NationStates Jolt Archive

I am so pro death penalty. If not the death penalty, what? This guy not only deserves teh death penalty, if it were up to me he'd get death by pit bull.

COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho (AP) -- The man accused of kidnapping two children from their Idaho home and killing their family pleaded guilty Monday to murder and kidnapping in a deal that spares his youngest victim from testifying at trial.

Joseph E. Duncan III, 43, was charged with bludgeoning two adults and a teenager to death at the home near Coeur d'Alene so he could kidnap the family's two youngest children for sex.

The young boy was later found dead at a Montana campsite.

Only 9-year-old Shasta Groene survived. She was rescued after Duncan walked into a Idaho restaurant with her seven weeks later. She had been expected to be a primary witness against Duncan.

Duncan pleaded guilty shortly before his trial was to begin Monday to three counts of first-degree murder in the deadly claw hammer attack on Shasta's mother, Brenda Groene; Groene's fiance, Mark McKenzie; and Groene's 13-year-old son, Slade, in May 2005.

Under his plea agreement, Duncan is to be sentenced to three consecutive life terms without parole in Idaho.

That sentencing was delayed pending federal prosecution that could result in the death penalty, Kootenai County Prosecutor Bill Douglas said.

"We essentially gave up nothing," Douglas said. "It is virtually guaranteed he will face two death juries."

The agreement calls for Duncan to cooperate fully with law enforcement officers on the state charges and the anticipated federal charges in the kidnapping of the two children and the killing of Dylan in Montana.

Police believe it was the children in their swimsuits that caught Duncan's attention, triggering a spree of savage murder, kidnapping and child rape.

The registered sex offender, on the run from a child molestation charge in Minnesota, drove past the rural home where Shasta, then 8, and Dylan, 9, were frolicking in May 2005, investigators say.

According to court records, Duncan stalked the Groene family for several days to learn their habits. Then he donned night-vision goggles and entered their home in the early morning of May 16.

The court records say Duncan molested the children for seven weeks at a primitive campsite near St. Regis, Montana, possibly capturing some of his actions on the digital video and still cameras he carried. At some point Dylan was killed.

Duncan then drove with Shasta back to Coeur d'Alene, stopping at a Denny's along Interstate 90 around 2 a.m. on July 2, 2005. Staff and customers recognized the girl from the many photos plastered throughout the region and called police.

Duncan told arresting officers he was returning the girl to her father.

A pool of some 800 local residents had been called in an effort to find a jury that can give him a fair trial.

However, sentiment in this conservative region runs strongly against Duncan, who spent most of his adult life in prison for molesting children. Bumper stickers saying "Kill Duncan" abound.

Prosecutor Douglas rejected Duncan's earlier offers to confess to the crimes he is charged with -- plus other crimes for which he is not yet charged -- in exchange for avoiding the death penalty.

Federal public defender Roger Peven, who will represent Duncan in the federal court case, says the defendant also wanted to spare Shasta the trauma of having to testify against him in court.

"It's the right thing to do," Peven said last week.

Shasta is under additional stress because her father, Steve, is battling throat cancer, which has required the removal of his larynx. Steve Groene asked prosecutors to settle the case to spare his daughter.

The earlier plea bargain request included an offer to give investigators access to encrypted files in Duncan's computer, which are thought to contain graphic evidence of his crimes.

Experts have yet to unlock the files and Duncan, a computer expert, has bragged that the encryption protection he used is so strong that it will take authorities three decades to crack it.

Since his arrest, Duncan has also been implicated in the unsolved deaths of two children in Seattle and one in Southern California.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/duncan.trial.ap/index.html

He doesn't deserve to be killed, throw him in jail to rot.

Or if you Insist on killing him; do it E.A. Poe style, either the pit & the pendulem or The Cask of Amontillido

On what basis can you deny him life? For him to live does not harm you, nor does it harm anyone else.

He should be put in prison for life, so that he can never harm another person. Nothing more.

On what basis can you deny him life? For him to live does not harm you, nor does it harm anyone else.

He should be put in prison for life, so that he can never harm another person. Nothing more.

no, he should be killed. It would make me feel better.

Meh...either a lifetime of hard labor or a lifetime of experimental medical tests. That's why I'm against animal testing - testing on lifers is likelier to be accurate, and to call them "animals" is an insult to animals.

It would make me feel better.

So?

On what basis can you deny him life? For him to live does not harm you, nor does it harm anyone else.

He should be put in prison for life, so that he can never harm another person. Nothing more.

The only argument I have has just as much logic as yours:

Some people just deserve it.

Some people just deserve it.

And by what right can you decree that they deserve it?

Have you lived their life?

"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. (He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.)" -Friedrich Nietzsche

Meh...either a lifetime of hard labor or a lifetime of experimental medical tests. That's why I'm against animal testing - testing on lifers is likelier to be accurate, and to call them "animals" is an insult to animals.

That I'll go with. If we can do things like deliberately give him bone cancer or other horrible diseases, I should say AND other horrible diseases, for the purposes of finding cures then sure. Keep him alive.

Daaaaaaaaaammmmmmmm!!!!!

Me. I'm against the death penalty because I think a 23 an hour a day lock-up in a small cell is much more punishment. (and at the least, I hope that's what they have in Idaho)

But this guy........Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmm!!!!! Kill him! I don't care how! :mad:

So?
thats about it. It would make me feel better so I hope they kill him.

Put him in the prison general population. These things tend to work themselves out. :)

That I'll go with. If we can do things like deliberately give him bone cancer or other horrible diseases, I should say AND other horrible diseases, for the purposes of finding cures then sure. Keep him alive.

Well, as long as we advance science while we torture him...that and he might go insane while we test things that just might give him cancer...it's the random effect of it. Psychological torture is more fun. And if he gives the wardens any lip, they can taser his sorry ass. If that were my tax dollars at work, I would pay my taxes with gusto.

How does one guy manage to kill a whole family by bludgeoning them? Don't these families have guns? Can't they even grab a nice big butcher's knife and take one man down? Anyway, I'm against the death penalty on one level but my gut tells me that I wouldn't really give a crap if they torture this human to death.

death is a rubbish punishment. all it does is deny people a life. a prison cell can do that just as well with the added benefit that they have to experience having no life intead of not knowing a thing about it. that's more punishment. particularly since this guy's gunna get savagely bummed every day for the rest of his no-life.

And by what right can you decree that they deserve it?

Have you lived their life?

Don't even try to be logical, it's impossible in this case. Whether or not you are for the death penalty is purely a moral argument. But I digress. To answer yoru question directly, I can decree that someone deserves to die precisely because I cannot carry out the judgement. My decree has no force of law. Just because I think a monster like this guy deserves to die will not make it so. It is up to a judge, the law, prosecuters and a jury to actually decide this person's fate. You are right, however. One person should not be allowed to make a summary judgement on whether some should live or die. That's why we have the legal process.

On the second question, whether I have lived his life, I assume that you mean to ask whether I have any understanding as to why this person may have commited these crimes. My answer to that is, no. I have not live this guys life. I have never molested and ultimately killed a child after murdering their family witha claw hammer. I also couldn't give a shit less. He will get the death penalty and on the day he dies I'll not even notice. The only thing I have to say about his death now is that I hope a fellow prisoner get's him before the needle because it will undoubtedly be more painful. Beyond that I have absolutely no care or concern for his comfort and don't want to know anything about his past because I simply don't care.

How does one guy manage to kill a whole family by bludgeoning them? Don't these families have guns? Can't they even grab a nice big butcher's knife and take one man down? Anyway, I'm against the death penalty on one level but my gut tells me that I wouldn't really give a crap if they torture this human to death.

I don't know how he did it. I don't care. The fact is, the man's a sick fuck who deserves severe punishment from now until the year 1 googol AD. It doesn't matter if the family carried a gun. It doesn't matter if they had a knife to stab him to death with. It's their job to protect themselves to the extent that common sense dictates. It's not their job to defend from sick fuckers like this. If they can stop him, great; if they can't...well, they pay their taxes for a reason, right?

I don't know how he did it. I don't care. The fact is, the man's a sick fuck who deserves severe punishment from now until the year 1 googol AD. It doesn't matter if the family carried a gun. It doesn't matter if they had a knife to stab him to death with. It's their job to protect themselves to the extent that common sense dictates. It's not their job to defend from sick fuckers like this. If they can stop him, great; if they can't...well, they pay their taxes for a reason, right?

I agree that this kind of shit shouldn't happen. I'm in no way defending the human who did this. I just can't wrap my mind around how a father defending his family and a mother defending her children couldn't take out one guy who isn't even carrying a gun.

Don't even try to be logical, it's impossible in this case.

Reason is most necessary where it is most tenuous.

Whether or not you are for the death penalty is purely a moral argument. But I digress.

And an empirical one as well, but I too digress.

To answer yoru question directly, I can decree that someone deserves to die precisely because I cannot carry out the judgement. My decree has no force of law. Just because I think a monster like this guy deserves to die will not make it so. It is up to a judge, the law, prosecuters and a jury to actually decide this person's fate. You are right, however. One person should not be allowed to make a summary judgement on whether some whould live or die. That's why we have the legal process.

No, it does not seem to me that the state somehow acquires such a right, either. It too is made up of human beings.

We can never know enough to pass judgment on another; when it can be avoided, we should as such not do so.

Beyond that I have absolutely no care or concern for his comfort and don't want to know anything about his past because I simply don't care.

The value of a human life is not conditional.

The fact that he has committed a horrific atrocity does not mean that he does not think and feel, that he does not suffer, that to degrade him and to kill him are not acts to avoid, if possible.

It will not bring back the lives of his victims to kill him; it will merely be an additional death, pointless bloodshed.

Reason is most necessary where it is most tenuous.



And an empirical one as well, but I too digress.



No, it does not seem to me that the state somehow acquires such a right, either. It too is made up of human beings.

We can never know enough to pass judgment on another; when it can be avoided, we should as such not do so.



The value of a human life is not conditional.

The fact that he has committed a horrific atrocity does not mean that he does not think and feel, that he does not suffer, that to degrade him and to kill him are not acts to avoid, if possible.

It will not bring back the lives of his victims to kill him; it will merely be an additional death, pointless bloodshed.

I cannot agree with you. One of the pieces of the bible I actually find useful: By their deeds shall you know them. (Odd for an athiest to be quoting scripture, I know, but there is some wisdom in the various holy books.)

This man has abrogated any right to continued existence, by his own actions. His beliefs, history, and reasons are utterly irrelevant - provided he had the basic concept of right and wrong, then he must stand in violation of basic humanity.

Killing this man is not pointless bloodshed. It is the removal of a mad beast from any possibility of causing further harm.

How does one guy manage to kill a whole family by bludgeoning them? Don't these families have guns? Can't they even grab a nice big butcher's knife and take one man down? Anyway, I'm against the death penalty on one level but my gut tells me that I wouldn't really give a crap if they torture this human to death.

Maybe they were trapped or stricken with fear, maybe they didn't know what was going on, maybe whatever he bludeoned them to death with was enough to take them down with one strike.

Reason is most necessary where it is most tenuous.



And an empirical one as well, but I too digress.My argument is not that logic is tenuous with this subject. My argument is that it is not possible with this subject as I will attempt to show ith the rest of your post.



No, it does not seem to me that the state somehow acquires such a right, either. It too is made up of human beings.Many more of them who operate in a strict legal framework. Some of whom are sworn to not just defend this guy, but who's ultimate goal is to get him back on the street as quickly as possible and who will use every legal trick or manuever possible to accomplish that goal.

We can never know enough to pass judgment on another; when it can be avoided, we should as such not do so.
It cannot be avoided in this case or in any case involving a legal matter. That's why we have courts to make sure that when we pass judgement that it is done in the most rational way possible. Again, because I am not part of that process and, thus, have no way of carrying out any judgement I make there is no reason for me not to say a guy who murdered a family because he got a boner looking at their children in bathing suits and wanted to molest them deserves to die. He'll get a defender, judge, jury and a multitude of appeals before the strap him to the table - something noe of his victims got. That makes me feel comfortable with what will almost certainly be the judgement of the court.


The value of a human life is not conditional.I disagree. I think the lives of the people he killed and victimized had much more value than this guy's does.

The fact that he has committed a horrific atrocity does not mean that he does not think and feel, that he does not suffer, that to degrade him and to kill him are not acts to avoid, if possible.I realize that he thinks, feels and can suffer. I just don't care.

It will not bring back the lives of his victims to kill him; it will merely be an additional death, pointless bloodshed.

You're right until the end. It will not bring back his victims. His death, though, most certainly has a point. The point being that you simply can't go aropund killing people horribly and destroying their children's lives because you get a stiffy watching 8-year-olds playing in their bathing suits. It may not prevent it from happening in the future, but the point is still the same.

He deserves to be killed but not by the gov't.

If you have the death penalty, you will invariably end up falsely convicting and executing innocents (no matter how few, no justice system is flawless). If you are willing to accept that the murder of a few innocents in order to attain a "stronger" form of justice for those who are correctly convicted, then fair enough. I wouldn't regard you as much of a human being though.

I am so pro death penalty. If not the death penalty, what? This guy not only deserves teh death penalty, if it were up to me he'd get death by pit bull.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/duncan.trial.ap/index.html

I'm willing to trade the visceral pleasure of seeing people like this killed for the knowledge that we won't accidentally (and that's giving prosecutors the benefit of the doubt) kill an innocent person for a crime he or she didn't commit.

Many more of them who operate in a strict legal framework. Some of whom are sworn to not just defend this guy, but who's ultimate goal is to get him back on the street as quickly as possible and who will use every legal trick or manuever possible to accomplish that goal.

It cannot be avoided in this case or in any case involving a legal matter. That's why we have courts to make sure that when we pass judgement that it is done in the most rational way possible. Again, because I am not part of that process and, thus, have no way of carrying out any judgement I make there is no reason for me not to say a guy who murdered a family because he got a boner looking at their children in bathing suits and wanted to molest them deserves to die. He'll get a defender, judge, jury and a multitude of appeals before the strap him to the table - something noe of his victims got. That makes me feel comfortable with what will almost certainly be the judgement of the court.

All of this, however, is merely to determine his guilt.

It is clear to me that he is guilty. The question is whether he deserves it, and whether desert is at all relevant. That question is not settled by the courts, but by the law.

I disagree. I think the lives of the people he killed and victimized had much more value than this guy's does.

So do I. But they will remain dead even if you kill him.

I realize that he thinks, feels and can suffer. I just don't care.

Why not? Because he has committed this act? He is still a human being; he still possesses all the traits that make us think other human beings have value.

You're right until the end. It will not bring back his victims. His death, though, most certainly has a point. The point being that you simply can't go aropund killing people horribly and destroying their children's lives because you get a stiffy watching 8-year-olds playing in their bathing suits.

No, the point that if you are accused and convicted of committing that crime, the state will kill you.

It tells no one anything about what is right and what is wrong.

It may not prevent it from happening in the future,

Then in reality it is no point at all.

I wouldn't mind some sort of vigilante killing with the provision that the killer turns himself in to be put on trial. In other words, how strongly does a person feel that he can take a life of another. Does he feel strongly enough that he would risk his own freedom and life for it?

I agree that this kind of shit shouldn't happen. I'm in no way defending the human who did this. I just can't wrap my mind around how a father defending his family and a mother defending her children couldn't take out one guy who isn't even carrying a gun.

I'm sure there was some reason they didn't; what it is I don't know. Maybe he did the same thing the 9/11 hijackers did and lied about having a weapon. Maybe he sneaked up on the father, overpowered the mother, and lured the children. Maybe the parents were not physically strong and didn't know how to operate a gun. It's a bit hard to say why, but I am sure there was a reason.

I agree that this kind of shit shouldn't happen. I'm in no way defending the human who did this. I just can't wrap my mind around how a father defending his family and a mother defending her children couldn't take out one guy who isn't even carrying a gun.

The father has throat cancer, which puts him either severely disabled in the home (probably) or in the hospital.

It's also totally possible that he's done this type of thing before, that is, murdered people in their sleep. He was entirely capable of coming into the parents' bedroom and killing them. How do you stop someone from killing you in your sleep?

That being said, I'm definitely against the death penalty. However, I'm totally for hard labor and letting the other criminals do whatever. If they see fit to kill him, so be it. We've got no room for scum like this.

To kill a person would be much more expensive than having him rot in his cell for life. Which is why im against the death penalty, unless they come up with a cheaper solution, such as firing squad, or lynching. Tookie should have been lynched and not lethally injected with 45 needles throughout his body.

The father has throat cancer, which puts him either severely disabled in the home (probably) or in the hospital.

It's also totally possible that he's done this type of thing before, that is, murdered people in their sleep. He was entirely capable of coming into the parents' bedroom and killing them. How do you stop someone from killing you in your sleep?

That being said, I'm definitely against the death penalty. However, I'm totally for hard labor and letting the other criminals do whatever. If they see fit to kill him, so be it. We've got no room for scum like this.

The cancer thing explains it.

I'm a light sleeper and have a .38 special on one side of my bed and a Ka-Bar on the other.

All of this, however, is merely to determine his guilt.

It is clear to me that he is guilty. The question is whether he deserves it, and whether desert is at all relevant. That question is not settled by the courts, but by the law.No, it's determined by the courts who interpret the law. There is no minimum sentencing law that requires this person to be put to death. There is simply a standard that exists that's minimum requirements must be met for a judge to hand down a capital sentence. I agree, though, that in this case it is just a formality. Those standards have obviously been met in this case and no judge or jury would spare this guy.



So do I. But they will remain dead even if you kill him.I stated before that this is not the standard that I use for judging the "righfulness" of his death. I just think he deserves it. That's for a judge and jury to decide, though.



Why not? Because he has committed this act? He is still a human being; he still possesses all the traits that make us think other human beings have value.While he is a human being - soomething attested to by the fact that he can think, feel and suffer - I disagree that those traits are enough to judge the value of his life. In my opinion what makes a life valuable are traits like the ability to feel empathy and sympathy, the value one places on honesty, the acts one commits in one's life. For example, I would not try to claim that my life has as much value as Ghandi's because I did not liberate millions of people from unjust oppression based on racist standards and simultaneously show the world what could be accomplished in the face of brutal repression through passive, nonviolent resistance. On the other hand I also never claw hammered a mother, father and teenager brother to death so that I could have sex with and ultimately kill their young children so I would think that my life is worth much more than the perpetrator in this story.



No, the point that if you are accused and convicted of committing that crime, the state will kill you.I have no problem with that.

It tells no one anything about what is right and what is wrong.I disagree. I think when they hand down that death sentence they will be telling this guy in no uncertain terms that what he did was wrong and will not be tolerated.



Then in reality it is no point at all.
I disagree that prevention should be the sole purpose of our legal system. I think that the redress of wrongs should also play a part and when your crime is this henious I have no moral compunction about having his crimes redressed with his death.

On what basis can you deny him life? For him to live does not harm you, nor does it harm anyone else.

He should be put in prison for life, so that he can never harm another person. Nothing more.


No, I am pretty sure this guy needs to be killed. And someone needs to piss in his cornflakes as well.

The cancer thing explains it.

I'm a light sleeper and have a .38 special on one side of my bed and a Ka-Bar on the other.

No, the father who is still alive and has cancer was not there. It was the step father that he killed and he did it with a claw hammer in teh early morning wearing night vision gogles so I imagine he just walked in while teh guy was asleep and nailed him with the hammer. Even if the first blow didn't kill him it certainly would have incapacitated him. After that there's the mom and three young children.

No, the father who is still alive and has cancer was not there. It was the step father that he killed and he did it with a claw hammer in teh early morning wearing night vision gogles so I imagine he just walked in while teh guy was asleep and nailed him with the hammer. Even if the first blow didn't kill him it certainly would have incapacitated him. After that there's the mom and three young children.

Sentence for this perp:

Death by Claw Hammer

I'm still against the death penalty. This guy can obviously not live with humans. Keep him locked up forever.

On what basis can you deny him life? For him to live does not harm you, nor does it harm anyone else.

He should be put in prison for life, so that he can never harm another person. Nothing more.


Yeah-it harms me. Guys with nothimg to lose have great motivation to escape. And then even more motivation not to be recaptured.

Yes- his continued existence harms us all a little.

I've always hated the idea of prison guards having to come in contact with violent felons that have nothing to lose.
I also cannot stand the figures on what it cost tax payer to house, feed, guard, educate and keep these monsters comfortable.

If I decided that this guy could live out his days, it would only be after he was unceremoniously dumped into an oubliette. Broken and forgotten, he could scrounge and subsist as long as he could on anything that trickled in or slithered through.
If that didnt work for him-Oh well.

He didnt have much regard for the family he wasted or the one child he kept for brutal sex.

I like him better dead.

*snip*

Do to him what was done to Pierre Mulele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Mulele).


(On an unrelated note, the Mulele article was written by none other than Yours Truly. ;))

While he is a human being - *snip*

I disagree. In my opinion, when someone so grossly crosses the line, as this individual did, I think he is no longer human.

I wont say he's an animal either.

Just a reprhensible monster. Its far too much of a risk to consider and type of "rehabilitation" or keeping him locked up-why should anyone be at his risk again?
A human prison guard shouldnt be put in harms way to this extent and how about the possibilty of his escape?

Nope- death or permanent tomb for him. And all others, convicted beyond a shadow of any doubt, found guilty of the most abominable crimes against humans.

Do to him what was done to Pierre Mulele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Mulele).


(On an unrelated note, the Mulele article was written by none other than Yours Truly. ;))

I could get down with that.

No, the father who is still alive and has cancer was not there. It was the step father that he killed and he did it with a claw hammer in teh early morning wearing night vision gogles so I imagine he just walked in while teh guy was asleep and nailed him with the hammer. Even if the first blow didn't kill him it certainly would have incapacitated him. After that there's the mom and three young children.

Maybe one blow from a hammer would have killed him or incapacitated him, but not certainly. Richard Ramirez was beaten up by a "victim" who he'd shot in the head while the victim was sleeping. Some folks have really hard heads, but I'm hijacking now and I'll cut it out.

I stated before that this is not the standard that I use for judging the "righfulness" of his death. I just think he deserves it. That's for a judge and jury to decide, though.

How can anyone deserve death?

While he is a human being - soomething attested to by the fact that he can think, feel and suffer - I disagree that those traits are enough to judge the value of his life. In my opinion what makes a life valuable are traits like the ability to feel empathy and sympathy, the value one places on honesty, the acts one commits in one's life. For example, I would not try to claim that my life has as much value as Ghandi's because I did not liberate millions of people from unjust oppression based on racist standards and simultaneously show the world what could be accomplished in the face of brutal repression through passive, nonviolent resistance. On the other hand I also never claw hammered a mother, father and teenager brother to death so that I could have sex with and ultimately kill their young children so I would think that my life is worth much more than the perpetrator in this story.

So if someone were for some reason born without sympathy or empathy, you would have no problem with torturing that person for fun?

I disagree. I think when they hand down that death sentence they will be telling this guy in no uncertain terms that what he did was wrong and will not be tolerated.

If this guy accepted the moral authority of the state, he would not have done what he did.

I disagree that prevention should be the sole purpose of our legal system. I think that the redress of wrongs should also play a part

There is no "redress" here, there is merely revenge. Nothing is solved, no wrong is righted; another person is killed.

How can anyone deserve death?

Many, many people deserve death.

Nothing is solved, no wrong is righted; another person is killed.

No. A monster is killed.

He doesn't deserve to be killed, throw him in jail to rot.

Or if you Insist on killing him; do it E.A. Poe style, either the pit & the pendulem or The Cask of Amontillido



"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit "


Yep cut off his nuts and let him choke to death on them .

"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit "


Yep cut off his nuts and let him choke to death on them .

Sounds workable.

Yeah-it harms me. Guys with nothimg to lose have great motivation to escape. And then even more motivation not to be recaptured.

Escape may be a legitimate reason to kill this person. Revenge is not.

I've always hated the idea of prison guards having to come in contact with violent felons that have nothing to lose.

No one made them choose the job.

I also cannot stand the figures on what it cost tax payer to house, feed, guard, educate and keep these monsters comfortable.

You'd rather spend the money on making sure the "monsters" are actually guilty? (Or perhaps you want to dispense with that as well?)

He didnt have much regard for the family he wasted or the one child he kept for brutal sex.

And showing, in return, that we have no regard for him would merely increase the overall suffering and death in the world.

Hardly a worthy cause.

Many, many people deserve death.

No one does. Ever. Period.

Killing is sometimes necessary, but it is never good.

No. A monster is killed.

A person is killed, however monstrous he may be.

Even the life of a monstrous person has worth.

How can anyone deserve death?By doing what he did. This is where the argument will always go. There can be no logical answer to that question. I honestly think that if a person commits the kind of crimes this guy commited he deserves to die. You disagree. There is no logical argument I can use to support my position because it is a moral position, nota logical one. The same can be said for your position. You will not be able to come up with a logical reason why I should support this guy's right to life beyond the commition of his crimes.



So if someone were for some reason born without sympathy or empathy, you would have no problem with torturing that person for fun?Ummm... :confused:

My position is that if a person commits a crime as heinous as this guy did that he has no right to life beyond that. I don't want to go into people's heads when they're born and try to figure out whether they have the ability to feel compassion. I'm content to let their lives show that and decide what to do with them afterwards. An imperfect stance, I know, because it means we are unable to prevent serial killings and all kinds of other heinous acts on the part of sociopaths, but one that we are nonetheless stuck with because there's no way to tell that a person lacks these attributes until they've done something horrible.



If this guy accepted the moral authority of the state, he would not have done what he did.Well, let's just exand that and make it a little more specific so we know what we are talking about. If this guy accepted the moral authority of the state with regards to killing people so you can rape and kill their children he would not have killed three people so that he could kidnap two young children and rape them and ultimately kill one of them.



There is no "redress" here, there is merely revenge. Nothing is solved, no wrong is righted; another person is killed.Again, I disagree. I think the day this guy gets his needle a great wrong will be redressed as much as is possible. That's a moral position so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No one does. Ever. Period.

Killing is sometimes necessary, but it is never good.

Yes, it is. Suppose Hitler had been captured. Would you have opposed killing him?

A person is killed, however monstrous he may be.

Even the life of a monstrous person has worth.

Bollocks. People who commit acts like this are beasts, with no worth, who contribute nothing positive to the world.

I'm willing to trade the visceral pleasure of seeing people like this killed for the knowledge that we won't accidentally (and that's giving prosecutors the benefit of the doubt) kill an innocent person for a crime he or she didn't commit.

Seconded

Well, I was going to say the brutality of his crimes might warrant the death penalty, but then everyone else started up with the "kill him" shit, and I'm firmly against mobs.

So let him live. It'll make me feel better.

I also feel really, really bad for the person that has to defend him. They're probably going to get a lot of small animal heads mailed to them.

Okay, seriously. There's a line in which a human being descends from being "human" to being a monster. Monsters shouldn't be allowed in this world.

But I must say... the using him as a labrat idea could really work out well! Find a cure for cancer and rid the world of a terror. It could be the one good a person makes in life. And if that's the only thing he's good for, then good for him.

I'm willing to trade the visceral pleasure of seeing people like this killed for the knowledge that we won't accidentally (and that's giving prosecutors the benefit of the doubt) kill an innocent person for a crime he or she didn't commit.

Hear hear :)

Yes, it is. Suppose Hitler had been captured. Would you have opposed killing him?

Yes.

Bollocks. People who commit acts like this are beasts, with no worth, who contribute nothing positive to the world.

They are human, that is enough. The minute you start having to "prove your worth" as a human being is the day the line becomes blurred. The homeless and extremely poor do little to nothing positive to the world either, shall we kill them? are there lives not worth SOMETHING for the pure reason of being human?

Okay, seriously. There's a line in which a human being descends from being "human" to being a monster.

No there is not. A human being is a human being.

no, he should be killed. It would make me feel better.

The state, not the world for that matter, exists to make you feel better. The fact of the matter is that this man could still potentially be of some use.

Okay, seriously. There's a line in which a human being descends from being "human" to being a monster. Monsters shouldn't be allowed in this world.

But I must say... the using him as a labrat idea could really work out well! Find a cure for cancer and rid the world of a terror. It could be the one good a person makes in life. And if that's the only thing he's good for, then good for him.

No, there isn't such a line. A human did this. A human who in casual conversation would probably strike you as a decent person. When you start assigning such brutality to "monsters" you start looking for the eccentric guy to blame and you forget that the seemingly normal guy next door might be collecting body parts. This makes you less alert and therefore less safe.

They are human, that is enough. The minute you start having to "prove your worth" *snip*

Nobody's asking anyone to prove their worth. This guy proved the lack of his.

Nobody's asking anyone to prove their worth. This guy proved the lack of his.

human life should not be measured by utilitarian worth. He is human. To intentionally take his life is murder

I think this can be best solved with a slight alteration of the harm principle of morality:
Who does killing this guy help?
If you can give a logical answer to that question then you have a basis for killing him.
Until then, you can't kill him because it wouldn't do anybody any good.

He should be smeared with acorn-flavoured butter all over his nekkid body and have a massive pack of hungry squirrels be unleashed onto him in a slimey dungeon.

On what basis can you deny him life? For him to live does not harm you, nor does it harm anyone else.

He should be put in prison for life, so that he can never harm another person. Nothing more.
On the flip side
Besides making you feel better how does it help you or anyone else to keep him alive?

On the flip side
Besides making you feel better how does it help you or anyone else to keep him alive?

because the flip side doesn't work. You should need a REALLY good reason (basically defense of self, defense of others, defense of nation) to take a human life, not a good reason to keep one

human life should not be measured by utilitarian worth. He is human. To intentionally take his life is murder

I was using your vocabulary. This isn't about "utilitarian worth." The fact is this guy's a computer expert. In fact, he says he's got all kinds of evidence of other crimes he's commited on children probably even other murders, but he says he's encrypted them on his computer so well that it would take experts several decades to break his code. He has utilitarian worth as a computer expert. I don't care though. It's about how to redress a wrong that I can see no other reasonable punishment for. This effort to somehow equate him, not with people who have "utilitarian worth," but with anyone who has never claw hammered a family to deah so that they could rape and kill their children is, in my opinoin, wrong headed. He doesn't have to measure up to some average Joe's value to society. He just shouldn't want to rape and murder children.

No one does. Ever. Period.

Killing is sometimes necessary, but it is never good.


Does that include assisted suicide, euthenisation and abortion?

human life should not be measured by utilitarian worth. He is human. To intentionally take his life is murder
Yep.

Besides making you feel better how does it help you or anyone else to keep him alive?We'll never be able to know that if we kill him.

I think this can be best solved with a slight alteration of the harm principle of morality:
Who does killing this guy help?
If you can give a logical answer to that question then you have a basis for killing him.
Until then, you can't kill him because it wouldn't do anybody any good.



I will be verry happy and it will instill in me a great respect for justice .
And by doing that I will helped beyond measure. The huge open wound this slime bag has left on society in general and on humanity will have been allowed to start the healing process because the cause of infection will have been erased .

because the flip side doesn't work. You should need a REALLY good reason (basically defense of self, defense of others, defense of nation) to take a human life, not a good reason to keep oneWe'll have to disagree on what a REALLY good reason is. I think he handed us one.

Does that include assisted suicide

No, because that is the choice the individual makes for his/herself.

euthenisation

Too broad, define further.

and abortion?

You can not get a consensus that a fetus is even a human being, so you won't even get people to agree that this condition applies to abortion.

We'll have to disagree on what a REALLY good reason is. I think he handed us one.

Is he currently acting in such a way as to threaten the lives of others?

Is he currently acting in such a way as to threaten the stability of the government?

No? Then there is NO good reason.

The ONLY good reasons, the ONLY ONES, to take a human life without their consent is if that human is posing a clear and direct threat to another life, or if it is done in the act of national preserverance.

Soheran,

Let's assume that being incarcerated for life is worse than death, and that it's a violation of one's right to freedom of movement. Isn't it then, in some ways, a worse violation of one's rights than depriving them of their life?

Furthermore, let's assume, on top of this, that the death penalty is more efficient as a deterrent of such crimes (regardless of whether or not it is in actuality), and that by living in the given society you accept the condition that if you kill, you will be killed by the legal authorities (as a form of contract). Is, then, the justification for the death penalty still untenable (even if simply out of moral principle)?

I am ambivalent towards the death penalty, but these are valid considerations.

(Anyone else also feel to answer these points I raise).

I will be verry happy and it will instill in me a great respect for justice .
And by doing that I will helped beyond measure. The huge open wound this slime bag has left on society in general and on humanity will have been allowed to start the healing process because the cause of infection will have been erased .

Happiness of one person does not a good excuse make.
And the second part can be done fine by just throwing him in jail.

Soheran, I have a question for you: let's assume that being incarcerated for life is worse than death, and that it's a violation of one's right to freedom of movement. Isn't it then, in some ways, a worse violation of one's rights than depriving them of their life?

Deprivation of life is the worst deprivation of rights as it, by default, deprives you of the right not just to life, but everything else.

Furthermore, let's assume, on top of this, that the death penalty is more efficient as a deterrent of such crimes

I have seen nothing to suggest that.

and that by living in the given society you accept the condition that if you kill, you will be killed by the legal authorities (as a form of contract). Is, then, the justification for the death penalty still untenable (even if simply out of moral principle)?

I do not recall being asked where I wanted to be born.

Deprivation of life is the worst deprivation of rights as it, by default, deprives you of the right not just to life, but everything else.
Prove it. For me, living in a confined space for the rest of my life would be pure torture. I'd rather die.

I have seen nothing to suggest that.
This is an a priori assumption - not subject to questioning.


I do not recall being asked where I wanted to be born.
You have the right to try and influence the society's laws, or to leave the society. No one would accept such an argument in the case of rape - that you didn't choose to be born in a country which penalises rape. Keep in mind, I do not have in mind a specific type of legal structure - simply a society in which this proviso exists.

Is he currently acting in such a way as to threaten the lives of others?

Is he currently acting in such a way as to threaten the stability of the government?

No? Then there is NO good reason.

The ONLY good reasons, the ONLY ONES, to take a human life without their consent is if that human is posing a clear and direct threat to another life, or if it is done in the act of national preserverance.

Again, we'll have to disagree. In my opinion his crimes are a good reason. You need to stop pretending that your argument is a logical one. It is not. Your argument is a moral argument and I don't share those morals. You feel that all born human life is sacred on some level regardless of what the individuals have done with that life. I think there are crimes people can commit that make them worthy of losing that sacred status and I believe that this guy commited such a crime. I'll not pretend that is a logical argument because it is not. Yours isn't either. In this particular case there is no doubt that this guy saw some children in their bathing suits, got a stiffy, stalked the family for several days and finally broke into their house, used a claw hammer to murder the parents and older child so that he could kidnap, rape and ultimately kill two young children. You will absolutely not, under any conditions or with any moral argument, convince me that because he is alive he deserve to stay that way simply because he is a human.

You will absolutely not, under any conditions or with any moral argument, convince me that because he is alive he deserve to stay that way simply because he is a human.

I am quite sure that I will not convince you, however the bolded part is functionally my argument, yes. I also believe that my outlook is the better one, simply because as soon as you start drawing the line about WHEN a human gets to live and when a human gets to die....that line has a tendancy of starting to creep further and further away from where you started.

It is human life. That has to mean something.

Now here's the thing. I present my emotional argument, you present yours, here's my logical reasons:

the death penalty has not been shown to function as a deterent.

it costs more to execute someone than it does to house him for life.

the death penalty is irreversable, and the possibility that an innocent life may be lost is ALWAYS present.

Now, we've both given our emotional reasons, I have also given my logical ones, do you have any logical ones as well?

You can not get a consensus that a fetus is even a human being, so you won't even get people to agree that this condition applies to abortion.

I never said it was human or that killing humans was always bad or that getting a consensus that something is not human is good enough reason to kill it out of hand. I will however claim that you will get a consensus that abortion does include the killing of something, be it human or other.

I am quite sure that I will not convince you, however the bolded part is functionally my argument, yes.

And I understand that. I am simply pointing out that that is a moral stand, not a logical one. It's not like we're arguing about evolution here and I am ignoring your evidence or science altogether. I readily admit that my argument is not logical - but some things must be decided on principle because imperical evidence doesn't exist either way. There is no logical argument for killing this guy - but there is no logical argument for keeping him alive, either. No matter how much you beat around the bush, in this particular case, it comes down to a moral judgement about the sanctity of this guy's life.

but there is no logical argument for keeping him alive, either.

1) it will on average cost more to kill him than keep him

2) there is no data to suggest his death will function as a deterant

3) it will not bring his victims back alive, thus does not serve a rational purpose

4) there is always the SLIGHTEST CHANCE he might not have done it

I can come up with 4.

4) there is always the SLIGHTEST CHANCE he might not have done it
There is always a chance this might be so even with the case of life incarceration - say 20 years later (or even post-mortem), it may be discovered that the person who committed the crime was innocent - hence the reason to have an efficient legal system.

I will however claim that you will get a consensus that abortion does include the killing of something, be it human or other.

The post which you quoted was replying to this:

"Many, many people deserve death"

Obviously this dicussion is about PEOPLE. Humans. Since you can't even get people to agree that a fetus is a person, asking whther that stance covers abortion is somewhat too far aside, as abortion may not even be covered in the idea that "you don't have the right to take a human life".

Nobody ever said a fetus wasn't living.

*Snip*

It is human life. That has to mean something.

Now here's the thing. I present my emotional argument, you present yours, here's my logical reasons:

the death penalty has not been shown to function as a deterent.

it costs more to execute someone than it does to house him for life.

the death penalty is irreversable, and the possibility that an innocent life may be lost is ALWAYS present.

Now, we've both given our emotional reasons, I have also given my logical ones, do you have any logical ones as well?

Your edit came after my quote and now I have to get out of here and go to school so if this thread isn't burried on page 40 by teh time I get to work tomorrow I'll answer.

There is always a chance this might be so even with the case of life incarceration - say 20 years later (or even post-mortem), it may be discovered that the person who committed the crime was innocent - hence the reason to have an efficient legal system.

if he is still alive, then he can be set free and justly compensated for his time in prison.

If he has died before hand, then he has died, and the state did not actively take his life.

if he is still alive, then he can be set free and justly compensated for his time in prison.
Perhaps, but is any amount of compensation really enough for the mental damage he'll have endured? One has to wonder.

If he has died before hand, then he has died, and the state did not actively take his life.
He rotted for his entire life in prison for no reason - it was complicit.

Now here's the thing. I present my emotional argument, you present yours, here's my logical reasons:

the death penalty has not been shown to function as a deterent.

it costs more to execute someone than it does to house him for life.

the death penalty is irreversable, and the possibility that an innocent life may be lost is ALWAYS present.

Now, we've both given our emotional reasons, I have also given my logical ones, do you have any logical ones as well?

If it costs more to kill than it does to house for life no matter their age they are either not using any fiscal sense whatsoever when executing, or they dont live very long in prison, or your lack of numbers may be because numbers dont support this argument.

The recitivism rate of murderers after they are executed is 0

It is significantly higher for those who receive life in prison, especially if you include those murders committed while in prison.

I agree that this kind of shit shouldn't happen. I'm in no way defending the human who did this. I just can't wrap my mind around how a father defending his family and a mother defending her children couldn't take out one guy who isn't even carrying a gun.

It was the middle of the night. I think he snuck up on them when they were asleep.

Put him in the prison general population. These things tend to work themselves out. :) Dead by the end of the week hopefully.

But yeah this guy isn't human in my eyes. Just some rabid animal that needs putting down.


1) it will on average cost more to kill him than keep him
Seriously where is this evidence of that?

Multiple years worth of Food, clothing, lodging, etc.< A few years on Death Row followed by some money to end it all.

????

Get rid of the appeals and the costs go WAYY down.

If it costs more to kill than it does to house for life no matter their age they are either not using any fiscal sense whatsoever when executing, or they dont live very long in prison, or your lack of numbers may be because numbers dont support this argument.

Or the cost of the execution and MANDATORY APPEALS drives it up significantly.

The recitivism rate of murderers after they are executed is 0


if I cut off your hands I can largely gaurentee you will never shoplift. Shall I cut off your hands then? Punishing someone because of what they MIGHT do is not a valid concept within our judicial system.

Seriously where is this evidence of that?

Multiple years worth of Food, clothing, lodging, etc.< A few years on Death Row followed by some money to end it all.

????

Mandatory appeals.

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

"The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level." (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."

That is from a single link from the top of the search "cost of the death penalty versus life in prison"

That is from a single link from the top of the search "cost of the death penalty versus life in prison"
Perhaps it's because it's done inefficiently?

The post which you quoted was replying to this:

"Many, many people deserve death"


You know, if you are going to bullshit you should at least bullshit about things which are difficult to confirm.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2921/screenhunter062rh0.jpg

it costs more to execute someone than it does to house him for life.

Why does it cost more to kill him then to keep him? Because we do it humanly. I say shoot him in the belly with a clip of .22's.




It is human life. That has to mean something.


yep, and in this case his life is worth the time it takes for him to die, shown on prime time.

On what basis can you deny him life? For him to live does not harm you, nor does it harm anyone else.

He should be put in prison for life, so that he can never harm another person. Nothing more.

no harm to anyone else? yea, until a person who is spending the rest of there lives in prison
and has nothing to lose decides
to kill six guards just because it is monday!! Some people commit crimes so heinous they lose the right to live.

I'm not persuaded that killing more people is the answer.

Or the cost of the execution and MANDATORY APPEALS drives it up significantly.



if I cut off your hands I can largely gaurentee you will never shoplift. Shall I cut off your hands then? Punishing someone because of what they MIGHT do is not a valid concept within our judicial system.

The appeals process is mandatory for life imprisonment as well. It is open to all prisoners.

Why would you threaten to cut off my hands? Weirdo.
Do you also intend to imprison everyone for life whether they murder or not because it is humane and makes you feel better?

Do you also intend to imprison everyone for life whether they murder or not because it is [assumed to be] humane and makes you feel better?
Corrected. :)

The appeals process is mandatory for life imprisonment as well. It is open to all prisoners.

Please do not talk unless you know what you are talking about. In the United States anyone who is sentenced to death is granted a MANDATORY APPEALS HEARING to appeal the death sentence. This is above and beyond ANY OTHER POTENTIAL APPEALS. If you are sentenced to death you are AUTOMATICALLY given an appeals hearing. This DOES NOT INCLUDE any other appeals you might have for your conviction.

Why would you threaten to cut off my hands? Weirdo.

If you are going to base your logic of executing someone because it would prevent future crimes then it is certainly a logical extention to cut of your hands to prevent you from committing a future crime.

In other words killing someone because they MIGHT do something later is ludicrus, and fundamentally opposed to our judicial theory.

Do you also intend to imprison everyone for life whether they murder or not because it is humane and makes you feel better?

I believe the punishment should fit the crime to the extent that human rights allow.

Why does it cost more to kill him then to keep him? Because we do it humanly. I say shoot him in the belly with a clip of .22's.


Cute. Also blatantly unconstitutional.

You know, if you are going to bullshit you should at least bullshit about things which are difficult to confirm.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2921/screenhunter062rh0.jpg

If you are going to post you should at least make sure you know what you are posting about.

Your original post questioning the poster whether his statement applied to abortion is erronious because the poster that you were quoting was replying SPECIFICALLY to a top about HUMAN LIFE.

Since a fetus is not universally considered to be HUMAN LIFE, asking whether a standard to be applied to HUMAN LIFE should be applied to a fetus is stupid.

I'm not persuaded that killing more people is the answer.

I'm not persuaded either.

A punishment should fit the crime. A rapist should be castrated. A murderer should be sentenced to death. Its very simple. Modern laws especially in Europe muddy things up too much, murders go relatively unpunished. I go on a very scientific veiw of law for every action there is an equal opposite reaction, so for every crime there should be a repercussion equal to that of the crime.

A punishment should fit the crime. A rapist should be castrated. A murderer should be sentenced to death. Its very simple. Modern laws especially in Europe muddy things up too much, murders go relatively unpunished. I go on a very scientific veiw of law for every action there is an equal opposite reaction, so for every crime there should be a repurcussion equal to that of the crime.

The state should not interfere in the human rights of anyone, even criminals. Applying a "scientific view" to human life is remarkably shortsighted.

The state should not interfere in the human rights of anyone, even criminals. Applying a "scientific view" to human life is remarkably shortsighted.
Whilst I agree for the most part, by incarcerating someone, it already does. ;)

Whilst I agree for the most part, by incarcerating someone, it already does. ;)

well yes and no. The right to life and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are pretty well codified and respected. I don't think most people would say there is a right to avoid any criminal punishment for your actions. I guess it goes into debate as to whether you think the right to freedom of movement by definition applies to justified imprisonment.

well yes and no. The right to life and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are pretty well codified and respected. I don't think most people would say there is not a right to avoid any criminal punishment for your actions. I guess it goes into debate as to whether you think the right to freedom of movement by definition applies to justified imprisonment.
By not incarcerating certain individuals, we'd be giving them free rein to impede on the freedom of others. This is no desirable situation. Even if the State didn't incarcerate them, vigilante groups would deal with them. Punishment always involves the violation of certain rights, ex necessitate. It's simply that most believe the right to life is inviolable, and that incarceration is more humane than death (although I have not seen proof of this).

Put him in the prison general population. These things tend to work themselves out. :)

Actually, you are right. Child rapists and molestors tend to be the bottom of the barrel and most hated in prison, as everyone has a daughter/son, niece/nephew, sister/brother, etc and so on.

If he weren't killed, he'd definately feel what it's like to be on the receiving end of what he did.

By not incarcerating certain individuals, we'd be giving them free rein to impede on the freedom of others. This is no desirable situation. Even if the State didn't incarcerate them, vigilante groups would deal with them. Punishment always involves the violation of certain rights, ex necessitate.

my point is I question whether ones freedom of movement applies to lawful and just conviction. I would argue that perhaps you DO NOT have the freedom of movement when applied to just imprisonment.

There is a reason the crime is refered to as "false imprisonment" after all. I don't think prison necessarily violates anyone's rights as I don't think you have the right to avoid a just prison sentence.

my point is I question whether ones freedom of movement applies to lawful and just conviction. I would argue that perhaps you DO NOT have the freedom of movement when applied to just imprisonment.

There is a reason the crime is refered to as "false imprisonment" after all. I don't think prison necessarily violates anyone's rights as I don't think you have the right to avoid a just prison sentence.
Read my post - I updated it. Anyways, I agree, a society must sometimes perforce limit someone's freedoms when they show they cannot respect the freedoms of others. The thing is, this shows that we've already accepted a certain limitation on rights (no matter how one phrases it) post-criminal activity. Is the death penalty, then, justifiable? It hinges on whether or not the freedom to movement is as inviolable as that to life. What is the point of being alive and in a cage, after all?

A punishment should fit the crime. A rapist should be castrated. A murderer should be sentenced to death. Its very simple. Modern laws especially in Europe muddy things up too much, murders go relatively unpunished. I go on a very scientific veiw of law for every action there is an equal opposite reaction, so for every crime there should be a repercussion equal to that of the crime.The fact that so many people who are sentenced to death are innocent doesn't bother you. With the current number of people who are on death row being exonerated by DNA evidence, it averages out that 1 in 27 people on death row is innocent.

hinges on whether or not the freedom to movement is as inviolable as that to life.

I, for my own particular moralistic view, believe it is not.

What is the point of being alive and in a cage, after all?

Whatever the point may be, that is not our right to decide.

They should kill this Duncan guy. Of course, the odds are he'll be shanked in prison anyway. I've heard that in the prison heirarchy, people like him are the first to be shanked.

But anywho, if they gave people like this the death penalty, it would help relieve some of the stress on our prison sentence.
Who really wants their taxes to go towards feeding this man?

Who really wants their taxes to go towards feeding this man?

Once again, it costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life.

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

I, for my own particular moralistic view, believe it is not.
For me the two rights are interconnected. There is no merit in life if you're encaged.

Whatever the point may be, that is not our right to decide.
It is though, from the moment one contends that dying is worse than life in a cage, so to speak. If we are adopting a humanist pretence, we must at least be able to prove that death is the worst alternative.

This then leaves those in favour of life-incarceration solely with an economic argument in their favour.

For me the two rights are interconnected. There is no merit in life if you're encaged.


Well if we accept two points:

1) crime must be punished

2) death is preferable to imprisonment

doesn't that require that all crimes be punished by execution, for humane reasons? or at least all crimes that would require a sentence greater than the life expectancy of the accused?

Well if we accept two points:

1) crime must be punished

2) death is preferable to imprisonment

doesn't that require that all crimes be punished by execution, for humane reasons? or at least all crimes that would require a sentence greater than the life expectancy of the accused?
I factor in the length of imprisonment for this. Life-incarceration is equiparable to death, as are many longer prison sentences - shorter ones though? This is debatable.

And besides, this would be economically inefficient.

I factor in the length of imprisonment for this. Life-incarceration is equiparable to death, as are many longer prison sentences - shorter ones though? This is debatable.

And besides, this would be economically inefficient.

should economy ever take precidence over human rights? If we think that imprisonment for a long time is worse than death, then isn't it humane to kill? And where do you draw that line? 5 years? 10? 20? 50? Is 5 years in prison for a blind man worse than 20 years for a normal one? Is it better since he can't can't see the difference?

I live in the area in which this happened, so it was big news around here about a year back, and I must admit I am very tempted to support the death penalty for this man.
But I won't.
First of all, because there is no such thing as "Beyond a shadow of a doubt." Sometimes people are intimidated, tricked, or blackmailed into confessing to crimes they did not committ. Sometimes evidence is planted. Sometimes, no matter how likely it seems to be, we're just wrong. We may be 99.9% sure he's guilty, but if we set the line here, it means that we will still be killing one person out of every thousand convicted who was innocent. And we have no right to allow that to happen.

Mr duncan should be put in prison for life, perhaps even in solitary confinement. but on the off chance, the extremely unlikely possibility, that evidence arises proving him innocent, he should be able to be released. And you can't make amends with the dead.

should economy ever take precidence over human rights? If we think that imprisonment for a long time is worse than death, then isn't it humane to kill? And where do you draw that line? 5 years? 10? 20? 50? Is 5 years in prison for a blind man worse than 20 years for a normal one? Is it better since he can't can't see the difference?

If our prisons are so bad that death would be preferable, then we need to fix our prisons. That's an incredibly stupid reason to kill someone.

No there is not. A human being is a human being.

I'm talking psychologically, as well as metophorically. True, he's still a human, but it's people like him who are disgracing humanity today!

And besides! We label things every day! He's a nerd, she's a beauty queen, they're ugly etc. To be human is to sort things out and try to understand them. We say that people with severe mental illnesses (i.e. severe schitzofrania) shouldn't be let into society due to them being a threat. Well, guess what? Prison societies are filled with people who aren't all big time felons! If we keep the people there who are, we just risk the lives of those who have been unrightfully accused! RIGHT? But I digress, let's stop trying to circumvent things by complaining it's "unethical" or "this goes against our rights!" or other stuff like that. You don't have all your rights until you're a legal adult anyways, but you don't see too many angry teens taking to the streets do you? Save the rats! Test on lifers!

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but a life sentence in prison for a child molestor IS a death sentence. I doubt he'll last two years.

should economy ever take precidence over human rights?
When it comes to crime punishment, it must be factored in - not to the exclusion of human rights though.

If we think that imprisonment for a long time is worse than death, then isn't it humane to kill?
Essentially it would be. Causing a person to suffer for their entire life as opposed to simply letting them die is to me less humane. I'll ask you this - let's assume you've been jailed for a crime, and there is no way you will be exonerated. Would you prefer rotting in a jail cell or dying?

And where do you draw that line? 5 years? 10? 20? 50? Is 5 years in prison for a blind man worse than 20 years for a normal one? Is it better since he can't can't see the difference?
I have no answer to this - it's up for debate. I have done what I intended to though.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but a life sentence in prison for a child molestor IS a death sentence. I doubt he'll last two years.

and no petty restrictions on "cruel and inhumane" punishment.

If our prisons are so bad that death would be preferable, then we need to fix our prisons. That's an incredibly stupid reason to kill someone.

We were having a discussion about whether an imprisoned life is preferable to death, not the actual state of the prisons.

I am a strong beliver in "eye for an eye". Kill him.:sniper: I'm kinda partial to the firing squad myself. Or have him beat to death with a hammer. Or maybe put his legs in a wood-chipper and leave him to bleed to death (thanks, Frank Castle!).:mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

Oddly, this thread seems a bit like the pedo threads because of all the posts with lots of yelling and gun smilies.

When it comes to crime punishment, it must be factored in - not to the exclusion of human rights though.


Essentially it would be. Causing a person to suffer for their entire life as opposed to simply letting them die is to me less humane. I'll ask you this - let's assume you've been jailed for a crime, and there is no way you will be exonerated. Would you prefer rotting in a jail cell or dying?


I have no answer to this - it's up for debate. I have done what I intended to though.
It depends on what kind of jail I'm in. if I can read books, write stuff, not get ass raped, or the shit beaten out of me, ect, then I would definitely choose life.

But what gives you the right to choose for other people whether or not they get to die. euthenasia does imply consent.

Once again, if the jails are so utterly inhumane that death would be preferable, we need to fix them.

We were having a discussion about whether an imprisoned life is preferable to death, not the actual state of the prisons.


It seems to me that the actual state of the prisons woul have some bearing on whether an imprisoned life is preferable to death. If it is, it certainly says somethig about the state of the prisons.

It depends on what kind of jail I'm in. if I can read books, write stuff, not get ass raped, or the shit beaten out of me, ect, then I would definitely choose life.

But what gives you the right to choose for other people whether or not they get to die. euthenasia does imply consent.

Once again, if the jails are so utterly inhumane that death would be preferable, we need to fix them.
I have a certain objection to the idea of turning prisons into a hotel of sorts though - they are still meant to deter. Either way, no matter how good the prisons are made, some people will simply prefer freedom to life in a "cage". Maybe the solution is to simply let them kill themselves.

I simply want to strip away this moral superiority certain people assume when they proclaim the death penalty is inherently more inhumane than life incarceration. I do not support it personally. I see either right's violation as equally bad to begin with - therefore to me economic (and teleological) efficiency is the final determinant.

No. Don't kill this bastard. Give him life in jail. Why?

Child molestors aren't even on the bottom rung of a prison's social heirarchy. They are the ground the ladder stands on. Within a year, this bastard will have been everyone's bitch, if he's even still alive. In fact, child molestors have to be put in solitary FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY because every other rapist, killer, and baddie in the place wants a piece of them. Don't you think getting raped and beat up every day for the rest of his short, miserable life is more of a just punishment?

This explains the warning on that Law & Order: Special Victims Unit the other day.

I have a certain objection to the idea of turning prisons into a hotel of sorts though - they are still meant to deter. Either way, no matter how good the prisons are made, some people will simply prefer freedom to life in a "cage". Maybe the solution is to simply let them kill themselves.

I simply want to strip away this moral superiority certain people assume when they proclaim the death penalty is inherently more inhumane than life incarceration. I do not support it personally. I see either right's violation as equally bad to begin with - therefore to me economic (and teleological) efficiency is the final determinant.

It's kind of funney how whenever you discuss giving any kind of prisoner even the slightest of humane treatment, people jump right to "Well, why don't we just put them up in the Hilton, then?" I don't want prison to be a pleasant place to be. But it shouldn't be comparable to hell, either. That just means harder criminals coming out of it.

It's kind of funney how whenever you discuss giving any kind of prisoner even the slightest of humane treatment, people jump right to "Well, why don't we just put them up in the Hilton, then?" I don't want prison to be a pleasant place to be. But it shouldn't be comparable to hell, either. That just means harder criminals coming out of it.
Agreed - my point is simply to indicate that neither right's violation is worse - therefore neither, in my view, enjoys a moral superiority vis-a-vis the other. They are both as bad to begin with. I lean towards life-incarceration for the moment as it seems to be the more efficient solution. Some people will always prefer death to imprisonment - in this case I say let them do as they wish.

Agreed - my point is simply to indicate that neither right's violation is worse - therefore neither, in my view, enjoys a moral superiority vis-a-vis the other. They are both as bad to begin with. I lean towards life-incarceration for the moment as it seems to be the more efficient solution. Some people will always prefer death to imprisonment - in this case I say let them do as they wish.

Life incarceration has the benifit that it can be partially undone if new evidence surfaces. This has in fact happened in the past, and doubtless will continue to happen in the future. Death cannot ever be undone. It is also, for the most part, unnecessary, and is only practiced to fulfill peoples desire for revenge upon those who they feel have wronged them.

Life incarceration has the benifit that it can be partially undone if new evidence surfaces. This has in fact happened in the past, and doubtless will continue to happen in the future. Death cannot ever be undone. It is also, for the most part, unnecessary, and is only practiced to fulfill peoples desire for revenge upon those who they feel have wronged them.
Yes, in terms of efficiency, incarceration is preferrable for a number of reasons - this becomes clear after the moral aspect has been disentangled.

I should clarify that when I mentioned allowing those who prefer death to act on their wishes, I mean suicide. I am pro its legalisation, but this is for another topic, another day.

Life incarceration has the benifit that it can be partially undone if new evidence surfaces. This has in fact happened in the past, and doubtless will continue to happen in the future. Death cannot ever be undone. It is also, for the most part, unnecessary, and is only practiced to fulfill peoples desire for revenge upon those who they feel have wronged them.

The problem with death is that it is improperly and inconsistenly used.

The value of a human life is not conditional.

The fact that he has committed a horrific atrocity does not mean that he does not think and feel, that he does not suffer, that to degrade him and to kill him are not acts to avoid, if possible.

It will not bring back the lives of his victims to kill him; it will merely be an additional death, pointless bloodshed.

So in other words, his life has more value than that of the four people he murdered and the innocence of a raped child.

Infect him with polio, if he survives, he'll be paralized and not able to hurt anyone. :)

So in other words, his life has more value than that of the four people he murdered and the innocence of a raped child.

No, but it does have value, and more to the point, killing him won't do anything to reverse what he did.

No, but it does have value, and more to the point, killing him won't do anything to reverse what he did.

And what value does one place on a human being that can cold-bloodedly smash in three adults' skulls with a hammer, kidnap and rape two pre-pubescent kids, and then murder one of them?

And what value does one place on a human being that can cold-bloodedly smash in three adults' skulls with a hammer, kidnap and rape two pre-pubescent kids, and then murder one of them?

The same value we place on ALL human beings.

The same value we place on ALL human beings.

Yep.

I'm going to try an experiment.
Imagine that this guy is the guy you know best (husband/bf, brother, son, father).
Would you really want the death penalty for him?
I'm gonna just quote something I saw applying this to Osama bin Ladin(link (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere2.html)):

But think of Osama Bin Laden. Did you just picture a camouflaged man hiding in a cave, drawing up suicide missions? Or are you thinking of a man who gets hungry and has a favorite food and who had a childhood crush on a girl and who has athelete's foot and chronic headaches and laughs when a friend farts, a man who wakes up in the morning with a boner and loves volleyball and fusses over his spoiled children and haggles over the price of a car and who goes on Seinfeld-esque rants about too much ice in his drinks?

Something in you, just now, probably was offended by that. You think I'm trying to build sympathy for the murderous bastard. Do you see the equation? Simply knowing random human facts about him immediately tugs at our sympathy strings.

The same value we place on ALL human beings.

Speak for yourself. (Or start a poll.)

...more to the point, killing him won't do anything to reverse what he did.

Peace of mind for the community. Even though there is a one in a be-gillion chance of this guy escaping prision. Those odds are too high! This guy is a freakin monster!!!

Ummm... :confused:

My position is that if a person commits a crime as heinous as this guy did that he has no right to life beyond that. I don't want to go into people's heads when they're born and try to figure out whether they have the ability to feel compassion. I'm content to let their lives show that and decide what to do with them afterwards. An imperfect stance, I know, because it means we are unable to prevent serial killings and all kinds of other heinous acts on the part of sociopaths, but one that we are nonetheless stuck with because there's no way to tell that a person lacks these attributes until they've done something horrible.

You didn't answer the question.

What's the morally relevant difference between a random person without empathy or compassion and the person who committed this crime? A person without empathy or compassion may never have had the opportunity to do it, but just like this man, she would have had no problem doing it. She is equally monstrous.

It thus follows that if you really believe that monstrous people have no value, you should have no problem with someone torturing for fun a person without empathy or compassion, assuming that you knew somehow (why isn't important) that she did. After all, fun is good, and since the person has no value, torturing them can't be wrong, right? Sure, they may suffer, but why should we care?

Well, let's just exand that and make it a little more specific so we know what we are talking about. If this guy accepted the moral authority of the state with regards to killing people so you can rape and kill their children he would not have killed three people so that he could kidnap two young children and rape them and ultimately kill one of them.

However you want to phrase it, the fact is that he has already proven that he cares nothing for the moral authority of the state. You will not accomplish anything by killing him.

Again, I disagree. I think the day this guy gets his needle a great wrong will be redressed as much as is possible.

What will be redressed, and how will it be redressed?

To redress is to make right that which is wrong; where is the wrong being made right here? All I see is a wrong being avenged, not a wrong being redressed.

That's a moral position so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

People argue about moral positions all the time.

Why this person should be executed instead of being incarcerated for life?

"...an analysis of 11 years of prison escape data from three national databases suggests that about 3% of all inmates escape from prison at some time while serving their sentence and that, annually, about 1.4% of the correctional population escapes."

FREQUENCY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PRISON ESCAPES IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL DATA
RICHARD F. CULP
John Jay College of Criminal Justice

I think that if there is any chance he (and I mean this particular case, don't lecture me on the value of the human race in general please) could escape and commit more crimes (lets face it this guy is a wacko and will not be "cured" by any means whilst in jail) is a valid reason for death versus life in prison.

... he say as he ducks for cover under an asbestos blanket...

Meh...either a lifetime of hard labor or a lifetime of experimental medical tests. That's why I'm against animal testing - testing on lifers is likelier to be accurate, and to call them "animals" is an insult to animals.

I'm not so sure about the medical tests, but hard labor? You betcha. Make the fucker work as hard as he can for the rest of his miserable life.

But whatever you do, don't kill him. That puts US on HIS level.

Yes, it is. Suppose Hitler had been captured. Would you have opposed killing him?

Yes, I would have.

Bollocks. People who commit acts like this are beasts, with no worth, who contribute nothing positive to the world.

You do not have to "contribute" anything to be worth something. Human dignity is not conditional.

On the flip side
Besides making you feel better how does it help you or anyone else to keep him alive?

Protecting life is not a matter of rational self-interest.

Does that include assisted suicide, euthenisation and abortion?

No. Abortion does not deal with morally relevant persons and suicide is consensual; euthanasia is sometimes consensual, sometimes deals with people who are not persons, and sometimes is justified just to prevent the suffering of someone incapable of signalling her desire for it to end.

Soheran,

Let's assume that being incarcerated for life is worse than death, and that it's a violation of one's right to freedom of movement. Isn't it then, in some ways, a worse violation of one's rights than depriving them of their life?

Yes, it is. I would rather die than be imprisoned for life.

I would give prisoners that option.

Furthermore, let's assume, on top of this, that the death penalty is more efficient as a deterrent of such crimes (regardless of whether or not it is in actuality), and that by living in the given society you accept the condition that if you kill, you will be killed by the legal authorities (as a form of contract). Is, then, the justification for the death penalty still untenable (even if simply out of moral principle)?

No, if it is used as a deterrent, it can be justified. Of course, the evidence suggests that it is not an effective deterrent, so this does not alter my position.

Fortunately, a life sentence, properly carried out, is tantamount to a death penalty. Just put him in with the general prison population of any maximum security prison, making sure that they know exactly why he's there. He will die, slowly and not in a pretty way. But first, he'll be bitch of the month for everyone there - and frankly it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

Yes, I would have.

At least you're consistent.

I have a family member who I love very much. He's incredibly smart and witty. He's very funny and he'd give any of his friends the shirt off his back. He's generous with both his time and his money. He'll back you up in a fight, bail you out of jail, or let you homestead his couch for a few weeks. He loves animals and will never pass on the chance to save a stray puppy.

Unfortunately, he's also a child molester. He is in prison for a very long time. I have a lot of trouble reconciling the person I know with who he's turned out to be. I know he belongs in prison. But the pain in my heart never goes away. I feel pain for the girls he molested. I was molested myself. But I also feel pain because the person I thought I knew turned out to be a child molester.

He was my favorite brother. Now I can barely make myself write to him. He insists he's innocent and I know he's not. And while I know he deserves prison, I can't see that he deserves to die. He was a victim too. I just chose a better way to deal with it. I spent my teen years doing drugs and slicing my wrists. He kept it inside and faked being ok. This is what it brought him to. He's certainly deserving of the long prison term. But no matter what you say, criminals are human. He has a family that loves him despite what he's become.

Well, forgive my rambling. It's just when I here people say stuff like "Disembowl them and set them on fire" I wonder if they would still say that if they had a guilty family member. If they say "yes", they are either lying or the most coldhearted people alive.

Well, forgive my rambling. It's just when I here people say stuff like "Disembowl them and set them on fire" I wonder if they would still say that if they had a guilty family member. If they say "yes", they are either lying or the most coldhearted people alive.

Many criminals can be reformed and successfully rehabilitated. I'm sure he's one of them.

Scum like the one the OP mentioned cannot.

They should put this scum in general population and make damn sure that everyone knows awhat he is in for.
He should spend the rest of his life getting ass raped by syphillis infected gang members with 12 inch dicks.
I loathe child molesters and child molesters that kill entire families get no sympathy from me.

Death is too good for him!

Whereever they are keeping him imprisoned, just inform the rest of the prison population that this man is a brutal child killer.

The guy's fate will be worse than the State-sanctioned death penalty.

Yes, I would have.

Interesting. Are you Jewish? Guess what he would do to you if you were?


You do not have to "contribute" anything to be worth something. Human dignity is not conditional.

A human yes. This fellow is basically a man tiger. He kills because he has to.

Protecting life is not a matter of rational self-interest.
Sure it is. You want to preserve life because you feel it's the right thing to do.


Yes, it is. I would rather die than be imprisoned for life.

I would give prisoners that option.


That's the problem. It's not guaranteed for life.

No, if it is used as a deterrent, it can be justified. Of course, the evidence suggests that it is not an effective deterrent, so this does not alter my position.

That's the problem with arguing it's a deterrent. It's not. It's the dispencing of injustice for the sake of the community.

It's no guarantee he will remain in prision. There is always the chance of escape. Small as it is. If he got out and killed another famil, what do you say then "oops sorry about that. he won't get out this time."

Time to bring out Mark Twain again ;)

circa 1905-1906

The Ten Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.

We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.

It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.

Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.

No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect -- in a considerable measure -- the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.

For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand -- sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.

Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slaver. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.

But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice" -- they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do.

Yes, it is. I would rather die than be imprisoned for life.

I would give prisoners that option.
Then we are in agreement.

No, if it is used as a deterrent, it can be justified. Of course, the evidence suggests that it is not an effective deterrent, so this does not alter my position.
Likewise - there is little evidence that it is efficient enough to be a preferable alternative to life-incarceration. But in the case of criminals who have been convicted beyond doubt, there should be no pardoning, as it often occurs. They should be made to serve their whole sentence in order for this alternative to maintain its efficiency.

I fully support the death penalty. If you kill a man, you will die by man by seven fold.

Having the Death Penalty in play, is definately a deter to crime.
Some say it's even benefits the economy vs life imprisonment.

http://www.econ.ilstu.edu/uauje/PDF's/issue1996/Death_Penalty.pdf

On what basis can you deny him life? For him to live does not harm you, nor does it harm anyone else.

He should be put in prison for life, so that he can never harm another person. Nothing more.

The money spent/wasted on housing him could be much better spent improving the lives of countless people throughout the nation. Keeping him alive harms all those that that money could have helped.

Also - there is potential for future harm if he ever escapes or gets out of jail.

I fully support the death penalty. If you kill a man, you will die by man by seven fold.

Having the Death Penalty in play, is definately a deter to crime.
Some say it's even benefits the economy vs life imprisonment.

http://www.econ.ilstu.edu/uauje/PDF's/issue1996/Death_Penalty.pdf

I thought it was pretty established that the death penalty does not do much for deterrent. Hell - 25 years of butt rape does not deter these people, how does a relatively cushy leathal injection deter them any more?

Personally I don't see any problem with justifying the death penalty on the basis of:
Revenge.
Punishment.
Cost of Imprisonment.
Prevention of Future Crime.

But the deterrent rguement is not that strong.

You didn't answer the question.Because it was dumb. "You're pro death penalty? You must like to torture people!"

What's the morally relevant difference between a random person without empathy or compassion and the person who committed this crime? A person without empathy or compassion may never have had the opportunity to do it, but just like this man, she would have had no problem doing it. She is equally monstrous.There's no test for that. There's no way to know whether they have compassion or empathy until they have lived their lives and shown that they do or don't.

It thus follows that if you really believe that monstrous people have no value, you should have no problem with someone torturing for fun a person without empathy or compassion, assuming that you knew somehow (why isn't important) that she did. After all, fun is good, and since the person has no value, torturing them can't be wrong, right? Sure, they may suffer, but why should we care?No it doesn't. That's just stupid. I don't get off on torturing people so even if there was some magical test for empathy I still wouldn't want to torture someone. In anycase, it is not a crime to not have empathy. There are plenty of psychophants out there right now who are so self centered that they have no empathy and they don't kill people.



However you want to phrase it, the fact is that he has already proven that he cares nothing for the moral authority of the state. You will not accomplish anything by killing him.And people who steal cars don't care about the authority of the state. Let's stop punishing them. It's irrelevent whether he accepts that the state has the moral authority to tell him he can't rape and murder children. I don't think the right of the state to do that is in question by any reasonable person. The state still has the right to exert it's authority to prevent it and punish the act when it is unable to prevent it.



What will be redressed, and how will it be redressed?What will be redressed is that this guy murdered a family so he could fuck their kids. The way that it will be redressed is that he will be punished for his crime. In this case I feel that death is an appropriate way to punish this crime.

To redress is to make right that which is wrong; where is the wrong being made right here? All I see is a wrong being avenged, not a wrong being redressed.Revenge is an act of the wronged. In this case the wronged had nothing to do with it. The state is the entity that will sentence this guy to death, not the little girl who was raped and who had her family killed in front of her so she could be used as a sex toy or the surviving relatives. Though I'm sure they'll very much appreciate it, they won't hand down the sentence not partake in the death. If you consider this revenge then we shoudl never punish any crime ever.



People argue about moral positions all the time.

And that's fine. As long as you don't pretend that it's a logical argument. I'm not saying you have, it's just important to my position that it be stated that my argument is not a logical one but that it need not be because the opposing position is a moral argument as well and enjoys no logical superiority.

The same value we place on ALL human beings.

That's ridiculous. You're telling me that this guy has the same value as, say, Mozart or Mother Terresa or Albert Einstein.

Every child born into this world has the potential to do amazing things and that should be recognized. From that point on you decide what your life is worth by your actions. This guy's ations showed that his life was worth negative four human beings and the innocence of the one child he left alive so he owes more than his death can repay.

I find it amusing how the anti-death penalty people appear to cry for the rights of these murderers and destroyers of life than the victims of these murders and destroyers of life. :D

That's ridiculous. You're telling me that this guy

You can stop right there. As a human being he has the right to life. A right should be absolute and inalienable. Once you allow any entity the legal authority to strip your rights away then it no longer becomes a right, it becomes a privlidge.

The death penalty creates a situation in which the state has the legal authority to end someone's life, not as an act of defense, but as an act of punishment. This is the same as saying that the state deems you worthy to live or not. That you life is a privlidge the state gives you, and the state can take away that right.

And it doesn't matter if that privlidge only gets revoked for murderers, or rapists, or litterers, or even just political dissenters. To allow the state to have legal authority to take someone's life outside of defense is to allow them the ability to decide who lives and who dies, it turns our right to life into a privlidge to be extended, or denied, by the state.

I find it amusing how the anti-death penalty people appear to cry for the rights of these murderers and destroyers of life than the victims of these murders and destroyers of life. :D

Nice fallacy.

Show me one person, JUST ONE PERSON who said he should not be punished. Hell show me one person who advocated he should spend anything less than life in prison for them.

He's a murderer, most likely, and should be punished for that. That punishment however does not mean that the state should have the power to strip him from his right to life.

And the argument of "well he took their lives so we can take his" states only that it's ok to strip someone of his rights if he stripped one of others. So how can we justify both taking this man's right to life in punishment for taking someone elses?

Let him live. I figure the inmates will kill him anyways.

testing drugs on prisoners? hadn't thought of that - seems like a great idea

Nice fallacy.

Show me one person, JUST ONE PERSON who said he should not be punished. Hell show me one person who advocated he should spend anything less than life in prison for them.

He's a murderer, most likely, and should be punished for that. That punishment however does not mean that the state should have the power to strip him from his right to life.

And the argument of "well he took their lives so we can take his" states only that it's ok to strip someone of his rights if he stripped one of others. So how can we justify both taking this man's right to life in punishment for taking someone elses?

We take people's rights away all the time for commiting crimes. We take away people's freedom of movement. We take away their right to bare arms. We take away their right to vote. With some offenders we even dictate where they can and can't live if they get out of prison.

We take people's rights away all the time for commiting crimes. We take away people's freedom of movement. We take away their right to bare arms. We take away their right to vote. With some offenders we even dictate where they can and can't live if they get out of prison.

We take away their right to go sleeveless? I thought that was Saudi Arabia. :confused:

We take people's rights away all the time for commiting crimes. We take away people's freedom of movement. We take away their right to bare arms. We take away their right to vote. With some offenders we even dictate where they can and can't live if they get out of prison.

Your freedom of movement does not include your freedom from just punishment.

Likewise none of those are as important and tantamount as the right to life. The death penalty does nothing more than allow the government the power to decide which citizens live, and which die. That power should never be given to civil authority.

The government should not, ever, be able to say "this person dies".

You also assume that I am in favor of certain restrictions on prisoners such as the removal of their right to vote. I am not. I think ALL adult citizens should be allowed to participate in the political process, and am VERY strongly against limitations on voting rights of prisoners.

The argument of "we should be able to do this bad thing because we already do all these other bad things" is a poor argument.

We take away their right to go sleeveless? I thought that was Saudi Arabia. :confused:

Whatever. :mad:

[QUOTE=PsychoticDan;11817785]I agree, though, that in this case it is just a formality. Those standards have obviously been met in this case and no judge or jury would spare this guy.

Being a court reporter, I'm sorry to say that you shouldn't ever try to predict what a jury will do. There's no decision so ludicrous that they're not capable of making it, and no defendant so guilty that there isn't a very real risk of them finding him not guilty. That's why defendants get reduced sentences for pleading guilty.

Your freedom of movement does not include your freedom from just punishment.And in this case I think the just punishment is death.

Likewise none of those are as important and tantamount as the right to life.And the crimes for which we imprison people are not as heinous as those for which the death penalty is reserved. You have to have commited a crime that meets a very stringent set of criteria in order to even be elligible for it. Murder is not sufficient in and of itself.

The death penalty does nothing more than allow the government the power to decide which citizens live, and which die. That power should never be given to civil authority.You say that as though it's just some beaurocracy that decides. A person must first be found guilty, unanimously guilty, by a jury of twelve citizens. Once that person has been found guilty of the initial crime they also have to be found guilty of the aggravating circumstances. For example, if a guy raped and killed a woman he is eligible for the death penalty, but if he just shot her he isn't. If a jury finds him guilty of shooting her but is unconvinced that he raped her before hand then he can't get the death penalty no matter what the judge thinks. Finally, there is a penalty phase at which the prosecution and defense can give their testimony as to why the perpetrator does or does not deserve death and in some states you also need a jury reccomendation for death as the penalty. It's not just some monolithic agency who decides this person lives or dies.

The government should not, ever, be able to say "this person dies".That's an opinion. My opinion differs for the reasons stated above. please don't give me slippery slope 'ause I'll just tell you I don't buy it.

You also assume that I am in favor of certain restrictions on prisoners such as the removal of their right to vote. I am not. I think ALL adult citizens should be allowed to participate in the political process, and am VERY strongly against limitations on voting rights of prisoners. Fuck that noise. You commit a violent felony you don't vote. My opinoin differs again.

The argument of "we should be able to do this bad thing because we already do all these other bad things" is a poor argument.

I don't consider punishing someone for their crimes a bad thing. Since I already stated that I agree with the death penalty in certain cases I don't agree that we're addressing a wrong with a wrong. In my opinion we're addressing a wrong with justice.

[QUOTE=PsychoticDan;11817785]I agree, though, that in this case it is just a formality. Those standards have obviously been met in this case and no judge or jury would spare this guy.

Being a court reporter, I'm sorry to say that you shouldn't ever try to predict what a jury will do. There's no decision so ludicrous that they're not capable of making it, and no defendant so guilty that there isn't a very real risk of them finding him not guilty. That's why defendants get reduced sentences for pleading guilty.

Point taken. They did catch this guy with the girl, though, and the only case he has left is the federal case and since he already plead guilty at the state level it's gonna be a hard fight for his defender.

In my opinion we're addressing a wrong with justice.

And in my opinion intentionally taking a life outside of defense is murder. I am familiar with how the death penalty process works, I'm a lawyer. It doesn't matter who makes the choice, it is the act of the government which intentionally takes a person's life, that is, in my opinion, murder, not justice.

Now since I can not change your emotional opinion, regardless of how wrong I think it is, and you can not change mine, I have presented 5 logical reasons to be opposed to the death penalty, namely:

1) it has not been shown to act as a deterrant
2) it is cheaper to jail someone for life than execute them
3) it serves no practical purpose as it does not minimize or alter the guilty party's actions
4) it prevents any possible chance of error correction if the conviction was a mistake
5) just to throw it out there, it eliminates any possibility of rehabilitation

Therefore the death penalty fails on any possible logical reason I can give. It has no economic insentive as it is more expensive, it has no utilitarian function as there's no proof it stops crime any more than life in prison does, it has no practical purpose as it does not alter the acts of the accused, it has no societal value as it prevents the possibility of rehabilitation, and it it can not be taken back if improperly applied.

So no utilitarian function, no economic benefit, no practical purpose, and no chance to compensate someone if they are executed wrongly

So we both have our emotional appeals, I have 5 logical ones. So tell me, without appealing to emotion, what practical, logical purpose does it serve?

Now I know you're going to pull the "it prevents him from doing it again!" argument, which fails on two reasons. First it doesn't PREVENT, it possibly lessens, but unless you take him from the court house, drag him out, and shoot him, he still has several years in prison to either do something IN prison, or escape from it. Second, punishing someone for what he MIGHT do in the future is completely counter to our judicial theories which says we punish for what you DID DO ALREADY not what you MIGHT DO LATER. So to say you can execute someone because he MIGHT escape and MIGHT murder is functionally no different than the state killing you, because you MIGHT do it some day. SO I proactively reject that argument for lack of justification.

Escape may be a legitimate reason to kill this person. Revenge is not.



No one made them choose the job.



You'd rather spend the money on making sure the "monsters" are actually guilty? (Or perhaps you want to dispense with that as well?)



And showing, in return, that we have no regard for him would merely increase the overall suffering and death in the world.

Hardly a worthy cause.

I never suggested revenge.

Prison guards dont deserve to be exposed to these people.

I stated when they are proven guilty beyond any doubt. I dont suggest mob lynching.

No- eliminating him would reduce suffering and the possibilty of his causing future suffering.
Dont use your own ignorane to try to put the wrong words in my mouth.

I really think they should expedite these death penalties instead of waiting 10-20 yrs. I say give them a chance to appeal but give the expiration date of 5 years. If you can't prove yourself innocent in that time frame. Sorry, and also, we need to do it a bit more cost effective too. It's outragious how much money it costs to kill someone on death row.

As for the person who stated earlier about family members.....If someone in my family committed a crime such as the killing of a child...then call me cold hearted.....they get what they deserve.....the Death Penalty.

*snip*

1) it has not been shown to act as a deterrantNeither has prison. We put people there anyway. In fact, we put people there for long periods of time and they get out and reoffend right away. I'm not sure how you measure how much a punishment deters someone from commiting a crime because I've never read a report with detailed statistics on how many crimes are not commited because of the possible punishment. Long and the short, I know there is no analyisis that shows that capital punishment deters crime but the deterent effect, while desirable, is not the sole reason for punishing someone. If it were we'd have a hard time punishing anyone.



2) it is cheaper to jail someone for life than execute themI also don't agree that the cost of the punishment should be a primary consideration in deciding punishment.



3) it serves no practical purpose as it does not minimize or alter the guilty party's actionsNor does jail time bring back my stolen car.


4) it prevents any possible chance of error correction if the conviction was a mistakeI try to avoid this because it opens a whole can of worms and in this debate I wanted to stick to the moral debate of whether the death penalty is morally acceptable, but since you brought it up I'll respond. We're gonna be going at it for several more pages, though.

*clears throat*

I am unaware of any person being executed in the U.S. who was later found to be innocent in the last 50+ years. Make sure you read what I said because people automatically respond with, "They just let such and such out because he has no penis," or whatever. I said ACTUALLY EXECUTED. The fact that people get out when it is found that a trial irregularity ocurred or some peice of evidence came up missing says to me that the system of safeguards that we have in place works. They weren't executed because the states and feds decided that if we are going to have a death penalty then we'll need to have safeguards such as automatic appeals. People get those appeals and sometimes they end up having their penalty overturned and sometimes they even go free. Having said that, I am also unaware of anyone in the last 50+ years having their capital sentence overturned because they were found to be INNOCENT. I've never heard of a case where they caught the guy who actually did it or some DNA evidence actually exonerated them. It's always because there was some irregularity in the trial or with the evidence. The police didn't have a warrent for the guys house when they found the little girls corpse in the basement. They didn't have a warrent for the hamper where they found the bloody jeans. They lost the computer that had all the kiddy porn on it. Whatever.


5) just to throw it out there, it eliminates any possibility of rehabilitationDon't care in this case or anyone like it.

*snip*
So we both have our emotional appeals, I have 5 logical ones. So tell me, without appealing to emotion, what practical, logical purpose does it serve?None, but as I have said since the beginning my position is not a logical one, but no logical argument is enough to sway my moral one for me. It's not even that I wouldn't be in favor of more safeguards or more stringent standards as to how it is applied. But in a case like this I see no moral problem with this guy being put to death for what he has done.

Now I know you're going to pull the "it prevents him from doing it again!" argument, which fails on two reasons. *snip*

I never bring that up for two reason.

1. While it does prevent him from doing it again I recognize that if this person doens't get death he'll surely never see the outside again.

2. It doesn't stop other child raping perverts from doing thsi and it doesn't matter who does this to a child,

Having said that I am in favor of a life sentence for aggravated child molestation. That would help because when these guys get out, infact the guy in this case had been convicted and served time for it before, they tend to reoffend.

Your freedom of movement does not include your freedom from just punishment.
Does your right to life include it though? As I said before, to me the one right without the other means little. The only way to argue this is to show somehow that the right to freedom of movement is not inalienable. However, this has another undesirable effect - now mandatory incarceration is justifiable, as opposed to killing citizens. If we surrender the right to freedom (instead of that to life), we're again giving the government a certain power.

Don't take this as support for the death penalty - I am simply questioning the assumptions behind these arguments.

just take him behind the chemical shed and shoot him, no media, no jury no costs except a bullet (which you can bill to the family or some such)

Fucking murder everyone :sniper: :sniper: :headbang: :headbang:

I am so pro death penalty. If not the death penalty, what? This guy not only deserves teh death penalty, if it were up to me he'd get death by pit bull.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/duncan.trial.ap/index.html
So much for not stooping to his level. :rolleyes:

It would be a more painful punishment if he were just stuffed away in a prison cell, forced to live with the knowledge of why he's in it, day after day.

I dunno about you, but I think living with the knowledge that you took several people's lives would be pretty horrible.

I dunno about you, but I think living with the knowledge that you took several people's lives would be pretty horrible.
Some people are amoral - they really do not care. Or, better yet, they don't see the wrongness in their actions.

Some people are amoral - they really do not care. Or, better yet, they don't see the wrongness in their actions.
That may be the case for some people, but that doesn't mean we can continue passing vengeance off as justice.

I agree that this kind of shit shouldn't happen. I'm in no way defending the human who did this. I just can't wrap my mind around how a father defending his family and a mother defending her children couldn't take out one guy who isn't even carrying a gun.

I believe that he broke into the house and bludgeoned them to death in their sleep.