Wait… is that an Argent Towers sighting?
“Absurdity” is precisely the correct word here. Saying that “all killing of human beings is wrong, absent a clear and present threat to yourself and/or others” leads to “killing anything ever is wrong” is exactly the same thing as saying “allowing two consenting adults to marry, regardless of gender” leads to “anybody can marry anything, including their 10 year old daughter or a dog.”
You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
And if you had the courage of your convictions and actually did it, that would make you what exactly?
Indeed. But there is general agreement amongst the civilized that enjoying killing a human being makes one, for want of a better word, a whack job. And the odious drolling at the prospect of raping and torturing these despicable human beings to death says an awful lot about the character of those salivating.
Well, sometimes things just need killin’, even tho the sitch doesn’t fit your qualifiers.
I’ll save you the head scratching time, and point out one such: terminally ill people and animals who aren’t physically capable of doing it themselves (and in the case of people, who wish to die rather than live in horrible suffering).
Please tell me I don’t need to explain why we don’t need consent from an animal before it’s life is terminated.
Unless you disagree, perhaps you’ll see now that my statement:
is not inaccurate.
1.) What the hell does someone killing themself, or having someone else help them kill themself, have anything to do with killing another person against their will?
2.) And, again, you’re creating a bizarre slippery slope comparison from humans to animals. So unless you’d also like to contend that making it legal to marry an adult same-sex partner would result in making it legal to marry your pets, I suggest you leave off this particular chain of “argument.”
ETA:
Since you apparently missed it the first time, I’ll be explicitly clear again.
This is about the ethics of killing another human being, against their will, when they are not a clear and current threat to you or someone else.
Today on Oprah: Sole Survivor Dr. William Petit
Reviving this zombie because the second trial started yesterday. Joshua Komisarjevsky is charged with the muders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters Michaela and Hayley. Here is the page from the New York Times’ website on the whole case. The sole survivor of the attacks, Dr William Petit (husband and father of the deceased), testified today.
Without reading the whole thread, why was one defendant tried so long after the other?
The same judge and prosecutor are trying the second case. Perhaps the delay was to allow them to prepare. But I have no real idea; that’s just a guess.
Second trial is over. To the shock of precisely no-one, Joshua Komisarjevsky has been found guiltyof all 17 counts against him. This includes 6 capital felony charges, so he is eligible for the death penalty.
The local coverage of the verdict has been rather disgusting. I understand that to these reporters and editors this is possibly the biggest story of their careers, but it’s real tragedy porn here on local TV tonight.
One of the absolute nastiest parts of this trial was the cross examination of Dr. Petit. “You didn’t see the defendant set the fire, did you? So you cannot say for certain that he set the fire that killed your entire family?”
Update: The second defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, received a death sentence today.
I like this idea.
The idea of these guys getting let out on parole gives me cold chills.
This is not a case where DNA evidence is going to set anyone free. The perps were ID’d by the one surviving victim and seen fleeing the scene. Robbery is bad enough, but hey! Let’s have a little child rape while we’re at it! And after I’m done raping you, Mom, I’ll strangle you!
These guys have forfeited any rights they have as human beings. I would prefer they not breathe any of my air.
And Annie-Xmas does her Happy Dance!!
in
I think that DEATH is the only penalty justifiable for these inhuman assholes.
I voted for life. paraphrasing:
“Some people die who deserve life. Can you give it to them? Don’t be quick to give someone death because they deserve it. No one can predict the future.” (reference available by request. 
) Nothing made by man is perfect. Why do something irrevocable if one doesn’t have to? Let them sit. After a reasonable period, don’t allow appeals on procedural grounds. Perhaps new evidence will turn up. Other than that, keep costs down and let them sit. There is no chance of new evidence in this case, but no case is worth crossing the bright line.
And it isn’t the killing, war is society killing others-sometimes quite innocent others. That is the nature of war. If the cause isn’t worth that, don’t go to war. Punishment after conviction is society doing what is right-what is necessary but no more. Just as genocide isn’t necessary in war, killing as punishment isn’t necessary.
I do not think we should have a death penalty. Only because of incomptence and corruption in the criminal justice system. I mean the guys richly deserve death, and if the State follows through after all the appeals, justice will be done. But I would still prefer the State abolish the DP and commute to life w/o parole.
There’s a whole lot that I want to post here after spending too long reading this thread.
As to whether or not the State should have the right to impose the death penalty a number of things need to be considered.
**1. Is the death penalty a deterrent when compared to other punishments? **
From HERE…Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Going by that cite alone (one that I heartily agree with) - you have to say the answer is NO.
**2. Is the death penalty “revenge”? **
Many of the arguments in this thread have been that the death penalty is revenge, and the state should not be extracting revenge. What I would like to ask -
How does “life in prison” have any functional difference to death when it comes to extracting revenge? How are the two any different?
For those that say that it demeans the state to inflict death, how is death any less demeaning than imprisonment?
As a society we say kidnapping and imprisonment is wrong - yet we are willing to do this to those that offend against us, just the same way that we say that murder is wrong and it is a penalty we are willing to inflict.
3. Death is more expensive than life imprisonment
This is a flaw in the American justice system, and should be addressed separately to the merits of the death penalty alone. For reference read THIS case from Singapore…
21 March 1995 - initial court appearance (I think the US equivalent would be arraignment)
18 Sept 1995 - formally charged / trial to proceed
19 April 1996 - hanged
If the US could operate on a similar timeline, would the DP still be more expensive than LWOP?
**
4. Recidivism**
Looking towards the role of jail in general, there are three things put forward - punishment, rehabilitation, deterrent.
Of the three, I don’t think punishment per-se should play a role - meaning that a jail should be for rehabilitation - and the sentence should be for as long as this needs.
Taking a look at rehabilitation, this might be interesting for you to read.
Recidivism rates(from Wiki)
As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable.[citation needed] The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.
The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
By comparison, the most recent statistics I saw for Singapore were 27.3%
**So where should be looking to settle the current debate? **
For me, the first and preferable choice is rehabilitation - regardless of the crime. Even for murder, it the belief is that the person can be rehabilitated, then this should be done.
My key reasoning for this is that death is not a deterrent when compared to incarceration and that incarceration for the purpose of “punishment” is a waste of time and money. The state should not be punishing anyone.
To me, there is no functional difference between LWOP and DP - both take a life from a person, so at the end of the day take the cheapest, fastest, and ultimately the “safest” option. (safest in that a dead, unrehabilitatable person cannot reoffend)
Sorry for the wall of text.
I’m cool with life without parole. What horrible people.
I’m cool with letting Dr. Petit decide what the punishment should be.