Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

1. Guilt beyond any doubt whatsoever of a crime which warrants the death penalty.

2. A continuing threat to the public inherent in keeping the guy alive.

3. The elimination of the adversarial system of determining guilt or innocence. There must be zero possibility of somebody getting hanged to advance the political career of some district attorney.

But killing in self defense is something quite different from state sanctioned capital punishment, isn't it? And a "continuing threat to the public inherent in keeping the guy alive" I cannot see, assuming he's locked up for the rest of his life.

But killing in self defense is something quite different from state sanctioned capital punishment, isn't it? And a "continuing threat to the public inherent in keeping the guy alive" I cannot see, assuming he's locked up for the rest of his life.

old europe wrote:

But killing in self defense is something quite different from state sanctioned capital punishment, isn't it? And a "continuing threat to the public inherent in keeping the guy alive" I cannot see, assuming he's locked up for the rest of his life.

Prisons can be broken out of. For instance, I would rate the two D.C. sniper killers Mohammed and Malvo as significant threats to break out of any prison they were in.

But killing in self defense is something quite different from state sanctioned capital punishment, isn't it? And a "continuing threat to the public inherent in keeping the guy alive" I cannot see, assuming he's locked up for the rest of his life.

"Self defence" is defined by a long line of common law cases. In my jurisdiction the law of self-defence was changed by statute several years ago to accommodate the political pressure brought to bear on our state government by one single case that nonetheless spooked the Parliament. In the long run it didn't make much a difference but understand that the definition can be changed by the stroke of a legislative pen. Scary isn't it?

So much for judicial activism. It turns out that the courts are less likely to knee jerk than our legislatures.

You definitely don't want "particularly evil murderer[s]" to escape, but as far as I know the US has quite a number of maximum security prisons, and, as far as I know, nobody has ever escaped.

re self defense: I wasn't arguing against self defense not being the same as murder. I was saying that once you've got the guy and have him locked up, you can hardly argue that killing him would be self defense, could you?

A man in the American northwest (Oregon, perhaps?), several years ago it now is, was executed by firing squad (his choice) for the kidnapping, torture, repeated rape and murder of a small boy. He commented before his execution that he was not pursuing appeals because he was guilty, he admitted it, and if they released him, he'd go out and do it again at the first opportunity.

About a generation ago, in a large city near my home, a large hospital provided medical services, both inpatient and outpatient, for the State Department of Corrections. One prisoner escaped, and hid himself in the parking garage under the hospital. He made no attempt to escape. He laid in wait, and managed to murder two nurses before he was apprehended. He made no comment other than a statement to the effect that that was what he liked to do.

goodfielder wrote:

"Self defence" is defined by a long line of common law cases. In my jurisdiction the law of self-defence was changed by statute several years ago to accommodate the political pressure brought to bear on our state government by one single case that nonetheless spooked the Parliament. In the long run it didn't make much a difference but understand that the definition can be changed by the stroke of a legislative pen. Scary isn't it?

So much for judicial activism. It turns out that the courts are less likely to knee jerk than our legislatures.

What was that about, goodfielder? <shudders at the concept of common law>

I agree.

Guilt beyond beyond any doubt whatsoever is a big ask but should be pursued.

I agree. But the definition can be revised.

Bella we have been agreeing too much lately. I thought the purpose of A2K was to be able to fight and argue without any logic.

Ah yes, let's appeal to Roman code, or Justinian's Code, or, wait, better yet, let's base the laws of our polity on Napoleonic Code.

That's the way to go, none of that messy common law . . .

You definitely don't want "particularly evil murderer[s]" to escape, but as far as I know the US has quite a number of maximum security prisons, and, as far as I know, nobody has ever escaped.