DC Sniper put to death

[eveningsky339]

1. Is it not an effective deterrent against crime. While there is no empirical data to justify the claim, I think the comparative rates of crimes in capital punishment vs. non-capital punishment states is negligible. If we look further at countries, then this is even more negligible.

This is heavily disputed, but I tend to agree with you. However, I do not feel that the DP's primary goal is to be a deterrent.

2. There is always a degree of doubt in the verdict of a jury. If one human being is innocently executed in my name then I'm not comfortable having any human being be killed. Remember that states draw their legitimacy from the monopoly of force (in other words, they can kill and not get punished) and any coercion is done in the name of the citizens.

Not only is this incredibly rare, but flawed. If we are afraid of innocent people being convicted and punished, why not abolish the entire criminal justice system?

3. It is not cost-effective. Studies have shown that it costs the taxpayer more to kill someone than to incarcerate them for life.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

A flaw with the legal system, not the DP.

4. The idea of an eye for an eye is a little outdated. The cliche Ghandi quote still applies, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"outdated"? Did the Golden Rule ever become outdated? The wisdom of ancient proverbs? The notion that an idea becomes outdated is purely subjective.

At any rate, it's not about an eye for an eye... it's about removing detriments of society rather than giving them free shelter, health care, and food.

 

[Star Voyager]

So what does society get for killing people?

If they are killing tried murderers who killed not in self defense, more security.

 

[Linguofreak]

I find this very strange, and if it's true, then we need to find new and more efficient ways to kill people (there's a hint of sarcasm there).

Keeping someone clothed, fed, and in good health for the rest of their life would easily cost several hundred thousand dollars, I think. Yay for burdens on society, and criminals getting a free ride in life.

It's true, because of the fact that litigation on death penalty cases gets dragged out for years. The litigation costs money, and I believe death row is somewhat costlier than regular prisons.

In fact, a great number of the arguments brought against capital punishment (such that it isn't a deterrent, is too expensive, etc.) are in fact valid, but *only* because of the protracted litigation process.

 

[n72.75]

Good riddance.

 

[eveningsky339]

If they are killing tried murderers who killed not in self defense, more security.

That was actually a bit of a "typo" on my part, I forgot to clear out the rest of insanity's post I was quoting... Sorry bout that. :tiphat:

 

[Brycesv1]

exactly. if some is sentanced to the DP then it should not be drug out for years. just get it over with so theres less money spent. that saved money could then be used to further improve the legal and prison system

 

[insanity]

Not only is this incredibly rare, but flawed. If we are afraid of innocent people being convicted and punished, why not abolish the entire criminal justice system?

How do we know how rare it actually is? Look, we need a criminal justice system that operates on the premise of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but can we take that premise as a solid ground for execution? Is there a scale of how likely one may be innocent versus the penalty they receive? We know that it has happened before, we suspect that it may have happened more then we know, but we don't have definitive numbers.

A flaw with the legal system, not the DP.

That flaw is the backbone of the Bill of Rights. It ensures that all people, even convicted ones, have fundamental rights to assert their innocence when tried by the state. In my mind execution waives the basic Constitutional rights of the accused.

At any rate, it's not about an eye for an eye... it's about removing detriments of society rather than giving them free shelter, health care, and food.

At every rate it is about an eye for an eye. We kill people to show other people that killing people is wrong. Sometimes we kill the wrong people. I'm not trying to argue the apologist line here, as many of the people executed are the 'dregs' of humanity, but I'm not comfortable from going from beyond reasonable doubt to the absolute certainty of execution.

And then there is the larger issue of the role of prison in society which is another debate completely.

If they are killing tried murderers who killed not in self defense, more security.

That's a really silly argument.

 

[Kveldulf]

1. Is it not an effective deterrent against crime. While there is no empirical data to justify the claim, I think the comparative rates of crimes in capital punishment vs. non-capital punishment states is negligible. If we look further at countries, then this is even more negligible.

This would follow if you believe that the Death Penalty is supposed to be a deterrent. If you believe (as I do) that people who take an innocent life, aid in taking an innocent life, etc. deserve death, then this is moot.

2. There is always a degree of doubt in the verdict of a jury. If one human being is innocently executed in my name then I'm not comfortable having any human being be killed. Remember that states draw their legitimacy from the monopoly of force (in other words, they can kill and not get punished) and any coercion is done in the name of the citizens.

Which is a sign that there need to be measures in place, so that the Death Penalty is only carried out in situations where it is absolutely clear that the defendant committed the hypothetical crime.

3. It is not cost-effective. Studies have shown that it costs the taxpayer more to kill someone than to incarcerate them for life.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

I can only speak for myself, but I would glady pay extra on my taxes to have someone like the DC Sniper executed, rather then have him sit in prison.

4. The idea of an eye for an eye is a little outdated. The cliche Ghandi quote still applies, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

So... what supporting the Death Penalty means I have outdated morals? I live my life based on the belief that people get whats coming to them. Someone who takes an innocent life, deserves to have their life taken from them. Bottom line for me.

So what does society get for killing people?

Peace of mind. The knowledge that justice has been done. The ability to lay my head on my pillow at night, and know that a murderer will never again see the light of day. Worth it for me.

On Topic though... glad to see it finally happened.

 

[tl8]

Food for thought:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/12/2740314.htm?section=world

 

[tblaxland]

The former because killing innocent people is wrong. In order to prevent that person from killing again is to kill them.

Killing someone is not the only way to prevent them from harming others. Incarceration for life works too, and although not fully reversible, there is at least some route for amelioration. Are you so sure that you will not end up on death row having not committed a crime?

Well, this wouldn't apply to all cases of mistaken executions, but my opinion is that perjury should carry a sentence equal to the sentence given out in the case in which perjury was committed: If you lie in court and someone gets executed as a result, you get executed.

Perjury is not a prerequisite to an incorrect guilty verdict. Consider where some error (not be detectable by contemporary science) in the processing of evidence is the cause. If the error were known it could be sufficient to introduce a reasonable doubt.

Not only is this incredibly rare, but flawed. If we are afraid of innocent people being convicted and punished, why not abolish the entire criminal justice system?

Obviously some degree of punishment has a deterrent effect. The baby should not be thrown out with the bath water.

 

[Andy44]

I'll outline my basic opposition to the death penalty:

For once, I pretty much agree with you, at least on the end result. Probably for slightly different reasons, though.

[

So what does society get for killing people?

Society gets very little for killing people, but the state gets what it wants: a demonstration of its power over the lives of its subjects.

I think of it this way: The condemned man is, at the time of his execution, completely helpless. He's strapped to a table, and is no threat to his executioner. To take a life under any circumstance other than self-defense is murder. I certainly couldn't talk myself into throwing the switch, and I won't ask a man to do something I myself will not.

Again, my libertarian wackiness speaking.


Now, about the individual executed the other night: Good riddance.

I was living in the DC area at the time, and it was awful. While fueling my truck I made sure my engine block was between me and nearby likely sniper hides.

The worst thing about it was the random cruelty. I won't shed any tears over the SOB.

 

[insanity]

For once, I pretty much agree with you, at least on the end result. Probably for slightly different reasons, though.

:lol:
I was waiting for you to chime in on this actually.

 

[tblaxland]

To take a life under any circumstance other than self-defense is murder. I certainly couldn't talk myself into throwing the switch, and I won't ask a man to do something I myself will not.

You won't ask another man to do it, but you are OK with it if he does it under the coercion of the state? :blink:

Now, about the individual executed the other night: Good riddance.

 

[Andy44]

You won't ask another man to do it, but you are OK with it if he does it under the coercion of the state? :blink:

Well, it was not something I had control over, what do you expect me to do, break into the prison and put a stop to it?

There are two things I don't like: tyrants who like to control people, and street thugs who like to kill people. I won't shed a tear over either one. It's like watching two jerks in a bar fight. Whoever loses I win.

ETA: what do you mean under coercion of the state? The executioner is a paid employee. He can quit if he wants.

 

[Yoda]

Having had the "pleasure" 3 months ago of beeing stuck on a jury in a first degree homocide case, and first handed having experienced the incredible pain and suffering one human beeing can inflict upon another in the name of money and greed, while the defendent ( a 23 year old kid) showed no remorse,emotion or regret what so ever for what he had done I personally have changed my mind regarding capital punisment.

We as a jury delivered a guilty verdict resulting in "Life without a chance of parole" for this kid, but after seeing what he had done and the complete lack of remorse I would have just as easily been able to provide him with the death penalty.

People like this cannot be rehabilitated since they lack even an ounce of human compassion and would kill again in a heartbeat if the situation presented itself.
The world is a better place without these individuals.

My only consolation in knowing that he will be incarcerated for life versus the death penalty is that he will have become someone's "*****" ( excuse the language) before I went back to work.

Jury duty is no walk in the park gentlemen , and believe me that people on a Jury do not decide these matters hastly !

Having lived in Europe for 24 years prior to becoming an American I can honestly say that this "Trial by Jury" system is superior to a "Judge only trial" since you have 14 people ( 12 Jurors and 2 alternates) from all walks of life discussing these cases from EVERY angle prior to coming to a verdict.

The Death penalty in my opinion is a valid tool to rid society of those individuals that need to be "voted off the island" due to the extreme crimes they commit.
HOWEVER, I do agreed that there has to be NO DOUBT as to the persons guilt before imposing this sentence ( something that is often questionable)

This experience will remain with me for the rest of my life, and has definatively changed my way of thinking about the Death Penalty

 

[Hielor]

For once, I pretty much agree with you, at least on the end result. Probably for slightly different reasons, though.

Society gets very little for killing people, but the state gets what it wants: a demonstration of its power over the lives of its subjects.

I think of it this way: The condemned man is, at the time of his execution, completely helpless. He's strapped to a table, and is no threat to his executioner. To take a life under any circumstance other than self-defense is murder. I certainly couldn't talk myself into throwing the switch, and I won't ask a man to do something I myself will not.

Again, my libertarian wackiness speaking.


Now, about the individual executed the other night: Good riddance.

I was living in the DC area at the time, and it was awful. While fueling my truck I made sure my engine block was between me and nearby likely sniper hides.

The worst thing about it was the random cruelty. I won't shed any tears over the SOB.

Nice doublethink...

 

[tblaxland]

Well, it was not something I had control over, what do you expect me to do, break into the prison and put a stop to it?

No, but as Hielor has pointed out, there was some apparent contradiction between the two parts of your post. I had trouble reconciling the two views but maybe you don't, having actually experienced those events in close proximity.

ETA: what do you mean under coercion of the state? The executioner is a paid employee. He can quit if he wants.

There is nearly always some subtle coercion between an employer and employee. How many people truly feel they can just up and quit their job whenever they feel like it? It might be alright for me (engineers are in fairly short supply/high demand in this country) but I know plenty of others who do not the feel the same way.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I can't believe in any person on this planet deserving death. The 911 attackers also thought that the people in the WTC deserved death. Was it right? Did they deserve it?

During Beslan school hostage keeping I remember myself wishing much worse things than death to those scums. Same thing happens occasionally when I happen to read about especially cruel crimes against children and infants. I understand, however, this is a primordial instinct speaking within myself. On the rational level, I believe that killing of a criminal is justified only when it prevents him from inflicting more harm to people; often it happens when such person is resisting his detention.

I draw no difference between who's pulling the trigger in this case: whether it's a state servant or a voluntary armed citizen. But once the criminal is put into custody, things are getting a bit more complicated.

1st and foremost: there are cases when the guilt of the suspect cannot be proven firmly enough. The gravity of the charged crime, however, can put him to death according to the law. What if the state punishes an innocent person with death? Such things really happen. For instance, back in 80's and 90's, an infamous maniac was doing murder after murder (totalling 65) in the South of the USSR. Two outside people were convicted and executed after being condemned for his crimes with a loose proved evidence. They would have lived through it, had there been no capital punishment in Russia at that time.

2nd: the right of the state to take out lives of its citizens is a rudiment of times when the power was believed to be of divine origin. A cavemen's chieftain, a pharao, a king crowned by Pope - all those historical characters could believe that people they ruled were their property they could freely dispose of. Believing so should be considered deeply shameful for a democratic society leaders.

3rd: for the most of you, "You shall not murder" should still hold some value.

4th: Life long impisonment, if it holds no chance of pre-term release is actually more strong punishment than execution. I read that the sentenced to it wouldn't live in clear state of mind for longer than a decade and would hardly be able to live longer than two at all. Considering what prisons in my country are like, I'm also strognly supportive of sending there the kind of people I described in the paragraph 1.

5th: Some countries had rich practice of executions, but that never helped them to overcome the crime.

All in all, I'm happy that right now in Russia carrying out of death sentences is banned since 1996. The ban is expiring on January 1st, 2010, but I hope it will be prolonged.

It's entirely up to the USA citizens what they want to look like in the eyes of the World, though.

 

[garyw]

3rd: for the most of you, "You shall not murder" should still hold some value.

Those that break the law are no longer eligable to be protected by those laws. And for clarification I'm not talking about some idiot who did a minor crime. I'm talking soley about murder here.

4th: Life long impisonment, if it holds no chance of pre-term release is actually more strong punishment than execution. I read that the sentenced to it wouldn't live in clear state of mind for longer than a decade and would hardly be able to live longer than two at all. Considering what prisons in my country are like, I'm also strognly supportive of sending there the kind of people I described in the paragraph 1.

Why should I work hard and pay taxes to keep some scum in the lap of prision luxury? It costs MILLIONS in prison space, guards, human rights appeals, TV's, games centers, education and other things to keep a prisoner and I'm paying for it? No.
Unless they can earn their own keep in prison people like this sniper should be executed.

 

[Urwumpe]

Why should people have appeals? There are far to expensive, one decision by a court should be enough...

Why should we be better than Iran, their legal system works pretty simple. From accusation, over process to execution on a cheap crane in just 3 days. No appeals, no questions, unless you want to share the fate...