Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Eorl wrote:

mm,

Where I live it is a criminal offense to serve alcohol to an intoxicated person.

If doing so results in a death, then clearly your rules would demand the execution of the bar tender.

So as not to go on forever with examples, let me just claim outright that your ideas of justice are naive and simplistic, not to mention barbaric in the extreme.

Actually,my idea of justice has some very good policies and is not barbaric at all.
But,we have been talking exclusively about the death penalty.

You cant speak about my ideas of justice because you dont know what they are.I havent mentioned any of them,except for the DP.

0 Replies

I don't feel I need any further evidence for or against my claims mm.

Your proposals are enough for me to make my conclusion.

I'm sure you believe that your idea of justice is very good....to me, that just makes you all the more dangerous and less likely to consider you could be wrong.

0 Replies

I'm always willing to consider the idea that I might be wrong,and I have been known to change my mind.

You are assuming however,that since I have a tough stance towards the DP that I am barbaric and cruel.
Nothing could be further from the truth then that.

I think that you would agree with many of my ideas,but if you already have a closed mind,then nothing anyone says will open it,right.

0 Replies

Well, it's a bit like Hitler saying, "sure I think all Jews should die...but have you seen all the good things I have planned for everyone else?"

Your position on justice AT THE POINTY END effectively negates or at least minimises the import of your opinions in related matters.

so sure, tell me how your other policies demonstrate that your position is not appalling, and I'll try not to see the row of corpses in the background.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I'm sure nothing will ever convince me that untimely deaths should properly and legally result in more untimely deaths.

They don't, if the grown-up proponents of the death penalty are right -- because these proponents contend that the execution of murderers deters more untimely deaths than it brings about. I am not convinced of their position, because several capable statisticians have examined the empirical evidence, and their findings on this particular point turned out to be all over the place. But theirs is a position that reasonable people can hold, and which your above objection wouldn't apply to.

0 Replies

I get your point Thomas, if the meaning of "more" in my sentence was "more than otherwise would occur"

What I meant was that each death would result in a further, additional death, the second one with the approval of the law. To me, that remains wrong, even if the overall number of untimely deaths drops.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

What I meant was that each death would result in a further, additional death, the second one with the approval of the law. To me, that remains wrong, even if the overall number of untimely deaths drops.

Why? If somebody was about to kill you, why would it make a difference to you whether the killer was a drug dealer or an executioner? Conversely, if the total number of untimely deaths drops, why would it make a difference to anyone whether the drop is in executions or gang shootings? I would have said that people care about staying alive -- they don't care which untimely death they're escaping, as long as they're escaping it. It appears to me that you disagree, so I'd be curious what your reasons are.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

au1929 wrote:
The father of Laura Hobbs has been charged with the murders of his eight-year-old daughter and her best friend Krystal Tobias, 9, prosecutors said Tuesday. Jerry Hobbs, 34, could face the death penalty if convicted. The girls were reported missing on Mother's Day and their bodies found in a wooded park Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/illinois.neighbors.ap/index.html

Is this crime heinous enough, for the bleeding hearts, to warrant a death penalty?

And that misses the point. The punishment for murder shouldn't depend on the circumstances of the crime. Murder is murder is murder. It's either death or life imprisonment.

What a ridiculous concept. The foundation of criminal sentencing is based on the facts and circumstances of the underlying crime (and the criminal's prior history of course).

0 Replies

Thomas writes

Quote:

Why? If somebody was about to kill you, why would it make a difference to you whether the killer was a drug dealer or an executioner? Conversely, if the total number of untimely deaths drops, why would it make a difference to anyone whether the drop is in executions or gang shootings? I would have said that people care about staying alive -- they don't care which untimely death they're escaping, as long as they're escaping it. It appears to me that you disagree, so I'd be curious what your reasons are.

Where I disagree with MM is that his remedy to obtain justice does in fact obtain justice. The dead are indeed dead no matter what illegal circumstances caused the demise. But MM's solution does not allow for degrees of illegality and corresponding degrees of punishment, and thus does not allow for mercy.

I see an illegal U-turn as a lesser crime and deserving of a lesser penalty than say driving drunk. Shoplifting a sweater at the mall is in a different category than burglarizing a private home and in a hugely different category than an armed robbery. In each case you have a thief and a theft, but reason suggests there should be degrees of penalty of law applied to each.

I don't see involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, and various degrees of homicide as any different. I cannot see applying the death penalty to the person who had no intent or motive to kill somebody even though an illegal act was committed. The best justice in such a case is that the killer should have to support the family of the one killed for the rest of their lives, put the kids through medical school, or otherwise 'replace' the dead person as best as he can. But life imprisonment is probably the most practical justice causing the least additional trauma for the survivors.

The death penalty should be reserved for those who intentionally inflict the most cruel and savage and unconsionable pain and suffering upon their victims to cause they death so long as there is absolutely no question as to the killer's guilt.. Such killers should forfeit their right to life and the people should not be required to provide their housing, food, education, medical care, and entertainment for the rest of their mortal lives nor be exposed to their savagery, nor incur the risk of an escape or some muddle headed governor letting them go.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
au1929 wrote:
The father of Laura Hobbs has been charged with the murders of his eight-year-old daughter and her best friend Krystal Tobias, 9, prosecutors said Tuesday. Jerry Hobbs, 34, could face the death penalty if convicted. The girls were reported missing on Mother's Day and their bodies found in a wooded park Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/illinois.neighbors.ap/index.html

Is this crime heinous enough, for the bleeding hearts, to warrant a death penalty?

And that misses the point. The punishment for murder shouldn't depend on the circumstances of the crime. Murder is murder is murder. It's either death or life imprisonment.

What a ridiculous concept. The foundation of criminal sentencing is based on the facts and circumstances of the underlying crime (and the criminal's prior history of course).

First it needs a particular crime to be proven. Murder is not manslaughter. There are palpable differences. The penalty for murder in my jurisdiction is life imprisonment. The penalty for manslaughter in my jurisdiction is life or a lesser term or a fine.

Now when it comes to sentencing in my jurisdiction it's all laid out in a specific statute - the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act.

I understand the process of sentencing.

The point I was making - which you missed - was that "murder" must have a particular sentence. As it's the ultimate crime in the law calendar then it must have an ultimate penalty. That penalty can either be death or life imprisonment. Define a "heinous crime". Define where someone should be put to death or imprisoned for life. That was my point.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
au1929 wrote:
The father of Laura Hobbs has been charged with the murders of his eight-year-old daughter and her best friend Krystal Tobias, 9, prosecutors said Tuesday. Jerry Hobbs, 34, could face the death penalty if convicted. The girls were reported missing on Mother's Day and their bodies found in a wooded park Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/illinois.neighbors.ap/index.html

Is this crime heinous enough, for the bleeding hearts, to warrant a death penalty?

And that misses the point. The punishment for murder shouldn't depend on the circumstances of the crime. Murder is murder is murder. It's either death or life imprisonment.

What a ridiculous concept. The foundation of criminal sentencing is based on the facts and circumstances of the underlying crime (and the criminal's prior history of course).

First it needs a particular crime to be proven. Murder is not manslaughter. There are palpable differences. The penalty for murder in my jurisdiction is life imprisonment. The penalty for manslaughter in my jurisdiction is life or a lesser term or a fine.

Now when it comes to sentencing in my jurisdiction it's all laid out in a specific statute - the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act.

I understand the process of sentencing.

The point I was making - which you missed - was that "murder" must have a particular sentence. As it's the ultimate crime in the law calendar then it must have an ultimate penalty. That penalty can either be death or life imprisonment. Define a "heinous crime". Define where someone should be put to death or imprisoned for life. That was my point.

Perhaps I did miss your point, and perhaps I still do. I thought you were advocating EITHER life imprisonment, or death as a possible sentence for convicted murderers, but that both should not be available as possible sentences, depending on the circumstances of the crime. That's what I gleaned from, "The punishment for murder shouldn't depend on the circumstances of the crime."

A statute sets forth the criteria for a death sentence, a prosecutor decides whether they believe a particular crime meets that criteria when they make a charging decision, a jury looks at that criteria when it decides whether to impose the death penalty. The statutory criteria define whether a particular crime renders a murderer eligible for the death penalty, not me. So I don't see the point in trying to define for you a "heinous crime," or all circumstances under which an accused murderer ought to be subject to the death penalty as a possible sentence.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Eorl wrote:
What I meant was that each death would result in a further, additional death, the second one with the approval of the law. To me, that remains wrong, even if the overall number of untimely deaths drops.

Why? If somebody was about to kill you, why would it make a difference to you whether the killer was a drug dealer or an executioner? Conversely, if the total number of untimely deaths drops, why would it make a difference to anyone whether the drop is in executions or gang shootings? I would have said that people care about staying alive -- they don't care which untimely death they're escaping, as long as they're escaping it. It appears to me that you disagree, so I'd be curious what your reasons are.

Thanks Thomas, for handing me a soapbox Wink

I do not wish to kill people. It's that simple for me. I don't feel I have the right to destroy anyone, to stop them forever, no matter what they may have done. Being an atheist, I don't have the comfort of thinking that a god will "sort them out after". I am totally in awe of life...every life to me, especially human life is extraordinarily precious. I know that what they have done is appalling, but nothing is appalling enough to make me pick up a knife an cut a man's throat by way of punishment. I know that in modern society, there are several steps removing me from the killing, but the fact remains that I elect my government, who employ people to do these things on my behalf... I am ultimately responsible for that killing. I don't really look at the situation from the condemned criminal's perspective very much, it's not really about them...it's about me and the society I want and take responsibility for. I don't want that blood on my hands.

0 Replies

Time out

Quote:

Perhaps I did miss your point, and perhaps I still do. I thought you were advocating EITHER life imprisonment, or death as a possible sentence for convicted murderers, but that both should not be available as possible sentences, depending on the circumstances of the crime. That's what I gleaned from, "The punishment for murder shouldn't depend on the circumstances of the crime."

You were right. That's exactly what I meant. So, in saying you missed my point I was wrong. I do believe that you either have the death penalty or life but not both available for the offence of murder. Let me put it this way, if it makes sense - I don't believe in "aggravated murder". I hope that clarifies it.

Quote:

A statute sets forth the criteria for a death sentence, a prosecutor decides whether they believe a particular crime meets that criteria when they make a charging decision, a jury looks at that criteria when it decides whether to impose the death penalty. The statutory criteria define whether a particular crime renders a murderer eligible for the death penalty, not me. So I don't see the point in trying to define for you a "heinous crime," or all circumstances under which an accused murderer ought to be subject to the death penalty as a possible sentence.

Ah, I come from a legal tradition where a jury never recommends or decides on sentence. I do know that it is the case in some states in the US where the jury decides if the crime warants the death penalty. That in itself is a really interesting question but outside the scope of this thread. Anyway that's the cause of the confusion I suspect.

Okay, play ball Very Happy

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The father of Laura Hobbs has been charged with the murders of his eight-year-old daughter and her best friend Krystal Tobias, 9, prosecutors said Tuesday. Jerry Hobbs, 34, could face the death penalty if convicted. The girls were reported missing on Mother's Day and their bodies found in a wooded park Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/illinois.neighbors.ap/index.html

Is this crime heinous enough, for the bleeding hearts, to warrant a death penalty?

This crime is heinous enough for this person who tends not to judge people harshly, if that's what you mean by a bleeding heart - to wish that we lived in a society that was unbiased and impartial enough to apply the law evenhandedly in every instance of criminal behavior. But we don't - we seem to place more value on some lives than on others- so in fairness to those whose lives our society seems to place less value on - we shouldn't be trusted with the power to impose the ultimate punishment on anyone.

But my "bleeding heart" doesn't champion this animal. You can't even know how angry these cases make me - and they're all too common. What about also charging this mother with "failure to protect"? I place full responsibility on this guy for his actions - but I am so sick of these women placing their children in harm's way. It seems so often these kids are sacrificed on the altar of the mother's need for a relationship with a man - any man - even a violent, psychopathic man.

And don't ask me what we should do with him - I don't know...

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The father of Laura Hobbs has been charged with the murders of his eight-year-old daughter and her best friend Krystal Tobias, 9, prosecutors said Tuesday. Jerry Hobbs, 34, could face the death penalty if convicted. The girls were reported missing on Mother's Day and their bodies found in a wooded park Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/illinois.neighbors.ap/index.html

Is this crime heinous enough, for the bleeding hearts, to warrant a death penalty?

nope, not for me

0 Replies

From CNN.com just now:

Quote:

"Michael Ross did not have any final words," said Shelly Sindland, a reporter for WTIC in Hartford who witnessed the execution. "When asked if he wanted any final words, he said, 'No, thank you.'

Gotta love them journalists.

0 Replies

It's terrible crimes like this that enrage the public - and understandably so. But that is exactly why law/policy making should be made in isolation from consideration of terrible events. And that is exactly why we ask lawmakers to create law and judges to judge on cases because we are too enraged to think clearly.

We can't afford to have a society that erupts every now and again and demands a legal lynching of one and not others. You kill them all or you lock them all up for life. You don't kill one and not kill another, depending on the circumstances of the offence. I know (as has been previously discussed) that in some jurisdictions it's a toss-up as to whether or not someone is put to death but - as much as I respect and trust the jury system - in my opinion it's asking too much of a jury to decide that.

0 Replies

We ought to remember that the ancient injunction "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was NOT designed to encourage punishment but rather to limit and minimize vengeance...an injured eye ought not to bring about the murder of the fellow who caused the injury along with his family and anyone who looked remotely like him.

Our justice codes, procedures and institutions likewise exist in great part NOT to handle the bad guy, but to prevent or curtail the reactive urge to vengeance.

0 Replies

Yes, as I was taught - an eye but no more, not two eyes. Ancient wisdom that rings true today.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I don't want that blood on my hands.

That doesn't answer my question though, because you may not have the option of not getting your hands bloody. You get your hands bloody when you vote for mushy laws that fail to deter murders, and you get your hands dirty when you vote for tough laws that make the state execute people. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that even assuming that capital punishment does save more lives by deterring murder than it kills through executions, you would still be against it. So my question, to rephrase it in the vocabulary of your latest answer, was this: On what basis do you prefer one way of getting your hands bloody over another? Why would you rather leave some murders undeterred to save the lives of some (lower number of) murderers?

0 Replies

Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know