Absolutely for, and were it not for the sticky situation in which expanding it results in more murders (less chance of getting caught for a rape-and-murder than just a rape argument) I’d want more of it.
Twelve gauge to the base of the skull would be my preferred method, although the more politically and visually palatable method would be nitrogen asphyxiation. I think the current methods are barbaric, but, honestly, I’m okay with that.
:dubious: I find that hard to believe. What justice would that serve? Tell me you would not be exhausting every appeal you could think of?
And what about said guilty person, who was still walking the streets?
I suppose the fact that the rich escape the death penalty and the poor don’t ,doesn’t bother the pro death penalty crowd either. The bloodthirsty have little interest in justice. Just revenge.
I’m sorry, but I can’t empathize with a guy like Bundy or Bittaker. I can understand they are sick and are their own worst enemy, but I can’t feel empathy or sympathy for someone like that. That being said, I don’t feel they should be put to death. I feel they need therapy, but I don’t think they can ever lead normal lives. Nor do I believe guys like that should ever be placed back into society. Society deserves to be protected from sociopathic killers.
But I do agree with that society should do its best to stop the abuse and neglect that is often the breeding ground for sociopaths. I do think its like poverty though, easy to address, but impossible to eliminate. While environment is certainly a factor, there have been medical studies that show there are physical differences in the brains of sociopaths. If those differences are genetic or even congenital, I don’t think there’s much we can do.
I’m not sure what you mean. If we are evolved enough to figure out a way to remove someone from society permanently, then we are evolved enough to choose not to end life and rise above our baser instincts, like revenge.
Of course it does. Just because you’re not against execution doesn’t mean you’re in favor of sloppy administration. That’s like saying, well, if you’re in favor of not abolishing prisons, then you must approve of the current mismanagement of the penal system.
I don’t know of anyone who is in favor of capital punishment who wants it badly administered.
I just can’t put myself in the shoes of a sociopathic killer. I can’t even begin to imagine what it feels like to torture and kill a human being. I can’t empathize with those who can.
I don’t see your logic.
We are what we are.
And personally, I don’t see any detriment to humanity if Larry Bittaker’s life ends.
Like it or not, most folks who’ve had a daughter tortured to death get some small measure of satisfaction and peace in knowing that her killer has been executed, and isn’t being fed and housed on the taxpayer dime.
True, some folks see it differently, and don’t want to be part of anyone’s death, even the death of a person who has caused pain to a loved one.
I think the opinions of victims’ families ought to be taken into consideration.
But let me tell you, if someone like Norris or Bittaker had tortured someone I loved for hours, then killed her, and tape recorded everything so they could listen to it later for their pleasure and amusement, I wouldn’t have any time for any talk about rising above this or that. I’d want him dead.
Everyone dies anyway. Can I suggest that the title “Death Penalty” be changed to the more appropriate “Early Exit Punishment”. That seems to be more politically correct and much more palatable to the unwashed masses.
Cool story. As far as I know infanticide is actually a well documented and understood phenomenon among animals, so I think your mysterious “No one knows why.” is a little dramatic. I’d also like to see a cite for the thing about them shunning and killing the mother. At least they’re probably not all mauling the wrong mom every once in a while ;).
As far as your point about congenital sociopath brains goes, the science of neuroplasticity has been growing extremely rapidly, we are learning more and more just how well the brain can adapt and change given the right stimulus. Already neuroplasticians have accomplished things thought to be totally impossible decades ago (removing phantom limb pain in a finger by tickling your face? Making the tongue take over as the receptor of “visual” data in blind people, and actually seeing those neurons develop and take over the visual cortex in the brain?). Our brains are very capable of changing, it’s just a matter of knowing how we can control and affect those changes. I have very little doubt that it is possible to “unmake” a psychopath the same way it is possible to create one.
I don’t know what it’s like to be a sociopathic killer. I also don’t know what it’s like to be a monarch or to go to space. I don’t think empathy is a conscious, logical thing. It’s an instinctive thing.
Something horrible happens to someone you don’t know. Say they lose a child in a horrible accident. Most of us would think or say, “God, how awful that person must feel. I’m so sorry for that person.” It doesn’t matter if that person is a sociopath or a world class jerk or whatever. We feel empathy because we have imaginations and can put ourselves in various situations. It doesn’t matter what they themselves feel.
Having empathy doesn’t mean you identify with the horrible things the person did. It means you recognize the person as human, no matter how monstrous or flawed, and you understand that if you prick them, they still bleed.
Just read this thread; many, perhaps most supporters clearly don’t care if it’s badly administered. They just want someone dead, innocent or guilty doesn’t matter to them.
Well then, you can cite where someone in this thread has said that guilt or innocence don’t matter. When you can’t, the malicious stupidity of your post will become apparent.
Regards,
Shodan
So should we continue with the death penalty and hope we can fix it later, or do we discontinue it until we can figure out a way to fix it?
Unequivocally against.
It is not correction. The executed person will not amend their actions.
It is not deterrent. There are three types of people who kill:
~those who are convinced that they can outwit the justice system.
~those who have a psychological compulsion to kill
~those who are so angry that their anger constitutes a form of temporary insanity and removes any thought of consequences from their minds.
The knowledge of the existence of a death penalty has no deterrent influence on any of these.
Since it is not a deterrent, there is only one reason for it to remain on the books: because we like it. State-sanctioned sadism to no good purpose. Killing is only justified when it prevents something worse from happening, and the death penalty does not fulfill that function. When killing does not prevent something worse from happening we call that murder.
I’m not squeamish about killing if it will prevent something worse from happening. I’m licensed to go armed and if it would prevent a murder I would fire. But to kill after the crime has already happened changes the killing from prevention to retribution.
Furthermore, we in America live in a society with representative government. With the authority to elect our leaders comes the resonsiblity for how they execute that power. That means that every citizen in the United States carries some resposibility for the actions of our government. I don’t want even my tiny proportion of responsibility for the murders of my government.
Does Scalia count?
Yes, infanticide is well documented, but mostly by males killing the offspring of other males. Female lions will kill cubs from other prides, but they don’t normally kill cubs of other females within their own pride. Why a few abberant lionesses do is anyone’s guess. I wish I had a cite for you, but this is from a documentary film about lions, not a Web source.
That’s not how I read it. Some folks seem to be of the opinion that it can’t be perfectly administered, but on the whole it’s better to have it than not even so, but again, I don’t know of anyone who wants it to be badly administered.
The latter, imao. Clearly, the current state of administration is intolerable. The first step, it seems to me, would be to set some evidentiary guidelines and to restrict it to cases of multiple homicide.
How about these categories:
~ People who are so hot-headed, violent, and out of control that they’re a danger to society.
~ People who enjoy watching other people suffer and die.
~ People who love power and live outside the law anyway and don’t give a damn who suffers or dies.