Why NOT death penalty?

[davjohns 1]

Quote

When we execute an innocent, it's state sponsored murder.

Please stay on track. I put in the very first post that such an act is deplorable. It still doesn't count as murder under any definition I can find, but that's a minor point. I am trying to get a reaction to the death penalty in a very specific case. Are you really describing these two as 'innocent'?

I haven't seen anyone advocate executing innocent people. Of course, the definition of innocent is a completely different topic.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

From your conclusion, I am thinking you are ok with the potential for these two animals to be released in the world and commit more attrocities. You find that preferable to execution. Since it is your guilt we are trying to assuage, can we send them to your house if they are released? I would accept your argument a little better if I could have some guarantee that when/if they are released, you will bear the consequences of your choices rather than me and mine.

For someone who blames others of having emotion based arguments, you're pretty good at making them yourself.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

From your conclusion, I am thinking you are ok with the potential for these two animals to be released in the world and commit more attrocities. You find that preferable to execution. Since it is your guilt we are trying to assuage, can we send them to your house if they are released? I would accept your argument a little better if I could have some guarantee that when/if they are released, you will bear the consequences of your choices rather than me and mine.

For someone who blames others of having emotion based arguments, you're pretty good at making them yourself.

Mmmm...you lost me on that one. I'm simply saying that I don't want to pay the potential consequences. Not wanting to pay those consequences myself, I cannot morally expect someone else to, however nameless they might be. That's not an emotional argument. I'm just bringing it home to the individual. If you are not willing to take that chance when you know you would be the one to suffer, how can you morally say someone else should? If your argument is that you are willing to accept the risks, then you should accept the risks. Leave me out.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

When we execute an innocent, it's state sponsored murder.

Please stay on track. I put in the very first post that such an act is deplorable. It still doesn't count as murder under any definition I can find, but that's a minor point. I am trying to get a reaction to the death penalty in a very specific case. Are you really describing these two as 'innocent'?

I haven't seen anyone advocate executing innocent people. Of course, the definition of innocent is a completely different topic.

Of course nobody is in favor of executing innocent people. You want to look at this one case outside of the context of the system in which it exists. Other people want to look at this case in the context of the system in which it exists. I believe that our system is so flawed (and has been proven to be so by all of the exonerations of the innocence project) that it is inevitable that if we have the death penalty we will end up executing innocent people. My examination of the facts just leaves no doubt about that. I am not able to envision a system that will eliminate that possibility and the attempts that I can envision will just heighten the existing practical problems with the death penalty (mainly cost).

So, I object to your entire framing of the question and I think at least some other people do as well. Taking situations out of context may provide answers that are intellectually satisfying but also that have real world consequences that you are ignoring.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[normiss 893]

Very nicely stated.
Thanks.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When we execute an innocent, it's state sponsored murder.

Please stay on track. I put in the very first post that such an act is deplorable. It still doesn't count as murder under any definition I can find, but that's a minor point. I am trying to get a reaction to the death penalty in a very specific case. Are you really describing these two as 'innocent'?

I haven't seen anyone advocate executing innocent people. Of course, the definition of innocent is a completely different topic.

Of course nobody is in favor of executing innocent people. You want to look at this one case outside of the context of the system in which it exists. Other people want to look at this case in the context of the system in which it exists. I believe that our system is so flawed (and has been proven to be so by all of the exonerations of the innocence project) that it is inevitable that if we have the death penalty we will end up executing innocent people. My examination of the facts just leaves no doubt about that. I am not able to envision a system that will eliminate that possibility and the attempts that I can envision will just heighten the existing practical problems with the death penalty (mainly cost).

So, I object to your entire framing of the question and I think at least some other people do as well. Taking situations out of context may provide answers that are intellectually satisfying but also that have real world consequences that you are ignoring.

If that is how you read it, I may have gone wrong somewhere and apologize.

I completely want this in context of our existing legal system. Within our existing legal system, LWOP could potentially place these two back on the street. I find that unacceptable. My question is precisely to keep it in context. That's why I object to the arguments that propose we fix the system. That changes the context.

Even if we changed the context and pretended LWOP could mean exactly what it says, we would have to leave some allowance for those cases where later evidence clearly exonerates the individual. So, we will never have a true LWOP.

So, within an imperfect system, what do we do with these two confessed animals?

I acknowledge and agree with your underlying premise. There have been executions of people that were deplorable. I agree execution should only be in extreme and clear cases such as this. I merely argue that there are cases such as this one where it is completely justified. Failure to remove this threat permanently leaves the potential to unleash it on an unsuspecting society. I'm not ok with that. I don't want them in my home or yours.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 893]

"where later evidence clearly exonerates the individual. So, we will never have a true LWOP. "

Did you really mean to say what you did???

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

If that is how you read it, I may have gone wrong somewhere and apologize.

I completely want this in context of our existing legal system. Within our existing legal system, LWOP could potentially place these two back on the street. I find that unacceptable. My question is precisely to keep it in context. That's why I object to the arguments that propose we fix the system. That changes the context.

Even if we changed the context and pretended LWOP could mean exactly what it says, we would have to leave some allowance for those cases where later evidence clearly exonerates the individual. So, we will never have a true LWOP.

So, within an imperfect system, what do we do with these two confessed animals?

I acknowledge and agree with your underlying premise. There have been executions of people that were deplorable. I agree execution should only be in extreme and clear cases such as this. I merely argue that there are cases such as this one where it is completely justified. Failure to remove this threat permanently leaves the potential to unleash it on an unsuspecting society. I'm not ok with that. I don't want them in my home or yours.

If we are looking at the entire system then, that changes the entire calculus of the question. It sounds like we are both agreeing on these two facts:

1. In our current system having the death penalty will result in some innocent people being put to death.
2. In our current system the lack of a death penalty will result in some people being released who have committed heinous crimes.

It appears you are willing to tolerate the chance of #1 in order that #2 does not become a reality. I am willing to tolerate the chance of #2 so that #1 will not become a reality. We are then both talking about balancing competing interests of the system. I find putting to death innocent people so egregious that I am willing to tolerate the possibility that some guilty people will be released (as currently happens in our system).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Marinus 0]

Fair enough, the phrase "two animals" probably put me off track. I'm pretty sure that all the opponents of CP don't want those two men to get out ever again, and I think that with current technology it's not that hard to achieve that. Give them a high grade steel neck collar with GPS tracker etc. and for good measure add some redundant systems as well, and I think it must be possible to reduce the chance of escaping to virtually zero.

[billvon 3,112]

>I am sure you agree with me that, by allowing the death penalty, you
>are, justifying killing.

Yes. Just as by allowing imprisonment you justify holding people against their will.

>With that logic, could it be legal to rape a convicted rapist? legally steal
>from a thief?

Probably no and probably yes, respectively. Often legal penalties for theft include fines, which is money effectively "stolen" from the thief.

>We have done the exact same thing we despised him for doing.

Yes. Just as we imprison people despite laws against kidnapping; just as we take money from thieves despite laws against theft.

Keep in mind that killing someone is not illegal in the US; police sometimes do it with good reason, doctors do it sometimes with consent of the person's family and soldiers are employed to do just that. It is murder in all its varieties that is illegal.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Speaking of discussion, Do you have anything in response to my morals as you asked for?

Your morals allow you to be OK with legal kidnapping but not with legal murder. I see no reason to try to talk you out of feeling that way.

I think a lot of difference in opinion stems from how we would personally feel in the situation. If I was a convicted criminal facing the two options, I would definitely be hoping for the death penalty, because I see life in prison as a fate worse than death. And with the suicide rate in prison being higher than the general population (even with far less means to commit suicide), I'm guessing there are a lot of inmates who feel that way too.

And just to be clear, I don't buy into the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" BS. (When I was on a jury, I would get so annoyed any time anyone would use that line.) If I did, I would be saying the criminals in the OP should be raped, doused with gasoline, and set on fire for punishment. But no, I am suggesting a humane execution, which is the opposite of what they did to their victims.

And BTW, when I was on the jury for a capital murder trial, I was one of the jury members who voted against the death penalty in that particular case. I do believe the death penalty should be reserved for certain extreme cases (which don't necessarily even need to involve killing someone), and this wasn't one of those cases.

[linebckr83 3]

I say you get punishment equal to the crime you committed. If you rape someone, you get raped yourself.

What would keep you from doing that, living a life with free food/tv/drugs/friends or getting raped yourself?

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

If that is how you read it, I may have gone wrong somewhere and apologize.

I completely want this in context of our existing legal system. Within our existing legal system, LWOP could potentially place these two back on the street. I find that unacceptable. My question is precisely to keep it in context. That's why I object to the arguments that propose we fix the system. That changes the context.

Even if we changed the context and pretended LWOP could mean exactly what it says, we would have to leave some allowance for those cases where later evidence clearly exonerates the individual. So, we will never have a true LWOP.

So, within an imperfect system, what do we do with these two confessed animals?

I acknowledge and agree with your underlying premise. There have been executions of people that were deplorable. I agree execution should only be in extreme and clear cases such as this. I merely argue that there are cases such as this one where it is completely justified. Failure to remove this threat permanently leaves the potential to unleash it on an unsuspecting society. I'm not ok with that. I don't want them in my home or yours.

If we are looking at the entire system then, that changes the entire calculus of the question. It sounds like we are both agreeing on these two facts:

1. In our current system having the death penalty will result in some innocent people being put to death.
2. In our current system the lack of a death penalty will result in some people being released who have committed heinous crimes.

It appears you are willing to tolerate the chance of #1 in order that #2 does not become a reality. I am willing to tolerate the chance of #2 so that #1 will not become a reality. We are then both talking about balancing competing interests of the system. I find putting to death innocent people so egregious that I am willing to tolerate the possibility that some guilty people will be released (as currently happens in our system).

OK. Now, I think we are making progress. I agree with both of your points. My question is; in this particular case, is the death penalty justified? I am not globalizing the question as you attribute to me (no malice interpreted). I am making it specific to this case.

If capital punishment is a viable course of action in THIS case (within context), then we acknowledge that it CAN BE a viable course of action. We then undertake to put in place the safeguards that prevent it's misuse. At that point, and that point only, we start to change the context.

If capital punishment is NEVER a viable course of action, then we have to undertake to make LWOP a viable course of action (or seek a third solution entirely). That's where we change the context with that solution.

First and foremost, we have to decide if capital punishment is justified in THIS situation..in the present context...with all the potential for mistake.

I thought about this during my workout a little while ago. I'm going to try to lay out a scenario and make it a more clear question. I think I'll make it a poll. More to follow.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

"where later evidence clearly exonerates the individual. So, we will never have a true LWOP. "

Did you really mean to say what you did???

I think so. Explain to me where I went wrong. If we give up captial punishment in favor of LWOP because there is a chance we could wrongfully convict someone, we can't have a true LWOP. If could wrongfully convict someone, we have to have a provision to get out of LWOP. Therefore, there is no true LWOP. There will never be a way to eliminate the potential for someone to commit whatever heinous crimes and still walk free subsequently.

I know you probably think I am saying that we should eliminate capital punishment because of the potential for wrongful conviction. I'm not. I'm saying that the argument against capital punishment also prevents a true LWOP. So, while we could eliminate the possibility of wrongfully executing someone, we could not eliminate the possibility of these two animals walking amongst us again.

That is on the theoretical side of the house. It takes us away from the practical matter I have laid before the forum.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If we give up captial punishment in favor of LWOP because there is a chance we could wrongfully convict someone, we can't have a true LWOP. If could wrongfully convict someone, we have to have a provision to get out of LWOP. Therefore, there is no true LWOP.

While it would be ideal to never wrongfully convict someone, I would hope that there would be a way to exonerate someone either from LWOP or death row if it did come to light that the conviction was wrong. And, of course, being exonerated is not the same as being paroled.

Quote

There will never be a way to eliminate the potential for someone to commit whatever heinous crimes and still walk free subsequently.

No, there will never be a way to eliminate this possibility. Death penalty or no death penalty. Some people will commit crimes that there will be no possible way to prove and therefore no way to convict/punish these people.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

you argue that the death penalty is not justified because other countries use the death penalty for lesser crimes.

I argued two things:

1) One can make a solid argument that CP is murder or in some cases murder.
2) I look at the big picture, not isolated cases. In my case the big picture is CP as seen on Planet Earth in the present and recent past.

I can in fact think of situations in which CP is the most ethical choice. For instance: if you're in a society that doesn't have them means to reliably lock up certain criminals you've to kill them to protect society. But then again, I can also think of situations where CP is the appropriate punishment for stealing. But those situations aren't really relevant to the USA as it is. I don't get the impression that loads of inmates escape from death row as it is, so why would they escape if you get rid of the executions and Apply more rigorous safety measures?

As for CP in this (im must admit rather "perfect") case: to be honest I do not know if it's justified. Emotionally I would say yes, rationally I would say no and ethically I just don't know but I lean to no. In a sense the jury is still out on it. But I tend to concentrate on the CP system, and in the US it's so flawed it's simply irresponsible to execute anyone in. To make matters worse, the US has the best and most civilized CP system ever AFAICS, and it still sucks. So to me it seems CP never works out right and if this case had happened in the Netherlands, I would not want to reinstate the death penalty over it.

To me the death penalty doesn't seem beneficial to society. Usually it's a sign of barbarism and primitivism, and even if it isn't, like in for example the USA, I can still see it's less than beneficial effect on society. People who barbecue outside a prison to celebrate that someone is fried to death in a chair inside it. Thanks, but no thanks, to steam punk medieval for my taste.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

OK. Now, I think we are making progress. I agree with both of your points. My question is; in this particular case, is the death penalty justified? I am not globalizing the question as you attribute to me (no malice interpreted). I am making it specific to this case.

If capital punishment is a viable course of action in THIS case (within context), then we acknowledge that it CAN BE a viable course of action. We then undertake to put in place the safeguards that prevent it's misuse. At that point, and that point only, we start to change the context.

If capital punishment is NEVER a viable course of action, then we have to undertake to make LWOP a viable course of action (or seek a third solution entirely). That's where we change the context with that solution.

First and foremost, we have to decide if capital punishment is justified in THIS situation..in the present context...with all the potential for mistake.

I thought about this during my workout a little while ago. I'm going to try to lay out a scenario and make it a more clear question. I think I'll make it a poll. More to follow.

Again, I reject your premise to look at this case outside of the system of which it is a part. Our death penalty system kills innocent people. That is an unacceptable cost to me, even if the cost on the other side is that some people who commit heinous crimes are eventually freed. I do not believe the death penalty can ever be a viable course of action because I do not believe it is possible to design a system that is free from error.

I have no problem with strengthening life without parole provisions.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Again, I reject your premise to look at this case outside of the system of which it is a part.

you actually are accepting his premise - you just don't like being reminded of what your position might cost - even if you (as stated) are willing to pay for it, or have someone else pay for it

the argument also balances the opposite viewpoint
you just prioritize the beta error over the alpha error
and there's nothing wrong with that - it's a legitimate point -



However, this statement you make is disturbing "even if the cost on the other side is that some people who commit heinous crimes are eventually freed"

the cost on the other side is not a guilty person going free - the equivalent COST for this debate is the guilty person going free and killing, raping, torturing another innocent

justice is NOT about punishing the criminal - it's about protecting the innocent from the criminal





Both sides of the debate are arguing to protect someone potentially innocent - I find that bit heartening at least.


So the debate only works if each side acknowledges the other's motivations:

Pro-CP advocates have to acknowledge their opposition is motivated by protecting execution of innocent defendants

Anti-CP advocates have to acknowledge their opposition is motivated by protecting society from further heinous acts


if they don't, then it's just a couple groups demonizing their opposition and running around with fingers in their ears yellling "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Again, I reject your premise to look at this case outside of the system of which it is a part.

you actually are accepting his premise - you just don't like being reminded of what your position might cost - even if you (as stated) are willing to pay for it, or have someone else pay for it

the argument also balances the opposite viewpoint
you just prioritize the beta error over the alpha error
and there's nothing wrong with that - it's a legitimate point -



However, this statement you make is disturbing "even if the cost on the other side is that some people who commit heinous crimes are eventually freed"

the cost on the other side is not a guilty person going free - the equivalent COST for this debate is the guilty person going free and killing, raping, torturing another innocent

justice is NOT about punishing the criminal - it's about protecting the innocent from the criminal





Both sides of the debate are arguing to protect someone potentially innocent - I find that bit heartening at least.


So the debate only works if each side acknowledges the other's motivations:

Pro-CP advocates have to acknowledge their opposition is motivated by protecting execution of innocent defendants

Anti-CP advocates have to acknowledge their opposition is motivated by protecting society from further heinous acts


if they don't, then it's just a couple groups demonizing their opposition and running around with fingers in their ears yellling "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

SouthernMan: I have to agree with this. I think you are basically agreeing that in this case (and we could probably find others) the facts are so surely established and the crimes so heinous that we could justify the death penalty. It seems to me you are still objecting because you don't like the potential slippery slope that creates. I agree. There is a slippery slope. But if we could agree that it is possible that cases exist where the potential for error is virtually eliminated, I think we then progress to constructing the theoretical prerequisites for imposing the sentence of death. I think you and I agree that the bar must be placed higher than it has been in the past to prevent mistakes. We may or may not disagree on where the bar should be. But the first step is to accept that captial punishment has it's place in the sentencing structure.

Now, if you maintain that all killing is unjust under any circumstances, I don't think we can ever agree. Uncompromising absolutes like that are rarely practicable in the real world. I have not argued that the death penalty is good. I think it is regrettable in the extreme and should greatly sadden any human being that it becomes necessary. I also think it sometimes becomes necessary.

I have been on juries, been a court martial officer where I weighed the evidence and determined punishment, and have administered many cases of non-judicial punishment. Every case was emotionally draining. I did not approach any of the cases with flippancy or pithy edicts or thoughts of moral imperatives. I took every case on its own merits and anguished over the just outcome. I look at the death penalty the same way. It should be rare and clearly mandated by the individual's verifiable conduct. I would never do it on eye witness testimony alone or any case where the evidence was less than absolutely compelling.

I presented this case because nobody seems to question the evidence. The convicted both confessed and continue to own their actions. I think we should surely try to find where society could do better to prevent animals like this from developing and, when done, destroy the cancer with solemnity and regret.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

From this I gather that you are arguing for three major points:

1. Unconditional guilt
Can you guarantee that all death penalty decisions will be based on unconditional guilt? Nope. Currently we cannot.

2. Cost of maintenance
Sorry to hear that morality is being sacrificed for monetary concerns. IMO, morality doesn't come with a price factor.

3. Possible release
Yep. Currently that's true. Blame that on the legal system. That CAN be fixed.
Pointless to use examples like Manson. AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, his current sentence does not include 'no possibility of parole' so yes, he could be released at any of his parole hearings.

None of those pro-death penalty arguments override the arguments against state-sponsored killing.

Quote

OK. I'm going to guess that your previous word game was intentional.

Did you miss what I said? I bolded it for you.

Quote

1. I never said anything about unconditional guilt. That was your re-wording.

Nobody said you did. (refer to the bolded print above)
Is this YOUR idea of 'word games'?

Quote

Please explain to me how you have some reasonable argument how these guys texted, took pictures of the rape on their cell phones, confessed, got caught on camera getting gas, etc. and yet managed to be innocent of this crime.

There are no arguments as to their guilt. Did somebody say that? Or, more likely, did you misread between the lines?

Quote

However, I asked for a reasonable solution TODAY for the instant case.

Unreasonable request. There is no solution available today...unless you consider execution a reasonable solution. In that case, go ahead an whack 'em. While you're at it, snag some of the innocent, too. They won't mind....after the fact.

Quote

From your conclusion, I am thinking you are ok with the potential for these two animals to be released in the world and commit more attrocities. You find that preferable to execution.

More word games. You elect to put it in a light that suits your fancy. Allow me to put it one that suits mine, eh?
I am not OK with state-sponsored executions...at any level of goobermint you so choose to discuss.

Using the same approach you used...
From your conclusion, I am thinking you are ok with the potential for the innocent to be killed by the state.

Sorry. I don't go for that.

Quote

Since it is your guilt we are trying to assuage,

Now you're just trying to be the asshole. MY guilt? Assuage? What the hell are you on about here?????

If you think killing an innocent person is OK, then my friend, you obviously have no guilt....you do know there is a diagnosis in the psychological world for that condition don't you?

Quote

can we send them to your house if they are released? I would accept your argument a little better if I could have some guarantee that when/if they are released, you will bear the consequences of your choices rather than me and mine.

What a stupid thing to say. OK....Can we plant your mother in your back yard after she is wrongfully executed for a crime she didn't commit and let you have your weekend bar-b-ques over her grave? I don't want her in MY back yard, thank you.

Yes, just as stupid as your comment.

And no, none of your asinine comments are going to change my mind on this. Maybe one of these days somebody you know, or is close to you, will be executed for something they didn't do. I wonder what song you would be singing then, eh?

Love how you use a most heinous event to try to drum up support for your lack of concern for the innocent.

'Nuff said.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I am trying to get a reaction to the death penalty in a very specific case. .

Specifically. No. No state-sponsored executions. Period. Can't get any plainer than that.

'Why' has already been said several times.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Your morals allow you to be OK with legal kidnapping but not with legal murder. I see no reason to try to talk you out of feeling that way.

Thanks. I do cringe at your inappropriate contention equating kidnapping to incarceration.

Quote

I think a lot of difference in opinion stems from how we would personally feel in the situation.

Yes. The death penalty is an emotional topic. Take the emotion out of it and it boils down to letting the guilty go free to prevent the killing of the innocent. Or, to look at it from the other side of the fence, take a chance on killing to innocent to prevent the guilty from going free.

Quote

If I was a convicted criminal facing the two options, I would definitely be hoping for the death penalty, because I see life in prison as a fate worse than death.

Me, too....unless I was innocent.

Quote

But no, I am suggesting a humane execution, which is the opposite of what they did to their victims.

So you favor the death penalty. We differ.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

(Anti-Death Penalty) advocates have to acknowledge their opposition is motivated by protecting execution of innocent defendants

(Pro-Death Penalty) advocates have to acknowledge their opposition is motivated by protecting society from further heinous acts

Ahhh...refreshing. A well thought-out summarization.

Quote

justice is NOT about punishing the criminal - it's about protecting the innocent from the criminal

I'm not sure about your definition of what 'justice' is all about in the real world but it sure reads good on paper.

Quote

Both sides of the debate are arguing to protect someone potentially innocent - I find that bit heartening at least.

There is a redeeming factor in the debate after all!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...can we send them to your house if they are released? I would accept your argument a little better if I could have some guarantee that when/if they are released, you will bear the consequences of your choices rather than me and mine.

If I were to take this part of your post seriously, I'd say, "Yes. send 'em on over. The state won't have to execute them when they show up in my house uninvited with evil intentions and acts."

I can protect myself from them. I can't protect myself from the state sneaking up and snagging me for something I didn't do and then killing me.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

From this I gather that you are arguing for three major points:

1. Unconditional guilt
Can you guarantee that all death penalty decisions will be based on unconditional guilt? Nope. Currently we cannot.

2. Cost of maintenance
Sorry to hear that morality is being sacrificed for monetary concerns. IMO, morality doesn't come with a price factor.

3. Possible release
Yep. Currently that's true. Blame that on the legal system. That CAN be fixed.
Pointless to use examples like Manson. AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, his current sentence does not include 'no possibility of parole' so yes, he could be released at any of his parole hearings.

None of those pro-death penalty arguments override the arguments against state-sponsored killing.

Quote

OK. I'm going to guess that your previous word game was intentional.

Did you miss what I said? I bolded it for you.

Quote

1. I never said anything about unconditional guilt. That was your re-wording.

Nobody said you did. (refer to the bolded print above)
Is this YOUR idea of 'word games'?

Quote

Please explain to me how you have some reasonable argument how these guys texted, took pictures of the rape on their cell phones, confessed, got caught on camera getting gas, etc. and yet managed to be innocent of this crime.

There are no arguments as to their guilt. Did somebody say that? Or, more likely, did you misread between the lines?

Quote

However, I asked for a reasonable solution TODAY for the instant case.

Unreasonable request. There is no solution available today...unless you consider execution a reasonable solution. In that case, go ahead an whack 'em. While you're at it, snag some of the innocent, too. They won't mind....after the fact.

Quote

From your conclusion, I am thinking you are ok with the potential for these two animals to be released in the world and commit more attrocities. You find that preferable to execution.

More word games. You elect to put it in a light that suits your fancy. Allow me to put it one that suits mine, eh?
I am not OK with state-sponsored executions...at any level of goobermint you so choose to discuss.

Using the same approach you used...
From your conclusion, I am thinking you are ok with the potential for the innocent to be killed by the state.

Sorry. I don't go for that.

Quote

Since it is your guilt we are trying to assuage,

Now you're just trying to be the asshole. MY guilt? Assuage? What the hell are you on about here?????

If you think killing an innocent person is OK, then my friend, you obviously have no guilt....you do know there is a diagnosis in the psychological world for that condition don't you?

Quote

can we send them to your house if they are released? I would accept your argument a little better if I could have some guarantee that when/if they are released, you will bear the consequences of your choices rather than me and mine.

What a stupid thing to say. OK....Can we plant your mother in your back yard after she is wrongfully executed for a crime she didn't commit and let you have your weekend bar-b-ques over her grave? I don't want her in MY back yard, thank you.

Yes, just as stupid as your comment.

And no, none of your asinine comments are going to change my mind on this. Maybe one of these days somebody you know, or is close to you, will be executed for something they didn't do. I wonder what song you would be singing then, eh?

Love how you use a most heinous event to try to drum up support for your lack of concern for the innocent.

'Nuff said.

I really don't think we are communicating here. I think I have made it plain that am absolutely not OK with innocent people being executed. I have used extreme descriptives for this travesty of justice. I presented this case as a potential point of agreement that there are cases where we can collectively accept that capital punishment can be warranted and carried out with no fear of wrongfully executing the innocent. If we could agree that there are cases, then we could go about determining under what extreme circumstances we could allow it. I think this is an extreme case that reasonable people should be able to agree on. I think most of the people arguing against it are doing so not based on the merits of this case, but on the idea that the government cannot be trusted, or captial punishment has been misused before or some other extraneous issue. You are among them. I don't hold it against you. It just makes it hard to debate the matter. You seem rather emotional in your responses and it makes it very hard to communicate ideas.

For instance; the comment about sending them to your house was to bring home the idea that someone could very well die for your convictions. I placed the convicts in your house to get you to think about that. When it isn't some nameless unknown that dies, it becomes more real. As for me, I always ask myself if I would be willing to throw the switch and bear the guilt if I later found out the person was not guilty. I don't decide that capital punishment is alright while distancing myself personally from the effects. I consider that morally repugnant. That was my point. It wasn't meant to be an attack on you.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.