James Holmes: Death Penalty or Life?

[Back]

I have no issue whatsoever with him getting the death penalty. Discuss.

[Merala]

I personally cannot justify the death penalty for anyone, including James Holmes. I just don't feel like we have the right to kill people, legally or not.

[Tgo01]

Death penalty, but not by firing squad.

[Back]

I personally cannot justify the death penalty for anyone, including James Holmes. I just don't feel like we have the right to kill people, legally or not.

Does his deciding to take other lives forfeit his own?

[Jarvan]

I personally cannot justify the death penalty for anyone, including James Holmes. I just don't feel like we have the right to kill people, legally or not.

So you think it's more humane to imprison someone for say 80 years then to kill them?

Let me ask another question. Lets say you have two little girls. You are home alone with them. Your husband has a shotgun in the closet. A man breaks in with a handgun and locks you in the bedroom, and tells you he is going to rape and kill your two little girls. Your options are let him do it, or take the shotgun and shoot him, or let him rape and kill your babies, then likely rape and kill you.

I take it by your earlier statement you and your girls would die, huh.

I am for the death penalty in cases where it is warranted, and the guilt is known. Now, a jury can determine if someone is guilty, but guilt is not known. If someone admits to the crime, or video footage is available of them committing the act, or if there is multiple witnesses. I say kill them and save the money it would cost keeping them alive and well fed in prison.

Yeah, it could take 10-15 years to finally kill him.. but that's still less then 80.

[Merala]

Let me ask another question. Lets say you have two little girls. You are home alone with them. Your husband has a shotgun in the closet. A man breaks in with a handgun and locks you in the bedroom, and tells you he is going to rape and kill your two little girls. Your options are let him do it, or take the shotgun and shoot him, or let him rape and kill your babies, then likely rape and kill you.

I take it by your earlier statement you and your girls would die, huh.


You take my statement to mean something like that because you take the most extreme interpretation of anyone who disagrees with you's statement and attack that to make a "point."

Second of all, if I had any opportunity to disable that person with a shotgun rather than kill them, I would take that shot. If I didn't have a shot that would disable rather than kill, then I would have no choice, he'd have to die.

Legal killing as punishment is not justifiable in any circumstances in my opinion. I do understand that America likes to use death as a punishment, however. I do understand it's not a popular opinion.

[Latrinsorm]

Does his deciding to take other lives forfeit his own?No. The right to life is unalienable.

It goes without saying that any right taken seriously will result in distasteful examples. That's the difference between a right taken seriously and a right insofar as we like you.
So you think it's more humane to imprison someone for say 80 years then to kill them?

Let me ask another question. Lets say you have two little girls. You are home alone with them. Your husband has a shotgun in the closet. A man breaks in with a handgun and locks you in the bedroom, and tells you he is going to rape and kill your two little girls. Your options are let him do it, or take the shotgun and shoot him, or let him rape and kill your babies, then likely rape and kill you.

I take it by your earlier statement you and your girls would die, huh.This is very correct. Our legal system makes no distinction whatsoever between crimes of passion and planned crimes, and also there is no distinction whatsoever between someone posing an imminent threat and someone incarcerated and posing no threat. Very and absolutely correct. Tgo01, may I have a Bible verse?

[Jarvan]

You take my statement to mean something like that because you take the most extreme interpretation of anyone who disagrees with you's statement and attack that to make a "point."

Second of all, if I had any opportunity to disable that person with a shotgun rather than kill them, I would take that shot. If I didn't have a shot that would disable rather than kill, then I would have no choice, he'd have to die.

Legal killing as punishment is not justifiable in any circumstances in my opinion. I do understand that America likes to use death as a punishment, however. I do understand it's not a popular opinion.

If you mean your opinion is not popular, then yes, you are right. It isn't.

That being said. if you think it is justifiable to kill someone to defend your life, but feel that killing someone as punishment is not ok, I think you have a problem with conflicting morals. You are punishing the person when you defend your life. You are making the rational decision that your life is more valuable then their life. You are punishing them for attempting to take your life. Legally, you are allowed to do so. To say there really is a difference between the two is wrong.

Tho, you still haven't said if locking someone up for 80+ years is more humane then just ending their life.

Hell, even Peta agrees with my view really. They would prefer animals killed then being "locked up".

[Jarvan]

No. The right to life is unalienable.

It goes without saying that any right taken seriously will result in distasteful examples. That's the difference between a right taken seriously and a right insofar as we like you.This is very correct. Our legal system makes no distinction whatsoever between crimes of passion and planned crimes, and also there is no distinction whatsoever between someone posing an imminent threat and someone incarcerated and posing no threat. Very and absolutely correct. Tgo01, may I have a Bible verse?

Yeah, because people have never killed other people once put into jail. I mean, ~I~ have never heard of someone being murdered while in jail. Also, there are more levels of threat then just "can this person kill more people again".

[Merala]

If you mean your opinion is not popular, then yes, you are right. It isn't.

That being said. if you think it is justifiable to kill someone to defend your life, but feel that killing someone as punishment is not ok, I think you have a problem with conflicting morals. You are punishing the person when you defend your life. You are making the rational decision that your life is more valuable then their life. You are punishing them for attempting to take your life. Legally, you are allowed to do so. To say there really is a difference between the two is wrong.

Tho, you still haven't said if locking someone up for 80+ years is more humane then just ending their life.

Hell, even Peta agrees with my view really. They would prefer animals killed then being "locked up".

You're doing it again.

Killing someone to save my life and save the lives of my (imaginary) children because there is no option available that would allow all parties to survive is not the same. We're talking about capturing someone, giving them a trial, and killing them when there are alternatives to killing that person. We're supposed to live in a "civilized" society here. I don't think we have the right to decide someone else should die for their crimes. What makes us any different than James Holmes if we kill him for killing other people?

And even if you think I have conflicting morals in this case, who doesn't? Human beings are made of contradictions. Welcome to being human. Every single one of us is cross-wired somewhere, and if you think you're not, you're kidding yourself.

[SHAFT]

Go with the cheapest option. I have to think the death penalty is cheaper than keeping this guy alive the rest of his life. Plus he'll try to appeal every X years and that's not free.

Fry him and be done with it.

[Jarvan]

You're doing it again.

Killing someone to save my life and save the lives of my (imaginary) children because there is no option available that would allow all parties to survive is not the same. We're talking about capturing someone, giving them a trial, and killing them when there are alternatives to killing that person. We're supposed to live in a "civilized" society here. I don't think we have the right to decide someone else should die for their crimes. What makes us any different than James Holmes if we kill him for killing other people?

And even if you think I have conflicting morals in this case, who doesn't? Human beings are made of contradictions. Welcome to being human. Every single one of us is cross-wired somewhere, and if you think you're not, you're kidding yourself.

I am still waiting for you to tell me how it is more Humane to keep someone imprisoned for 80+ years compared to killing them. I don't know about you, but I think it's is much more "civilized" to kill someone for their crimes, then locking them up in a tiny room for their entire life. As for what makes us different, the fact that we follow the law, he did not. If the law states that if you kill someone, you die for that crime, then guess what. WE ARE DIFFERENT.


Go with the cheapest option. I have to think the death penalty is cheaper than keeping this guy alive the rest of his life. Plus he'll try to appeal every X years and that's not free.

Fry him and be done with it.


^ this.

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah, because people have never killed other people once put into jail. I mean, ~I~ have never heard of someone being murdered while in jail. Our anarchic prison system is a separate problem, but thankfully one that is susceptible to an easy solution: universal surveillance.
Also, there are more levels of threat then just "can this person kill more people again".Name seventy-eight. :[
Go with the cheapest option. I have to think the death penalty is cheaper than keeping this guy alive the rest of his life. Plus he'll try to appeal every X years and that's not free.

Fry him and be done with it.I assume you are familiar with the engineer's credo: "working, cheap, on time: pick two". Capital punishment offers a similar credo: "accurate, speedy, cheap: pick one". Never forget that a bunch of college kids with too much time on their hands demonstrated incontrovertibly that people convicted by trial and failed appeal were nevertheless innocent of their capital charges in Illinois. Our legal system convicts innocent people and (comically!) lets the guilty go. Never forget.

In conclusion, universal surveillance.

[Velfi]

I don't know about you, but I think it's is much more "civilized" to kill someone for their crimes, then locking them up in a tiny room for their entire life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YIP6EwqMEoE#t=17s

[AnticorRifling]

I had to google who this was which means I'm doing it right. Don't martyr the dude, study him.

[Merala]

I am still waiting for you to tell me how it is more Humane to keep someone imprisoned for 80+ years compared to killing them. I don't know about you, but I think it's is much more "civilized" to kill someone for their crimes, then locking them up in a tiny room for their entire life. As for what makes us different, the fact that we follow the law, he did not. If the law states that if you kill someone, you die for that crime, then guess what. WE ARE DIFFERENT.

Yes I do think it's more humane. Where's my evidence you ask? How many death penalty cases have you ever heard of where the person on death row decided not to appeal? If they felt that spending life in prison would be worse than death, why is so much energy spent by these prisoners and their lawyers to get life in prison rather than the death penalty?

If you think every appeal by people on death row claims they're innocent you're sadly mistaken. A great many are spent trying to prove the death penalty is "cruel and unusual," not justified, or unnecessary.

[Nilandia]

I say kill them and save the money it would cost keeping them alive and well fed in prison.
For the record, it actually costs more money to enact the death penalty than it does to carry out life in prison. This may be largely due to the number of appeals, and in some states appeals are automatic in capital cases, such as California. But perhaps we might wish to step back and think before we let finances determine whether someone should live or die.

Gretchen

[AnticorRifling]

Our anarchic prison system is a separate problem, but thankfully one that is susceptible to an easy solution: universal surveillance.Name seventy-eight. :[I assume you are familiar with the engineer's credo: "working, cheap, on time: pick two". Capital punishment offers a similar credo: "accurate, speedy, cheap: pick one". Never forget that a bunch of college kids with too much time on their hands demonstrated incontrovertibly that people convicted by trial and failed appeal were nevertheless innocent of their capital charges in Illinois. Our legal system convicts innocent people and (comically!) lets the guilty go. Never forget.

In conclusion, universal surveillance.

But who watches the watchers?! PARADOX MIND EXPLODE

[SHAFT]

Wait, can I change my answer? I'm hungry and tacos sound good.

[Latrinsorm]

But who watches the watchers?! PARADOX MIND EXPLODEEverything is watched by everything. You are stuck in a mid-80s East Germany phase. Open your eyes. Look up to the sky and see... our drone cameras watching your every move. Strength through unity. Unity through safety. Whatever.

[Gelston]

The older I get the more against the death penalty I am slowly becoming. It is cheaper to keep someone imprisoned for life then to give the death penalty. Obviously some people are clearly guilty. If one innocent person, however, is executed by our government then our system has failed. I guess by that measure we have already failed.

However, I am still currently in favor of the death penalty for certain things. If someone would be deemed as being a harmful person to society if they ever escaped, remove that threat. Under this qualifier, this man needs to be executed.

[Buckwheet]

If the jury feels the death penalty is appropriate then by all means.

[SHAFT]

Everything is watched by everything. You are stuck in a mid-80s East Germany phase. Open your eyes. Look up to the sky and see... our drone cameras watching your every move. Strength through unity. Unity through safety. Whatever.

Someone to claim us, someone to follow
Someone to shame us, some brave Apollo
Someone to fool us, someone like you
We want you Big Brother, Big Brother

[Latrinsorm]

The older I get the more against the death penalty I am slowly becoming. It is cheaper to keep someone imprisoned for life then to give the death penalty. Obviously some people are clearly guilty. If one innocent person, however, is executed by our government then our system has failed. I guess by that measure we have already failed.

However, I am still currently in favor of the death penalty for certain things. If someone would be deemed as being a harmful person to society if they ever escaped, remove that threat. Under this qualifier, this man needs to be executed.Would you like to discuss Nietzsche's philosophy that those most evil are necessary big-picture to keep society from the slow death of complacent ennui? Put another way, what does it really mean to be "harmful" to society?
If the jury feels the death penalty is appropriate then by all means.Isn't this a really weird system? We demand that 535 people be involved in making federal laws and subject them to constant (if almost completely ineffective) public scrutiny, but 12 random and totally anonymous people is a satisfactory way of sentencing someone to death?

[Latrinsorm]

Someone to claim us, someone to follow
Someone to shame us, some brave Apollo
Someone to fool us, someone like you
We want you Big Brother, Big BrotherWould you like to discuss Nietzsche's philosophy of the Apollonian vs. the Dionysian?

Whoa! Deja vu.

[Gelston]

What I mean is, if this guy got out would he kill again.

[AnticorRifling]

I bet if he was against a boy going in the girl's room Latrin would vote for death.

[Lord Orbstar]

Death.

[Latrinsorm]

eta: @ Gelston: Certainly that would be more harmful for those he killed. But is that more or less harmful for society?
I bet if he was against a boy going in the girl's room Latrin would vote for death.As a scientist, death only represents the end of the experiment, the termination of the data acquisition phase. We can never have enough data, therefore no death.

[AnticorRifling]

Were they not part of society?

[Buckwheet]

Isn't this a really weird system? We demand that 535 people be involved in making federal laws and subject them to constant (if almost completely ineffective) public scrutiny, but 12 random and totally anonymous people is a satisfactory way of sentencing someone to death?

No? The 535 people including the highest court in the land has determined that states can decide the fate of it citizens. Now if you are asking me if someone can challenge these rulings by all means do that. But as long as its legal and on the table for the state, when it comes to killings of this nature by all means go ahead.

[Latrinsorm]

Were they not part of society?What if two or three or four violent deaths (five is right out) inspired society to adopt measures I may or may not have personally espoused that in turn prevented untold thousands of future violent deaths?

Any time you see an easy answer when it comes to what is best for society (besides universal surveillance) you are seeing someone who is short on imagination or time to think.

[Gelston]

Latrin, look up the definition of society and get back to me.

[Back]

Life is pugnacious. But this guy went against life. Therefor, in my opinion, he needs to go away so the rest of us can carry on. And by "go away" I mean die. No shelter, no clothing, no food, no internet, no tv, die.

[SHAFT]

Death.

Death by fire is the purest death

[Latrinsorm]

Latrin, look up the definition of society and get back to me.29 entries found

society
society finch
Society Islander (bourgeois capitalized letters not mine)

Ads by Google
Looking for a doctor? (wtf?)
Chat w/ our oncology info experts online now. (WTF?)

1: companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : Vincent Kompany
2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together

If I may, you surely are yourself familiar with a particular organized group working together for common ends that goes by the name of (Support Our) the Troops. Surely it is distasteful to consider, think about, or talk about with some libtard like me, but are there not occasions where one (person, company, battalion) is intended to be sacrificed for the greater good?

.

Look, all kidding aside. The universe is shit. Life is shit. The best available solutions are going to be shitty. Any time someone gives you a solution that makes you feel warm and good inside, it is bullshit and you are being bullshitted. If it doesn't make you angry and pissed off, it's not real life.

[AnticorRifling]

What if two or three or four violent deaths (five is right out) inspired society to adopt measures I may or may not have personally espoused that in turn prevented untold thousands of future violent deaths?

Any time you see an easy answer when it comes to what is best for society (besides universal surveillance) you are seeing someone who is short on imagination or time to think.

So would you be for or against his death by this postulation?

[SHAFT]

Ha! Asking latrin to go look something up is like an early Christmas gift for him.

[Jarvan]

Yes I do think it's more humane. Where's my evidence you ask? How many death penalty cases have you ever heard of where the person on death row decided not to appeal? If they felt that spending life in prison would be worse than death, why is so much energy spent by these prisoners and their lawyers to get life in prison rather than the death penalty?

If you think every appeal by people on death row claims they're innocent you're sadly mistaken. A great many are spent trying to prove the death penalty is "cruel and unusual," not justified, or unnecessary.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/15/virginia-inmate-who-asked-for-death-penalty-set-to-be-executed/

http://abcnews.go.com/News/convicted-murderer-asks-judge-sentence-death/story?id=17209100#.UVoPv1fkpCM

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/suspected-serial-killer-asks-for-death-penalty

http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12909&Itemid=57

I probably could find more. But I find it's funny that your defense is that the people that are sentenced to death don't want to die and think it's cruel and inhumane. Generally speaking, people will say anything to keep themselves alive. I say generally, because some prefer death. This doesn't make it true.



For the record, it actually costs more money to enact the death penalty than it does to carry out life in prison. This may be largely due to the number of appeals, and in some states appeals are automatic in capital cases, such as California. But perhaps we might wish to step back and think before we let finances determine whether someone should live or die.

Gretchen

Your right, 1 bullet costs less money then the drugs or electricity. So we should use that method again.

[Gelston]

I have never called anyone a libtard. Your opinions are just as valid as anyone else on this planet. I am giving you mine, and I do not expect to sway you to my point of view... I sure as hell hope you don't think you will sway me to yours. Life is a very precious thing to me. I never want anyone to die unnecessarily, but I also look into what could happen. Is one life worth several others? If this guy were to escape would he kill again? I have not personally examined him, and I doubt anyone else has, which is why the jury will make that decision based on better information than we all have. And then the many appeals he will have.

[Back]

Hey, life card revoked when you open fire on a movie theater full of innocent people just wanting to have a good time.

[diethx]

Hey, life card revoked when you open fire on a movie theater full of innocent people just wanting to have a good time.

^^

[Tgo01]

Hey, life card revoked when you open fire on a movie theater full of innocent people just wanting to have a good time.

Good. Good. Give in to your hate. Look at your inner soul and realize you have been corrupted. Join the dark side...vote Republican in the next election!

[SHAFT]

Hey, life card revoked when you open fire on a movie theater full of innocent people just wanting to have a good time.

Agreed. Also, does anyone here really give a shit what happens to this idiot as long as he's not released? He's never getting out even if he doesn't get the death penalty. Fuck him

[Gelston]

I do not currently believe in death being used as a punitive measure. Preventative, yes.

[Jarvan]

So would you be for or against his death by this postulation?

If killing Holmes would prevent thousands of more people dying because other sicko fucks decided not to kill people for fear of getting killed themselves, then it fits his postulation.

Hence, Kill him.


I do not currently believe in death being used as a punitive measure. Preventative, yes.

Ok, lets prevent him from possibly influencing others to kill people, by killing him.

It's funny.. so far this PC poll is somewhat following the national one on the death penalty in general.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

[Gelston]

Actually, I am for execution in this case. I think if he escaped he would kill again.

[AnticorRifling]

If killing Holmes would prevent thousands of more people dying because other sicko fucks decided not to kill people for fear of getting killed themselves, then it fits his postulation.

Hence, Kill him.



Ok, lets prevent him from possibly influencing others to kill people, by killing him.

It's funny.. so far this PC poll is somewhat following the national one on the death penalty in general.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx


And he was able to be studied and a root cause identified to better address, and treat mental illness that could potentially prevent as many or more deaths would you spare him?

[Gelston]

Anticor, as long as an execution takes that is enough time. The afterwards cut open his brain and study that.

[Fallen]

I think he should be removed from society in the cheapest, most efficient way possible. If only that was a bullet to the back of the head once a thorough trial was conducted, but it isn't. I voted to execute based on the fact that were it a member of my friends or family I couldn't imagine any other outcome as just.

[Jarvan]

And he was able to be studied and a root cause identified to better address, and treat mental illness that could potentially prevent as many or more deaths would you spare him?

What is his mental illness that would prevent deaths? Do we need to study him? If he has XYZ disease, just study someone else with XYZ. If you say that won't work, because his case is unique, then studying him wouldn't really do anything to prevent other sick twisted fucks from doing what he did.

But. We can still study him. Kill him, then dissect his brain.

[Stanley Burrell]

There's too much death in this world without the death penalty. I don't believe a country that claims it follows the tenets of Civil Society should/can be legally sentencing human beings to death. However, the political dynamics are not going to change, so this is sort of like posting in an abortion or gun control thread and expecting a different result. The death penalty should be reserved for the most unspeakable crimes; the most evil motherfuckers where you can say to yourself, "self, this is going to be discussed for the next several centuries." On the other hand, if families and friends of victims can weigh in and it seems like the most absolute closure for those still alive will be for a death sentence or against it, then I eat my hat regarding what a Civil Society can do. Wouldn't it be more civil (is it? I don't know) to appease the minds of those affected by the Amish victims if peace of mind for relatives would be in life, or if the psyches of those who are the most close to the aftermath of a mass murder would ultimately be at peace if mass murderers would be given death?

I don't know. I like turtles.

[Allereli]

Go with the cheapest option. I have to think the death penalty is cheaper than keeping this guy alive the rest of his life. Plus he'll try to appeal every X years and that's not free.

Fry him and be done with it.

it costs way more to kill him. the cheapest option is to take his guilty plea and put him away for life. I'm worried the prosecutor is more concerned about getting billable hours than "justice." What good would a trial do for the families? If it were me who lost a loved one, I would be dreading the trial.

[Suppressed Poet]

How about a compromise?

Life in prison but keep his hair green and every day he must wear girly make up, high heels, and a leotard with an open hole for his anus.

Also, under medical supervision and rotating immediete family members of the victims, he begs for forgiveness to each once a month and (if that family member chooses) can be beaten within an inch of his life.

Call me cruel and sadistic, but I think that is about square for his crime...

[Fallen]

There's too much death in this world without the death penalty. I don't believe a country that claims it follows the tenets of Civil Society should/can be legally sentencing human beings to death. However, the political dynamics are not going to change, so this is sort of like posting in an abortion or gun control thread and expecting a different result. The death penalty should be reserved for the most unspeakable crimes; the most evil motherfuckers where you can say to yourself, "self, this is going to be discussed for the next several centuries." On the other hand, if families and friends of victims can weigh in and it seems like the most absolute closure for those still alive will be for a death sentence or against it, then I eat my hat regarding what a Civil Society can do. Wouldn't it be more civil (is it? I don't know) to appease the minds of those affected by the Amish victims if peace of mind for relatives would be in life, or if the psyches of those who are the most close to the aftermath of a mass murder would ultimately be at peace if mass murderers would be given death?

I don't know. I like turtles.

I believe they did in fact take the wishes of the affected parties into account when seeking the death penalty.

[Warriorbird]

He's trying to stay alive. Do him in.

[Warriorbird]

Good. Good. Give in to your hate. Look at your inner soul and realize you have been corrupted. Join the dark side...vote Republican in the next election!

Curiously enough some Democrats believe in both gun rights and the death penalty.

[Jarvan]

it costs way more to kill him. the cheapest option is to take his guilty plea and put him away for life. I'm worried the prosecutor is more concerned about getting billable hours than "justice." What good would a trial do for the families? If it were me who lost a loved one, I would be dreading the trial.

Actually, it's debatable. Some people say it costs more for LWOP. even using the cheap 50k per year below 55, and 3x after 55, with an estimated life expectancy of 90, that's 65 years, 30 before 35 after. 1.5 mill before, 5.25 mill after, total of 6.75 million to put him away for life. The few statistics I have found show roughly 3.6 mill for a death penalty case costs. Take it with a grain of salt though, as we can never be sure what exactly each costs.


Curiously enough some Democrats believe in both gun rights and the death penalty.

This is true.. they are called closet Republicans. -Joking-

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm worried the prosecutor is more concerned about getting billable hours than "justice."Hi, you must be new to criminal law. Or was this a joke? Please tell me this was a joke.

[Gelston]

I consider myself a Republican, but I have no qualms with crossing party lines on some issues. I think it is a little ignorant to compartmentalize people into two specific groups.

[Ryku]

The death penalty is appropriate imo but it costs the people a ton of money to do it because of the court costs of the all the appeals, if I remember my criminal justice classes correctly. I'd say it's worth it for this monster though.

[AnticorRifling]

What is his mental illness that would prevent deaths? Do we need to study him? If he has XYZ disease, just study someone else with XYZ. If you say that won't work, because his case is unique, then studying him wouldn't really do anything to prevent other sick twisted fucks from doing what he did.

But. We can still study him. Kill him, then dissect his brain.

In order:

I wouldn't pretend to say that I know.

Probably yes.

I doubt it is unique, in fact I'm betting most/all serial and mass killers have mental issues that could benefit from study.




But...we can lock him away, keep his name out of the damn media, don't make him a martyr or celebrity.

[Gelston]

What if he escaped Anticor?

[AnticorRifling]

What if he escaped Anticor?

What if he didn't?

That's the problem with what ifs.

Have we had a lot of escapes from 23 hour a day in solitary? I don't know but if it's > 1 then yes we have to consider it and it should weigh into the decision. What if, while in prison under study an issue with meds are found and changed and even if he does escape he's no longer violent? What if, what if, what if.

[Gelston]

Peoples lives depend on those ifs. You only need to fuck up once on something like that. There was a certain famous serial killer that did escape and killed a few more people in Florida.

[AnticorRifling]

Have we ever killed someone that was innocent? Would that count towards that one fuck up the other way?

[Gelston]

We have and we are wrong for that. It makes me against the death penalty in many cases. Not this one.

[TheEschaton]

I'm obviously against the death penalty, even in this case.

There are a few theories of punishment in criminal justice:

1) Rehabilitative. The Death penalty is obviously not trying to rehabilitate people.
2) Deterrence. I am unaware of any study which has ever shown the death penalty is a deterrence to death-penalty worthy crimes. We have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world, ahead of non-death penalty nations, but of course, that isn't correlated (unless it supports your position, har dee har har).
3) Incapacitation. Obviously, the death penalty prevents a person from ever harming someone ever again. So does Life Without Parole. You hear of shankings in General Pop, but I think LWOP folks probably are better separated from General Pop, though I'd have to research it more to know.
4) Retributive. Literally the only reason that exists for the death penalty, that we are the arbiters of final justice. I think it's an arrogant position to take, frankly, and not a reason to end a person's life. Ending his life does not bring back any of his victims.

I happen to think being locked up in a room for 60 years is far worse a punishment than being euthanized with a needle that, by law, is required to not be cruel or unusual punishment. It may be less humane in practicality, but that is a criticism of our prison system, not the idea. With reform, it would be 1) far worse a punishment for the individual criminal, and 2) far more humane from society's standpoint.

[Androidpk]

Hang him in public.

[Jarvan]

What if he didn't?

That's the problem with what ifs.

Have we had a lot of escapes from 23 hour a day in solitary? I don't know but if it's > 1 then yes we have to consider it and it should weigh into the decision. What if, while in prison under study an issue with meds are found and changed and even if he does escape he's no longer violent? What if, what if, what if.

And what if he doesn't take the meds after meds are discovered that could help him, and he kills 90,000 people.

If a problem can be solved with meds, it can't really be solved. Unless it's a take a pill once, and the problem is cured for good.

Also, 23 hours a day solitary costs a hell of a lot more to do then regular population. It normally takes 10-15 years to kill a person, you got 10-15 years to study him. Then guess what! you can study his brain after he's dead. Study away.

[Gelston]

No. No matter what kind of monster he is, death is not a spectacle.

[Jarvan]

I'm obviously against the death penalty, even in this case.

There are a few theories of punishment in criminal justice:

1) Rehabilitative. The Death penalty is obviously not trying to rehabilitate people.
2) Deterrence. I am unaware of any study which has ever shown the death penalty is a deterrence to death-penalty worthy crimes. We have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world, ahead of non-death penalty nations, but of course, that isn't correlated (unless it supports your position, har dee har har).
3) Incapacitation. Obviously, the death penalty prevents a person from ever harming someone ever again. So does Life Without Parole. You hear of shankings in General Pop, but I think LWOP folks probably are better separated from General Pop, though I'd have to research it more to know.
4) Retributive. Literally the only reason that exists for the death penalty, that we are the arbiters of final justice. I think it's an arrogant position to take, frankly, and not a reason to end a person's life. Ending his life does not bring back any of his victims.

I happen to think being locked up in a room for 60 years is far worse a punishment than being euthanized with a needle that, by law, is required to not be cruel or unusual punishment. It may be less humane in practicality, but that is a criticism of our prison system, not the idea. With reform, it would be 1) far worse a punishment for the individual criminal, and 2) far more humane from society's standpoint.

So you would have no problem releasing someone that killed 20 or so people if someone decided they were rehabilitated? How many times have we released people that we felt were rehabilitated, who went right out and did it again, or worse crimes?

There is no rehabilitation for murdering people. If someone is caught stealing, can they be rehabilitated? Maybe, does it matter as much if they aren't? No, it's likely they will steal again. Maybe do something violent, but odds are similar crime. Ok, he steals again, goes back to prison. Someone that killed someone gets released, They kill again. Oooppps. My Bad, sorry about your dad, but we thought he was rehabilitated.

But.. realistically rehabilitation in a death penalty case is not a reason to NOT have the death penalty, Since the other option besides death is LWOP ~P~ being Parole. Doesn't matter if they get rehabilitated, find God or whatever. They are never leaving. So it's moot.

As for deterrence, I would agree, generally a person that is going to kill someone doesn't really care what the consequences are. People that wouldn't do it to begin with won't go, oh hey, I will only be locked up forever, that's not as bad as dying, I'll go kill someone after all. I don't know the statistics, but if we are going to compare death penalty case to corresponding cases in other countries, I would be surprised if we were much higher.

How would you reform the prison system so that a person like Holmes, given LWOP wouldn't be locked up in a room for 60+ years? or do you think LWOP is wrong too?

[AnticorRifling]

I don't know Jarvan, how many times?

[Valthissa]

I have traveled the long road from believing in the death penalty as a necessary final punishment to believing that we should abolish the death penalty. In cases like this I would insist that means he would die incarcerated having never received a parole hearing. My journey was informed by my two lawyer friends (one a public defender, the other has mostly retired and just represents other lawyers over fee disputes) They both started out as death penalty supporters but years of cases and clients have changed their minds, and eventually mine.

C

(also, I don't understand the rep system as I predict some unsigned negative rep for this post)

[Warriorbird]

In order:

I wouldn't pretend to say that I know.

Probably yes.

I doubt it is unique, in fact I'm betting most/all serial and mass killers have mental issues that could benefit from study.




But...we can lock him away, keep his name out of the damn media, don't make him a martyr or celebrity.

We've proved really bad at keeping a vast number of them out of the media and away from being martyrs and celebrities.

[AnticorRifling]

I can think of one and really you don't see a whole hell of a lot of him.

[Tgo01]

There are two reasons I am against the death penalty. One is the cost, it costs too much to prosecute someone for the death penalty in this country. Look at that one chick who slit her boyfriend's throat and stabbed him like 100 times, obviously guilty as shit yet in the state she lives (Arizona I think?) the state pays for all legal fees when someone is being tried for the death penalty. The other reason is because you get stupid ass hippies who are so against the death penalty that they would rather let an obvious murderer walk then to sentence them to death. All you would need is 3 or 4 of these morons on a jury to try and convince the entire jury to let the person go. Too much to risk and too high of cost, only reasons I am against the death penalty.

Which brings us to this particular case, I think the prosecution should have accepted his guilty plea in exchange for life in prison without parole. That's about the cheapest option available, don't have to risk getting morons on the jury who for some reason might not find him guilty, no extra costs to incarcerate his stupid ass. Done and done.

[Tgo01]

Tgo01, may I have a Bible verse?

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...

Again the watchman reported, “He reached them, but he is not coming back. And the driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi, for he drives furiously.”

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

[Androidpk]

No. No matter what kind of monster he is, death is not a spectacle.

Tell that to the Romans.

[Tgo01]

Running Man got it right.

[Bobmuhthol]

All you would need is 3 or 4 of these morons on a jury to try and convince the entire jury to let the person go.This doesn't happen? The most likely scenarios are the jury decides against death penalty (depending on the state), they find the person guilty of a lesser charge, or there is a mistrial. I can't imagine a universally recognized murderer ever being acquitted because of the existence of the death penalty.

[Tgo01]

This doesn't happen? The most likely scenarios are the jury decides against death penalty (depending on the state), they find the person guilty of a lesser charge, or there is a mistrial. I can't imagine a universally recognized murderer ever being acquitted because of the existence of the death penalty.[/COLOR]

I think in most states the jury has nothing to do with sentencing. I don't know if it's ever happened that a murderer walked because the jury didn't want to sentence someone to death but that doesn't mean he can't ever happen.

And even if it turns out there is just one hold back and they can't convince everyone else to vote not guilty it's as you say, there will be a mistrial and we have to try the person all over again, costing even more money. The death penalty just isn't worth it the way our system is set up.

[Bobmuhthol]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death-qualified_jury

[4a6c1]

Immediate execution by cannonball. No cigarette.

[Latrinsorm]

So would you be for or against his death by this postulation?I have established beyond the shadow of a doubt that my scenario involves the inalienable right to life. If you want me to inhabit Gelston's braincase, sit with the English clerkaclarks, and discern what is best for society as a whole, I must admit defeat. I cannot predict the future with such accuracy and scope, and I'm pretty good at math.
Ha! Asking latrin to go look something up is like an early Christmas gift for him....true.
I have never called anyone a libtard. Your opinions are just as valid as anyone else on this planet. I am giving you mine, and I do not expect to sway you to my point of view... I sure as hell hope you don't think you will sway me to yours. Life is a very precious thing to me. I never want anyone to die unnecessarily, but I also look into what could happen. Is one life worth several others? If this guy were to escape would he kill again? I have not personally examined him, and I doubt anyone else has, which is why the jury will make that decision based on better information than we all have. And then the many appeals he will have.I don't hold it against it you that you have repeatedly and incontrovertibly called me a libtard, both here and on the greater Internets.

But seriously, I am being serious about a larger (probably immoralist) perspective. Isn't it easy to say "it would be bad/wrong if he killed again"? Is there anything, anything about the life you have experienced so far that encourages you to believe that what is easy to say is correct? Isn't it the case that the truth, by and large, is uncomfortable, even disgusting? If we are serious about "what is best for society", how sure can we be that the immediate represents the totality? I believe I have mentioned before that this is nerdy and FOOTBAWL, but still.
Anticor, as long as an execution takes that is enough time. The afterwards cut open his brain and study that.I believe you vastly overestimate the supervenience of psychology on neurology.
If killing Holmes would prevent thousands of more people dying because other sicko fucks decided not to kill people for fear of getting killed themselves, then it fits his postulation.Oh, deterrence, that old song.
I voted to execute based on the fact that were it a member of my friends or family I couldn't imagine any other outcome as just.Is that justice, Batman, or vengeance? Is Batman a proper noun or a third option? Grammar.
On the other hand, if families and friends of victims can weigh in and it seems like the most absolute closure for those still alive will be for a death sentence or against it, then I eat my hat regarding what a Civil Society can do.Strictly speaking, shouldn't we reserve judgment for those who were families/friends of a victim of someone who was executed, then were families/friends of a victim again? I cannot imagine what it would be like to know a horrifically murdered family member, why should I believe someone that did could imagine what it would be like to watch the murderer be executed?
Life in prison but keep his hair green and every day he must wear girly make up, high heels, and a leotard with an open hole for his anus.Ha! Ha! Homophobia.

It is inconceivable why you stopped posting in non-mercantile threads.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.Ron Paul Cyborg (bin Nimshi) 2032.
Tell that to the Romans.Are you familiar with the historical context of perhaps the most famous Roman execution, that of Jesus of Nazareth? Tiberius was emperor, but he was a passive aggressive whiner so Sejanus (who happened to be an anti-Semite) took over, then Tiberius torture/murdered him, his familiy, Tiberius' family, pretty much everyone he could get his hands on. Upshot: everyone in the Roman Empire was strongly inclined not to appear anti-Semitic, including Pontius Pilate. A certain body of Jewish people approach Pilate and effectively blackmailed him: (1) be a friend of Caesar and execute Christ or (2) appear to be an enemy of Caesar and be brutally executed yourself.

Tell it to me, tell it to me, drink the corn liquor let the cocaine be. Is this the model for a civil society: that a person may be executed for political expediency? And you're the fellow who cries about drone strikes? Hmm???

[Tgo01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death-qualified_jury

I guess you have more faith in the jury selection system than I do. Casey Anthony springs to mind.

[Latrinsorm]

How many times have we released people that we felt were rehabilitated, who went right out and did it again, or worse crimes? I give up, how many?
I don't know Jarvan, how many times?Damn you!!!

[Bobmuhthol]

I am reasonably certain that the jury thought the prosecution did not prove their case, which as far as I know, they didn't. It had nothing to do with the death penalty or public opinion or anything. That's not how the law operates.

[Tgo01]

I am reasonably certain that the jury thought the prosecution did not prove their case, which as far as I know, they didn't. It had nothing to do with the death penalty or public opinion or anything. That's not how the law operates.

No it didn't have anything to do with the death penalty, I think it just goes to show how much of a failure juries can be sometimes. The lady was guilty, no two ways about it.

[Bobmuhthol]

She was guilty because you saw some news coverage telling you that she was guilty? Or did you actually analyze the evidence presented? Don't forget that "shitty parenting" is not covered under first degree murder, and reasonable doubt is still the standard.

[Tgo01]

She was guilty because you saw some news coverage telling you that she was guilty? Or did you actually analyze the evidence presented? Don't forget that "shitty parenting" is not covered under first degree murder, and reasonable doubt is still the standard.

Good point. It's perfectly reasonable that the mother of a 2 year old would not report her daughter missing after not seeing her for several weeks. That's just "bad parenting."

[Bobmuhthol]

Being cognizant of your daughter's death is still not first degree murder. Not one person ever claimed that she was guiltless, but a jury did claim that the prosecution failed to prove that she planned and executed her daughter's murder.

[Tgo01]

Strand of hair belonging to Caylee found in Casey's car trunk, an expert testifying that something had decomposed in the trunk of her car, they found Google searches for "how to make chloroform" on her computer. Let's not forget how Casey tried to pin the whole thing on some nanny.

The lady was guilty of a fuck ton more than just being a horrible parent. Not reporting your two year old daughter missing to the police alone should be punishable for a few years in prison. The lady walked, she'll probably sign some sort of book and movie deal.

[Gelston]

Tell that to the Romans.

We aren't Rome. They fell a long time ago.

[SHAFT]

We aren't Rome. They fell a long time ago.

Fucking barbarians. What're they good for?

[AestheticDeath]

Strand of hair belonging to Caylee found in Casey's car trunk, an expert testifying that something had decomposed in the trunk of her car, they found Google searches for "how to make chloroform" on her computer. Let's not forget how Casey tried to pin the whole thing on some nanny.

I am sure most families can find multiple hairs for each family member somewhere like the trunk of their vehicle. A chicken you forgot you bought could decompose in the trunk... or did they say human? And perhaps she was looking up a way to combat chloroform after being assaulted with it, or seeing if someone she knew was trying to make it - or someone used her computer.

I didn't pay too much attention to that whole thing, but I 'heard' she was guilty, and had no real reason to think otherwise. But I didn't have all the evidence or timelines etc.

As far as the original topic, I think I heard he was caught red handed, and there was no question of his guilt. So I say kill him.

I also think the way we do things is far from perfect, and the death penalty costs way too much, whether from court costs or the stupid way they carry it out.

Bring back the guillotines!

I also don't think 'society' means everyone deserves to live. Perhaps it would be closer to say everyone might deserve to live as safely and peacefully as possible, and that just happens to mean removing a known threat. Not imprisoning them, or wasting time on them, just removing them permanently.


I believe FEAR is a good thing. And people need to fear the consequences of their actions. Just because we have the death penalty... well it doesn't mean jack seeing how we handle it. Could you imagine how crime would be affected, if we had a real death penalty, with little to know hassle in between someones crime and them being fatally punished. If people knew without a doubt, they could die soon after being caught, and not spending 20 years in prison before someone pricks them with a needle... Losing hands for theft etc.

Getting a free ride for a few years, then being set free to go back to your criminal ways isn't a real punishment. It is a slap on the hand.

Also I think someone said something about the death penalty not being a spectacle or something to that effect. I think it should be. Bring back the guillotine, make it public, show people the consequences of committing a crime. With all the blood and gore on TV and in movies - people are too desensitized. Make it real. Put some fear in them. In that half second before they murder someone perhaps they will see what will happen to them if they continue. It won't stop them all, but it would do more than all the courtroom BS we have atm.

And.. don't come back with some, what if they are innocent argument. It's frail. With the stuff we have available to us these days, it should be much harder to make mistakes and convict innocent people. And though I am sure it can and will still happen. Well, this is basically a war. A war between civilians who want to live a peaceful life, and civilians who think they can quite literally get away with murder. And in war, innocent people get hurt. It's a shame, but it won't likely change. I have no doubt, that unless someone corrupts a system, you would catch far and away more guilty than innocent.

[Stanley Burrell]

Strictly speaking, shouldn't we reserve judgment for those who were families/friends of a victim of someone who was executed, then were families/friends of a victim again? I cannot imagine what it would be like to know a horrifically murdered family member, why should I believe someone that did could imagine what it would be like to watch the murderer be executed?

I have thought about this. I don't want to paint certain groups of people into a finite picture. But during the Amish murders, it is my strongest belief that the specific mindset of let live would always encompass the components that make up that utilitarian turn-the-other-cheek attitude. I won't settle for splitting hairs when it comes to a theater of individuals affected by a crime of heinous nature where the possibility of a blood-thirst quenched only by the perpetrator(s') death will be better off. It would have to be definitive mending on the minds of those who would truly gain solace through another's death. It is grey and I paint it black and white, no doubt. Rationalism or idealism? Right or wrong? Matthew 7:1? So I voted tacos in this thread's poll.

[Tgo01]

I am sure most families can find multiple hairs for each family member somewhere like the trunk of their vehicle. A chicken you forgot you bought could decompose in the trunk... or did they say human? And perhaps she was looking up a way to combat chloroform after being assaulted with it, or seeing if someone she knew was trying to make it - or someone used her computer.

The experts testified that the hair found showed signs of coming from a dead body and that the hair matched Casey's. The police said the car smelled of human remains but the experts didn't specify whether or not the decomposition came from a human or not. Also the same experts that tested the air in the trunk also testified that chloroform was in the trunk.

Sure, it's possible it was a chicken that decomposed in her car and I guess there is a possibility she is just the world's shittiest parent and didn't report her daughter missing after a month and maybe she looked up chloroform to try to defend herself from chloroform in the future? Or perhaps it's time for some Occam's razor here and say she killed her daughter and the jury failed.

[TheEschaton]

So you would have no problem releasing someone that killed 20 or so people if someone decided they were rehabilitated? How many times have we released people that we felt were rehabilitated, who went right out and did it again, or worse crimes?

There is no rehabilitation for murdering people. If someone is caught stealing, can they be rehabilitated? Maybe, does it matter as much if they aren't? No, it's likely they will steal again. Maybe do something violent, but odds are similar crime. Ok, he steals again, goes back to prison. Someone that killed someone gets released, They kill again. Oooppps. My Bad, sorry about your dad, but we thought he was rehabilitated.

But.. realistically rehabilitation in a death penalty case is not a reason to NOT have the death penalty, Since the other option besides death is LWOP ~P~ being Parole. Doesn't matter if they get rehabilitated, find God or whatever. They are never leaving. So it's moot.

As for deterrence, I would agree, generally a person that is going to kill someone doesn't really care what the consequences are. People that wouldn't do it to begin with won't go, oh hey, I will only be locked up forever, that's not as bad as dying, I'll go kill someone after all. I don't know the statistics, but if we are going to compare death penalty case to corresponding cases in other countries, I would be surprised if we were much higher.

How would you reform the prison system so that a person like Holmes, given LWOP wouldn't be locked up in a room for 60+ years? or do you think LWOP is wrong too?

I wasn't aware I suggested murderers could be rehabilitated. I was just outlining 4 of the larger theories for punishment.

Rehabilitation in general is a tricky subject, and I'd argue that in our current prison system, it's near impossible. Again, that is a criticism of the prison system, not the idea. Recidivism is high, and the single greatest predictor of whether a person will commit a crime is whether they've served jail time before.

What I was arguing for is that when your only "theory" of punishment that fits the type of punishment you want to impose is "Retributive," that's not a good punishment. Sometimes retribution hangs on with other theories, but it should never be the sole theory of punishment. That's the realm of dictators and tyrants, not civil society. The only sound argument for the death penalty is incapacitation, but no one has convinced me that LWOP isn't as effective as the death penalty, and with far less consequences if done incorrectly.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

I'd do it myself. Can I set him on fire?

[SHAFT]

I'd do it myself. Can I set him on fire?

Yes you can. Do eeeeet

[Latrinsorm]

Could you imagine how crime would be affected, if we had a real death penalty, with little to know hassle in between someones crime and them being fatally punished.
Also I think someone said something about the death penalty not being a spectacle or something to that effect. I think it should be. Bring back the guillotine, make it public, show people the consequences of committing a crime. With all the blood and gore on TV and in movies - people are too desensitized. Make it real. Put some fear in them. In that half second before they murder someone perhaps they will see what will happen to them if they continue. It won't stop them all, but it would do more than all the courtroom BS we have atm.It might interest you to learn that for 21 years in a row, states without the death penalty have seen lower murder rates than states with. Unless you would like to posit some kind of uncanny valley of death penalties, it is time to consider a new theory. For instance: what if penalties of any kind are irrelevant to the criminal decision making process because they believe they will not be caught? Or: what if the human mind is in general not constructed to consider the severity of the punishment but only the probability? Or: what if some people respond to threats by escalating aggression instead of curtailing it? Or: what if some people honestly believe there is no difference between incarceration and execution, and are caught in the act of committing a non-capital offense?
And.. don't come back with some, what if they are innocent argument. It's frail. With the stuff we have available to us these days, it should be much harder to make mistakes and convict innocent people.Tell that to Illinois. Their death row inmates had less than a 50/50 chance of actually being guilty. May we nominate you to apologize to the family members of all those innocents killed by your program?
And though I am sure it can and will still happen. Well, this is basically a war. A war between civilians who want to live a peaceful life, and civilians who think they can quite literally get away with murder. And in war, innocent people get hurt. It's a shame, but it won't likely change. I have no doubt, that unless someone corrupts a system, you would catch far and away more guilty than innocent.A war, you say. Very well, would you agree the government is permitted (if not obligated) to enact universal surveillance, turning the United States into the most technologically advanced police state the world has ever seen? Surely you agree that the citizenry ought to contribute to the national war effort, what better and more direct way than surrendering those supposed rights that would prevent such a state?
I have thought about this. I don't want to paint certain groups of people into a finite picture. But during the Amish murders, it is my strongest belief that the specific mindset of let live would always encompass the components that make up that utilitarian turn-the-other-cheek attitude. I won't settle for splitting hairs when it comes to a theater of individuals affected by a crime of heinous nature where the possibility of a blood-thirst quenched only by the perpetrator(s') death will be better off. It would have to be definitive mending on the minds of those who would truly gain solace through another's death.But will they be better off? How would we know? How would they know?
It is grey and I paint it black and white, no doubt. Rationalism or idealism? Right or wrong? Matthew 7:1? So I voted tacos in this thread's poll.I see a suit dog and I want to paint it black.

[Stanley Burrell]

But will they be better off? How would we know? How would they know?

Again, it's overly idealistic. I'm taking linear time: and bending it. To a standstill where at that point one of two doors have opened in the verdict and the embodiment of the afflicted families' burdens are permanently dampened. Even if I think outside of the box on this, I'll still be trapped inside of another one. My rational mind and intuition knows this. Where we differ, I believe, is that I don't feel there is truly a teleological outcome whether the gavel is greased into either a behind bars for life or death sentence. But I believe in the fallibility of people. Seeking death in another or sitting on a high horse handing out pardons with a bleeding heart is enveloped deeply enough into people's psyches that I think it will be effective. I see contrast here; and I'm trying to go tertiary, but it isn't working :shrug:

[Latrinsorm]

Third rail: mock executions. Family gets closure (or doesn't), we all give ourselves a hearty pat on the back at how much we've deterred those rascally criminals, and then the criminal is secreted away to a secret government jail to live out the rest of their life. Win-win-win...-win.

[Stanley Burrell]

Acceptable.

[Warriorbird]

I can think of one and really you don't see a whole hell of a lot of him.

Didn't he even manage to get married? There's quite a few more if you put your mind to it.

[Jarvan]

Strand of hair belonging to Caylee found in Casey's car trunk, an expert testifying that something had decomposed in the trunk of her car, they found Google searches for "how to make chloroform" on her computer. Let's not forget how Casey tried to pin the whole thing on some nanny.

The lady was guilty of a fuck ton more than just being a horrible parent. Not reporting your two year old daughter missing to the police alone should be punishable for a few years in prison. The lady walked, she'll probably sign some sort of book and movie deal.

I am not sure what is going on, but she is having her bankruptcy case now. I am not sure if the law allows you to declare bankruptcy and then sign a deal to make money, or if the creditors get first crack at any money you make off the reason for the debts.

[4a6c1]

So nobody likes my cannonball execution idea? :(

[AestheticDeath]

It might interest you to learn that for 21 years in a row, states without the death penalty have seen lower murder rates than states with. Unless you would like to posit some kind of uncanny valley of death penalties, it is time to consider a new theory. For instance: what if penalties of any kind are irrelevant to the criminal decision making process because they believe they will not be caught? Or: what if the human mind is in general not constructed to consider the severity of the punishment but only the probability? Or: what if some people respond to threats by escalating aggression instead of curtailing it? Or: what if some people honestly believe there is no difference between incarceration and execution, and are caught in the act of committing a non-capital offense?Tell that to Illinois. Their death row inmates had less than a 50/50 chance of actually being guilty. May we nominate you to apologize to the family members of all those innocents killed by your program?A war, you say. Very well, would you agree the government is permitted (if not obligated) to enact universal surveillance, turning the United States into the most technologically advanced police state the world has ever seen? Surely you agree that the citizenry ought to contribute to the national war effort, what better and more direct way than surrendering those supposed rights that would prevent such a state?But will they be better off? How would we know? How would they know?I see a suit dog and I want to paint it black.

Not sure I care about the state statistics. What were the population numbers for those states, what ethnicity were the residents, city people, country people, ppl per square mile, how many police were active there. Drug activity in them, or close to them. Like Texas having a drug corridor from Mexico... States close to Canada smuggling medicines or something. What are the normal weather patterns. Rain, sunny? Pollen count? Most common professions... TOO many underlying things that could affect murder rates, beyond this state and that state. That is basically saying how many murderers were named Jane, how many innocents were named John. I seriously cannot fathom the lack of a death penalty reducing the murder rate.

Penalty or severity of it vs being caught is valid, and basically lies within the reason I said it wouldn't stop everyone. And yes some people might be pushed into a corner and figure, go big or go home - but I don't see that happening as a result of knowing the consequence. Give me some examples where someone knowing that they will die if they kill someone, forces them to murder instead of doing something else. Obviously some people are suicidal, but most any situation where that comes up wouldn't be changed no matter the consequences.

I guess I got lost in the incarceration = execution. You mean say someone is knocking over a 7-11, and sees a Cop pull up, so knowing they will get caught - THEN they decide to kill everyone to escape because the punishment would be the same based on their misunderstanding of the law? BTW in my theoretical idea there was no incarceration. Just punishments. Death or dismemberment etc. Floggings or what have you. I think jails are a complete and utter waste. The only reason you would have them is to hold prisoners of war for exchange to get your own men back in one piece. Or perhaps an overnight detoxification tank. I think imprisoning someone in a small room for any length of time is more cruel and inhumane than any form of murder or other punishment.

I am not sure what your hard on with universal surveillance is atm, but I don't agree with anything like that being lawful or implemented. Even if we already have some of it going on.

People watch each others back. Have the cops on their rounds. But I don't see the need for any kind of universal electronic surveillance.

[Jarvan]

So nobody likes my cannonball execution idea? :(

Depends, will the ball be aimed at his head, or gut?

Either could be funny, but I think the head would be more gory.

[AestheticDeath]

So nobody likes my cannonball execution idea? :(
Guillotine is cheaper, sorry.

[TheEschaton]

I seriously cannot fathom the lack of a death penalty reducing the murder rate.


Uh oh guys, he can't fathom it. Just because you believe something to be true does not ipso facto make it true. Dumbass. Go away to wherever you once were.

[Jarvan]

Uh oh guys, he can't fathom it. Just because you believe something to be true does not ipso facto make it true. Dumbass. Go away to wherever you once were.

Remind me to use this line sometime in the future.

[Chilango2]

Uh oh guys, he can't fathom it. Just because you believe something to be true does not ipso facto make it true. Dumbass. Go away to wherever you once were.

That being said, the idea that the death penalty deters crime assumes that criminals (and people in general, natch) are rational actors who do a considered cost/benefit analysis of their actions before they do them. Needless to say, the evidence for that is a bit scarce on the ground, no?

[Jarvan]

That being said, the idea that the death penalty deters crime assumes that criminals (and people in general, natch) are rational actors who do a considered cost/benefit analysis of their actions before they do them. Needless to say, the evidence for that is a bit scarce on the ground, no?

I don't know, I think a lot of criminals do a cost/benefit analysis before committing a crime. Not all of them, maybe not even most, but certainly a good number of them. Did someone do it if they are knocking over a 7-11 for 80$ while using a loaded gun? Probably not. Did the guy that robbed the bank for 30k and got away do it? Much more likely.

[msconstrew]

That being said, the idea that the death penalty deters crime assumes that criminals (and people in general, natch) are rational actors who do a considered cost/benefit analysis of their actions before they do them. Needless to say, the evidence for that is a bit scarce on the ground, no?

All? No. Some? Certainly.

And criminals de facto perform a cost/benefit analysis when they choose to commit a crime. Whether it's a crime to feed the family or a violent crime resulting in multiple deaths, the person committing the act knows it's illegal and has done some analysis (whether overt or not) that determines whether they will commit the crime. So even if they're not considering the specific punishment, it's disingenuous to suggest that someone who commits a crime is unaware of the possibility of negative consequences as a result of their actions.

[Chilango2]

All? No. Some? Certainly.

And criminals de facto perform a cost/benefit analysis when they choose to commit a crime. Whether it's a crime to feed the family or a violent crime resulting in multiple deaths, the person committing the act knows it's illegal and has done some analysis (whether overt or not) that determines whether they will commit the crime. So even if they're not considering the specific punishment, it's disingenuous to suggest that someone who commits a crime is unaware of the possibility of negative consequences as a result of their actions.

I didn't say they weren't aware of potential negative consequences, I said they weren't neccessarily rational. Most of the stuff we do is partly considered rationally, part irrational assumptions. It's not a binary, it's a continuum, and no decision we make is ever "perfectly" rational, because we're fundamentally highly evolved monkeys in shoes.

For example, there's research that demonstrates alot of criminals assume that they won't be caught, regardless of the chances of that actually happening. And of course this is the case! If they thought they would be caught, they wouldn't commit the crime! If they assume they won't be caught, then the potential punishment if they are caught doesn't exactly figure into their thinking, does it?

Nor is this limited to crime. We tend to assume the negative potential consequences of any action we take won't occur, despite the fact that this can't always be the case. If we assumed the negative stuff would occur... we don't do it, because why would we?

At lets not forget that the vast majority of violence (and since we're talking about capital crimes, we're mostly talking about violence) is committed not against strangers, but to a person the criminal knows, and the crime arises out of an argument, disagreement, or some other similar conflict that pushes the criminal towards being less rational.

So either the person thinks they can get away with it, they aren't thinking much at all, or they are an actual sociopath, which is thankfully rare and therefore not a good reason to have a policy that can potentially get innocent people killed for crimes they didn't commit.

[msconstrew]

For example, there's research that demonstrates alot of criminals assume that they won't be caught, regardless of the chances of that actually happening. And of course this is the case! If they thought they would be caught, they wouldn't commit the crime! If they assume they won't be caught, then the potential punishment if they are caught doesn't exactly figure into their thinking, does it?


I doubt it's necessary for you to condescend to me with rhetorical questions and unnecessary emphases.

Aside from that, this is behavior demonstrated by basically all humans. A good example of it is law students incurring massive debt to go to law school, despite knowing that only the top students in the class will get associate positions that pay enough to make the debt worth it: they all think they'll be at the top of the class despite the statistical impossibility.

[Parkbandit]

I doubt it's necessary for you to condescend to me with rhetorical questions and unnecessary emphases.

Aside from that, this is behavior demonstrated by basically all humans. A good example of it is law students incurring massive debt to go to law school, despite knowing that only the top students in the class will get associate positions that pay enough to make the debt worth it: they all think they'll be at the top of the class despite the statistical impossibility.

What are you talking about? Unnecessary emphases makes your point more important than what they are and make it seem that you put much more thought and effort in your post.

[Delias]

I got to about page three before I decided to skip right to posting.

Those that deprive others of life for their own pleasure are in my opinion one of the most heinous sorts of criminals. There is a level of wrongdoing that, more than violating our laws, should sicken us. There are some lines that once crossed can never be uncrossed and there is no coming back for such a person. Murder, especially mass murder of strangers, is a crime for which there can be no appropriate justification. A similar instance is when a rapid dog attacks and kills someone. You put down that dog for the safety and the peace of mind of others. You remove the piece from play.

You may argue that someone has been "removed from play" by being imprisoned, but the prison system is not foolproof or inescapable. If you wish to rob a man of the dignity of self determination, you imprison him. If you want to ensure he cannot repeat his actions, he has to die. When you strip away the complexities of the false morality that you have built up that protects the guilty and excuses the inexcusable, it all becomes much simpler. It cannot be compassion for this person, as (unless you are also a mass murderer) their actions are inconceivable to you.

The evidence is abundant, there is no question as to guilt and no amount of appeals will change the case. He should die both in punishment for his crimes and (more importantly) as a preventative against any future harm.

Shit, kid's bus is here. Whatever my point was, that.

[Jarvan]

I didn't say they weren't aware of potential negative consequences, I said they weren't neccessarily rational. Most of the stuff we do is partly considered rationally, part irrational assumptions. It's not a binary, it's a continuum, and no decision we make is ever "perfectly" rational, because we're fundamentally highly evolved monkeys in shoes.

For example, there's research that demonstrates alot of criminals assume that they won't be caught, regardless of the chances of that actually happening. And of course this is the case! If they thought they would be caught, they wouldn't commit the crime! If they assume they won't be caught, then the potential punishment if they are caught doesn't exactly figure into their thinking, does it?

Nor is this limited to crime. We tend to assume the negative potential consequences of any action we take won't occur, despite the fact that this can't always be the case. If we assumed the negative stuff would occur... we don't do it, because why would we?

At lets not forget that the vast majority of violence (and since we're talking about capital crimes, we're mostly talking about violence) is committed not against strangers, but to a person the criminal knows, and the crime arises out of an argument, disagreement, or some other similar conflict that pushes the criminal towards being less rational.

So either the person thinks they can get away with it, they aren't thinking much at all, or they are an actual sociopath, which is thankfully rare and therefore not a good reason to have a policy that can potentially get innocent people killed for crimes they didn't commit.

Japanese authorities also solve a high percentage of robbery cases (75.9%, compared with 43.8% for West Germany, 26.5% for Britain, and 26.0% for the United States) and homicide cases (95.9% , compared with 94.4% for Germany, 78.0% for U.K., and 68.3% for the United States).

Yet people still commit crimes, KNOWING there is a very good chance they will be captured and convicted. So, no.. people still commit crimes even if they think they will get caught.

[Warriorbird]

I think the examples of people who have been allowed to interact with the outside world and who have been freed, sometimes arbitrarily, argue for the death penalty as incapacitation. I also don't fall into the culturally relativist trap that we can allow citizens to make decisions that the government cannot. Then again, I also prefer targetted killing to war.

[TheEschaton]

You may argue that someone has been "removed from play" by being imprisoned, but the prison system is not foolproof or inescapable.

I rank this delusion up there with "The government wants to take my guns" and death panels. It's the sort of thing people only believe to lend credence to their position. It isn't a rational belief. The percentage of high security escapes is miniscule. The percentage of escapes which don't lead to recapture is practically non-existent.

[Warriorbird]

I rank this delusion up there with "The government wants to take my guns" and death panels. It's the sort of thing people only believe to lend credence to their position. It isn't a rational belief. The percentage of high security escapes is miniscule. The percentage of escapes which don't lead to recapture is practically non-existent.

Not actually a delusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_al-Megrahi

[TheEschaton]

Wait, what is that link trying to show? He was released on compassionate leave because he was dying of prostate cancer.

[Warriorbird]

Wait, what is that link trying to show? He was released on compassionate leave because he was dying of prostate cancer.

Then curiously enough he lived 3 years longer than his "weeks or months" and got paraded around Libya to celebrate Gaddafi. How do you think those 270 victims' families felt?

[Chilango2]

I think the examples of people who have been allowed to interact with the outside world and who have been freed, sometimes arbitrarily, argue for the death penalty as incapacitation. I also don't fall into the culturally relativist trap that we can allow citizens to make decisions that the government cannot. Then again, I also prefer targetted killing to war.

Life sentences and prisons may or may not have flaws, but so does the death penalty. When one goes wrong, however, kinda hard to fix it.



Japanese authorities also solve a high percentage of robbery cases (75.9%, compared with 43.8% for West Germany, 26.5% for Britain, and 26.0% for the United States) and homicide cases (95.9% , compared with 94.4% for Germany, 78.0% for U.K., and 68.3% for the United States).

Yet people still commit crimes, KNOWING there is a very good chance they will be captured and convicted. So, no.. people still commit crimes even if they think they will get caught.

You could argue that those people are rationally saying "well, the odds of me getting caught are very good and I'll do it anyway" but its much more likely that they think they are smart, clever enough, etc to be in the ~20%.
Also, we're kind of assuming that "solved" means "found the right person" aren't we? Some of those convictions could be of the wrong person, and in that case the person has gotten away with it.
You're basically arguing that people carefully and rationally calculate odds for life decisions, but there's not very much evidence of that at all, and plenty for the contrary.


I doubt it's necessary for you to condescend to me with rhetorical questions and unnecessary emphases.

Aside from that, this is behavior demonstrated by basically all humans. A good example of it is law students incurring massive debt to go to law school, despite knowing that only the top students in the class will get associate positions that pay enough to make the debt worth it: they all think they'll be at the top of the class despite the statistical impossibility.

No condescension implied. :) i was using emphasis to..well... emphasize specific words I felt were important to the point. And yes, the law school example is a very good example of not entirely rational behavior on the part of people, along with the mortgage bubble, the internet bubble, and basically every economic bubble that has ever occurred.

This does bring up a related point however: even fi we assume people rationally choose to commit crimes after weighing the probabilities, what evidence do we have that they are well informed of those probabilities? After all, law schools around the country were basically making up their employment statistics, and ambitious reasonably intelligent people who were interested in becoming lawyers didn't notice or know, and didn't have the basis to make a rational decision without that information even if they were trying to carefully make such decisions. And of course, applying to college is a fairly involved process involving lots of time and research, which is, needless to say, not the case for the vast majority of crimes...

[Tgo01]

I rank this delusion up there with "The government wants to take my guns" and death panels. It's the sort of thing people only believe to lend credence to their position. It isn't a rational belief. The percentage of high security escapes is miniscule. The percentage of escapes which don't lead to recapture is practically non-existent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/2-flee-texas-jail-1-faces_n_2999504.html

Doesn't prove much really but I just thought it was funny as I was reading the news today.

[Warriorbird]

Life sentences and prisons may or may not have flaws, but so does the death penalty. When one goes wrong, however, kinda hard to fix it.


I'm glad al-Awlaki and Osama Bin Laden are dead. I don't think Guantanamo Bay should exist.

[Delias]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/2-flee-texas-jail-1-faces_n_2999504.html

Doesn't prove much really but I just thought it was funny as I was reading the news today.

Saw that myself. I could go on and link further articles about recent escapees, or people released due to clerical errors that went on to shoot district attorneys recently... but honestly, arguing with TheE's overly-liberal sensibilities bores the shit out of me and probably everyone else here.

[Parkbandit]

Saw that myself. I could go on and link further articles about recent escapees, or people released due to clerical errors that went on to shoot district attorneys recently... but honestly, arguing with TheE's overly-liberal sensibilities bores the shit out of me and probably everyone else here.

How many people are incarcerated in high security prisons in the US?

How many of those people have escaped and are still at large?

If you get that information collected.. even you will realize that it was a pretty silly argument to make.

[Delias]

How many people are incarcerated in high security prisons in the US?

How many of those people have escaped and are still at large?

If you get that information collected.. even you will realize that it was a pretty silly argument to make.

Statistics are bullshit anyway. Shit happens- once it happens the odds of it happening in the first place are irrelevant. Everything is binary- on/off, yes/no. It either happens or it doesn't. Why would you even bother to argue that the chances of a convicted mass murderer committing a similar crime are low when he is incarcerated, when you can make the chance exactly zero with two behind his fucking ear? So if the chances of an escaped murderer committing murder is .0001%, how is that better than the surety of 0%?

[Chilango2]

Statistics are bullshit anyway. Shit happens- once it happens the odds of it happening in the first place are irrelevant. Everything is binary- on/off, yes/no. It either happens or it doesn't. Why would you even bother to argue that the chances of a convicted mass murderer committing a similar crime are low when he is incarcerated, when you can make the chance exactly zero with two behind his fucking ear? So if the chances of an escaped murderer committing murder is .0001%, how is that better than the surety of 0%?

Even a binary system has a probability distribution, sorry, its statistics all the way down.
Besides, we're talking policy, individual cases are individual cases, the plural of anecdote is not data, and that's why we have judges and juries to look at individual cases and decide what to do about them. Policy means statistics. Can't be helped.

Besides, statistics is how you make a rational well informed decision about stuff if you're dealing with large piles of data. :) Otherwise, you'd be irrationally deciding of the emotional weight of specific cases or something, and killing people for irrational motives. Hmmm....

[Latrinsorm]

Not sure I care about the state statistics. What were the population numbers for those states, what ethnicity were the residents, city people, country people, ppl per square mile, how many police were active there. Drug activity in them, or close to them. Like Texas having a drug corridor from Mexico... States close to Canada smuggling medicines or something. What are the normal weather patterns. Rain, sunny? Pollen count? Most common professions... TOO many underlying things that could affect murder rates, beyond this state and that state. That is basically saying how many murderers were named Jane, how many innocents were named John.This is why it's handy to average over all states and 21 years. Additionally, in that period some states have flip-flopped, further reducing these variations.
I seriously cannot fathom the lack of a death penalty reducing the murder rate.Acknowledged, but this conviction is not relevant to science.
Penalty or severity of it vs being caught is valid, and basically lies within the reason I said it wouldn't stop everyone. And yes some people might be pushed into a corner and figure, go big or go home - but I don't see that happening as a result of knowing the consequence. Give me some examples where someone knowing that they will die if they kill someone, forces them to murder instead of doing something else. Obviously some people are suicidal, but most any situation where that comes up wouldn't be changed no matter the consequences.

I guess I got lost in the incarceration = execution. You mean say someone is knocking over a 7-11, and sees a Cop pull up, so knowing they will get caught - THEN they decide to kill everyone to escape because the punishment would be the same based on their misunderstanding of the law? BTW in my theoretical idea there was no incarceration. Just punishments. Death or dismemberment etc. Floggings or what have you. I think jails are a complete and utter waste. The only reason you would have them is to hold prisoners of war for exchange to get your own men back in one piece. Or perhaps an overnight detoxification tank. I think imprisoning someone in a small room for any length of time is more cruel and inhumane than any form of murder or other punishment.I don't know if any of the what-ifs I proposed are actually the case. All I'm saying is that they fit the empirical data better than "more death penalty = less crime".
I am not sure what your hard on with universal surveillance is atm, but I don't agree with anything like that being lawful or implemented. Even if we already have some of it going on.

People watch each others back. Have the cops on their rounds. But I don't see the need for any kind of universal electronic surveillance.The need? Because we are, in your opinion, at war. There are no half-measures in war. What sort of general would try and attack with exactly enough soldiers to overcome a particular defense and no more when he could instead deploy overwhelming force? An unsuccessful one, I'll wager.
I got to about page three before I decided to skip right to posting.

Those that deprive others of life for their own pleasure are in my opinion one of the most heinous sorts of criminals. There is a level of wrongdoing that, more than violating our laws, should sicken us. There are some lines that once crossed can never be uncrossed and there is no coming back for such a person. Murder, especially mass murder of strangers, is a crime for which there can be no appropriate justification. A similar instance is when a rapid dog attacks and kills someone. You put down that dog for the safety and the peace of mind of others. You remove the piece from play.

You may argue that someone has been "removed from play" by being imprisoned, but the prison system is not foolproof or inescapable. If you wish to rob a man of the dignity of self determination, you imprison him. If you want to ensure he cannot repeat his actions, he has to die. When you strip away the complexities of the false morality that you have built up that protects the guilty and excuses the inexcusable, it all becomes much simpler. It cannot be compassion for this person, as (unless you are also a mass murderer) their actions are inconceivable to you.I do not believe anyone has suggested any excuses for the behavior. Rather, I believe people who disagree with you are disagreeing with your dehumanization of the criminal. We don't insist on human rights because humans are so nice. Arguably, we do so because the opposite is true.
Statistics are bullshit anyway. Shit happens- once it happens the odds of it happening in the first place are irrelevant. Everything is binary- on/off, yes/no. It either happens or it doesn't. Why would you even bother to argue that the chances of a convicted mass murderer committing a similar crime are low when he is incarcerated, when you can make the chance exactly zero with two behind his fucking ear? So if the chances of an escaped murderer committing murder is .0001%, how is that better than the surety of 0%?What is the % chance that the convicted mass murderer was actually innocent? If you think 0%, you are kidding yourself.
Japanese authorities also solve a high percentage of robbery cases (75.9%, compared with 43.8% for West Germany, 26.5% for Britain, and 26.0% for the United States) and homicide cases (95.9% , compared with 94.4% for Germany, 78.0% for U.K., and 68.3% for the United States).

Yet people still commit crimes, KNOWING there is a very good chance they will be captured and convicted. So, no.. people still commit crimes even if they think they will get caught.On average, a Japanese criminal will be caught. This does not indicate that the average Japanese criminal believes he or she will be caught, and it is only their belief (correct or incorrect) that is relevant to their motivation.

[Delias]

Fine fine, have your fruity love fest where everyone gets to live, even the most disgusting specimens of our self-murdering species, see if I care.

[Latrinsorm]

Why do you think you insist on characterizing the opposite position as excusing, fruity love, etc.? Do you think Ben Franklin was a hippy? Okay, bad example, but you know what I mean.

[Delias]

Why do you think you insist on characterizing the opposite position as excusing, fruity love, etc.? Do you think Ben Franklin was a hippy? Okay, bad example, but you know what I mean.

Insist? I did it once. Hardly what I'd call insistent.

[Latrinsorm]

I count twice, and two points make a line. A fine line.

[TheEschaton]

Statistics are bullshit anyway. Shit happens- once it happens the odds of it happening in the first place are irrelevant. Everything is binary- on/off, yes/no. It either happens or it doesn't. Why would you even bother to argue that the chances of a convicted mass murderer committing a similar crime are low when he is incarcerated, when you can make the chance exactly zero with two behind his fucking ear? So if the chances of an escaped murderer committing murder is .0001%, how is that better than the surety of 0%?

Shit happens, sure. But it happens more to innocent people put to death by the death penalty than it does to guilty people who manage to escape and go on crime sprees. When # of innocent people executed >> number of high security escapees at large, I don't think you can argue in any seriousness that "If they get life they can escape and kill people!" is a valid concern.

[Delias]

I count twice, and two points make a line. A fine line.

Did I? I stand corrected. I am pretty sure insistence requires at least a rhombus, though.

[Herberto]

If Senor Douche-Bag was really crazy, he wouldn't have just simply surrendered when the Aurora PD spotted him in the parking lot carrying his weapons.. Sadly if he was really crazy.. This would have all just ended there, with a quick' double tap to this !@#$-wads head.. I know several of my peers out in Aurora who know someone who was killed during this event. The fact that they're trying to appeal for the public for insanity is in my opinion in itself insane. Personally I've had a officer drawn on me in the past and I was just holding a pizza bag.. Asshole should'a got shot then and there.. Honest to god, sadly, I bet if he was another race.. This would have already been over.. Keep in mind I'm not Hispanic or African American.. I still feel this way.

[msconstrew]

If Senor Douche-Bag was really crazy, he wouldn't have just simply surrendered when the Aurora PD spotted him in the parking lot carrying his weapons.. Sadly if he was really crazy.. This would have all just ended there, with a quick' double tap to this !@#$-wads head.. I know several of my peers out in Aurora who know someone who was killed during this event. The fact that they're trying to appeal for the public for insanity is in my opinion in itself insane. Personally I've had a officer drawn on me in the past and I was just holding a pizza bag.. Asshole should'a got shot then and there.. Honest to god, sadly, I bet if he was another race.. This would have already been over.. Keep in mind I'm not Hispanic or African American.. I still feel this way.

What defense other than the insanity defense is available to the dude? Surely not self-defense. If CO refused to take the death penalty off the table and that was the only way he'd plead guilty, then his lawyer needs to try to defend him. Under these circumstances, with so many witnesses and the evidence ... there aren't a lot of choices for his attorney in terms of defense.

[Parkbandit]

Statistics are bullshit anyway. Shit happens- once it happens the odds of it happening in the first place are irrelevant. Everything is binary- on/off, yes/no. It either happens or it doesn't. Why would you even bother to argue that the chances of a convicted mass murderer committing a similar crime are low when he is incarcerated, when you can make the chance exactly zero with two behind his fucking ear? So if the chances of an escaped murderer committing murder is .0001%, how is that better than the surety of 0%?

So your answer is to not incarcerate people.. because you can't 100% guarantee one inmate might escape someday?

lol

[Delias]

So your answer is to not incarcerate people.. because you can't 100% guarantee one inmate might escape someday?

lol

No, my answer is to save the time and trouble of incarceration when there is clear evidence or admission of guilt. Not all crimes warrant a death penalty, but if you missed it we are talking about someone who was caught shooting the shit out of a bunch of strangers. It's alright... 6 pages is a lot for someone suffering from senile dementia, and I am sure you just forgot what we were talking about halfway through.

[Parkbandit]

No, my answer is to save the time and trouble of incarceration when there is clear evidence or admission of guilt. Not all crimes warrant a death penalty, but if you missed it we are talking about someone who was caught shooting the shit out of a bunch of strangers. It's alright... 6 pages is a lot for someone suffering from senile dementia, and I am sure you just forgot what we were talking about halfway through.

Says the high school drop out.

Hey.. how's your life working out for you? I always thought that "STAY IN SCHOOL" program was just a scare tactic... seems like it's true.

[Delias]

Says the high school drop out.

Hey.. how's your life working out for you? I always thought that "STAY IN SCHOOL" program was just a scare tactic... seems like it's true.

That's what I tell my nephews: stay in school. Other than everything, my life is perfect, thank you for asking. Jagoff.

[Parkbandit]

That's what I tell my nephews: stay in school. Other than everything, my life is perfect, thank you for asking. Jagoff.

LOL.

[Delias]

Have you ever thought to yourself "Man, I would really enjoy a good aneurysm right about now"? That's my life at the moment. My biggest personal failures were yes, failing to pursue education at 18 instead of at 30, and trusting people. Of course, half my friends who went to school are also currently unemployed with massive debts, which I do not have. So really it was the trusting others that fucked me over.

Out of curiosity, PB, do you ever kick cripples down the stairs?

[Parkbandit]

Have you ever thought to yourself "Man, I would really enjoy a good aneurysm right about now"? That's my life at the moment. My biggest personal failures were yes, failing to pursue education at 18 instead of at 30, and trusting people. Of course, half my friends who went to school are also currently unemployed with massive debts, which I do not have. So really it was the trusting others that fucked me over.

Blaming others for what you made out of your own life?

:socool:



Out of curiosity, PB, do you ever kick cripples down the stairs?

My suggestion: If you can't take it.. don't dish it.

[Delias]

Blaming others for what you made out of your own life?

:socool:



My suggestion: If you can't take it.. don't dish it.

Do you seriously equate teasing someone about their age which isn't even that advanced to actively mocking someone who is in the middle of a divorce? Damn dude, that's cold. I mean I'm kind of a dick, but I'm not that kind of a dick.

As for blaming others for my problems, yes, I do blame my wife who I put through school (I worked instead of going to school myself) for leaving as soon as she managed to get herself a career, despite my best efforts to maintain a healthy relationship with her. I'm also blaming everyone in my life who was so eager to take and never give. Beyond that, yes, all of my problems are my fault... of course my only real problem is a lack of education and career, which I postponed for my wife.

You know what, nevermind. You're a bitter old shitstain, fuck ya.

[Parkbandit]

Do you seriously equate teasing someone about their age which isn't even that advanced to actively mocking someone who is in the middle of a divorce? Damn dude, that's cold. I mean I'm kind of a dick, but I'm not that kind of a dick.


LOL. "I wuz jus teasin!".


As for blaming others for my problems, yes, I do blame my wife who I put through school (I worked instead of going to school myself) for leaving as soon as she managed to get herself a career, despite my best efforts to maintain a healthy relationship with her. I'm also blaming everyone in my life who was so eager to take and never give. Beyond that, yes, all of my problems are my fault... of course my only real problem is a lack of education and career, which I postponed for my wife.

LOL.

You have no one to blame for your shit life but yourself. We all make decisions.. and have to live with the consequences of those decisions.



You know what, nevermind. You're a bitter old shitstain, fuck ya.

If you want the real definition of bitter... look in the mirror.

[diethx]

So, back to the pleasant topics of the death penalty and mass murder...

[Delias]

LOL. "I wuz jus teasin!".



LOL.

You have no one to blame for your shit life but yourself. We all make decisions.. and have to live with the consequences of those decisions.



If you want the real definition of bitter... look in the mirror.

You're right. It was my shit decisions that landed me with a special needs child and my own shit decisions of doing anything required for my wife to prosper that ended in her deciding she wanted her own life and wanted to live like a fucking 20 year old again. Are you fucking retarded, or has everything you have ever tried in life just magically worked out? If it has, count your fucking blessings because believe me, misfortune is a thing that exists. I hope you are raped by rabid badgers, or that one of the gerbils in your ass chews its way out. Fuck, I hate the internet, you never get to punch people.

Also, YOU SIR ARE ONE BANANA EATING MOTHERFUCKER.

[Parkbandit]

You're right. It was my shit decisions that landed me with a special needs child and my own shit decisions of doing anything required for my wife to prosper that ended in her deciding she wanted her own life and wanted to live like a fucking 20 year old again.

Boo hoo? Do you want a pity party?


Are you fucking retarded, or has everything you have ever tried in life just magically worked out? If it has, count your fucking blessings because believe me, misfortune is a thing that exists.

I've had my share of misfortune and bad luck.. the difference is you sit on your couch and blame {insert blame target of the hour} instead of doing something about it. Stop being a lazy fuck would probably be the best advice I could offer you.

You've been out of work for how long again?


I hope you are raped by rabid badgers, or that one of the gerbils in your ass chews its way out.

If you really wanted it to hurt.. you should have wished your life on me.


Fuck, I hate the internet, you never get to punch people.

This is probably a good thing. Your life is already fucked up.. the last thing you need is more medical bills and a busted up face.


Also, YOU SIR ARE ONE BANANA EATING MOTHERFUCKER.

ok.

[Delias]

Boo hoo? Do you want a pity party?



I've had my share of misfortune and bad luck.. the difference is you sit on your couch and blame {insert blame target of the hour} instead of doing something about it. Stop being a lazy fuck would probably be the best advice I could offer you.

You've been out of work for how long again?



If you really wanted it to hurt.. you should have wished your life on me.



This is probably a good thing. Your life is already fucked up.. the last thing you need is more medical bills and a busted up face.



ok.

Whatever you say, Gramps.

[thefarmer]

This is probably a good thing. Your life is already fucked up.. the last thing you need is more medical bills and a busted up face.


http://www.vintage-airstream.com/forum/attachments/humor/1376d1333550883t-motivational-posters-e-thug2.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Whatever you say, Gramps.

Whatever, Drop out.

http://katemalinoski.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/stay-in-school.jpg

[Delias]

Whatever, Drop out.

http://katemalinoski.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/stay-in-school.jpg

I can go back to school- you can't regain youth.

[Androidpk]

http://i48.tinypic.com/35jbjvl.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I can go back to school- you can't regain youth.

You can.. but since lazy is one of your prime stats.. your life will still be worthless and a waste.

[Delias]

You can.. but since lazy is one of your prime stats.. your life will still be worthless and a waste.

I'm curious is to why you think I'm lazy. I'm just not sure where you're getting that information. Within the last year I have worked less, yes, as I have been a full time father working a verbal behavior program and only working 20 hours on the weekends. I've been unemployed a total of what, 5 weeks? That adds up to a total of about 6 months since I was 17 years old. For a while I was working two jobs, sleeping 6 hours a night until my son was about a year old, and after that I still worked every available hour of overtime and every holiday until my wife got her teaching job, and then I became a primary caretaker. In my late teens and early twenties my young wife and I managed to rack up about 30k in credit card debt (which was dumb), which I then managed to pay off by the time I was 28 (which I think was pretty great)... so where this belief that I am lazy arises from, I am unsure. I guess I could stop sleeping altogether and find some work overnight again, but since I am getting divorced and thus going to be moving, it seems a little foolish to try and find a job here for two months when I can comfortably live on the money I've saved until my son's school year ends and we can relocate.

Seriously, pappy, you have no idea what you're talking about. I have always worked twice as hard as my peers, I've just never worked at any enterprise that was particularly profitable.

Edit: I suppose I should point out not all of my peers in the broad sense, just all of the ones I know.

[Fallen]

Del, he's trolling you and you're letting him.

[Delias]

Del, he's trolling you and you're letting him.

I know. I am compulsive in my desire to get the last word, and it's really difficult for me to walk away. My awareness of the situation doesn't seem to help me leave it.

[Rallorick]

I don't see how people can be anti-death penalty to this extreme, unless they are purposefully trying to stand by pointless idealism. I'm generally anti-death penalty, but not as an axiom... There is no 'right to' anything, particulary to those who don't accept the obligation to respect these hypothetical rights due others. And I should add, up front, I consider myself pretty liberal.

One comment was killing in defense was actually acceptable, but not in punishment... so... this is a little muddled. Basically, it's ok to kill someone if they are going to kill others, but if they succeed in killing others - then they get a pass. They get their life back, because they actually killed instead of about to kill. You can argue that it's not that he 'deserves' to be put down, but (in the pre-emptive case) others deserve to live, which makes it necessary. That's beside the point. The action is not changed by the purpose behind it, unless it makes you feel better. It's done for the greater good, and that good does not change because the damage was actually done by the crime, it should actually solidify it's reason.

I do agree with the thought of studying him for whatever good someone can put that information toward. But in the end, this guy is pointless to society. He has nothing to offer and has taken far more than he can ever be worth. He just needs to be removed.

[TheEschaton]

Self-defense has always been predicated on a reasonable impression of imminent serious bodily harm or death. If he's locked up, that imminence dissipates. The point you're trying to put in the mouth of anti-death penalty people is asinine and makes no sense.

Also, I know you didn't just make a utilitarian argument at the end of your post, that he's "pointless," and thus can be exterminated without any consequence. Cause, you know, that's an arbitrary line you're drawing. Maybe I find female children pointless, too. What is it that prevents me from willy-nilly offing little girls? It's reason, morality, and ethics, all of which you're disregarding in this death penalty example.

[Rallorick]

Asinine AND makes no sense? Well hell, I expected one ot the other, but score on both.

But seriously... not putting anything on anyone. Just makin point a point absolutes in terms of ethical standpoints become difficult to defend. I didn't anticipate your superior deductive skills to dismiss it out of hand with essentially "nu uh, you're stupid". Bravo, sir... bravo.

[Delias]

Self-defense has always been predicated on a reasonable impression of imminent serious bodily harm or death. If he's locked up, that imminence dissipates. The point you're trying to put in the mouth of anti-death penalty people is asinine and makes no sense.

Also, I know you didn't just make a utilitarian argument at the end of your post, that he's "pointless," and thus can be exterminated without any consequence. Cause, you know, that's an arbitrary line you're drawing. Maybe I find female children pointless, too. What is it that prevents me from willy-nilly offing little girls? It's reason, morality, and ethics, all of which you're disregarding in this death penalty example.

I think it really depends how many people the little girl has offed in her life.

[Warriorbird]

Self-defense has always been predicated on a reasonable impression of imminent serious bodily harm or death. If he's locked up, that imminence dissipates. The point you're trying to put in the mouth of anti-death penalty people is asinine and makes no sense.

Also, I know you didn't just make a utilitarian argument at the end of your post, that he's "pointless," and thus can be exterminated without any consequence. Cause, you know, that's an arbitrary line you're drawing. Maybe I find female children pointless, too. What is it that prevents me from willy-nilly offing little girls? It's reason, morality, and ethics, all of which you're disregarding in this death penalty example.

So we have to be reasonable, moral, and ethical with murderers but not terrorists. Very rhetorically sound.

[Fallen]

I suppose we are also throwing out the argument that these sociopathic criminals may go on to kill people in prison. I guess that doesn't count, though, as criminal's lives aren't worth anything...except enough not to execute.

...Wait.

[Delias]

I suppose we are also throwing out the argument that these sociopathic criminals may go on to kill people in prison. I guess that doesn't count, though, as criminal's lives aren't worth anything...except enough not to execute.

...Wait.

How dare you, sir? The prison system is foolproof, nobody is ever killed inside and nobody ever escapes. It's a perfect system.

[Chilango2]

How dare you, sir? The prison system is foolproof, nobody is ever killed inside and nobody ever escapes. It's a perfect system.

And the death penalty is a perfect system?

No perfect systems to be had. That's actually why the death penalty is a bad idea.. because the justice system is not a perfect system.

It's reasonably doable to lock someone up who we know is guilty in a way they won't escape and control their movements in a way that means they can't kill their fellow prisoners. Kinda hard to bring an innocent person back to life.

[TheEschaton]

So we have to be reasonable, moral, and ethical with murderers but not terrorists. Very rhetorically sound.



Who said I believe that? Terrorists should be given full benefit of the law, imo. I'm very much against the idea of sinking to the level of the people who would hurt us.

[Tgo01]

That's actually why the death penalty is a bad idea.. because the justice system is not a perfect system.

I wonder why people think this argument only works in the case of capital punishment.

"Mr. Smith was sentenced to life in prison where he served 40 years before new evidence proved he was innocent." Guess we better do away with life sentences as well then, the system fails!


It's reasonably doable to lock someone up who we know is guilty in a way they won't escape and control their movements in a way that means they can't kill their fellow prisoners.

You can't have an argument about the death penalty then use language such as "we can do this for people we know are guilty." That's absurd.

Also what exactly are you proposing here, solitary confinement? You are aware of the psychological effects of locking someone up in solitary confinement for any extended period of time, right?

[Delias]

And the death penalty is a perfect system?

No perfect systems to be had. That's actually why the death penalty is a bad idea.. because the justice system is not a perfect system.

It's reasonably doable to lock someone up who we know is guilty in a way they won't escape and control their movements in a way that means they can't kill their fellow prisoners. Kinda hard to bring an innocent person back to life.

Death is perfect in that it is guaranteed to prevent murder, yes. I have already stated that it is not necessary or even desirable for the majority of cases, but where the evidence is overwhelming or there is an admission of guilt, I am in favor of such a penalty. I'm also not sure how keeping an innocent person (if that's the route you want to go with) in prison for 80 years is better than just ending it, but I guess that's my own personal view of life in a cage.

[Androidpk]

When you go out and commit a crime like this you have ceased being useful to society. Why should taxpayers fund the rest of this guys life while he lives comfortably in prison getting 3 square meals a day? It's not like there is any doubt as to whether or not he is guilty. Take him out back and put two bullets in his head.

[Tisket]

So you think it's more humane to imprison someone for say 80 years then to kill them?

Let me ask another question. Lets say you have two little girls. You are home alone with them. Your husband has a shotgun in the closet. A man breaks in with a handgun and locks you in the bedroom, and tells you he is going to rape and kill your two little girls. Your options are let him do it, or take the shotgun and shoot him, or let him rape and kill your babies, then likely rape and kill you..

Although I have not read any further in this thread than your post, I am going to respond anyway. I am opposed to the death penalty but I believe firmly that it is our moral obligation to protect the innocent so I would not hesitate to shoot to kill. That does not mean I could hunt him down after the fact and put a gun to his head and execute him in cold blood.

[Delias]

Although I have not read any further in this thread than your post, I am going to respond anyway. I am opposed to the death penalty but I believe firmly that it is our moral obligation to protect the innocent so I would not hesitate to shoot to kill. That does not mean I could hunt him down after the fact and put a gun to his head and execute him in cold blood.

That's alright, it's why you have menfolk.

[Tisket]

lol

[Delias]

lol

:heart:

[Ashliana]

TheE pretty much covered it early on. Pretty much every argument in favor of capital punishment fails on its merits aside from retribution. It's more expensive than life imprisonment, creates more problems than it solves (in execution, the criminal justice system ends up being sexist and racially biased in implementation, even though the individual judges and DAs aren't necessarily biased), it's ineffective (only 1 in 3 people actually convicted by a jury of capital charges ends up being executed due to errors that occur in the years of mandatory due process appeals), and there is no evidence to support its efficacy as a deterrent.

I personally find it comical when conservatives talk about their belief in "small" or "unobtrusive" government while simultaneously advocating giving the state power to execute its citizens.

The only remaining argument that can be even remotely be rationally made (retribution) still isn't a moral one, IMO. Whatever satisfaction is derived from the desire for "revenge" is outweighed by the possibility of executing an innocent person, and surviving victims often report that they find no closure from executions.

[Latrinsorm]

I suppose we are also throwing out the argument that these sociopathic criminals may go on to kill people in prison. I guess that doesn't count, though, as criminal's lives aren't worth anything...except enough not to execute.

...Wait.Did I mention before that prisons are the perfect beta test for universal surveillance? Rife with crime, extremely controlled environments, prisoners have already forfeited many rights.
I wonder why people think this argument only works in the case of capital punishment.

"Mr. Smith was sentenced to life in prison where he served 40 years before new evidence proved he was innocent." Guess we better do away with life sentences as well then, the system fails!I can make you feel better after 40 years in prison. I can't make you feel better after I kill you. Proof: no one here has ever been thanked for sexually pleasuring a corpse.
When you go out and commit a crime like this you have ceased being useful to society. Why should taxpayers fund the rest of this guys life while he lives comfortably in prison getting 3 square meals a day?Because our tax system is not based on "what is useful to society" unless you include the phantom utils associated with rights and goodness, in which case not executing people can count as useful.

Utilitarianism for non-omniscient beings is a farce anyway.

[Thondalar]

Did I mention before that prisons are the perfect beta test for universal surveillance? Rife with crime, extremely controlled environments, prisoners have already forfeited many rights.
I worked in a prison for several years, and a newer one...pretty much everywhere except the showers had cameras. But the surveillance was controlled by humans, so there were still errors...people still got shanked. Drugs still came in. Choosing option three at the end of Mass Effect 3 is the only way, obviously.

I can make you feel better after 40 years in prison. I can't make you feel better after I kill you. Proof: no one here has ever been thanked for sexually pleasuring a corpse.
Bullshit. My aunt is a psychic, and she said that one chick that OD'd at that party that one time was very thankful. ( I swear I thought she was still breathing)

Because our tax system is not based on "what is useful to society" unless you include the phantom utils associated with rights and goodness, in which case not executing people can count as useful. Can't argue there...our tax code is based on magnets, mirrors, and that game you play where you buy squares to bet on where the cow poops.


Utilitarianism for non-omniscient beings is a farce anyway.
well that's just silly.


-Thond

[Tgo01]

I can make you feel better after 40 years in prison. I can't make you feel better after I kill you.

How are you going to make someone feel better after serving 40 years in prison? Give them some money and say "Sorry bro"?

[Latrinsorm]

I worked in a prison for several years, and a newer one...pretty much everywhere except the showers had cameras. But the surveillance was controlled by humans, so there were still errors...people still got shanked. Drugs still came in. Choosing option three at the end of Mass Effect 3 is the only way, obviously.I can't help but stress universal. No control necessary, see everything at all times.
Bullshit. My aunt is a psychic, and she said that one chick that OD'd at that party that one time was very thankful. ( I swear I thought she was still breathing)That was a trap! Expect a visit from the Special Victims Unit.

[Back]

I can make you feel better after 40 years in prison.

I bet you say that to all the prisoners.

[Latrinsorm]

How are you going to make someone feel better after serving 40 years in prison? Give them some money and say "Sorry bro"?Wouldn't you feel better with, say, $800 grand?
I bet you say that to all the prisoners.I am not on trial here!!!

[Delias]

I can't help but stress universal. No control necessary, see everything at all times.

You seriously think universal surveillance is a good idea? I can't think of a single system that would be more prone to abuse.

[Tgo01]

Wouldn't you feel better with, say, $800 grand?

The 800,000 dollars is a hollow gesture without the apology.

[Back]

You seriously think universal surveillance is a good idea? I can't think of a single system that would be more prone to abuse.

I actually agree with Latrin. Full surveillance at all times. What have you got to hide?

[Thondalar]

I can't help but stress universal. No control necessary, see everything at all times. Er...someone has to be watching it, otherwise it's just a recording. Someone would still have to watch the recording.
That was a trap! Expect a visit from the Special Victims Unit.

Osht! /panic button


-Thond

[Delias]

I actually agree with Latrin. Full surveillance at all times. What have you got to hide?

Masturbation.

[Latrinsorm]

You seriously think universal surveillance is a good idea? I can't think of a single system that would be more prone to abuse.Prone to abuse - absolutely, but abuse that is now caught on tape.

Also, it's the same police who'd be running it. If you're going to be erroneously shot with something, would you rather it be a camera or a gun?
The 800,000 dollars is a hollow gesture without the apology.Like we could spend the money to personally hand every misconvicted lifetime prisoner a form letter of apology? Come on, Terrence.
Er...someone has to be watching it, otherwise it's just a recording. Someone would still have to watch the recording.Oh, I thought you meant that people were having to manually pan around and whatnot. And recordings are good, too, we can have computers rapidly identify crimes committed and leave humans more time to arrest and prosecute.

[Warriorbird]

Who said I believe that? Terrorists should be given full benefit of the law, imo. I'm very much against the idea of sinking to the level of the people who would hurt us.

There we go. The friend to burglars DA we all know.

I'd rather we shoot terrorists from the sky than use ground troops.

[Delias]

Prone to abuse - absolutely, but abuse that is now caught on tape.

Also, it's the same police who'd be running it. If you're going to be erroneously shot with something, would you rather it be a camera or a gun?Like we could spend the money to personally hand every misconvicted lifetime prisoner a form letter of apology? Come on, Terrence.Oh, I thought you meant that people were having to manually pan around and whatnot. And recordings are good, too, we can have computers rapidly identify crimes committed and leave humans more time to arrest and prosecute.

I am, for the most part, a law abiding citizen. My crimes are more of the offenses you would get tickets for. All the same, if universal surveillance became a thing, I'd be leaving the country. It's not that I am doing anything wrong or even intend to do something wrong, but I don't like the idea of being watched. I've reconciled myself to the fact that it will happen, especially whenever I am in chicago, but by and large I am free to live my own quiet, private existence and I like it that way.

[Warriorbird]

Prone to abuse - absolutely, but abuse that is now caught on tape.

Also, it's the same police who'd be running it.

And this is why you should have been a philosophy major. It's kind of like Communists who believe that greed doesn't exist.

[Back]

Masturbation.

Not a crime last I checked. In fact, you might be able to sell that. Deliasmasturbates.com.

[Delias]

Not a crime last I checked. In fact, you might be able to sell that. Deliasmasturbates.com.

I'd still people rather not watch it. I mean, other than you.

[Back]

I'd still people rather not watch it. I mean, other than you.

Well how much would you charge per view? If it were $1 how many times would people be able to see it? Expand that to $10. There may be a lot of money here.

[Delias]

Well how much would you charge per view? If it were $1 how many times would people be able to see it? Expand that to $10. There may be a lot of money here.

Make me an offer.

[Latrinsorm]

I am, for the most part, a law abiding citizen. My crimes are more of the offenses you would get tickets for. All the same, if universal surveillance became a thing, I'd be leaving the country. It's not that I am doing anything wrong or even intend to do something wrong, but I don't like the idea of being watched. I've reconciled myself to the fact that it will happen, especially whenever I am in chicago, but by and large I am free to live my own quiet, private existence and I like it that way.You still would be! (For the most part.) I also want to point out that the police already don't prosecute every ticky-tack crime they have knowledge of. Around these parts, every police cruiser has an always-on radar thing, but the information it gives doesn't compel them to ticket everyone going 41 in a 40.

And even if they did, think of what else the system gives us. Think about rape: no more he-said she-said, only the-incontrovertible-video-evidence says. No more phony rape allegations going all the way to trial, and further. No more actual rape victims having to live in fear and silence. Think about the tens of thousands of people who vanish every year in America. Think about all the shallow, lonely graves where mothers can never shed tears.

A pervert with a badge watching you jerk off seems a small price to pay.
And this is why you should have been a philosophy major. It's kind of like Communists who believe that greed doesn't exist.I feel that this would only be an apt comparison if I had insisted abuse would not exist, but I have repeatedly stipulated that it would. My point is merely that the abuse that exists now has far more violent and terrifying consequences, but everyone is okay with that (in the sense of not resisting universal arming of police). I mean, we (you, me, and Parkbandit) even let the Rodney King cops go.

[Back]

I mean, we (you, me, and Parkbandit) even let the Rodney King cops go.

Is the Rodney King case a case where we can say the system did not work?

[Latrinsorm]

Barbara Bush and I agree on that much, yes. Luckily our eternal friend and benefactor the federal government was there to pick up some of the pieces, but it never should have gotten that far.

[Thondalar]

And even if they did, think of what else the system gives us. Think about rape: no more he-said she-said, only the-incontrovertible-video-evidence says. No more phony rape allegations going all the way to trial, and further. No more actual rape victims having to live in fear and silence. Think about the tens of thousands of people who vanish every year in America. Think about all the shallow, lonely graves where mothers can never shed tears.

think about the hundreds of billions of dollars such a system would cost....not to mention the fact this would cause the ACLU to immediately implode....wait...maybe i'm on board with this....


-Thond

[Rallorick]

TheE pretty much covered it early on. Pretty much every argument in favor of capital punishment fails on its merits aside from retribution

In that capital punishment is a form of justice... and justice is sort of defined as retribution... no shit. How is a prison sentence not also retribution? How is a fine for speeding also not retribution? I'm not trying to be a dick - that just isn't the question. I figured the question was 'is this retribution appropriate?' And I fail to see how it isn't.

[Jarvan]

In that capital punishment is a form of justice... and justice is sort of defined as retribution... no shit. How is a prison sentence not also retribution? How is a fine for speeding also not retribution? I'm not trying to be a dick - that just isn't the question. I figured the question was 'is this retribution appropriate?' And I fail to see how it isn't.

It's because the liberal left feels that it is morally wrong to kill someone for any reason other then a reason they are ok with. You know.. Like blowing up places in an act of civil disobedience.

[Rallorick]

I am liberal left I still don't get it

Fucking kindle autocorrect

[TheEschaton]

In that capital punishment is a form of justice... and justice is sort of defined as retribution... no shit. How is a prison sentence not also retribution? How is a fine for speeding also not retribution? I'm not trying to be a dick - that just isn't the question. I figured the question was 'is this retribution appropriate?' And I fail to see how it isn't.

Retribution is a secondary theory in every other form of punishment. It is the only theory in capital punishment.

Also, justice is very explicitly defined as not retribution. Justice is blind. Surely you've seen the statues outside the court houses. Our whole legal system is founded on the idea that we're a country of laws, not men, and that justice is rational and an application of the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a reason prosecutors don't represent victims, they represent the State, the Commonwealth, or, here in NY, the People with a capital P.

Justice is only defined as "sort of" retribution in the divine sense, another thing explicitly separated from the form of justice we have in this country. If retribution exists in a punishment, it is subservient to other theories. Kind of like a bonus, if you will.

[TheEschaton]

It's because the liberal left feels that it is morally wrong to kill someone for any reason other then a reason they are ok with. You know.. Like blowing up places in an act of civil disobedience.

Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal on this board who's in favor of blowing up things, let alone blowing up things with people in them. Those people are extremists. Don't you hate it when people lament the Tea Partiers who bring assault rifles to rallies as the same? And now you suggest that liberals are a-okay with blowing up buildings in the name of civil disobedience?

The hypocrisy which comes from you on a regular basis is astonishing.

[Rallorick]

surely you can google terms...

Noun
Punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved.

And I don't think you understand the theory of blind justice... it doesn't mean that it's stupid. It means that people are treated equally and not presumed to be guilty before the evidence is weighed... fucking hell.

[Rallorick]

Also, I know you didn't just make a utilitarian argument at the end of your post, that he's "pointless," and thus can be exterminated without any consequence. Cause, you know, that's an arbitrary line you're drawing. Maybe I find female children pointless, too. What is it that prevents me from willy-nilly offing little girls? It's reason, morality, and ethics, all of which you're disregarding in this death penalty example.

That must explain why we currently imprison all little girls... wait, we don't. We imprison criminals. Now I'm confused. If only there was some way we could separate these two subset of people... maybe if we defined a set of codes - rules we should, as a society live by, if you will. And then we monitored which of these groups generally broke those rules, so we could determine who should be punished in this format.

Yeah, every action is a slippery slope, if you don't mind assuming the role of a complete idiot... Well done.

[TheEschaton]

surely you can google terms...

Noun
Punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved.

And I don't think you understand the theory of blind justice... it doesn't mean that it's stupid. It means that people are treated equally and not presumed to be guilty before the evidence is weighed... fucking hell.

Here I thought my law degree was what should guide my opinions on legal matters, when I could just use google. I also in no way insinuated that justice is stupid. But since you like google so much, I'll leave you with an exerpt from the first result for "blind justice," "since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality."

Emphasis mine. I'll wait while you google "mete."

As for the little girl analogy, it was obvious hyperbole to make a point: that the line where a person goes from "useful" to "useless" is subjective at best, biased and immoral at worst. And that's what you're talking about, a criminal's worth as a person when you talk about literally ending their life. The worth of one's life is beyond the scope of the laws of men, and it is a right defined as inalienable by our very own Founders. To say that we have laws which separate criminals versus non-criminals and then apply it ad hoc to say it also sharply divides people and non-people, or "useful" from "non-useful" is intellectually fraudulent.

[Rallorick]

if your law degree somehow lernt you that retribution is somehow only secondary in justice... yeah, I'd get my money back... but that, too, would be retribution in your favor, so don't try that shit in court - I hear from someone on good authority that they don't put up with that sort of tom foolery.

The blindfold represents objectivity... objectivity and retribution are not mutually exclusive terms - nor is my statement inaccurate nor make yours more relative. but you can further explain to me (use 'mete' again please, because that was wicked awesome) how your use of 'blind justice' is relative to your stance against the death penalty.

What separates that penalty, specifically, from other forms of punishment aside from the severity in relation to the crimes they are intended to apply to.

again, use 'mete'... because fuck you.

[Rallorick]

As for the little girl analogy, it was obvious hyperbole to make a point: that the line where a person goes from "useful" to "useless" is subjective at best.

I think you actually mean 'subjective at worst', because honestly, it would be 'appropriate at best'... right?

I mean 'at best'.

You choose your words very poorly for a fancy pants lawyer.

[Tisket]

Did you just call someone a "fancypants"?

Wow, breaking out the big guns there.

[Rallorick]

I call it, as I see it, madam.... AS I SEE IT!


and I also like to use commas in inappropriate, places.

[Jarvan]

Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal on this board who's in favor of blowing up things, let alone blowing up things with people in them. Those people are extremists. Don't you hate it when people lament the Tea Partiers who bring assault rifles to rallies as the same? And now you suggest that liberals are a-okay with blowing up buildings in the name of civil disobedience?

The hypocrisy which comes from you on a regular basis is astonishing.

And yet people on these boards lump the right all into a group as extremists all the time.

But yet, I still stand by my statement, if someone thinks it's morally wrong to kill someone for killing someone, but thinks it's morally ok to kill people for their cause, what does that make them?

And yes, no one here on these boards thinks it's ok to blow up buildings.. as far as we know. That doesn't mean that there isn't any.

As for the tea party, the only picture I ever saw of a person at a tea party protest sporting an "assault weapon" was a black man. Explain that one.

[Tgo01]

the only picture I ever saw of a person at a tea party protest sporting an "assault weapon" was a black man.

OMG! How many people did he rob?!

[Rallorick]

As for the tea party, the only picture I ever saw of a person at a tea party protest sporting an "assault weapon" was a black man. Explain that one.

you mean his penis, right?

[Rallorick]

OMG! How many people did he rob?!

mine was better...

[Tgo01]

mine was better...

Agreed :(

[Warriorbird]

You still would be! (For the most part.) I also want to point out that the police already don't prosecute every ticky-tack crime they have knowledge of. Around these parts, every police cruiser has an always-on radar thing, but the information it gives doesn't compel them to ticket everyone going 41 in a 40.

And even if they did, think of what else the system gives us. Think about rape: no more he-said she-said, only the-incontrovertible-video-evidence says. No more phony rape allegations going all the way to trial, and further. No more actual rape victims having to live in fear and silence. Think about the tens of thousands of people who vanish every year in America. Think about all the shallow, lonely graves where mothers can never shed tears.

A pervert with a badge watching you jerk off seems a small price to pay.I feel that this would only be an apt comparison if I had insisted abuse would not exist, but I have repeatedly stipulated that it would. My point is merely that the abuse that exists now has far more violent and terrifying consequences, but everyone is okay with that (in the sense of not resisting universal arming of police). I mean, we (you, me, and Parkbandit) even let the Rodney King cops go.

The routine and frequent abuse of things created by that Republican fellow you like and Obama are really pretty staggering. It makes universal surveillance even more frightening a scenario.

[TheEschaton]

if your law degree somehow lernt you that retribution is somehow only secondary in justice... yeah, I'd get my money back... but that, too, would be retribution in your favor, so don't try that shit in court - I hear from someone on good authority that they don't put up with that sort of tom foolery.

The blindfold represents objectivity... objectivity and retribution are not mutually exclusive terms - nor is my statement inaccurate nor make yours more relative. but you can further explain to me (use 'mete' again please, because that was wicked awesome) how your use of 'blind justice' is relative to your stance against the death penalty.

What separates that penalty, specifically, from other forms of punishment aside from the severity in relation to the crimes they are intended to apply to.

again, use 'mete'... because fuck you.

To an extent, retribution being only secondary in justice is an opinion, just like any theory of punishment. That being said, retribution in practice is secondary to other punishment theories in every broad application of justice regularly used. Except capital punishment. There's a reason we're the only country in the West that practices capital punishment, and why its widespread in such places like Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East, China, Singapore, etc.

Also, using "retribution" to refer to the restitution of funds is broadening the definition to fit your needs. In the legal world, retribution means no such thing.

You make a specious argument that "retribution" (as "revenge," or "morally righteous punishment" which is how I'm defining it) can be objective, except it isn't an argument, you claim it just is. I've laid down the gauntlet: when is revenge objectively moral and righteous? The only example I can think of is Biblical, with the law of Moses "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," except the Christian morality which supposedly runs this country, according to the right wing, suggests that Jesus's "Turn the other cheek" motif replaced the old law with the new. Not to mention that isn't objective unless you actually believe in God. To argue that revenge is objectively good, you'd have to argue that 1) morality is objective, and 2) revenge is moral. I'd like to see that argument, since the very nature of having defenses against murder suggest that murder is not a morally absolute subject at all.

[TheEschaton]

But yet, I still stand by my statement, if someone thinks it's morally wrong to kill someone for killing someone, but thinks it's morally ok to kill people for their cause, what does that make them?



If it makes you feel better, I don't think it's morally okay to kill people for any of my causes.

[Rallorick]

no.. I'm using retribution as the common definition of the term, which is general in a sense of 'making one whole', and that may be either in form of punishment or compensation for damage, etc. I believe you are the one using the term selectively by narrowly defining it as 'revenge'.

As for what is moral and righteous - these are meaningless subjective opinions, which is just pointless baggage that you are choosing to attach to the action.

murder is not a morally absolute subject? While I agree with this - it does appear you are narrowly picking and choosing how you define murder, which entails the unlawful taking of life.

[Rallorick]

Even to apply your term of vengence...

Isn't life imprisonment without the possiblity of release also revenge? If you're dealing with someone who has committed a crime so extreme that they can never be seen as rehabilitated... isn't any act of justice is nothing more than revenge?

By your hyperbole approach, should we just let him go? I vote for this... and I also vote we let him live next door to you. I would imagine you might change your opinion on the subject of revenge based punishments to deal with criminals that have no hope to be corrected.

[TheEschaton]

Life imprisonment without the possibility of release is incapacitation. It prevents a criminal from committing his crime again, at least in theory.

Incapacitation != revenge. Incapacitation has a rationale behind it, namely, public safety. It is not retribution, in the legal sense.

Terms are often narrowly defined in the law so people don't take them to mean multiple things. Retribution has never meant "making one whole" in the legal world (in fact, that would more closely viewed as restoration or maybe restitution), and I brought up these theories of punishment in a legal context. You are simply broadening the definition of a legal term to its colloquial use, and a poor colloquial use at that, in my opinion. I say a poor use because retribution and revenge even in the colloquial have an emotional connotation, and a moral chargedness to it, which is why I brought up the idea of morality, which you'd like to ignore in favor of a holistic definition loosely resembling restoration.

Then, you go on to say by my hyperbole response, I should be willing to let him go, except that this is predicated on the idea that all other punishment but rehabilitation = retribution. Which is silly. There are rational, objective reasons for not letting him go. I do not see a rational, objective reason to kill him, with the caveat that the incapacitation offered by killing him is outweighed by the possible injustice of executing innocent people, and isn't overcome by the possibility of Life Without Parole being less effective at incapacitating him. IN effect, both offer incapacitation, one allows you to reverse it in case of mistake, the other doesn't.

[Delias]

If it makes you feel better, I don't think it's morally okay to kill people for any of my causes.

The sanctity of life is a self-serving fiction. If you don't want to be killed, it makes sense to say "killing people is wrong" and hope to convince your neighbors.

I was thinking that death would be the only sure way to remove a threatening person, but you know... national geographic channel has shown me that Black Dolphin prison is probably a strong candidate for second place.

[Ashliana]

In that capital punishment is a form of justice... and justice is sort of defined as retribution... no shit. How is a prison sentence not also retribution? How is a fine for speeding also not retribution? I'm not trying to be a dick - that just isn't the question. I figured the question was 'is this retribution appropriate?' And I fail to see how it isn't.

Retribution isn't the sole argument behind imprisonment; all of the other criminological arguments that one would make for the death penalty (deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation) apply to imprisonment as well. Obviously, the consequences of the intrinsic flaws in our legal system (the possibility of convicting innocent people) are proportionately higher as the penalty increases--the death penalty being the ultimate, and irrevocable, punishment. The system can correct itself without the death penalty--you can release someone from prison, but can't un-execute someone.

You could also argue the death penalty from the incapacitation perspective, but again, I don't personally feel that the possibility of removing a potential threat (compared to imprisoning them for life) outweighs the possibility of executing innocent people, or applying the death penalty with bias/racism (as is rampant).


It's because the liberal left feels that it is morally wrong to kill someone for any reason other then a reason they are ok with. You know.. Like blowing up places in an act of civil disobedience.

:rofl: You're such an asshat.


if your law degree somehow lernt you that retribution is somehow only secondary in justice... yeah, I'd get my money back... but that, too, would be retribution in your favor, so don't try that shit in court - I hear from someone on good authority that they don't put up with that sort of tom foolery.

TheE is referring to the fact that retribution is the only argument one can rationally make for capital punishment--because all the other arguments fail on their merits. Deterrence? No evidence to support that. Rehabilitation? Not applicable. Utilitarian cost effectiveness vs. life imprisonment? No--it's much more expensive to try executing someone because of the due process they're owed by a government fairly trying to take their lives. Retribution is rarely considered a primary motivation for the legal system in general--allowing people to get petty revenge doesn't serve society's interests nearly as much as the general deterrent that the system supposedly provides. You aren't required to agree with that sentiment, but it is the most common.

Yes, any punishment could be viewed as having a retributive element for the victim, but the purpose of the criminal justice system is to serve society's interests, not just victims' interests.

[Tgo01]

IN effect, both offer incapacitation, one allows you to reverse it in case of mistake, the other doesn't.

You can't reverse spending 20 years in jail.

[Ashliana]

You can't reverse spending 20 years in jail.

You can reverse imprisonment a lot more easily than you can un-execute someone. By making the decision to ever punish anyone, ever, for anything, you accept the possibility of falsely accusing and convicting people. You can't undo something as final as capital punishment, and it's been shown that the application of the death penalty ends up being racist, sexist, arbitrary, expensive, and ultimately doesn't achieve any stated goal better than life imprisonment.

[Methais]

Life imprisonment without the possibility of release is incapacitation. It prevents a criminal from committing his crime again, at least in theory.

I think the main problem with this is that it would cost taxpayers $40-50k a year to keep him incapacitated.

[Methais]

You can reverse imprisonment a lot more easily than you can un-execute someone. By making the decision to ever punish anyone, ever, for anything, you accept the possibility of falsely accusing and convicting people. You can't undo something as final as capital punishment, and it's been shown that the application of the death penalty ends up being racist, sexist, arbitrary, expensive, and ultimately doesn't achieve any stated goal better than life imprisonment.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Holmes is guilty.


the death penalty ends up being racist, sexist, arbitrary, expensive,

Please elaborate on how the death penalty is racist or sexist. I'd love to hear this.

PS: In case you weren't aware, James Holmes is white. And by white, I mean white white. He's not even white hispanic like that guy that blew Trayvon away.

[Ashliana]

I think the main problem with this is that it would cost taxpayers $40-50k a year to keep him incapacitated.

It costs several times more to try to execute someone than it does to imprison them for the rest of their lives, due to the mandatory due process reviews required by a fair society that is depriving someone of their life. And due to the complex nature of the appeals process, only 1 in 3 people successfully convicted under capital charges is ever executed. Arguing the financial cost doesn't favor the death penalty.

[Methais]

It costs several times more to try to execute someone than it does to imprison them for the rest of their lives, due to the mandatory due process reviews required by a fair society that is depriving someone of their life. And due to the complex nature of the appeals process, only 1 in 3 people successfully convicted under capital charges is ever executed. Arguing the financial cost doesn't favor the death penalty.

In clear cut cases like this one, they should just put a bullet in his face and be done with it. It's not like there's a chance he'd end up being innocent.

I'd say let's send these people to Mexico, but they'll just come back the next day.

[Ashliana]

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Holmes is guilty.

Please elaborate on how the death penalty is racist or sexist. I'd love to hear this.

PS: In case you weren't aware, James Holmes is white. And by white, I mean white white. He's not even white hispanic like that guy that blew Trayvon away.

The fact that the application of the death penalty is flawed isn't really in question--it's usually not due to overt racism/etc by any specific actor, but due to the societal differences between classes of people; those who tend to be in the lower classes are less able to afford good legal representation, etc. It's a complicated issue, and a major one in criminology. I could (and did, at university) write hundreds of pages on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/opinion/09dow.html?_r=0

[Tgo01]

You can reverse imprisonment a lot more easily than you can un-execute someone.

What technology are you referring to that undoes someone spending 20, 30 or even 40+ years in prison?


and it's been shown that the application of the death penalty ends up being racist, sexist

Of course.

[Methais]

There are plenty of white people that are lower class and can't afford a good lawyer too.

I'm failing to see your point, and a NYT opinion piece doesn't exactly do much for that.


They found that black defendants were 1.7 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants and that murderers of white victims were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks.

I like how they didn't mention that white people kill white people. It must be only minorities killing white people and getting the death penalty for it.

[Ashliana]

What technology are you referring to that undoes someone spending 20, 30 or even 40+ years in prison?


Obviously, you can't unwind the gears of time and undo the act of punishing someone for anything. I already addressed this; the chance of punishing an innocent person is taken, and accepted, by the act of ever punishing anyone. While you can't give someone years of their life back, you can compensate them in some way--whereas there's absolutely nothing you can do to compensate a corpse for their false punishment.


Of course. The typical conservative denial that "specious things like racism exist" doesn't hold water here. There is a mountain of data on the subject. If you're really interested, look into it.


There are plenty of white people that are lower class and can't afford a good lawyer too.

I'm failing to see your point, and a NYT opinion piece doesn't exactly do much for that.

I like how they didn't mention that white people kill white people. It must be only minorities killing white people and getting the death penalty for it.

That "NYT opinion piece" refers to specific court decisions. If you're really interested, and really haven't arbitrarily made up your mind--that application of the death penalty isn't biased--that case (McCleskey v. Kemp, Iowa University's Baldus' studies, and associated reporting) would be a good place for you to start. The notion that it is biased isn't really questioned--what we should actually do about it is the focus of most criminologists.

[Tgo01]

I already addressed this; the chance of punishing an innocent person is taken, and accepted, by the act of ever punishing anyone.

Exactly. Hey wait, shouldn't that be my argument?


The typical conservative denial that "specious things like racism exist" doesn't hold water here. There is a mountain of data on the subject. If you're really interested, look into it.

Of course there is. And it's also sexist too. The sexist parts refers to more men being put to death than women, right?

[Ashliana]

Exactly. Hey wait, shouldn't that be my argument?

If you oppose the death penalty because of the irrevocable nature of its punishment, combined with the likelihood that innocent people may be executed, then.. Yes?


Of course there is. And it's also sexist too. The sexist parts refers to more men being put to death than women, right?

No, men commit more murders, period. However, "for some reason," society feels differently about trying to execute women, and juries tend to feel differently about executing women. You could attribute it to benevolent sexism, or any one of a half-dozen other arguments.

In any case, you and Methais might also want to read: http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/03/put-to-death-for-being-black-new-hope-against-judicial-system-bias/

I'm not going to spend an hour laying out a well-researched, sourced argument that fits a neoconservative's arbitrary list of acceptable sources, only to have you and he predictably ignore everything I say, seize upon whatever perceived weakness you immediately jump to, and refuse to actually read anything--especially over a concept that's taken as a given in contemporary criminology.

[Methais]

What technology are you referring to that undoes someone spending 20, 30 or even 40+ years in prison?

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080602215904/bttf/images/6/64/Flux-Capacitor.jpg

[Tgo01]

If you oppose the death penalty because of the irrevocable nature of its punishment, combined with the likelihood that innocent people may be executed, then.. Yes?

We have already established you can't undo any punishments already received and we have also established that we have to accept the fact that sometimes innocent people are punished. Sounds like we agree then. That was easy.

[Ashliana]

We have already established you can't undo any punishments already received and we have also established that we have to accept the fact that sometimes innocent people are punished. Sounds like we agree then. That was easy.

Actually, what I said was "you can compensate people who are wrongly imprisoned, but you can't compensate a corpse." You're either being intellectually dishonest, or you're retarded. (Perhaps both).

[Tgo01]

Actually, what I said was "you can compensate people who are wrongly imprisoned, but you can't compensate a corpse." You're either being intellectually dishonest, or you're retarded. (Perhaps both).

How do you compensate someone for ruining their life? "Here's some money, sorry for that"?

[Ashliana]

How do you compensate someone for ruining their life? "Here's some money, sorry for that"?

Look, this isn't a complicated point. Do you really reject the notion that it's possible to compensate someone AT ALL for any time served? What if a person serves 30 minutes in jail wrongly and is compensated a million dollars? If your answer is "yes, that's fair compensation," then you acknowledge that compensation IS possible, and it's only a matter of working out the right NUMBERS.

You may also say "no amount of money is worth 40 years." That can also be true. However, like I said, it is NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPENSATE A CORPSE. That is just one of MANY reasons why capital punishment makes no sense, and why imprisonment--while imperfect--is clearly a better option than execution.

[Delias]

Look, this isn't a complicated point. Do you really reject the notion that it's possible to compensate someone AT ALL for any time served? What if a person serves 30 minutes in jail wrongly and is compensated a million dollars? If your answer is "yes, that's fair compensation," then you acknowledge that compensation IS possible, and it's only a matter of working out the right NUMBERS.

You may also say "no amount of money is worth 40 years." That's can also true. However, like I said, it is NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPENSATE A CORPSE. That is just one of MANY reasons why capital punishment makes no sense, and why imprisonment--while imperfect--is clearly a better option than execution.

You're talking about a case where a mistake can be made. Are you suggesting that someone who looks exactly like james holmes was caught besides james holmes's car loaded with weapons and someone else went out of their way to booby-trap his apartment in some sort of elaborate setup?

No, there is no mistake that can be made here. The fucker is guilty, game over. Take him out behind the chemical shed and shoot him.

[AnticorRifling]

Needs more random caps lock rage.

[Delias]

Needs more random caps lock rage.

I gotta have more caps lock.

[Ashliana]

You're talking about a case where a mistake can be made. Are you suggesting that someone who looks exactly like james holmes was caught besides james holmes's car loaded with weapons and someone else went out of their way to booby-trap his apartment in some sort of elaborate setup?

No, there is no mistake that can be made here. The fucker is guilty, game over. Take him out behind the chemical shed and shoot him.

I'm talking about capital punishment in general, and why it makes no sense. The possibility of falsely executing an innocent is only one among a dozen reasons (laid out in previous pages) why capital punishment is a bad alternative to life imprisonment. My stance is "life imprisonment is always preferable," even in the case of James Holmes.

[Tgo01]

You may also say "no amount of money is worth 40 years." That can also be true.

I'm confused why you keep arguing this point then. If someone went to jail at the age of 16 and got out at the age of 60 then their life is completely ruined. The only life they have really known is prison, they will most likely never have a family, anyone they knew before going to jail is either dead or they won't even know this person anymore or want to know them.

But hey! We "compensated" them therefore everything is okay!