another botched execution.

[methylatedghosts]

What is it you are hoping to achieve with the death penalty? And how does the death penalty help to attain that goal?

 

[Poisonshady313]

What is it you are hoping to achieve with the death penalty? And how does the death penalty help to attain that goal?

Permanently and absolutely removing from existence individuals who have proven that they have no regard for human life or the rule of law. I'm fairly certain the answer to the second question is obvious.

You might respond "keeping them in prison should prevent them from ever being a threat again".

I would respond that the past 40 years have proven that it's easier said than done.

Why feed, clothe, shelter, and provide medical care to someone who can't be trusted not to commit murder? The government doesn't provide all of this for me... and I never killed anyone.

 

[oldbadger]

Here's a list. 41 Federal Capital Offenses - Death Penalty - ProCon.org
The list isn't exhaustive. I'm sure I'd include a couple of statutes similar to those used by several states, such as death penalty for the murder of a child.

And none of this "life without parole" crap. It's essentially a death sentence, except the method of execution is time itself. LWOP sentences ought to be upgraded to death sentences. Same goes for "multiple life sentences", sentences which are longer than 100 years, or any other sentence where the court feels that the convict deserves to never be free again and will die behind bars.

My minimum age for sentencing a person to death is 18.

10-20 years.

Sure. In any event, there must be ways to reduce the cost of capital punishment without altogether abolishing it.


As I said, simple, low tech solutions exist (or could be instituted), including but not limited to hanging, firing squad, and guillotine.

And I agree with Texas' decision not to offer a special last meal. Let the murderer have what the other inmates are having.

Well..... I've got to hand it to you. You are honest, forthright, committed and direct in all your answers.

..... and in many States you have already got most of what you want.

One more thing. Since the whole process costs so many millions anyway, would you support the idea of paying ten million dollars out (immediately) to the direct relatives of anybody who is ever executed in error?

And would you support your chosen sentence (death penalty) for anybody who gives false statement or testimony in a murder trial? Any deliberate lie should attract an equally severe sentence?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As for your last set of questions...Not sure how to reduce the cost. Some ideas include having a standard, inexpensive method of execution. Hanging. Firing squad. Guillotine. Something where you don't have to depend on drug manufacturers or medical professionals. Something where you don't have frivolous appeals regarding whether or not a new and different drug cocktail is "safe" for putting someone to death.

The cost isn't from the execution itself, but from appeals and other things to try and make sure they aren't putting an innocent person down.
And how humanitarian of you do view appeals into chop and hack executions as frivolous. Should we start to hang, draw and quarter again? Or what about impalement? How about we just start boiling people again?

As a society, we are ok putting innocent lives at risk on a daily basis on a far greater scale than capital punishment.

The possibility of innocent people dying doesn't stop surgeons from cutting people open. It doesn't stop airline pilots from taking off.

That is not even comparable. Surgery involves us going under voluntarily. If their life ends, they were not strapped down and forced to die. If you die in a place crash, it wasn't because the state demanded you must die for a crime you did not commit.

Why feed, clothe, shelter, and provide medical care to someone who can't be trusted not to commit murder? The government doesn't provide all of this for me... and I never killed anyone.

I wouldn't be jealous of their food, their clothes, or their medical care. Not unless your aspirations in life include high starch diets and low-quality processed leftovers as food, band-aids as your primary health care option, and clothes with no elastic. You can find better for all three at Goodwill. And shelter? That is like being jealous of inmates for "having it made" because they get to cram into a cell and watch some movie that someone else always picks.
It's also not sinking down to their level.

You say as if being imprisoned for life was, as a matter of fact, better than the death penalty for the innocents.
That's nothing more than your opinion.

Yes, it's better than requiring someone who is innocent to die. In the case of murder, this means at least one life was already lost, that someone already lost a father, a sister, son, niece, or so on. Why should we insist that another mother, daughter, brother, or uncle lose a family member?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Permanently and absolutely removing from existence individuals who have proven that they have no regard for human life or the rule of law. I'm fairly certain the answer to the second question is obvious.

Actually, it begs that the second part be asked again.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, it's better than requiring someone who is innocent to die.

This is nothing more than your opinion. Period.

In the case of murder, this means at least one life was already lost, that someone already lost a father, a sister, son, niece, or so on. Why should we insist that another mother, daughter, brother, or uncle lose a family member?

Are you talking about a murderer or about an innocent being sentenced to death?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've served on a jury.
I've seen how unreliable eye witnesses are.
I've seen what tricks prosecutors will pull.
Justice is not very reliable, so it should be possible to reverse sentences. Can't do that when they're dead.

 

[methylatedghosts]

There was a woman, here in NZ, who some time ago killed her husband who was controlling and verbally abusive. After 20 or so years of marriage she'd had enough, and this was the last resort for her to make it stop. She's now halfway through a 20 year prison sentence, and will probably be out in the next few years on parole.

Why should she get sentenced to death?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Permanently and absolutely removing from existence individuals who have proven that they have no regard for human life or the rule of law. I'm fairly certain the answer to the second question is obvious.

So the exception to the human lives one should have regard for are those you'd kill?

You might respond "keeping them in prison should prevent them from ever being a threat again".

I would respond that the past 40 years have proven that it's easier said than done.

Separate issue. Quality of prisons could do with much improvement in many areas to improve the safety and well being of the people in prison.

Why feed, clothe, shelter, and provide medical care to someone who can't be trusted not to commit murder? The government doesn't provide all of this for me... and I never killed anyone.

Because they are just as human as you and I. The govt doesn't provide those things to you because you are capable of freely going about to do those things yourself. And for those who can't, that's why there are welfare programmes and sickness benefits etc. But that's kind of besides the point, really.

 

[methylatedghosts]

We don't even give the choice to die to suffering, law abiding, terminally ill people. It seems unfair to offer this choice to a convicted murderer. The murderer has proven that left to his own devices, he will unlawfully take the life of another person with malice aforethought. Such an individual shouldn't be allowed to choose his own fate once convicted by a jury of his peers.

Euthanasia is a separate issue entirely unrelated to the death sentence

 

[Poisonshady313]

Well..... I've got to hand it to you. You are honest, forthright, committed and direct in all your answers.

..... and in many States you have already got most of what you want.

One more thing. Since the whole process costs so many millions anyway, would you support the idea of paying ten million dollars out (immediately) to the direct relatives of anybody who is ever executed in error?

Not sure about that specific number, but yes something significant should be paid to the direct relatives, and it shouldn't come from the taxpayers. It should come from the prosecutors and/or the witnesses responsible for knowingly getting an innocent person sentenced to death.

And would you support your chosen sentence (death penalty) for anybody who gives false statement or testimony in a murder trial? Any deliberate lie should attract an equally severe sentence?

Yes

 

[Poisonshady313]

The cost isn't from the execution itself, but from appeals and other things to try and make sure they aren't putting an innocent person down.
And how humanitarian of you do view appeals into chop and hack executions as frivolous. Should we start to hang, draw and quarter again? Or what about impalement? How about we just start boiling people again?

I feel like I've already made myself clear on this issue. Hanging and the firing squad are two currently legal, yet puzzlingly underused methods of execution in not enough states.

That is not even comparable. Surgery involves us going under voluntarily. If their life ends, they were not strapped down and forced to die. If you die in a place crash, it wasn't because the state demanded you must die for a crime you did not commit.

The point isn't whether or not it's voluntary. The point is, as a society, we have no problem putting them at risk in this way. A flight is successful when it arrives safely at its destination. An execution is successful when the condemned inmate was rightfully convicted. Both situations carry the risk of error, the consequence of which is the loss of innocent lives, and yet for some reason you seem ok with one but not the other.

I wouldn't be jealous of their food, their clothes, or their medical care. Not unless your aspirations in life include high starch diets and low-quality processed leftovers as food, band-aids as your primary health care option, and clothes with no elastic. You can find better for all three at Goodwill. And shelter? That is like being jealous of inmates for "having it made" because they get to cram into a cell and watch some movie that someone else always picks.
It's also not sinking down to their level.

I'm not jealous. But I do believe it is a waste of resources to keep murderers alive.

Yes, it's better than requiring someone who is innocent to die. In the case of murder, this means at least one life was already lost, that someone already lost a father, a sister, son, niece, or so on. Why should we insist that another mother, daughter, brother, or uncle lose a family member?

That is a consequence that the murderer accepted for himself and his family when he chose to commit a capital crime in a jurisdiction that sanctions capital punishment.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I've served on a jury.
I've seen how unreliable eye witnesses are.
I've seen what tricks prosecutors will pull.
Justice is not very reliable, so it should be possible to reverse sentences. Can't do that when they're dead.

That's what the appeals process is for.

On the flip side, there have been wrongly convicted individuals not sentenced to death who die in prison anyhow. Such individuals are no less innocent than a wrongly executed individual, and his fate is no less reversible.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So the exception to the human lives one should have regard for are those you'd kill?

The exception to the human lives one should have regard for are those who commit first degree murder.

Separate issue. Quality of prisons could do with much improvement in many areas to improve the safety and well being of the people in prison.

I'm not just talking about people in prison. I'm talking about innocent people on the outside who would still be alive had their murderer been put to death, rather than relying on the system to "keep them in prison".

Because they are just as human as you and I.

One big difference is, they forfeited the safety and protection that the law affords the rest of us because they committed murder.

The govt doesn't provide those things to you because you are capable of freely going about to do those things yourself. And for those who can't, that's why there are welfare programmes and sickness benefits etc. But that's kind of besides the point, really.

Those on welfare programs are given less than they should be because we're wasting valuable resources on murderers who should be six feet under ground.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Euthanasia is a separate issue entirely unrelated to the death sentence

I wouldn't say it's entirely unrelated. We're talking about ending someone's life. We're talking about suffering and torture. It ought to be those who are terminally ill whose suffering cannot be relieved who ought to be given the option of a quick and painless death, while those who are sentenced to death for a capital crime ought to be put to death regardless of what he might experience in the hour or two before death.

A convicted murderer sentenced to death deserves all the due process he's entitled to as an American citizen. And when those appeals are exhausted, and all that is left is to flip the switch, that's not the time to be wringing our hands about whether his end will be met peacefully.

 

[Koldo]

There was a woman, here in NZ, who some time ago killed her husband who was controlling and verbally abusive. After 20 or so years of marriage she'd had enough, and this was the last resort for her to make it stop. She's now halfway through a 20 year prison sentence, and will probably be out in the next few years on parole.

Why should she get sentenced to death?

What do you mean by 'last resort'? Why couldn't she just breakup?

 

[Poisonshady313]

There was a woman, here in NZ, who some time ago killed her husband who was controlling and verbally abusive. After 20 or so years of marriage she'd had enough, and this was the last resort for her to make it stop. She's now halfway through a 20 year prison sentence, and will probably be out in the next few years on parole.

Why should she get sentenced to death?

Was he physically abusive? Did she believe her life was in danger?

If it was self defense, she shouldn't be serving any time. If she was putting up with 20 years of physical abuse and feared it could get worse, but killed him when fear for her life was not imminent, then perhaps some lesser charge of murder. No death penalty.

But if she murdered a man with malice aforethought because of verbal abuse? That's not a viable method of conflict resolution.

 

[McBell]

There was a woman, here in NZ, who some time ago killed her husband who was controlling and verbally abusive. After 20 or so years of marriage she'd had enough, and this was the last resort for her to make it stop. She's now halfway through a 20 year prison sentence, and will probably be out in the next few years on parole.

Why should she get sentenced to death?

Was she sentenced to death?
Doesn't sound like it to me.

So I am confused by your question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you talking about a murderer or about an innocent being sentenced to death?

I am talking about the the family of the victim, and also the family of the murderer, who will also be loosing a family member because the state demanded it.

The point isn't whether or not it's voluntary. The point is, as a society, we have no problem putting them at risk in this way. A flight is successful when it arrives safely at its destination. An execution is successful when the condemned inmate was rightfully convicted. Both situations carry the risk of error, the consequence of which is the loss of innocent lives, and yet for some reason you seem ok with one but not the other.

They are not comparable in such a way. One is an entirely voluntary risk, the other is state mandated.

That is a consequence that the murderer accepted for himself and his family when he chose to commit a capital crime in a jurisdiction that sanctions capital punishment.

Why should another family be deprived over it? Prison does disrupt families, and I do support removing murderers from society, at least for a time (each case should be reviewed strictly on a case-by-case basis), prison does not completely and permanently deprive the family. And if the condemned is innocent, now there are two families who have been unjustly deprived because the state demanded the one judged guilty should die.

What do you mean by 'last resort'? Why couldn't she just breakup?

It's not always that easy. If he was that controlling, he would have stalked her, and it could have put her at an even greater risk. It's an entirely discussion though really, and it's really not so simply of an answer as it involves knowledge of the dynamics of abusive relationships. And because she was with him for twenty years, it's very likely he severed her social ties, making it even harder to escape.
It's one of those things that are if it were really that easy, why doesn't happen more often?

 

[Koldo]

I am talking about the the family of the victim, and also the family of the murderer, who will also be loosing a family member because the state demanded it.

The murderer should have taken into consideration how his/her family would feel about this before he/she murdered.
Likewise, it is not like we are supposed to care whether people would suffer with their family member being jailed for life either.

It's not always that easy. If he was that controlling, he would have stalked her, and it could have put her at an even greater risk. It's an entirely discussion though really, and it's really not so simply of an answer as it involves knowledge of the dynamics of abusive relationships. And because she was with him for twenty years, it's very likely he severed her social ties, making it even harder to escape.
It's one of those things that are if it were really that easy, why doesn't happen more often?

I know it is not so simple. Yet, since no mention of a threat to her life has been mentioned I had to ask why she didn't just break up. There are many possible interpretations to the scenario he mentioned. What should be her punishment, according to my opinion, for doing such a crime could vary between nothing at all ( not guilty ) and death penalty, depending strictly on the circumstances. As such, I was seeking further information on that case.