90 replies to this topic

[SeverIan]

I'm against it because it's wrong to kill anyone and if you execute someone, you are technically commiting murder. That means the executor could be executed.

Because its a killing recognized and sanctioned by law, it is not technically murder. You could only call it murder in a loose understanding of the word. Headsmen are generally only executed during a breakdown law, not as a result of strict carrying out of the law; they are generally given a warrant protecting them from retribution by a judge. "Eye for an eye" is not how things are run most of the time. Typically, stories about violent consequences for those associated with capital punishment seem to be about those who were actually making the decisions (like Robespierre during the reign of terror) - the "judge and/or jury" so to speak rather than "the executioner." Executioners were subject to being shunned by society in the past, but that seems to be a non issue in America (for example, I saw an interview with a former executioner at Huntsville, and he said he gave up the job on account of his personal dislike for the death penalty).

Moreover, if you were just against the death penalty because the executioner could technically be killed for killing, the correct thing would probably be to not kill the executioner for killing, not to stop him from killing.

Edited by Hawkeye Hank Hatfield, 01 June 2012 - 10:14 PM.

[Polaris]

My take on this is that there are some crimes that deserve the ultimate punishment.

Anyway, personal anecdote here:
A few years ago, my city was attacked by a terrorist outfit. They attacked a hospital, among other places that were famous for being particularly crowded. I could literally hear the bombing and see the Defence Force bring brought in. Someone I know lost his entire family in the attack. We were planning to go to one of the attacked areas that night, but my father caught a cold. That's how close I came to possibly being dead. Many, many people died. The next day, on the front page of the paper was a picture of the train station. The floor was covered with blood and bodies. Only one of the terrorists survived, and he was brought in and incarcerated. The government spent millions on his security until he was eventually given the death penalty. If anyone had gotten their hands on him, he'd have been torn to pieces.

If a person is willing to take away the lives of so many in such a dogmatic fashion, then I don't see why they should be allowed to live guilt-free. I'm horribly biased in this regard, but I was there when it happened. It was absolutely terrifying, and I'm incredibly glad nothing happened to my family. This man, and others like him, never intend to repent. There's not a drop of guilt associated with their deed. I'm not exactly a supported of capital punishment under most circumstances, but for something of this magnitude, yeah.

[Rehab]

That's a hard one for me. Taking such a high toll in human life without repent is nearly my definition of horrible, but I have to wonder under what circumstances the person came into that role.
I don't doubt that sometimes the people with the magnitude of hatred necessary to carry it out are simply that spiteful, but I wonder if they might have been indoctrinated, or relentlessly persecuted from an early age by an influence beyond their control (or both/more). Like, in what ways are they convinced that they have done something good, and just how strong is their conviction?

Part of my family came from an Amish/Mennonite background, so I guess it's not a surprise capital punishment gets little love from most of my family. I've tended to think of being against capital punishment almost in terms of being against persecution of the downtrodden, and on reflection I still think that my assumption there can too easily become the case where the death penalty is involved, but there's a kind of hole in my mind about what to do with somebody that extreme, who just plain spurns reconciliation and/or respect for a life.

The instinct I feel is to want to study that frame of mind, to wonder if truly nothing can be done about it, to assume attempts at reconciliation can always do something both for the victim and the killer, but I don't always know what to do with that hope. In some cases it almost seems insulting to be hopeful in that way.

[Westbrick]

Here's a disturbing thought: Jerry Sandusky, recently found guilty on 45 counts of rape and sexual abuse of minors, is going to be able to live out the rest of his days behind bars in a high-security prison. And because he's a pedophile (and anyone familiar with the code of criminals knows that pedophiles don't last long in prison), he's being put in protective custody indefinitely. All on the taxpayer's dime. Is keeping such a man alive really worth all this? I understand that we'd like to preserve our "principles," but frankly, I don't happen to believe "keeping pedophiles alive" is a principle particularly worth abiding to.

It's true that the death penalty process, as it's currently set up, is inordinately expensive, but this speaks less to the issue of the death penalty and more to the unwieldy logistics surrounding the process.

[Rehab]

To be honest? I'd rather he be studied, or that there at least be an opportunity to study him. I'd like to know more about why he is the way he is, and what specifically made him do it. See if there's anything anyone can learn about the biology of a convicted child molestor, maybe. Perhaps he, or somebody like him, could share insight on how predators like him think, and operate, and how they might be stopped.

To me, the first priority in taking somebody out of society is to ensure the safety of others, and I'd prefer to end their life only if they're such a danger to everyone around them that they continue to kill and menace people in prison. Once the safety of everyone else has been established, then I'd prefer to figure how they got to the position of doing what they did. That is, to see if we can do something as society to prevent what happened, or at least to make it more difficult to accomplish.

I also pity him in a way, because he's paid a high price by committing those crimes- it's unlikely that society can ever trust him again to be a part of it, as it stands now. Someday, it would be nice to truthfully say that even somebody with the worst of criminal records could be released back into society completely reformed, with no fear that they'll ever feel a need to repeat their crimes- hopefully, without lobotomizing them or otherwise taking away what makes them a sentient individual. It's not something I really even expect to happen, but I do think society should reach for it.

[Westbrick]

To be honest? I'd rather he be studied, or that there at least be an opportunity to study him. I'd like to know more about why he is the way he is, and what specifically made him do it. See if there's anything anyone can learn about the biology of a convicted child molestor, maybe. Perhaps he, or somebody like him, could share insight on how predators like him think, and operate, and how they might be stopped.

This is certainly an interesting thought, but keep a few things in mind: we've studied plenty of pedophiles in the past; we could easily study Sandusky without keeping him alive for several decades; and many of the more useful information comes from the physical brain, which can be extracted after death anyway.

To me, the first priority in taking somebody out of society is to ensure the safety of others, and I'd prefer to end their life only if they're such a danger to everyone around them that they continue to kill and menace people in prison. Once the safety of everyone else has been established, then I'd prefer to figure how they got to the position of doing what they did. That is, to see if we can do something as society to prevent what happened, or at least to make it more difficult to accomplish.

Preventing Sandusky from molesting other innocent children is clearly priority number one, I agree. I'd put "providing justice to his victims" as a close second. But then comes a third problem: should the taxpayer pay to support this child molester? And that's something that remains a problem. I've made my position on this clear, so I'd be interesting in hearing why you'd endorse paying for this type of man to go on living.

I also pity him in a way, because he's paid a high price by committing those crimes- it's unlikely that society can ever trust him again to be a part of it, as it stands now. Someday, it would be nice to truthfully say that even somebody with the worst of criminal records could be released back into society completely reformed, with no fear that they'll ever feel a need to repeat their crimes- hopefully, without lobotomizing them or otherwise taking away what makes them a sentient individual. It's not something I really even expect to happen, but I do think society should reach for it.

The "reformation" approach is something we can only realistically consider far down the road, when the technology is cheaply available. I don't know about you, but I don't personally feel that society is obligated to provide a pedophile with the millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of therapy necessary to "reform" him, especially when there's nothing close to a guarantee here.

[Tricky Dick]

A few years ago, my city was attacked by a terrorist outfit.

City and country? Would love to know a bit more so that I can comment on it.

Edited by Life Admiral, 23 June 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[Stahlypin]

I don't agree with capital punishment. Life is the only thing we have, and I just can't agree with the methodic and systematic killing of criminals for an ideal as silly as "revenge" (there really is no other word for it). By the state. I understand that what these people might be being killed for is killing other people, but-- okay, I think that you understand what I mean by reading that last sentence. "People being killed for killing other people." Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Arrested criminals are removed from society for the safety and well-being of others; isn't that punishment? You have to understand that they are all ultimately people. Try rehabilitation, try understanding their minds. Lock them up for their whole lives. At least they got to live. If they decide to go on their own, it was their choice, at least.
I've seen some people on here arguing that maintaining a person is too much of a finantial burden. Do you understand the implications of this? That you are willing to neutralize dozens of people to make your wallet a little heavier? I don't think I need to explain why I find that questionable.

[Rewjeo]

I could easily find it questionable that you would like to take money away from people, especially given the state of the economy, for the sake of keeping monsters alive. Not necessarily saying I do (I'm conflicted and not well enough informed about this topic anyways) but it's not a ridiculous stance for someone to have.

[Westbrick]

I could easily find it questionable that you would like to take money away from people, especially given the state of the economy, for the sake of keeping monsters alive. Not necessarily saying I do (I'm conflicted and not well enough informed about this topic anyways) but it's not a ridiculous stance for someone to have.

This about sums it up. Understand that death penalty advocates like myself reserve the punishment only for the most heinous of offenders, and no, I don't find a compelling moral reason to burden taxpayers just to keep pedophiles and serial killers / rapists alive.

[Polaris]

City and country? Would love to know a bit more so that I can comment on it.

Mumbai, India.

You can google the 2008 attacks.