Tell me why he shouldn't die, you candy-asses.

[Winston_Bongo]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
At least the perps had the guts to do their own killing.

You know, up until that statement I was taking you pretty seriously. You obviously misunderstood the entire point of my original post – I wasn’t even addressing the issue of capital punishment, only the human desire for revenge – but at least you were making clear points.

But when you can write something like the statement above, I am almost speechless. What you are saying here is: At least the murderer of Carlie Brucia had the guts to go out and find a little girl to kill with his own two hands. Those who sentence him to death do it indirectly and thus are even worse than he.

Guts??? You think more highly of this guy than his potential executioners because he had the guts to kidnap and murder a little girl? Wow. I really don’t know what to say to that, except that it may be the single most offensive thing I’ve ever read in my life.

I always thought I was something of a Cynic, too, but if it means having even an iota of admiration for child murderers, then I guess I’m out of that club.

Originally Posted by jarbabyj
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?

First of all, thank you for understanding my original post, and for not resorting to terms like “shitstain.” Second, I do understand and respect your views as expressed in your first paragraph. But it is mistaken to assume that I am justifying the death penalty just so that victims and an angry society can have “momentary pleasure” of revenge. As I stated before, I do not in fact believe that acting on those very natural emotions is right. That’s why we have the criminal justice system. I do happen to believe in the death penalty, but not because it gives anyone “pleasure;” I just believe the state has the right to punish heinous crimes like this with the ultimate penalty, as long as the process is reliable (which I concede it may not currently be) and there is an assurance of guilt. In the same manner, I believe that true justice is in fact worth the life of another human being, if that human being is truly guilty of crimes such as the one committed upon this little girl.

Originally Posted by Fear Itself
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.

As I just stated above, I do not base my support of the death penalty on the satisfying of “brutal, base emotions” – in fact, the state is there to prevent such emotions from running rampant via vigilantism. It is not “brutal and base” for the state to carry out the death penalty because it is done systematically and apart from those “base emotions.” So in fact I do “see the difference between the emotions of a victim, and the need for the state to rise above them to administer justice.” Your definition of “justice” is just different from mine.

Plus, you just completely, totally, 100% misunderstood the point of my original post. But I guess I should just be happy you didn’t respond by idiotic name-calling yet again.

–Winston “Shitstain” Bongo

[Beagle]

So, my answer – though I am unable to distinguish “their from there” while typing – is thus:

There are old murderers in jail.

Yes, it’s that simple. Do a search on “aging prison population”. BIG PDF

Forget that one, long and boring. This, OTOH, SENIORS GONE WILD, WITH SHOOTING IRONS!!! is much more interesting.

Why kill them when you can age them in prison? Some murderers actually become pretty good spokespersons for “boy, this really sucked” later in their lives. Or, they shoot each other I guess. Don’t let that last article fool you, Florida is a BIG state. Mostly our silverbacks are peaceful and munch on prescription drugs, from Canada.

FYI – people in other nations. The death penalty only applies to certain murders in the US. The jury must determine whether someone gets the death penalty by looking at aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances. US Supreme Court case just as an example.

Defendant killed a little girl – factor. He has little girls – circumstance. He will have appeals at both the state and federal level.

It is hard to get around the basic logical problem with killing because killing is the worst thing you can do. I’m not saying I don’t understand the need for real punishment or the emotional need for retribution. The first one is important to protect everyone, the second is natural.

We can’t give the family what they really want. Back before we had courts there might have been a blood feud over something like this. Here, the “good old days” were not great. His head on a pike would be a good “specific deterrent” to him. But, as the old legend goes, pickpockets would work the crowd where the pickpockets were being hung.

Somehow, given the level of criminal stupidity and pure sickness some of these guys display, I believe it.

[Shodan]

@carrot

Well, you’re right about one thing: this makes no sense.

Correct - you don’t.

@carrot

Tell you what: I’ll get on board with you when you volunteer to be the innocent person executed for a crime they didn’t commit. What, you don’t have the courage of your convictions?

Again, you are not making any sense. If you can’t argue in favor of the DP without volunteering to be wrongfully executed, why haven’t you volunteered to spend life in prison without parole? You seem to be arguing in favor of that.

I highly doubt that more people on the outside have been murdered by escaped convicts than people who have been murdered by the state due to false convictions. And to solve the other problems, we can send those who normally would have been sentenced to death to life in prison without parole in a supermax.

In other words, you have never heard of Ted Bundy, Christopher Scarver, Ed Wein, Robert Stroud (the famous “Birdman of Alcatraz”) or Willie Horton.

As for the rest of you posting that we can’t use the DP because innocent people will die, Hamlet has already linked to a cite that over 800 people have been murdered because we did not apply the death penalty. In other words, we cannot afford not to execute murderers, because not just a few but hundreds have wrongfully died.

So the score is [ul][li]Those who have died by wrongful application of the DP in the US since its reinstatement - 0.[/li][li]Those who have died by wrongful failure to apply the DP in the US since its reinstatement - 824.[/ul] [/li]
We will have to execute a whole bunch of innocents pretty fast before we can even start to catch up. Why are all you DP opponents so thirsty for the blood of innocent victims of repeat murderers? :dubious:

Regards,
Shodan

PS - Bricker, it is my understanding that Roger Coleman was DNA tested before his execution. I need hardly repeat that the results indicated his guilt.

What people want now is to re-test, using a more sophisticated form of testing. I believe this is in hopes that the results after all these years will be inconclusive, which DP opponents can misrepresent as exoneration.

[Frank]

@Hamlet

Suppose there is no doubt a guy committed multiple, horrible, murders. He’s on videotape, with fingerprint and DNA evidence, a confession, and he gets on the stand and admits to the killings. Say it’s the perfect case of guilt. Would you support the death penalty in that case?

Absolutely not. Except in the act of self-defense, killing people is wrong. It’s wrong when Ted Bundy did it, it’s wrong when Bill Janklow did it, and it’s wrong when the state does it. Killing people in the name of society and justice degrades justice, desensitizes us, and lowers the level of civilization further in the direction of those from whom we are protecting ourselves. It is wrong no matter who does it, or in whose name it is done in.

As an aside, I too would like to see the OP state exactly which crime Smith was convicted of for which the OP believes Smith should have been executed.

[tiny_ham]

@Shodan

Those who have died by wrongful application of the DP in the US since its reinstatement - 0.

Holy cow, Shodan. Can I get a cite there? Are you honestly saying no innocent man/woman has been put to death?

[erislover]

@This Year's Model

It’s wrong when Ted Bundy did it, it’s wrong when Bill Janklow did it, and it’s wrong when the state does it. Killing people in the name of society and justice degrades justice, desensitizes us, and lowers the level of civilization further in the direction of those from whom we are protecting ourselves. It is wrong no matter who does it, or in whose name it is done in.

While against a practiced DP myself, I don’t really think this argument is compelling. We kidnap and imprison kidnappers who imprisoned. We impose financial burdens on those who imposed financial burdens on others (white collar crimes, for example). The justice system does indeed mirror many of the very activities it punishes. I think death should be an exception, but not because it is wrong to kill people.

[carrot]

@Shodan

If you can’t argue in favor of the DP without volunteering to be wrongfully executed, why haven’t you volunteered to spend life in prison without parole? You seem to be arguing in favor of that.

I’m not advocating putting innocent people in prison. While you acknowledge that innocent people could die, you don’t seem to care. I find that disgusting.

As for the rest of you posting that we can’t use the DP because innocent people will die, Hamlet has already linked to a cite that over 800 people have been murdered because we did not apply the death penalty. In other words, we cannot afford not to execute murderers, because not just a few but hundreds have wrongfully died.

Well, hell, let’s just kill everyone. That way no one else will ever die again. If life without possibility of parole had been applied, those 800 wouldn’t have died either.

[GIGObuster]

What’s with this idea to blame liberalism for not dealing with this monster? If you want to play that game, you have to consider that this happened in Florida, in Catherine Harris stomping ground BTW, it is on the whole, a conservative city.

Why were those prosecutors, in a “law and order” area of the nation, ineffective in doing their jobs before and then have the extreme right blame the liberals now? Could it be that they are afraid someone will wonder aloud why there was so little deterrence in a pro-death penalty area?

This idea that suddenly liberals have to be defensive for this, is offensive in the extreme, IMO this crime has nothing to do with political labels. However, the mere attempt to make it so by the OP, makes his effort open to ridicule for even thinking it was a good idea to blame liberalism.

As for defending this guy, why it is assumed that the defense (not necessarily liberal, get that into your thick scull OP) is automatically supporting the crime? There is always the chance that this bastard had other “friends” that could have killed her, the point remains that acting on outrage alone can also lead society into killing the wrong person.

If we want to call ourselves civilized, we have to wait for the trial and the evidence.

[Frank]

@erislover

While against a practiced DP myself, I don’t really think this argument is compelling.

I’m not putting it forward as a compelling argument; I’m putting it forward because it’s what I believe. I don’t expect it to have any effect as an argument. I simply believe that under all circumstances except immediate self-defense, it is immoral to kill.

[Bricker]

@Shodan

PS - Bricker, it is my understanding that Roger Coleman was DNA tested before his execution. I need hardly repeat that the results indicated his guilt.

What people want now is to re-test, using a more sophisticated form of testing. I believe this is in hopes that the results after all these years will be inconclusive, which DP opponents can misrepresent as exoneration.

If you were to learn of another case in which a death row inmate was exonerated after original DNA tests indicated his guilt, but newer, more sophisticated DNA tests showed he was, in fact, innocent, would you change your mind here?

• Rick

[kung_fu_lola]

I am so tired of people saying; “Imagine how the victim’s families feel”, because guess what, it’s not about feelings. If we all acted on our feelings, we’d ALL be murderers. It’s about logic, the application of a carefully crafted legal system, and ethics.

Zebra’s post was fabulous, but I’d also refer people here, and here.

I remember hearing a Holocaust survivor say that after Nuremberg, when the war criminals were hanged, she expected her sister who died in the camps to come walking through the door. I wonder if victims who expect the death of the perp to relieve their grief, subconsciously believe they are going to get a “trade”, like the survivor did.

[Larry_Mudd]

Shodan: Those who have died by wrongful application of the DP in the US since its reinstatement - 0.

That’s just stupid.

If Guy Morin (convicted of the brutal murder of a nine-year-old girl,) or David Milgaard (convicted of raping a young woman and stabbing her to death) were subjected to capital punishment, they would never be on record as “wrongful convictions.”

They were only exonerated because their friends and family worked tirelessly to clear their names, for nine and twenty-three years, respectively. If they were executed by the state, what do you suppose would have happened? The people close to them would have swallowed their tears, and these men would be remembered only as sub-human killers who “got what they deserved.” People don’t advocate for the innocent dead because there’s no percentage in it.

Capital punishment leaves too much room for unrecoverable error.

Sure, when we’re confronted by someone who commits atrocities, we have an urge to squash them. I don’t know what I’d do if I had the opportunity to do away with a man like Robert Pickton, charged with the murders of 22 women, and suspected of many more whose remains were found on his property. I know some of the victims’ family members, and their grief is something that leaves a mark. He hasn’t even been convicted yet, but I know that I would be strongly tempted to lay him out.

But civilization should not be governed by animal passions. The risk is too great, and the cost is too high. I would never push for, or even tolerate, capital punishment in this country. It has no place in a just society.

[Otto]

@Hamlet

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…

If you notice, the thread was started about someone who stands accused but not convicted. Like the McMartins were. The point, for the slow among us, was to point out that innocent people are accused of heinous crimes all the time. Killing them would be a bad idea.

No unjust or incorrect infringement of an innocent person’s liberty can ever be fully undone. But at least an innocent jailed person can be released and given some compensation for the lost time. A killed innocent person can have no redress of any kind.

Sorry if that was too high a level of abstraction. I’ll dumb it down next time.

[Ludovic]

In other words, you have never heard of Ted Bundy, Christopher Scarver, Ed Wein, Robert Stroud (the famous “Birdman of Alcatraz”) or Willie Horton.

When someone brings up Willie Horton as an example of a murderer who escaped from a life sentence in a supermax with no possibility of release, it makes me wonder who hasn’t heard of whom.

[erislover]

"[If] you’ve seen one Willie Horton, you’ve seen them all…
“They’re everywhere, I know!”

~ Jello Biafra with DOA

[Hamlet]

@carrot

If life without possibility of parole had been applied, those 800 wouldn’t have died either.

Actually, some of the murders were of prison guards and other inmates. For example, Timothy Hancock strangled his cellmate to death while serving life for a 1990 murder. Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, convicted of a triple murder, was recently convicted in the death of an inmate. Bennie Demps was in prison for a double murder when he committed a murder of a prison snitch. Robert Lynn Pruett killed an correctional officer while serving a life sentence. As did Lemuel Smith. And others.

[Hamlet]

@Otto

If you notice, the thread was started about someone who stands accused but not convicted. Like the McMartins were. The point, for the slow among us, was to point out that innocent people are accused of heinous crimes all the time. Killing them would be a bad idea.

Sorry if that was too high a level of abstraction. I’ll dumb it down next time.

Oh. Oh. Oh. I see now. You were misrepresenting ivylass’ post to make another point. OK. I got it now. It doesn’t really matter if you quote somebody’s posts and then misstate what they meant, or that you don’t even inquire as to their true meaning, as long as you can make a point about something related to the OP in the same post.

Let’s see if I can do this:

@Otto

No unjust or incorrect infringement of an innocent person’s liberty can ever be fully undone. But at least an innocent jailed person can be released and given some compensation for the lost time

Money must make everything allright. I think I’ll go kidnap somebody for a couple years and then pay their family $100,000. That should be fine.

See how that works? I quoted you, deliberately misrepresented what you said, all so I could make an unrelated point on the sufficiency of money to compensate for a lost life or lost time. Hey, this is fun!!!

[carrot]

@Hamlet

Actually, some of the murders were of prison guards and other inmates. examples

Good point. However, I would argue that those could be solved with better* prison security.

*No, I don’t know how to improve it.

[coffeecam]

@Kinthalis

Look, if you can’t differentiate between death and a $50 fine, then I think this discussion may be a little over your head.

May I use this as a .sig?

Coffeecam

[Gomez]

@carrot

*No, I don’t know how to improve it.

How about solitary confinement for lifers?