Child killer's delayed execution means agony for family

[AllieBaba]

It's not evil to execute murderers. It's a necessity, just as war is a necessity. And it's not the fault of the good that there are wars. If the good refuse to fight, or if they refuse to punish their killers, they do nothing except provide safety to people who will murder, and who will wage war indiscriminately.

Murder and execution are two different things. Murder is not just killing. It's illegal killing. And it isn't illegal to execute.

That's not to say there aren't some who disguise murder as executions..but that's a different topic, and it isn't something that is rampant in the US at this time.

 

[watermark]

It's not evil to execute murderers. It's a necessity, just as war is a necessity. And it's not the fault of the good that there are wars. If the good refuse to fight, or if they refuse to punish their killers, they do nothing except provide safety to people who will murder, and who will wage war indiscriminately.

Murder and execution are two different things. Murder is not just killing. It's illegal killing. And it isn't illegal to execute.

That's not to say there aren't some who disguise murder as executions..but that's a different topic, and it isn't something that is rampant in the US at this time.

No, actually, murder is killing with malice and intent. There are forms of illegal killing that aren't necessarilly murder...

 

[AllieBaba]

My recollection of the definition of murder was that it is the illegal killing of a human being.

The legal term may be something else.

 

[watermark]

My recollection of the definition of murder was that it is the illegal killing of a human being.

The legal term may be something else.

Legally, a murder is the killing of another person with malice and intent. Manslaughter is killing without malice. If a drunk driver kills someone, it's not murder, it's negligent homicide. Murder is a very special subset of homicides.

I'm a trainin lawyer, I am.

 

[Gem]

watermark wrote:

The criminal is not allowed to do much in prison. I'm sure, if I were murdered, it really wouldn't matter to me all that I couldn't do (nihilist joke). The only real reason for locking my murderer up would be so that he couldn't hurt anyone else... beyond that... I wouldn't really care.

So since you wouldn't care what happened to your murderer...and I would definitely want a violent, premeditating murderer removed from society...perhaps we should be democratic and leave it up to a vote, or a personal decision you make - like becoming an organ donor. When you go to renew your driver's license you will have to answer an additional question on the little touch screen:

1) Do you want to register to vote?
2) Do you want to be listed as an organ donor?
3) If you are killed, and the type of murder carries the option of the death penalty, do you want your murderer to be given the death penalty or do you want him/her locked up so they can't anyone else?

This way...the murderer would at least have a chance...maybe he'd get lucky enough to murder someone who didn't care what happened to him?

 

[AllieBaba]

All the same, execution is not murder. Malice is absent.

 

[pegwinn]

So, to fight evil, we must be evil?

All it is is a continuation of the cycle of violence. We could stop it by ending the violence. Killing brutalizes society and makes murder more common.

I don't think it makes us evil. Think of it as putting down a rabid animal.

Legally, a murder is the killing of another person with malice and intent. Manslaughter is killing without malice. If a drunk driver kills someone, it's not murder, it's negligent homicide. Murder is a very special subset of homicides.

I'm a trainin lawyer, I am.

I think that if you cause the death of someone during the commission of any crime, you should die. So, the drunk who slaps around the ol lady and accidentally kills her..... deserves to die. Same with someone speeding to avoid being late and hits a kid on a bicycle. Same as identity theft if the victim commits suicide.....

The problem is that due to the sheer number of years on death row there is no deterrent value in teh DP. Instead, we should move DP appeals to the head of the line and get the thing resolved. Once the final appeal is exhausted, it's lights out baby.

 

[watermark]

I don't think it makes us evil. Think of it as putting down a rabid animal.



I think that if you cause the death of someone during the commission of any crime, you should die. So, the drunk who slaps around the ol lady and accidentally kills her..... deserves to die. Same with someone speeding to avoid being late and hits a kid on a bicycle. Same as identity theft if the victim commits suicide.....

The problem is that due to the sheer number of years on death row there is no deterrent value in teh DP. Instead, we should move DP appeals to the head of the line and get the thing resolved. Once the final appeal is exhausted, it's lights out baby.

Well, then you'd be an idiot. We don't execute people who had no intent to harm anyone, especially with misdemeanors that were barely even related to the homicide. That's common sense, and it would obviously have no deterrent effect, because it wasn't a rational choice.

 

[watermark]

All the same, execution is not murder. Malice is absent.

Yes, I never said execution was murder.

 

[pegwinn]

Well, then you'd be an idiot. And you would be a fucking imbecile. Where did I call you names or otherwise do anything but civil discussion? Listen up numnuts, a really good personal rule is to not type anything you would not say to someone face to face.
We don't execute people who had no intent to harm anyone, especially with misdemeanors that were barely even related to the homicide. That's common sense, and it would obviously have no deterrent effect, because it wasn't a rational choice. Bullshit. How the hell do you pretend to know that?

There. A fine example of tit for tat. You have two easy options.

First: Continue the insulting behavior and I will oblige by matching and exceeding you.

Second: Apply rational thought and manners. I will reciprocate.

 

[watermark]

There. A fine example of tit for tat. You have two easy options.

First: Continue the insulting behavior and I will oblige by matching and exceeding you.

Second: Apply rational thought and manners. I will reciprocate.

Do you really think that the law should make no difference between those with intent and those with lesser degrees of culpability? I mean, what you are asking here, is for a complete abandonment of hundreds and hundreds of years of legal thought, that has been working perfectly fine.

Now you advocate the execution of thousands of individuals based on dubious evidence that you think it will deter people slightly from doing slight misdemeanor crimes.

I mean, why only execute them in the remote possibility that it happens to cause a death? Why not execute anyone for doing anything at all that could lead to a death?

A person walks out on the highway whenever your driving 65 - that's perfectly fine. A person walks out on the highway whenever your driving 66 - ZOMG WE HAVE TO EXECUTE?! Do you see the irrationality of the extremely broad test you're applying? It's the reason mandatory minimums don't work and result in so many miscarriages of justice, and applying a mandatory minimum of death has been declared unconstitutional in any case.

There are 3 different levels of culpability - intent, recklessness, and negligence. Doesn't that make sense, that we don't punish anything but "intent" with the death penalty, and even then it's only applied in levels of special heinousness? It has made sense for a long time. Just think about this stuff before you say it.

 

[watermark]

And anyway, if a man is beating up his wife, and his wife dies, I really don't know of a way that wouldn't be prosecuted as murder. You used the two easiest situations you could think of. However, everythings not that simple. Right now, the judges, and the jury, seems to think that even the sentences given out for manslaughter are just. Who do you think you are, sitting at your computer screen, to think that you know more than the people who have actually deliberated on it?

 

[pegwinn]

Do you really think that the law should make no difference between those with intent and those with lesser degrees of culpability? If an innocent dies while you are committing a crime, then yes, your intent isn't relevant. I mean, what you are asking here, is for a complete abandonment of hundreds and hundreds of years of legal thought, that has been working perfectly fine. I don't agree that it works fine. Especially not from the victims perspective. For ages it was fine to beat the wife on the courthouse steps. Times and attitudes change.

Now you advocate the execution of thousands of individuals based on dubious evidence that you think it will deter people slightly from doing slight misdemeanor crimes. Actually IIRC I mentioned speeding up the appeals process.

I mean, why only execute them in the remote possibility that it happens to cause a death? Why not execute anyone for doing anything at all that could lead to a death? If it could lead to a death there is a chance to stop it. How remote is it that drunk drivers kill people?

A person walks out on the highway whenever your driving 65 - that's perfectly fine. A person walks out on the highway whenever your driving 66 - ZOMG WE HAVE TO EXECUTE?! Do you see the irrationality of the extremely broad test you're applying? It's the reason mandatory minimums don't work and result in so many miscarriages of justice, and applying a mandatory minimum of death has been declared unconstitutional in any case. You are discussing deterrent values. I am not worried about deterrent so much as I am about killing the killer so they cannot kill again. So, if you are a law abiding citizen and accidentally kill someone..... it is understood that you did nothing wrong and the death was a tragic accident. If you are a criminal and during the commission of a crime you killed someone, you deserve to die. Had you chosen not to commit the crime that person likely would still be alive.

There are 3 different levels of culpability - intent, recklessness, and negligence. Doesn't that make sense, that we don't punish anything but "intent" with the death penalty, and even then it's only applied in levels of special heinousness? It has made sense for a long time. Just think about this stuff before you say it.Actually I have thought long and hard about it. Your three standards do not make sense, are overly lax, and allow killers to not suffer the fate of thier victims.

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a mom whose kid was killed by a drunk? The drunk sobers up and drives some more after a bit of jail...... maybe. The kid is dead forever and Moms life is ruined. My philosophy for criminals is that the non-violent should not be locked up unless they cause death. Violence should be locked up so long that they are no longer a physical threat when they get out. In all cases the criminal can do something to make it right. Except for killing. There is no restitution possible for killing another.

And anyway, if a man is beating up his wife, and his wife dies, I really don't know of a way that wouldn't be prosecuted as murder. You used the two easiest situations you could think of. However, everythings not that simple. Right now, the judges, and the jury, seems to think that even the sentences given out for manslaughter are just. Who do you think you are, sitting at your computer screen, to think that you know more than the people who have actually deliberated on it?

This will answer your question right here on USMB in the blogs section. I tried to link it but it wouldn't come up. Maybe if you go directly to it. IF that won't work, then read the article posted at my personal blog.Jury Duty.

 

[watermark]

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a mom whose kid was killed by a drunk? The drunk sobers up and drives some more after a bit of jail...... maybe. The kid is dead forever and Moms life is ruined. My philosophy for criminals is that the non-violent should not be locked up unless they cause death. Violence should be locked up so long that they are no longer a physical threat when they get out. In all cases the criminal can do something to make it right. Except for killing. There is no restitution possible for killing another.



This will answer your question right here on USMB in the blogs section. I tried to link it but it wouldn't come up. Maybe if you go directly to it. IF that won't work, then read the article posted at my personal blog.Jury Duty.

Pegwinn, death is just far too harsh.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, you said killing people to teach people killing people is wrong doesn't make sense.

But of course it does. And death is not too harsh a sentence for somebody who has destroyed innocent lives via brutal murder.

 

[pegwinn]

... Who do you think you are, sitting at your computer screen, to think that you know more than the people who have actually deliberated on it?

I will assume you read my blog entry and now have the answer to your question? Just in case you didn't get around to it, here tis right here on USMB.

Pegwinn, death is just far too harsh.

Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

We are shaped by our experiences I suppose. I've seen dead bodies before the mortician pretties em up. I have also tried to offer support to family members who lost a child to a drunk. So far as I am concerned if you cause a death during a crime, you should die. The way to avoid such a draconian measure is to not commit the crime that leads to someones death.

 

[bennylava]

If someone molested or killed my child I know I would personally want to see them dead, if not kill them myself. At the same time, I think that after a while the desire to see them die might diminish. I think a lifetime in jail is more of a punishment than death.
You can't bring the murdered person back, and I highly doubt that seeing the killer executed is going to take away any amount of pain or grief that this family is feeling.

I am against the death penalty because I think that prison is more of a punishment than death. If you kill someone, you are only punishing their families. When they're dead, they're dead. Their suffering is over. Even if you are a Christian, you have to believe that if they asked for forgiveness before they died they will go to heaven. Wow, that's a harsh punishment.

I also think that there are too many cases where innocent people are put to death.

In addition, the death penalty is given way out of proportion to ethnic minorities, and I think that is wrong. I would rather see the elimination of the death penalty than to think that we're letting white murderers have life in prison but minorities need to die.

And yes there is a ton of research and statistics out there to back that up.

It's also cheaper to put someone in prison for life than it is to have them on death row, to keep going through the appeals process and to have stays granted over and over. And that is a proven fact too.

I think that to treat inhuman people inhumanely is well...inhuman.

 

[pegwinn]

If someone molested or killed my child I know I would personally want to see them dead, if not kill them myself. At the same time, I think that after a while the desire to see them die might diminish. I think a lifetime in jail is more of a punishment than death.
You can't bring the murdered person back, and I highly doubt that seeing the killer executed is going to take away any amount of pain or grief that this family is feeling.

I am against the death penalty because I think that prison is more of a punishment than death. If you kill someone, you are only punishing their families. When they're dead, they're dead. Their suffering is over. Even if you are a Christian, you have to believe that if they asked for forgiveness before they died they will go to heaven. Wow, that's a harsh punishment.

I also think that there are too many cases where innocent people are put to death.

In addition, the death penalty is given way out of proportion to ethnic minorities, and I think that is wrong. I would rather see the elimination of the death penalty than to think that we're letting white murderers have life in prison but minorities need to die.

And yes there is a ton of research and statistics out there to back that up.

It's also cheaper to put someone in prison for life than it is to have them on death row, to keep going through the appeals process and to have stays granted over and over. And that is a proven fact too.

I think that to treat inhuman people inhumanely is well...inhuman.

I would change my views on the DP if the following happened.

First: A life sentence has to mean until death do you leave unless proof comes up to exonerate you. Absolutley no parole for any reason.

Second: The Prisons themselves need to be "retroed" (is that a word?) back to the 1860's. Meaning that you are on a chain gang and you work or you don't eat except for subsistence level. No TV, No Internet, Very limited contact with the outside world. There is no over crowding. You get a bunk in an open bay with bars on the windows and doors. If the prison needs expanding, you get to build it under the guards supervision.

Third: No wasting money on rehabilitation or social skills etc. You are in for life without parole and if you cannot adapt to that, you will die when bubba finds out you are holding back cigarettes on him. Prison = Punishment.

Fourth: If you get violent with staff (guards, medical people etc) you go to solitary for years, not days.

Finally: You are given a pill that will kill you. You are welcome to take it anytime the first four are unbearable. Of course if you hold out on Bubba, he might make you take it.....

I oppose incarceration for non-violent criminals. They are worthy of rehabilitation provided they pay restitution. Violent crimes short of LifeWOP/Death get measured in decades. When released I don't want them to be physically capable of repeating the offense.

 

[AllieBaba]

Define non-violent? Property crimes? Sexual crimes? (I'm not suggesting, just asking).

 

[bennylava]

Maybe there could be different kinds of life sentences. For people who right now would be eligible for the death penalty, instead they get a much harsher experience with limited entertainment, like being able to read books but no TV or internet. Food should be nutritious but not great, kind of like in the dorms at a college.
It would sort of be a compromise between being in regular fed prison and being in solitary confinement. I do think that some people actually enjoy solitary to some extent, although it is a harsh punishment for others. It just depends on the person.

I still maintain that life is prison is worse than either oblivion or heaven.