What's Your View On The Death Penalty?

[Graelwyn]

... let him rot. There are many who have had bad childhoods, been abused as children, been raised in poverty, and a large number do not go on to commit atrocities, so I tend to very seldom have any sympathy when that is pulled up as a defense card.

It's not so much a question of sympathy, but pragmatism. Different people have different breaking points, and nobody can really know what somebody else has endured, so comparisons are petty meaningless. However , I'm pretty sure that once somebody has been pushed past their breaking point, then pushing them further won't mend them, nor mend anything else. It serves no purpose at all, except lust for revenge. From any other point of view, it's counterproductive.

Well, it looks like the victim's family have got what they want, in a way. No execution. But, on the other hand , he will now get therapy; which means that he might just be released, in the long run, doesn't it? I can't imagine they are pleased about that.

Sadly, I doubt that the victim's family will get any therapy, unfair though that undoubtedly is.  I don't know about Belgium, but where I live, the State doesn't have the resources to provide that for ordinary people; not even for ordinary dangerous nutjobs, not until they actually commit a crime.

No, I'm not saying "Don't give criminals therapy"; if prison is really meant to rehabilitate criminals, not just punish them, then it's insane to scrimp on the rehab part of the deal, having paid out all the other, considerable  costs.

It's  just that I can't, for the life of me, buy any "solution" that increases the sum total of misery in the world, never mind if some are judged to deserve it.  Misery is contagious.  And misery can always escape its box, one way or another, even if the miserable person can't.  Misery pays itself forward all the time; and if you pay it back now and then, that doesn't stop the rot. That's what bugs me about this scenario.

If that guy were a savage dog, then the victim's family would want him put down, right away, no messing; they wouldn't sleep soundly til that was done. . They wouldn't want him  stuck in a cage, just  so they could see he was suffering.  What's the big difference?  For some, the difference is some kind of humanitarian idealism that regards imprisonment as the "lesser evil", and that values human life at any cost.  For others, like that family, they clearly believe that imprisonment is the  greater evil, and think that death would be too kind.
They can't all be right, but somehow  they all pull together.

I don't see any point in asking "Who deserves sympathy" ? the criminal or the victim? Everyone in this shit world deserves a bit of sympathy, and it isn't a limited resource.  I just think that whichever  solution cuts down on human misery rather than increasing it, is gonna prove to be the best thing all round. And it isn't too hard to figure out which that would have been, in this case.

I must assume you believe he should have been allowed the right to die then?
I think I find it very difficult to show empathy with just reading the stories, the words. And certain crimes, do tend to make it that bit harder to show any form of sympathy. And damnit, I can never seem to form any sort of long response these days... either due to the time I post or a lack of confidence in my capacity to form an intelligent response 

[Walkie]

I must assume you believe he should have been allowed the right to die then?

Pretty much
I believe he should have been allowed to die.
I don't think "rights" come into it. That's an ambiguous philosophical concept that just muddies the issue.
If people just go and on on piling on the misery because they hate him, then I fail to see any good ever coming of that, just all kinds of potential evil.
And piling on the misery is precisely what would happen in prison, I should think. Because prisoners and guards all tend to hate and despise that kind of criminal. They would all pay him back, any way they could,  if they saw an opportunity.
It's all too dehumanising. Bring a swift, painless end to it, and maybe we can all go back to being human.

[Graelwyn]

I must assume you believe he should have been allowed the right to die then?

Pretty much
I believe he should have been allowed to die.
I don't think "rights" come into it. That's an ambiguous philosophical concept that just muddies the issue.
If people just go and on on piling on the misery because they hate him, then I fail to see any good ever coming of that, just all kinds of potential evil.
And piling on the misery is precisely what would happen in prison, I should think. Because prisoners and guards all tend to hate and despise that kind of criminal. They would all pay him back, any way they could,  if they saw an opportunity.
It's all too dehumanising. Bring a swift, painless end to it, and maybe we can all go back to being human.

I understand, and that is pretty much what I meant. I tend to sometimes use that word as a replacement for being allowed to. I did not think of it in terms of rights in the other sense. And oh dear, now I feel a bit dense and am on a hunt to check out the various meanings of having a right to, vs being allowed to. I suppose I do not always sit and think about each word usage before I post.

[DirtDawg]

I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.

If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible

Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.

Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.


Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."

 Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!

(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did,  but I did not know much better in those days.)

[odeon]

Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.

I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"

Banishment is indeed a good idea, but there's nowhere left to banish anyone, is there? Unless we're talking about somewhere that would mean an implied death sentence.

[Jack]

I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"

The implications are the state could potentially kill an innocent person, rather than wrongly imprisoning them. Would have to look it up, but remembering that it's simply because more people, time and effort are invested in every single aspect of the trial when the state is seeking death. Also, appeals are more likely to be allowed, and appeals too are more time intensive in death cases.

[DirtDawg]

Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.

I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"

Banishment is indeed a good idea, but there's nowhere left to banish anyone, is there? Unless we're talking about somewhere that would mean an implied death sentence.

Absolute, total bullshit (what Jack said), except for the point made below (Wrongly executing an innocent). That is why instant and total, immediate retribution is so much more equivocal AND economic.

I can remember a couple of Machiavellian statements which bring this mindset of mine to home.

Something like: A wise man does at once what many fools do finally.

There is another one that rings true here. I can only remember the sentiment, so it is not actually a quote,  but it goes something like:  If you MUST injure a man, then do so so severely that one does not have to be concerned about the possibility of his vengeance.

Maybe a little harsh for a civilized human's way of thinking, BUT those who tend to do us harm are certainly not civilized and one can almost instantly and reasonably discount or at least question their clam to humanity.

Although, Machiavelli would probably be shot, today, his words contain a kind of vigor that demand consideration in light of today's violent times.

[odeon]

I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"

The implications are the state could potentially kill an innocent person, rather than wrongly imprisoning them. Would have to look it up, but remembering that it's simply because more people, time and effort are invested in every single aspect of the trial when the state is seeking death. Also, appeals are more likely to be allowed, and appeals too are more time intensive in death cases.

Still don't see it, but I'm not doubting your point, I'm simply wondering how it is possible.

[odeon]

Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.

I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"

Banishment is indeed a good idea, but there's nowhere left to banish anyone, is there? Unless we're talking about somewhere that would mean an implied death sentence.

Absolute, total bullshit (what Jack said), except for the point made below (Wrongly executing an innocent). That is why instant and total, immediate retribution is so much more equivocal AND economic.

I can remember a couple of Machiavellian statements which bring this mindset of mine to home.

Something like: A wise man does at once what many fools do finally.

There is another one that rings true here. I can only remember the sentiment, so it is not actually a quote,  but it goes something like:  If you MUST injure a man, then do so so severely that one does not have to be concerned about the possibility of his vengeance.

Maybe a little harsh for a civilized human's way of thinking, BUT those who tend to do us harm are certainly not civilized and one can almost instantly and reasonably discount or at least question their clam to humanity.

Although, Machiavelli would probably be shot, today, his words contain a kind of vigor that demand consideration in light of today's violent times.

I see your point but disagree with it. I don't think killing should be part of a civilised society, no matter who is doing the killing.

[Jack]

Still don't see it, but I'm not doubting your point, I'm simply wondering how it is possible.

It is indeed hard to see for me too, but simply take any trial and devote triple the people to both defense and prosecution, triple the specialists to analyze the evidence and the defendant, triple the time spend in the courtroom, triple the appeals and so on, and that's where amounts triple the cost on average. If that increase is sensible or even right is another discussion.

Absolute, total bullshit (what Jack said),

No it's not; it's an easily corroborated financial fact. If going to call bullshit, then at least offer a counterpoint.

[Parts]

I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.

If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible

Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.

Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.


Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."

 Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!

(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did,  but I did not know much better in those days.)

What if those armed bystanders are actually the criminals who then say the person they killed was robbing them it wouldn't work all the time but could bring up some troubling issues. That said self defense is fine but if the person is of no further threat best let a trial settle things rather  than instant justice. 

I feel that life in prison  is a more punishing sentence than death, with death it's all over in an instant.

[Gopher Gary]

Why did you quote that without responding? 

[Graelwyn]

I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.

If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible

Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.

Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.


Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."

 Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!

(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did,  but I did not know much better in those days.)

What if those armed bystanders are actually the criminals who then say the person they killed was robbing them it wouldn't work all the time but could bring up some troubling issues. That said self defense is fine but if the person is of no further threat best let a trial settle things rather  than instant justice. 

I feel that life in prison  is a more punishing sentence than death, with death it's all over in an instant.

That would be true if those convicted to death had the sentence carried out quickly, but it seems to usually be 10-30 years on Death Row before that point is reached.

[Graelwyn]

Not sure if this will prove useful information to anyone, but a few articles on the costs of the Death penalty.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

[Walkie]

I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.

If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible

Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.

Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.


Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."

 Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!

(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did,  but I did not know much better in those days.)

What if those armed bystanders are actually the criminals who then say the person they killed was robbing them it wouldn't work all the time but could bring up some troubling issues. That said self defense is fine but if the person is of no further threat best let a trial settle things rather  than instant justice. 

I feel that life in prison  is a more punishing sentence than death, with death it's all over in an instant.

What Parts said.

Also, DD, I want to know what your plans are for preventing such incidents escalating into endless feuds, with revenge killings following revenge killings until nobody knows who started it or why?