Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-28-2012, 03:53 PM
supery00n supery00n is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 298
Should executions be performed in the same way the murderer did it?

I heard on the news for a second time that someone pushed someone else onto the New York subway track. If the perpetrators are caught, should they be punished in like manner, by being thrown in front of some train (in a controlled environment of course?) This is assuming capital punishment is legal? Or would this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

I'm thinking that "an eye for an eye" is making a lot of sense here. What do you think?
  #2  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:01 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,496
Um, no. Do you actually want people working for the government who professionally rape and beat people to death? What kind of people do you think are actually willing to do such things?
  #3  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:05 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,473
And, yes, that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. That's why we kill people who do it.
  #4  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:07 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,210
No. There is a clear moral line between murder and execution, and it should not be thinned or tarnished.
  #5  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:08 PM
DrCube DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 6,932
Hell no. In fact, this question highlights the reason the death penalty should be abolished. Perhaps those criminals deserve to die, but the government shouldn't have the right to kill them. I don't want to be governed by vengeful murderers, just as I don't want to be governed by rapists, torturers and subway pushers.

The government simply should not be in the killing (nor raping, torturing and pushing) business.
  #6  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:11 PM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,878
The purpose of capital punishment is ostensibly justice, not revenge. There's no purpose served in "symmetric" executions other than satisfying bloodlust.

Beyond that, it increases the probability of mishaps and makes for a harder job for the poor schmoes who have to guard the prisoners and execute the punishment, not to mention being likely more expensive.
  #7  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:11 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,764
Of course. Instead of shooting him the U.S. should have crashed an airplane into Osama's house.
  #8  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:38 PM
Mangetout Mangetout is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 57,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by supery00n View Post
I'm thinking that "an eye for an eye" is making a lot of sense here. What do you think?
Why are you thinking that? What would it achieve, in your view, that current methods of justice lack?
  #9  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:42 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout View Post
Why are you thinking that? What would it achieve, in your view, that current methods of justice lack?
Higher ratings.
  #10  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:49 PM
DrCube DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 6,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Higher ratings.
You'd think they'd attempt to broadcast executions now if that were the reason.

No, the real reason is more votes. Whipping up the base by picking on an unsympathetic scapegoat. Classic politics.

Fortunately, I think (I hope) we've gotten past the stage in our social evolution where this kind of thing would garner a majority (or even a substantial minority) of support. Still, there are tons of people who would vote for it in a heartbeat.
  #11  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:50 PM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by supery00n View Post
I heard on the news for a second time that someone pushed someone else onto the New York subway track. If the perpetrators are caught, should they be punished in like manner, by being thrown in front of some train (in a controlled environment of course?) This is assuming capital punishment is legal? Or would this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

I'm thinking that "an eye for an eye" is making a lot of sense here. What do you think?
For this crime, a good public flaying would be more appropriate.
Or we could take a vote from all the RO'ers and pick the method with the most votes.
  #12  
Old 12-28-2012, 04:59 PM
Slithy Tove Slithy Tove is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Buford, Georgia
Posts: 8,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Um, no. Do you actually want people working for the government who professionally rape and beat people to death? What kind of people do you think are actually willing to do such things?
Robots, duh!

Or: life without parole, the reality show. Tune in to watch "Vivisepulture-vision!"
Week after week of the condemned drawing crude pornos on his cell wall so as to have something to jack off to, for fifty years.

Or: sentenced to "You Can't Imagine." A processed death implicitly horrific but kept strictly secrets except for a handful of processors and cleaners. Judge, jury, politicians and public at large are kept sanitized, and no would-be killer can fantasize on how tough & nihilistic he'll be facing death, or find psycho-sexual arousal at the prospect of execution a-la Albert Fish. All anyone knows is that they can't imagine what happens.
  #13  
Old 12-28-2012, 10:23 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,233
Well, if the guy who lethally injected John Wayne Gacy had been dressed up like a clown, I wouldn't mind.
  #14  
Old 12-28-2012, 10:52 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshmallow View Post
Of course. Instead of shooting him the U.S. should have crashed an airplane into Osama's house.
Don't forget the part where we should've first figured out how to revive him after the exectution, then execute him again, then repeat the process about 3,000 times.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #15  
Old 12-28-2012, 10:52 PM
Grumman Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
No. If we're going to kill someone, we should do so in as quick and painless a manner possible.
  #16  
Old 12-28-2012, 11:10 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,463
No. Executions shouldn't be performed at all, on account of the fact that capital punishment is wrong, always and everywhere.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll concede that murders also shouldn't be performed at all.

P.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
No. There is a clear moral line between murder and execution, <SNIP>
No, there isn't. See above.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 12-28-2012 at 11:13 PM.
  #17  
Old 12-28-2012, 11:19 PM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,676
If for no other reason, it sounds pretty difficult logistically. What if someone commits murder by arson? How do you make him die the "same way"? Does any fire do or do you have to burn him along with a house? If you need a house, you can't just put him in a normal house, since it's pretty easy to escape.

How would you get the controlled environment for the train execution? The government would probably need its own train and tracks, since letting someone borrow your train for a reason like this seems like a huge liability issue. So it would have to build its own special execution tracks and it would have to buy a train, which we don't even know the manufacturer would sell (some corporations balk at being the manufacturer of execution supplies, which is why states keep having to switch lethal injection drugs). Maybe some person of questionable scruples has a used train they'd sell, though. But that's still a huge expense for a tiny fraction of murders.

If the victim had a chance to fight back, do you give that to the condemned? If it was, say, a stabbing, the victim probably had the chance to get a few good kicks in, so do you just put the condemned in a room with a guy with a knife or do you tie him down first? If you tie him down, how is it the same?

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 12-28-2012 at 11:23 PM.
  #18  
Old 12-28-2012, 11:32 PM
Rick Rick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by supery00n View Post
I heard on the news for a second time that someone pushed someone else onto the New York subway track. If the perpetrators are caught, should they be punished in like manner, by being thrown in front of some train (in a controlled environment of course?) This is assuming capital punishment is legal? Or would this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

I'm thinking that "an eye for an eye" is making a lot of sense here. What do you think?
death by Bunda!
  #19  
Old 12-29-2012, 12:00 AM
Tethered Kite Tethered Kite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,576
This is a chilling thought to me. Even more so than the fact that the state finds it necessary to put some of its citizens to death.

Some here may find the documents of the Samson family, executioners to the royals of France, an interesting read. Those who inherited this job as a royal mandate weren't necessarily inclined to murder, though at least one member of the family seemed to relish his work. Doing this job took a toll on the human spirit and it was reported that when his services were no longer needed the last in the line took his leave with relief.

A legal execution should be speedy, cheap, painless and as close to foolproof as possible. I would suggest an overdose of the least expensive, most rapid-acting anaesthetic available.

Speedy to save family members on both sides of the crime prolonged misery.
Cheap to save the state money.
Painless, keeping in mind that a certain percentage of the convicted may be sentenced in error.
Foolproof in the sense that if the overdose fails to kill in the predicted amount of time the condemned would at least still be in an anaesthesized state giving the executioner time to repair the malfunction and complete the task.

I am unclear why we use the methods we currently do which leave room for stealthy meddling for revenge or bungling which can create pain for all involved.
  #20  
Old 12-29-2012, 12:56 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by supery00n View Post
I'm thinking that "an eye for an eye" is making a lot of sense here. What do you think?
Well, it never did before, did it?
  #21  
Old 12-29-2012, 01:14 AM
drewtwo99 drewtwo99 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 8,757
We should let the free market decide who lives and dies. Big government is not the solution.
  #22  
Old 12-29-2012, 01:27 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
[QUOTE=supery00n;15840611]I heard on the news for a second time that someone pushed someone else onto the New York subway track. If the perpetrators are caught, should they be punished in like manner, by being thrown in front of some train (in a controlled environment ofhis is assuming cap al punishment is legal? Or would this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

I'm thinking that "an eye for an eye" is making a lot of sense here. What do you thin That [p]

That that idea has merit both scriptual and pragmatic, the which it woul brd subscriptural otherwise from both wore and worthelessness (and less lan Lamg Foko Open, whose the Hap hath (altho medrriaple filllsurner, assle, unless his line is "Please die," an expression far too little, and not for idealisted by though internationists whom you really ought too Botany Bay. And, as it peyore and small his any mo' neither thanhk and anogh, so sister? Ijn the gal;olikk

















p
  #23  
Old 12-29-2012, 01:44 AM
don't ask don't ask is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,918
So if Adam Lanza hadn't killed himself he would be repeatedly shot by 20 six and seven-year old children and 6 adults?

Film at 11?
  #24  
Old 12-29-2012, 02:22 AM
Critical1 Critical1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,469
what would you do when the inevitable happens and an innocent man is executed...for the horrendous week long torture of his victim. would you then submit the jury who convicted him to the same punishment?

this idea is something I would have thought was perfect when I was 17, now not so much
  #25  
Old 12-29-2012, 02:42 AM
Eliahna Eliahna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 7,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
No. Executions shouldn't be performed at all, on account of the fact that capital punishment is wrong, always and everywhere.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll concede that murders also shouldn't be performed at all.

P.S.
No, there isn't. See above.
I'm with Kayla's Dad. State sanctioned killing is barbaric enough already. You don't need to up the ante.
  #26  
Old 12-29-2012, 01:36 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action
No. There is a clear moral line between murder and execution, and it should not be thinned or tarnished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99
No, there isn't. See above.
In that case, there's no moral distinction between imprisonment and kidnapping, is there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by drewtwo99
We should let the free market decide who lives and dies. Big government is not the solution.
What? The only people who advocate for the state not being the instrument of criminal justice are anarchists, and they aren't the same people who agitate for free markets.
  #27  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:17 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 29,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
If for no other reason, it sounds pretty difficult logistically.
Not to mention that it screws up my campaign to bring back the guillotine.
  #28  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:52 PM
Randvek Randvek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
In that case, there's no moral distinction between imprisonment and kidnapping, is there?
Morally? No, unless you believe it is moral to do harm to an individual for the benefit of a society. There appears to be a societal need to imprison those who do wrong. Such a case is much harder to make for executions.
  #29  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:08 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
No. There is a clear moral line between murder and execution, and it should not be thinned or tarnished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
No, there isn't. See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
In that case, there's no moral distinction between imprisonment and kidnapping, is there?
Of course there is.

Your use of "in that case," above suggests that you are trying to assert that imprisonment transitions smoothly to capital punishment on continuum of state-sponsored sanctions in a way that is analagous to kidnapping transitioning smoothly to murder on a continuum of criminal conduct.

(If you are trying to assert something else entirely, please accept my apologies for misunderstanding you and please state your assertion more plainly.)


It doesn't. I have not, and will not support an argument that imprisonment is wrong, always and everywhere, just as I will not back away from the fact that capital punishment IS.
  #30  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:11 PM
Daylate Daylate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 1,571
Regarding the Liberals detestation of capital punishment, I would just llike to mention that fellow who recently set his house on fire and then murdered several of the firefighters who responded.

He had previously been convicted of murder, and received a relatively mild sentence of IIRC around 18 years. Now I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that if he had been executed for his first murder, several firemen would now be alive.

I see this as another instance of Liberal feel-good policies resulting in innocent folks being slaughtered later.

My long held opinion is that a society that refuses to use the death penalty is not too terribly concerned with doing everything possible to protect its innocent citizens.
  #31  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:14 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randvek
Morally? No, unless you believe it is moral to do harm to an individual for the benefit of a society. There appears to be a societal need to imprison those who do wrong. Such a case is much harder to make for executions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99
Of course there is.

Your use of "in that case," above suggests that you are trying to assert that imprisonment transitions smoothly to capital punishment on continuum of state-sponsored sanctions in a way that is analagous to kidnapping transitioning smoothly to murder on a continuum of criminal conduct.

(If you are trying to assert something else entirely, please accept my apologies for misunderstanding you and please state your assertion more plainly.)


It doesn't. I have not, and will not support an argument that imprisonment is wrong, always and everywhere, just as I will not back away from the fact that capital punishment IS.
I shall clarify.

Whether or not one approves of capital punishment, I think it must be acknowledged that the state putting someone to death as a criminal penalty, subject to due process of law, is clearly morally distinguishable from murder. That doesn't mean that you must then approve of capital punishment; just that claims that there is no distinction to be made (which I took your post #16 as claiming) are baseless. You can say both are wrong, but they are different.
  #32  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:22 PM
Slithy Tove Slithy Tove is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Buford, Georgia
Posts: 8,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daylate View Post
Regarding the Liberals detestation of capital punishment, I would just llike to mention that fellow who recently set his house on fire and then murdered several of the firefighters who responded.
And I would just like to mention that fellow who was executed for setting his house on fire and immolating his two children. Crime lab determined that gasoline had been used as an accelerant, had him dead to rights.

After his execution it was proven that the builders had used gasoline as a thinner for the floor shellac. No longer dead to rights; just dead.
  #33  
Old 12-31-2012, 06:31 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
I shall clarify.

Whether or not one approves of capital punishment, I think it must be acknowledged that the state putting someone to death as a criminal penalty, subject to due process of law, is clearly morally distinguishable from murder.
No, it mustn't. That's WHY it's wrong, always and everywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
That doesn't mean that you must then approve of capital punishment;
At the very least it means that one must withhold disapproval enough to accept the assertion that it is a legitimate activity for a state to perform (which it isn't, by the way, what with being wrong, always and everywhere).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
just that claims that there is no distinction to be made (which I took your post #16 as claiming) are baseless. You can say both are wrong, but they are different.
The only "difference" is that states don't prosecute themselves for carrying out executions.
  #34  
Old 12-31-2012, 06:36 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
No, it mustn't. That's WHY it's wrong, always and everywhere.
You can't claim an absolute moral judgement is so duh-head-smacking obvious. Others obviously disagree. That doesn't in itself make their disagreement stupid.
  #35  
Old 12-31-2012, 06:45 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
No, it mustn't. That's WHY it's wrong, always and everywhere.
Thus, executioners are murderers?

Quote:
At the very least it means that one must withhold disapproval enough to accept the assertion that it is a legitimate activity for a state to perform (which it isn't, by the way, what with being wrong, always and everywhere).
No, you must only accept that it's a lawful activity, subject to due process. Which murder is not.

Quote:
The only "difference" is that states don't prosecute themselves for carrying out executions.
Because they are not murders.

As an aside, is waging war a legitimate activity of the state?
  #36  
Old 01-01-2013, 05:06 PM
mascaroni mascaroni is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: England
Posts: 1,924
I think that the U.S. practice of finding the 18 year old guilty, then years later executing the 40-something year old is indeed a Cruel and Unusual punishment.
When we had the death penalty here in the UK, the guilty party would generally be executed within six weeks.
  #37  
Old 01-01-2013, 10:29 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
You can't claim an absolute moral judgement is so duh-head-smacking obvious. Others obviously disagree. That doesn't in itself make their disagreement stupid.
No. Just wrong.
  #38  
Old 01-01-2013, 10:44 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daylate View Post
My long held opinion is that a society that refuses to use the death penalty is not too terribly concerned with doing everything possible to protect its innocent citizens.
In the last 23 years, 18 people have been exonerated and released after they were convicted of murder and sentenced to death row. It is my opinion that a society that uses the death penalty is not too terribly concerned with doing everything possible to protect its innocent citizens.
  #39  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:03 AM
MacCat MacCat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slithy Tove View Post
After his execution it was proven that the builders had used gasoline as a thinner for the floor shellac. No longer dead to rights; just dead.
I recall reading of that unspeakable horror.
  #40  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:36 AM
Daylate Daylate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
In the last 23 years, 18 people have been exonerated and released after they were convicted of murder and sentenced to death row. It is my opinion that a society that uses the death penalty is not too terribly concerned with doing everything possible to protect its innocent citizens.
The discovery and use of DNA evidence (as shown in your cite), now allows a much more reliable method of determining guilt and innocence. My contention is that this method of proof can, if used properly, eliminate the mistakes that have occurred in the past, and therefore remove one of the most pervasive arguments against the death penalty.
  #41  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:42 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,069
Only a small fraction of death penalty cases involve DNA evidence. These exonerations prove the courts get it wrong with unacceptable frequency. The poor devils falsely imprisoned on death row with the misfortune to be without DNA evidence to test will always be a compelling argument against the death penalty.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017