executing murderers when 100% sure of their guilt

[Valerie]

Time after time I am totally perplexed by the reluctance of the courts in this country to punish people who murder in cold blood by executing them.  I am in favor of this when there is zero doubt as to their guilt.  I can't help but feel outraged at the news stories of BRUTAL murders, horrible tortures and when the perps. are caught, we as a society wring our hands over the fates of these people.  We're supposed to worry whether or not lethal injection is painful for the murderer when his victim was raped, beaten, stabbed, etc. and usually it's more than one victim.  How can we send our young people to war to get shot at and killed, not to mention the innocent lives that are being killed in the crossfire and then worry about whether or not a murderer should be able to live out the rest of his life?  This past week I read about a man who in the early 70's murdered his mother, wife and three children and then lived free under an assumed name for the next 18 years until he was caught.  He just died after spending 4 days in the hospital for pnemonia at the age of 81!  There was absolutely no justice for his victims in my opinion.  By the way, he was asked by Connie Chung once, why he didn't just kill himself instead of killing his family and his answer was that suicide would've barred him from heaven and he felt that he would see them in heaven someday because he had asked forgiveness.  I feel like my outrage at all the injustice will eat me alive someday.  I won't even go into all of the expense of keeping their asses alive by having to house, clothe, guard and feed them till they die a natural death while the tax paying law abiding citizens pay for it all!!!!!!!

[Will]

There is no circumstance in which it is appropriate for a state to murder anyone. Even if they're 100% guilty.

[ShimShamSam]

I gotta disagree with you Willravel, sometimes there is just no place in our society for them. their crimes are so horrible that there is no place for them on this earth, not even in prison where the tax payers have to support them for the rest of their 3 consecutive life sentences, or whatever it may be.

[Whitney]

After you take into account the higher costs for trying to impose the death penalty and the many years you have to keep them in jail while they go through the appeals process; it actually ends up costing more than if they were given a life sentence.

I don't think there is such a thing as 100% certainty because there have been old cases where people were found guilty due to DNA evidence but now that we understand that evidence better they were found innocent, a person can admit fault to a crime in order to protect someone they love, and sometimes the person looks guilty just because the circumstances happen to add up and the real bad guy goes free.

Not to mention the whole idea that two wrongs do not make a right...why should it be right for the state to do the very thing it is punishing someone for?  We would not think it was proper justice to subject the raper to being raped...the same reasoning can be applied to determine that it's not justice to kill the murderer, just revenge.

Also, I think that it is actually a worse punishment to have to spend your life in prison because max security than to get an out by being killed in a relatively painless manner.  It also serves the main purpose of removing bad people from society.

[Will]

I gotta disagree with you Willravel, sometimes there is just no place in our society for them. their crimes are so horrible that there is no place for them on this earth, not even in prison where the tax payers have to support them for the rest of their 3 consecutive life sentences, or whatever it may be.

On moral grounds I can't possibly excuse capital punishment. It's not about money at all, it's about principle. That's not to say that the prison system doesn't need reform, it's in dire need, but killing? No way, Jose.

Still, even if I could excuse it morally, it doesn't make sense. Uber-criminal + lobotomy = slave labor. Pwned!

[ShimShamSam]

lobotomy aye? isn't that almost like an execution if the mind if absent?

[SteveS]

Mostly, I'd say I don't favor capital punishment.  Mostly for the reasons that laetusatheos laid down.

However, I don't agree that executions are completely about revenge --- isn't there a defense mechanism here?  How can this person kill/hurt anyone else if they're dead?  Isn't this the best way to be sure?

The problem is knowing if any one individual is truly guilty or not, of what you think he's guilty of.

Here's how I thought this one out:

If the state did execute the correct murderer, how could the murderer argue that an injustice had been committed?  And, if no injustice was committed, then how could there be a problem?

On the other hand, if killing is wrong, how can the state be allowed to kill?

Well, is all killing wrong?  Perhaps killing can be justified, and it depends on the circumstance.  For example, killing in self-defense seems completely justifiable, so it is not true to say "all killing is wrong".

Conclusion: executing guilty people is acceptable.

So my beef just comes down to the degree of certainty that an accused person is really guilty.  I don't find the death penalty amoral, I just find it too risky of creating equal injustices.

In other words, I think the inherent uncertainty involved in knowing whether or not you would be executing somebody justly is ample reason to not execute anybody.  Its not that a correct application of the penalty strikes me as amoral, but rather that the incorrect application is just as bad, maybe even worse, than the original crime.  The fact that this can happen seems unavoidable.  So, stopping execution isn't for the preservation of the rights of guilty people, but rather for the protection of the rights of innocent people.

Here's a fun thought:  if murdering somebody is justifiably punishable by execution, and the state has effectively murdered someone by executing an innocent person, should we execute the state as justifiable punishment for the murder they committed?  :wink:

[Valerie]

Hello out there........Executing a cold blooded murderer and the murder of an innocent person are NOT THE SAME THING!  When a murderer is allowed to live in prison or out, write letters, watch t.v. work out, pursue education, get on computers, talk on the phone, see family, etc. etc, how is this fair when the person who was murdered is dead forever?  Anything less than death as a punishment shits on the life or lives that were taken.  Why should society have regard for a murderer's life when this person has no regard for other's lives?  I'm talking about when a person is obviously guilty, the crime was committed in FRONT of other reliable witnesses or he's caught holding the bloody knife. You all know what I mean.  Like I said, there isn't any justice for victims today with all of the bleeding heart liberals in this country.

[Ashe]

Hard to say, hard to say.

In the very least, if there's no death penalty, I'd prefer that person to spend life in solitary confinement with no way to commit suicide or anything like that. No TV, no writing letters to the outside world, no appeal, no outside time...nothing. If somebody ever committed a crime so horrendous that would make death seem fair, then fine, let them die.

...Alone and slowly, with age. To me that's just the worst. Quite frankly, the death penalty is fair to nice to some of the monsters out there. :-/

[Whitney]

Well...life isn't fair.  What about the victims who are against the death penalty and feel the death of the convict only makes their suffering worse?  Justice is removing the criminal from society....it doesn't have to mean killing the person.  Even if I were for using the death penalty in definite cases....our legal system simply isn't objective enough to create a hard line between what is definite and what leaves room for error.  If even one innocent person is killed by the state, and it has happened, then that is enough reason to leave the death penalty behind.

Personally, I'd make the prison systems tough so that they are living at a humane level yet not in a way most people would want to live....kinda like this (just ignore the conservative slants) http://conservativethoughts.us/2008/01/ ... y-in-pink/

Deter them from wanting to come back (or to even get there in the first place), have them help pay for their own stay, and serves as a fitting punishment for those who caused great harm to society...all without having to determine any moral line of when it is proper to kill or not.

[ShimShamSam]

Alright, I'm going to try to pull this thread back to the original reason why we're on this forum in the first place. What effect does atheism or theism have on people's view of capitol punishment?

As in, if we were theists would we find capitol punishment more acceptable because we believed they would continue to suffer in hell. Does atheism make capitol punishment less acceptable because rather then having a prolonged punishment, they are simply ended, with no afterlife?

[Will]

My atheism has virtually no effect on my decision making process regarding capital punishment. It's strictly a moral decision.

[tacoma_kyle]

There is no circumstance in which it is appropriate for a state to murder anyone. Even if they're 100% guilty.

I call BS. I know I am only disagreeing with your opinion. Why should some ass hole continue to live when he/she takes anothers ONLY chance at life?

They are dead. No more risk, no more funds supporting them, a message to those who need it.


In all honesty I think the death penalty should be implemented more, in the proper scenarios (...leaves to be defined...). And in a more timely manner.

[Will]

I call BS. I know I am only disagreeing with your opinion. Why should some ass hole continue to live when he/she takes anothers ONLY chance at life?

Why should some government continue to exist when it takes another's ONLY chance at life?

But seriously, the idea that somehow premeditated murder is any way for a civil society to act scares the shit out of me. For one, it absolutely doesn't work as a deterrent, for two it's not a punishment since, well, how do you feel the punishment when you're dead? Third, it is based in the false premise that some people cannot be rehabilitated. As someone who's studied psychology with some of the best professors on the subject on the West Coast (throws west coast sign), I've gotta say that it's defeatist at best, and downright creationist-istic in reality. I'll elaborate:
Why do we all have no patience for creationists? Because they don't know jack shit about science even though they pretend that do. Likewise, the idea that the average person can simply decide that someone can or can't be rehabilitated makes no sense. Yes, some cases are unlikely, but I doubt you'll find a psychologist who will simply say, "It's impossible." You try until you either succeed or fail, just like in medicine.

They are dead. No more risk, no more funds supporting them, a message to those who need it.

Life in prison also removes said convict from being a risk to society. And, again, seriously all statistics on the subject show clearly that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent. As for the funds, we need to reorganize the prison system into something that isn't profit driven. It has nothing to do with capital punishment and everything to do with bad policy.

[Valerie]

The death penalty supposedly isn't a deterrent because it isn't used consistently.  People seem to break the laws of society based on what they think their odds are of getting away with it.  As far as getting away with murder goes I'd say that most people have a very good chance.   I feel that whether or not it's a deterrent is irrelevant anyway.  The punishment should fit the crime, period.