Capital Punishment

[Bold Deceiver]

When Bettina pulls the switch on the execution of Couey, would you view her action as occupying the same moral plane as the child-abduction, child-rape, child-smothering, and live burial of Jessica, by Couey?

(Sigh) I've already said it at least twice, I'll say one last time, since you apparently still refuse to understand:

No.

I agree with the point Dravis was trying to make (about emotion alone not being a valid rationale for a moral decision). However, I don't condone or support the comparison of Bettina and Couey, and I never, ever, ever, ever said that I did.

--------

So, when does this end, BD?

...You spent considerable space accusing me of attacking someone's personal character, because you mis-interpreted a simple statement of my moral position.

...You took political stabs at me, making even more incorrect assumptions about my political leanings.

...And now you're accusing me of making the very comparison I had *just* made clear that I don't support?

Pardon me, but "What the hell?" How many times do I have to say something before you quit twisting it into some kind of personal attack?

I don't know if you're intentionally pushing my buttons, or just skimming and making assumptions, but I'm tired of it. I'm really upset, is that what you wanted?

Hmmm... the question was a response to your disagreement with me on moral relativism. I assumed of course you would have no choice but to say "no", which I further assumed would help you see my earlier point.

BD

[Bold Deceiver]

(And by the way, what's the point of all this if there can't be any name-calling, for heck's sake. Where's the fun in that?)

I'll let the moderators address that one.

Happy Easter!

BD

[TIGERassault]

BD, no! Whatever about Dravis, AFAIK he didn't explain his post himself, but the people that said they agree with the post clearly stated that they are agreeing that \"Desire without justification is not morally valid rationale for anyone's actions, even a psycho who wants to murder and rape, or a young woman who wants him executed.\"
However you may interpret Dravis's post, you are NOT allowed to interpret what other people meant when they agreed with him if they have clearly layed out what they meant themselves!
So stop yammering about how Foil thinks Bet did as much wrong as Couey! You know well that people aren't listening to that nonsense!

Moreso, despite being continuously asked, you have failed to explain why you think venegeance is the moral thing to do in this situation. Bettina was at least able to say that it was due to her emotions, and even though I don't agree with it, it's still a fair excuse.


Oh, and sociopathy DOES include the inability to discern right from wrong. And by that, I mean good from evil, not sensible from stupid, which is the only reason I can think of why you think risk aversity comes into play!

[Jeff250]

I don't know if you're intentionally pushing my buttons, or just skimming and making assumptions, but I'm tired of it. I'm really upset, is that what you wanted?

It's not just you. But one of the great things about the DBB is that its members aren't the type to be compelled by such personal attacks. I always find reassurance in that.

They are risk averse because they know that if they are caught, oh say, burying a small child alive in a plastic sack with her toy dolphin and thereby suffocating her alone, in the dark, with no on there to so much as hold her hand and tell her it's going to be ok, not to worry . . ., society will hunt them down and punish them in retribution.

Dogs are risk averse. It would still seem silly, even for people who think that revenge is good, for somebody to seek revenge on a dog for biting them.

Even those who hold revenge as a moral virtue seek revenge on people for what they choose to do, not what they are. It's not clear why risk aversion should change this.

I'm not a psychologist, but a condition like sociopathy at the very least warrants further investigation to see to what extent its biological rather than moral. The last thing we should be doing though is appealing to intuitions and going with "what's obvious" or what we feel like doing.

You have employed a double-negative. What you're trying to say (I think) is that BD is eager to conclude that Bet is no better than Couey.

This is actually a common misconception. Some people think that if a sentence has two "negative" words in it that it must be a double negative. But if a sentence is a double negative, then we should be able to remove both negatives without changing the meaning of the sentence. Let's test this.

Before: "We can't conclude from this that Bet is no better than Couey..."
After: "We can conclude from this that Bet is better than Couey..."

And yet clearly the meaning has changed. Just because we can't conclude that Bet is not something doesn't mean that we can conclude that Bet is something. The latter is a stronger claim.

Need we ask anyone tell us these things?

I'm not sure that your . . . question is grammatical.

I'm just going to leave your critical remark hanging out there, as phrased, for everyone to enjoy.

I asked some friends about this, and at best we can guess at what you were trying to ask. There's one theory that it's a run-on sentence and that it should be read: "Need we ask anyone? Tell us these things." Another theory is that you left out the "to" in front of "tell," intending it as an infinitive, so that it should be read like this: "Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" Maybe you could cast some light on this, but the sentence as you wrote it doesn't parse for the native English speakers around here.

Your other questions were ambiguous, and unanswerable as phrased. I thought it might be useful to flesh them out elsewhere. This question is an excellent one, notwithstanding your unfortunate remark refusing to engage in a dialogue on the subject. So you get the response from me that you deserve.

That's weak. I've asked you to explain why revenge is good and to give an account of human goodness that is consistent with revenge being good on multiple occasions, and if that's not enough, so have a multitude of other people. You're claiming that we should seek out revenge through capital punishment, since revenge is good. And now your only response to my questions is that you won't respond unless I explain my conception of goodness first, even though I've made clear that I'm not making any claims that hinge upon what's good, and yet you are? That's fairly weak.

[Bet51987]

All of her attempts at providing rational, logical, or Biblical justifications have been merely rationalizations (and rationalizations are fundamentally dishonest -- if they're not your real reasons for belief, it's dishonest to pretend they're good enough reasons to convince someone else.) Her only real argument is selfish: she wants her emotions to be satisfied.

When little kids ask me if I believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, I tell them yes. When they ask me if I believe in God or the Virgin Mary, I tell them yes. Since all of those are in the same bottle and are not my true beliefs, then yes, just as you repeatedly bring it up.... I'm dishonest. However, the little kids are happy and thats all that matters to me.

I don't believe for one moment that John Couey didn't know the difference between good and evil and no one here will convince me otherwise. He was an evil person devoid of any compassion who knew right from wrong and the destructive behavior he was inflicting on her. He knew full well.

My personal desire is pure vengeance for Jessica’s death and to send a message that child killing for lust means you automatically die. I could care less what theism, my priest, or anyone else thinks, but for some of you looking for something more, consider this that I already brought up. Think about some young father with a wife and three small children who need and love him. Think of a hospital setting where his wife and kids surround his bed just in time to see him die. Why? Because the exact liver that was meant for him, went to Couey instead. Weak, I know, but some of you asked for a reason.

Again, I hate him and I’m proud that I have the ability to place logic aside and do what I think should be done. Look at this thread. Its turning into more of a grammar test and less and less of sending the right message.

BD…… Although your getting a little heated, you have a good heart, know right from wrong, evil from good, and I really, really admire you a lot.

Bettina

[Bold Deceiver]

I don't know if you're intentionally pushing my buttons, or just skimming and making assumptions, but I'm tired of it. I'm really upset, is that what you wanted?

It's not just you. But one of the great things about the DBB is that its members aren't the type to be compelled by such personal attacks. I always find reassurance in that.

Guys.

This conversation began in earnest after members posited a series of attacks and patronizing lectures to Bettina, for her assertion that she wished Couey executed because she wanted revenge. The implication I perceived, finally actually expressed by Dravis, is that her view is an immoral view.

Foil, for one, has explained that I misinterpreted his remarks, and I accept that. I was taken aback by that last post from -- I wasn't trying to imply anything about Foil's character. I knew he would answer "no". I think Foil overreacted, but I accept some responsibility for that.

I found (and I find) Dravis' view offensive. It's one thing to disagree ... quite another to challenge someone's ethics. When Dravis finally compared Bettina to Couey (color it any way you like, gentleman, that is what was said) I made my view known that I found that disgusting. I still find it so, and I make no apology for it.

I have posted several rationale why retribution is a valid basis for capital punishment. I acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree. What I'm getting back are questions like "why is revenge an excellent thing?", which to me is a rhetorical dance to avoid confronting people who would compare Bettina, a 17-year old with a true heart, to a child rapist and murderer.

When we begin to permit such comparisons, it's like calling opponents of affirmative action, racists. It diminishes the meaning of the word "racist". Bettina needs no lecturing about whether vengeance is an acceptable rationale for capital punishment -- the highest court in the land has ALREADY accepted it. That certainly doesn't mean anyone HERE needs to (I disagree with the Supreme Court routinely). But it does certainly shift the burden a bit, doesn't it? So I put it back to you:

Why is vengeance an immoral rationale for capital punishment?

On personal attacks. You will search long and hard, but you will not find a post by me (or by Bettina, I'll wager) that says people who do not support capital punishment are either immoral or act unethically. There's lots of stuff going the other way. Which is one of the reasons I got involved.

Now Jeff, you'd like to know why, in a vacuum, vengeance is intrinsically good. That is an unanswerable question, in my opinion. Trees are not intrinsically good. Dogs are not intrinsically good. Sex is not intrinsically good. Even my own mother is not intrinsically good (and many of you, I'm confident, believe that if my mother had never had sexual relations and conceived me THAT of itself would be intrinsically good). Nothing is intrinsically good, except quality, and that is probably God, if you have one. And no one can define that. No one.

Regarding our life on earth. Context defines the morality of the act in question - that's my opinion. I'm not sure if this is what Foil means when he refers to situational morality, but I think it might be.

Dogs are risk averse. It would still seem silly, even for people who think that revenge is good, for somebody to seek revenge on a dog for biting them.

Actually, I can give you a pretty good argument going the other way (by the way, did you just call me silly?). (1) Vengeance animates action against the dog. (2) Terminating the existence of a competitive species (we're winning now, but believe me, dogs will one day rule) perpetuates the human species, because it takes wild dogs out of the gene pool. (3) Domestic dogs that do not bite me, enhance my chance to live and procreate; (4) My gene pool continues, much to the dismay of Foil.

Sort of like, Eugenics Lite. Anyone wish to compare me to Hitler? Hope not....

Even those who hold revenge as a moral virtue . . .

Virtue? How about, moral rationale? I like that much better than "moral virtue". No one will ever believe me if I run around saying "Revenge is a moral virtue", and I'll never bring Foil from the dark side.

Foil. Just kidding. Please do not seek vengeance against me.

. . . seek revenge on people for what they choose to do, not what they are. It's not clear why risk aversion should change this.

Can we judge people by anything other than their actions? I really don't think that's our place ... we just don't have that kind of ... God-likeness.

I'm not a psychologist, but a condition like sociopathy at the very least warrants further investigation to see to what extent its biological rather than moral.

Neither am I. And naturally I'm opposed to any scientific research that might undercut my own position.

Jeff. I agree. In the meantime, though, I go with what I believe to be true.

The last thing we should be doing though is appealing to intuitions and going with "what's obvious" or what we feel like doing.

I completely agree, BUT. I tried to say this before, and I was admonished by Lothar - a man with whom I disagree on this (and ... other things) and whom I deeply respect (mostly because he was able to trick Drakona into marrying him) - we can't view things in isolation. Life is far more complex; I am only arguing that it morally justified to hold that retribution is one of several, inextricably intertwined bases for capital punishment. It is not unethical to so hold, and I won't be moved from that position.

You have employed a double-negative. What you're trying to say (I think) is that BD is eager to conclude that Bet is no better than Couey.

This is actually a common misconception. Some people think that if a sentence has two "negative" words in it that it must be a double negative. But if a sentence is a double negative, then we should be able to remove both negatives without changing the meaning of the sentence. Let's test this.

Before: "We can't conclude from this that Bet is no better than Couey..."
After: "We can conclude from this that Bet is better than Couey..."

And yet clearly the meaning has changed. Just because we can't conclude that Bet is not something doesn't mean that we can conclude that Bet is something. The latter is a stronger claim.

Well, I struggled with this one ... and you have completely lost me. I'm 65 percent sure it is a double-negative but I've been wrong before. How's that?

Need we ask anyone tell us these things?

I'm not sure that your . . . question is grammatical.


Another theory is that you left out the "to" in front of "tell," intending it as an infinitive, so that it should be read like this: "Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" Maybe you could cast some light on this, but the sentence as you wrote it doesn't parse for the native English speakers around here.

[/quote]

I do not disagree (another double-negative!) -- but it's a quote. Sorry to be so cryptic - it's from Robert Pirsig's "ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE".

Your other questions were ambiguous, and unanswerable as phrased. I thought it might be useful to flesh them out elsewhere. This question is an excellent one, notwithstanding your unfortunate remark refusing to engage in a dialogue on the subject. So you get the response from me that you deserve.

That's weak. I've asked you to explain why revenge is good....

That's the problem. (Did you just call me weak?) I thought (and I think) the question was weak, because it (a) operates from a premise I have never asserted (i.e., revenge, in a vacuum, is intrinsically good); and (b) it departs from the subject manner (or at least I thought we were talking about revenge in the context of retributive justice). Struck me as a tactic, but I maybe I was wrong.

I'll continue to defend myself gents. I'll try to do so in a manner that does not offend; but I think that's a two-way street. If indeed the knives are out, well, it's getting just about right for me.

BD

[TIGERassault]

I found (and I find) Dravis' view offensive. It's one thing to disagree ... quite another to challenge someone's ethics.

No it's not.When arguing about ethics, it's quite acceptable to challenge someone else's ethics.

I have posted several rationale why retribution is a valid basis for capital punishment.

Then say it again, because it seems that people must have missed them.

which to me is a rhetorical dance to avoid confronting people who would compare Bettina, a 17-year old with a true heart, to a child rapist and murderer.

*sigh*
Look, the people have distincly explained that they agree with their interpretation of that post, and explained what their interpretation was.
The only person that didn't was Dravis himself, but he hasn't come back yet, so there's no point continuously trying to argue against him!

the highest court in the land has ALREADY accepted it.

In my country, the highest court in the land has distinctly rejected it, so your point is nullified!

Why is vengeance an immoral rationale for capital punishment?

1: Because it's killing a human who, if monitored closely, can cause no harm to anyone and can help this country to improve.
2: Because it can teach to people that would consider themselves justful that killing for venegeance is ok, even outside of the justice system. (This point sounds absurd, but it can happen; and Bet did say that because God said that he would use venegeance on people that did wrong, that it was a reason for her to do the same)
3: Because it increases the ego of the person who only wants revenge.
If you don't understand any of these points, ask, and I'll explain them.

On personal attacks. You will search long and hard, but you will not find a post by me (or by Bettina, I'll wager) that says people who do not support capital punishment are either immoral or act unethically. There's lots of stuff going the other way. Which is one of the reasons I got involved.

I don't know about you, but Bet made A LOT of posts about how I distinctly can't tell good from evil and such.
Secondly, it's practically impossible to argue that you think someone is doing something that's morally wrong without showing that you think that person is doing something morally wrong!

by the way, did you just call me silly?

No he didn't.

Actually, I can give you a pretty good argument going the other way (by the way, did you just call me silly?). (1) Vengeance animates action against the dog. (2) Terminating the existence of a competitive species (we're winning now, but believe me, dogs will one day rule) perpetuates the human species, because it takes wild dogs out of the gene pool. (3) Domestic dogs that do not bite me, enhance my chance to live and procreate; (4) My gene pool continues, much to the dismay of Foil.

The only point there that is related to venegeance is killing off something that someday may, with a very small chance, be a threat to you if you didn't take out venegeance. What makes it worse is that you can use that very same point to explain why killing anything, for no moral reason whatsoever, is acceptable.

Can we judge people by anything other than their actions? I really don't think that's our place ... we just don't have that kind of ... God-likeness.

We can judge them by their actions as a whole, instead of individual actions!

Well, I struggled with this one ... and you have completely lost me. I'm 65 percent sure it is a double-negative but I've been wrong before. How's that?

For the future, it's only a double negative if you can remove the two negatives without changing the meaning of the sentence. Here, you can't.

Did you just call me weak?

No he didn't. That's the 4th time in one post you've mistaken perfectly acceptable comments for personal attacks.

That's the problem. (Did you just call me weak?) I thought (and I think) the question was weak, because it (a) operates from a premise I have never asserted (i.e., revenge, in a vacuum, is intrinsically good); and (b) it departs from the subject manner (or at least I thought we were talking about revenge in the context of retributive justice). Struck me as a tactic, but I maybe I was wrong.

Then replace 'good' with 'acceptable'. Because that is a claim that you did make!

[Bet51987]

... my wife is most definitely on the other side of this argument from me, and I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard of "back your s**t up" than she holds herself to.)

In posting hastily last night, I forgot to ask... since your wife is "on the other side" what does she think should happen to Couey, and why.

Bettina

[Shoku]

Granted, prisoners are often given too many undeserving benefits, but are you seriously advocating a return to dungeons and torture?

Most Roman prisoners were not normally tortured, they were simply palced in a cell and left to rot - unless their family came to feed them and clothe them. Only prisoners scheduled for execution via crucifixtion were beaten - this was done to weaken the body so the stress produced by the cruifixtion would cause death quicker, so the criminal wouldn't linger on the cross for days.

This is the second time that the "Old West" has been referred to as an ideal example for the process of justice. What is it about "wild west law" that makes you think it was so good and righteous?

There was no appeals process, so if you were wrongly convicted for whatever reason, too bad. There was little to no accountability to higher courts, if you were even lucky enough to get any sort of court hearing.

You might argue that the leadership at the time was more fair and moral than today, and that might be true among some religious settler groups. However, looking at the real history of the old west (not just the romanticized images like Marshall Dillon from the TV show "Gunsmoke"), I actually see more room for injustice in a system like that.

My point wasn't necessarily focused on the "rightness" of old west justice. It is an example of how quick and persistant punishment eventually leads to a more peaceful society. Dodge City was a crime riden mess before the "Dodge City Police Commision" took action to maintain peace in the town. W.H. Harris, Luke Short, Bat Masterson (who I had mistaken for the fictional Matt Dillion), W.F. Petillon, Charlie Bassett, Wyatt Earp, Frank McLain and Neal Brown, were a force not be be ignored.

[Foil]

...I was taken aback by that last post from -- I wasn't trying to imply anything about Foil's character. I knew he would answer "no". I think Foil overreacted, but I accept some responsibility for that.

You're right, I did overreact. Good to hear you knew I would answer "no".

As to the point you were making about the earlier discussion of moral absolutism vs. moral relativism, I still think we should break this off into a new thread, but just so you know where I'm coming from: I know there is a huge situational aspect to ethics (so Bet and Couey are *not* the same for wanting their desires fulfilled), but I also believe there are a few moral absolutes, including "revenge is an unethical motivation".

(4) My gene pool continues, much to the dismay of Foil.

Nah, just as long as those genes don't include a built-in predisposition to messing with people who use Princess-Bride avatars.

No one will ever believe me if I run around saying "Revenge is a moral virtue", and I'll never bring Foil from the dark side.

Foil. Just kidding. Please do not seek vengeance against me.

Me? The guy who says "vengeance can't be an ethical rationale"... taking vengeance? Still trying to bait me....

Actually, if I were to be angry about something, it would be this mis-quote:

That's weak. I've asked you to explain why revenge is good....

...(Did you just call me weak?)

Check back, I'm not the one who said that.

[Jeff250]

Well, I struggled with this one ... and you have completely lost me. I'm 65 percent sure it is a double-negative but I've been wrong before. How's that?

The key point is that in cases of double negation, you should be able to remove both negations and have the meaning of the sentence remain completely the same. (This is why double negations are generally considered bad form--they can be removed from the sentence, improving its readability and not changing its meaning.) Consider your other example:
(1) I do not disagree. (Two negatives)
(2) I do agree. (Both negatives removed)

Sentence (1) allows for the possibility of both me agreeing and me neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Sentence (2) only allows the possibility of me agreeing. So they have different meanings, and in fact sentence (2) makes a stronger claim.

For example, if somebody asked me whether or not I disagreed with a politician's stance on an issue, but say I wasn't familiar with her stance or I hadn't made up my mind on it yet, I might answer by saying, "I don't disagree." But then if I were asked, "Oh, so then you agree?" I would respond, "No, I don't agree either," since saying that I don't disagree and saying that I agree are different claims.

Actually, I can give you a pretty good argument going the other way (by the way, did you just call me silly?). (1) Vengeance animates action against the dog. (2) Terminating the existence of a competitive species (we're winning now, but believe me, dogs will one day rule) perpetuates the human species, because it takes wild dogs out of the gene pool. (3) Domestic dogs that do not bite me, enhance my chance to live and procreate; (4) My gene pool continues, much to the dismay of Foil.

Then you'd have a good argument for putting the dog down without ever having to appeal to revenge. Put the dog down because it's dangerous and because it threatens you and your progeny. You can make that argument without ever having to say that you have to put it down just to get back at it.

There is another side to this though that I think you might be alluding to. Maybe revenge isn't good; in fact, maybe it's even bad, but perhaps if we, as a general rule, act according to revenge, we'll still be best off because of other typically good results of revenge. (For example, like you said, if somebody were to put the dog down out of revenge, they would still have protected others.) Presumably here the rationale is that we don't have time to thoroughly think through each ethical decision, so if we just act according to revenge in most cases, we'll be better off than if we didn't.

This might be true. But I rather doubt it. Folk wisdom tells us that acting according to revenge is usually a bad idea. But even if it weren't, as Foil as pointed out, capital punishment isn't the type of ethical decision that we might need to make on impulse. It's the type of decision that's deliberated endlessly, and we're deliberating it right now. There's very little use here for a general rule that might serve as a rule of thumb to expedite our decision, since the very thing we're not here to do is expedite the decision. We're here to get at the heart of the matter.

[Lothar]

Been meaning to get back to this for a while.

members posited a series of attacks and patronizing lectures to Bettina.... It's one thing to disagree ... quite another to challenge someone's ethics.

I agree that some people stepped over the line, not necessarily in content, but in tone. And there's no excuse for the tone some people took with Bettina.

But as for content... what, exactly, would you have us do? This is an ethical discussion. By its nature, people's ethics are going to be challenged. You challenged Dravis' ethics and Foil's ethics just in one post. By its very nature, people are going to post lectures about what they believe to be right, and people are going to attack the points others bring up.

Making it personal against Bettina was lame. But IMO you're using that as a way to dodge the tough questions.

I'm getting back are questions like "why is revenge an excellent thing?", which to me is a rhetorical dance to avoid confronting people who would compare Bettina, a 17-year old with a true heart, to a child rapist and murderer.

See?

"Why is revenge a good foundation for ethical behavior in this case?" isn't a rhetorical trick for me. It's the core point -- convince me and I change my ideas.

If your only response is to "shift the burden of proof" by asking others to convince you vengeance is immoral, or to dodge the question by trying to explain why "vengeance is moral" can't be answered in a vacuum (note that my above question explicitly states context -- I'm not asking for an answer in a vacuum), then we're stuck. I'd like to think we're not stuck, though.

I am only arguing that it morally justified to hold that retribution is one of several, inextricably intertwined bases for capital punishment.

So what, exactly, makes it so?

since your wife is "on the other side" what does she think should happen to Couey, and why.

She thinks the death penalty is OK for certain crimes, but we didn't discuss the specific case of Couey.

The thrust of her argument was similar to the Dennis Prager quote BD posted a while back: when our legal system kills people for certain crimes, it teaches the people very clearly that those crimes are unacceptably evil.

Our argument moved from there into Biblical precedent. God was certainly willing to use the death penalty as a teaching tool. When the church was first formed and everyone was sharing their possessions, a couple sold some land and brought most (but not all) of the money to the church and claimed they'd brought it all. God struck them dead on the spot because "you have not lied to men but to God." During the founding of Israel as God's people, a man was killed for breaking the Sabbath, and we see similar judgement come for other seemingly minor crimes. What God was doing was establishing His standards in such a way that nobody could misunderstand. (He followed by showing mercy; Jesus famously told a woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more" rather than stoning her as the law allowed.)

Now, my response to this is that God is in a unique position to be extra harsh as a teaching measure. God can kill someone for a minor crime (and thereby teach the whole nation how important it is to be pure), and still welcome the very same person into heaven. Our justice system does not have the same luxury -- when we kill someone, what happens next is out of our hands. So we need to be very, very sure we're doing the right thing.

[Foil]

"Why is revenge a good foundation for ethical behavior in this case?" isn't a rhetorical trick for me. It's the core point...

When talking about retribution as a reason for capital punishment, the lack of ethical value of vengeance is the core point for me as well.

Other practical reasons for c.p. (deterrence, cost, etc.) are arguable. Of course, I think money is one of the weaker arguments, and the conflicting statistics being thrown around about deterrence make it anything but clear-cut.

[Bet51987]

since your wife is "on the other side" what does she think should happen to Couey, and why.

She thinks the death penalty is OK for certain crimes, but we didn't discuss the specific case of Couey.

Since she thinks its OK in some cases and knowing that you and her haven't discussed Couey, I would have liked to know where her line was drawn. For example, if Couey's crime wasn't bad enough.. what would be?

Bettina

[Zuruck]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18274737/

Another man freed after 25 years behind bars for a crime he obviously did not commit.

The exoneration is the United States' 200th based on DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project in New York, a nonprofit group that works to exonerate wrongly convicted inmates.

I wonder how much higher that number would be if there was no death penalty.

[Bet51987]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18274737/

Another man freed after 25 years behind bars for a crime he obviously did not commit.

The exoneration is the United States' 200th based on DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project in New York, a nonprofit group that works to exonerate wrongly convicted inmates.

I wonder how much higher that number would be if there was no death penalty.

What does that have to do with this thread?

Bettina

[Zuruck]

Bet,

It applies not to Couey or whatever but capital punishment in general. Yet ANOTHER person has been freed by DNA, that brings it to 200 that we know of now. Ever think for a second how many that might be if DNA evidence was around for a while longer?

I'm not saying all criminals are innocent but when a system is as defunct and broken as the United States death penalty is, then it needs to be stopped until a better process can be achieved.

People like BD don't care because in his mind 20 innocent people being put to death is an ok ratio for hom many guilty people are put to death. There is no way to justify that, absolutely no way. Until there is a way to guarantee the process is correct, why are we doing something that is completely, 100%, without a doubt, un-reversable?

[Foil]

Out of those 200, how many were on death row, set to be executed?

I would be interested to know what the ratio actually is, if that were possible.... out of all the executions, how many have been innocent? It's probably relatively low, but as Zuruck pointed out, it's clearly well above zero.

[Bet51987]

Ok Zuruck,

I understand what your saying and as far as I am concerned, I would stop any execution not backed up by DNA evidence which I understand to be 99.9% reliable. Other tests, stains, hair samples, etc, gathered at the scene would push the reliability to 100%.

That would be the requirement for the initial phase. The last phase would be the type of crime and how it was committed and without getting into specifics, Couey would get death.

Again, It makes no sense to talk about past mistakes through time but I would want all executions that cannot be backed up by the two phases to be transmuted to life without parole. So, I agree with you in the context of your post.

Bettina

[Palzon]

I would stop any execution not backed up by DNA evidence which I understand to be 99.9% reliable. Other tests, stains, hair samples, etc, gathered at the scene would push the reliability to 100%.Bettina

Bet, I think the point is that there is no such law establishing your criteria by which someone must be executed. People can be sentenced to death on less than DNA evidence. This means your criteria are idealized only; hypothetical. Based on known rates by which capital crimes have been overturned by DNA, we should be able to extrapolate some meaningful idea of how many innocent people have already been killed. Since your criteria don't actually exist as the standard, this becomes very relevant.

It means that if there is a death penalty at all, it is sure to be visited on the innocent from time to time. This I find totally unacceptable for a civilized society that can afford to confine serious offenders forever, and that could also benefit from their study.

Furthermore, the example I think we should set for our children is not to avenge their lives with blood, but to show that even those who commit the most heinous crime have their punishment meted out soberly and compassionately. Mercy requires a higher order of consciousness, and a greater appreciation for the sanctity of life than does revenge. If from topmost parts of government, our nation cherished all life, it could very well impact the how the common man regards the value of life.

At what point does the moral imperative to protect human life become expendable. What if that life is characterized by evil behavior? If the life of someone evil is not worth the same as the life of someone good - could there not be more dreadful corolaries? Is the life of the enfeebled worth less than the life of the robust? Is the life of the fool worth less than the life of the wise man? Is the indolent life worth less than the industrious?

1. In a free and democratic society, we ought to construct our laws such that we do not sacrifice even a single innocent person for the sake of many - this is a principle of individual liberty.

2. We can acknowledge that people are not equal in industriousness, not equal in wisdom, not equal in health and definitely not equal in moral behavior or thought. Yet, a deficit in any of these areas should not be justification for depriving someone of life, civil liberties, human rights, etc. Though, our abilities or characteristics may be unequal, we should all be treated equally in the eyes of law. Men are not equal. Men do not treat each other equally. But the law can and should treat each man equally. (As a contradiction - clearly, statitics show great disparities in how the death penalty is meted out to the poor and minorities moreso than to the privileged. This is a principle of moral equality.

3. If we can render the serious criminal a threat no more, is it not a greater good to safegard life? Truly, we should take life only when it is unavoidalbe (as it may be in war - though this is another matter). This is a principle of moral necessity.

4. Always remember that what this law represents is our most considered moral opinion, rationally and deliberately derived. What's at stake is the freedom of every one of us, not just the poor few who were wrongly executed in the past. This is a principle of higher social consciousness.

All of these four points and principles are things which transcend the law. The law should be derived from them. They are higher than the law.

[Zuruck]

Bee,

Everyone wants retribution...everyone wants to feel better knowing that someone paid for the crime. But, America has become tolerant of just making \"someone\" pay for the crime. As long as someone burns, everyone sleeps better at night. Ever been blamed for something you didn't do? I sure was, and I got lucky, I only got the business end of a belt for a few minutes. But I was able to get and walk away (after about 20 minutes)...can't really do that when you are dead.

[Bet51987]

Palzon, I read your post several times and yet I have no answers. I have trouble because I don't know what it takes to protect a truly innocent person from the death penalty short of banning capital punishment. A DNA sample that links a person to a specific murder could have been planted by someone else. I just don't know what to say to you.

However, in your second paragraph, you said:

At what point does the moral imperative to protect human life become expendable. What if that life is characterized by evil behavior? If the life of someone evil is not worth the same as the life of someone good - could there not be more dreadful corolaries? Is the life of the enfeebled worth less than the life of the robust? Is the life of the fool worth less than the life of the wise man? Is the indolent life worth less than the industrious?

To me, someone truly evil is not worth the same as someone truly good but the life of a fool is worth the same as that of a wise man. That goes for the rest of the paragraph too. The fact that I consider life so precious is exactly the reason I want capital punishment. I will never give that up if it means that John Couey lives. He is guilty, there is no doubt, he was cognizant of the fact that what he was doing to her was wrong, and he is evil. I can easily give up capital punishment for everything else but not if it means those who kill little girls for sex stay alive. I just can't.

Zuruck, I was always good so I don't know what it's like to get belted. However, I want retribution for her and whether it makes me feel better or not is unimportant. I've been mad, but never knew hatred until I found out how she died.

Bettina

[Zuruck]

I have trouble because I don't know what it takes to protect a truly innocent person from the death penalty short of banning capital punishment.

The answer to what it takes is right there in your sentence. You have to realize that the justice system is not like baking a pie. You can't just throw it out and cook up a new one in an hour. Can you imagine spending 25 years, the bulk of your life, in a 6x6 cell knowing that you didn't do anything wrong? Being branded as a rapist, murderer, child molestor, or anything else and dealing with that until they decide to kill you?

I understand your viewpoint though, I really do. When you listen to people like Couey, Jeffrey Dalhmer, or that BTK guy, it sickens you to hear what someone can do to other people and not think twice about it. I'm not against the dealth penalty because I think criminals should have an easy life..that's not it at all. Like I said previously, I used to believe in it until I realized just how flawed the system really is. There are simply no excuses anymore for it.

[Will Robinson]

Happy Easter!

BD

Just one more reminder of how capital punishment doesn't always turn out the way it was planned!