Your support of the death penalty seems to hinge on the potential quality of life of the victim. It implies a heirarchy of victimization.
I was under the mistaken impression that the death penalty was cheaper. As it appears that this is not the case, I withdraw that argument.
You misunderstand me slightly. What I meant was that I would give my life if it meant that, say, 100 murderers would be prevented from killing again. Because the system doesn’t guarantee that I won’t give my life so that other innocent people will be executed, it is not the same as “I’d be okay being wrongly put to death because most of the time the system works.”
I support the death penalty in a theoretical sense, i.e., with outstanding burden of proof being required of the people, establishing guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, given the enormous expense to the public of both money and time as well as the spectre of death of innocents, abolishing it in favor of life without parole would probably be a prudent decision, decreasing the burden on and increasing the efficiency of the legal system.
I’m with** SA** on this one.
Whatever punishment we can dish for murderers, it ain’t nearly enough for the heinous wrong they have done. But the DP is the biggest card we got to play. It ain’t enough, but it’s the best we got.
Life in prison seems like an insult to the memory of the victim to me. It’s just not enough.
Yes, it’s an emotional response.
The OP here didn’t just miss the logic train, he apparently went to the wrong station and forgot his ticket.
If someone is trying to injure my child, I’m not shooting him to teach the bastard a lesson. I’m shooting him because otherwise he’ll kill my child. The lesson being taught is incidental (and somewhat moot if I shoot to kill).
I’m against the death penalty because I’m of the opinion that we shouldn’t have the right to decide to take the life of another person. I feel that two wrongs don’t make a right, and that taking the life of a murderer makes us as bad as them.
For the same reason, I’m uncomfortable with the concept of killing others in self defence. However, I don’t presume to judge the actions other people take in that situation, and would never demand punishment for them. I do not believe I could live with myself if I took someone else’s life, even to save my own life or that of a third party, but any time I’ve discussed this on the boards it’s descended into a game of “But what if this stupid, pointless, ridiculous and impossible scenario was to occur?”, so please don’t start on me because I’m not interested in justifying my point of view. That’s just how I feel.
Well, I may be non-sense-ical but none of you will address the problem of time. You all anti-DP’s seem to think that it is cut and dried when the shift from SD to ‘the state’s problem’ happens.
Where do you think the line should be?
Someone said that she could not shoot him in the back because the police would not accept SD. So I guess she has to be in front while he is strangling the child and shoot past the child? Hmmm
If the cops don’t show up for 24 hours, can she stay in pursuit of the killer and if she catches him, shoot him because he is still at large? What time frame are you willing to live with between SD and the point it is wrong for my lady in the OP to still shoot the bad guy?
When does it shift? 10 Minutes, 1 hour, 24 hours, when ever he is caught? What if she is the one to catch him 48 hours later? What if he comes back to her house, can she shoot before he attacks?
The idea, Mr. Clever, is that if the attacker is a threat to her or the child, he’s fair game. It doesn’t matter where they are physically standing, you’re being too literal.
What you’re talking about is vigilantism, not self-defense, so it doesn’t even apply to the question you asked. It’s self-defense if the person is a threat to you or your family or whatever. I’m not sure if a person who shot a fleeing attacker would be prosecuted, but it would stretch the boundaries of self-defense.
If he appears to be a threat, yes. You’re misunderstanding something or trying to make this a lot more complicated than it is. If you’re tracking someone down to kill them, it can hardly be called self-defense.
Uh huh. And you still haven’t addressed the problem that at no point are you talking about the ‘Death Penalty’. And, as you have failed to demonstrate that anyone exists who is 100% against killing in self-defense no matter what the circumstances, you are coming across as a bit of an idiot.
If you want to have a discussion about what constitutes ‘self-defense’, then fine. But quit aiming random comments at ‘anti-death penalty’ people because it’s entirely irrelevant.
And, no, if you track down someone who has killed 48 hours earlier and shoot them, it is not self-defence.
How exactly does ‘playing bigger cards’ help anyone? No matter how much you punish a murderer, you aren’t gonna bring his victims back to life.
Aha finally got somebody to see the question. Now, where exactly do you draw the line? We are talking your child here. At what point will you let the killer of your child walk away? remember, you were not quick nuff to stop him, so at what point do you say, well, not my problem anymore, it is the societies problem? Will you let him walk away or will you shoot him, those are the only options. If the child is dead, is it still SD? Where is the line?
For those who say my question is no good, not one of you has drawn the line. SD is okay and DP is not. Well, where does it change?
Is all that is needed to have you let the killer go is a quick kill? Once the child is dead, there is no more reason to defend with lethal force? You will tell you kids that you will not do anything yourself to a person who kills them if you are 10 seconds too late to stop it? You’ll tell them, “ Sorry, I just don’t think it is right to harm lethally the guy who just killed you.”
Come on folks, where do you draw the line?
That is exactly the point. EVERYTHING has been taken from that victim. And so much has been taken from the victim’s loved ones. Even the possibility of redemtion, if you believe in that sort of thing.
That crime is so great that is seems an abomination to allow that person to draw another breath. No, that victim will not be brought back to life. But that killer deserves *so * much worse than life in prison.
Nah, I see them all over the SDMB all the time. You ain’t paying attention if you don’t see it.
99% of the folks who have responded are not addressing the question. They are not 100% anti-DP in all circmstance.
Right in this thread a lady said she wiould not likely even defend her won life she is so againts any killing.
But I like your snotty tude…
Yeah, but there’s one in every crowd…
You’ve been here five years and still haven’t figured out that you should probably provide a cite?
Again, the issue is neither time nor intent. You’re taking a hypothetical situation involving death and saying, “this is analogous to the death penalty.” It isn’t- not even close.
The death penalty is-
- a deterrent to other criminals
- a method of preventing an individual from causing further harm
- a method by which the victim’s family may gain retribution.
Shooting the guy in your example only fits #2. No deterrent, no vengeance implicit.
Happy?
It is cut-and-dried, for heaven’s sake. Death Penalty is what happens when you execute a convicted criminal.
If the perpetrator dies under any other circumstances (i.e., if he’s not executed), it has nothing to do with Death Penalty. It can be self-defense, vigilantism, justifiable homicide, just plain murder, whatever. This happens all the time in countries without death penalty, and surprisingly enough, the courts deal with it just fine.
There is no “problem of time” - only one of due process. What distinguishes DP from all your construed examples is that in death penalty cases, the criminal was found guilty and executed as prescribed by law. Obviously, none of your examples qualify as executions.
OK. I guess I just don’t see how you get from “everything has been taken from the victim” to “therefore we must take everything from the killer”. It doesn’t help the victim, it doesn’t prevent reoffense any better than life imprisonment… all it does is appeal to the appetite for revenge and/or some mystical sense of balance.
Can you suggest a more appropriate punishment? One that doesn’t amount to 3 squares and a cot for the rest of their lives?
A cite… in the pit? Say it ain’t so… 
Yeah, I like #2 also…
Thanks
If you can suggest more appropriate criteria for choosing penalties–ones that don’t amount to “how can we hurt this guy as much as he hurt his victim?”–then I’ll see what I can come up with.
It is quite easy to draw the line, there isn’t some huge kind of grey area.
At the point that you no longer believe them to be an immediate threat. That is, either the point at which you can escape, or he leaves, or for some other reason he can no longer be seen as a threat. E.g. The police arrive and interrupt him in the act of killing. You can’t go and shoot him while he has his hands in the air and the cops are getting handcufs out.
It may be, if you believe that your own life is in danger and you have no reasonable safe means of escape.
Give us a scenario that is grey and maybe I’ll have more trouble drawing the line, however in your OP it is piss easy drawing the line. You got no point bob.
You seem to have some problem with the term defence. I’ve bolded the word myself in your quote to show that we are both talking about self defence. Ask yourself this, what are you defending? If your child is dead and he poses no threat to you then there is nothing to defned and you can’t kill in self defence. If your child is alive or if you believe that he now poses a threat to you then you are still defending life and can shoot.
This aint hard.
Fair enough. However, until the justice system can show that it is so infallible that it can gaurantee that an innocent will never be sentanced to death, it falls short as a fair punishment.
The loss of life of one innocent is not worth however many hundreds or thousands of correct death sentances are carried out.
Going by your logic, if someone is put to death by mistake then their executioner should also be put to death as they have deliberately deprived someone of drawing breath. Or maybe it should be the jury, or the judge, or the President! Surely someone must pay for that innocent life.
Perhaps it would be best to make all punishments reverseable to some extent. You can’t give back the years an innocent has spent in jail, but at least they can rebuild their life. If they’re dead then that’s it for them.