The least cruel method of execution?

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

roger wrote:
Well now, if we release a jaywalker back into society, what's the worst we can expect; he might jaywalk again. It really is different.

No, the worst we can expect is that he goes on a multi-state killing spree. But then that's the problem, isn't it. We can only guess, within, at best, a bell-curve type of probability, what any particular person might do in the future based on past behavior. A person who murders his girlfriend might murder his next girlfriend, but then again he might not. Maybe he was only motivated to murder that girlfriend rather than every girlfriend. O'BILL evidently thinks that we can know, for certain, who will commit more murders. That's why he wants to kill convicted murderers before they murder again. Of course, if he's wrong, then we will end up executing prisoners who pose no risk of murdering again, but I suppose them's the breaks. After all, in order to express compassion, one must want to kill, and O'BILL is a very compassionate guy.

Woah, Joe. Those murderers could be future terrorists. Worse than a multi-state killing spree. We'd better just kill them all right now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I wouldn't agree with rarely, at all; but I'm right there with you if you want to maximize the certainty of guilt to qualify for it's application.

Considering there's no going back on our decisions, shouldn't we be doing exactly this? DNA evidence alone has released dozens from death row over the last decade or so...

This is a double edged sword. These same advances allow for virtually irrefutable proof of guilt as well. To the extent one does believe in the Death Penalty as a solution; isn't the next logical step to establish a threshold of proof that is either achieved or not? And when the crime meets the criteria and the certainty of guilt crosses that threshold; shouldn’t it be up to the offending individuals to establish the frequency of its application? I agree wholeheartedly that less would be better; but that’s up to the would-be offenders. Whether deterred or interred, is ultimately up to the individual. Society becomes safer either way.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Many of the death row cases we deal with are located in the deep south and are clearly white judges and prosecutors wanting to look 'tough' for their Republican constituents, and the vast majority of those on death row in those states are black. To me, the situation is not one where the balance of justice is the concern of those in charge of administering said justice, but instead a tool for the advancement of their own careers and the imposition of prior racial biases held by the majority in those states. That alone should be a warning sign that this punishment is not one which is handed out evenly.

Handed out evenly is a secondary concern. Handed out properly is the primary. I'll go along with you if you want to advocate mandating tighter sentencing guidelines but I'm not at all interested in an affirmative action type approach. The facets of the crime meet the guidelines or they don't. I don't know the answer to solving mindless bigotry in judges and juries, but when it comes to ridding the planet of mass murdering monsters; altering otherwise just sentences to adapt to statistical preferences isn't it.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Handed out evenly is a secondary concern. Handed out properly is the primary. I'll go along with you if you want to advocate mandating tighter sentencing guidelines but I'm not at all interested in an affirmative action type approach. The facets of the crime meet the guidelines or they don't. I don't know the answer to solving mindless bigotry in judges and juries, but when it comes to ridding the planet of mass murdering monsters; altering otherwise just sentences to adapt to statistical preferences isn't it.

I support tightened sentencing guidelines. The Death Penalty should be reserved for those cases considered truly horrendous, and for which an overwhelming amount of evidence is available; and it should be rare.

I think it's safe to presume - from a statistical standpoint even - that the majority of those who go to jail for murder (or manslaughter) are not mass-murdering monsters. And it's as wrong to generalize about this group as it is to generalize about any group, even if they are guilty of a crime they are still people who deserve to be treated as individuals and not judged as a group.

Cycloptichorn

4 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree C! 100%.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

roger wrote:
Well now, if we release a jaywalker back into society, what's the worst we can expect; he might jaywalk again. It really is different.

No, the worst we can expect is that he goes on a multi-state killing spree. But then that's the problem, isn't it. We can only guess, within, at best, a bell-curve type of probability, what any particular person might do in the future based on past behavior. A person who murders his girlfriend might murder his next girlfriend, but then again he might not. Maybe he was only motivated to murder that girlfriend rather than every girlfriend. O'BILL evidently thinks that we can know, for certain, who will commit more murders. That's why he wants to kill convicted murderers before they murder again. Of course, if he's wrong, then we will end up executing prisoners who pose no risk of murdering again, but I suppose them's the breaks. After all, in order to express compassion, one must want to kill, and O'BILL is a very compassionate guy.

Boy you sure do like those straw men, don't you JOE?

O'BILL thinks no such thing. Nor did he say anything that indicates something so stupid. Only JOE did. O'BILL doesn't claim to know who will reoffend. Frankly; O'BILL doesn't care. It is the risk of re-offending O'BILL finds unacceptable... and that's all he said. When JOE gets done behaving JTT, he should be ashamed of himself.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I support tightened sentencing guidelines. The Death Penalty should be reserved for those cases considered truly horrendous, and for which an overwhelming amount of evidence is available; and it should be rare.

Cycloptichorn

That line of thought makes me somewhat queasy. Are we convicting people of murder when there is not an overwhelming amount of evidence? I mean, is it the death penalty if we're real, real sure, and life in prison if we're kind of doubtful? They guy is guilty or not.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Handed out evenly is a secondary concern. Handed out properly is the primary. I'll go along with you if you want to advocate mandating tighter sentencing guidelines but I'm not at all interested in an affirmative action type approach. The facets of the crime meet the guidelines or they don't. I don't know the answer to solving mindless bigotry in judges and juries, but when it comes to ridding the planet of mass murdering monsters; altering otherwise just sentences to adapt to statistical preferences isn't it.

I support tightened sentencing guidelines. The Death Penalty should be reserved for those cases considered truly horrendous, and for which an overwhelming amount of evidence is available; and it should be rare.

I think it's safe to presume - from a statistical standpoint even - that the majority of those who go to jail for murder (or manslaughter) are not mass-murdering monsters. And it's as wrong to generalize about this group as it is to generalize about any group, even if they are guilty of a crime they are still people who deserve to be treated as individuals and not judged as a group.

Please define your sentencing guidelines that would result in "exceedingly rare."

Code:

Number of bodies? 



Or do you have to eat them like Dahmer? Is eating one enough? 

How many passes muster?



Does it matter if multiple killings are committed during one act or several?



How about shooting a witness to lesser crime, for no reason other than

eliminating a witness to a lesser crime? How many of those would suffice? 



How about the guy who beats his wife to death because the Packers lost?

Does it matter if he's beaten her before? The number of times or the

 severity of the beatings?



Does it matter if he rapes his victim? Or would sodomy be necessary too? 

Or if he has a history of rape?



Does the IQ of the murderer play a roll? How about the victim?

Or, is "horrendousness" to be measured by the judge? The jury? And if so; how do you get the judge or jury to become colorblind when making that assessment? How do you stop the white judge or jury from finding the black man's raping and murdering of a white woman to be more "horrendous"?

Like I said; I like the idea of tighter sentencing guidelines… but I don’t understand how you’d go about creating a set that would result in "exceedingly rare."

BTW Robert "

didn't show up in preview? Is there a code for that?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Robert: "list" is what doesn't seem to work, just so you know, if you didn't already.

0 Replies

The meaning I got from Cyclo's post was if there was overwhelming evidence to the point where there's no possible way the accused could be innocent, then the death penalty may be in order.
I agree (once again) with him on that as well. If someone has that overwhelming evidence against them and they are extremely violent/out of control, maybe the death penalty would be something I wouldn't protest.
I don't remember who it was here that said something on the lines of keeping the psychos in prison so they can be studied. The brain is such a complicated thing to understand and even today, they still have so very much to learn about how it works.
If they had a chance to study these people, we may just learn something that will help us all understand why they do what they do and possibly some brain malfunction that can be treated.
A malfunctioning brain can make normal people turn into someone opposite of who they are.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I support tightened sentencing guidelines. The Death Penalty should be reserved for those cases considered truly horrendous, and for which an overwhelming amount of evidence is available; and it should be rare.

Cycloptichorn

That line of thought makes me somewhat queasy. Are we convicting people of murder when there is not an overwhelming amount of evidence? I mean, is it the death penalty if we're real, real sure, and life in prison if we're kind of doubtful? They guy is guilty or not.

If only it were that simple. I have seen many cases where convictions and death sentences arose from rather shaky evidence, or from eye-witnesses who later on recant their testimony. I've seen forced confessions, lack of murder weapons, and lack of a body still result in a conviction and death penalty.

Bill, to answer in short, I think there needs to be a great deal of physical evidence - preferably DNA evidence - in order to garner convictions which lead to the death penalty. Most of the cases we see which result in false convictions do not meet these standards. It's sad to say but many of the public defenders in America are unable to get their clients off or get a more lenient sentence even when there is practically no evidence linking the defendant to the crime.

I'm not a fan of racial quotas, but the patterns of conviction and imposition of the death penalty in the South are striking. There needs to be some reform of the system down there to prevent 12 white jurors and a white DA and a white judge from stringing up lots of black fellas.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Because, you moron, if you want to make a charge of hypocrisy; you need to show hypocrisy. Unless or until you demonstrate where I showed a preference for punitive torture; you’re blowing wind out your ass.

It's easy to tell by your demeanor that you've been caught out, Bill. You've always sat idle and never spoken out against the shameful situation at Guantanamo and the illegal renditions that have gone on around the world.

Quote:

I've launched into plenty of attacks on the torturous ways of more than a few dictators, you ******* idiot. But the burden of proof to disprove your ridiculous claim doesn't rest on me. Now unless and until you provide a link to where I advocated punitive torture;

Yes, you're great at pointing the finger at other countries, all the while ignoring the atrocities that your own are guilty of. Yet you continue with this;

"The hottest fires in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. (Edmund Burke)."

You've done nothing, or as I allowed, next to nothing about the hideous instances of torture, murder and mayhem.

That is clearly hypocrisy, made even worse because of your sanctimonious rants about other dictators. You've done much worse than do nothing, Bill. You've sought to deflect from the sordid machinations of your own government. That's not only hypocritical, that's deeply immoral.

Quote:

but I believe torture to be a heinous act

When you've been given the chance to speak out on your favorite topics, you're there, big time. It's pretty evident that you are awfully selective about who can torture and murder.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bill, to answer in short, I think there needs to be a great deal of physical evidence - preferably DNA evidence - in order to garner convictions which lead to the death penalty. Most of the cases we see which result in false convictions do not meet these standards. It's sad to say but many of the public defenders in America are unable to get their clients off or get a more lenient sentence even when there is practically no evidence linking the defendant to the crime.

Agreed. Proof should be virtual certainty. But you haven't explained how sentencing guidelines for the Death Penalty could result in both a reduction of the racial disparity AND become exceedingly rare. That would require crazy threshold choosing like I described above.

The purpose in my barrage of basically rhetorical questions was to demonstrate the futility of trying to draw a line to result in "exceedingly rare" eligibility-wise. If it's verdict-confidence you seek, and it sounds like that's most important to you; then the guidelines should be written to mandatorily apply only when certain threshold's are met. You can't rationally change the ratio by giving a pass to more heinously guilty black guys. You do so by mandating heinously guilty white guys get the same sentence. This is how tighter sentencing guidelines could reduce the disparity... but I see no realistic way to draw lines that would result in "increasingly rare."

Criminal actions of persons, regardless of race, should determine the frequency.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not a fan of racial quotas, but the patterns of conviction and imposition of the death penalty in the South are striking. There needs to be some reform of the system down there to prevent 12 white jurors and a white DA and a white judge from stringing up lots of black fellas.

Can't go there either: Neither judges nor juries should be chosen based on race, and the DA's race is irrelevant anyway.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Charges of hypocrisy require proof, not mindless assumptions, assertions and conjecture. Your utter failure to provide a single shred of proof, while you continue your trolling only serves to further demonstrate your idiocy. Link one quote where I advocated punitive torture, or continue looking like the mindless idiot you are.

1 Reply

@Montana,

I agree with most of what you said there, Montana, except that formula wouldn't result in "exceedingly rare."

I also don't believe there's a cure, but would be happy to be proven wrong. I refuse to believe, for instance, that a "normal person" could hack an innocent woman to death with a pick axe, for instance. I'll happily concede there are plenty of psychopaths out there capable of such deeds, who never do it, but normal people... no.

Those perps who's guilt-proof falls between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and death penalty-qualified-proof can serve as the lab-rats science seeks. One need not spare every rabid dog to study rabies.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

If the brain of a normal person malfunctions, they certainly can turn into someone who will hack someone up. For example, if someone has some kind of tumor growing in the brain in the area that controls our emotions and our ability to think like a normal person does, you're not the same person.
To be normal, you need a full functioning brain.

DNA is the most amazing thing to me and it facinates me on more than one level, so I believe that if science can find it's way into everyones own personal body design, they can do so much more.

I'm thinking the scientists will focus more on DNA and maybe find what makes people tick through that avenue.

Even if they wanted to use the dead bodies as lab rats, they can't do it without consent, so that's no help.

Anyway, science has come a long way.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Don't know what happened to the thoughtful, intriguing Joefromchicago, but this replacement is a bore.

I rise to the level of the competition. Right now, you rate a solid Okie.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, murder is always a heinous act. Are you saying, then, that all murderers should be executed?
I said no such thing, Joe.

I know you didn't. That's why I asked.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I did say murderers who exhibit the level of depraved indifference Tucker did create an unacceptable risk. How many straw men do you feel you need to erect?

"Risk" of what?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Ah, idiocy revisited.

I know. But I feel obliged to revisit your argument, if only for the sake of obtaining closure.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Quite simply, Joe, torturing McDuff wouldn’t have offered any more protection to Northrup and McDuff’s other additional victims than the death penalty alone. Not sure how such a position makes me brave, macho or chickenshit… but I can see how your behavior makes you look like a mindless asshole with nothing more to offer. I know better, so I wonder why you’re behaving so poorly.

How do you know that torturing McDuff wouldn't have saved innocent lives? If a potential murderer knew that torture awaited him if he were caught and convicted, maybe he wouldn't commit that murder. Or do you argue that capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent to other potential criminals?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Huh? Removing cancerous cells before they can spread further and do more damage doesn’t cut medical research. Has no bearing on it at all, really.

Still don't understand analogies, I see.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I’m still willing to grant you habitual rape, child molestation, and domestic violence offenders if you’re interested; but crimes that lack a heinous element have no place in this discussion.

Only because you don't know how they can fit into this discussion.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That deserves a lol emoticon, but I’ll refrain since it bothers you so much.

Laugh away. It doesn't bother me a bit.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Silly semantic wordplay isn’t going to get it done, Joe. It would have made zero difference if McDuff had made a stop at “life without parole” before being paroled.

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Your ridiculous contention relies on the simple fact that laws can be changed, Joe. You can’t pretend they can only be changed for the better, (which considering your profession, you should know only too well.) (I don’t think Wisconsin even has a “without parole” option. Judges routinely attach "+5" enhancements to accomplish the same, with the understanding that the life sentence must be completed before the NEVER to be served "+5" begins.) The simple fact is: "without parole" can be added or subtracted an any time and there is no reason to believe it’s existence or lack thereof affects the actions of repeat-murderers.

No, not really. The capital sentences of convicted murderers were changed in the wake of the Furman decision because capital punishment (as it existed back then) was declared unconstitutional. But it is very rare for any other kind of sentence to be changed retroactively across the board. If, e.g., a state has a life without parole option, and then the legislature abolishes that particular type of sentence, it's not automatic that prisoners sentenced to life without parole under the old law would have their sentences changed. After all, if the legislature abolished life without parole and instituted the death penalty, all of those prisoners serving life without parole wouldn't automatically be moved to death row. Indeed, they couldn't be. Your fears, then, that prisoners sentenced to life without parole would find it only a way station on the road to release from prison is, like most of your argument, unfounded.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sure I did Joe. You chose not to accept it. Here; have some more:
A punishment should fit the crime.

No doubt. And brutal, heinous crimes should be addressed with brutal, heinous punishments.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Death sentences should only be used on heinous criminals.

Why? If your interest is in preventing recidivism, then what does the heinousness of the crime have to do with that? Are you suggesting that only murderers who commit heinous murders are likely to repeat their crimes?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Death sentences should only be used when heinous criminal’s actions rise to a level of depraved indifference that they should never again be trusted.

Again, how does heinousness of crime = likelihood of recidivism?

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

O'BILL thinks no such thing. Nor did he say anything that indicates something so stupid. Only JOE did. O'BILL doesn't claim to know who will reoffend. Frankly; O'BILL doesn't care.

You should care. It's at the heart of your argument.

You want the death penalty because it halts recidivism. So the people that you would have executed must be the ones who are likely to offend again. Otherwise, your argument makes no sense (or, rather, it makes even less sense). What you haven't explained, however, is why the nature of the crime provides some insight into the likelihood of the perpetrator committing the same crime in the future. Certainly there are people who commit one heinous murder and then never kill again, just as there are people who commit "routine" murders over and over again. Not every murderer is like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein. According to your argument, heinousness of crime equals likelihood of recidivism, and that's neither empirically nor logically correct.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It is the risk of re-offending O'BILL finds unacceptable... and that's all he said.

"Risk" is merely a prediction of the future based on probabilities. If you think that someone is a risk to re-offend, then you're making a prediction of his future behavior based upon your estimation of the likelihood that he will re-offend.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Link one quote where I advocated punitive torture,

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. (Edmund Burke)

You're a sneaky little ****, Bill. I never said you specifically advocated torture. What the US government has done under Bush wrt Guantanamo and rendition is evil personified and you've done nothing to stop it. That is precisely what Edmund Burke warned against and yet you continue to wrap yourself in hypocrisy and try to pass it off as an honorable position.

Evil is evil, no matter who does it. And you have specifically avoided talking about these actions of the US government and by extension its people because you know that you're being hypocritical and dishonorable. Sad, too when you do often take pretty honorable positions.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

According to your argument, heinousness of crime equals likelihood of recidivism, and that's neither empirically nor logically correct.

Nor is that my argument. Nor could anyone not being deliberately obtuse pretend it is. Heinousness of the crime has no bearing on likelihood of recidivism; it has an enormous bearing on whether or not the risk of recidivism is acceptable. Everyone not being deliberately obtuse already knows that's the point, Joe. You're fooling no one.

Further; anyone who believes a prisoner would refrain from murdering his cellmate or a guard because the words "without parole" were attached to the end of his sentence is an idiot. Why are you pretending to be an idiot Joe?

2 Replies

The least cruel method of execution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know