"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There's no point to capital punishment other than vengence.

Vengeance, shmengeance.

Fry 'im!

[Velociryx]

I love the people who say: "I'm normally against the death penalty under any circumstances, but in this case it is justifiable."

Not to worry, you'll never hear that from me. I am FOR the death penalty.

Now, some folks who are against it might think that makes me a horrible barbarian, but I say again....society has a right to defend itself from the things that go bump in the night.

Studying those things from an academic perspective has some value, yes. Long term, it may even make it possible to figure out what makes them tick and prevent it.

Given that there are a lot of other things we need to figure out first (including such things as a cure for cancer and the common cold, and analyzing deadly strains of viruses that have come close on numerous occassions to getting onto America's shores, and lots of other stuff besides), and given that these killers represent a miniscule portion of the total population of this country....all these things converge to make their in-depth study somewhat of a backburner item. Let's tackle the societal problems that effect the largest NUMBER of people first, and then get down to the nitty gritty.

In the meantime....one dead serial killer is one less to worry about getting loose some way or another to do it again. Justice served.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Top off the generator boyz, there's gonna be a BBQ tonight.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The problem is "tough on crime" politicians will keep trying to expand the use of the DP. When SCOTUS relegalized it, at first it was only to be used in the most heinous of cases.

In California, less than 2% of murders end up being tried as DP cases, and many other states, if not a majority, are similarly low.

The proiblem, IMO, isn't selecting the cases that qualify for DP treatment, it's the procedural laxity and poor safeguards that allow questionable verdicts to be rendered in capital cases.

If someone is on trial for his life, he deserves to have excellent, experience legal counsel, and strict requirements for prosecution conduct, evidence handling, police investigation, etc.

[Aeson]

Given that there are a lot of other things we need to figure out first (including such things as a cure for cancer and the common cold, and analyzing deadly strains of viruses that have come close on numerous occassions to getting onto America's shores, and lots of other stuff besides), and given that these killers represent a miniscule portion of the total population of this country....all these things converge to make their in-depth study somewhat of a backburner item. Let's tackle the societal problems that effect the largest NUMBER of people first, and then get down to the nitty gritty.

I disagree with you on two counts. First, that the resources being devoted to keep a criminal alive and in prison would instead be used to cure cancer or whatever. Most of the resources required are human time/effort, guards and construction workers. The money they are paid not only provides for them and their families, it finds it's way back into the economy as they spend it. It doesn't stuff the mattress of the prisoner. There is value attrophy in the situation, but I still don't think the costs are prohibitive.

Second I disagree that the problem at work here doesn't affect the most people. The mindset reinforced by "Fry him" is the mindset that keeps us mired in ignorance. Advancement requires the acceptance that there are things we don't know. Executing someone is the ultimate "I know" statement. Not only of the guilt of the prisoner, but of the moral superiority of the executioner(s).

This is a social issue regarding the 'damnation' of a person, without a proper knowlege of how the person came to such a state, or even what that state is. It is no different than any other such conviction that killing is a moral right. The same mindset is likely the cause of the crime committed in the first place (God complex = absolute moral justification). It's the mindset that allows war and terrorism. It affects us all.

[Velociryx]

Aeson....Oh I see what you're saying and where you're going, it's just that, for me, this is one of those social perogatives that's far behind those that affect people directly. What you say is true, it's a mindset that affects us all, but not in a tangible, direct way (ie, the way that cancer does....almost everybody knows someone who has died by way of that disease, but few know of someone who has died at the hands of a serial killer).

And, while understanding this particular mindset IS important in its way, it's not a big social priority, nor is keeping them under lock and key, and we know this by virtue of the fact that guards paid to guard those on death row aren't making six figure salaries....society just doesn't care enough about it to make it a big draw, and so it is not.

Thus, the death penalty....not handed down by any singular individual, but a group of jurors, and then another group of jurors, and then a group of leagal minds and judges as the case moves through appeals. These folks are in effect, a microcosm of the society they serve, and to that end, the will of the society is carried out.

The day will (hopefully) come when we can come to grips with the problem some other way....when enough of our other social ills that affect larger numbers of the folk IN the society in question have been sufficiently addressed, and we can turn our attention to others that, while equally deserving of attention, are just not seen as societal priorities. Until then, "fry 'em" is both expedient and rather permanant, as solutions go.

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

It's not an either or though Vel. You don't have to kill this guy to find a cure for cancer. Accept we don't know if it would help the cause, not affect it at all, or even hurt it.

Psychiatrists can study their field while other medical researchers study their own. It's the same thing. Both are trying to further the knowlege we have of how we physically work. Who's to say the breakthrough that leads to a cure for cancer doesn't come from someone studying the brain, or a technique/apparatus developed to study or treat it?

Medical breakthroughs in one field often find applicability in others.

Thus, the death penalty....not handed down by any singular individual, but a group of jurors, and then another group of jurors, and then a group of leagal minds and judges as the case moves through appeals. These folks are in effect, a microcosm of the society they serve, and to that end, the will of the society is carried out.

This is exactly my point. As long as the DP is in place, that is indicative that the mindset (ie. absolute moral justification) is also in place. Disolving that mindset is what will lead to the most advancement in any field, and the most safety for society as a whole.

[Giancarlo]

Okay onto another point people made in this thread.. what the hell is wrong with vengence?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Okay onto another point people made in this thread.. what the hell is wrong with vengence?

It is useless as in it doesn't help prevent crime, nor does it help establishing a rule of law, where the Law is applied, instead of emotional bloodlust.

[Aeson]

Not to mention that most vengence is a result of a desire for retaliation for vengence enacted upon. It's violence that begets violence in perpetuity, at least until everyone who could take offense at your vengeful action is dead.

[Velociryx]

At the macro level, no, it's not an either or proposition, and while the macro level is well and good for looking for trends in any system (societal or otherwise) we all live in the here and now, and at the micro level, and AT the micro level, tradeoffs and choices have to be made.

If a prison has X dollars in their budget, then that's what they have to work with. No more, no less. Decisions have to be made about what to do with that money. Do we upgrade the computers this year, or the security system? Do we expand the prison to make room for this year's crop of nutballs, hire more guards, or do we bring on a staff physician?

Those kinds of choices are our reality, not the macro-level trend-spotting, and IN those kinds of choices where tradeoffs are made, there is, and has been in our society, little interest in paying extravagant sums of cash to fund the researchers who wish to delve that deeply into the minds of these kinds of folks.

Is there work being done? Certainly, and that work will continue, with or without this, the latest killer with bad hair and a god-complex as experimental fodder.

Given that, and given society's right to protect itself from these creatures, I'll not lose one wink of sleep if the generator gets fired up to cook this guy.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

I agree with Vel. Being insane is no excuse to not execute someone.

Killing the insane turns the claim that the execution deters other crime from absurd to completely ludicrous.

[Velociryx]

True, Ramo...quite true. However, you must concede that it does make it rather unlikely that that particular mass-murderer will ever do it again, non?

-=Vel=-
(I'm happy to report that NONE of our mass murderers who have been executed have EVER killed again!)

[Ramo]

If a prison has X dollars in their budget, then that's what they have to work with. No more, no less. Decisions have to be made about what to do with that money. Do we upgrade the computers this year, or the security system? Do we expand the prison to make room for this year's crop of nutballs, hire more guards, or do we bring on a staff physician?

If we empty out the half-million non-violent drug offenders from our prisons, the prison system would easily have far more than enough money to lock up people who would be executed (which is certainly not an inexpensive proposotion either). If we ended three strikes laws, even more money would be freed up. The bottle neck isn't money, it's compassion.

As I asked earlier, if it's so immoral for a person to kill out of revenge to justify having the state kill him, how is it moral for state to kill out of revenge?

True, Ramo...quite true. However, you must concede that it does make it rather unlikely that that particular mass-murderer will ever do it again, non?

That may be so, but it's 100% probable that a person is killed if the murderer is executed, while it's extremely improbable that a person is killed if the murderer isn't executed. I'll take the former over the latter any day.

[Velociryx]

Forgive me for not feeling floods and hordes of compassion for a guy who comes out of his house with the blood of NINE FAMILY MEMBERS all over his clothes, including two of the kids he fathered with...his kids.

Sorry, I'll spend my compassion elsewhere, thankyouverymuch.

As to unlocking the doors for half a million people behind bars, something very similar to that was tried with our nation's mental institutions in the 70's....didn't work so well then, but if you're up for a replay of that song and dance....

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

As to unlocking the doors for half a million people behind bars, something very similar to that was tried with our nation's mental institutions in the 70's....didn't work so well then, but if you're up for a replay of that song and dance....

I smoke weed. Do you honestly think that I'm going to hurt anyone?

Forgive me for not feeling floods and hordes of compassion for a guy who comes out of his house with the blood of NINE FAMILY MEMBERS all over his clothes, including two of the kids he fathered with...his kids.

Sorry, I'll spend my compassion elsewhere, thankyouverymuch.

You don't have to like him. Only treat him like a human being. There's no point in the state going down to his level.

[Velociryx]

Hey, I smoked a little too in my college days. Didn't get caught, either. If I had, I'd be one of those half a mil you mentioned in your other post.

Right or wrong, it's the current law of the land. If it's something that needs changing, there's a system in place to do that, and at that time, we'll see a drop in prison population. The solution, however, is not to just chuck the law out the window and fling wide the prison doors.

And I'm sorry to say that the kinder, gentler approach doesn't work.

At all.

It doesn't work when dealing with middle east terrorists, and it doesn't work when dealing with god-complex murderers of their family.

It's the world we live in, bro. Love it, hate it....doesn't matter. The world's not gonna shift gears just cos you don't like the way things are, and sometimes you gotta get nasty right back at the bad guys, cos it's the language they understand, and if you speak some other language to them, you get exactly nowhere.

The days of "an eye for an eye" aren't gone, but they are slowly fading.

Until they ARE gone, it would be unwise in the extreme to pretend otherwise, and right now, that's exactly what it'd be....pretend.

We ain't there yet, and wishing won't make it so.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Hey, I smoked a little too in my college days. Didn't get caught, either. If I had, I'd be one of those half a mil you mentioned in your other post.

Right or wrong, it's the current law of the land. If it's something that needs changing, there's a system in place to do that, and at that time, we'll see a drop in prison population. The solution, however, is not to just chuck the law out the window and fling wide the prison doors.

I'm not sure what you're saying. The law shouldn't be changed because it's the law?

And I'm sorry to say that the kinder, gentler approach doesn't work.

At all.

Why do you say that it doesn't work? The places with the highest rates of incarceration like the US and Russia also happen to have the highest crime rates. Western and Northern Europe are dealing with crime much better than we are.

It doesn't work when dealing with middle east terrorists, and it doesn't work when dealing with god-complex murderers of their family.

It's the world we live in, bro. Love it, hate it....doesn't matter. The world's not gonna shift gears just cos you don't like the way things are, and sometimes you gotta get nasty right back at the bad guys, cos it's the language they understand, and if you speak some other language to them, you get exactly nowhere.

If the situation warrants it, there's life in prison. Which has just as much of a deterrent effect as the death penalty.

There is absolutely no pragmatic point in killing this person. And I'm talking about the real world, not an idealized version of it.

[Velociryx]

Nope, I'm saying that because it's the law, if you want to fling wide the prison gates, then change the law! (as opposed to just deciding "hey....let's make some room in the jails!")

As to our European counterparts, the difference you're seeing is that things that are classified as jailable offenses here are not classed that way in Europe (and most of the difference in our crime rate can be chalked up to your own aforementioned drug users). That doesn't mean they're "dealing with it" any better, only that some stuff that's illegal here isn't illegal there.

Turkey is an example at the other end of the spectrum. Not much trouble with theft, murder, or adultry there cos ahem....the penalties are...shall we say....harsh?

We could argue between life in prison or the death penalty till we're both blue in the face, and I suspect that neither of us will change the other's mind. You wanna pay to lock up this year's nutcases, great! Pay for next year's crop too. And the year after that....and the year after that....

Me? I'll vote for cookin' 'em up every time. Not only will they not do it again, but we'll also not have an ever-growing population of these sunshiny personalities comparing notes and working out escape plans together.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And pay my share too, for the ones that get life!

[Aeson]

Killing the horrific means we never have to admit that this "creature" is actually a human being, and that in different circumstances, we could be that "creature".

[Velociryx]

I disagree, Aeson. We can fully acknowlege that he is a human being.

A very DANGEROUS human being to the rest of society.

Yes, we can put rabid dogs in cages and lock them away for the rest of our lives, and we can do that each and every time a new rabid dog comes down the pike until they're piled on top of each other in one of our maximum security institutions, but to what end, precisely? Psychologists don't need hundreds of these guys as experimental fodder, especially given the imprecise nature of their science. It could take a whole lifetime just to study ONE of their number, and we simply don't have throngs of people graduating with psych degrees who are itching to delve into the mind of folks at THAT level of disturbedness. Most psychologists would rather sit in a comfy room talking to yuppies about their various harmless neurosis and call it a day, you know?

Even if we say that your run of the mill serial killer who's incarcerated has a 1 in 1000 chance of somehow escaping, or even NOT escaping but getting the drop on one or more of his guards or fellow inmates and killing him off, as we gather together an increasing number of these folks under our kinder, gentler wing, the odds increase steadily that it'll happen, and the society that thought they were safe from these....creatures will have been proved wrong in a most sorrowful way. I just can't find it within myself to dredge up enough compassion for them to make that possibility justifiable, which is why I haven't budged from my "fry 'em" mentality.

-=Vel=-

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is useless as in it doesn't help prevent crime, nor does it help establishing a rule of law, where the Law is applied, instead of emotional bloodlust.

And what is wrong with that? I am sorry but if somebody murders a person they get executed. That's not useless, that's justice. I see they don't do that in the communist areas of Europe, like France.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is useless as in it doesn't help prevent crime, nor does it help establishing a rule of law, where the Law is applied, instead of emotional bloodlust.

I'm completely disagree with your first premise. Vengeance evolved, like any other emotion, because it served a purpose. It turned out (on an evolutionary timescale) that vengeful individuals were more successful, because the others were afraid of the repercussions. Thus vengeance obviously has a deterring effect.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo


Killing the insane turns the claim that the execution deters other crime from absurd to completely ludicrous.

No, because it keeps people from claiming they're insane in order to get off.

[Ramo]

Nope, I'm saying that because it's the law, if you want to fling wide the prison gates, then change the law! (as opposed to just deciding "hey....let's make some room in the jails!")

I certainly don't object to having the law changed. I'm merely pointing out that there's far more than enough money to pay for the upkeep of people who would otherwise be executed.

As to our European counterparts, the difference you're seeing is that things that are classified as jailable offenses here are not classed that way in Europe (and most of the difference in our crime rate can be chalked up to your own aforementioned drug users). That doesn't mean they're "dealing with it" any better, only that some stuff that's illegal here isn't illegal there.

I'd meant excluding drug arrests. For example, take the violent crime rate which is far higher here than in Europe.

Turkey is an example at the other end of the spectrum. Not much trouble with theft, murder, or adultry there cos ahem....the penalties are...shall we say....harsh?

Adultery? Turkey's completely secular. Adultery isn't a crime. BTW, Turkey has abolished its death penalty a few years back. I wouldn't say that its criminal justice system is extreme given that it's milder than ours.

We could argue between life in prison or the death penalty till we're both blue in the face, and I suspect that neither of us will change the other's mind. You wanna pay to lock up this year's nutcases, great! Pay for next year's crop too. And the year after that....and the year after that....

Me? I'll vote for cookin' 'em up every time. Not only will they not do it again, but we'll also not have an ever-growing population of these sunshiny personalities comparing notes and working out escape plans together.

Honestly, how often do mass-murderers escape from prison?

And pay my share too, for the ones that get life!

Sure. And you can pay my share for victims of 3 strikes and the other "tough on crime" laws. Guess who comes out ahead?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
Killing the horrific means we never have to admit that this "creature" is actually a human being, and that in different circumstances, we could be that "creature".

In different circumstances, I could be Hitler - I mean hey, if I had his genes, and his upbringing, I would be just like him!

I feel so much sympathy now.

[Velociryx]

Here's an example close to home...my home anyways...our very own Pee Wee Gaskins, of South Carolina.

Killed 13 (that he admitted to....but he also gleefully said that they'd never FIND all the bodies) and they locked him up for life in a maximum security prison.

Of course, that didn't stop him from killing four more and seriously injuring another before they finally had enough and put him to death.

What does the kinder, gentler approach do about (very real) cases like Mr. Gaskins? Slap his wrists?

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

No, because it keeps people from claiming they're insane in order to get off.

That's nonsense. People committ murders thinking that they won't get caught - or, more likely, they're not thinking about their future at all. They don't think that life in prison is acceptable or that that can somehow fake an insanity defense.

Killing the horrific means we never have to admit that this "creature" is actually a human being, and that in different circumstances, we could be that "creature".

Self-delusion is hardly a healthy attitude to have towards murderers.

[Ramo]

Here's an example close to home...my home anyways...our very own Pee Wee Gaskins, of South Carolina.

Killed 13 (that he admitted to....but he also gleefully said that they'd never FIND all the bodies) and they locked him up for life in a maximum security prison.

Of course, that didn't stop him from killing four more and seriously injuring another before they finally had enough and put him to death.

What does the kinder, gentler approach do about (very real) cases like Mr. Gaskins? Slap his wrists?

Incapacitate him either through physical restraints. Keep him isolated.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's nonsense. People committ murders thinking that they won't get caught - or, more likely, they're not thinking about their future at all. They don't think that life in prison is acceptable or that that can somehow fake an insanity defense.

More acceptable than dying, though.