Funny that (in my case, that is). I do start grinding my teeth at the thought of people like Bernardo, but then there’s something of a release in admitting what I’d like to see happen to him.
Well, I didn’t expect that. I figured you’d peg me as a contemptible heathen. You’re clearly a good guy, and if even you can feel this way it makes me feel less guilty.
Heh. None of us here are saints. I’ve just found that righteous anger does not serve me well, so I try to leave that to those more constitutionally able to handle it (and in my opinion, few truly are). And I’ve learned to my sorrow that the intensity of my feelings about something do not necessary correlate with the reality of the situation.
Anyway, I tend to like heathens! 
You must love me then.
Thanks. 
It IS cruel and unusual for the government. Otherwise, how much better are WE?
What if said perp is avenging someone else? Does that make it okay?
What about hydrogen sulfide? I understand that in certain concentrations it causes nearly instantaneous unconsciousness followed by death (I believe there is a theory that in some concentrations it can cause suspended animation type effects, though I might be thinking of something else). That seems a pretty quick and painless means to kill someone off.
Just for the record I’m not really pro-Capital Punishment, regardless…but if you have to do it, wouldn’t this be a method that is fairly humane? More so than drowning I should think…
-XT
We are considerably better because we didn’t torture and kill an innocent victim. I’m not so desperate to convince myself of my own moral superiority that I’m willing to let people like that escape their just desserts just so I can tell myself that I’m above the perfectly normal and understandable human desire for retribution and justice. Plus, like I said, it would save lives and reduce instances of cruelty perpetrated on innocent victims – which is more civilized if you ask me.
Do you have a cite for this? Since when has torture saved innocent lives and reduced cruelty?
Well, as I’ve noted before in other threads, the modus operandi of police in Japan is essentially to beat a confession out of the person who they think did it. A single woman can go out to the scariest area of Tokyo at 2am, wandering about, and she’s probably safe. There is no public outcry of people getting arrested who don’t deserve it.
Now, possibly this is entirely due to the fairly homogenous population of Japan, but it pretty well does make sense that the harder and more firmly you crack down on misbehavior and the less a feeling like, “I might actually get away with this.” that there is, the less crime there will be. Most criminals are stupid, the reasons for most crimes being committed is obvious. Police, more-or-less left to their own to decide who the guilty person is and given the freedom to force that through, are likely very effective and likely are correct that this is indeed the guilty guy.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of innocent people in jail in Japan is a smaller percentage of the total than in the US simply because there is so much fewer people in jail.
This isn’t to say that I am arguing for torture or the dismissal of the jury system, but reality is reality. Being the guy in the white hat has its cost, but that doesn’t mean you want to trade in for a gray hat.
Sure. Every legal penalty on the books is a cite. Run a light, get a ticket. Rob a bank, go to jail. Rape a woman, go to jail for a longer time. Rape a child and your life is shit from then on. These are all based on the premise that people know that if they misbehave they’ll suffer for it, and the more serious the offense, the more serious the penalty. Why do you think that is? It’s because the more serious and painful the consequence, the stronger and more effective its deterrent effect. Even small children understand this concept. It’s why they don’t run out into traffic.
That’s not a cite and you bloody well know it. I specifically asked about torture. Either put up or shut up.
Avoiding the side discussion, which I don’t think is relevent, perhaps it would be better, assuming we are going to keep on executing people, if it was NOT as humane as possible. Perhaps, in that case, it will not become more easy for us, as a nation, to kill even those who obviously deserve it. If it becomes easy, maybe we’ll try to justify doing it more often, instead of less.
Someone suggested the guillotine earlier…maybe we SHOULD go back to that, and make the executions public (and televised), and require citizens to watch. Perhaps if we did that the public would become horrified enough so that only the most egregious criminals doing the most horrific crimes would be subjugated to this punishment.
-XT
So how do you account for the statistical fact that death penalty states consistantly have a higher murder ratethan states without the death penalty? And that difference has been increasing markedly in recent years?
I dunno. Maybe they had such a murderous population to begin with that the death penalty was settled upon as a way to keep things from being worse. 
Or maybe during the time that we had no death penalty, thanks to a liberal Supreme Court, people lost their fear of the law, and that, combined with the twenty years or so that liberals have caused it to take to get people to an execution, has resulted in an environment where people don’t fear the death penalty like they did before because it’s far from certain and twenty years is a long way off.
Or perhaps the statistics are meaningless because correlation doesn’t equal causation.
I do know that there was a flurry of needless killings shortly after the Supreme Court ended the death penalty in 1972, because holdup men decided it would be better to leave no witnesses. As a matter of fact, a family I knew – a man, woman, and their six-year-old son – were murdered by three scumbags in a $50 convenience store robbery for that very reason. They were soon caught, and then, because there was no death penalty, the shooter was able to escape some years later and as far as I know he is still on the loose. So this shows that the death penalty is a deterrent, because prior to the elimination of the death penalty robbers were less likely to take a leave-no-witnesses attitude.
However, correlation does equal correlation, and that is what we are talking about when you claim that the death penalty reduces capital crimes. You are claiming that the death penalty causes people to commit less murder; OK, let’s see your statistical evidence to prove this. You are going to have to do better than hand-wave away concrete evidence that the deterrance of the death penalty is nothing more than a myth.
This is a clear example of a well known falacy. “If a little is good, more must be better.” This is something politicians get wrong time and time again.
Most things in life are not a simple linear relationship at all values. The punishment as deterence relationship may well have a nice, well defined, and measureable linear area. But to look at that and then claim, that the relationship will remain stable at the extremes is just silly. Because it can’t. You get into all sorts of non-linear issues.
One, the death penalty is as far as you can go. There is the expression, “might as well be hung for a sheep as hung for a lamb.” This expresses the problem that once a crime has reached a capital level, there is no further punishment possible, and thus no further deterence possible. The falacy of increased use of capital punishment is that it reduces the applicability of the deterence mechanism.
Other non-linear effects come into play. There is an assumption that legal deterence is the only factor in deterring people from comitting a crime. But there is a significant human block to comitting crimes as murder or serious violence. For most humans. If you were desperately poor, at your wits end, hungry and with a family to feed, you would probably be not far away from considering a crime like theft, fraud, or burglary. But the vast majority of people would, even in dire striaghts, simply not even consider violent crime or murder. But a small subset of people, for whatever reason, seem to slip past this sticking point. It may well be reasonable to suggest that they are already acting in a manner in which more normal rules for assessing choices of action are diminshed. They may well find the crime/deterence tradeoff much less strong. So there is a population anomaly. Whilst the crime/deterence relationship can be set at a point that works for the majority of the populace, there is likely a small subset for which it doesn’t work as well, or doesn’t work at the same settings as has been found for the rest.
So you end up with a situation where the crime/deterence function can’t be set optimally, and can’t be used past a certain level of crime.
Sadly, politicians mostly just don’t care. The need to be seen to be tough on crime to the voters will always trump the need to actually tune the system so that crime is optimally suppressed. A populace that is always worried about its safety (even if that fear is mostly misplaced) is vastly easier to manipulate with such simple, tried and true, electoral posturing, than a populace that lives their day feeling secure and happy.
This has some possibilities…
This… is CLEVELAND!! [kick]
This… is PROVO!! [kick]
This… is MILWAUKEE!! [kick]
This… is CEDAR RAPIDS!! [kick]
Though on a serious note (and trying to get back to the subject of the OP), I’ve said for years that we should be using the N[sub]2[/sub] method. Nitrogen doesn’t get much safer (the air we breathe is 78% nitrogen anyway), any dumb schmo can put a mask over the condemned’s nose and mouth, and the death itself is apparently totally painless. It’s almost impossible to mess up, and more humane than any other execution method I can conceive of.
The “evidence” you presented deserves hand-waving away. It’s laughable. First of all, it’s obviously from a biased organization. Now look at who the non-death-penalty states are vs. who the death penalty states are. It’s a joke! The non-death-penalty states are largely sparsely populated northern states that traditionally have very little crime to begin with. Do you really mean to propose that the only reason Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine and Massachusetts have lower murder rates than New York (which no longer has the death penalty, btw), California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi is because they don’t have the death penalty and the other states do?
I couldn’t have found a better way to illustrate how deeply biased and uncritical is your thinking on this issue if I’d tried. Thanks.
Death by Nitrous Oxide sounds fun!
Very wrong, according to observations made and related on this Wiki link re the guillotine:
This from the guy who offers zero evidence for his position except his personal anecdotal experience? Please.