executing murderers when 100% sure of their guilt

[Hakuna]

I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not, or if it costs more than life imprisonment, I say execute them.  There have been a lot of people killed by released killers that would be alive if their killer had been put to death.  It seems that life in prison doesn't mean anything.  Usually they are paroled (in Canada anyway) after a third of their sentence is served.  And don't get me started on child molesters!!!!

Hakuna

[pjkeeley]

How can there ever be 100% certainty of guilt? Or of anything?

[karadan]

For the people who commit the most terrible crimes, death is the easy way out. The non-insane ones who can actually understand the gravity of their crimes - or even the ones who just don't care - made the choice long ago that this was the way they were going out. In this respect, the death penalty should be abolished. They should spend the rest of their days in a padded cell with no human contact.. period. They'd torture themselves with their own minds.

That is a far worse punishment than death.

I also can't stomach the fact that there have been past mistakes, and innocent people have been put to death.

[Kylyssa]

I've thought that there should be a choice for the prisoner, either life in prison without possibility of parole or lethal injection whenever he wants it.  

I don't subscribe to the idea as using our societal safety procedures to punish a criminal.  Murder isn't like a child's naughtiness which punishment can cure.  People selected for death row are beyond fixing with our current psychological treatment options.  Punishing them only serves to feed the bloodthirsty impulses of the public.  

To those who might say I don't know how the victim feels or how the victim's loved ones feel, they are incorrect.  I lost a close, dear friend to murder in September of 2006 and was myself a victim of a murder attempt that left me in a coma for nine days.  My only desire is for the perpetrators to be put away somewhere to keep everyone safe from them, not to torture them to pay for what they did to me or for my friend's killer(s) to pay for what they did to him.  It's not a debt that can be paid.  More savagery doesn't negate savagery.

[SteveS]

Hey karadan,

Humorous observation: A person can only torture themselves with their own mind if they actually have a mind in the first place.    

I'd also point out that to convict these people, we're only calling upon the absence of "reasonable doubt".  We don't require 100% certainty to convict --- but if we require 100% certainty to justifiably execute, then isn't there a problem here?

[susangail]

I am against the death penalty. You can never really be 100% sure of guilt and even if you could be, I would still be against the death penalty. The crimes committed that make a person eligible for the death penalty are absolutely horrible, I'm not trying to minimize them. But I don't think it's right to end their life. Lock them up with no parole. Yeah it costs money but everything does.

[Kona]

hem up with no parole. Yeah it costs money but everything does.

Agreed.  Of course what you do with them while they are captive is still contentious.  Some have mentioned isolation from human contact.  This would likely drive them bonkers if they are not at that stage already.

[myleviathan]

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

I sort of don't want to agree. But then I do agree. This is really, really idealistic. Almost too much for me to stand. A government cannot be held accountable the way an individual can for abuses. However a government is only as sinister as the people that make it up. The government is only a collection of its citizens. When a murderer is executed his blood is on all of our hands.

[JebusKryst]

I don’t see executing murderers as a deterrent, or as a cheap may of punishing people. For me, the death penalty allows society to feel some form of justice has been carried out.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I think society in general would be happier with the execution of a murdering paedophile than letting him/her stay in prison with access to libraries, internet, playstations, healthcare, drugs, sex etc.

[Vichy]

From the perspective of property rights (especially estoppel), a person who has murdered someone has forfeited their right to rationally object to being killed.  Their victim's heirs have a right to demand the life of the murderer, in fact the worst thing about it is that the murderer cannot give up TWO lives (one the victim owned and one the killer has forfeit).  The argument on the 'death penalty' stops right there for me.

[rlrose328]

From the perspective of property rights (especially estoppel), a person who has murdered someone has forfeited their right to rationally object to being killed.  Their victim's heirs have a right to demand the life of the murderer, in fact the worst thing about it is that the murderer cannot give up TWO lives (one the victim owned and one the killer has forfeit).  The argument on the 'death penalty' stops right there for me.

Crap... I agree with you about something.  ARGH!    :shock:  

[Kona]

Estoppel has no application regarding death penalty cases. As you mention,  it is generally applicable to property or contract law, so it's relevance to death penalty cases is not firmly established as far as I know.  Can you cite a Supreme Court case in which estoppel is focus of the decision?

[Vichy]

I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court thinks about anything.  I was giving my theory of what law ought to be, which is nothing more than an application of my view of morality.