him.

[Austin]

Death penalty costs more than life in prison.

It is one of the reasons, albeit the least important, that I am against the death penalty.

[disorderlyvision]

i am not a fan....

[LittleLightShining]

Death penalty costs more than life in prison.

It is one of the reasons, albeit the least important, that I am against the death penalty.Does it really? How do you figure?

[Austin]

Does it really? How do you figure?


Attorney fees.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

EDIT: And attorney fees associated with appeals, which are obviously numerous.

[LittleLightShining]

Attorney fees.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

EDIT: And attorney fees associated with appeals, which are obviously numerous.

Thanks for the link.

[angelatc]

Here are some death penalty numbers: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

but sometimes,things aren't only about the money. I also used to support the death penalty, and I hear you loud and clear on the case you presented.

Those are the cases that they use to create a bloodlust frenzy when they want to get legislation passed. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer.....all poster kids for people who should fry.

But the problem is much bigger. The state can't contain power, so it's best just not to give them power.

I turned against the death penalty when Florida killed a man who hadn't killed anybody. He was driving a get-away car in a liquor store robbery that went bad. He claimed that he didn't know that his friends were going to rob the place. Now, I take that with a grain of salt, (everybody in prison is innocent) but the state couldn't prove otherwise either. But with the way Florida law reads, they didn't have to. So the state killed a man who had never killed anybody.

I don't want the government to have to power to determine who lives or dies, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about the health care system or the justice system.

[LittleLightShining]

Here are some death penalty numbers: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

but sometimes,things aren't only about the money. I also used to support the death penalty, and I hear you loud and clear on the case you presented.

Those are the cases that they use to create a bloodlust frenzy when they want to get legislation passed. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer.....all poster kids for people who should fry.

But the problem is much bigger. The state can't contain power, so it's best just not to give them power.

I turned against the death penalty when Florida killed a man who hadn't killed anybody. He was driving a get-away car in a liquor store robbery that went bad. He claimed that he didn't know that his friends were going to rob the place. Now, I take that with a grain of salt, (everybody in prison is innocent) but the state couldn't prove otherwise either. But with the way Florida law reads, they didn't have to. So the state killed a man who had never killed anybody.

I don't want the government to have to power to determine who lives or dies, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about the health care system or the justice system.
Exactly. I think this guy is going to die. VT is famous for its lax treatment of sex offenders which has turned it into a haven of sorts for violent pedophiles. I think there will be widespread support for this guy to be put to death. I also think it's going to be a very tough case to argue that if found guilty he shouldn't die. Really I think the evidence is overwhelmingly damning. They found all kinds of stuff on his computer plus they have at least one other girl who was a party to this ring. Not only that but he does have a record of sex offense.

[Working Poor]

I am against the death penalty because if one innocent person is put to death it is too many. Also if proven guilty life in prison does give the person a chance to be remorseful and also forgiven by God, the family of the one harmed, and society. the death penalty takes all that off the table and I just think and advance society could get past the eye 4 an eye thing.

[dannno]

I think the death penalty is a bad idea.. I mean, imagine if the war on drugs took off to the point where they demonized drug users and sellers so much that they decided to start executing them? At least if they throw them in jail for a long time, society has some time to come to their senses, change policy and free non-violent criminals at some point. If they are executed, then society can never reverse punishment.

So the death penalty probably isn't the worst thing for violent murderers and such, IF you don't consider mistakes that can be made, but it's also one of those slipperly slope things.

[pcosmar]

"Everybody in prison claims to be innocent"
I have heard that a lot and it is simply not true. I never claimed to be innocent. I know many others that never made that claim.
I was sentenced to three 25yr sentences. To be served concurrently.
I met and lived with some of the worst scum of the earth, and also with some who's guilt is in doubt.
I have seen men released , after doing time there, who were found to be innocent. It happens, more that is known. I have seen men in there that were guilty of no crime, who had never been sentenced. Think about that. It happens too.
There are some people in there that I would never want to see released. But I still oppose the death penalty, because of the very flawed system we have.

[amy31416]

Against the death penalty, but for very strong bars and exceedingly hard jail time for sexually violent criminals that prey on children.

It has nothing to do with the economics.

[angelatc]

[QUOTE=pcosmar;2286064]I have heard that a lot and it is simply not true.

No, I know. It's usually accompanied by a sarcastic tone.

[Original_Intent]

I am against the death penalty because if one innocent person is put to death it is too many. Also if proven guilty life in prison does give the person a chance to be remorseful and also forgiven by God, the family of the one harmed, and society. the death penalty takes all that off the table and I just think and advance society could get past the eye 4 an eye thing.

It's not about eye for an eye. The dead person isn't coming back and taking their life. It is about justice. I also believe that the ONLY way a murderer can make any amends for his crime is to pay with his life.

I certainly agree that the death penalty should only be for open and shut cases. But I think there should be far more executions than there are. My opinion. I also don't think mental incapacity should be grounds to not pay for murder.

We need to be a little more concerned about justice and not the bleeding heart psychobabble we have been fed for the past century.

[SWATH]

Death penalty costs more than life in prison.



This is true, my father was the deputy commissioner of corrections in KY and said this is the main reason he was opposed to the death penalty, it's way more expensive than life in prison.

[SWATH]

I was arguing about it with someone years ago and they hit me with "If you have a right to life, then how can you condone the state taking someones life and support the death penalty?" I said I don't, and he said "Oh". He temporarily had me confused with a neocon.

[Working Poor]

It's not about eye for an eye. The dead person isn't coming back and taking their life. It is about justice. I also believe that the ONLY way a murderer can make any amends for his crime is to pay with his life.

I certainly agree that the death penalty should only be for open and shut cases. But I think there should be far more executions than there are. My opinion. I also don't think mental incapacity should be grounds to not pay for murder.

We need to be a little more concerned about justice and not the bleeding heart psychobabble we have been fed for the past century.

I don't believe people for the most part even know what justice is much less how to administer it.

[Original_Intent]

I was arguing about it with someone years ago and they hit me with "If you have a right to life, then how can you condone the state taking someones life and support the death penalty?" I said I don't, and he said "Oh". He temporarily had me confused with a neocon.

That's a moronic statement. Anyone that supports the death penalty is a neocon? I guess most of the founding fathers as well as anyone involved in the judicial system of the country during its first 100+ years of its existence was a NEOCON?! :eek:

As far as your friends argument, which I have heard plenty I would reply - "You equate killing an innocent who has harmed no one with taking the life of a murderer?" It's an assinine argument, and anyone who is feeling conflicted because they are pro-life AND for the death penalty has either not thought things thru or has been deceived by a bunch of liberals making accusatory statements.

Of course, long before I would want to see a return of the death penalty I would like to see our courts return to seeking the truth of the matter and punishing and freeing accordingly, rather than the lawyerly game of seeing who can score the most debate points it has become. Truth be told, there's probably a good number of defense lawyers that should be shot if we are talking about justice.

[IamPersistent]

I don't believe people for the most part even know what justice is much less how to administer it.

Amen to that. I used to think justice was getting the bastard back for what he did. I now believe true justice is finding the best outcome for everyone involved. Perp and victim. I think we could prevent a lot of future crimes if we focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

Its funny, the crimes society wants to kill people for the most (murder and sex crimes) have the lowest recidivism rate.

[Original_Intent]

Amen to that. I used to think justice was getting the bastard back for what he did. I now believe true justice is finding the best outcome for everyone involved. Perp and victim. I think we could prevent a lot of future crimes if we focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

Its funny, the crimes society wants to kill people for the most (murder and sex crimes) have the lowest recidivism rate.

I don;t disagree. I just think that in certain murder or other heinous crime the best thing for the perp and the victim is a bullet in the perp's skull.

[Bucjason]

Death penalty costs more than life in prison.

It is one of the reasons, albeit the least important, that I am against the death penalty.

only because we allow them countless appeals , and they spend 30 years in jail before the execution actually takes place anyways....that could easily be remedied...

[Bucjason]

I used to be for the death penalty but I realized that that position was at odds with my pro-life stance on abortion and anti-war position.



It's not at odds with a pro-life position at ALL.

A unborn baby is the height of innocence , a person on death row is guilty of crimes so heinous they are deemed unsafe to live peacefully with the rest of us.

TOTALLY different scenarios.

[Mandrik]

Every time I think of the death penalty I am reminded of this Onion article:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31625


OKLAHOMA CITY, OK–Timothy McVeigh's death by lethal injection Monday has made everything perfect in Oklahoma City, his 168 victims' loved ones describing themselves as feeling "100 percent better." "I just know my baby girl is up there in heaven, smiling down on this execution, happy as can be," said a beaming George Browne, whose 7-year-old daughter Brianna died in the 1995 federal-building blast. "Her death is avenged, and everything's great." Said Oklahoma City schoolteacher Sherrie Olsacher, 37, who was blinded in the bombing: "You can't imagine how healing this is. My eyesight's even returned." Moments after McVeigh was pronounced dead, 168 white doves were seen soaring over the city, racing toward a suddenly cloudless horizon that beckoned the dawn of a glorious new day.

[SovereignMN]

I support the death penalty for murder. It's justice.

[SWATH]

That's a moronic statement. Anyone that supports the death penalty is a neocon? I guess most of the founding fathers as well as anyone involved in the judicial system of the country during its first 100+ years of its existence was a NEOCON?! :eek:

As far as your friends argument, which I have heard plenty I would reply - "You equate killing an innocent who has harmed no one with taking the life of a murderer?" It's an assinine argument, and anyone who is feeling conflicted because they are pro-life AND for the death penalty has either not thought things thru or has been deceived by a bunch of liberals making accusatory statements.

Of course, long before I would want to see a return of the death penalty I would like to see our courts return to seeking the truth of the matter and punishing and freeing accordingly, rather than the lawyerly game of seeing who can score the most debate points it has become. Truth be told, there's probably a good number of defense lawyers that should be shot if we are talking about justice.

Sorry that's not what I meant. I should've clarified, we were arguing about other things like healthcare and taxes. I took the "conservative" position so he assumed I was some flag waiving Bushbot who I wanted to install an execution express lane. I told him I didn't support the death penalty but instead supported life in prison for crimes that would normally warrant a punishment as severe as death (on philosophical, moral, and practical grounds), which threw him for a loop.

[Austin]

It's not at odds with a pro-life position at ALL.

A unborn baby is the height of innocence , a person on death row is guilty of crimes so heinous they are deemed unsafe to live peacefully with the rest of us.

TOTALLY different scenarios.

In the literal since of the term, there is certainly a conflict. You cannot be pro-life in the literal since of the term and be for the death penalty. Of course, you can be against abortion and for the death penalty..

I personally find it inconsistent to be against abortion but for the death penalty, but that's just me.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Pauls' Revere]

For it. It cost so much so we can't kill? because of the system? then change the system and make it more cost effective.

As a kid I visited a western courthouse of the 1800's er something. Behind the courthouse in the yard were the gallows. The impression that left on me still burns in my head. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, or punishment. Granted different time and era but seems pretty dam efficent. Back then they marched your ass straight from gavel to gallows! No BS with appeals.

Can a lawyer use appeals to line thier pockets?

[Bman]

TOTALLY different scenarios.

Yeah but you can't have sanctity of life if you can't respect both.

[Flash]

I don't know, I feel some people need to die. And honestly I would rather be killed than spend a decade in an american prison. But may be that's just me.

[nayjevin]

Death penalty issue is a good study. The logic is clear, death penalty is unjust.

- murder is unjust
- death penalty is murder
- death penalty is unjust

We can't give some people authority to kill other people and in the same breath say killing is wrong. Most of us would agree some people 'deserve' to die. But the logically consistent position is that no person has legitimate authority to pull the trigger.

[specsaregood]

I am anti-death penalty for the simple reason that I don't trust the government. The same government with judges that remove people from juries for asking if a law is constitutional. The same government that is opposed to and fights the possibility of jury nullification.

Change that and maybe we can discuss the issue of the death penalty in more depth.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

If you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty(semen, hard DNA, etc.), kill the bastard. If not release him.

100% agree. I support a quick death penalty (the current appeals process is absurd) for anyone who committed a certain list of unforgivable crimes (1st degree murder, treason...) and whom can also be proven beyond all doubt as guilty of the crime.

[specsaregood]

100% agree. I support a quick death penalty (the current appeals process is absurd) for anyone who committed a certain list of unforgivable crimes (1st degree murder, treason...) and whom can also be proven beyond all doubt as guilty of the crime.

Who decides what goes on the list of "unforgivable crimes"?
Who decides "beyond all doubt"? The juries don't always get all the information.

[amy31416]

It's not at odds with a pro-life position at ALL.

A unborn baby is the height of innocence , a person on death row is guilty of crimes so heinous they are deemed unsafe to live peacefully with the rest of us.

TOTALLY different scenarios.

It depends on your philosophical basis for being pro-life, I am not pro-life because babies are innocent. I am pro-life because I don't believe that one human being, or even a group of human beings, has the right, except in self-defense, to take the life of another.

I also firmly believe that our "justice" system is far too flawed to be allowed such a power.

[fisharmor]

I have seen men released , after doing time there, who were found to be innocent. It happens, more that is known. I have seen men in there that were guilty of no crime, who had never been sentenced. Think about that. It happens too.

I think this encapsulates the problem... so does this:


The same government with judges that remove people from juries for asking if a law is constitutional. The same government that is opposed to and fights the possibility of jury nullification.

This is the power that proves over and over, ad nauseum, that it is not looking out for our best interests. The government doesn't care about your well being, doesn't care about society's ills, doesn't care about justice, and doesn't care who it kills.

I believe in the death penalty in one case.

I believe that if you harm or threaten harm to myself or my family, you might be getting the death penalty. As a pro-life, active Christian, with a healthy view of God's creation but also a respect for the semantic difference between killing and murder, I can say with confidence that if you threaten to harm my daughter I will personally go out of my way to serve you a lead salad.

[LittleLightShining]

That's a moronic statement. Anyone that supports the death penalty is a neocon? I guess most of the founding fathers as well as anyone involved in the judicial system of the country during its first 100+ years of its existence was a NEOCON?! :eek:

As far as your friends argument, which I have heard plenty I would reply - "You equate killing an innocent who has harmed no one with taking the life of a murderer?" It's an assinine argument, and anyone who is feeling conflicted because they are pro-life AND for the death penalty has either not thought things thru or has been deceived by a bunch of liberals making accusatory statements.

Of course, long before I would want to see a return of the death penalty I would like to see our courts return to seeking the truth of the matter and punishing and freeing accordingly, rather than the lawyerly game of seeing who can score the most debate points it has become. Truth be told, there's probably a good number of defense lawyers that should be shot if we are talking about justice.This is a thoughtful position.


In the literal since of the term, there is certainly a conflict. You cannot be pro-life in the literal since of the term and be for the death penalty. Of course, you can be against abortion and for the death penalty..

I personally find it inconsistent to be against abortion but for the death penalty, but that's just me.This is pretty much where I've come to.

However much of a pacifist I consider myself, though, I think I would have a serious moral crisis if someone did to my kids what happened to Brooke.

[Bucjason]

It depends on your philosophical basis for being pro-life, I am not pro-life because babies are innocent. I am pro-life because I don't believe that one human being, or even a group of human beings, has the right, except in self-defense, to take the life of another.

I also firmly believe that our "justice" system is far too flawed to be allowed such a power.

Well that is a legitimate stance , but you can not claim that mine is not either. It is not a hypocrite to be against killing a child and not against killing a scum-bag serial killer....

[Bucjason]

I am not for a death penalty, life imprisonment, or that people are beyond redemption.

If people want to talk about heinous crime then lets talk about crimes Americans have committed upon other people. We can start with Indian scalp bounties, the atomic bombing of the Japanese people, or the torture of people of middle eastern descent.

Dude are you serious ?? If you are against life imprisonment of a serial killer , then maybe we can just have them all move in with you.

Having people like that loose in society infringes on MY liberty.

[Bucjason]

Yeah but you can't have sanctity of life if you can't respect both.

Sure you can ! I totally disagree with that. By killing a murderer, are you not protecting the lives of everyone else around him??

That is the Libertarian motto afterall: Live and let live . Though shall not agress.

[pcosmar]

Sure you can ! I totally disagree with that. By killing a murderer, are you not protecting the lives of everyone else around him??

That is the Libertarian motto afterall: Live and let live . Though shall not agress.

As said before, IF they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, with our severely flawed system that is not the case.
Check this
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
241 mistakes and still counting. when I first found the site it was just over 100.
The "odd case" is becoming common. :(

[SovereignMN]

Death penalty issue is a good study. The logic is clear, death penalty is unjust.

- murder is unjust
- death penalty is murder
- death penalty is unjust

We can't give some people authority to kill other people and in the same breath say killing is wrong. Most of us would agree some people 'deserve' to die. But the logically consistent position is that no person has legitimate authority to pull the trigger.

Your logic is flawed. Death Penalty is not murder.

[SovereignMN]

If people want to talk about heinous crime then lets talk about crimes Americans have committed upon other people. We can start with Indian scalp bounties, the atomic bombing of the Japanese people, or the torture of people of middle eastern descent.

Dude, what are you talking about? Who here is excusing or justifying those acts?

[Bucjason]

Dude, what are you talking about? Who here is excusing or justifying those acts?

Well , I have defended the dropping of the Atom bomb in the past. For the simple fact that it was done in self-defense ( before we had the technology for perscision targeting of bombs) , and it protected the liberties of all in this country by ending a war against an EMPEROR. Also, it probably saved my GRANDFATHER'S life - which by the way is the only reason i now exist- so call me selfish on that one.

[emazur]

I had an idea recently on how to keep down the costs of the death penalty and how to side step issues of morality of a death penalty mandated by the state. What if we let the prisoner choose the death penalty and offer him incentive to do so and help out the taxpayer in the process? Let's say someone was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Let's say after a few years he gets sick of a miserable prison life and realizes there is no way out. He doesn't have it in him to commit suicide or to simply ask the state to execute him, but he really can't stand prison life. What if the state said: "OK, we know life in prison sucks and you've had enough. We'll make you a deal - we move you out of a small, shared ,barren prison cell into a private spacious cell with your own Queen sized bed, easy chair, HDTV, DVD player, game console, iPod, and computer (probably w/o internet). We'll offer you a large library of books, music, and movies (including porn) to choose from. We'll give you a "love doll" if you want one. We'll triple your phone and visitor privileges. You can order the meals you want from a menu 3 times a day, and they will be prepared by a professional chef. Alcohol will be available. In short, you'll be in prison but you'll live a cushy life. The price that you must pay is that your life will only go on like this for 3 years, then you will be executed. If you choose this option, you will sign a legally binding contract prior to beginning this cushy life, and you can't back down from the deal (no appeals, no retrial in case new evidence is found, etc)." Such an offer can be taken up anytime for those serving a life sentence - some might decide to do it after serving 1 year in regular prison, for others maybe 20 years will finally grind them down (for a newly incarcerated geezer who's about to croak or for a prisoner w/ a life threatening disease, perhaps this option should be taken off the table).

Under such a system, there is no mandatory death penalty, thus no one would be wrongly executed. 3 years of a prisoner taking the easy life will surely be MUCH cheaper on the taxpayer than paying for a lifetime in prison. In true libertarian fashion, the state wouldn't intervene with an individual who decided to take his own life (it would just facilitate the process). Justice has already been served when the prisoner received a life sentence, whether or not death is a just option is left up to the prisoner himself. A greatly reduced tax burden would surely be just for the taxpayer. Seems like everybody wins.

[Icymudpuppy]

I'm for old testament style judgement.

eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

Death for a death. (Execution)

Rape for a rape (put them in with sodomites)

you get the idea.

[Working Poor]

Your logic is flawed. Death Penalty is not murder.

:eek: you think not?

[pcosmar]

I'm for old testament style judgement.

eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

Death for a death. (Execution)

Rape for a rape (put them in with sodomites)

you get the idea.

Ok I don't disagree.
But how do you justify killing or imprisoning innocent people?
And that is what this is about, the innocent people.

[Icymudpuppy]

Ok I don't disagree.
But how do you justify killing or imprisoning innocent people?
And that is what this is about, the innocent people.

Educate Jurists that their job is to acquit unless evidence is overwhelming.

[pcosmar]

Educate Jurists that their job is to acquit unless evidence is overwhelming.

Ah, but you are drawing on the same people that would elect an "Obama". And very possibly elected the very prosecutor in the case.
And the Judge.
:(

Not to mention that many ( millions) of potential jurors that have had real life experience with the justice system are BARRED from jury duty.

[Original_Intent]

:eek: you think not?

Well since murder is the unlawful killing of another human being, capital punishment is not murder. It can still be UNJUST but it is not murder.

I recommend to you the following article by my favorite author, C.S. Lewis;

http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html

C
.S. Lewis
In England we have lately had a controversy about Capital Punishment. I do not know whether a murderer is more likely to repent and make good on the gallows a few weeks after his trial or in the prison infirmary thirty years later. I do not know whether the fear of death is an indispensable deterrent. I need not, for the purpose of this article, decide whether it is a morally permissible deterrent. Those are questions which I propose to leave untouched. My subject is not Capital Punishment in particular, but that theory of punishment in general which the controversy showed to be called the Humanitarian theory. Those who hold it think that it is mild and merciful. In this I believe that they are seriously mistaken. I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal.

According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. When this theory is combined, as frequently happens, with the belief that all crime is more or less pathological, the idea of mending tails off into that of healing or curing and punishment becomes therapeutic. Thus it appears at first sight that we have passed from the harsh and self-righteous notion of giving the wicked their deserts to the charitable and enlightened one of tending the psychologically sick. What could be more amiable? One little point which is taken for granted in this theory needs, however, to be made explicit. The things done to the criminal, even if they are called cures, will be just as compulsory as they were in the old days when we called them punishments. If a tendency to steal can be cured by psychotherapy, the thief will no doubt be forced to undergo the treatment. Otherwise, society cannot continue.

My contention is that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.

The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust. I do not here contend that the question ‘Is it deserved?’ is the only one we can reasonably ask about a punishment. We may very properly ask whether it is likely to deter others and to reform the criminal. But neither of these two last questions is a question about justice. There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure’. We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.

I include the above snippet to perhaps whet your appetite, but please please please read the article linked above, and if you can find fault with it, let me know.
Again, before capital punishment even becomes a legitimate subject of discussion we must first return to a point where Truth and Justice are the ends aimed for by our justice system, which as Pcosmar has correctly said, is currently not the case.

Certainly those of you who feel "proudly enlightened" to have turned away from capital punishment or that capital punishment is barbaric need to read the C.S Lewis article. If you don't understand it, keep re-reading it until you do.

[SovereignMN]

:eek: you think not?

No. Intent to kill doesn't necessarily equal murder. There are instances when killing is justified. Self-defense is one. War (justifiable war) is another.

If someone is attacking my family and I blow their brains out, I am not a murderer.
If someone attacks my family and I cannot save them but they are arrested, convicted and executed, that is not murder either.

[amy31416]

Well that is a legitimate stance , but you can not claim that mine is not either. It is not a hypocrite to be against killing a child and not against killing a scum-bag serial killer....

Arguments against the death penalty in the specific case of a serial killer convicted far beyond reasonable doubt:

1. not a deterrent for a serial killer
2. our justice system ain't so just
3. not even good enough to satisfy vengeful urges (not painful, humane, etc.)
4. prevents us from collecting potentially useful information from them
5. they're good sources of organs for dying people
6. Preventing the potential of a much more painful death by murder in the jail, cancer, AIDS, whatever (they should get no treatment aside from bizarre, experimental or controversial treatments.)

To sum up, I'd prefer to keep them alive to prolong their suffering and use them to the greatest benefit as possible. I realize that this kind of crosses the line of the "cruel and unusual" edict, but in this particular scenario, I'm okay with that.

You want to give them a cushy jolt or injection of poison and end their suffering. I want them to live the rest of their lives as guinea pigs in a box with no light, no tv, no books, no contact with the outside world. I think my way is a more appropriate consequence for someone who preys on human beings.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[dannno]

What about the National Prison Rape Eliminations report finding prisoners report more rape committed by guards than other prisoners (http://www.cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/nprec/20090820154837/http://nprec.us/publication/report/executive_summary.php)? Are prison guards a risk in society?


LOL, good point.. all this talk about having the desire to give the death penalty to rapists, yet we have THOUSANDS of people who are not only capable of committing rape, but actively commit rape, and they are all loose on the streets!!

Or do we only want to punish men who rape women?

[nayjevin]

Your logic is flawed. Death Penalty is not murder.

Murder is unlawful killing with premeditation.

We are discussing whether the death penalty (a type of killing) should be lawful. I say it should not, as the only thing distinguishing it from murder (by this common definition) is it's lawful status. I do not recognize any legitimacy or authority of people to kill other people, outside self defense, regardless of surrounding circumstance. In my mind this is the only consistent position. Another benefit is not having to worry how good or bad the lawyers perform or how smart or stupid the jurors were in order to seek justice.

I could come to a point where I believed a person ought to die to prevent another crime or to satisfy justice. I could come to a point where I believed it beyond reasonable doubt. However, I can't see it as just to give the authority to kill in a premeditated way to a government, as all of them have shown themelves corrupt and inept.

[Original_Intent]

Murder is unlawful killing with premeditation.

We are discussing whether the death penalty (a type of killing) should be lawful. I say it should not, as the only thing distinguishing it from murder (by this common definition) is it's lawful status. I do not recognize any legitimacy or authority of people to kill other people, outside self defense, regardless of surrounding circumstance. In my mind this is the only consistent position. Another benefit is not having to worry how good or bad the lawyers perform or how smart or stupid the jurors were in order to seek justice.

I could come to a point where I believed a person ought to die to prevent another crime or to satisfy justice. I could come to a point where I believed it beyond reasonable doubt. However, I can't see it as just to give the authority to kill in a premeditated way to a government, as all of them have shown themelves corrupt and inept.

So by your definition, if someone killed my wife and kids, and I killed them, I am a murderer?


I do not recognize any legitimacy or authority of people to kill other people, outside self defense, regardless of surrounding circumstance.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Original_Intent]

Did you hypothetically kill the assailant in self defense or was it an act of retaliation?

Not the only two options, I'm afraid.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Original_Intent]

To meet the demands of justice.

I suspect now you or others will go on and on about vigilante justice, and connote it as a bad thing.



Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te
Pronunciation: \ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date: 1856
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

so a doer of justice - someone want to spin that into a bad thing?

As many have posted, are the current processes of law inadequate (or even unjust?)

Some would argue that society has the right to administer justice, but taking retribution out of the picture, who has more right than a surviving victim? Does some bleeding heart have the right to interpose themselves between a perpetrator of a crime and a surviving family member and prescribe "treatment" that does not fulfil the demands of justice? IF mercy is to be shown, isn;t the only person with the right to be merciful those who lost a loved one, not a judge and not a jury?

I am all for vigilante justice, and if a person kills someone and it is justifiable, then I say no crime has been committed, and in fact the vigilante has performed a service to society and saved tax dollars.

Of course the concern (at least the only legitimate concern that I see) is that said vigilante "gets the wrong guy". If that is the case then it is murder. But if one person unlawfully kills another with malice aforethought (i.e. not manslaughter or a crime of passion) then that person is fair game to any member of society in my book, not in a sense of retaliation, but to satisfy justice.

Let the flames begin.

[KenInMontiMN]

I live in a non-death penalty state and I'm against a govt-institutionalized killing process, though in capital crimes I'd support the victim's loved ones being given free access to the convicted for whatever purpose, after a suitable cooling-off period following conviction. Stipulation being that victim's family had better be darn sure they have the right guy, because whoever goes in to kill will face the same possible treatment if new evidence later overturns the conviction.

That puts the moral responsibility for the decision as well as the act itself directly into the hands of those with the soundest moral position for that decision, and I think would silence most of the death penalty critics if, say, a father goes in there and opens the throat of the man who did the same to his daughter.

[Bman]

Sure you can ! I totally disagree with that. By killing a murderer, are you not protecting the lives of everyone else around him??

That is the Libertarian motto afterall: Live and let live . Though shall not agress.

By killing a murderer you are a murderer which is a contradiction to the sanctity of life.

You may want to compare certain things as apples and oranges, but in all honesty if you want to draw lines about when and where it is ok to kill you are not in line with any notion of the sanctity of life.

Of course I don't support the notion anyway. I do draw lines.

[Working Poor]

Killing is killing be it in war or peace.

I am against all killing for whatever reason. A lot of people feel the same way. I am not God and I just feel like it is up to God to judge another. Our penal system sucks. If you have enough money you can buy yourself out of many things including murder.

To me any system that makes a certain population criminals our system takes sick people and turns them into criminals so I just don't trust this system to know when it is time to kill.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Bucjason]

By killing a murderer you are a murderer which is a contradiction to the sanctity of life.

You may want to compare certain things as apples and oranges, but in all honesty if you want to draw lines about when and where it is ok to kill you are not in line with any notion of the sanctity of life.

Of course I don't support the notion anyway. I do draw lines.



Nonsense...If someone attacks you with a gun ,and you kill them 1st in self-defense , that makes you a murderer??? No, that is stupid way to look at things. You can value life and still believe some people deserve to die.

[Original_Intent]

What concept of morality is your definition of justice based on?

That when one person wrongs another, that if possible restoration is made to the injured party. If innocent blood is shed, justice can only be satisfied with the shedding of the murderers blood. Please read the C.S Lewis quote linked above if the concept of justice confuses you.

Anyone that feels that they are taking the moral high ground or are "showing mercy" by allowing a murderer to live fall into the same category as liberals who think they are practicing charity by giving other people's money away.

Again, as I have stated before, all of this I would only support after our legal system has been reformed to truly seek the truth, not the crap that passes for justice currently.

[Reason]

I agree with the position of being against the death penalty on the grounds that once the state has said power, good luck getting rid of that power and you better count on that power expanding.

[SovereignMN]

That when one person wrongs another, that if possible restoration is made to the injured party. If innocent blood is shed, justice can only be satisfied with the shedding of the murderers blood. Please read the C.S Lewis quote linked above if the concept of justice confuses you.

Anyone that feels that they are taking the moral high ground or are "showing mercy" by allowing a murderer to live fall into the same category as liberals who think they are practicing charity by giving other people's money away.

Again, as I have stated before, all of this I would only support after our legal system has been reformed to truly seek the truth, not the crap that passes for justice currently.

I agree with this.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[andrewh817]

I am against the death penalty because if one innocent person is put to death it is too many. Also if proven guilty life in prison does give the person a chance to be remorseful and also forgiven by God, the family of the one harmed, and society. the death penalty takes all that off the table and I just think and advance society could get past the eye 4 an eye thing.

It's more likely the prison environment will give that person a better chance to excel in crime after being released but if it's for life what does it matter if they're remorseful??

[andrewh817]

To sum up, I'd prefer to keep them alive to prolong their suffering and use them to the greatest benefit as possible. I realize that this kind of crosses the line of the "cruel and unusual" edict, but in this particular scenario, I'm okay with that.

You want to give them a cushy jolt or injection of poison and end their suffering. I want them to live the rest of their lives as guinea pigs in a box with no light, no tv, no books, no contact with the outside world. I think my way is a more appropriate consequence for someone who preys on human beings.

Right now we are paying to keep them alive so they can be slaves to the state....... I agree we should use these people for something more useful like genetic experiments that will benefit people besides the prison guards.

[Original_Intent]

In his writings C.S. Lewis is advocating for the retribution theory. The very definition of retribution is an act of taking revenge. Yet you denied your reason for killing in your hypothetical scenario is an act of revenge. Does retributive theory mean we deny acts of their natural meaning in the interest of justice?

If you are subscribing to retributive theory, which I am assuming since you are advocating it, this is where I strike common ground with you:

Crimes have a victim.
Crime is not a disease that can be cured it is an act that requires punishment.
Punishment is for the benefit of the victim.

If an incapacitating punishment was advocated in lieu of death I could subscribe to a justice system that combined elements of retributive and restitution theory. I can support incapacitating people in the interest justice for a victim but not murdering them. To murder someone in the interest of justice implies justice has no innocent victims and that is never going to be the case.

You obviously did not read the article in depth.
Punishment is NOT for the benefit of the victim according to the piece I linked. Please read again and come back when your comprehension improves.

OK, I am feeling generous so I will spell it out to you. Delivering justice is the ONLY approach that treats the CRIMINAL as a human being. Treating a criminal as a patient that needs to be cured or as an example to be a deterrant for others dehumanizes the criminal and does not treat them with the respect of a human being. If you truly read the article and could not come away with the central thesis, I am sorry, I guess we don't have anything further to say to each other.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Rocket80]

My opposition isn't necessarily out of some moral problem with killing bad people, it is with granting our government the power to make that decision. I really have absolutely no faith that our criminal legal system can administer the DP 100% fairly and accurately and I am not willing to take even the slightest chance that the government kills the wrong person. Not to mention it is more $$ to give the DP and it really is just sort of a pointless act of violence to appease the feelings of those close to the victims, which is not a reason to kill someone. I support a 'preventative' theory of justice, not a 'retributive' theory.

[Original_Intent]

Let me see if I can truncate your C.S. article by proposing a shorter working definition for retributive theory. I like this one:

The idea of seeking to balance an injustice by rectifying the situation, or by regaining an equality that the injustice overturned. It is most simply summed up in the principle of revenge ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’. Rectification suggests taking from the offender and giving to the injured party, whereas retribution acknowledges that this is sometimes impossible (e.g. if the victim is dead), but embodies the idea that an offense may ‘cry out’ for punishment, and that the moral order is out of balance until this is administered. Such an idea is clearly difficult to reconcile with forward-looking, consequentialist moralities, since it makes no reference to the goods achieved by the retribution, but simply sees it as an end in itself.
http://www.answers.com/topic/retributive-justice

Give me a break. I did not state we share common ground that punishment is for the benefit of the victim because of the paper. I drew an inference from your previous statement.

Do you recall this?



If you do not believe punishment should benefit the victim are you advocating justice is moral based on retributive theory AND it is moral for victims of crime to administer justice?

If that is your position we probably don't have much to talk about.

The bolded above is a good definition and pretty much matches how I feel. I do feel that a victim can show mercy and not demand "tooth for a tooth" and the scales of justice still be balanced, however I feel that only the victim is entitled to extended mercy, judges or juries that attempt to be merciful I believe have exceeded their mandate, which is simply to see justice done.

I do not believe that punishment MUST benefit the victim in order to be just, but I do believe that is ideal. i.e. the punishment also makes amends to the victim.

I do agree with retribution as defined above, and I do believe that if the legal system does not administer justice that it is moral for victims to exact justice.

[SimpleName]

It's not at odds with a pro-life position at ALL.

A unborn baby is the height of innocence , a person on death row is guilty of crimes so heinous they are deemed unsafe to live peacefully with the rest of us.

TOTALLY different scenarios.

They are quite different. The anti-abortion stance (not pro-life...annoying term) does not mean you can't be pro death penalty. Maybe if he is found 100% guilty by DNA evidence, the family of the victim should decide what happens to the guy. If we are to have the death penalty, that seems to make most sense to me. This way it isn't the government using their power to down someone, but instead those who feel the actual pain of the lost one (another annoying phrase) deciding what should be the penalty. All in all, despite my actual support for a death penalty itself, the financial burden is WAY over the top. I can't support such a rampant expense on taxpayers. Then again (I know, I'm all over the place) Texas, the home of the penalty, has budget surpluses.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[nayjevin]

I don't believe people for the most part even know what justice is much less how to administer it.

And government is people, operating on other people's money (without incentive for success or accountability). Therefore it is best to let people try without government in the way.

[Bucjason]

http://www.tripsmarter.com/travelcommunity/attachments/destin-where-eat/3103d1201620292-cant-find-place-beatdeadhorse.jpg

[Bman]

No, that is stupid way to look at things.

I agree, but when talking about the sanctity of life one must know what they are talking about. Which means if you want to follow the sanctity of life you will remove yourself from any action that involves taking a human life, no matter the scenario.

Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

[nayjevin]

So by your definition, if someone killed my wife and kids, and I killed them, I am a murderer?

by both definitions. but you being a murderer does not matter if there is no emotional charge to the label and there is no legal implication of its definition.

[rrcamp]

I also used to be for the death penalty, but now I'm 100% against it. For one, death is too easy a way out for some of these scumbags. Second, as long as there can be one innocent man killed (and you gotta believe this happens) then I can't condone the killing of innocents. Life in prison at least gives these people more time to appeal, gather more evidence, hope of technology to enlighten existing evidence (think DNS analysts), etc..