Fatally?
Yes, it is all of those things. But I don’t agree that it is worthy of the death penalty.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I still insist that if there is ANY alternate means of preventing that person from hurting another, then I would not vote (if I was on the jury, say) for the death penalty.
Hell of a tough issue that you’ve raised, here - the death penalty would obviously remove this person as a threat to others. But I also know of other means - protective segregation with a true life sentence for instance. As for his guilt, what if in the scenario described that he was actually having an affair with the girlffriend’s sister, girlfriend flew into a jealous rage, sister accidentally kills her, and guy takes the heat to save the woman he loves from going to prison. It’s possible, realistic, and would show that he is in fact innocent of the crime. His talk of ‘get her no matter what or how long’ could just be bluster, without a thought for follow-through, and history of re-offending is not enough justification in my mind to prove future re-offence.
My reason to be against the death penalty is that I cannot ever, to my mind, know for sure that someone did it AND that they will reoffend - people say lots of things, and past behaviour can be indicative, but this guy could have a change of heart, whatever, and decide to not re-offend.
so it is better to have him truly locked up for life?
I suppose the story of the sister killing the girlfriend is possible, but it didn’t happen that way. He and the girlfriend were visiting his sister and brother-in-law, spent the night, and the sister and her husband woke up to find him over the body. Not sure what you mean by “protective segregation”- if you mean solitary, he will still get out of the cell sometimes, putting guards at risk, and I suspect a life sentence in solitary would be crueler than a death sentence. If you simply mean separated from the general population, he can still assault guards and other inmates. His current threat could indeed be bluster (although I don’t think it is), which is why I didn’t say I would support his execution for the latest assault. I would support it if he carried out the threat, and the assault was fatal, under circumstances in which it was certain he committed it- such as the circumstances in which the current assault was sommitted- on a crowded street, with many witnesses. (BTW, in case you haven’t figured it out, this is a true story).
What if you were sure he did it (I know you said you can’t be, but suppose a security camera taped it- then you could be sure, right) and were pretty sure he would reoffend?
For those that are opposed to life imprisonment on the grounds that it is less humane than the DP, I would think that a system of life imprisonment with voluntary euthanasia/DP would be the best of both worlds.
Who said it was better or more humane? I’m just, most of the time, against the taking of someone’s life. Maybe death is the easy way out! In that case, I’ll gladly lock them up. I’m of the idea that one should actually feel like they are getting punsihed for what they did. You commit murder? Lock them in a 9x9 cell for the rest of thier life. Is it humane? Probably not. Is what they did humane? Definetely not! They deserve to get punished.
If I allowed my personal desire for revenge to overrule my moral belief that my society should not be killing people, well, I wouldn’t be much of a man now, would I? I don’t hold my beliefs only because it’s convenient for me to do so.
I’m pretty astonished at some of the crimes some supporters in this thread would like to expand the death penalty to cover.
I’ve always had a really conflicted and ambiguous view of the death penalty, leaning more towards being against it than for it.
Crimes like the murder of that young woman for her child make me rethink my position…I can think of no more appropriate reason for the death penalty than to remove that woman from the face of the earth. My only regret is that death is far too merciful a punishment for such a horrendous crime…
I think the ban on cruel and unusual punishment should be suspended in the case of cruel and unusual crimes. This crime being a perfect example.
Yes, absolutely. Should it prove in future that the trial was wrong, you can release someone from prison. You can’t bring them back from the dead. And lots and lots of folks are being proved innocent with DNA testing and such.
Without a magic wand that would less us know without doubt guilt or innocence, death is too permanent for our flawed legal system.
I figured that. Lots more here. Subscription required, but it’s free.
Please don’t misunderstand me - this guy deserves death for the crimes he has commited and the fact that he would commit them again. (as to a security camera being enough, maybe, but it would depend on the way it was recorded - some video camera footage doesn’t really show clearly what happened…).
But say it was a perfect world, with a perfect trial where he got adequate legal support (instead of some hack public defender who slept through his trial) and perfect video-recorded evidence that this guy committed the crime. And say in addition there is a voice recording of him threatening the victim that he will be back and he will finish her off. And assume that his previous record is accurate - this guy has come back and done damage to women he initially assaulted. Fine.
Then say (and I am not religious, but let’s just say) he for real ‘Finds Jesus’ in prison and decides to leave his life of crime behind, and instead of wanting to do damage wants to find the women he assaulted previously and help them and support them and apologize to them. And say he also wants to work as a women’s advocate, teaching women how to avoid / deal with guys like him? Should he be killed anyways?
My point is that no human agency is perfect enough to ensure, beyond any possible shadow of doubt, that a. he is guilty, and b. he will re-offend. The room for mistakes means that if he is truly sentenced to prison for life, if a mistake has been made, he can be released. If he is dead, he can’t be brought back. The simple and realistic what-ifs I have been able to pose seem to me to show that there is ALWAYS room for error.
Speaking for myself, I would only extend the death penalty in the magic world where we know guilt or innocence and if the person will re-offend without a doubt. I have also stated categorically and unequivically that in our current system there is too much margin for error and no way to prove intent to re-offend and I would never ever vote for the death penalty if I was on a jury.
I agree, but it just occurred to me to ask (and here seems the best place) - what if an innocent man is wrongly convicted, but the realisation of the mistake only happens after he has lived his entire life behind bars and died there? Isn’t that the same as us executing him?
Couldn’t it also be argued that imprisonment without (the unnatainable) absolute certainty is also bad, because it permanently deprives a human who may, just possibly be innocent of something that we cannot fully restore (part or all of his life)?
I’m asking this as an earnest - not provocative - question. For exactly the reasons you state, I cannot bring myself to support the DP, but this latest thought has me wondering…
At the point where he’s killed two people, and assaulted a number of others , I value the life and safety of his next victim more than his opportunity to change. He’s already been given opportunities to change, and has chosen not to take advantage of them. He’s not a person who snapped and became violent once. Violence is a large part of who he.
There’s always room for error about re-offending. Thre’s usually, but not always a possibilty of error in determining guilt. There are damn few possibilities where I would support the death penalty because of the possibilty of error in determining guilt ( even my example could wise up and commit his next crime in a way that leaves some doubt). But just as I don’t eliminate the possibilty of error in determiniing guilt, neither do I eliminate the possibilty of certainty.
Yes and no; if someone is imprisoned at say 25 for life, you’ve got many many years to fix it if a mistake is made and let him/her out. You can also make accomodations based on his future behaviour. If someone is dead, you can’t do that.
It’s really that simple for me.
Yes, without a doubt, but if you put him in prison for life without the possibility of parole, and put into place measures to ensure he can’t hurt any other inmates in prison, then why kill him if both his possible victim and the general public are protected from his violence?
Fair enough, and I understand where you are coming from. I just have seen or read about far too many instances where the person sentenced to death didn’t come anywhere close to the proof you have talked about in your example; people convicted on circumstantial evidence, or convicted without adequate council (the example I tossed out about the public defender sleeping repeatedly during trial was a true story of a DP case in Texas which was overturned on appeal and the convict set free due to mistrial and evidence of his innocence through DNA testing), etc… to allow the death penalty to be done without them.
Expanding on an earlier notion of mine - that notion being that people who so infringe upon the basic rights of others forfeiting their own rights - why don’t we just (in the world with the perfect-truth-detection system) use convicted murderers, rapists, etc. for medical experiments? Might be more practical than killing them.
Isn’t that just another way of saying that you’d lie to see them tortured? It sounds like it.
No. I don’t enjoy seeing someone in pain.
On the other hand, it really doesn’t bother me to see a murderer in pain. I’m sort of indifferent about it, see.
Ummm…
Are you saying then, that a murderer is an unperson?
Less of a person than a non-murderer, sure. I wouldn’t see a murderer tortured to bring anyone pleasure, for instance… but if OmniDrugCo needs some subjects for human trials on their Cancer cures, that serves a useful purpose.
Kind of my view on animals - I don’t think people should inflict pain on animals for the purpose of inflicting pain, and testing frivolous things like cosmetics is wrong, but drugs, medical procedures, and the like? Sure.
A bit extreme? Sounds nuts to me.