Roof Death Penalty

@InfraBlue,

One is considerably more barbaric than the other which is why civilised societies don't practice it.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Not only has that never worked any better than anything else, the odds of the innocent suffering the fate of the guilty puts the death penalty in the same category as the actions of a Roof or Taliban.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Not only has that never worked any better than anything else, the odds of the innocent suffering the fate of the guilty puts the death penalty in the same category as the actions of a Roof or Taliban.

Are the "odds of the innocent suffering" any different if you mete out a "life without parole" sentence, ya figure?

Is the whole US justice system simply an arm of "the Taliban?"

2 Replies

@layman,

Well, yes. How can you give a sentence of life without parole and not have the certainty needed for a death sentence?

0 Replies

@layman,

Bring the kids on a tour of a maximum security prison. The inmates will give them a show that will make an impression. (And I don't mean volunteer inmates a la "Scared Straight")

0 Replies

@layman,

At least a sentence of life without parole allows for justice to prevail when the sentenced is actually innocent. We've yet to figure out how to bring people back from the dead.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

That sums up my position pretty well.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

At least a sentence of life without parole allows for justice to prevail when the sentenced is actually innocent. We've yet to figure out how to bring people back from the dead.

Well, Finn, it always a nice luxury if you're able to only "half-commit" to decisions and leave plenty of room to backtrack if you've made a mistake.

I mean, it's possible, for example, that Jack Ruby didn't really kill Oswald, nothwithstanding what millions of Americans saw on live TV.

But if only the reason for not making a decision is that it could turn out to be wrong, then no decision would ever be made.

Quote:

“Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first be overcome." (Samuel Johnson)

Unfortunately, in the real world, not every mistake can be undone. If you want to confine yourself to only taking actions which are reversible at will, then you probably won't go very far. Often decisive actions must be taken even in the absence of absolute certainty that the action will not be regretted.

1 Reply

@layman,

That's a specious argument.

Being really really sure about someone's guilt has to be defined and will be subject to abuse.

I don't see the killing of Roof serving the national interest. I'm sure it's will be a comfort to some family members of his victims and I understand that perfectly, but it still comes down to the fact that the State is the instrument of vengence and being so empowered it can easily decide that opponents deserve it too.

It's not as if leaving Roof to rot in prison is putting law abiding citizens at risk.

2 Replies

@Sturgis,

Life without parole is also a less expensive option in the American system. The death penalty costs the government/American people significantly more. Punishment at a lower cost. Definitely the way to go.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Specious? How so?

Quote:

I don't see the killing of Roof serving the national interest.

Maybe you don't. But, especially with the economy in severe trouble, an immense national debt, and with honest and deserving people in serious need, I personally can see better uses for $5 million that keep this scumbag, warm, fed, and protected from any form of responsibility or harm for the next 50 years.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

State is the instrument of vengence and being so empowered it can easily decide that opponents deserve it too.

I've asked you this before, in other threads, Finn, but haven't seen your response...

Any power *can* be abused. Is that a satisfactory reason to insist that everybody, including the State, be rendered impotent?

*Any* punishment, i.e., any power granted to enforce criminal law, can be "abused." Is the answer to throw the legal system out the window and let criminals do their business without any threat of consequence?

In other words, it seems to me that your "power can be abused" argument proves far too much.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Life without parole is also a less expensive option in the American system. The death penalty costs the government/American people significantly more. Punishment at a lower cost. Definitely the way to go.

At one time, I was fairly well acquainted with our former chief of police. He opposed the death penalty for exactly that reason.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Life without parole is also a less expensive option in the American system. The death penalty costs the government/American people significantly more. Punishment at a lower cost. Definitely the way to go.

At one time, I was fairly well acquainted with our former chief of police. He opposed the death penalty for exactly that reason.

Even assuming that's true (which I don't) that should be seen as a call for judicial reform, not the molly-coddling of savage criminals.

0 Replies

@layman,

The greatest power any person or entity can have over a person is the power of life and death.

Not wanting the government to have this power is not even close to saying no one should have any power.

The power to throw a citizen in a cell and throw away the key is pretty damned mighty, but I don't oppose it because the State must have some power to deal with terrible citizens and a life sentence allows for a lot of time in which injustice might be overturned. Once the State kills you, it doesn't really matter whether or not you are exonerated at some future date.

It's really not that complicated.

I understand the notions of retribution and vengence. I'm not arguing that the death penalty is barbaric or immoral. I am saying that it is foolish to allow the State to have the ultimate power over us and one that cannot ever be rectified if abused.

We all know it has been and likely will be abused in the future.

As well, the cost of incarceration vs the death penalty is an obscene consideration. We should kill people because it's cheaper than warehousing them? And if we should kill them, the fact that it's cheaper to imprison them should have no bearing.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The greatest power any person or entity can have over a person is the power of life and death.

Not wanting the government to have this power is not even close to saying no one should have any power.

The power to throw a citizen in a cell and throw away the key is pretty damned mighty, but I don't oppose it because the State must have some power to deal with terrible citizens and a life sentence allows for a lot of time in which injustice might be overturned. Once the State kills you, it doesn't really matter whether or not you are exonerated at some future date.

It's really not that complicated.

I understand the notions of retribution and vengence. I'm not arguing that the death penalty is barbaric or immoral. I am saying that it is foolish to allow the State to have the ultimate power over us and one that cannot ever be rectified if abused.

We all know it has been and likely will be abused in the future.

As well, the cost of incarceration vs the death penalty is an obscene consideration. We should kill people because it's cheaper than warehousing them? And if we should kill them, the fact that it's cheaper to imprison them should have no bearing.

Well, Finn, you're the one who brought up the "national interest," not me.

I take it that you are conceding that the "abuse of power" argument is NOT your real objection to the death penalty. You seem to be relying more on the "don't ever risk making a mistake" line of reasoning instead.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Once the State kills you, it doesn't really matter whether or not you are exonerated at some future date.

By that same reasoning it really doesn't matter to the innocent people he killed if he's given a citizen of the year award.

How could it? They're dead. Permanently dead. No way to "correct" the injustice they were subjected to, eh?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

well said

0 Replies

Ya know, it has been claimed that retribution, rehabilitation, protection of society, and deterrence are all justifications for criminal punishment (capital, or not).

Deterrence is recognized as being two-fold:

(1) deterring the specific offender from repeating his crime (specific deterrence) and

(2) deterring, by example, others from committing similar crimes (general deterrence)

I have already discussed (2) to some extent.

The "goal" of specific deterrence is not accomplished in many, perhaps most, cases. The high degree of recidivism amongst serious criminals is well-documented.

But that goal is achieved with certainty if you just smoke the sorry bastard's ass, ya know?

There are, of course, many known instances where convicted killers have escaped from prison, and then murdered people for sport, for their cars, or whatever. A prison sentence is NOT a surefire specific deterrent. The death penalty is.

0 Replies

@layman,

Not at all.

I'm content, as much as I can be, with the risk of the State making a mistake as long as there remains an opportunity to correct it.

In addition I fundamentally oppose granting the State, under any circumstances, the power to kill its citizens.

1 Reply

Roof Death Penalty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know