The least cruel method of execution?

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.

You called me a hypocrite for speaking out about Joe's nonsensical advocacy of punitive torture.

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.

We've also learned that violent A-holes tend to reoffend. We’ve learned that the behavior tends to be passed from generation to generation (perhaps the worst horror of all.) Finally; we've learned that there is only one sure way to prevent recidivism.

Put short; torture would affect the recidivism rate not one iota, so there is nothing half-way about the application of the Death Penalty. While you can provide not one example of an innocent person being put to death by the state in recent times (proven beyond a reasonable doubt); I can provide a plethora of examples of recidivism that could easily have been prevented by the application of the death penalty.

"Life without parole" has been proven less effective than capital punishment for preventing recidivism (you know this, but I can re-cut & paste evidence if need be.) Hence; the capital nature of the crime provides the additional justification you seek for differentiating it from lesser crimes, and the demonstrated fact that "Life without parole" does NOT incapacitate a prisoner to the same extent execution does provides the additional justification for choosing the more effective method of preventing recidivism.

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?

Did I really, Bill? If you'd be so kind as to point that out, I'll proffer an apology forthwith.

Evidently, you no longer want to respond directly to my points -- or even to one of them. That's ok, I understand. If I didn't have a cogent argument I'd hide behind insults and appeals for pity too. The only surprise is that you haven't just said "it has been demonstrated" and declare victory, like Okie. I suspect you're holding that devastating retort in reserve.

But perhaps before you go off in a total snit, you can at least reply to one question: If you're not in favor of executing all convicted murderers, but only those who have committed heinous murders, then what punishment would you give to non-heinous murderers?

You’ve fooled no one with your absurd (feigned) inability to understand my points, and you’ve bored the **** out of me. I have no interest in defending positions I don’t hold nor repeatedly clarifying while you play your idiotic game of pretending you’re not smart enough to understand the obvious. If this were your normal level of discourse; you’d be as worthy of Ignore as the Remora you’ve thus far behaved like here.

I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense, as well as ways to promote second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, first degree DV, to first degree murder/capital offenses, as well as a list of special circumstances to allow for deviation to lesser degrees. As much as possible; I’d like to see mandatory sentencing guidelines that left very little to the discretion of judges, juries or even prosecutors. All offenders who met the well defined criteria for first degree murder/capital offense would face the death penalty. No other penalty would exceed 20 years without enhancements.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense, as well as ways to promote second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, first degree DV, to first degree murder/capital offenses, as well as a list of special circumstances to allow for deviation to lesser degrees. As much as possible; I’d like to see mandatory sentencing guidelines that left very little to the discretion of judges, juries or even prosecutors. All offenders who met the well defined criteria for first degree murder/capital offense would face the death penalty. No other penalty would exceed 20 years without enhancements.

I'm not sure how that would work. You've divided the universe of murderers into heinous and non-heinous (for the sake of simplicity we'll ignore other heinous crimes for the moment). You have said that you would sentence heinous murderers to death. Presumably, that means that non-heinous murderers would not get a capital sentence.

Now, however, you're saying that all first-degree murderers should be executed. But the dividing line between first-degree murder and something less (like second-degree murder or manslaughter) is not heinousness, it's premeditation. Saying that you would put all first-degree murderers to death isn't the same thing as saying that you would put all heinous murderers to death. Some heinous murders aren't premeditated, and some premeditated murders aren't heinous. So there's an inconsistency here, unless you're saying that all premeditated murders are, by virtue of that fact, heinous. Is that what you're saying? Or is there a class of murders that, because they are premeditated, would qualify as first-degree murder but would not merit the death penalty because they are non-heinous? And if there is such a class, are you suggesting that persons convicted of these crimes should be sentenced to no more than twenty years in prison, disregarding any sentence enhancements?

I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense.

as well as a list of special circumstances to allow for deviation to lesser degrees.

Still pretending you don't get it, eh Joe? WTF is so fun about that?

On the outside chance you're inability to get it is real; I'll clarify further:

I previously wrote:

I’m thinking if I were to write the Law and sentencing guidelines; Life without Parole would not exist. There would be a long list of aggravating factors to first degree murder/capital offense.

This alters the meaning of "first degree" in the same way "felony murder" enhancements work in many states. For example’s sake only; here’s a list of aggravating factors from Alabama.

Except as specifically provided to the contrary in the last part of subdivision (a)(13) of this section, the terms "murder" and "murder by the defendant" as used in this section to define capital offenses mean murder as defined in section 13A-6-2(a)(1), but not as defined in section 13A-6-2(a)(2) and (3).

In the two examples above; neither the crimes of man who kills his child’s rapist nor the woman who kills her abusive husband indicate the level of depraved indifference to the life and liberty of the innocent (heinousness)… which is clearly indicated in the three examples of murders with aggravating factors listed above them. Hence, the presumed threat of recidivism isn’t comparable.

Heinousness of the crime has no bearing on likelihood of recidivism