Death Penalty

[elderberrysyrup]

Because they *don't* lock them away for life. I'm not sure which part of that you're failing to understand here. Trust me, I come from a country that doesn't have the death penalty currently. Life does not mean life.

 

And, yes, the jails are getting full. And, yes, there is something majorly wrong with society as a whole.

 

Incidently there is quite a large difference between the potential to do harm, and the actuality of having done harm. I wouldn't put down a dog that had never bitten someone, even if it was from a breed that had a bad reputation. A dog that savaged a child, on the other hand, I would put down without a second thought. Same applies to people, in my mind.

If they *don't* lock them away for life, why aren't we simply arguing that they do, rather than jump the gun and start killing?

 

If there is something wrong with society, why aren't we focusing our efforts to fixing it, rather than killing people who are a result of the problem?

 

But is shooting that dog 'justice', or simply killing? To me, it's just another kill. To others, it's some kind of 'justice'.

[JaziandCo]

If they *don't* lock them away for life, why aren't we simply arguing that they do, rather than jump the gun and start killing?

 

If there is something wrong with society, why aren't we focusing our efforts to fixing it, rather than killing people who are a result of the problem?

 

But is shooting that dog 'justice', or simply killing? To me, it's just another kill. To others, it's some kind of 'justice'.

Because then they just kill people in prison and teach people who have not killed how to.

 

We should fix it. In the mean time, the justice system can clean up those who can't be fixed.

 

Shooting the dog is neither. It's preventing it from hurting another child. When human aggression reaches that point, it's very hard to get out and the dog should probably be muzzled and leashed at all times just in case. Not many people have the resources to keep that kind of a dog in an area where others would be safe from it and there's phenomenal risks involved considering dogs like that will attack their handler given the chance. Why let it kill someone else when putting it down would prevent all that?

[Sir Barton]

1. People are killed in the name of justice daily. It's called the death penalty.

 

2. Of course you kill because you think killing is ok. You kill to 'prevent future danger' (why can't we just keep them locked up, does the same thing), thereby justifying killing, so that killing is ok.

 

3. He or She didn't play by the rules of society, which is to avoid killing someone else. So we kill him or her, which makes it ok to kill, which makes it within the rules of society to kill. It's either you're ok with killing people or you're not ok with killing people. Are we ok with killing people or aren't we?

 

4. I'd really like to ask how we can go around killing people, knowing that if we allow the death penalty, innocent people will be killed in the name of justice.

The death penalty is not a daily event so you are wrong about people being killed every day.

I've already said, we don't have the space to keep people locked up. It is much more cruel to keep them locked up. It is costly to keep them locked up and provided for. Frankly I would rather have my tax dollars go to putting a killer down then providing for him over the span of his life.

 

If I thought that killing was ok then I wouldn't care about murderers at all. Killing (murder) effects everyone. The person that is murdered and their family directly but it also causes innocent people to live in fear. Execution effects the murder and his family while alleviating fear among innocent people since they know that there is one less predator to worry about. Those are different situations with different outcomes. I would prefer if people didn't act like feral animals and would work together for the good of all but by our very nature that is extremely unlikely to occur. Let the jails hold criminals that maybe able to be rehabilitated and allow the death penalty to remove the threat of violent criminals.

 

There will always be collateral damage but that is a chance I'm willing to take because of how hard it is to get someone convicted already I'm willing to bet that most criminals sitting on death row are guilty of their crimes.

[elderberrysyrup]

The death penalty is not a daily event so you are wrong about people being killed every day.

I've already said, we don't have the space to keep people locked up. It is much more cruel to keep them locked up. It is costly to keep them locked up and provided for. Frankly I would rather have my tax dollars go to putting a killer down then providing for him over the span of his life.

 

If I thought that killing was ok then I wouldn't care about murderers at all. Killing (murder) effects everyone. The person that is murdered and their family directly but it also causes innocent people to live in fear. Execution effects the murder and his family while alleviating fear among innocent people since they know that there is one less predator to worry about. Those are different situations with different outcomes. I would prefer if people didn't act like feral animals and would work together for the good of all but by our very nature that is extremely unlikely to occur. Let the jails hold criminals that maybe able to be rehabilitated and allow the death penalty to remove the threat of violent criminals.

 

There will always be collateral damage but that is a chance I'm willing to take because of how hard it is to get someone convicted already I'm willing to bet that most criminals sitting on death row are guilty of their crimes.

I fear for people who like to say there's justice in ending lives wandering amongst us than I do of people who have killed in knowing they killed, without calling it any kind of 'justice' or 'retribution' or 'revenge'. No. It's just killing. There is no sliding scale of killingness. Once you're willing to kill innocent people just because some people are guilty, it's not justice. It's a 'good enough' half-done killing for personal satisfaction.

[Sir Barton]

I fear for people who like to say there's justice in ending lives wandering amongst us than I do of people who have killed in knowing they killed, without calling it any kind of 'justice' or 'retribution' or 'revenge'. No. It's just killing. There is no sliding scale of killingness. Once you're willing to kill innocent people just because some people are guilty, it's not justice. It's a 'good enough' half-done killing for personal satisfaction.

So you fear people who have never done anything more then you fear the guy you raped, tortured and murdered? If you aren't a criminal why would you fear someone like me?

 

No, not all killing is the same. Goes back to putting a rabid dog down vs. killing someone's pampered pet. There are reasons to kill and there is senseless killing. The condemned are guilty of senseless violence. There is sense in ending their lives even though you can't see it.

 

How about you answer the question I asked last night? Do you live in an area where you feel reasonably safe when you walk out your door? This is just a question to appease the psychologist in me.

[elderberrysyrup]

So you fear people who have never done anything more then you fear the guy you raped, tortured and murdered? If you aren't a criminal why would you fear someone like me?

 

No, not all killing is the same. Goes back to putting a rabid dog down vs. killing someone's pampered pet. There are reasons to kill and there is senseless killing. The condemned are guilty of senseless violence. There is sense in ending their lives even though you can't see it.

 

How about you answer the question I asked last night? Do you live in an area where you feel reasonably safe when you walk out your door? This is just a question to appease the psychologist in me.

Yes, I fear people who kill for a percieved reason than I do for people who kill for no reason at all. A person who kills for a perceived reason can justify something to themselves when in reality a kill is a kill.

 

Perhaps, we have a different way in seeing killing that's going on, which is why we're so disagreeable. I consider a kill a kill. Putting a pampered pet down and a rabid dog down are no different to me. Either way, they're both killed. What if the pampered pet was a rabid dog that had to be put down? It's no difference, all three are dead dogs. It all depends on who mourns them, and by then I've largely stopped caring. All the added things to 'death', emotions, mourning, whatever, I don't consider them important when it comes to something so absolute.

 

And as for me? I don't know if it matters, I don't think it should. I don't feel safe when I'm anywhere but my room.

[Nine]

Haven't finished reading the last.. 2 or so pages, but I noticed that psychological evaluation is being mentioned, and the desire to keep all offenders alive for some purpose.

 

I find delving into the mind of heinous criminals interesting and lucrative in a way. The whole Nature v.s Nurture, the constant dispute and revisions of the DSM, attempting to glean reasons behind the most senseless of crimes... some interesting stuff, but most of the results can be disputed in one way or another. Maybe no one here really remembers or knew about it, but remember when bed-wetting was thought to be a link to sociopathic behavior? That's since been debunked, but pyromaniacs and animal abuse still stand as solid warning signs.

 

However, there is no point in keeping all the prisoners alive if there is a chance to kill them. We can study those who will never be put on death row and maintain their life sentences on account of deals made by prosecutors. "*Lead us to the bodies and we won't press for the death penalty," as a short version of some examples. There will always be plenty of those cases, and many more to file into the court system in the future. So many technicalities can destroy the fragile death sentence and so few executions now a days, it's ridiculous to want to trim that number down even more than the hardly substantial amount it is now. There is only so much we can even study from criminals, given that they can still plead their rights to not to contribute in testing, is hazardous to get them into facilities and dangerous to staff, and the fact that cases vary so widely that finding any amount of conclusive evidence is a shot in the dark and likely to be debunked in the future.

 

For some of the same reasons, it is extremely difficult to even consider rehabilitating types of criminals. Antisocial Personality Disorder has one of the lowest possible success rates in rehabilitation due to the extreme violence, aggressiveness, manipulative, lying, and unpredictable behaviors. There is almost nothing modern medicine or psychology has found to work. Pedophilia has one of the worst rates of rehabilitation of all the sexually motivated illnesses, and there is often little to no explanation psychologically or physically that can be seen as a constant factor.

 

In addition, with jails and prisons overcrowding to the point of bursting, less 'major' offenders are often turned away with a slap on the wrist because there is just no room to contain them and no time to spend on their case. Drunk drivers, speeders, theft, burglaries, trespassing, even stalking cases are turned away, horribly ironic in that a good portion of those turned away will continue to offend until they reach a point that the courts are forced to deal with them, eg. attempted murder, manslaughter, hit and run while fleeing from a scene, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted kidnapping...

 

In a perfect world, we'd have tons of spaces to put the most heinous of criminals and study everything with no legal pressures and get loads of info from them. But this is not a perfect world, we do not have the space or abilities to test them (in some cases), and it is difficult to gather any sort of meaningful information from what is basically us stumbling around in the dark. There has been some good studies discussing APD and sociopathic tendencies, including the idea of such compulsions being hereditary, influenced by low economic status, peer pressure and the desire to fit in... but there will never be an answer to controlling and preventing all crime. Everyone hears the story of the "nice guy, good next door neighbor" snapping and going on a rampage. While some warning signs may be noticeable other cases of extreme violence can only be recognized after the crime, and those are impossible to prevent.

 

TL;DR.

 

*A good example of how prosecutors and law enforcement are not possessed by some uncontrolled desire to enact revenge and kill those responsible. Almost always, they take a deal if it can bring closure and solace to the victims' families. They may believe the criminal is completely evil and whose death would make society a better place, but they will completely destroy any possibility for the death penalty if they can give the victims, the families any sort of comfort. Maybe you don't see this so often on all those crime dramas on TV, but plenty of investigators visit victims' families after everything has been said and done, to check up on them because they themselves have became so attached to the case emotionally.

[The Evil Doer]

Yes, I fear people who kill for a percieved reason than I do for people who kill for no reason at all. A person who kills for a perceived reason can justify something to themselves when in reality a kill is a kill.

 

Perhaps, we have a different way in seeing killing that's going on, which is why we're so disagreeable. I consider a kill a kill. Putting a pampered pet down and a rabid dog down are no different to me. Either way, they're both killed. What if the pampered pet was a rabid dog that had to be put down? It's no difference, all three are dead dogs. It all depends on who mourns them, and by then I've largely stopped caring. All the added things to 'death', emotions, mourning, whatever, I don't consider them important when it comes to something so absolute.

 

And as for me? I don't know if it matters, I don't think it should. I don't feel safe when I'm anywhere but my room.

 

 

What I have asked you before - we're in your room, your entire family, you, and I.

I have a knife, I am about to butcher your entire family (maybe even play with them a little bit before finishing the job) you have a gun, what do you do ? (to best of your belief considering its a hypothetical question)

Edited December 6, 2011 by The Evil Doer

[elderberrysyrup]

 

What I have asked you before - we're in your room, your entire family, you, and I.

I have a knife, I am about to butcher your entire family (maybe even play with them a little bit before finishing the job) you have a gun, what do you do ? (to best of your belief considering its a hypothetical question)

I'd kill you. I never said it was wrong to kill a man. I said it was silly to think it was some justice.

 

If I killed you, I am a killer.

[The Evil Doer]

Ok, and you killing me in that specific situation (one shot to the head) has the same magnitude as me brutally torturing and killing 20 girls ? In your mind it is considered the same kill ?

 

Edit - We never claimed you are not a killer, we just claimed that there is a difference between a kill and a murder

Edited December 6, 2011 by The Evil Doer

[elderberrysyrup]

Ok, and you killing me in that specific situation (one shot to the head) has the same magnitude as me brutally torturing and killing 20 girls ? In your mind it is considered the same kill ?

 

Edit - We never claimed you are not a killer, we just claimed that there is a difference between a kill and a murder

And to me there is no difference between a killer and a murderer. A murderer is a person who kills, so they are also a killer.

 

Well, of course not. You killed 20 people, as compared to my 1 kill. Of course, that just means I've killed less than you have. Torturing and killing 20 people just means you have the lives of 20 under your belt, and I've only killed 1. Of course it's not the same kill. However, if you tortured and killed 1 girl, and I killed you, then we'd both be killers.

[The Evil Doer]

Dont take this the wrong way, because I really am just trying to understand the reasoning behind your logic...

 

You say "Yes, I fear people who kill for a percieved reason than I do for people who kill for no reason at all. A person who kills for a perceived reason can justify something to themselves when in reality a kill is a kill" yet you would kill with a perceived reason ? Basically you see yourself as worse than the sadistic person who kills for enjoyment only ??

 

In your mind, me torturing for days a girl and then killing her is the same as some girl rearranging flowers on her balcony, dropping a plant and killing someone 8 floors down ? There is no inbetween, only black and white ? Is that the reality as you perceive it ?

 

I mean a basic push with a shoulder is in your eyes an equal assault as beating you to a pulp ?

 

Is that what you are basically saying ?

[philpot123]

Ah, so the difference comes down to kill, or murder? Is there a difference? Is killing ever justified? Or does all killing carry equal weight? Does all killing of ANY life carry equal weight? Do we, or rather, SHOULD WE bear the same responsibility and guilt for hitting a squirrel in the road as we would hitting a child? Or eating a hamburger as compared to chomping down on some human? Or chopping down a tree, compared to beheading a woman?

 

/Philosophical rant.

 

 

I believe there is a difference between killing and murder. Murder is unjustified, but there can be justified killings. Self defense, or protection of an innocent who would die without your intervention are two that come to mind.

Edited December 6, 2011 by philpot123

[elderberrysyrup]

Dont take this the wrong way, because I really am just trying to understand the reasoning behind your logic...

 

You say "Yes, I fear people who kill for a percieved reason than I do for people who kill for no reason at all. A person who kills for a perceived reason can justify something to themselves when in reality a kill is a kill" yet you would kill with a perceived reason ? Basically you see yourself as worse than the sadistic person who kills for enjoyment only ??

 

In your mind, me torturing for days a girl and then killing her is the same as some girl rearranging flowers on her balcony, dropping a plant and killing someone 8 floors down ? There is no inbetween, only black and white ? Is that the reality as you perceive it ?

 

I mean a basic push with a shoulder is in your eyes an equal assault as beating you to a pulp ?

 

Is that what you are basically saying ?

I see a person who tries to say 'I'm not a killer, I killed for a reason!' as someone to fear, than a person who says 'I am a killer, I killed.' as someone to take interest in.

 

If you killed a person, you are a killler. You may be an intentional or an unintentional killer. You may be a sadistic or a masochistic killer. You may be a gentle or a forceful killer.

 

It's like saying shoving someone and punching someone is the same in that they made any physical contact with you. You can say punching is wrong and punish a puncher by punching them, but don't say that your punch was somehow any less of a punch or something a 'lesser degree' or punching.

[Princess Artemis]

And to me there is no difference between a killer and a murderer. A murderer is a person who kills, so they are also a killer.

 

Well, of course not. You killed 20 people, as compared to my 1 kill. Of course, that just means I've killed less than you have. Torturing and killing 20 people just means you have the lives of 20 under your belt, and I've only killed 1. Of course it's not the same kill. However, if you tortured and killed 1 girl, and I killed you, then we'd both be killers.

I know some war vets who would not appreciate being considered in the same category as murderers.

[elderberrysyrup]

I know some war vets who would not appreciate being considered in the same category as murderers.

What, that they both killed? That's beyond my understanding. Why have a problem with it?

 

If I'm a writer, and another writer writes something bad, it doesn't change the fact I'm a writer and they are a writer.

[The Evil Doer]

I see a person who tries to say 'I'm not a killer, I killed for a reason!' as someone to fear, than a person who says 'I am a killer, I killed.' as someone to take interest in.

 

If you killed a person, you are a killler. You may be an intentional or an unintentional killer. You may be a sadistic or a masochistic killer. You may be a gentle or a forceful killer.

 

It's like saying shoving someone and punching someone is the same in that they made any physical contact with you. You can say punching is wrong and punish a puncher by punching them, but don't say that your punch was somehow any less of a punch or something a 'lesser degree' or punching.

Im a killer, but Im not a murderer because I killed with a reason, thats the reality of things... The result is the same but the way isnt, in your mind the manner changes nothing ?

In all aspects of life its only the end game that matters ? Because that is an extremely radical and simplified way of thinking

 

Masochistic killer ? Suicide is also a murder to you ?

 

But the whole discussion and why we are (well, some of us) pro death penalty is about the degree of the crime and not only about the result (end game), how did you not notice that ?

[JaziandCo]

I know some war vets who would not appreciate being considered in the same category as murderers.

QTF. Tell a war vet that their duty was the same as a murderer's. They'll get mad real fast.

 

And, again repeating, not revenge.

[elderberrysyrup]

Im a killer, but Im not a murderer because I killed with a reason, thats the reality of things... The result is the same but the way isnt, in your mind the manner changes nothing ?

In all aspects of life its only the end game that matters ? Because that is an extremely radical and simplified way of thinking

 

Masochistic killer ? Suicide is also a murder to you ?

 

But the whole discussion and why we are (well, some of us) pro death penalty is about the degree of the crime and not only about the result (end game), how did you not notice that ?

What if the murderer had a reason? Just a reason you don't approve of. I'm a murderer for killing you, after all.

 

Pukukuku. There's such thing as a murder and then a suicide, isn't there?

 

I don't understand the concept that when a person kills someone else, it's bad, but when an institution kills someone else, it's good. If the idea is that we want to kill people because we don't like them/their actions, then why not say that? I don't see why we're saying 'justice' and justifying killing as if it's somehow, er, not killing at all. If you kill you kill, right? Is the difference between that, then, if people accept the reason for killing?

Edited December 6, 2011 by soullesshuman

[The Evil Doer]

What if the murderer had a reason? Just a reason you don't approve of. I'm a murderer for killing you, after all.

 

Pukukuku. There's such thing as a murder and then a suicide, isn't there?

 

I don't understand the concept that when a person kills someone else, it's bad, but when an institution kills someone else, it's good. If the idea is that we want to kill people because we don't like them/their actions, then why not say that? I don't see why we're saying 'justice' and justifying killing as if it's somehow, er, not killing at all. If you kill you kill, right? Is the difference between that, then, if people accept the reason for killing?

But the reason is whats important, the manner as well, you are not a murderer for defending your family, you are a killer !!!!

 

The term murderer and the term killer are not the one and the same, by their definition, in the vocabulary, in the way they are perceived in our society, you cant simply ignore what murderer means and say I see murderer and a killer as the same, they are not the same by the definition, the only thing that is the same is the result which is that someone got killed...

 

In suicide someone gets killed as well, so yeah I asked because you have decided that there is no difference between a murder and a kill, how should I know whether you think there is a difference between a suicide and a kill or a murder.

 

Killing is not good, its necessary in our eyes. The difference is between a murderer and a killer... I dont really understand how can you not comprehend that the two terms are not the one and the same ??

 

[philpot123]

What if the murderer had a reason? Just a reason you don't approve of. I'm a murderer for killing you, after all.

 

Pukukuku. There's such thing as a murder and then a suicide, isn't there?

 

I don't understand the concept that when a person kills someone else, it's bad, but when an institution kills someone else, it's good. If the idea is that we want to kill people because we don't like them/their actions, then why not say that? I don't see why we're saying 'justice' and justifying killing as if it's somehow, er, not killing at all. If you kill you kill, right? Is the difference between that, then, if people accept the reason for killing?

It depends on what your ultimate authority is.

 

 

Is your ultimate authority law?

the law makes concessions for legitimate killing in self defense.

 

Is your ultimate authority yourself?

Then it all depends on personal feelings. You feel killing is killing, I would feel justified for protecting myself or someone else.

 

My ultimate authority is God, and He has made clear concessions for legitimate killing, both in self defense and protection of innocents, AND for the state to execute criminals for capital crimes. That's my stance.

[Nine]

If the idea is that we want to kill people because we don't like them/their actions, then why not say that? I don't see why we're saying 'justice' and justifying killing as if it's somehow, er, not killing at all.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the execution of death row inmates doesn't count as killing. They're going from alive to dead, being killed, forced from living, put down, euthanized, yeah. But that killing is not murder.

 

There is a very noticeable different between murders and the duties/jobs of soldiers and officers that is both recognized by the law and justice systems. Officers and soldiers can still be tried for murder, manslaughter, etc. and they are not given pardon because their job might involve killing. Murder is more than just killing.

There have been several... many posts in this topic that have explained that we do not want these people dead simply because we don't like them. I don't like them or their actions, that's for sure, but I'm not advocating the death of everyone I don't like.

 

You seem to be arguing against the very foundations of what constitutes as a crime and how even horrendous murders can be reasoned away based on the idea that they had purposed reason for it. But everything is not black and white, there are shades of grey. I'm not sure what to tell you though, because it sounds like you are seeing things from a very detached perspective.

 

Man, I wrote that giant dinosaur of a post the previous page and I discover that everyone's already moved on from the psychological discussion. =P Forever alone?

[Princess Artemis]

What, that they both killed? That's beyond my understanding. Why have a problem with it?

All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. That's why they'd have a problem with it. If you do not understand this, it's perhaps best to get some understanding.

[Alpha1]

I've already said, we don't have the space to keep people locked up. It is much more cruel to keep them locked up. It is costly to keep them locked up and provided for. Frankly I would rather have my tax dollars go to putting a killer down then providing for him over the span of his life.

 

Its been consistently shown that the death penalty cost more than life without parole. I'm being pragmatic here. What's the likelihood that the appellate review and pre-trial/trial costs will be reduced?

 

It's annoying when people support politicians that want it because what you'll get is more of the same.

 

Recidivism of murderers committing another murder is roughly 1%. Though, relative to life without parole, it has no incremental effect on recidivism. Additionally, high courts commonly overturn capital cases. Prosecutors rarely go for it, so these cases make up a fraction of homicides.

 

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/resea...lished/jels.pdf

 

Death Sentences Being Overturned in 2 of 3 Appeals

 

http://people.umass.edu/leg485/cost2.htm

 

"When a Utah police chief was shot to death in July after responding to a call about a domestic dispute, tiny Uintah County's decision to seek the death penalty was easy. "It was a law-enforcement officer in the line of duty," says county attorney JoAnn Stringham.

 

Now comes the hard part: paying for the trial. So far, the county hopes to avoid raising taxes on its 25,959 citizens by spreading the as-yet undetermined costs over three fiscal years.

 

Other counties haven't been as lucky. Jasper County, Texas, ran up a huge bill seeking a capital-murder conviction of three men accused of killing James Byrd Jr., who was dragged to death in a 1998 case that attracted national attention. (Two were sentenced to death; the third got life in prison.) The cost -- $1.02 million to date, with other expenses expected -- has strained the county's $10 million annual budget, forcing a 6.7% increase in property taxes over two years to pay for the trial. County auditor Jonetta Nash says only a massive flood that wiped out roads and bridges in the late 1970s came close to the fiscal impact of the trial."

 

 

Because then they just kill people in prison and teach people who have not killed how to.

 

 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/shipj.cfm

 

At standardized rate, the general population rate of homicide is 9-10 times more. But if we went back... "executions" at no costs.

[Sir Barton]

Nine, for what it's worth I enjoyed reading your psychological perspective.