― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 9 August 2004 17:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― John-Paul Pope, Monday, 9 August 2004 17:20 (nineteen years ago) link
My justification, which you are welcome to disagree with:
* if wrongly convicted, it would be a crime in turn to have them killed -- Marcello's point holds, there are many other examples
* if rightly convicted, death is almost too easy a release -- maybe some would thrive on it, but to my mind, no form of better mental torment could be imagined than to live out a huge amount of time, if not the rest of your life, in such a state. It is the type of fate I would wish for someone like Saddam Hussein, used to power and control of a country and now reduced to a room somewhere. It may be roomier than the hole he was found in, but that doesn't change the basic dynamic any.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 9 August 2004 17:25 (nineteen years ago) link
It's quite worrying how blase people are about 'A BULLET doesn't cost more than keeping them in jail does it?' type attitudes.
― Fergal (Ferg), Monday, 9 August 2004 17:33 (nineteen years ago) link
The problem with the justice system all along has been the uncertainty of conviction and the possibility that someone could be wrongly convicted or unfairly punished. There comes a point however when constantly providing for the possibility of someone's innocence reaches the point of total absurdity, if you find a person irredeemable enough to let them die in prison, why not just kill them anyway?
The fallibility of our forensic apparatus should be accounted for but it should not be used as an excuse to completely limit the powers of the people and the state (which exercises the will of the PEOPLE, you cannot be sentenced to death by a judge, and legislation is the product of representational democracy, whether you like it or not) to dispose of convicted/confessed criminals as they see fit.
I'm still just confused as to why premeditated murderers and rapists are ever given the option to walk? Parole what? Mercy who?
xpost Fergal: Well they DON'T!
― TOMBOT, Monday, 9 August 2004 17:44 (nineteen years ago) link
in the real world, it has been estimated that at least ten per cent of executions in the last thirty years in america have been of innocent people. the racial breakdown is absurd. the inconsistencies between what warrants prison or execution are appalling. and the physical act of execution is hardly surgical in its precision. far far better to abolish capital punishment than to make any of these mistakes.
― mookieproof (mookieproof), Monday, 9 August 2004 17:51 (nineteen years ago) link
― mookieproof (mookieproof), Monday, 9 August 2004 17:53 (nineteen years ago) link
I'd be disappointed, I think, to believe that we eventually reached a point where we were so unsure of ourselves and our ability to reach a sound conclusion in a court of law that we had to just let the worst criminals of our society continue to live and breathe out of sheer uncertainty. A civilized society doesn't bother itself by keeping scum like Gacy, Brisbon or Fourniret alive, penned up or not.
― TOMBOT, Monday, 9 August 2004 18:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― John-Paul Pope, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 00:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― Rotter, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 02:41 (nineteen years ago) link
And then there's Sally Clark and all the other supposed baby-killers jailed on the hearsay evidence of a quack paediatrician with a Moral Majority axe to grind. Clearly it would have been far cheaper and a far better use of taxpayers' money just to string them up and have done with it.
― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 06:29 (nineteen years ago) link
― dave amos, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 07:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 07:59 (nineteen years ago) link
― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 08:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 08:13 (nineteen years ago) link
― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 08:21 (nineteen years ago) link
And of COURSE morality comes into it. Trying to look at positive/negative effects to society and the death penalty's economic viability are red herrings of the highest order - it's upside-down thinking, at least to my mind.
― Johnney B (Johnney B), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 10:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― Fergal (Ferg), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 12:30 (nineteen years ago) link
I agree with this! I think it's immoral NOT to shoot people like Henry Brisbon.
Fergal: Ethics 210. UtilitarianismCategorical Imperative
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:00 (nineteen years ago) link
I find it very funny that many of the same people wearing their Old Testament indoctrinations on their sleeves are the same people who will take any opportunity offered on ILX to ridicule and denigrate Christianity.
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:02 (nineteen years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:07 (nineteen years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:09 (nineteen years ago) link
― dave amos, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:16 (nineteen years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:21 (nineteen years ago) link
xpost what are you all arguing about?
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:25 (nineteen years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:25 (nineteen years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:26 (nineteen years ago) link
then they came for the shoplifters, ethically obtuse, .... etc etc
actually "why is it wrong to kill" is an interesting question.
― dave amos, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― dave amos, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:28 (nineteen years ago) link
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:29 (nineteen years ago) link
In the Old Testament, you've got the whole "eye for an eye" argument, which seems to bolster the pro-death penalty one, whereas the New Testament is where Jesus' "turn the other cheek" comes about. The two are not compatible, and obv. supply the greatest break between Judaism and Christianity.
I'd also argue that the European strand of anti-death penalty sentiment probably stems way more from the Enlightenment, Rationality and various post-French Revolution debacles than from Christianity itself.
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:32 (nineteen years ago) link
aside from, like, Jesus being the Messiah, too. But you know that.
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:33 (nineteen years ago) link
I don't think people and animals are comparible (one reason why I prefer to be referred to as 'a woman' rather than 'a female', but that's a whole nother rant).
― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:38 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:44 (nineteen years ago) link
Aha, this is a point of contention which I think it is best not to argue here. I don't really think serial killers or child rapists qualify as "people," though. It's interesting to note that I actively try to avoid referring to certain types of criminals as human, in fact, I just realized I even do this in normal conversation.
Maybe I'm the crazy person.
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:45 (nineteen years ago) link
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:46 (nineteen years ago) link
― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:12 (nineteen years ago) link
how does the death penalty not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," as defined and prohibited by the Constitution?
The same way jailing Eugene Debs until he was practically crippled and incapacitated was not cruel and unusual, the same way interning Japanese-Americans was not cruel and unusual: like pretty much everything about our purposefully ambiguous US constitution, it's all up to the interpretation of the Court. If the Court says that the "eye for an eye" concept is not cruel or unusual, then it isn't. That's how our system is set up.
I'm not saying I agree with the Court, mind you. The system really is completely fucked up (justice in being handed out unevenly shockah), and I think that until a better system is set up perhaps a moritorium on the death penalty, as was in the early '70s, is perhaps called for. Not that that actually fixed the system back then, though, and one could make the point that the amount of false imprisonments in general and people getting handed really strict penalties for what seems to be petty crimes (the 3 strikes law, for example, is a pile of bullshit being used to hand what I would deem cruel and unusual punishment to fairly inane, boring, completely unthreatening "criminals") would imply that perhaps our entire justice system should be on moritorium, following the logic to its extreme.
The system en totale is just not really great. I do theoretically agree with the death penalty (I mean, would anyone here argue that the handful of executions of Nazis post-WWII were unjust?) but in practice it hasn't exactly done anything worthwhile enough to balance out the problems we have implementing it.
Also, the Messiah thing is NOT the biggest breaking point between Judaism and Christianity! Jews for Jesus 4eva!
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link
the Jews for Jesus dudes in the Broadway-Nassau stop freak me out. Who funds these wackos?
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link
(I am anti-death penalty, BTW.)
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link
― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:26 (nineteen years ago) link
(OK I fully admit I'm just saying this because it came into my head--my grandfather used to threaten my mother when she was stroppy with that exact line)
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:29 (nineteen years ago) link
If we developed a way to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that someone had really killed other people in cold blood, with malice, for pleasure, would the death penalty still be a bad thing?
Also it is worth noting, to Tom I suppose, that death penalty is not something generally (read: ever, see here) applied to rape. Actually, real punishment is not something often applied to sex crimes. God help you if you're a Puerto Rican talking on your cell phone in your car in NYC though, tombs for a weekend.
xpost that's what I mean, hsilly!
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:36 (nineteen years ago) link