davjohns

Really? You posted it yourself: "3. To put an end to; destroy: " So when the State executes an inocent man, they have put and end to his life, or one could say, they have destroyed his life. According to your own posted definitions, that is murder. I think it was pretty clear that definition related to non-living things. It even gave an example of 'murdered their chances'. The ones dealing with people had the issue of unlawful within the definition. Really, I had hoped to engage in legitimate debate on a real topic before our society. I guess that was my mistake. Too many people on this forum seem determined to just argue and fly off on pointless tangents. Argument is not debate. Tangents are rarely helpful to reaching mutual ground. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I feel like I'm trying to teach a pig to sing. Wasting my time and annoying the pig. I'm giving up. Please continue with your regularly scheduled school-yard taunts and bickering. 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.

Hmmmm...don't we already provide free cell phones and monthly minutes to the 'disadvantaged' for safety? Maybe the government needs to issue out one firearm per household and a monthly allowance of ammo? 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.

Outstanding! Can't wait until he requires everyone to attend workouts in Central Park three times per week. Mandatory pedometers that radio back to headquarters that the individual is doing their required number of miles would be good, too! Seriously, if you want government to pay for your health care, you have to be ready for government to tell you how to care for your health. Brace yourselves. It's going to be a wild ride. 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: That was funny as hell! Piisfish: Got it now. Sorry I missed it the first time. I understand the sentiment, but I still believe in a system and standards no matter how heinous the crime. Slippery slope and all that... 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.

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. I'm going to have to think about this. You do not trust a judge and jury with the aid of a team of investigators and attorneys to come to the right conclusion. Indeed, you reject a case with overwhelming physical evidence and confessions. But we should trust you to make a decision and execute someone on the spot. At first glance, that seems paradoxical to me. I have no problem with deadly force in self defense. It just seems at odds with your position on capital punishment. I'll get back to you on this. 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.

Did you miss what I said? I bolded it for you. Nobody said you did. (refer to the bolded print above) Is this YOUR idea of 'word games'? There are no arguments as to their guilt. Did somebody say that? Or, more likely, did you misread between the lines? 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. 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. 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? 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.

I hope you mean executed. 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.

I don't get all the extraneous talk. Execution: Immediately upon exiting the court room. Emotionally, I could agree with that. Intellectually, I think there is great value to a bit of cooling off and re-looking the evidence to make sure we are doing what we must before we throw the switch. It is a grave undertaking to take a life. It should not be done in haste or with emotion. 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.

What facts? In fairyland, yes. In the real world, where it matters, no. No I didn't. You've missed the point. Read the post again, but less angry. I'm not angry at all. You made clear that you are against the death penalty because you can never be sure enough of the facts. I asked about this specific case. Are you sure enough of this case? I used humor to describe how these facts are about as solid as you can get. Sorry you interpreted that as anger. 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.

I've argued that the tens or hundreds of even thousands of cases of voter fraud in an election pale to the > 1% count error endemic to vote counting, which would be 1 million missed votes in a major election for the US. So even if you take your dozens of examples and multiply them by 100 for the presumed missed events, you've struggling to get a number that is even 1/10th as big. So, until we can fix everything, we should fix nothing? I'm pretty sure people are working on a more accurate way of accounting for votes. Why would that keep us from making those votes more credible individually? 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.

More people are killed by knives. Maybe that is because more people carry guns. That's funny. I don't know if it's true or not, but I got my morning chuckle. Thanks. 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.

I agree that it gives perspective. It tends to show a bias, but is fundamentally useful. Describing the threat as 'miniscule' indicates an understanding of how bad the problem is...which we don't. Theoretically, ten percent of the country could be voting and another ten percent could be voting for themselves and another forty percent. The forty percent we think don't vote could just represent the number the frauds haven't gotten around to voting for yet. :) We just don't know because we don't require ID. However, the point is well taken. We have plenty of big problems in this country. Voter fraud is only one and certainly not the most important. Personally, I would think a balanced budget would be much nicer. Hell, I'd be impressed if the feds could just pass a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year it's implemented in. They haven't done that in 14 years. It's the one thing they know they have to do every year, yet they can't get it done. Makes you wonder about their competence to handle more complex issues like marriage, where life begins, religion and such. In the big scheme of things, voter fraud probably doesn't make the top ten. But it is important. 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.

I'm not sure the victims of the hillside strangler would agree. Dead is dead. I will agree that guns give less physically capable people an advantage over more physically capable people they might not have with a lesser weapon. But then, that's the point of a gun. So, the converse of your argument is that an innocent person with a gun is safer from dangerous nutters than an innocent person with panty hose. The weapon merely determines who has the compartive advantage. It is a tool. The dangerous nutter becomes a more dangerous nutter. The protector becomes a more effective protector. 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.

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.

Your general premise is likely correct, but "every" is almost certainly false. An illegal alien that votes is likely to do it once. They may have been told that they were legally entitled to vote and shown how to register. So behind them is a single entity or group directing them, but no multiplier. But if someone really is directing other's absentee ballots, or showing up at the polling place and picking a random name, yes, I think it's fair to expect that they are casting more than one ballot. Maybe all the polling places they can walk/drive to. So sure, let's say it's 10 votes, an order of magnitude larger. The problem remains however, that the 1% threshold of a million miscounted voters is still 2 orders of magnitude greater (100x). We're a far way off from parity still. I think you confused two different ideas. A. Says that if we catch one person committing voter fraud, there are certainly more that we did not catch. Kind of like speeders. B. Says that if we are aware of someone disenfranchised over ID, there are likely others we don't know about. I was just giving both sides of the coin to be fair. I have no idea what your last argument was supposed to mean. I think you changed topics without a transitional phrase or sentence. 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.

Oh, OK. So this is a debate about the merits of capital punishment in psychic fairyland. Dropping the extraneous bollocks, and assuming this case takes place in the real feckin' world, then if I had a choice between LWOP and CP I would choose LWOP. If a guilty verdict had to carry the death penalty, I would still find them guilty. In the wider picture, I would not want to keep the death penalty for cases as (seemingly) cut and dried as this, because there is no way to reserve the death penalty for cases where the defendent is really really 100% definitely totally guilty and we're absolutely sure there were no mistakes and we certainly won't find out ten years down the line that everyone involved lied and cheated scouts honour no returns. Can't work like that. You ignored the rules. You came to a conclusion and then bent the facts to fit your conclusion. The subject case is the only case. You don't get to say there is no way to change the law to make it apply to all cases, therefore I reject this case. This is what you did. IF you accept that in this case and this case only, there is a valid argument for capital punishment, then and only then, we can move on to what pre-requisites would be necessary to insure the legitimacy of the death penalty and prevent misuse. You have jumped to a conclusion that you can never be sure enough. If you are sure enough in this case without a theory that involves government conspiracy, space aliens, hallucinogens and Area 54, then we have to accept that there are rare cases. If you do not accept that this case is clear enough...what the hell more do you want? There are pictures on the guy's cell phone, video tapes at the convenience store, confessions, counter-accusations, eye witness testimony, DNA, text messages and a friggin diary! 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.

Not at all. I just preempted the morally repugnant idea that the consequences are most likely to fall on someone else. Since you are society in this case, you make the decision and you suffer the consequences. You also get to assign the probability of those consequences coming to pass. The 'imagine it's your family' argument is used for events that have already happened. It is therefore a certainty. I have given you a case where you determine how certain the consequences are. 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.

I have no objection. I specificall said you could add perils I missed and assign probabilities as you deem correct. 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.

The context is the current legal system. You do not get to argue that anything should be changed. Capital punishment is an option. LWOP is an option. Both carry the attendant perils that they have in reality. Execution perils: The convicted could subsequently be exonerated by other evidence. Mandatory appeals are costly. There is a moral implication for society. There is a potential burden on the person who has to throw the switch. Etc. LWOP perils: They can commit crimes while in prison. They can escape. They can be pardoned, paroled, sentence commuted, etc. and commit more attrocities. There is a cost to keeping them contained. Etc. YOU get to decide what the relative chances are that the perils of the sentence will come to pass. You determine if there are perils I have not enumerated and you can take them into consideration and assign them probabilities as your conscience dictates. You can research the perils and probabilities in the real world (or not) as your conscience dictates. Caveat: IF you determine that there is a chance of escape, parole or other release AND there is a chance they will commit other crimes...YOU must be the victim. You are not allowed to make the moral decision to execute or not and project the potential consequences on someone else. That is morally reprehensible and invalidates your opinion entirely. If you believe there is ANY chance they could get away and commit similar acts, it must be YOUR daughter raped while they photograph it, your head bashed with a baseball bat, your wife raped and strangled, your daughters set on fire and you will escape to live with the memories. Again, the probability is left to you. Conversely, if you decide that execution is the proper solution, YOU must throw the switch, inject, etc. You are similary barred from placing the moral implications of your decision on someone else. If the convicts are later exonerated, you must live with that as well. If someone is to be sued or prosecuted for the wrongful execution, you are on the line. Again, the probabilities are up to you. The consequences of your decision, remote or assured, are yours and yours alone. In effect, YOU are society. You make the determination, but you pay for whatever effects result from that decision. The case is a copy and paste from the internet. It is: As Jennifer Hawke-Petit and 11-year-old Michaela Petit shopped at a local supermarket, unbeknownst to them, they had been targeted by Komisarjevsky, who followed them home, and planned to later rob the family by home invasion. Anticipating their deeds, Hayes and Komisarjevsky exchanged text messages that were later introduced in court. Hayes first messaged Komisarjevsky: "I'm chomping at the bit to get started. Need a margarita soon". Hayes then texts: "We still on?" Komisarjevsky replies "Yes". Hayes' next text asks, "Soon?", to which Komisarjevsky replied with "I'm putting the kid to bed hold your horses". Hayes then asserts "Dude, the horses want to get loose. LOL." According to Hayes' confession, the two men planned to rob the house and flee the scene with the family bound and unharmed. Hayes attributed the outcome of the spree to a change in their plan. Upon their early morning arrival, they found William Petit sleeping on a couch on the porch. With a bat Komisarjevsky had found in the yard, he bludgeoned William and then restrained him in the basement at gun point. The children and their mother were each bound and locked in their respective rooms. Hayes says he and Komisarjevsky were not satisfied with their haul, and that a bankbook was found which had an available balance. Hayes convinced Jennifer to withdraw $15,000 from her line of credit. A gas station's video surveillance shows Hayes purchasing $10 worth of gasoline in two cans he had taken from the Petit home. After returning to the house, and unloading the gas, he took her to the bank. The prosecution later entered this as evidence of premeditation. The bank surveillance cameras captured the transaction which shows Hawke-Petit in the morning of July 23 as she informed the teller of her situation. The teller then called 911 and reported the details to police. Hawke-Petit left the bank, was picked up by Hayes, who had escorted her there, and drove away. These actions were reported to the 911 dispatcher and recorded in real time. The teller stated that Hawke-Petit had indicated the assailants were "being nice", and she believed they only wanted money. The Cheshire police response to the bank tellers' "urgent bid" began with assessing the situation and setting up a vehicle perimeter. These preliminary measures employed by the police exhausted more than half an hour and provided the time used by the assailants to conclude their modified plan. During this time, Hayes and Komisarjevsky escalated the aggravated nature of their crimes. Komisarjevsky sexually assaulted the 11-year-old daughter, Michaela. Komisarjevsky, who had photographed the sexual assault of the youth on his cell phone, then provoked Hayes to rape Hawke-Petit. While Hayes was raping Hawke-Petit on the floor of her living room, Komisarjevsky entered the room announcing that William Petit had escaped. Hayes then strangled Hawke-Petit, doused her lifeless body and parts of the house including the daughters' rooms with gasoline. The daughters, while tied to their beds, had both been doused with gasoline; each had her head covered with a pillowcase. A fire was then ignited, and Hayes and Komisarjevsky fled the scene. 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela both died from smoke inhalation. William Petit had been able to free himself, escape his confines, and call to a neighbor for help. The neighbor indicated that he did not recognize Petit, due to the severity of Petit's injuries. In court testimony, William Petit stated that he felt a "jolt of adrenaline" coupled with a need to escape upon hearing one of the perpetrators state: "Don't worry, it's going to be all over in a couple of minutes." Petit then told the jury, "I thought, it's now or never because in my mind at that moment, I thought they were going to shoot all of us." Hayes and Komisarjevsky fled the scene using the Petit family car. They were immediately spotted by police surveillance, pursued by police, apprehended, and arrested one block away. The whole invasion lasted seven hours. The scenario was revealed in a confession by Hayes just hours after the killings. Detectives testified that Hayes exuded a strong stench of gasoline throughout the interrogation. Each perpetrator was said to have blamed or implicated the other as the mastermind and driving force behind the spree. There were even attempts to blame William Petit as an accomplice. A diary kept by Komisarjevsky was entered into evidence which also blamed William. This account called him a "coward" and claimed he could have stopped the murders had he wanted to. The jury has found the evidence credible and convincing. The accused are convicted of all the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. What is your sentence? 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.

It's late in the discussion and I apologize for missing this before; but I may have had an epiphany during my afternoon workout (I sometimes do good thinking during workouts). I have been guilty of accepting a flawed moral equivalency in this debate. I now wish to correct it and submit it for comment. To this point, I have personally been debating that I would much rather see someone commit voter fraud than to have someone else deprived of their right to vote. I gave it at least a 1:1 moral equivalency and really weighted it toward the disenfranchised voter. That was an emotional reaction and I was wrong. I'll explain: 1. A fraudulent vote disenfranchises someone else's vote. A fraudulent vote for Mitt Romney in the presidential election will invalidate a legitimate vote for Barack Obama. Therefore, a moral parity exists when someone is not allowed to vote due to lack of ID or someone's vote is invalidated due to a fraudulent vote. The fact that we know the name of the person not allowed to vote and the fraudulent vote disenfranchised an unknown individual is irrelevant. 2. The person whose vote was invalidated by a fraudulent vote can be presumed to have followed the rules. They registered, acquired appropriate ID (if required) and cast their vote within known parameters. The person whose vote was negated by lack of ID did not follow the rules (by definition). You can argue that it was not their fault, but at some basic level, they did not follow the rules. At this point, the moral parity begins to slip. How much and under what circumstances is clearly debatable. But there is a disparity there that must intellectually be recognized. The person whose vote in invalidated by fraud had no opportunity to make it right. The person without ID had control of the situation. 3. It is laughable to pretend that someone sets out to commit voter fraud and limits themselves to one instance per election. It can safely be presumed that one person committing voter fraud will do it on some economy of scale. I presented a link to a case where a woman was convicted of 10 counts. We can not logically know how many times she actually committed the crime. So, one person committing voter fraud disenfranchises an unknown number of legitimate voters. You can argue what that number is as long as you like. It would be ridiculous to argue the number is 1. Therefore, every discovery of voter fraud represents a greater number of disenfranchised votes than an instance of disenfranchisement due to lack of ID. A. I think it is safe to say that everyone who gets caught in voter fraud represents some greater number of those participating in it. B. I think it is equally safe to say that every known instance of voter disenfranchisement due to voter ID laws represents some greater number of those actually disenfranchised. IF we allow A and B to be equivalent (for the sake of argument); and If the logic of 1 thru 3 above are reasonably sound: I think the intellectually honest person has to admit that the known cases of voter disenfranchisement due to lack of ID must be of a magnitude greater than the known cases of those participating in voter fraud in order for an argument against voter ID requirements to reach moral parity. In other words; if we know of 50 people committing voter fraud, we can easily deduce that more than 50 votes were disenfranchised by their activities. If we have 50 people who could not vote due to voter ID laws, we still have only 50 votes disenfranchised. I have done some simple and unscientific research on the web. I find cases of voter fraud conviction easily. Voter ID laws would either disuade this activity or make it easier to find / convict. The cases of voter disenfranchisement did not readily present themselves. The one case I was able to put my finger on involved a woman who merely forgot her ID and refused to retrieve it. I came across a an article about the effect of Georgia's voter ID law that said minority participation in elections INCREASED after the law. I'm not saying this argument is conclusive on the issue. There are clearly numbers that can not be known at the moment and may be debated ad nauseum. I will say that I have become a more firm believer that voter ID laws are morally superior to systems without voter ID because this thread forced me to do some research and examine my thoughts on the matter. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.