why i can't oppose the death penalty in all cases

It's neither moral nor ethical. It's ego. Human desire.

What someone "deserves" is punishment. A premature death is never punishment, suffering is.

and if you require suffering to qualify as punishment, then perhaps reflecting on the fact your life is about to end because you killed children and then burned their bodies in front of their parents will do.

And suffering is punishment, which by your post, you don't really get.

it would be for me.

as it would be to every single day wake up and for the next 24 hours have to look over your shoulder. Wonder how will I survive? Who is coming for me? Who did I anger?

Every minute of every day. That's suffering. That's punishment.

then we are in disagreement only as to what would be a greater punishment.

But it looks like you're arguing that the inhumane conditions in our prisons are a good thing, because they serve to punish people. The gangs, the violence, the rapes, etc., all heighten the punishment aspect of prison.

If that's what you're arguing (and I apologize if I've misinterpreted you), I find it very sad and disappointing. The conditions in our prisons constitute an abominable human rights situation. Nobody should have to look over their shoulder 24/7 because a gang full of sociopaths wants to take advantage of them.

I'd never suggest anything of the sort, that the violence in prison is a good thing. But, it is the current reality. So, if we're to argue death penalty today v life with no parole in prison today, the latter is far worse. If the idea is punishment, then surely what I've stated is indeed true.

Sorry if I came off as lauding gangs, violence and rape.

him? He was a minority, if that matters. Oh, he was a college student too. Not military.

Do you know the race of the shooter in Afghanistan?

He's a soldier... check that... he's a white soldier... Give him a fair trial, then execute him.

That about right?

it would be redundant (he is dead right ?) as far as race, minorities receive the death penalty in larger numbers for similar crimes than whites. but my main problem with the dp is the chance of executing the innocent. my point is that ethically i cannot remove it as an option for certain deads, like what just happened in afghanistan.

I bet some other victim's family might disagree with you. Would you have a rating scale? An Outrage-O-Meter?

The fact that you can't see the absurdity in your position is troubling. Can I call you God?

but you are certainly entitled to disagree.

edited to say - roflmfao

Just make light of killing people. Awesome for you, God.

.

You know I was asking a hypothetical. Way to dodge the issue though.

Now that we know he suffered a traumatic brain injury, and had behavioral problems during his last time home, do you still count his being white and his soldier status against him when you pronounce him to be eligible for the death penalty which you've obviously never really been against?

Maybe cold-blooded child murderers should be turned over to the families of those children. Leave it up to them how much or how little mercy they want to show.

The United States should join civilized nations and abolish it.

it is not a deterrant and it is unevenely applied. my point is that, for me, nothing else rises to the level of just punishment for what this soldier or soldiers did. trust me, i am well aware that even taking the position i have in such a horrific case may put me in the category of people defending once common but now seen as barbaric things like slavery. but right now, in 2012, reading these stories, i simply can't say i would oppose a firing squad or a hangman's noose for this person. i would be lying to say otherwise.

When I try to understand whoever did that, my brain shuts down. It's just too much horror.

Or do you prefer hiring murderers to murder the murderers.

i (and we all) hire people to do those things. nor am i willing to personally put out every fire in my community, pick up all the garbage, collect all the taxes (appraise the property for those taxes), round up all the stray dogs, teach every child, maintain the parks, repair the roads, incarcerate every criminal in my home, pull over every speeder, etc.

i'm not willing to do any of those things. i am not capable; so in all those cases, including the issue at hand, i do insist others be hired to do it.

hiring someone to murder. And I'd be happy to hang out with a garbage collector... not so much with a state sanctioned murderer.

the authority to put someone, anyone, to death is giving it too much authority.

I understand that there are some really bad people out there and it is tempting to call for death as punishment, or to call for death as a way to get rid of them so they won't kill again. But, if you call for death for one, you have to draw a line, and that line shifts a lot.

Besides, the mistake made by not killing someone is reparable, while the mistake made killing someone is not.

please don't take that as snark. what would you find appropriate?

regardless my point is not the fairness of either texas' or the military's application of it, but its justification - which in this case i believe exists.

ANY form of evidence has problems, but eyewitness and confession are some of the worst.

Eyewitness - Two people see the same thing through a different lens and tell two entirely different stories.

Confession - Yeah, those are never coerced.

DNA is proof positive, but circumstantial is probably the most common.

that is why my point is only that morally and ethically i am not willing to say the soldier(s) in question don't deserve to be put to death.

... but justice has to be based on reason, logic, and fact.

but the facts; some amercan soldier(s) got into full battle gear (w/night vision) and then walked into town and proceeded to kill a bunch of kids in cold blood, then burn their little bodies leads me to conclude that it is logical and reasonable to take their lives for it.

and yes, i do have emotions about it.

...and be willing to lock them away forever for their crime? The soldier turned himself in. He marched to HQ and had himself locked up. He is clearly not enjoying full mental capacity. So, now you have him locked up, away forever, unable to hurt anyone but himself. Then, one day, you march to his cell, unlock the bars, drag him out, and put a bullet into his brain...

How does that make you any better than he is/was? He felt he had some justification for killing people. He had some sense of rage going on. As did you when you pulled him out of his cell and capped him. Except for that you probably didn't have that sense of rage at that point...the guy had long since been subdued and incapacitated from doing any more heinous crimes. But you shot him in the head anyway. How superior are you? Or are you just another killer whose rage informed him that he had a justification to take another life?

Just asking.

.

however, i would never consider a person to be insane just based on the heinousness of their crime. ted bundy was not legally insane - just a sadistic bastard. and as to your other point, i do not equate executing murderers with the acts of the murderer. i just don't so the whole last paragraph was a waste of your time. i oppose the dp as it is generally caried out in this country for very different reasons i have already stated. but i have never bought that logic that equates the hanging of the nuremburg nazis with the things they were executed for. i do not equate executing ted bundy to the things he did to over 30 women. i just don't buy it and never will.

I'm not qualified to decide on punishment. I can, however, observe that the best we seem to be able to do is throw them in a hole and pretend to rehabilitate them.

This is a start, if not a very good one.

who have broken laws. but when one straps of their combat gear and puts on their night vision goggles, walks into town and starts killing babies, puts them in a pile and then burns them in front of their families - i really have no inerest in rehabilitating that person. if they are suffering from a mental illness, then that mitigates the whole thing. but if done out of pure meaness or joy, different story.

Would you approve the death penalty if there was only circumstantial evidence that someone had committed a heinous crime? What about convictions based on jailhouse confessions by someone who was trying to get parole?

The death penalty, like torture, might seem justifiable if you cherry-pick your cases. But in the real world, with real suspects and ordinary fallible humans running the system, it's all too often applied to the wrong person -- or at the very least distorted in its application by racial bias.

The bottom line is that if you oppose the death penalty in *any* cases of heinous crimes, you have to oppose it in all cases. There's no middle ground.

and the killer would have to be sane.

i know all the problems this raises and i don't have the answer to them. only that i can't say what this person did (if not insane) rises to the level of being worthy of the killer losing their own life as a result.

Doesn't automatically mean everyone else will. So you set yourself up -- or some other arbitrarily selected human -- to become the final judge. I'm not speaking hypotheticals, btw. Real world; over in Freeperville and The Cave they're perfectly happy to see certain women and children gunned down and burned, because after all, they're just lowly Muslims. Now, these are your fellow Americans saying this openly, in part because their favorite politicians have ginned up the hatred and fear in them. What if one of them got to decide, not you? Remember, THEY think WE are the screwed up ones for not promoting the soldier for doing his job (that, btw, comes from an actual post).

system in which I make these life or death decisions personally, as opposed to a legislature and courts of law? because if so you are confused. but then again you have already criticized me for not supporting the death penalty for someone who has been dead for five years, so color me unsurprised. and as for freepervilel, i'm pretty sure this guy would not get the death penaltyif they were on his jury - as you hope he doesn't.

You've met resistance. Now you've just become ridiculous. The death penalty for dead guys? Have you even tried to absorb ANYTHING any of us have posted?

Oops. Stupid question. Obviously, you haven't.

.

Kill, baby, kill! Arely says it's okay because HE'S MAD! So it's okay as long that it is him that's mad. Got it? Arely decides who should be killed.

.

That clause is in the Bill of Rights partly because of a case from the middle 1700's where a Frenchman attempted to assassinate the king and was executed by being publicly tortured in a series of nasty ways and then ripped apart by horses. (There's a detailed description somewhere in Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities that traumatized me as a kid.)

This shocked the conscience of an era that considered itself enlightened and led to the conclusion that no matter how appalling or socially destabilizing a crime may be, it doesn't justify barbarities that would otherwise be considered unacceptable.

And that's the principle that your proposal to restrict the death penalty to particularly heinous crimes would seem to violate. If something is morally objectionable enough that you wouldn't want to to it under most circumstances, it doesn't become morally okay just because the circumstances are extreme.

If anything, the person who thinks of the death penalty as barbaric but would apply it in certain selected cases is violating their own moral principles in a way that the person who accepts the death penalty as routine is not. And this is what the blanket prohibition in the Bill of Rights is intended to guard against.

if i follow you, you are saying;

if one's crime is bad enough - one can escape a fitting punishment - because what one did was so bad.

yes, i know we disagree on "fitting." but right now your reasoning aganst it is that it would be unusual, thus setting up what
I'm pretty sure is circular a circular argument. now don't confuse what i just said with advocating an eye-for-an-eye, because i am not. i'm only saying that the most heinous crimes (in which there is NO doubt as to whom the perp is) would qualify for the ultimate punishment. i would put the standard of proof above reasonable doubt. and if the crime didn't meet the NO doubt standard (caught on video, guy turns himself in - like in afghanistan, etc.)

and it wouldn't be unusual because it would apply to anyone whose crimes met that criteria. it would be the opposite of unusual, it would be universal - for that group.

And that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm fairly skeptical about the effectiveness of punishment in general -- but there seem to be three general rationales for it. One is that it prevents the person from committing the same offense a second time, which obviously isn't the case if you're talking about execution. Second is that it acts as a deterrent to prevent other people from committing similar crimes, which also seems questionable when you're dealing with extremely rare or even unique events.

And the third is that it makes a strong statement on the part of society at large that certain kinds of behavior will not be tolerated. This is why we have hate crime laws that make certain offenses worse if they are committed against members of vulnerable minorities. It is why we have terrorism laws that make certain offenses more serious if they are committed with the intention of making a society act against its own standards and interests. It makes us inclined to come down harder on officials who violate the public trust or on corporate executives who bribe and corrupt those officials than on ordinary citizens cheating other ordinary citizens.

I can see something of that third approach coming into play in the case of a soldier who casts discredit on his country's reputation. But even in his case, to execute him would be something like a Middle Eastern honor killing -- a way of saying that he has brought shame on the nation that can only be wiped out in blood.

And beyond that, there seems to be something logically unsound in your saying, "it wouldn't be unusual because it would apply to anyone whose crimes met that criteria." The problem is that a heinous crime is, by definition, one so unusual and aberrant that it shocks the conscience -- and that's not something that can be defined in law. You can define certain classes of crimes and lay out appropriate penalties for them, but you can't define a class of crimes as "those which are worse than all normal crimes," and there is no such things as a "group" of heinous criminals.

This means that what you are proposing would become a matter of emotion, not law -- and would ultimately undermine the very concept of justice.

most statistics i have seen do not show that the dp deters other people from committing similar crimes. it does however prevent that person from doing such things again (much more certainly than a life prison sentence, prisoners can kill other prisoners, guards or escape and kill more on the outside) but i have thought about it long and hard and i suppose reason three would be it for this guy (the brain trauma, depending on what we are dealing with, might mitigate my position). "that it makes a strong statement on the part of society at large that certain kinds of behavior will not be tolerated" is much closer to my feelings on the matter. and i don't believe emotions necessarily undermine justice. laws against child molestation are, imho, not only based on protecting children, but also our repulsion to it. i don't think that undermines any concept of justice.

now as far as punishment generally being a deterrent, it often is. take traffic laws. say there is a stop sign at which i usually don't come to a complete stop. but one day i notice a patrol car nearby as i approach it. i will come to a complete stop for absolutely no other reason than the 300+ dollar deterrent that is staring me down. if one of my students doesn't do their homework several times in a row, some negative reinforcement (teacher euphemism for punishment) such as taking away their recess for a day usually fixes it. but people who commit the types of crimes that can earn one the dp stopped thinking about consequences long ago, if they ever did imo.

thanks (again, if i've already said this) for engaging/disagreeing rationally here. i have been called all sorts of things in the past 24 hours here on this - including being an anti-white racist and no better than the perp himself. as far as i know the guy is black; i have not read what race he is.

In the first version of my previous post, I started discussing about areas where penalties for crimes do work as a deterrent -- and then deleted that part because it was getting way too long.

But the short version is that most law-breaking that is engaged in for profit or even personal satisfaction involves a crude cost-benefit calculation. You're a poor slum kid with no marketable skills so you weigh the potential benefits of dealing drugs against the possibility of getting caught. Or you have a hot new car and you really want to take it up to 120 on the open highway so you try to figure out the odds of getting a cop on your tail. Or you might even be a mob boss who wants to take out the competition, but only if you feel confident of getting away with it.

But running amok in an Afghan village and shooting up a lot of people just doesn't seem to be that sort of crime. There's no calculation involved, no chance of profit, and a near-certainty of getting caught.

And I think you and I agree on both these cases.

So the question becomes what you do with the guy who runs amok. You can't let him get away with it -- but no punishment seems proportional to the crime. You can't kill him 18 times over. You can't kill his spouse or children in front of his eyes. And even if you could, the effect on him wouldn't the the same as the effect of what he did on someone who was peacefully living their life and then suddenly had it destroyed.

So that throws it back on the larger social message you want to deliver. And for me, the death sentence is so problematic that we don't want to send a message that it's okay in some cases. We should be sending a message that what this guy did was abhorrent, but that the state should never have the power to take a human life.

I think my basic position is that killing people who are helpless and at your mercy is *wrong* -- no matter what the circumstances.

This means that the soldier was doing wrong to kill the Afghan villagers. But it also means that our government would be profoundly wrong to kill the soldier once he is in custody and incapable of doing further harm.

If you believe one, you have to believe the other. I can't see it any other way.

And if you agree with my line of argument, you also have to accept that to execute the soldier would be to some degree to validate what he did -- at least to the extent to saying that there are circumstances under which it is acceptable to kill helpless people.

Traditional religious thought might say that there is a difference and that it has to do with the question of innocence -- that the Afghan villages were innocent and the soldier was not. But I can't buy that. The villagers could have been harboring terrorists for all we know -- and that would still not justify their killing. And our own government has the blood of millions on its hands -- including those same villagers, through the policies which sent the soldier back into combat when he was obviously unfit.

Oddly enough, it seems that in the end, the only conclusion I can reach is the inverse of the alleged statement by the 13th century bishop who ordered the massacre of the Albigensians: "Let them all live. God will sort them out."

posts by people who have been civil to me here. but after being called a killer, a hater of soldiers and white people, an idiot and squirrel shit, yes squirrel shit,. i'm done with this business. presenting myself for abuse from unhinged lunatics who believe they are morally superior to me isn't my idea of fun or intellectually stimulating (though your posts have been both).

i think your point about the defenselessness of a person being put to death has moral value and gives one reason to pause when advocating such a thing. but as you pointed out, for some people, and i am one, the innocence of these children and the culpability of the soldier who killed them separates the taking of their respective lives on moral grounds. for that matter, so does the process by which the respective decisions to take said actions were reached. the killer will get a trial and a chance to present evidence, cross examine his accusers etc. those poor little children had none of that. hell, they didn't even think they needed any of it. i simply disagree with you that if killing one is wrong, so is killing the other. hanging adolph eichmann was not morally equal to his part in the final solution, imho.

yes we as a nation have much more (than these victims') innocent blood on our hands, particularly in iraq where we launched a war of aggression. and as for this guy's mental stability, certain things have come to light which may negate my original opinion anyway.
do not think that you haven’t given me a lot to think about. you have and I appreciate it.

i just got in, the hour is late and i'm going to bed soon.

cuidate y nos vemos

'rely

the jury ALWAYS thinks there is no doubt!! Do you not understand that???

reasonable doubt is not as high a standard as no doubt. if fact judges usually point that out to juries during their instructions prior to deliberations. so if they ALWaYS think that, they are NEVER listening. Do you understand that?

You really have not put much thought into this have you?

I doubt any jury would vote for death, over life in prison, without being 100% sure they thought the person was the murderer.

Yet about one person a year is released from death row because they did not commit the murder.

juries do not have to be 100 percent sure to vote for guilt or apply the death penalty. and i assume they follow the judges' instructons in that regard. if it were otherwise, i would not propose a higher standard.

they think they are right. You are clueless.

So you honestly think you can change the "reasonable doubt" rule for capital crimes only? Wow, good luck with that!

Go to the "Innocence Project" and do some damn reading.

I cannot say that I was ever really a DP supporter, but I did at one time see it as a necessary component of the justice system.

Ultimate punishment for ultimate crimes.

Punishment must be proportional. Whether it's murder or jaywalking, the punishment cannot always be a $50 fine. Also, whether it's murder or jaywalking, the punishment cannot always be public execution by being fed into a meat grinder.

One could perhaps argue that under UCMJ, because soldiers use force to kill in accordance with the rules that the DP is an appropriate ultimate punishment within the UCMJ. I am not sure.

Financially, it does not make sense in the civilian world. The cost of an execution far exceeds that of the cost of lifetime incarceration, the majority of the cost of execution comes from the expensive appeals process. I think an easy case can be made that capital cases need MORE judicial review, which would make executions even more costly.

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

i do not support the death penalty as it is currently used and applied in state courts.

...and therefore see fit to apply a different set of my own special Arely rules."



.

I believe in life without parole for those that are a true threat to society -no chance of release, no chance of a pardon. I would include the option of death but only voluntarily. It is a bad business for states to get into killing for whatever reason. Once you start making exceptions it is a slippery slope to what we already have or worse. If someone does a heneous crime they should not be allowed to be free in society. I simply cannot see how you can say it is OK to kill one perosn but not another. Once killing is institutionlized then the innocent will be killed which is what we have now.
-Airplane

I call bullshit on that, and therein lies one of the rubs with the DP.

Executions eliminate the possibility of a fuck-up, because once the accused is dead then NO COURT is going to hear up any evidence exonerating them.

My own view of the death penalty has evolved. I don't necessarily disagree that certain people don't deserve to live; however I also find it necessary to balance that view with the awareness that as the system currently exists there's no such thing as a 100% certainty of guilt in every single case, and it has, and does, lead to the conviction and execution of innocents. That's something that can't be undone. It doesn't really matter how much 99 out of a hundred persons sentenced to death may deserve that fate; what matters is that one in a hundred who didn't. As long as there's no foolproof, 100% guarantee of certainty in capital sentencing, I can't really support the death penalty, and that is a moral and ethical choice that in my view supersedes that of giving the guilty the ultimate punishment; life in prison with no possibility of parole is the most I can endorse, even in cases like this.

I'm against the death penalty almost totally.

But there are a very few rare exceptions. A few crimes that are so heinous that nothing else will do. This may be one of those cases, but of course it's way too soon to know.

I had they same thought in regards to the Norwegian shooter Anders B Brevik. I can't see another punishment that looks like justice to me in that case.

The death penalty puts us in the company of such countries as North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China.

What if this were an air strike and children were killed? Do we exonerate the pilot or execute him? How about his superior officer?

What about Calley at My Lai?

Is it the soldier or is it war?

I truly believe that there are some that cannot be rehabilitated. For me, this list mainly applies to sex offenders who have gone after small children or those who have slaughtered the innocent through deliberate acts. Still, our justice system is so flawed that we cannot be certain of the guilt of the offender even after conviction. Given that... I cannot support the death penalty in good conscience. I'd rather have some of my tax dollars go to support monsters than have some of my tax dollars go to support executing the innocent.

Frankly, I just don't trust our justice system enough to assure that only the guilty would be executed.

Is there any actual need to execute anyone, ever?

It really is just an excellent rule to have: do not kill people.

There will be very limited instances where almost everyone will agree that there might be a need to kill people -- where the intent is to prevent a very serious harm from being committed, and never simply to kill. Individual and collective self-defence are the recognized exceptions. Persons and peoples may use force to defend against great harms. They may not just kill pre-emptively, however.

You think this particular crime is just so awful that no other punishment would do. Would do what?

Obviously it won't deter someone just like this person from doing something just like this; if it would, it would have deterred him.

There is nothing that killing him would do that imprisoning him for life, or as long as is necessary to accomplish the relevant purposes, would not do. Other than satisfy some people's desire for revenge. However, it would also sadden many people who don't share that desire.

What is moral or ethical about killing somebody as a punishment? I just don't get it.

Frankly, I'd prefer it if my tax dollars didn't go towards providing support for sex offenders - primarily those who have forced themselves on children or molested them, or towards providing support for mass murderers. Such people are almost never rehabilitated, the money required to keep them in relatively healthy condition could instead go towards more worthy efforts. Such as better health care, more available health care, more funding for young people who want to go to college. Or towards prison reform for lesser offenders.

It's not so much about moral justification, I don't think a society shows killing to be wrong by executing our worst criminals. Rather, I think that some (those guilty of the crimes I mentioned above) are unworthy of the resources that go into maintaining their lives. Yes, that's harsh and cold, for which I make no apology. Nonetheless, I still do not support the death penalty as a matter of principle, because I am well aware that the innocent are convicted as well as the guilty. Some problems have no solutions that are simple or morally correct, there is rarely such simplicity in anything in life.

Let's say, for example, that someone who has molested several children under age 13 is released from prison after a few years (this has happened in a number of cases, particularly where the guilty had financial resources). After release, this person continues to prey upon children, perhaps with more caution, but nonetheless causing severe psychological, emotional and physical trauma to children. Had that person simply been executed, how much further pain might have been avoided? Justice is not possible in such cases. There is no punishment that would fit the crime. So I would prefer practicality - do humanity a favor and rid the earth of such a person. Were there not laws preventing such things, I would carry out the sentence myself (provided guilt was beyond doubt).

It's far too complex of an issue for me to simply say yes or no.

"Harsh and cold" are not the relevant qualifiers.

Anti-human rights is what it is. Plain and simple. The day a society starts deciding who is "worthy" of life and who isn't ... well, I think we all know where that path leads.

Issues relating to when/whether to release probably dangerous persons from incarceration (or when preventive custody is permissible, etc.) are entirely separate from the question of whether a society should be deciding who is "worthy" of life.

The issue is not really complex at all.

Either the right to life is an inherent, inalienable attribute of the humanity of every human being, or it isn't.

Some of us actually think it is.

when you commit such crimes and are convicted you become a criminal, no longer entitled to the same rights. I do not say these people don't have the right to exist - I do say that I would rather we not keep them alive spending the tax dollars of every working American - when these funds could be used for much better purposes. Yes, I personally object to my tax dollars paying for the health care, sustenance and overall maintenance of murderers, rapists and perverted freaks who prey on children. I would prefer they simply die rather than remain a constant drain on the resources of a society that has no obligation what so ever to tolerate them.

As someone who has suffered at the hands of some of these monsters, I have no sympathy for them, nor do I feel they possess the same basic humanity that most do. Your compassion is wasted on them.

The fact of the matter is that the right to life does not apply to the dead. Those brutally treated and murdered had no say in what would be done to them. Those victimized as children sure as heck didn't get to vote or pontificate in regards to the right to life or human rights. The fact of the matter is that when you commit (and are convicted of) heinous, terrible crimes, you lose the right to be considered in the same light as everyone else. Call it vengeful if you will, or cruel, or "anti-human rights" but my compassion is for the victim, not the convict. Frankly, there are plenty of humans that have earned the title of monster.

You can also note the fact that these are my personal feelings, not something I would ever suggest as justice or law. It is because - as I have mentioned earlier, that the innocent are convicted of crimes they did not commit. Better that the system supports some monsters than executes some innocents. Every innocent life is worth a dozen of theirs. Nonetheless, I have no word for some of my fellow human beings that suits them better than "monsters." I believe it is an apt description of those who kill and torture without remorse.

you are just making up crap and spewing it.

That may be your "opinion". It is not authoritative, and it is in direct conflict with the concept of INHERENT, INALIENABLE rights.

You know what those words mean, right?

Your compassion is wasted on them.

Where do you find "compassion" in my posts? Answer: you don't. You've just made it up.

So it's just your opinion? And when such opinions become widespread ... that some people are "worthy" of life and some are not ... well, as I said, we know where that path leads.

that some of these monsters don't deserve to breathe the same air as we do. And yes, I could pull the trigger or push the button and still look at myself in the morning. It isn't vengence, it would be more of a mercy killing. Call me a murderer. I would wear that badge proudly if I could be the one to terminate the existance of a monster who tortured, raped and murdered the innocent.

That most who work in the prison system are not filled with hate and unable to recognize the humanity in others. Sadists and bullies have no place working in corrections. That is how Abu Ghraib happened.

How does a desire to rid the world of those who torture, rape and murder innocents... how does that make anyone a Sadist or a bully? How does this make such a person filled with hate? I would suggest that it may be out of concern for humanity that such a person wishes to rid the world of such danger.

Personal feelings and actual actions are quite different. When speaking of Abu Ghraib we are dealing with the torture of so called "enemy combatants", or, if you prefer, "terrorists". Often these people were tortured without being charged. I believe it is different in the American Justice system... at least I sure hope it is. I suspect though, that a Nurse who must treat the worst humanity has to offer, has plenty of reason for not wanting them to be released back into society to prey upon others once again. Particularly one who has loved ones and children.

There are indeed monsters (metaphorically speaking - as to call them human would be degrading to us all) in prison, to release some of them would be condemning innocents to torture, rape and murder. To remove them from the world could be judged as an act of humanity or as an act of cruelty. It is not so black and white. I do not advocate executing prisoners, I do not support the death penalty. I do feel though, that removing some from this world would be a benefit. Had Hitler been killed as his tyranny began... had Stalin been destroyed before the worst of his crimes... Had McVeigh been killed before doing what he did... there are few who would say that any of those incidents would have been regrettable, sadistic, or the acts of bullies.

From those who murder, rape and torture is the inability to see the humanity in others. Those who cannot see the humanity in others and assume the role of authority to give them permissikon to act out are the soul mates of these "monsters".

I look at them - and what I see is contempt for humanity. What I see is hate, the desire for power and control that seems to have overcome any basic human instinct or emotion. Should I feel sympathy for a drive by shooter who got caught in the act? I don't. I feel sympathy though, for the child that shooter once was -and anger for those who guided that person down the wrong path. Perhaps society is to blame, perhaps the parents, perhaps poverty. Regardless of how one becomes such, it is indeed a monstrous act to deliberately take the life of an innocent human being, especially when one is completely unrepentant - as is often the case.

... crucified beside Christ?remember that story?

We're not all delusional.

This was regarding strip searches in jails. You defended the notion, and even though I disagreed with your position, I thought that someone working in a prison would have unique insight and that your post should be permitted to stay. And while I still feel that way about that particular post, this one is just beyond the pale. I get that you don't like them. But if you're a nurse, and you'd like to see some of your patients dead, that's where I jump right back off the Lunabelle train. Good afternoon.

So you lost me there.

for killing them first. So you lost me there.

Unless your family members live on death row, I'm not sure how this applies.

When I think about it seriously, I realize that I trust the people who would kill in the moment - the father that murders a rapist, the mother that blows an intruder away, the soldier who would have offed this drunk before he got to town, MUCH more than I trust our government to do a good, fair job.

...and then I realize that, in spite of my cherry-picked examples, I most emphatically DO NOT trust these people, and others like them, to make good life-and-death decisions.

Due process has failed spectacularly and repeatedly. DNA testing made a lot of prosecutors look silly if not criminal. It's just not good enough to decide who lives and dies, even if you have absolute personal convictions that some particular criminal needs to die.

I think the best system is a universal prohibition that is violated occasionally by people for self-sacrificing moral reasons.

The former can be reversed if evidence surfaces. The latter can't be.

Serial killers who are escape risks: the Ted Bundys of this world
War criminals
Perpetrators of genocide
Dictators
Perpetrators of crimes against humanity


I wouldn't advocate the death penalty for terrorists because most convicted terrorists think their execution is a reward for their crimes against noncombatants. For them, letting them rot is a punishment worse than death; give'em life w/o parole.

people not realize this???

Arely says he'd actually know who did it. As long as he was certain -- just as those juries were certain, despite the fact that people got let go -- then he'd be okay with the death penalty. He just has to be certain, you know, like beyond a reasonable doubt. Oh wait...

.

The DP is one of those issues that confounds me to this day

having mixed feelings, myself.

I don't support it

but

there are times when someone has committed a crime so heinous that, when he's gotten the death penalty, I just think...

Oh well

I'm not going to get my bloomers in an outrage over it

when it's carried out. Like Tim McVeigh.

But, I'm still against the death penalty.

"Deserve" is something we project onto perceived stimuli. We just want some things to happen. You just want someone to kill those guys.

There has to be a confession that isn't forced under pressure.

There must be guilt not beyond reasonable...there must be guilt beyond ANY doubt

The prisoner must be given THE CHOICE of the DP or life without parole.

Then and ONLY THEN would I support the DP

And how do you define mentally ill?

Hint: A mass murder of innocent people is not a sign of stability.

--imm

Or does white and soldier still weigh too heavily on your mind?

"it is applied to minorities at a much greater rate than whites". "... i simply cannot take it off the table for the soldier or soldiers"

What's your moral and ethical choice in light of this new information?

Inquiring minds want to know...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-withholds-soldiers-name-afghan-shooting-172025297.html

and, with all due respect, i don't know what color the soldier is and don't care. my point about the dp being used more on minorities in the civilian system is a simple fact - and one of the reasons i generally oppose the dp. and again, yes, traumatic brain injury would certainly mitigate my willingness to see him face the executioner. my father was white and at one point a soldier. so if you think i have some problem with "white" or "soldier" you are very mistaken. there isn't an ounce of anti-military feeling within me. anti-militarism, sure. my brother was in the USMC for eight (i believe) years (though not near as white as dad). no, if you think i have a problem with white people or members of the military you are way off base.

I have no patience for idiots. TO THE GAS CHAMBER! Hey, c'mon, it's MY decision, right? I love the English language, and I love writing. Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to live.

But that's just my opinion.

But I agree. Kill the stupids. To paraphrase a song I believe won a Grammy; Stupid people got no reason to live.

I read somewhere on the internet that the advent of email was the harbinger of big grammatical changes. The piece was written by a professor of English and noted that since most emails were person-to-person capitalization was no longer an issue, and to a lesser extent, neither was correct grammar or punctualization.

It wnt b lng b4 smpl phonetics is the rule of the day.

eres cada vez mas interesante y el mundo necesita los payasos - incluso los que no saben que son payasos.

xoxoxo
'rely