Yes, this is a good point. The use of that language is a dead giveaway that the speaker is motivated by base vengeance.
Forked from "22-year-old...": My thoughts on the Death Penalty
- Thread starter USS Triumphant
- Start date
Yes, this is a good point. The use of that language is a dead giveaway that the speaker is motivated by base vengeance.
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor...
Death's too GOOD for them." - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz
Death's too GOOD for them." - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz
There's also an assumption that the system is infallible and that anyone who gets executed is guilty. If the system is fallible and you support the death penalty, you are tacitly supporting the execution of innocent people. Acceptable losses? I don't think so.
Our legal system is supposed to err on the side of caution, risking the guilty going free to avoid the wrongful imprisonment of the innocent. Apparently, some would rather invert this. What can you say about a society that's so obsessed with punishing the guilty that we consider executing the innocent an acceptable risk?
So we should then do the same to them? That makes no sense to me. In their fucked up minds they probably thought the person they killed had it coming. How is that any different that people thinking that the murderer had it coming? We can't just declare that someone deserves to die. No one is in a position to do such a thing.
You're right, we should just let the monsters live without any responsiblity to anyone ever again and having all of their needs met.
That makes so much sense.
And, for the umpteenth time, I don't advocate death for all murderers, only for the "monsters" of society and with strong physical and other evidence to the point that there can be zero doubt. The jury would decide if the evidence is strong enough and if the murderer deserves the DP.
I'm sorry, but it's how I feel. It's one of the few ways I deviate from my otherwise liberal political leanings. If some man is a monster of society who has killed several people, shows no remorse over it, and, hey, the bodies were found stuffed in 50-gallon drums in his own yard with his fingerprints and DNA all over the place then, in my mind, he's a monster. Off with his head.
It's not about revenge, it's not about deterant it's not even about preventing him from doing it again, it's just about what "feels right." That such a "monster" simply shouldn't be allowed to live off the tax-payer's tit. Life is too good for such "people" and they don't deserve the simple comfort of their own thoughts since they so callously decided to rob many others of their life in brutal ways.
The "average" murderer who snaps one night and kills his wife? Life in prison is good enough.
The "monsters?" Off with their head.
I'm going to pretend like I haven't posted statistics 50 times before and even in this very thread, and post them for you yet again:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
The numerous and trustworthy sources are linked after every excerpt.
You seem to have a very skewed vision of what goes on in prison. These "monsters" you speak of are put in solitary and their needs are just barely met. They don't tons of TV access, library visits or any visits from friends and family.
And let me ask this. Why don't we rehabilitate them to some extent if only to understand better why it happens so we can catch it in the future? If someone is a "monster" surely they have some sort of psychological problem. Isn't this something we should work on rather than just kill them? I'm not saying we should throw 'em back into society after a few sessions with a therapist but it's certainly worth seeing how their minds work.
Without any responsibility? Yes, because we all are advocating putting serial killers on the streets and pay them to keep our children. This kind of misrepresentation of our position is beneath you, Trekker.
There is only one standard of justice, and that is "beyond any reasonable doubt". Are you telling me that the jury should emit a verdict like "meh, we are not really sure he did it. give them life instead of the death penalty and we are off to lunch". That's nuts.
And in a civil society, what you "feel" should have no bearing, because otherwise you are leaving the door open to people beating the crap out of you because they "feel" like it..
So, yes, it is about revenge. Because I have no other idea about what you are talking when you say it "feels right". As I already said, I can live with people taking vengeance, but at least you should have the guts to call it with its name.
You seem very focused on this "monster" stuff. Sounds like you are watching too much Criminal Minds recently.
This is an admitedly emotional response ("it's how I feel") so lets try to look at it logically instead.
The system is not infallible. It is a virtual certainty that we have executed innocent people. Do you really think it is worth wrongly executing a single innocent person when all we had to do was just warehouse the "monsters" in maximum security where they would never hurt anyone else again? Is your need for vengeance so strong that you would rather innocent people be executed than allow the "monsters" to exist - even in miserable confinement?
You really ought to take a moment and re-examine the logic of your position. Lets look at these points:
1. Innocent people are executed. It's a virtual certainty.
2. Execution is not needed to prevent a "monster" from striking again.
3. It will always be more costly to execute someone because of due process - unless we decide to forsake nearly every principle this country stands for and become another China.
4. The death penalty doesn't seem to be effective as a deterrent. This is no surprise, really. Most people who commit a murder either do so in state of strong emotion when they are not thinking clearly, don't expect to get caught or don't care if they get caught.
5. A need for Revenge is very unhealthy. It bogs the mind down, distracts it from more useful enterprises. It lowers us ethically, makes us less than what we could be otherwise.
Is the death penalty really worth it?
Both are past acts, if you smoked in the car with your three kids you could be killing them just that same, only your method would take longer.
The point is, the death penalty is an act of vengeance for past acts, not a deterrent or prevention of future ones. It's as simple as that.
Could have fooled me. You can be arrested for smoking inside of most places in NJ, if not fined heavily, and they were trying to pass a law which would have made it illegal to smoke in a car with other occupants in it.
This is at least the second time you've mentioned this specific circumstance as being excluded from a death penalty. Are you planning something?
Prisons are not happy go lucky places. Not all needs are met, just the ones to keep a person alive, more or less.
Juries are not infallible and aren't always qualified to determine guilt or innocence or if the severity qualifies them for the death penalty. There are also plenty of states that don't use the jury to make the final determination. There's another system that uses a judge to make the decision (jury merely makes a recommendation) and then has a board of some kind review the decision to see if the facts are in line with other cases. I'm honestly not sure which one is better (one requires unanimous consent of 12 people, the other at least shelters someone from an unusually arbitrary jury).
Either way, without absolute certainty, killing someone seems extreme, no matter what.
It's just my opinion when the DP is called for and there are plenty of times a killer is caught where there's mountains of evidence against him, the Beltway Sniper and the BTK Killer both come to mind. (Though the BTK guy confessed to his crimes.)
There's a huge difference between people like them and the evidence against them and severity of their crimes.
Some people do not deserve to live. Yes, prison isn't great and cushy, but these "monsters" still get to suck air, they still get the comfort of their own thoughts. They doesn't sit right with me, shouldn't sit right with anyone, and shouldn't sit right with society.
That we value his life more than he valued the lives of his victims.
There's a huge difference between people like them and the evidence against them and severity of their crimes.
Some people do not deserve to live. Yes, prison isn't great and cushy, but these "monsters" still get to suck air, they still get the comfort of their own thoughts. They doesn't sit right with me, shouldn't sit right with anyone, and shouldn't sit right with society.
That we value his life more than he valued the lives of his victims.
Personally, these days, I don't find "confessions" particularly convincing evidence. I've also seen several cases where mountains of evidence resulted in a conviction that was overturned later in life.
I could tell some fish jokes if you think that would help...
So basically what you're implying is that confessions can't be trusted to make a judgement, and evidence is not trustworthy for that purpose, either.
If I were to accept both of those (which I certainly don't), then what, pray tell, are we supposed to make judgements based on?!
Cultcross can verify this or call me an ignoramus but I think an uncorroborated confession isn't enough to convict in the UK, for the very reason that it could be later refuted and put down to coersion. Verdicts are therefore reached on evidence and argument, as in most courts of law.
Similar threads
