The Law 'D.C. Sniper' to be executed today

[rdhopkins2]

I heard reports the sniper is permanently paralysed.

As for pain free execution lethal injection, suggest you google the process.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Lock him up for life and put him under intensive investigation, try and learn something about what makes someone like that tick. What a case study that would be, youd get all sorts of valuable psychological insight.

So that what? The next time a homicidal maniac is apprehended we can say that he/she is the same? What good will it do to know how they 'tick'
They can't be convicted or sentenced according to a hunch, only on the facts presented, tested and proven.

I used to be all gung ho for the death penalty, but it's funny how as you get older, you think more and you see things differently.

I work in a place where there are currently a number of people, where there is absolutely not a shadow of a doubt as to their crimes/acts, that I would think that the death penalty would be appropriate for. I've never considered it to be a deterent, I just see it as punishment plain and simple.

There are 2 problems I have with the death penalty.

No matter how miniscule the likelihood may be, what if an innocent person was executed? Once you've fried them, injected them, hung them or shot them it's too late to say, 'Oops, sorry about the Chief'.

Under what circumstances would the death penalty be asked for? Who decides and are those parameters rigid or are they fluid?

There used to be a football competition called the VFL. One day in the 80s they introduced a thing called the video camera to catch behind the play acts of thuggery. IIRC when it was introduced we the public were assured that it would only be used to capture behind the play king hits etc.
Where are we with it now?

Boundaries are pushed and tested all the time. If the death penalty were to be introduced only for certain crimes and there had to be a number of boxes ticked before the death penalty was sought, where, over time, could we end up?

Personally I think that Natural Life with no possibility of parole would be a much worse punishment. It's not as absolute but would be worse nonetheless. The only problem I see then is that it could be upto $80,000 per year for 30, 40 or 50 years.

 

[DeanoT]

So that what? The next time a homicidal maniac is apprehended we can say that he/she is the same? What good will it do to know how they 'tick'
They can't be convicted or sentenced according to a hunch, only on the facts presented, tested and proven.

I used to be all gung ho for the death penalty, but it's funny how as you get older, you think more and you see things differently.

I work in a place where there are currently a number of people, where there is absolutely not a shadow of a doubt as to their crimes/acts, that I would think that the death penalty would be appropriate for. I've never considered it to be a deterent, I just see it as punishment plain and simple.
There are 2 problems I have with the death penalty.

No matter how miniscule the likelihood may be, what if an innocent person was executed? Once you've fried them, injected them, hung them or shot them it's too late to say, 'Oops, sorry about the Chief'.

Under what circumstances would the death penalty be asked for? Who decides and are those parameters rigid or are they fluid?

There used to be a football competition called the VFL. One day in the 80s they introduced a thing called the video camera to catch behind the play acts of thuggery. IIRC when it was introduced we the public were assured that it would only be used to capture behind the play king hits etc.
Where are we with it now?

Boundaries are pushed and tested all the time. If the death penalty were to be introduced only for certain crimes and there had to be a number of boxes ticked before the death penalty was sought, where, over time, could we end up?

Personally I think that Natural Life with no possibility of parole would be a much worse punishment. It's not as absolute but would be worse nonetheless. The only problem I see then is that it could be upto $80,000 per year for 30, 40 or 50 years.

I take it you work at HM Barwon Prison.

I agree entirely that it is pointless analysing serial killers to understand "what makes them tick". Unless we get to a pre-crime "minority report" situation (lets hope not) then it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever. It will just be an interesting criminal profiling experiment. And why anyone would think that a serial killer would be willing to co-operate fully and truthfully in such an experiment, is totally beyond my comprehension.

Also, I agree wholeheartedly with your point that the fact capital punishment does not deter future crime does not render capital punishment invalid. The logical extention of those who put forward this argument is that prison also does not deter criminals, therefore prison is pointless too.

In my opinion, courts should consider the following factors when sentencing for serious crimes, in order of priority:

1. Appropriate punishment for the crime
2. Protection of the public against the risk of a repeat attack by the offender
3. Consideration of the impact of the crime on the victim
4. Rehabilitation considerations
5. Future deterrence
6. Cost considerations

For the most serious crimes (DC Sniper, Tim McVeigh, Martin Bryant), you don't even need to go past step 1.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

That's ****ing sad

 

[Magnum]

The fact that a legal system can be imperfect is an argument in itself. You can't design a perfect legal system, so there is always a chance that ut will convict and kill innocent people.

And let guilty people off...

What's worse? Executing an innocent person, or letting a person guilty of a henious crime (who would otherwise be executed) walk free?

I say that argument is moot as it's a zero-sum excersise.

Also, hypothetically, if there were a 100% accurate system, what would be your position then? (this is not just directed to you BP, but to anyone)

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

And let guilty people off...

What's worse? Executing an innocent person, or letting a person guilty of a henious crime (who would otherwise be executed) walk free?

I say that argument is moot as it's a zero-sum excersise.

Also, hypothetically, if there were a 100% accurate system, what would be your position then? (this is not just directed to you BP, but to anyone)

Absolutely executing an innocent person. I can't believe you'd even need to ask that. What if it was your son or daughter or mother or father who was wrongly convicted?

If there was a 100% accurate system I would be all for it and for quite a number of offences too.

Again though, is there a set list of offences that would carry the death penalty?

 

[DeanoT]

Absolutely executing an innocent person. I can't believe you'd even need to ask that. What if it was your son or daughter or mother or father who was wrongly convicted?

If there was a 100% accurate system I would be all for it and for quite a number of offences too.

Again though, is there a set list of offences that would carry the death penalty?

On face value, it appears absurd to compare killing an innocent with letting a murderer be found not guilty. But if the acquitted murderer then kills another person in society, an innocent, then the net result is the same or possibly worse.

I've never understood the argument about needing 100% certainty for capital punishment to be acceptable. Those same people often argue that it is a greater punishment to lock a prisoner up for life. If that is the case, then why do we not need 100% proof to hand out "never to be released sentences".

A jury is required to find a defendent guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The judge issuing the sentence is not required to estimate the likelihood that the jury got it wrong, the judge's job is to allocate an appropriate punishment, since guilt has already been determined.

 

[sherb]

I've never understood the argument about needing 100% certainty for capital punishment to be acceptable. Those same people often argue that it is a greater punishment to lock a prisoner up for life. If that is the case, then why do we not need 100% proof to hand out "never to be released sentences".

Well, I'd suggest one reason would be that if they were subsequently found to be innocent, they could at least be released from prison.

With the death penalty however, it is a bit difficult to bring someone back to life if they had been executed "in error".

 

[Big John]

On face value, it appears absurd to compare killing an innocent with letting a murderer be found not guilty. But if the acquitted murderer then kills another person in society, an innocent, then the net result is the same or possibly worse.

I've never understood the argument about needing 100% certainty for capital punishment to be acceptable. Those same people often argue that it is a greater punishment to lock a prisoner up for life. If that is the case, then why do we not need 100% proof to hand out "never to be released sentences".

A jury is required to find a defendent guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The judge issuing the sentence is not required to estimate the likelihood that the jury got it wrong, the judge's job is to allocate an appropriate punishment, since guilt has already been determined.

Because if you lock someone up for life, and then 20 years down the track discover that you made a mistake you can release them and to a degree correct an error.

Once someone is in the ground you can't dig them back up.

 

[Magnum]

On face value, it appears absurd to compare killing an innocent with letting a murderer be found not guilty. But if the acquitted murderer then kills another person in society, an innocent, then the net result is the same or possibly worse.

Exactly.

Plus the innocent person (or people) killed by the person wrongly let off has effectively been dealt the same card as a innocent person executed by the state.

The net loss/gain is the same, and the fault lies with the state just as it would be executing an innocent person.

 

[Magnum]

Because if you lock someone up for life, and then 20 years down the track discover that you made a mistake you can release them and to a degree correct an error.

And what happens if they are never found innocent? Whats worse then? At least if you're dead, you're dead.

(Mind you I'm siding with a position, just throwing this up for debate)

 

[DeanoT]

Because if you lock someone up for life, and then 20 years down the track discover that you made a mistake you can release them and to a degree correct an error.

Once someone is in the ground you can't dig them back up.

And if they remain in jail for the term of their natural life, while innocent ? If this is supposedly "worse for the prisoner than capital punishment", then an even greater travesty has occurred, according to that argument.

For the record, I don't believe putting a prisoner in jail is worse than capital punishment.

 

[sherb]

And if they remain in jail for the term of their natural life, while innocent ? If this is supposedly "worse for the prisoner than capital punishment", then an even greater travesty has occurred, according to that argument.

Of course in the situation you cite above it is a travesty.

However, I for one was trying to make the point that while someone is still alive, there is at least the chance that the injustice of being wrongly convicted can to some degree be atoned for.

Once they have been executed however, that chance has gone.

 

[Niximus]

And let guilty people off...

What's worse? Executing an innocent person, or letting a person guilty of a henious crime (who would otherwise be executed) walk free?

I say that argument is moot as it's a zero-sum excersise.

Also, hypothetically, if there were a 100% accurate system, what would be your position then? (this is not just directed to you BP, but to anyone)

Strawman argument.

The choice is between life imprisonment and execution not between execution and release.

If you convict an innocent person, imprisonment at least allows them the ability to be freed should further evidence come to hand.

If you don't convict a guilty person then walk free regardless of whether the potential sentence was imprisonment or execution.

 

[Niximus]

On face value, it appears absurd to compare killing an innocent with letting a murderer be found not guilty. But if the acquitted murderer then kills another person in society, an innocent, then the net result is the same or possibly worse.

Again, where are you getting this comparison, if a person is found not guilty they are released, it doesn't matter what the sentence could be if they aren't found guilty in the first place...

Are you saying that when presented with the same evidence, a jury would be more likely to convict if the sentence was execution rather than life imprisonment???

 

[Magnum]

Strawman argument.

The choice is between life imprisonment and execution not between execution and release.

If you convict an innocent person, imprisonment at least allows them the ability to be freed should further evidence come to hand.

If you don't convict a guilty person then walk free regardless of whether the potential sentence was imprisonment or execution.

Fair point (though I don't think the argument is a strawman), and I'd agree in part with you (hence my sitting on the fence position) however,

We know something is fallible (the justice system), yet we choose to punish people regardless.

Restricting 'certain types' of punishments because the system behind it is fallible is rather abitrary. Either we don't punish or we do.

Example. We have a person facing trial for torturing and murdering children. Assuming the worst case and justice system fails - either; a. a guilty person walks free (possibly to kill again), or b. an innocent person is sentanced to Death or c. an innocent person is sentanced to life in prison.

In my opinion:

c. is better if they are later found innocent.
c. is worse if they are never found innocent.

I guess my point was people using the justice system itself as an argument against CP yet I think they should be separately discussed as ALL punishments are based off it regardless.

Forgetting the system behind it, what about the "punishment of death" itself?

Hypothetically assume a future 100% accurate system (we'd have to be what 99.99% accurate now wouldn't we?) What would your position be then? Nobody has answered this.

 

[Niximus]

Fair point (though I don't think the argument is a strawman), and I'd agree in part with you (hence my sitting on the fence position) however,

We know something is fallible (the justice system), yet we choose to punish people regardless.

Restricting 'certain types' of punishments because the system behind it is fallible is rather abitrary. Either we don't punish or we do.

Example. We have a person facing trial for torturing and murdering children. Assuming the worst case and justice system fails - either; a. a guilty person walks free (possibly to kill again), or b. an innocent person is sentanced to Death or c. an innocent person is sentanced to life in prison.

In my opinion:

c. is better if they are later found innocent.
c. is worse if they are never found innocent.

Doubtful. Were you given the choice right now of going to prison forever even without the hope of it ever being overturned or being taken out the back and shot I know you would pick prison.

I guess my point was people using the justice system itself as an argument against CP yet I think they should be separately discussed as ALL punishments are based off it regardless.

Yes but some punishments are able to be overturned and at least partially compensated for in the event of error. Execution isn't one of those.

Forgetting the system behind it, what about the "punishment of death" itself?

Hypothetically assume a future 100% accurate system (we'd have to be what 99.99% accurate now wouldn't we?) What would your position be then? Nobody has answered this.

Still no, as I believe that to forceably take the life of a person who doesn't pose an immediate threat to anyone is not a power than anyone should ever have.

Nobody may have responded to you on this question before because it is irrelevant. It is an improbable hypothetical situation of 100% certainty that cannot exist.

The possibility of even one innocent person being executed by the state is more than enough reason to oppose capital punishment.

 

[Magnum]

Doubtful. Were you given the choice right now of going to prison forever even without the hope of it ever being overturned or being taken out the back and shot I know you would pick prison.

No, I'd take the bullet, and I'm not shitting you. a LIfe in jail for a wrongful conviction is worse than a quick death. Its quite understandable why people commit suicide in there.

Yes but some punishments are able to be overturned and at least partially compensated for in the event of error. Execution isn't one of those.

Agreed.

Still no, as I believe that to forceably take the life of a person who doesn't pose an immediate threat to anyone is not a power than anyone should ever have.

But

As I said, I'm not sure if I can possibly defend not executing the absolute worst of us human beings considering the utter contempt we treat everything NOT human. What's so special about us humans that warrant being 'above' death, when the dinner you ate last night probably contained a creature far more deserving of life on this planet? It did nothing, yet we execute it for no crime other than it tasting good.

Nobody may have responded to you on this question before because it is irrelevant. It is an improbable hypothetical situation of 100% certainty that cannot exist.

Perhaps not now, but you reckon in 100 years we wont be able to at least have some kind of memory reading technology, combined with DNA evidence, combined with detection of lies, video surveillance etc.

And what about ones that we are 100% on? Admission of guilt, caught on camera/red handed, I’m talking 100 open and shut guilty. Of heinous crimes. Martyn Bryant style guilty. We STILL can’t be confident enough?

That’s just not logical. I believe there ARE cases of 100% guilt. I find its like applying a broad brush approach to something that should be case by case.

The possibility of even one innocent person being executed by the state is more than enough reason to oppose capital punishment.

A fair comment.

But then again, innocent people get f*cked over all the time. Whether it being hit by a car, or a random case of bad luck or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I know that's not "justification", but just my perspective of this big hairy universe we live in.

Blindly dismissing all possible cases of it because of the remotest of remote chances, I kind of seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me, so to speak. That just seems so black and white. Surely nowdays with the checks and balances in cases prove things within a shadow of a doubt, especially in serious cases such as what would be considered a death penalty? Maybe for extra seriousness, the judge/jury can be convicted if the decision is later found to be incorrect?

But yeah I said before, I'm on the fence. I'm not at all against the punishement 'morally or ethically', but you're right if I had to object it would be the possibility of wrong conviction.

I find this interesting discussion personally.

 

[Niximus]

No, I'd take the bullet, and I'm not shitting you. a LIfe in jail for a wrongful conviction is worse than a quick death. Its quite understandable why people commit suicide in there.

You may say that and without the situation actually occurring that's all either of us can do. That said I am positive that if someone had a gun to your head right now and gave you the option to stay alive but be in prison you would take it.

Agreed.


But

As I said, I'm not sure if I can possibly defend not executing the absolute worst of us human beings considering the utter contempt we treat everything NOT human. What's so special about us humans that warrant being 'above' death, when the dinner you ate last night probably contained a creature far more deserving of life on this planet? It did nothing, yet we execute it for no crime other than it tasting good.

Human rights are granted to humans, there are people out there who would argue that killing an animal is on par with killing a human however.

Perhaps not now, but you reckon in 100 years we wont be able to at least have some kind of memory reading technology, combined with DNA evidence, combined with detection of lies, video surveillance etc.

And what about ones that we are 100% on? Admission of guilt, caught on camera/red handed, I’m talking 100 open and shut guilty. Of heinous crimes. Martyn Bryant style guilty. We STILL can’t be confident enough?

All of those examples have plenty of room to allow enough doubt.

Firstly this fictional memory reading technology and lie detection - our brains are not recording devices and they are extremely powerful. There is a reason that polygraph results aren't admissible in court - any machine to do this can only rely on cues from the body and can never tell the difference between the truth and what the person believes to be the truth.

No technology can have enough certainty to kill a person because at what point have we reached that technology?

Is it discovering that everyone has unique fingerprints? blood types? DNA? there's always the potential for something new to come along and blow past convictions away, as such making a sentence that is so permanent is dangerous.

That’s just not logical. I believe there ARE cases of 100% guilt. I find its like applying a broad brush approach to something that should be case by case.

Ok so how do we identify these cases? Do we add a Guilty (really really sure) verdict?

There is a reason that criminal cases are decided on the basis of reasonable doubt, it is not possible to prove something 100%.

For some reason all these discussions always go to a hypothetical future, if that's what's required to push an argument for CP it's clearly got problems.

A fair comment.

But then again, innocent people get f*cked over all the time. Whether it being hit by a car, or a random case of bad luck or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I know that's not "justification", but just my perspective of this big hairy universe we live in.

I don't really think that s**t happens is a good defence for CP.

Our justice system is not trying to emulate the randomness and luck of the draw that is life.

Blindly dismissing all possible cases of it because of the remotest of remote chances, I kind of seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me, so to speak. That just seems so black and white. Surely nowdays with the checks and balances in cases prove things within a shadow of a doubt, especially in serious cases such as what would be considered a death penalty? Maybe for extra seriousness, the judge/jury can be convicted if the decision is later found to be incorrect?

Absolutely not, a Judge or Jury can only decide on a case based on the evidence presented to them.

You cannot blame a jury who for example, convicted a man with the evidence they had at the time who was later cleared by DNA evidence.

But yeah I said before, I'm on the fence. I'm not at all against the punishement 'morally or ethically', but you're right if I had to object it would be the possibility of wrong conviction.

I find this interesting discussion personally.

A small doubt that can never be removed.

Even if we accept a futuristic world where you can read someone's mind, do you have so much faith in the people conducting the procedure? Have we eliminated all corruption?

 

[Magnum]

Fair points Nick, well reasoned, but we will have to agree to disagree.

I guess the miniscule miniscule % chance of justice system failure is NOT good enough for you, where as it IS good enough for me.

I guess I favour a case by case approach than a blanket ban.

I'll keep sitting on the fence, probably change my mind again next time this discussion comes up, cheers