Killing these men won’t undo the crime, it would be nothing short of revenge.
What do we want to accomplish now that they are in custody? Reformation? Rehabilitation? Punishment? Removal from society? What does execution do that incarceration does not? Execution is no punishment because the condemned doesn’t remember it, he goes to sleep.
Solitary confinement is punishment after a few weeks. Even then, creating more suffering won’t undo the past. These men must be removed from society, however. Perhaps they could be put to some use, preferrably in some capacity that would prevent others of their ilk from performing similar acts? Whatever that may look like, we know capital punishment is no deterrent.
Again with the “kept alive.” If you’re going to indulge in brutality at least be straightforward about it. These people don’t need medical treatment to stay alive; they just need you folks to keep your poisons and massive electrical shocks away from them. Should be killed, is what you were looking for.
The Constitution of the United States of America. Now, I answered yours…
Yup. What I wrote in response to you was agreeing/expanding.
… You’re *glad *that a massive terrorist attack succeeded in killing 3,000 people and setting a new record because it showed up another terrorist who was already dead?
But you haven’t provided a good explanation yet. The outstanding issues are:
1.) Why is killing a better option than life in prison without parole?
2.) What are the criteria for “so heinous”?
3.) How do you ensure that these criteria are applied unilaterally, without regard to the race, class, etc. of the perpetrator or victim?
Of course she didn’t say it explicitly–and I doubt very much that she actually feels that way. But that’s essentially the implication of what she’s saying.
I haven’t gotten all the way through this thread and probably won’t because it’s too depressing - lots of sadistic stuff here under the guise of righteous vengeance. Never mind the death penalty, which is an intrinsically sick concept - I can’t get my mind around the whole “let’s make people suffer horribly for the rest of their lives if we think they’ve made others suffer” thing. It all just seems like bloodlust to me. Stick 'em in a cell and give them three meals a day, but what’s the point of additionally slavering over the thought of feeding prisoners horrible things, or chopping off their extremities to make sure they won’t escape? (The thought of denying them medical care is especially depraved - I never thought I’d actually see someone on a board like this advocating such a thing.) Does doing that, or fantasizing about doing that, add anything to the sum total of goodness in the world?
I’ve always thought sewing Hitler, Mengele and Goebbels together after amputating a leg and arm from each would be pretty cool, so I understand the concept, but I agree with you that it is pretty sick.
Why ever would you assume the existence of a relationship between “goodness” and “reaction to vile action?” Humans are full of empty bravado. I should be very surprised if any of the posters you refer to would actually participate in the acts they prescribe. It’s one thing to snatch the moral high ground and pose as wise, just, and tough; it’s another altogether to actively harm and prolong the suffering of another. Anyone who can do that is no less dangerous than the prisoners.
People who are pro-death penalty should be made to look the condemned in the eye as they push the button that ends the life. I wonder how many would change their minds once they realized what they’ve done.
Everyone might not have it in them to throw the switch, but it doesn’t automatically make them wrong. And if someone did to my family what the scumbags in the OP did, I have little doubt I’d find it in me.
And to those who say the death penalty is about revenge and bloodlust, I have to reply: So what? I think the families of the victims deserve revenge, and I make no apologies for believing that.
Soooooo revenge and bloodlust aren’t the point of our justice system. It’s one thing to fantasize about them; it’s another entirely to try to carry them out.
Yes it does! If you don’t believe strongly enough that the deed is worth doing personally, then how can you possibly assert the deed is worth doing at all? Good grief, having someone else do your dirty work is the height of dodging personal responsibility.
And killing a helpless prisoner who killed a helpless prisoner isn’t?
Put me on a jury where a father has killed the man who raped and murdered his daughters, and it is quite possible I will find a way to vote for acquittal. But to use his grief to justify societies vicarious revenge fantasies strikes me as particularly tasteless.
Parts of me says “Amen.” screw the lethal injection, they need to bring back the electric chair or beheading.
However, I do see that the Death penalty is not fair or equally applied.
I have been reading a lot about the ADX Supermax. Prisoners are in their tiny cells in isolation nearly 24 hours a day with minimal human contact. Prisoners are unable to communicate with any other prisoner. The prisoner is alone and isolated, for years.
If the prisoner “behaves” they can get reading material, a radio and TV which shows religious and educational programming. However, this can be taken away.
I’m getting way behind in this conversation. Refer to this for Death Row Demographics. It appears quite anti-death-penalty, so maybe it’s an agreeable source.
I agree and say we need to make the system of gathering evidence and cross-examination better. It doesn’t change the fact that if the person is judged a lethal danger in a good trial that I think they should be executed.
Which indicate that not everyone given the death penalty is non-white. Philladelphia may have more offenders or more bad lawyers, and I believe prejudice is still around. Prejudice needs to be worked on and justice will follow.
This shows that the judge should have disbarred the attorney and restarted the trial. Failure to do this means the judge should be disbarred and the case retried. Evidence is still evidence and should be used to convict. Burdine doesn’t even need my idea of the one-appeal-within-six-months because his first trial should never have been enacted with a sleeping attorney. More checks and balances would prevent abuse of the system.
My point too. But I would say that it is better on everyone to just execute them painlessly. I don’t like all this bloodlust talk. I do realize that many are just exaggerating to relieve the tension in a tense topic. I don’t think suffering is useful. Prisoners should be allowed to rehabilitate. The ones deamed a lethal, nonrehabilitable danger should be executed.