Put it this way if there was a real life Dexter the world would be a much better place....
The Law 'D.C. Sniper' to be executed today
- Thread starter Dont be a lemon
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I seem to recall there were two people arrested for these murders - a driver and the shooter. What happened to the driver of the vehicle?
Interesting comments.
My death penalty stance is somewhat murky. I have no problem with the death penalty itself (as a punishment - morally/ethically), but I do have a problem with the judicial system used to prove guilt which is fallable.
Then again, people should also ask themselves, what is worse - an innocent person being executed, or a person actually guilty of the most henious of crimes (such that would warrent such a severe punishment) walking free?
All punishments are governed by the system of investigation, so I find that being against CP because of the system behind it is bit of a red herring. Sure, argue for the improvement of the justice system, but arguing that "death is barbaric" that is not good enough. Some people might find life in a cell more "barbaric" than death?
Would people support the death penalty if hypothetically, we had a 100% accurate guilt detector? Future memory reading technology or something? What about then?
Perhaps even with nowdays technology I believe that if there is without a shadow of doubt that the person is guilty of a henious crime, then its good enough (martin bryant for example, multiple witnesses, admission, cops caught him red handed - I mean he is GUILTY) show some common sense and have a punishment appropriate where there is no 'possibility of wrong conviction'. He shot 35 people for crying out loud. IMO he has forfieted his right to exist on this earth. There are situations where this punishment could be available.
Again, more reasons why I'm conflicted when it comes CP. Nowdays if you are proven guilty in Australia, especially if it was something very serious, the checks and balances are rigourous, there is just zero doubt, you are guilty. And on the flip side, if by the infintessimally small chance you are innocent and you are sentanced instead to life in prison and rot in jail for life rather than getting the death sentance (assuming you are never found innocent), well that is probably WORSE of a punishment than death itself. At least if you're dead, your dead.
And I don't agree at all that society is 'lowered to the level of the killers' by exercising CP. This is a convenient and baseless emotion argument.
Say a person is found guilty of torturing a murdering children. If they are sentanced to death we are all not suddenly as worthless as a child torturer. That's just rediculous. We are doing a GOOD thing, punishing evil is good in the same way that not punishing evil is BAD. To me at least. By not punishing someone like that effectively, it is actually doing a disservice to the those children tortured and murdered.
I also think it's rather hypocritial of people who oppose death as a punishment option from a moral perspective - i.e thou shall not kill (humans anyway, everything else is fair game)
We humans rape and pillage the land, we treat the animal kingdom with contempt, hunt anything to the point of extinction but somehow when it comes to killing one of us oh-so-valuable 'humans' ooh, it's taboo. Millions of animals are slaughtered daily for no crime other than tasting good. People hunt some of the last remaining tigers in the wild because they think their crushed up balls make them better in bed, or that their head looks good in the living room. We honestly overrate ourselves.
I don't know about you but I can't possibly defend not killing the worst of us humans, whilst in the next breath arbitrarily sit back killing thousands of other creatures who are totally innocent without a second thought - oh that's right it's because they aren't human and are 'just' an animal. As I said previously, a cockroach you might squash deserves to live on this earth a million times more than a human mass murderer. And remember, when our sun goes supernova we are ALL equal in the big picture.
So yeah, I wait until the day until we get a system of determining guilt, then I'll happily tick the CP box. Right now I'm still torn between how 'air tight' and how henious the crime was. They both have to be very high on the scale for me to think about CP.
Is a complex issue and to me cant be summarised in a for/against answer for me - I'll sit on the fence for now and take it sitation at a time.
My death penalty stance is somewhat murky. I have no problem with the death penalty itself (as a punishment - morally/ethically), but I do have a problem with the judicial system used to prove guilt which is fallable.
Then again, people should also ask themselves, what is worse - an innocent person being executed, or a person actually guilty of the most henious of crimes (such that would warrent such a severe punishment) walking free?
All punishments are governed by the system of investigation, so I find that being against CP because of the system behind it is bit of a red herring. Sure, argue for the improvement of the justice system, but arguing that "death is barbaric" that is not good enough. Some people might find life in a cell more "barbaric" than death?
Would people support the death penalty if hypothetically, we had a 100% accurate guilt detector? Future memory reading technology or something? What about then?
Perhaps even with nowdays technology I believe that if there is without a shadow of doubt that the person is guilty of a henious crime, then its good enough (martin bryant for example, multiple witnesses, admission, cops caught him red handed - I mean he is GUILTY) show some common sense and have a punishment appropriate where there is no 'possibility of wrong conviction'. He shot 35 people for crying out loud. IMO he has forfieted his right to exist on this earth. There are situations where this punishment could be available.
Again, more reasons why I'm conflicted when it comes CP. Nowdays if you are proven guilty in Australia, especially if it was something very serious, the checks and balances are rigourous, there is just zero doubt, you are guilty. And on the flip side, if by the infintessimally small chance you are innocent and you are sentanced instead to life in prison and rot in jail for life rather than getting the death sentance (assuming you are never found innocent), well that is probably WORSE of a punishment than death itself. At least if you're dead, your dead.
And I don't agree at all that society is 'lowered to the level of the killers' by exercising CP. This is a convenient and baseless emotion argument.
Say a person is found guilty of torturing a murdering children. If they are sentanced to death we are all not suddenly as worthless as a child torturer. That's just rediculous. We are doing a GOOD thing, punishing evil is good in the same way that not punishing evil is BAD. To me at least. By not punishing someone like that effectively, it is actually doing a disservice to the those children tortured and murdered.
I also think it's rather hypocritial of people who oppose death as a punishment option from a moral perspective - i.e thou shall not kill (humans anyway, everything else is fair game)
We humans rape and pillage the land, we treat the animal kingdom with contempt, hunt anything to the point of extinction but somehow when it comes to killing one of us oh-so-valuable 'humans' ooh, it's taboo. Millions of animals are slaughtered daily for no crime other than tasting good. People hunt some of the last remaining tigers in the wild because they think their crushed up balls make them better in bed, or that their head looks good in the living room. We honestly overrate ourselves.
I don't know about you but I can't possibly defend not killing the worst of us humans, whilst in the next breath arbitrarily sit back killing thousands of other creatures who are totally innocent without a second thought - oh that's right it's because they aren't human and are 'just' an animal. As I said previously, a cockroach you might squash deserves to live on this earth a million times more than a human mass murderer. And remember, when our sun goes supernova we are ALL equal in the big picture.
So yeah, I wait until the day until we get a system of determining guilt, then I'll happily tick the CP box. Right now I'm still torn between how 'air tight' and how henious the crime was. They both have to be very high on the scale for me to think about CP.
Is a complex issue and to me cant be summarised in a for/against answer for me - I'll sit on the fence for now and take it sitation at a time.
then the whole world would be blind
That outcome is unlikely from executing a serial killer.
If you are going to make bland cliches then expect them to be batted back.
you don't do metaphors, right?
I don't have a problem with that. But if we're going to be offering each other posting advice, you should probably try and actually address a point made rather than offering obtuse, banal non-sequiturs
Get a room, you two!
The point is that executing serial killers is not going to destroy the moral fabric of society!I don't have a problem with that. But if we're going to be offering each other posting advice, you should probably try and actually address a point made rather than offering obtuse, banal non-sequiturs
The point is that executing serial killers is not going to destroy the moral fabric of society!
in your opinion. Personally I don't think it's enhancing the moral fabric of society either, but I am not going to get into a debate that entails me needing to defend this scumbag. However I don't believe in state sanctioned execution.
I don't believe in "an eye for an eye".
Do you?
I believe that perpetrators of heinous crimes, especially repeat offenders, should be executed. Society is better off without them.
I don't literally believe in an "eye for an eye" justice system either, and doubt anyone here believes in its literal use either.
I was responding to your nonsensical point that excecuting someone who killed does not make sense. The concept of an "eye for an eye" makes perfect logical sense, but it doesn't have to be form the basis of the justice system. It merely reflects that the severity of the punishment should be relative to the severity of the crime. I doubt you would disagree with that.
Remove the "killing someone for killing is stupid" argument, and replace murder with treason, and the hypocritical argument disappears in an instant. Then it boils down completely to whether you are a supporter of capital punishment or not. You clearly aren't. Others are.
One of the articles mentioned that victims of lethal injection probably feel pain as they are dying. This may be a dumb question, but can’t victims be made unconscious before being killed (i.e. like during a major medical operation). Surely people who are condemned to death can be put death in a pain free way or the pain considered part of the punishment?
I think that if you are going to have the state kill people, then you should be honest about it. Don't have people dressing up in lab coats and pretending that it's a medical procedure, do it as the Chinese do - shoot them in the back of the head. It's painless and instant. The only reason we inject people is that it's more comfortable for the audience.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
believe this piece in the new yorker was one if its longest (wordcount) pieces (ever?/some time), goes into a Texas case.
It costs more to go through the process of legally killing someone than it does to imprison them. Seems you're in the "prison is a hotel" camp, how is talkback radio these days?
- Banned
- #70
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.
Leedawsom
Senior List
I don't believe in the death penalty but I do believe in justice. But life is fragile in any case anyhow and anyway. To kill people is wrong but you can't just nuke someone because that is killing the human psyche.
It is something to be learnt from these people if you keep them alive and to talk to them even if they lie and cheat their way through things.
Justice is not an eye for an eye. Then we'd all be half blind. Kapish
It is something to be learnt from these people if you keep them alive and to talk to them even if they lie and cheat their way through things.
Justice is not an eye for an eye. Then we'd all be half blind. Kapish
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #72
How on Earth not?
Absurd final comment. What would you have done if Hitler was captured? Lock him up for life or execute him?
- Banned
- #75
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.
