Capital Punishment

[TechPro]

To my knowledge molesting of little children was never mentioned. It is fair to say that the heinous nature of this was not even thought of

Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Oh, it's mentioned alright... however the more recent translations (or re-translations depending on your viewpoint) tend to make it harder to realize that's what was mentioned in various passages. In the King James version you can find it mentioned... it's usually phrased similar to "harming children".

[Samuel Dravis]

People are emotional beings. It's human nature to want revenge. It's also human (well, male at least) nature to want to have sex with anyone female that can be found. That doesn't mean that we should do so, or that it is suddenly justified or justifiable just because we changed our minds from before and began to \"feel\" like it. My opinion on revenge doesn't change the fact that I can't justify revenge.

[Lothar]

To my knowledge molesting of little children was never mentioned. It is fair to say that the heinous nature of this was not even thought of

Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Oh, it's mentioned alright... however the more recent translations ....

The quote in question wasn't about what was mentioned in the Bible, it was what crimes happened when the US was first settled by whites in the 1600s and following.

-----

I'll again post the article I decided to forgive.

Bettina, I'm curious... you say the girl "wasn't able to defend herself... would have killed him to get away." You conclude, then, that we should "do what she was unable to", that is, kill. But the point of your first quote isn't really killing at all, it's escape.

Because she couldn't use deadly force to get away, the justice system should use deadly force to... get away? That's nonsense. The justice system doesn't help her get away by killing him. It only makes him dead. That's OK if you're after revenge, it just doesn't make sense when you try to argue it from a sympathy/protection angle.

IMO you're being dishonest with yourself by trying to frame your position in terms of escape rather than revenge. Since you're heavily driven by emotion, that's an extra-dangerous lie to tell yourself. You're lying to yourself to let you hold on to hate. That's not healthy.

[Foil]

[Note: Overtly religious/Christian discussion here, I don't want to turn this into a theological debate, but I think it's still on topic, at least for now.]

Spooky,

As a fellow Christian, I often enjoy the directfulness yet kind nature of your posts, but I really must take issue with some of the things you said here.

The settlers of this North America ... In the event of rape, murder, horse theft and even in some cases of adultery and certain other crimes the perpetrators were summarily hanged. ... they were satisfied in their heart that justice was being done.

Where does this come from? Why do you think the settlers in "old America" didn't struggle with this issue, just as we do today? I know this idealized view of a "simpler time" is common among Christians, but do you really think that all the settlers were somehow unified in their support of capital punishment? As has been pointed out, the settlement of America was hardly a pure-hearted Christian movement. I personally can't imagine that they didn't struggle with the ethics of taking a life and their emotions of vengeance, just as we do today.

An interesting and very tragic situation has developed at an accelerated rate over the last fifty to seventy five years. The precepts and concepts of scripture have been taken out of our schools. ... We are now seeing the results of leaving the original foundation out. When there is conclusive proof that a person is guilty of these crimes of murder, rape, adultery, the ruination of little children. They deserve death . . . The Bible allows it . . .

No... Old Testament Law allowed for it. (Note that much of the Old Testament law came from Hebrew leadership, not directly from the Ten Commandments.)

As a Christian, I am honestly appalled that you are neglecting the overriding example we have, and the one whom we are called to personify: Christ himself.

So what did Christ have to say about this? "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?" No, He spoke about and actively demonstrated forgiveness and mercy.

Even more poignant, what did Christ DO regarding this issue? What did He do when the law (justly) called for the death-penalty of an adulterous woman? He stood up, told her to sin no more, and prevented her from being stoned to death!

I know, I know. Christ affirmed the value of the law. But He also made a point of demonstrating how harmful a harsh legalistic view of it could be.

I'm sorry, as a Christian, I just don't see how one can use even something as important as an Old Testament law to support an idea which goes so clearly contrary to the example and teachings of Christ. (Can you tell this is a "soap-box" issue for me? It's especially difficult, coming from a state like Oklahoma, where the culture is so strongly Christian yet so strongly pro-CP.)


[Disclaimer: PLEASE do not misunderstand me. I do not advocate just letting criminals and psychos free. They must still be kept away to protect people.
What I am upset about here is the way the Old Testament Hebrew laws are held above the example and teachings of Christ by Christians.]

...the classic penalty for these unrulinesses, Capital Punishment, has been morphed into energetic rejection? Well, as far as this writer is concerned we are seeing the results.

I agree with you that the sense of ethics in the West has fallen significantly. However, it's a massive over-simplification to just attribute this to "prayer taken out of schools" or "decline of capital punishment".

[Foil]

Bettina,
... the point of your first quote isn't really killing at all, it's escape.
...
The justice system doesn't help her get away by killing him. It only makes him dead. That's OK if you're after revenge, it just doesn't make sense when you try to argue it from a sympathy/protection angle.

x2.

Here's the way I would put it:
The justice system should be able to provide other little girls what this young girl was not able to have... protection, by putting this man away forever.

[Will Robinson]

I have no doubt if someone did to one of my daughters what this guy did I'd be very tempted to feed his body parts to the crabs while he bled to death watching me carve him up...
But I'd know it was wrong.
Maybe if I didn't have another daughter and a wife who would surely be doubly traumatized by first losing their sister and daughter to a killer and then their father and husband to prison...maybe under those circumstances I would indulge my thirst for revenge. But this discussion is coming to me when I'm not in a fit of rage so I'm answering with reason.
So it doesn't matter to me if some victims families change their tune when they are directly involved, just like it doesn't matter to me when some of them say they forgive the killer....
Good law isn't shaped out of fear or rage or any other emotion. It should be shaped out of logic and reason.

[Duper]

An interesting and very tragic situation has developed at an accelerated rate over the last fifty to seventy five years. The precepts and concepts of scripture have been taken out of our schools. ... We are now seeing the results of leaving the original foundation out. When there is conclusive proof that a person is guilty of these crimes of murder, rape, adultery, the ruination of little children. They deserve death . . . The Bible allows it . . .

No... Old Testament Law allowed for it. (Note that much of the Old Testament law came from Hebrew leadership, not directly from the Ten Commandments.)

As a Christian, I am honestly appalled that you are neglecting the overriding example we have, and the one whom we are called to personify: Christ himself.

So what did Christ have to say about this? "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?" No, He spoke about and actively demonstrated forgiveness and mercy.

...I'm sorry, as a Christian, I just don't see how one can use even something as important as an Old Testament law to support an idea which goes so clearly contrary to the example and teachings of Christ.

You are not quite correct. While executing those who commit these crimes are not outlined in the ten commandments, they ARE in painstaking detail laid out in the Levitical law. It's not just tribal hearsay. Most of the time death by stoning (throwing rocks at people, not OD'ing on grass) was the sentence.

Jesus never specifically addressed this. He could not bring judgment on the prostitute as he was to be judged for her later and thus could not. He DID, however, show others in the crowd their guilt in the matter. While mercy and forgiveness is what God desires, you do not excuse genuine corruption. He gave forgiveness to those who came seeking it, not those who shunned Him and denied what He offered. One of the things that the law shows us is God's standard. ...not necessarily word for word but more precept on precept. It also shows us that we can not ever measure up to perfection.

Christ said this:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
25 "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.
26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Jesus dealt relationally, not governmentally.

As for the early colonists on this continent, Spook is quite correct. They did impose these laws. There was no room for such things in the “New World”. Many groups were various Christian denominations that were escaping persecution from the main churches of Europe of their time; Puritans, Baptists, Quakers, etc.

You needn't be appalled. He is basing his ideas on his understanding of the theology that is within his grasp and he TOO has forgiveness and is under grace as it the rest of us. (I'm not saying you're wrong Spook)


As for myself, even after 40+ years, I'm divided on the topic. As we have seen thus far and what I've heard over the years, there are very good and legitimate arguments for both sides.
I have difficulty with the "temporary insanity" plea as it is misused so much. If you think about it, no one that is killing another person (outside of execution for this discussion) is in their right mind. So it should be a forgone conclusion that a person is "insane" or irrational at the time of a killing. Also, notice that the scripture I quoted says murder and not just kill. The Levitical law made a very clear distinction between murder and killing or what we would call manslaughter.

[Spooky]

░

[Ford Prefect]

Merlin:

Crime rates are rising every year.

Says who?
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/crime/ ... es2003.htm (2003 stats)

The violent crime rate in Canada has fallen 11 percent since 1993.
The homicide rate for Canada went down 7 percent in 2003 to its lowest level in over 35 years.

There are more crimes no doubt. But then there are more people. The rate of crime per person goes up and down a little over the decades but the overall trend is downward for the last few.
The Infotainment industry uses gruesome crimes as attention getters to draw you in so you will buy more of the advertised products.

[Bet51987]

Bettina, I'm curious... you say the girl "wasn't able to defend herself... would have killed him to get away." You conclude, then, that we should "do what she was unable to", that is, kill. But the point of your first quote isn't really killing at all, it's escape.

Because she couldn't use deadly force to get away, the justice system should use deadly force to... get away? That's nonsense. The justice system doesn't help her get away by killing him. It only makes him dead. That's OK if you're after revenge, it just doesn't make sense when you try to argue it from a sympathy/protection angle.

IMO you're being dishonest with yourself by trying to frame your position in terms of escape rather than revenge. Since you're heavily driven by emotion, that's an extra-dangerous lie to tell yourself. You're lying to yourself to let you hold on to hate. That's not healthy.

I can't believe my post was so confusing to you that you saw a need to provide your own interpretation.

Let me clarify it for you this way... Lets assume Jessica was a grown women and managed to get her hands on a gun while she was being brutally raped. Do you think she would have taken the time to decide whether to wound or kill?. No she would not. She would have shot to kill, but Jessica couldn't shoot to kill him because she was only 9 years old so all she could do was cry.

I can understand murder and I can forgive some of them. But this monster and those GI's I can't forgive. They crossed a line that to me automatically forfeits your right to live, and just to erase any further doubt about my message, I hate them and I want vengeance.

And, your opinion of me being dishonest is well known here. I was dishonest again this morning.

Bettina

[Lothar]

She would have shot to kill

Of course she would -- because it's the only way she could be sure to escape and protect others in the future. Again, the point is not to kill, the point is to protect.

Once the guy's in custody and convicted in a never-to-be-released manner, the law has done its job of protecting. The only thing left is to kill out of hatred. But the legal system should not be fueled by emotion, it should be fueled by justice and reason.

Yoda had something to say about hate.

[BUBBALOU]

what a bunch of flag waiving hippies

I believe that you should suffer the same fate as your victim in the same fashion as your victim carried out post haste instead of wasting my Tax dollars in prison

Were is Judge Dread when you need him

[woodchip]

She would have shot to kill

Of course she would -- because it's the only way she could be sure to escape and protect others in the future. Again, the point is not to kill, the point is to protect.

Once the guy's in custody and convicted in a never-to-be-released manner, the law has done its job of protecting. The only thing left is to kill out of hatred. But the legal system should not be fueled by emotion, it should be fueled by justice and reason.

Yoda had something to say about hate.

Never to be released? Who are you kidding. How many times have we read about a child molester being let out on parole and then they wind up killing their next victom so the kid can't identify him. The same is what happened with Jessica's killer. Executing him makes sure he will never be paroled again to commit another crime.

[Lothar]

Never to be released? Who are you kidding... Executing him makes sure he will never be paroled again to commit another crime.

As does REALLY locking him up never to be released. The justice system made a mistake by letting him out; that's not in dispute. The dispute is whether the justice system should kill him or just keep him locked up. At present, it does neither.

[Immortal Lobster]

Fact: people who are locked up for a long time go crazy
While this may be considered a good thing, it costs more money to evaluate his/her psychological state and keep a full time doctor on call. It also means those who committed lesser crimes are at more risk in his presence.

We either need a whole new prison system to keep them safely held away for life, or execution, in like the way bubbalou said, the same way/fashion his/her victem died.

[Testiculese]

OK...who's gonna rape him? Volunteers?

Bullets are cheap.

[Immortal Lobster]

ok, in a similar fashion when available =P

[Behemoth]

Emotionally, I am for capital punishment.
Realistically i am against it, It's service for us as a better means of discipline has long been overdrawn out.

[Ford Prefect]

or execution, in like the way bubbalou said, the same way/fashion his/her victim died.

And the person who would carry out this sentence. Would you like to have him as a neighbour? Would you trust him at the park to play with your children?
This is not about the crimes of the perpetrator. This is about us as human beings. We are horrified that this person could find it in himself to perform such grotesque acts and yet as soon as you feel it is \"justice\" you are eager to perform them yourself.
Your sense of right and wrong are probably in the normal range, those of the perpetrator probably are not. Subjectively however you both have come to some kind of justification for performing acts of murder and torture.
I don't have a problem with killing a person humanely if he is a danger to society. I have a problem with revenge and hatred being accepted as good reason to torture and maim.

[CDN_Merlin]

This is my personal belief.

In the end, we as a human race will become a savage beast. We are creating more and more sick minds. Where this comes from I'm not sure. But in the last 25 years, I've seen more children committing hedious crimes and more children being the victims of those crimes.

All of these school shootings are getting out of hand. There have been 2 school shootings in my birth city of Montreal. The first happened when a man walked into a ll girls technical college and shot 12 women dead. He had something against women. The other one happened last year when a man walked into Dawson College(I went there in the late 80's) and killed one and wounded others.

I think we need to concentrate our efforts on finding out why these people are committing these crimes and trying to put an end to it.

Hopefully in time, we won't have to have discussion like these and figure out what side of the fence we are on.

[Immortal Lobster]

one, you can't kill somebody humanely, or can you? if a person takes a life, what stops him from taking another? or another? what makes him a safe indivdual even for prison?

Would I trust a person who executes people for a living? maybe, it would depend on that persons character. some people out there do in fact have a character that permits them to do so and in the end doesnt seem to effect them or they have a good way of keeping it out of plain site. so yeah, if the person is of the correct character for th job, have at.

The problem is, and ive mentioned it before, everything about the prison, even the capitol punishment system is no longer scary enough. people no longer say, \"If I get caught Ill have to live in prison for x amount of years and live on bread and water with some rats\" its ouuuh, now I can go to a flipping resort, watch TV in my cell, play basketball, get fillet mignon for dinner then sleep in fresh sheets.\" its no longer scary, even death is no longer scary, because the death has to be humane, it has to be sterile, has to be non torturous. if were going to prevent these problems in society we have to define a method in which to do that, not encourage it like a one way ticket to a resort.

my examples might be a little crude, just trying to get a point across.

[Duper]

well Merlin, I think you would eventually find that the problem is a as much or more a spiritual problem than it is a sociological issue.

[CDN_Merlin]

one, you can't kill somebody humanely, or can you? if a person takes a life, what stops him from taking another? or another? what makes him a safe indivdual even for prison?

Would I trust a person who executes people for a living? maybe, it would depend on that persons character. some people out there do in fact have a character that permits them to do so and in the end doesnt seem to effect them or they have a good way of keeping it out of plain site. so yeah, if the person is of the correct character for th job, have at.

The problem is, and ive mentioned it before, everything about the prison, even the capitol punishment system is no longer scary enough. people no longer say, "If I get caught Ill have to live in prison for x amount of years and live on bread and water with some rats" its ouuuh, now I can go to a flipping resort, watch TV in my cell, play basketball, get fillet mignon for dinner then sleep in fresh sheets." its no longer scary, even death is no longer scary, because the death has to be humane, it has to be sterile, has to be non torturous. if were going to prevent these problems in society we have to define a method in which to do that, not encourage it like a one way ticket to a resort.

my examples might be a little crude, just trying to get a point across.

I agree with this. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Hasn't for a very long time. When we gave up hanging people, we created this situation.

Here's another example, in the 80's, someone invented "the customer is always right" philosophy for retail stores. No, I could buy a pair of underwear, sh*t in them and return them. Raise a big ruckus and I'd get my money back. Don't think this can happen, trust me it happened at Zellers where my wife used to work back in the early 90's. We are giving them the power to do this and sit by and wonder why people but stuff, use it and return it.

I had a guy come into the store I worked at, ask me if he could buy a camera for his vacation and return it afterwards since he didn't really need it.

[Bet51987]

She would have shot to kill

Of course she would -- because it's the only way she could be sure to escape and protect others in the future. Again, the point is not to kill, the point is to protect.

Once the guy's in custody and convicted in a never-to-be-released manner, the law has done its job of protecting. The only thing left is to kill out of hatred. But the legal system should not be fueled by emotion, it should be fueled by justice and reason.

Yoda had something to say about hate.

Your point is wrong. Do you really think that "protecting others" is on her mind? No way. She would shoot him as many times as she had bullets and only then would she feel safe enough to drop the gun and go find help. Jessica never had the chance.

There is no never-to-be-released manner and you know it. Some lawyer will always be trying to get his release and I don't want that to happen. There will never be any closure until he's cremated. At least not for me.

Yoda?... As a SciFi fan, I know what he said about hate, but he wasn't talking about prison time when he said “I was not strong enough to defeat him. Be destroyed, he must.”

And the person who would carry out this sentence. Would you like to have him as a neighbour? Would you trust him at the park to play with your children?

Yes, just as I would trust the women who kills her rapist, the policeman who kills to protect someone, The soldier who kills a terrorist, the husband who protects his children, etc etc. I don't put these people in the same bottle as monsters.

Bettina

[Ford Prefect]

I know it is hard to be clear in a brief post Bettina, I too don't have any objection to:

the women who kills her rapist, the policeman who kills to protect someone, The soldier who kills a terrorist, the husband who protects his children, etc etc.

I was thinking of a person employed by the state to kill another person in some way that matched their crime. Such a person would have to cold bloodedly perform acts just as heinous as those of the perpetrator. I was not referring to a state executioner that administers a lethal poison dose.
Image of the Spanish Inquisition come to mind. I am hoping we have risen above that.

[Bet51987]

I know it is hard to be clear in a brief post Bettina, I too don't have any objection to:

the women who kills her rapist, the policeman who kills to protect someone, The soldier who kills a terrorist, the husband who protects his children, etc etc.

I was thinking of a person employed by the state to kill another person in some way that matched their crime. Such a person would have to cold bloodedly perform acts just as heinous as those of the perpetrator. I was not referring to a state executioner that administers a lethal poison dose.
Image of the Spanish Inquisition come to mind. I am hoping we have risen above that.

I know where your coming from. In the case of Jessica, what person would have the heart to bury him alive like he did her. I would not be able to do that but knowing what I know about him, I would have no problem throwing a switch. I really hate him that much.

They should pass a law that would allow Jessica's dad to pull the switch if he chose to. If not, then the executioner pulls it. I have no good answer here, except that line has to be drawn for child killers.

Bee

[Bold Deceiver]

Once the guy's in custody and convicted in a never-to-be-released manner, the law has done its job of protecting. The only thing left is to kill out of hatred. But the legal system should not be fueled by emotion, it should be fueled by justice and reason.

And if the "never-to-be-released" convict escapes from prison and kills again, will the blood be on your hands, Lothar? The intellectually honest answer here is "yes." (Specific Deterrence).

And if a person in society who, with the knowledge that the murderer above was executed the night before, might have paused before pulling the trigger to kill another ... would the blood be on your hands? The answer again, is yes. (General Deterrence.)

And what of society's interest in avenging the death of one its own? If, God forbid, someone were to rape and execute someone close to you (and this is getting awkward now, because I hope you know that I pray no such thing would ever, ever occur), what of the value in society's own retribution for the loss? There is value there, and it need not be born of hatred. Be careful to distinguish dogma from what's true in your heart.

I think you would do well to rethink this one Lothar. Bettina is sticking to principles here and her arguments shine far and beyond whatever else I've seen posted. And I don't think she's even twenty yet.

"You can run on, for a long time. Run on, for a long time".

-- Johnny Cash

[Will Robinson]

BD, What if, in a system of capture and never release vs. a system of execution, you knew for certain that the number of innocents mistakenly convicted and executed would outnumber the total number of victims of the few who escape and kill again? Which would be the right choice for society? Who wears the blood on the hands then?
Note I reject the premise of death penalty as a deterent since most murders are not pre-meditated and revenge is not useful at all so it comes down to the two scenarios I laid out above.

[Lothar]

The article I linked above was written in response to the brutal murder of someone in my family.

[woodchip]

I guess the the easy way for those too squeemish to pull the switch is to simply place the mutt in with the general prison population ala Jeffery Dhamer.
And Will, meting out punishment based on hypotheticals is not the way to look at it either. We are not looking here at a case based on circumstantial evidence.
There is no \"Never to be Released\" program. Every prisoner has regular parole hearing and if he/she is a model prisioner, may in all likelyhood be released. Charles Manson being an exception....so far.

[Will Robinson]

I guess the the easy way for those too squeemish to pull the switch is to simply place the mutt in with the general prison population ala Jeffery Dhamer.
And Will, meting out punishment based on hypotheticals is not the way to look at it either. We are not looking here at a case based on circumstantial evidence.
There is no "Never to be Released" program. Every prisoner has regular parole hearing and if he/she is a model prisioner, may in all likelyhood be released. Charles Manson being an exception....so far.

Well my solution would be to eliminate the whole Death Row bureaucracy and seperate enviroment so it cuts the expense and puts them into general population. I also would demand a no release regardless of behavior after the crime. My prison would have three tiers.
1) first offenders of non-violent crimes have basically the same deal they all have now...parole...attempts to educate and reform etc. also you work to offset the cost of holding you in prison work camps, factories, etc.

2) second offenders, and first offenders of serious violent crimes.... limited recreation, two to a cell, limited visitation like once a month, library, you work to offset the cost of holding you in prison work camps, factories, etc.
if you don't work you go to tier three

3) here we hold you indefinitely. If you came from tier two because you didn't want to work you get a taste of the real deal: 4x8 cage, out in the yard for sunlight for an hour, no tv, no weight room, no library, etc. ...losers locked up for ever!
If you show signs of cooperation you can go back to tier two.
Of course if you were sent here from the beginning because you were particularly nasty then you never go to tier two and you never leave!

[Immortal Lobster]

I like that system, it would definelty put the fear of the prison system back in people, now we just need a way to implement it.

[woodchip]

While I like the tier 3 option it will never be implemented as it would be construed as \"Cruel and Unusual\" punishment. The teary eyed liberal's would be apopylectic.

[fliptw]

I like that system, it would definelty put the fear of the prison system back in people, now we just need a way to implement it.

Only for those criminals that fear of getting caught is a real possibilty.

those that are subject of this thread largely don't fall into that category.

[Lothar]

One of my favorite D&D PC's has remarked, \"being good isn't just about smiting evil. It's also about being different from them.\" When a man kills a little girl, or a gay, or a Jew, out of hate, and we respond by killing him out of hate, we drop ourselves to his level. (When we kill out of self-preservation or other-preservation, that's different.)

For the sake of completeness, I'll add this: I think the death penalty was the right move for Saddam, and is the right move for certain mafia types. Because with someone who has a power base, there's always a substantial risk they'll be broken out and/or come up with a way to communicate and lead their \"forces\" even from in the pen. In a case like that, the death penalty is about safety, rather than about hate.

Woody, would it help if I said this this way: If the system doesn't allow for \"locked up forever\", the death penalty is better than \"violent nutjobs go free\". I rank it as
1) locked up forever Will Robinson style
2) locked up forever but with cable TV etc
3) death penalty (this jumps to #1 for people with enough power to make lockup ineffective)
[very large number]) violent, dangerous nutjobs go free

[Bet51987]

The article I linked above was written in response to the brutal murder of someone in my family.

And my post was written in response to the brutal murder of Jessica Lunsford. The word "family" is irrelevent.

I think the death penalty was the right move for Saddam, and is the right move for certain mafia types. Because with someone who has a power base, there's always a substantial risk they'll be broken out and/or come up with a way to communicate and lead their "forces" even from in the pen. In a case like that, the death penalty is about safety, rather than about hate.

That argument won't work because now you have the problem of determining how much power a person has so where do you draw the line. For example, In prison, Saddam had no power base, controlled no army, and was hated by almost everyone. Even I had no problems with him being spared the death penalty.

" When a man kills a little girl, or a gay, or a Jew, out of hate, and we respond by killing him out of hate, we drop ourselves to his level.

That is an argument not shared by everyone and its a weak one at that. I am glad I have the ability to hate Couey deep enough to want him dead.

While I like the tier 3 option it will never be implemented as it would be construed as "Cruel and Unusual" punishment. The teary eyed liberal's would be apopylectic.

And they would get a collection going to pay for the lawyers to make it happen.

Bettina

[Lothar]

The word "family" is irrelevent.

The word "family" was not written in response to you, it was written in response to Bold Deciever. He challenged me with respect to how my attitude would change if the person was close to me; I countered. So what if it has no relevance to your argument? Not everything has to.

I think the death penalty was the right move for Saddam ... power base...

now you have the problem of determining how much power a person has so where do you draw the line. For example, In prison, Saddam had no power base, controlled no army, and was hated by almost everyone.

Saddam still had allies. He had people loyal to him. That's why it took so long to catch him. Life in prison simply wasn't an option -- as long as he lived, those loyal to him would continue to work to free him.

"Where do you draw the line" is a dodge. Instead of addressing the question of whether it's reasonable to execute those powerful enough to be a significant threat, you try to shift the burden to me to explain exactly what's meant by "powerful enough" so that you can disagree on some nit-picking detail.

Try addressing the point this time. You said before that the justice system should "do what Jessica could not" and you tried to pretend the death penalty was for protection. So, imagine there's somebody who, even if imprisoned for life, still poses a serious threat to society, like a super-Saddam-on-steroids. When you suggested protection as a motive for the death penalty, did you really mean it, or were you just using it as cover and you really think the death penalty is just for hate?

I am glad I have the ability to hate Couey deep enough to want him dead.

I have the ability to hate him that deeply too. I'm glad I'm strong enough not to indulge that ability, and I pity you for not being the same.

[Bet51987]

The word "family" is irrelevent.

The word "family" was not written in response to you, it was written in response to Bold Deciever. He challenged me with respect to how my attitude would change if the person was close to me; I countered. So what if it has no relevance to your argument? Not everything has to.

I didn't think you were replying to BD only. My apologys.

Saddam still had allies. He had people loyal to him. That's why it took so long to catch him. Life in prison simply wasn't an option -- as long as he lived, those loyal to him would continue to work to free him.

"Where do you draw the line" is a dodge. Instead of addressing the question of whether it's reasonable to execute those powerful enough to be a significant threat, you try to shift the burden to me to explain exactly what's meant by "powerful enough" so that you can disagree on some nit-picking detail.

Again, I will give you this point. I don't know enough about the allies Saddam had.

Try addressing the point this time. You said before that the justice system should "do what Jessica could not" and you tried to pretend the death penalty was for protection. So, imagine there's somebody who, even if imprisoned for life, still poses a serious threat to society, like a super-Saddam-on-steroids. When you suggested protection as a motive for the death penalty, did you really mean it, or were you just using it as cover and you really think the death penalty is just for hate?

Lothar, I already clarified that for you several times. Protection is not my motive for the death penalty when it involves the rape and murder of innocent kids. Thats the line I won't cross. Pure vengeance is what I want and nothing less will do. If it sends a message of detterence, fine. If it doesn't, I don't really care. I want him dead.

I am glad I have the ability to hate Couey deep enough to want him dead.

I have the ability to hate him that deeply too. I'm glad I'm strong enough not to indulge that ability, and I pity you for not being the same.

No, I actually pity you because that kind of thinking is whats deeply wrong with my country. I can only cross my fingers and hope that the judge in Jessicas case isn't like you because if he is, he will reverse the Jurys decision of death and that alone will make me sick.

Bettina

[woodchip]

Woody, would it help if I said this this way: If the system doesn't allow for "locked up forever", the death penalty is better than "violent nutjobs go free". I rank it as
1) locked up forever Will Robinson style
2) locked up forever but with cable TV etc
3) death penalty (this jumps to #1 for people with enough power to make lockup ineffective)
[very large number]) violent, dangerous nutjobs go free

Lothar, one of the reasons we have a great judicial system is each case is judgement is rendered on a case by case basis. As in all things if one person kills another human being, we have to look at the circumstances. A man gets drunk, becomes embroiled in a bar fight and kills someone (crime of passion), is one situation where none of the above is applicable. OTH, the murder of a innocent child just because you want to hide what perverse things you've done to her (murder done with fore-thought) is entirely another matter. Death penalty is probably too sanitary as the system is trying to show compassion to a person who had none when he committed his crime. But die he must as he chose to abduct Jessica. Die he must as he chose to abuse her in a most perverse manner. Die he must for killing Jessice to cover his track.

Now, while Bet admits to hating the guy, I do not.
I could easily pull the switch on the guy much the same way I could shoot a animal that has rabies that came onto my property. Dispassionately, with no bad dreams afterward.

[CDN_Merlin]

Prime example of how criminals have an easy life here.

Here in town some inmates at a correctional institute complained the bread was stale. It was 2 days past due. So now they enjoy fresher bread.


WTF!!!!!!!