If you find human emotion despicable and barbaric – and again, I do not defend actually acting on those emotions in a vigilante fashion – then I propose that you either A) know very little about the human experience or B) consider yourself so superior that you are above such visceral reaction. I would congratulate you for reaching a Gandhi-like level of Pure Spiritual Love Far Above That of Mere Mortals, but your attacking those who sympathize with human emotion (flawed as it may be) as “shitstains” reveals something entirely different.
Shodan
If one is innocent, a sentence of life imprisonment is certainly preferable to a death sentence because life sentences can be corrected and the innocent can be financially compensated. It’s not perfect but, it’s the best we can do. If someone is convicted for a crime he didn’t commit and is handed a life sentence then he is undoubtedly more likely to regain his freedom than someone on death row if for the only reason that he has more time to appeal.
If the convict is guilty then, I believe, life imprisonment is a more serious punishment than death.
If the convict is innocent then he stands a greater likelihood of walking free than if he is on death row. If he decides that he can’t stomach a life in prison then he can take his own life. What I don’t want to see is the Government coldly condemning innocents to death and chalking it up as an ‘acceptable loss’ since that sort of callous disregard for human life is what we’re supposed to be punishing in the first place/
I’ll take your word for it that there’ve been no cases where the executed have been posthumously pardoned but even taking that into account I can think of a great many cases where people have been released from Death Row before their executions because the evidence against them was found to be unsound.
Oh, what the heck? Here’s another
There are a great many more such cases but I trust I’ve made my point.
Also, consider the case of Stephen Downing sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in England. Had he been convicted in Texas there is a distinct possibility that he would have died long before he was exhonerated. Doubtless you would have chalked it up as an acceptable loss had that scenario transpired. There are a great many more such cases on that website, I strongly urge you to check them out.
This is just ridiculous. We have to have some method of punishing those found guilty of a crime and I strongly contend that, from the point of view of the innocent convict, life imprisonment is preferable to the death penalty.
Winston, to sympathize with human emotion doesn’t require acting on human emotion. Feel free to have a visceral revenge fantasy, but to kill someone who kills someone achieves nothing but a satisfaction of primal urges. It hasn’t proved to be a deterrent, nor does it bring back the dead.
Is your momentary pleasure worth the life of another human being?
Well, there is the small consideration that the man has never been accusing of a capital crime prior to this, so one wonders what exactly would have been the criteria for making sure the “fuckshit” died. That pesky justice system!
Thank God for potentially objective jurors. However, once you hear the evidence, the presumption of innocence will dissolve quickly.
The video, plus the NASA enhanced tattoos (Thanks, “B”), plus the physical evidence, plus his admission. Excluding any evidence will be near impossible as the police IDed the guy right away and truly had exigent circumstances.
His priors make me think that juries don’t always listen, OTOH. In fairness, Bradenton is filled with old people who don’t hear so well.
So, skipping straight to the penalty phase is not unreasonable, hypothetically, for us anyway.
Apparently duffer believes in not only taking an eye for an eye, but taking an eye for a hangnail as well.
But you do defend the state when it acts on your behalf to gratify these brutal, base emotions. I don’t expect a bereaved family to always be successful in overcoming these emotions; but I do demand that the state discharge its duty to justice in a dispassionate way, and refrain from appeasing the bloodlust of the mob. That you cannot see the difference between the emotions of a victim, and the need for the state to rise above them to administer justice, speaks volumes about your opinion on what constitutes an enlightend society.
Aaaaaag. Is it necessary for us to be sure that every single person imprisoned is factually guilty? Is our failure to do so morally equivalent to kidnapping?
You may feel that depriving innocents of their freedom is fundamentally more permissible than depriving them of their life. I simply see a difference in degree, not in kind, and say that if we are willing to let innocents suffer punishment of degree X to make sure the guilty who deserve X also get it, we should also be able to demonstrate this is true for X +1. The rest, as they say, is induction. If you believe that no one, regardless of guilt, should be executed, OK. (Well, I disagree, but that’s for a different post.) But claiming that false positives in the death penalty are specially indicative of a willingness to see the inocennt suffer is disingenuous.
Here’s a notion to consider: anyone who wants to cast a vote in support of state-sponsored executions should at least be able to spell it.
I really don’t think that’s too much to ask.
from DtC
Sometimes DtC you say some pretty smart things, other times, well, your a dumbfuck. Yes, lets give props to the perp for killing an 11yr old girl! woot! hes a real man now.
I support the death penalty. I think some people are a waste of air and pose a continuing danger to others. As mentioned, in many posts, the problem comes from the potential of killing an innocent person. If we could resolve that issue so that NO DOUBT at all remained of guilt, then I would say fry 'em all. I wouldnt also mind seeing a volunteer DP program. Let a convict opt for death if a sentence of Life gets to be to much.
This error can be reversed; the death penalty, applied in error, cannot.
This error can be reversed; the death penalty, applied in error, cannot. (Thanks, fear!)
Just curious: if they finally do a DNA test on Coleman’s case evidence, and it exonerates him… will this change your thinking on the death penalty?
You beat me to it, Ludovic! 
Um, not that I advocate prison justice, cuz I don’t. I’m sure their are innocent or oversentenced people in there who don’t deserve a shiv in their ribs. Seriously.
OTOH, this guy has about two years to live when he gets life without parole. I predict that the child murderer pisses off some other “family man” with a mere murder over drug money rap, a penchant for working out, and a short temper.
Yeah, like all those child molesting bastards at the McMartin pre-school!
Oh wait…
Hm… I’m sitting in my favorite easy chair, pulling my pud, not bothering anyone, when the police storm in, handcuff me, and lock me away in prison for a few years for a crime someone else committed. Yup, seems a lot like kidnapping to me.
The only reason we accept this circumstance is that the alternative to prison (i.e. not locking up criminals at all) is considered thoroughly unacceptable, and rightfully so. We must have acceptable punishment and separate criminals from society, you can’t have that without prison.
The alternative to execution is life without parole. While somewhat different, most countries in the world manage to survive with it instead of execution, we can too. You can have acceptable punishment and remove killers from society without execution. As a bonus, no innocent people need die at the hands of the state.
Of course not. I’m a bloodthirsty shitstain who only wishes to kill others to glorify myself, and I don’t care one whit if an innocent person is put to death. Just ask Diogenes the Cynic, Fear Itself, and Ludovic. They’ll tell you.
The movement from an unproven possibility to an actual occurence would absolutely make me rethink my position, which is, quite honestly, in a constant state of flux. The execution of an innocent would be a horrible, tragic event that could never be undone. But it is, in my view, an only slightly worse event than locking an innocent person up for the entirety of their life. That person, even if exonerated after death, still died in prison.
I can see both sides of the argument, and one problem on this board, is that it’s so much easier to shout “liberal pussy!” and “bloodthirsty killer”, than it is to debate the issue. It’s so much easier to throw out common misconceptions and to appeal only to the fanatical human need for revenge. Just look at this thread. And this is the constant nature of the death penalty debate.
I am bothered by the idea of the death penalty for accomplices, or for non-violent felony-murder, or for anything but the most vile criminals. But I also see defendants who have absolutely no redeeming quality and, with every breathe they take, are a very real danger to kill again. And they have. I think that, in some cases, the death penalty is a deterrant, but in cases like the OP, I’m not sure it is. I get so angry at the idea of some subhuman garbage like Andrew Kokoraleis might still be alive. But I think about the nature of forgiveness. It is not an easy debate, and the fact that an innocent was executed in the modern era would definitely influence my own personal determinations. Let me tell you, it ain’t an easy debate.
Ah. So either we have to execute the innocent, or we can’t enforce any punishment of any kind against anyone. No false dichotomy there.
Fundamentally more correctable, to be sure.
The difference between being alive and being dead is indeed a difference of degree. 98.6 and 0 degrees, in fact.
If I understand you correctly, that’s not disingenious; that’s exactly what you’re saying. You are saying you are willing to execute the innocent and that it is acceptable. No?
If you notice, ivylass said child molesters and murders. She most certainly did not say: those accused of being child molesters and murderers. I know it’s probably a minor point…
Oh wait…
No, but our pursuit of irreversible and uncompensateable punishments in the face of the knowledge of such failure should compell us, as empathizing individuals keen on justice, to realize a problem.
IOW, you are willing to lay claim to the slippery slope. How steep is the slant? When do you apply the death penalty? For all felonies? For anything above manslaughter?
On the contrary, it is unarguable so long as Dr Frankenstein remains a fictional character.
Why should a fair justice system that aims at (an admittedly impossible standard of) completeness impose punishments it knows will have some statistical level of failure that give no opportunity for redress? Your answer? – “Because death and life in prison are just on sliding scales.” I find that completely unsatisfactory. With respect to the ability for a victim of false sentencing to achieve some redress, there is no sliding scale, it is completely binary: either the state can compensate, or it cannot. This isn’t exactly an ambiguous claim, unless you have some information on new medical techniques that I’m not aware of.