This trail is all over the news here. I’m going to warn you–it is very, very icky reading.
The prosecutors want the death penalty, the defendors want life in prison.
What is your opinion and why?
they are very very broken and can not be fixed, and are a danger to society. why should we spend the kind of money to keep then in jail for 10-20-30 more years?
I won’t lie I *want *to say death penalty because what they did was evil, but as we can do life without parole in this country and I don’t believe in the death penalty where that can be successfully done I have to say life without parole.
I’m not opposed to the death penalty because nothing has made me angry enough yet, you know?
I, too, object to the idea that the crime being really, really, REALLY bad (as opposed to only kind of bad) means we should have the death penalty. Either we have firm ethical reasons for opposing the death penalty or we don’t. We shouldn’t have a policy of saying it’s wrong unless a really cute kid/nice family dies, or a really sick murderer happens by because there are always horrible things that are going to happen.
I see no reason for the state to pay to imprison and execute them when the ocean is full of hungry sharks.
Agreed.
I chose other.
Life in prison, but with regularly administered beatings. I haven’t quite figured out how to dole out punishment for the sexual assault part.
well it is cheaper and perhaps more cruel to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. So, that gets my vote.
Give them a nice 10 by 10 foot room, with three square meals a day, served through a slot in the door, absolutely no human contact whatsoever, and a gun with one bullet.
They can use the gun on themselves whenever they want.
(yeah, yeah, I know this wouldn’t stand up under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, but it satisfies the vengenance part of me, and puts them in the same state as the three victims are now in.)
No regularly administered beatings, please. Whether or not the bad guys deserve it, that is bad for the souls of the persons doing the beatings.
You do realize that it’s more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life, right? So you’re advocating the *complete opposite *of your stated rationale?
Not necessarily. Aruvqan could be advocating streamling the appeals process to make it swifter and cheaper.
Anyway. I don’t even need to read what they did to tell you my answer: life without parole. The death penalty is fucked up and broken, because our justice system is fucked up and broken. It’s also more expensive in the long run, because of the appeals system (which is absolutely necessary, because (say it with me) the system is fucked up and broken). Even if we had some sort of magical device that would allow us to always only execute people who were guilty of the crimes they’d been convicted of, 100% of the time, it would still be wrong. Because execution isn’t self-defense; it’s revenge. And the job of the state is not revenge. The worst elements of society should be safely segregated so that they cannot harm anyone else, but their actions do not give us the right to do the same.
ETA:
And thereby, less just. Why not just shoot everyone who looks at you funny? They probably had it coming. Also, she didn’t say anything that would, to me, indicate that she actually knows how the economics of it works out right now, without changing the law.
How about a beating-administering robot?
Putting aside my rational side for the moment, I would almost agree with this.
I’d change it to a gun with a blank round in it.
Once the ‘blank’ had been fired, I’d withdraw the three meals…
I agree with Skald. Sharks gotta eat too. A piece at a time. Scum like that deserve nothing else.
I didn’t say I agreed.
These guys need killing. However, it is best for SOCIETY that the death penalty have tons of hurdles in front of it; it should be reserved for the very worst of rapists, murderers, and traitors.
Of course. we could make it even cheaper by getting rid of the trial stage.
Put me down as an “other” on this. I don’t believe in the death penalty or life without possibility of parole. I do believe in life sentences with strict controls on parole possibilities, which is what these people, if found guilty, should receive.
That said, I don’t for one moment think my solution is practically possible - I think life without parole is the minimum society is going to accept.
I’d risk it. No soul, no problem.