Viewing Thread:
"The Death Penalty"

I feel that perhaps my near obsession with annoying the bullying Bell to the point of his behaving like a human being may have perhaps driven you away from me somewhat. This of course worries me, because I want to feel as if we're one big happy family, and so I've had a good hard think about what I could discuss to perhaps win you back over. And then it came to me in a blinding flash; what better to reduce you to a helpless state of belly laughter than a rant about the death penalty!

My mind was been set thinking along this well trodden path by rereading some old articles concerning Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled was executed for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...

It was the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" was kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself had also been much discussed and rejected (although it was to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me and anyone else who despises abuses of power by government bodies, most satisfyingly had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.

What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.

In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works", and "Being cancerously stupid". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.

Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.

Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.

I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. In my opinion, this is how it should be.

As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death became a circus sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.

RE: Euthanasia,

I think, that if the "Target" has given their full consent for it, then it should be allowed, in fact, it could be like a WIll type thing, a contract, saying that Person A can kill me. It's your life, you should be allowed to do what you want with it, and that includes take drugs, underage smoke, or drink, it's bad for your health, but it's your problem, not anyone elses.

Belldandy wrote:
> In theory, you could put Osama Bin Laden before a court and
> have little hard evidence he has done anything wrong because he is
> implicated in remote ways
> ~~Belldandy~~


I agree with you 100%, you must PROVE he has done something wrong

Light wrote:
> So...you're saying that the unprovable suspicion that someone is a
> terrorist (a term which you haven't actually defined) is enough to
> imprison someone? Quite the junior totalitarian, aren't we...

No, you're reading it how you want to, as usual..... I am saying that a lot of evidence comes from sources and methods not usable in a court of law. In theory, you could put Osama Bin Laden before a court and have little hard evidence he has done anything wrong because he is implicated in remote ways, he makes sure of it, Sure, he sends out tapes e.t.c, but where is the hard, take it to the bank, evidence. You can't get it, not the kind you could ever allow anyone outside of intelligence agencies senior levels to hear because it compromises sources. I am saying that, where you have a good level of evidence of various kinds that that is good enough to eliminate terrorists who are in a location that makes extraction next to impossible or highly dangerous. Not that we execute suspected terrorists, but that we end the careers of those we know have committed acts, and we end it in a way that doesn't allow a high paid lawyer ot get them off on technicalities e.g. "your honour, my client, despite having bought explosives, being ID'ed at the explosion site prior to it, and having associations with known terrorists, had his toe stood on whilst being apprehended by US Special Forces, and is therefore innocent as this was a form of coercion" ....we all know the kind of arguments lawyers use to keep some guilty people from justice.....

~~Belldandy~~

Belldandy wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
> Re: Belldandys post
>
> A
>
> ?? Anyone explain this ? I'm puzzled....
>
> ~~Belldandy~~

Errr your little questionaire about the protests.

A - waste of time
B - diverting police resources at a dangerous time
C - more than likely to kick off into some kind of fight
D - a pretty stupid idea as they create one of the best terrorists targets ever. Tens of thousands of people, in a confined area, in London, in a situation where the authorities are already stretched.

Light wrote:
> Well, let me put it another way; are you in favour of the right to die
> with dignity being made available to the terminally ill (for example,
> the case of Diane Pretty)? If not, fine; there's consistency to your
> views and that must be respected. But if you are...then how do you
> reconcile the one with the other?


It's my view that the only life a person should have authority over is their own.

Ending someone's life as a punishment is not the same as ending it in accorance with their wishes. If they truly want to end it, and that choice is made when the person is of a sound mental state (which admittedly is a very cloudy area) then their wish should be granted.

cookie monster wrote:
> Re: Belldandys post
>
> A

?? Anyone explain this ? I'm puzzled....

~~Belldandy~~

> I mean nothing by them other than
> gently ribbing someone who, in my opinion, reaches his conclusion and
> then looks for the evidence to support it rather than looking at all
> the evidence before coming to a conclusion.

People don't always believe in something just because it is logical, there is always evidence to the contrary, it depends how hard you look for it. Even if you do look at evidence, you can draw different conclusions from it, as the Moon Landing conspiracy theories prove.

One group looks at the evidence, interprets it, says it proves a hoax.

Another groups looks at the same evidence, interprets it, says it proves it happened.

I believe the death penalty regarding convicted criminals is wrong. I believe in many things which you don't. Neither is right, neither is wrong, but that doesn't stop either of us from putting across out points of view.

To many here my support for America, in nearly everything, borders on the unfathomable, they all suggest evidence against it. But to me, no matter how damning the evidence, I believe that America, under its current and recent leaderships, is doing the right thing. I don't expect perfection, just a will to try and help, even if it is misguided sometimes.

~~Belldandy~~

gerrid wrote:
> Euthanasia is a troubling issue.
> Who really has the right to take away another person's life?

If someone is in great pain, or they have so little control over their life that they just live and don't actually do anything else, or they've got a terminal illness that will end very badly, then surely they've got the right to die.
They could just jump off a cliff, if it was really too much for them, but if everyone is posotive that is what they wanted, then there's not that much of a problem.
Although I'd hate to be the one to kill them, even if they wanted it and it would save them pain, I'd be difficult to do.

On a personal note, if I was in some accident and came out paralized and brain-damaged to such an extent that I can't move or speak properly, and can't stay conscience for more than an hour or something, then I'd want to die.
From my point of view, that kind of a life really isn't a life at all. The fact that you are living, doesn't really mean you have a life unless you can control your body and mind, and do what you want to.
And I'd hate to have someone do everything for me. They must not like it, living two lives - doing everything I can't as well as everything for themselves.

**

Concerning the death penalty, it's really a matter of where you draw the line. Not just 'kill all murderers' or whatever, but the way that they killed.
There is a different between people who kiled with a shot to the head, in an act of revenge or rage, and people who torture people to death for no reason getting some kind of sick pleasure from it. They've both killed someone, so may deserve to be, in turn, killed themselves, but the nature of the crime is so different that you can't really compare the two.

There's such a broad range of things people do, and the way their crimes are viewed in people's eyes. Someone that's had the same experience as the victim will surely treat the criminal with a degree of vengance in their verdict.
What you really need is some kind of computer that judges people from their crimes etc. Although, whoever programmed it would have put a piece of themselves in with the judgements, and their own experiences with the kind of people it may deal with.

It's all just a matter of where to draw the line. Why should one person be let off, and another die?

Not even depending on the institution really; imagine being told at age 25 that you will spend the rest of your life, perhaps anything up to 75 years, within the walls of a prison. Me personally, I would rather die.

Hmm...I do see what is being driven at in general here though. What if, then, the prisoner in question was offered the opportunity to die? For example, Ian Brady has been fighting for that right for years now.

Light wrote:
> Admittedly, many serious criminals cannot ever be released, but why
> kill them ? Save space ? Money ?
>
> No. Because it's the humane thing to do (see my reply to Venombyte)


That would, presumably, largely depend on the prison institution...