Exactly.
And being anti-death penalty myself, I say no to this one, too.
No, certainly not.
Also, to repeat above, it sounds unlikely that this soldier is a psychopath and more likely that he had some kind of mental breakdown or psychosis. But either way, the death penalty is not acceptable to me.
Excellent news, I take it Gitmo is being shut tomorrow and all those persons who have been interrogated in an enhanced fashion are bring compensated?
Hijack – hopefully brief – assuming there is “mitigating evidence of diminished capacity resulting from his prior head injury,” wouldn’t that shift some blame onto whoever thought it was a good idea to arm this guy?
:rolleyes:
Cite to a post where I have supported Gitmo?
Not in the context of a murder trial. I don’t see his chain of command being named as co-defendants or anything. Some action might be taken as part of larger ramifications from this incident—enhanced screening after head injuries, more treatment for post-traumatic stress, that sort of thing.
I think it would set a horrible precedent. If there is a murder in your local community and you want the DP, you had better round up a mob and threaten reprisals in order to increase the chances of the accused getting the DP. Sit back and let the justice system work or engage in peaceful protest? The guy gets off easier.
Actually, the real question for those against the death penalty would be: Should we turn this guy over to the Afghans pretty much knowing he’d get the death penalty? That seemed to be the main theme I remember from threads on this subject earlier…that a shocking number of folks chiming in thought we SHOULD just hand this guy over to the Afghans and let them decide what to do (which, cutting to the chance, meant he’d be killed).
I’m against the death penalty. No buts. I joked in the Manson thread about ‘releasing’ him about about 3 miles under the ocean with a zip lock baggie full of air and a sandwich, but in reality I’m perfectly good with him living out the rest of his unnatural life behind bars. Same goes for this guy.
-XT
No. We have an explicit agreement with the Afghan government that we won’t do this. We never engage in military conflicts without such an agreement, and it would set a dangerous precedent.
I suspect those wanting to do so are looking to punish the US, collectively, for being in Afghanistan in the first place.
Nyet
There can be exceptions to my objection to the death penalty, but that condition (inability to keep the person locked up) isn’t met here and shouldn’t ever be met in the modern US.
I’m very much against the death penalty, and think it should not be a part of our system of justice under any circumstances. However, the fact is that we do have the death penalty in the US. Absent a finding of diminished capacity, I admit I’d be more than a little discomfited if we don’t execute this guy. Not because I want him dead, but because I don’t like the idea that this guy might get lighter treatment because he’s in the military, or because he only killed a bunch of foreigners.
Those Blackwater guys who opened fire on civilians? Just for comparison?
What does this have to do with anything?
No, btw.
I’m having a lot of trouble understanding what you consider to be the basis for your exception here. “What it does to us” seems to be a moral argument against the death penalty. But in the first paragraph you sneer at a very straightforward articulation of the moral argument against the death penalty, doing an excellent impression of the kind of person who gets angry at the suggestion that there even is a moral argument there.
Is this the first time you’ve ever considered the possibility that the death penalty might serve a utilitarian purpose?
Death penalty opponent here, but murder is defined as unsanctioned killing. Killing does not meet the defintion of murder on the battlefield or when otherwise perpetrated by the state. At any rate, I don’t think that diminished accountability due to a head injury is a great argument. Davidson found significant differences in brain composition between violent individuals and a normal population. Whether those resulted from an injury or biology shouldn’t have an impact on the sentence, in my opinion.
That’s the primary definition, but not the only one.
Not at all. In general, when it does serve a utilitarian purpose, and when the offender has committed murder, I’m all in favor of it: if, for example, we were on a desert island together, and you’d committed murder, I’d be voting for your death.
But in general, I don’t think the death penalty serves a utilitarian purpose. I think in the modern US, it tends to serve a vengeance purpose, and I don’t like what it does to us to give in to that impulse.
This case is a case in which it doesn’t just serve the purpose of vengeance. It serves the purpose of protecting US military persons who haven’t gone on massacres. As such, it’s a valid utilitarian purpose, and it may outweigh any moral superiority we may feel by not using the death penalty.
I oppose the death penalty.
End of statement.
Good to hear. You’d like to think you’re being sarcastic, but you’re not. Being against the death penalty except for monsters like Charles Manson, Hitler, Bin Laden, or Robert Bales because obviously they deserve it is being in favor of the death penalty, not opposed to it. You just want to be more restrictive in its application. How do you imagine the families of any murder victim feel about the person who murdered their relative? Why do those murderers get away with not having to face the death penalty - they got less press? I’m opposed to capital punishment which means yes; monsters like Manson and Bales get to spend the rest of their lives in prison, not sent to the gallows because they’re high profile cases.