another botched execution.

[Shadow Wolf]

That's for each person to decide.

That doesn't work in a legal setting. It can also be said that those who are ok with innocents being put to death, and do not have a problem with the death penalty over the resulting loss of innocent life, lack empathy.

 

[Koldo]

........ extremely interesting para....
One question for clarification. Do you include reckless acts along with intentional acts? In the UK we often see the descriptions like ;- ' ....intentionally, or if s/he was reckless.........'

No, I don't.

...... but you have not included 'beyond reason of the mind'...... ??? Would you like to...?

I am sorry but I don't comprehend what you mean by 'beyond reason of the mind'. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

.... so, if a psychiatrist declares that a killer of 45 had a mental age of 12, then it would be hospital-prison?

I would say that a mental age of 12 is more than enough to understand the consequences of murder.

One more question:- How would you execute 'death-sentence' convicts?

I wouldn't have any particular preference.

 

[Koldo]

That doesn't work in a legal setting.

We live on democracies. Those who create our laws are elected by us.
It is the conglomerate of personal opinions about the law that make what it is.

It can also be said that those who are ok with innocents being put to death, and do not have a problem with the death penalty over the resulting loss of innocent life, lack empathy.

Those who say so would lack forethought. Innocents will suffer no matter what path we take. Both the death penalty and life imprisonment can screw up an innocent's life completely. And even if we were to reject either, and rather choose more limited sentences with rehabilitation we would still be left with some murderers killing innocents again and again, since nothing we can do is failproof.

 

[oldbadger]

No, I don't.

Fine..... ok..... intentional only. So if a killer can prove the act was only reckless then it would be a prison term, by your viewpoint.

I am sorry but I don't comprehend what you mean by 'beyond reason of the mind'. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Basically speaking 'beyond reason of the mind' covers a number of conditions, from insanity, to temporary insanity to outright trauma thru fear..... the French accept some murders are 'crimes of passion', where a person is so 'madly' in love that they are driven to kill.
We killed Rith Ellis over the second bullet she fired, not the first...... we never should have executed her IMO.

[/QUOTE]I would say that a mental age of 12 is more than enough to understand the consequences of murder.

OK....... in the UK we have known killers of 12 and 11. Our age of criminal responsibility is about 10 (I forget) ..... so your viewpoint would be that it's right and just to execute children who kill? OK.... interesting.

I wouldn't have any particular preference.

Well....... you know..... if you're certain about the above then you would need to be certain about a killing method. Suppose you were called for execution duty off the voting register..... which method?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those who say so would lack forethought. Innocents will suffer no matter what path we take. Both the death penalty and life imprisonment can screw up an innocent's life completely. And even if we were to reject either, and rather choose more limited sentences with rehabilitation we would still be left with some murderers killing innocents again and again, since nothing we can do is failpro

Yes, people will still murder. But why do we authorize the state to murder when occasionally someone who is innocent is denied their right to life?

 

[Koldo]

Fine..... ok..... intentional only. So if a killer can prove the act was only reckless then it would be a prison term, by your viewpoint.

Correct.

Basically speaking 'beyond reason of the mind' covers a number of conditions, from insanity, to temporary insanity to outright trauma thru fear..... the French accept some murders are 'crimes of passion', where a person is so 'madly' in love that they are driven to kill.
We killed Rith Ellis over the second bullet she fired, not the first...... we never should have executed her IMO.

That's a bit vague, but I got the grasp of it.
If I were the one to write the law, I would allow for being 'beyond reason of mind' to be a valid argument to avoid death penalty. However, I would, intentfully, make it vague enough to leave it up to the court to decide it case-by-case.

OK....... in the UK we have known killers of 12 and 11. Our age of criminal responsibility is about 10 (I forget) ..... so your viewpoint would be that it's right and just to execute children who kill? OK.... interesting.

Yes.

Well....... you know..... if you're certain about the above then you would need to be certain about a killing method. Suppose you were called for execution duty off the voting register..... which method?

As I have said, I don't have any particular preference. If I had to pick one method right now I would just say 'execution by firing squad'.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, people will still murder. But why do we authorize the state to murder when occasionally someone who is innocent is denied their right to life?

Because we have to do something about the murderers and there are no failproof options. Can you show that at least one other possible way to deal with this doesn't involve the risk of severely harming the innocents?

 

[methylatedghosts]

I wonder how those who support death would feel if they were standing in front of the firing squad, wrongly accused and judged...

I'm sure some alien species in space watching us is laughing at the insanity of killing to stop killing. Hahaha what a joke!

Someone needs to make a bumper sticker

"killers preventing killers."

Though, it's not an entirely bad idea. I mean, if you kill ALL the people, you'd guarantee they'd stop killing each other...

 

[Koldo]

I wonder how those who support death would feel if they were standing in front of the firing squad, wrongly accused and judged...

In all sincerity, I would prefer that over being locked up in a jail for the rest of my life.

 

[methylatedghosts]

In all sincerity, I would prefer that over being locked up in a jail for the rest of my life.

I'm sure.

Though, you say that now while it's still a thought exercise, and you're sitting comfortably at your computer. I do wonder if your response would be the same at the time

Would be funny then, if a week, month, year after, the key piece of evidence proving your innocence came to light

 

[Koldo]

I'm sure.

Though, you say that now while it's still a thought exercise, and you're sitting comfortably at your computer. I do wonder if your response would be the same at the time

I am absolutely certain that my answer would remain the same.

Would be funny then, if a week, month, year after, the key piece of evidence proving your innocence came to light

It wouldn't make a difference to me, since I would be dead. It is not as if I could mind even if I wanted to.
It is much better than to wait until the end of my life, dying of "old age", for an evidence that never comes up.

 

[oldbadger]

That's a bit vague, but I got the grasp of it.
If I were the one to write the law, I would allow for being 'beyond reason of mind' to be a valid argument to avoid death penalty. However, I would, intentfully, make it vague enough to leave it up to the court to decide it case-by-case.

That is why the term is loose, or vague....... A person who kills people and eats them for dinner is probably the absolute mental case of the year, but judges may decide that despite his/her mental condition that s/he knew what s/he was doing to be wrong, whereas a person who had been bullied and hounded by work colleagues for a long time, snapping and shooting the bully ringleader through the head with a nail gun was 'temporarily beyond reason of mind'. Both would probably end up in Broadmoor secure hospital here, but in some US States the former might end up in a death-row cell.

As I have said, I don't have any particular preference. If I had to pick one method right now I would just say 'execution by firing squad'.

Although I am against the death penalty, at least you have chosen a certain and quick exit for your convict. Buggering about with injections that don't work is the craziest situation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because we have to do something about the murderers and there are no failproof options. Can you show that at least one other possible way to deal with this doesn't involve the risk of severely harming the innocents?

I think the only better system I can point you to are places that have abolished the death penalty, as the innocent may be in jail, but their life will not be ended unjustly by the state.

 

[Koldo]

I think the only better system I can point you to are places that have abolished the death penalty, as the innocent may be in jail, but their life will not be ended unjustly by the state.

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.

 

[methylatedghosts]

What if we left it up to the individual to choose between life imprisonment and death?

Still not ideal to my mind, but it is a compromise.

 

[Poisonshady313]

What if we left it up to the individual to choose between life imprisonment and death?

Still not ideal to my mind, but it is a compromise.

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.

 

[Poisonshady313]

.....Just men?
....so we would lock up female murderers?
Just asking.....

I'm speaking generally. What I'm saying applies to both men and women.

By the way, at what age would you execute murderers? Would you imprison a 12 year old murderer and wait till s/he's 16yrs, for instance? How would that work?

Would you execute people who incite murder? A year ago in a thread about bad cops, a member wrote 'kill 'em all'.... would that attract the death penalty in your world?

One more question: Given that you will execute murderers, how would you reduce the 300million dollar bill for each execution, and how would you carry it out effectively and humanely?

Just askin'.

Are you asking me how I would set up my own death penalty statutes in my own theoretical state?

I'm sure there are already laws on the books in the various death penalty states that address these issues.

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.

 

[oldbadger]

Are you asking me how I would set up my own death penalty statutes in my own theoretical state?

Absolutely! You want a death penalty........ so, what for? What actions? What ages?

I'm sure there are already laws on the books in the various death penalty states that address these issues.

If you want to support the death penalty then you probably have opinions about and around that subject. What would be your minimum age? How, for instance, would you sentence a 15 year old who stabbed a bus driver to death over an argument about a fare?

See? Please tell us more, if you will.

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.

Good! So you do acknowledge that it costs circa 300 million to execute someone. Might it be a good idea to research the cost of imprisonment for life?

But if you continue to support the death penalty, maybe you could reduce costs by hiring the local mobile-crane for a day? I believe that they use these in Middle Eastern countries, with somewhat more success than US States can manage?

 

[Poisonshady313]

That doesn't work in a legal setting. It can also be said that those who are ok with innocents being put to death, and do not have a problem with the death penalty over the resulting loss of innocent life, lack empathy.

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.

More innocent people will die at the hands of murderers whom prisons failed to contain than will die at the hands of an executioner. Escapes, paroles, murdering guards, murdering inmates who have not been sentenced to death, pardons, releases due to overcrowding, conspiring with someone on the outside to commit murder... there are so many ways for murderers sentenced to life to end up murdering innocent people again. You can stop them by executing them.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Absolutely! You want a death penalty........ so, what for? What actions? What ages?

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.

If you want to support the death penalty then you probably have opinions about and around that subject. What would be your minimum age? How, for instance, would you sentence a 15 year old who stabbed a bus driver to death over an argument about a fare?

10-20 years.

Good! So you do acknowledge that it costs circa 300 million to execute someone. Might it be a good idea to research the cost of imprisonment for life?

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

But if you continue to support the death penalty, maybe you could reduce costs by hiring the local mobile-crane for a day? I believe that they use these in Middle Eastern countries, with somewhat more success than US States can manage?

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.