should not be used as a punishment or deterrent + euthanize those that are unfit to re-enter society = ?

I'd say that the threat of being killed is a pretty good deterrent and a good reason to remain fit for society. Death is also the harshest punishment out there short of torture. So I don't exactly see how the 2 statements above are very compatible.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are trying to say, but it isn't completely clear to me what your position actually is.

I neglected to mention: The convicted should be presented the choice, and if not of sound mind then it should be determined if they ever will be of sound mind again.

We already know that death penalties do not act as an effective deterrent.

There are very, very, few cases when a convicted person would volunteer to be put to death. Some people would even say that volunteering would be a sign of insanity regardless. They've gotten doctors to ignore DNR orders using this method, so there is no reason that it wouldn't be applied here.

They used to act as effective deterrents, and then the lawyers got involved. It isn't very effective right now because of the low number of death sentences that juries hand out, the years of appeals, the groups who will try to halt the execution (no matter how guilty the person is), and the likelihood of a pardon. Deterrents that are not properly implemented will never work very well. Thats a problem with the system, not the concept.

"I'd say that the threat of being killed is a pretty good deterrent"

It would *seem* to be, but people tend to forget a basic part of human nature: we always expect bad things to happen to 'other people'. The teenager who drinks and drives thinks he'll be fine because it's only other dumbasses who slam into trees. and if you commit a crime worthy of the death penalty, you're gonna be either not thinking at ALL, or thinking, '_I'm_ not gonna get caught!'.

I did say "killed" instead of "executed" for a reason. Someone who truly isn't thinking wouldn't shy at walking across an interstate for example.

Is it that they don't think they will get caught, or that they don't think they will get the maximum punishment? Police forces around the world do a damn good job. The number of criminals who don't get caught is extremely low. But even with a high chance of being caught, the likelihood of them getting executed is vanishingly low. Even with a sufficiently nasty crime, they are still much more likely to get life imprisonment. These days there isn't even a guarantee that the full term will even be served.

Personally, I think that using the Death Penalty as a deterrent is about the same as using laws to deter. Laws don't deter and neither does a death penalty. It's kind of disturbing how often people are quick to deal out death and judgement. Besides, innocent people have been excuted in the past and that alone may seem like little reason not to take the chance.

There are some people who just won't refit no matter what penalties you throw at them. Life in the prison system is worse than death and yet you still have people put away for life without parole who behave on the inside even worse than they did on the outside.

I agree that laws and punishment are not deterrents on their own. It is the clear and dedicated enforcement of those laws and punishments that deters people.

Example: People speed all the time and are rarely caught. I can guarantee if there were automated cameras, that could legally be used to give tickets, placed all over the place people would slow down. I can also guarantee that if the punishment for speeding was drastically increased, more people would slow down.

I'm quick to have the punishment fit the crime. I'm also quick to actually enforce the laws have before we start adding new ones. I know innocent people have been executed before, and many more have also been imprisoned for life. Once again, thats a problem with the system and not the punishment. The most common reason for these mistakes is a lack of any evidence besides eyewitness accounts. Juries are, unfortunately, more likely to trust what somebody says than physical evidence. I agree with alex that hard evidence should be required for a death sentence.

If we both agree that some people won't reform no matter what we do, and that prison life can be worse than death, then why can't we execute such people if their crimes are sufficiently bad? I'd rather have some finality than dragging out their existence for decades at my expense.

Like you said, the problem is with the system. Prisons need reform as well as our schools. So many of our systems need reform. As well, if you're keen on punishing the guilty, then you'd think letting them live would be the worse punishment.

In some respects, there are some individuals that not only should be executed but promise that if they aren't executed that they'll escape and commit their crimes again. That's the dillema. Unless we get people to trust the evidence, you won't have a reliable jury system.

People can be mistaken. People can lie. The evidence may mislead, but it doesn't lie.

Sorry for the ramble.

How much are we really punishing them if prison inmates aren't forced to work, are treated fairly well, have access to almost everything a free citizen does, aren't responsible for anything, and live off our tax dollars? Given that rather painless lifestyle, I'd rather just be able to forget about them. It isn't about giving them the worst possible punishment (I don't condone torture for break the law) its about giving them what they deserve. I think that being a mass murderer/rapist/etc deserves more than a long lifespan at our expense.

Thats about what I believe. To me, evidence trumps witnesses every time. Look up the work of Elizabeth Loftus (I think I linked it earlier) to see just how bad it really is.

This isn't a ramble at all! Its still on topic and is directly addressing earlier comments. You'd be better off calling it a rebuttal.

The upside is that some people who go inside actually swear that they never want to again and use that as the empathasis to give up their criminal ways and go straight. And there is a price for that "free lifestyle" your talking about. Paranoia and eternal vigilance being two. Worrying about the guy next to you. Trust me, it ain't exactly painless.

It's true that the death penalty is no picnic either. Lethal injection "victims" (I use that for lack of a better word) get to spend a whole five minutes dying of oxygen deprivation. The drugs used paralyzes the muscles, but doesn't incapacitate the subject. They're wide awake as they suffocate.

Electrocution wasn't necessarily better. And there's a reason why they put bags over peoples heads for hangings and gassings.

Some have also observed that a death penalty lasts longer than life in prison at times. You still feed them for decades on Taxpayer money. Then there's the cost of the execution. A firing squad would be cheaper. Hell, just take them out to the prison yard and put two in the back of their head.

As for evidence, we perfectly agree. Always trust the evidence.

If its at the point of giving them a life sentence, it doesn't really matter. Prison is fine for more minor crimes, but you don't get a life sentence or a death penalty for robbing a store. Prison isn't exactly a cakewalk (yet) but I also don't think that it does the full job yet. Heck, many people who come out of prison are worse than they were going in.

Actually the first drug injected (Sodium Pentothal) is a barbiturate that administered with such a larger dose that it will induce unconsciousness in under 10 seconds. The paralyzing agent and Potassium chloride are only supposed to be injected only after the person is unconscious.

Part of the reason for the bag is the humanity of it. Lethal injection at least lets people be more impersonal and less involved while executing the subject. Also, a hanging doesn't look pretty or clean when compared to death by injection. Personally, an automated gun to the head works fine for me.

The only difference in cost between a lifer and a death row inmate are the court costs. Everything else is the same. They need the same high security and same treatment, but the lawyer fees cost an arm and a leg.

Apparently shooting them leaves the shooters feeling guilty. They would have so many people firing because half of the guns would be shooting blanks. The prisoner still dies, but the mental health of the executioners is much better. Nowadays, I don't see why they just don't automate it. Strap them to a chair and then leave. Let a time gun go off behind their head. Done.

Hey, we're agreed there.

The funny thing is that I learned that in a law class in high school. That it looks all peaceful and shit and it isn't. Do they get nothing right in high school?

Well, yeah. Real death is real ugly. I've seen pictures of real death and it's really messy. In Soviet Russia, it apparently wasn't a problem taking a troublemaker into the square and shooting them in the back of the head. As extreme as they were, I can't help but think that times that we need a good revolution cause we definitely need to sort out our shit before we start telling others how to sort out their shite.

Killing wears on anyone after a while. That's why the KGB had a habit of indoctrinating serial killers into their assination service. People have a limit on killing, whether it's five or five hundred, they reach a point where they just can't squeeze the trigger. Now a serial on the other hand not only has no limit, but they get a kick out of it. Of course, with the time delay gun, you may still have executioners guilt from the poor bastard who "tuned the clock."

Its high school: where the indoctrination of children is solidified. This is the first time that parents have less sway over their children than other adults and their children's peer group. Its no wonder to me that so much crap gets tossed around.

Death, even of the most vile creature, is never pretty. However, that doesn't mean that it can't be utilized. As Thomas Jefferson once said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”


Exactly right. The humanity (for lack of a better word) that makes us shirk from an execution, but accept war, has a limit past which it will not let us pass without some serious mental issues. Get around that problem by having multiple input clocks set by different people and an added randomizer.

Right; even more reason why the death penalty isn't a detrrent. As you say, it's rare enough that if criminals happen to think about prison, they know it's unlikely they'll face the needle or the chair.

Does anyone know if we still hang people anymore?

Personally, I think they oughtta let the condemned choose their own method of death. It'd be interesting to see what they choose. Me? I'd ask to drive a Corvette into the Grand Canyon at 100 mph.

Those aren't problems with the sentence, they are problems with the system. As I mentioned, the same kind of difficulties occur even if they "only" get life. We added a fewer more steps into the process for capital punishment, but we didn't change things that much.

How the punishment is delivered varies by state, but i don't think any of them do hanging any more.

No offense, but if we are condemning them to death then their last meal is all the choice I think they really deserve.

Agree.

I'm actually surprised by that. I'd had the idea they may have still done that in the south.

And, dude, I was being silly there. ;)

Hanging requires more "skill" to do it properly from person to person. If its done wrong, then the person suffers, and we all cry big crocodile tears. So that's why lethal injection is available in 37 of the 38 states with capital punishment and only 2 states (Washington and New Hampshire) still have hanging as an option.

You might be, but I've seen people who were serious about it. They want to give them a "last wish" right before they die.

Yes, lethal injection is SO much more civilized! The patient's nerves are paralyzed so the audience doesn't have to see how much unimaginable suffering the 'painless' injections are causing the prisoner. You wouldn't want them to feel any *guilt* over wanting to watch another human being die, of course.

The first injection is a huge dose of a barbiturate that knocks the person out in <10 seconds. The paralyzing and heart attack inducing injections that are actually lethal aren't supposed to be injected until after the person is already unconscious.

There was a series of articles in my local paper about how autopsies have shown that some inmates who died under lethal injection were not only awake through the entire process, but in unimaginable pain the whole time, and completely unable to convey it. The problem isn't so much the chemical process, but in executioners who are being sloppy with the application. Totally not surprising to me.

Then we fix the application technique. The sloppiness of the administrator should be punished, not the entire concept.

If there was a better method available, I'd say that we should go ahead and use it. The problem is finding and implementing this other method.

The guillotine.

It was designed to be painless, swift and egalitarian. If the people watching the execution don't wanna see blood with their death, then they can effing well stick to PG-13 action movies. ;)

I certainly wouldn't mind. Though I think that it has been ignored because of it history and its "visually menacing nature" or other such BS.

Probably that, and the rather unsavory fact that, yes, the head _can_ retain consciousness for several minutes. I was reading up on various experiments done on executed criminals; asking the heads to blink their eyes and such. Creepy, and yet fascinating...

Then the blade should be directed to cut through the skull instead of simply beheading them.

No way, dude! Being aware that you're just a freakin' severed head has gotta be the most badass sensation ever.

The answer is simple actually; it's because people are selfish.

Think about it; Bob has a brother. Bob's brother has an accident and becomes a vegetable with no chance to be normal again. For his brother's sake, Bob should unplug him, but he would lose his brother. So he'd rather stay with his meat-pouch brother until they both pass out than end his suffering and kill him.

You gotta be brave to accept your fate, but even braver to accept your family's and friend's fate.

Yup. People are extremely selfish, it's one of the main reasons we get in all the messes we encounter.

Reminds me of what's her name in Florida. Problem is, if he's brain damaged, Bob's brother is as good as dead anyway. The other problem is that people aren't always swayed by logic.

If you aren't careful, logic just lets you be wrong with confidence. :)

It's true, but it's important to try to deal with any difficult situation with wisdom. And I hope if I should ever find myself in such an unfortunate scenario that I can deal with it with such wisdom and strong will.

I agree with what you are saying, it was just too good of an opportunity to pass up. :P

I know what you mean.

I can't express it in words, but i see how it makes sense.

I don't think anyone should have a right to inflict suffering on anyone else :P

An armed society is a polite society..ah..I love the idea of quality over quantity.

Less struggle for resources + equality of strength = a lot more peace and a lot less violence.

Nor deprive them of life or property, I hope. Otherwise I can think of several painless murders I'd love to commit.

I think that capital punishment and euthanasia are two entirely different things on an ethical level and they should be discussed separately.

The way I see things: capital punishment = you kill someone who doesn't want to die,
euthanasia = you help someone who wants to die.

When articulating capital punishment with "people who are unfit to re-enter society" we face a great risk of slipping to fascism. At what point a person is not qualified to continue living? Does it have something to do with his social skills or abilities or his genes? Who gets to decide this, if not the person in question? The people? The government? A scientist? Some random supreme leader? With such questions one should tread very carefully. =/

Indeed, if rules and guidelines are formulated, there will always be exceptions.

Unfortunately, I believe that the idea of life imprisonment ought to be abolished entirely and replaced by firing squad. I've never heard of anyone suffering unduly from a shot to the head, unlike the electric chair or a botched injection.

Excellent point there; I read an essay about botched execution which suggests that lethal injection and the electric chair are only 'humane' in that the people watching don't have to look at a lot of icky blood. *rolls eyes* If you're going to let people watch an execution, they should have to see what death actually looks like.

Skip the firing squad and go straight for a grenade strapped to their chest. It guarantees that the person dies quickly, without making anybody feel a lot of guilt.

If we had to dispose of everyone that's not qualified to live, the furdom would count a lot less members o_<

Lol! Touché! =D

A few people dislike the death penalty because of a number of unfortunately innocent people who have been convicted of crimes.

On the other hand, if given a life sentence with no chance of parole, death seems more economically viable than feeding, clothing, cleaning, and providing medical care to a person who in no way contributes to society...for the rest of their life.

Actually, and you can check this out yourself, I've heard from multiple sources that life imprisonment actually costs LESS than capital punishment! It seems nuts at first until you consider that, for one, the criminals do stay on death row often for many years, and two, it's the _appeals process_ that really ends up costing the most money.

That, to me, suggests expedited punishment and limited appeals.

And I have the strange thought that if the appeal failed, that the lawyer should die with their client, at the very least, it will cut down on the number wasted appeals.

Oh, I'd certainly agree that the appeals process often goes out of control, especially when the person's guilty as fuck and just trying to extend his life. But if I was wrongfully convicted, I'd want there to be as many opportunities for my case to be reopened as possible. The problem is that laws that are necessary to help innocent people are also used as loopholes by the guilty.

Still, it's vitally important that we make laws and hold beliefs based on what _is_ happening, rather than how things _should_ be. Remember; on paper, communism *should* produce a perfect utopia...

The single biggest cause for innocent people getting sentenced is faulty eyewitness accounts. I wish I still had the data to prove it, but the vast majority of wrongfully accused (regardless of punishment) persons are convicted on the words of an individual alone. There have even been cases where physical evidence took a back seat to such testimony.

Check out some of the work done by Elizabeth Loftus to see just how bad it really is: http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/.....lizabeth.shtml

Believe me, you don't have to convince me of this. I've seen plenty of articles about how our memories are far more faulty than we ever want to admit. We can even see it in ourselves, individually. I vividly remember certain scenes from movies I watched as a kid, then I watch those same movies now and the scenes I remember never existed!

My best example of that is a story that my parents like to tell about when I was a real little kid. I know that I don't have my own memory of the event, but they have retold the story enough times in my presence that I could easily believe that I was "remembering" it if I didn't know any better.

Yep. A lot of my early memories are more likely memories of stories or photographs.

100% correct. the prison term itself isn't what is so expensive, its the court costs. The concept might work perfectly, but the system dooms it to failure.

*nods* There are soooo many examples of the reality of the law bearing no relation to the written law.

Yep. I think that the single biggest thing that can be done to reduce crime is actually enforce the laws we already have. Get rid of the bogus laws and fill in the loopholes.

BINGO. Whenever you hear some politician yowling about some social ill and saying there needs to be a new law, 9 out of 10 times he's full of shit.

11 out of 10 times the politician wants more money so is trying to please a PAC.

I hope you don't mind me adding my two cents here... =)

I wholeheartedly support Amnesty International when it comes to this matter. I dislike death penalty because it turns the act of killing a human being into a socially accepted and legitimized action thus reducing the value of human life. I believe that when the value of an individual is not recognized it has a negative and desensitizing affect on the society as a whole.

It is somewhat fascist to think that we live in a beehive where people can be sacrificed for the good of the society. This sort of idea to me is alarmingly popular and it opens very dangerous doors. If today a single person can be, against his or her will, sacrificed for the good of the state or the nation, why not 100.000 people? All it takes is some propaganda and a charismatic leader.

There is no death penalty in my country and the state prison programs aim to reduce recidivism by means of rehabilitation. I'm really satisfied with how things work here and I'm quite familiar with the system myself because my father has worked in the ministry of justice for a very long time and he currently runs a local state prison.

"It is somewhat fascist to think that we live in a beehive where people can be sacrificed for the good of the society."

Actually, there is a decent amount of evidence to suggest that that's _exactly_ what human society is like. There are theories that evolution doesn't only affect the individual, but also the group. Hence, there are evolutionary failsafes built into individuals to influence their behavior as to whether or not they are an asset to the group. This can be seen in other primate societies when a younger male will unseat the current head male. They will both actually go through a biological transformation; the new leader will actually appear to become healthier and stronger, while the old leader will slump, go off to sulk and sometimes even _die_. This may even have a lot to do with depression and suicide in humans, and why more violence occurs in large populations versus small ones. Mother nature's message is strong: contribute, or cease to exist.

Note: I'm not saying any of this a *good* thing, or that we should base our laws around it. Unfortunately, it's just how things appear to be. (This is a fairly new scientific notion and, while the evidence fits and it does make sense, it's not as proven as other parts of the evolutionary theory yet. Read about this in the book "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom. It's one of the most mind-expanding books in existence.)

We already accept and legitimize the death of other humans on a far grander scale every time we discuss war. Even when its a defensive war against an oppressor, the people and society of a country have decided that their rights/freedoms/liberty/etc. is more valuable than the life of a fellow human. Executing a criminal who has violated, in the worst possible ways, these same beliefs is not too different.

Since executions have been carried out since before recorded history, I don't think that we would be opening any doors that haven't already been opened and then re-shut. Given the ongoing debate on this forum, I can't say that I agree that the idea of executions are "alarmingly popular."

I'd prefer not to have to execute criminals but they did break the law, and the punishment is on the books. They are reaping what they sow, and I can find little sympathy for them. I think that the punishment must fit the crime given how few criminals get a death sentence, the 62+% of them that get retried (for various reasons), and the high number of pardons.

I think that in groups of young people there is a growing tendency to explain the works of a society by darwinism, at least in my country... Maybe it's because it's a very thorough and easily digestable theory? I'm glad if the majority here are against capital punishment, but I'd say the debate only reflects the opinions of a very small group of people in the internet.

I don't believe in creativionism or anything of that sort, but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to keep comparing humans to baboons and bees in these kind of discussions because although it sounds like a scientific approach, these articulations take the focus away from our moral and ethical achievements.

"the eye for an eye" argument is understandable, but we should also keep in mind that law is not the same for everyone and we do not live in an equal society. Furthermore, people who commit murder are not often your average John Does. People who suffer the hardest sentences are caught in a cycle they can't break on their own. I'm not saying that US is like this, but any society that favors elimination over rehabilitiation, is not civilized.

Societies are indeed very darwinistic in nature. They are constantly changing to meet the needs of the current population. It as also very similar to the business market for many of the same reasons. The fact that we are debating says that we are the minority. :) The majority of people don't bother arguing about their positions.

I'm not comparing people to animals, I'm saying that humanity has always practiced capital punishment. After looking at the strife, terror, and wars that are still present and common in our world I wouldn't say that our "moral and ethical achievements" have been all that resounding. The crimes are same, the people are the same, but the punishments are not. Yet we wonder why things are more dangerous than they used to be.

So shouldn't we try fixing the actual problem instead of one of its symptoms? If the equality problems were solved there would probably be less need for such punishment in the first place. I understand that criminals who are worthy of capital punishment aren't "normal" by any means, but I also don't think that we should treat them as we would "normal" criminals. Not all criminals got stuck in a cycle by any means: Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured another 850 without a previous significant mark on his record. You show me a case where such a person has been successfully rehabilitated and I'll admit that the idea has some merit.

I do agree that you have a point there. Also, when I mentioned comparing people to animals I was vaguely referring to certain undertones in previous messages I read in this thread... so that comment was not aimed at you.

But I guess that my views on our moral and ethcial improvements are a bit more positive than yours. Humanity doesn't have to practice capital punishment - for example here in Scandinavia we don't have death penalty and I think we're doing rather peachy. And if I had to choose whether to spend the rest of my life here in 21th century Finland or in some 800th century post-Roman province (heh), I think I wouldn't have to think twice. At least in most European countries you don't end up staked in the bottom of a pog for having done something adulterous or awkward. ^^;;

Of course there are exceptions, but I want to believe that ever since we started paying attention to Abelard's ethics we've been moving forward. Some countries lack behind, methinks. It's pretty inhumane to stone people to death, for example, but it happens.

In the US the number of people executed every year has receded from approximately from 5000 to 1000 during the last 80 years, which is a good thing, but it's still not much better from the situation in China - I find this an interesting point, because right now people have been paying so much attention to China's role as the Olympic host country and there has been some debating concerning China's policy on human rights issues. As if these were a problem with eastern or mid-eastern countries only.

When a person kills many people in my opinion there's little point in killing that person because it doesn't bring the dead back. It's too late to help the criminal and the milk has already been spilled, so to say... We should indeed concentrate on the actual problems and I fully agree with you on that. It still seems to me that soft values, the importance of social well-being and equality are generally supported more in countries which don't have death penalty.

In a way I think even the sickest criminal is a victim. When these individuals are merely erased, it looks to me like the society is just trying to wash its hands and handle the problem in the manner of a caveman or, say, a 16-year-old Carolingian knight. Well, the language I use is somewhat colorful here, but that's mainly because I find it hard to articulate my thoughts in English. Uh, and now I started babbling... I'm sorry about that, I just find these kind of discussions very fascinating. =)

Finland, like the rest of Scandinavia, has a high GDP per capita combined with a low Gini index, a high Human Development Index, a low population and an even lower density, very low immigration, and (yes it's surprisingly relevant) has a colder than world average climate. This is an unusual combination of statistics and features that is hard to find elsewhere in the world. So it would be very misleading to say that just because it works where you are it will work everywhere else.

I'd choose to stay in the modern age as well. My point is that execution is nothing new and that our "moral and ethical achievements" just haven't been so great that people aren't capable of crimes worthy of death. The number of such crimes committed per capita may have diminished, which is good progress, but the total number has been increasing. With 6 billion people in the world to choose from, getting some truly bad apples is going to happen no matter how good we think things are. Just because some of us are moving forward (usually the people who have the luxury of easily applying them) doesn't mean that it is happening equally or smoothly. This is an imperfect world filled with imperfect people, lets act like it is so.


According to # "There were more executions in the 1930s than in any other decade in American history, an average of 167 per year." So I don't know where you got such skewed numbers. Heck there are only 3264 people on death row right now. Among the many differences between what China is doing and the US policy on capital punishment is that the US policy is above board and open, can and has been stopped in the past because of citizen protest, and (most significantly?) that the US is a democracy. The publicity garnished from the fact that China is hosting the games also can't be underestimated. Because last I heard, the US was still taking lots of flack from what has been happening in Gitmo.

It's too late to help the criminal and the milk has already been spilled I agree. Which is why I think we should be able to put them to death instead of trying to rehabilitate them or sticking them in prison for multiple decades. I'm not saying that death penalties need to be handed out left and right, just that they have a beneficial use to society in a limited number of cases. We aren't trying to bring back the dead, we are trying to remove something from society that has done more damage than good. I would MUCH rather fix the problems that make more executions necessary than remove the punishment. Its a case of preferring to have ability but not use it, than needing the ability and not having it. The US already went through a period when we didn't have the death penalty (because of US Supreme Court order) and we paid the price during that time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:.....athpenalty.jpg

The sickest criminals may have a mental problem, so I have little problem dealing with that while they serve out a life term. It's the ones who don't have a mental problem (and every defense lawyer will request a mental health test) that we would still have to deal with. Just because we want to wash our hands off them, doesn't mean they don't deserve it. To use the McVeigh case again, just because he is the only person I can name of the top of my head who has received the death penalty in the US, please tell me what you think he is a victim of. I have a hard time seeing somebody who remorselessly kills 19 children and considers them "collateral damage" as a victim.

You aren't babbling, you are encountering a language barrier while trying to say exactly what you want to say. I only speak english and even I have trouble expressing my thoughts at times. :) Good discussions are always fun.

But over half the countries of the world (located in various different places around the globe) have now abolished death penalty in law or practice. Finland is a good place to live, but I don't think that Finland is that much different from for example other European countries.

I got the numbers from this one website, I tried to find it, but I couldn't anymore (duh) and it is obvious to me now that I misinterpreted the information because of my English is far from fluent. When I now tried to find the exact numbers I got the same information as you did. 1000 (not to mention 5000!) a year would be an outrageous number of people, so the numbers have to be global. My apologies about this slip. The good thing, however, is that the numbers have been receding. =)

Death penalty in my opinion is all about revenge. Why else one would kill a person if there was the alternative to put him into jail so that instead of dying and learning nothing, he could spend his lifetime contemplating on his deed and maybe even producing some worthwhile thought for other people? It shouldn't be about money because in order to become morally enlightened creatures we shouldn't even begin to estimate human value in cash. Even though it's too late to help a criminal, this does not justify putting him to death the way you would shoot a horse with a leg injury.

I assume that US feels the need for capital punishment because there are so many illegal and legal guns, a vast sense of social insecurity, complex state bureaucracy, leasing prisons instead of state prisons and so on... Well, I can't say for sure, but whereas I'm not afraid to leave my door unlocked for the night, I suppose that not many people living in the US cities would do the same. Maybe this kind of insecurity calls for harsher punisments. Bigger countries, bigger problems?

I'm glad you're not upset by my tone or limited vocabulary! I always enjoy a little food for thought even though I don't always see eye to eye with people. =D

Oh, and about the murderer you mentioned...

Someone who is capable of doing a deed that is so horrible it's almost hard to say it out loud, it makes this someone a great victim indeed. He is a victim of the society in a way, if you believe that he did these things because for instance some childhood trauma or whatnot, but he's a victim of his own behavior. In killing innocent people he has inevitably killed a part of himself. Does a day go by without him on some level thinking of what he has done, no matter what he claims? I wouldn't know, because I don't know how a sick mind works.

In any case he has done the unspeakable, he's almost not a person at all. Wouldn't you agree that a normal person doesn't kill 19 children and seemingly think nothing of it? There must be something seriously wrong with him and he probably doesn't know what is wrong with himself either. If he doesn't even realize that he's done something wrong, then he obviously hasn't got the same kind of a working mind that a normal human ought to have. Unfortunately, he's still a human being and we are responsible of him and his actions. Humans can exist only in societies, so no man is an island.

At least this is what I think.

There was no childhood trauma, that would be enough to get his sentence reduced because of "mitigating circumstances" as has happened many times in the past. Court psychologists couldn't find anything wrong with him, the military psychologists who tested him when he volunteered to join the US Army Special Forces (AKA Green Berets) didn't find anything wrong with him, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with him at all. Evil actions are caused by people just as good ones are. Saying that any evil action done by a person is the result of some "condition" means that any good action is also the result of some similar, but inverse, "condition" while the rest of us are normal. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have people (the good, the bad, and the apathetic) be made rather than born. I'd like to think that we have much more control over our own fate than that. Otherwise every evil person in history just had some "condition" and deserved our sympathy instead of our outrage.

Here is what he actually said about the crime he committed as part of some 75 hours worth of interviews: "To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. You're not the first mother to lose a kid, or the first grandparent to lose a grandson or a granddaughter. It happens every day, somewhere in the world. I'm not going to go into that courtroom, curl into a fetal ball, and cry just because the victims want me to do that." Sorry, but those are not the words of a victim or somebody who regrets his actions. Criminals who feel victimized play that role up and perform histrionics in court so that they get a reduced sentence, he did neither.

I have repeatedly said that anybody who performs a crime in the US that is worthy of the death penalty is not normal. They need to be treated differently than the average crime or person because of how extreme their actions are. The only difference among prisons is how secure they are and how long you stay there. For something of this magnitude, I don't think that it is enough of a difference. As Edmund Burke once said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I think that just throwing somebody like this into prison is as close to doing nothing as is possible.

we are responsible of him and his actions I think that we did take responsibility for his actions when we had him executed. Even if he is a victim of his own behavior, you have to admit that willingly he planned out the bombing over a long period of time, gathered the necessary resources, and still executed an attack that killed 168 people. The real crime is that he was only charged for the murder of 8 of them. Besides, when else is he supposed to take responsibility for his actions if we are busy taking responsibility for him already?

Humans can, have, and do exist outside of societies. Just the presence of society doesn't mean that the actions of the individual should be disregarded. We all are a part of said society, and when we make that society as a whole mad (for instance by violently murdering large number of people) then we should expect the rest of society to be willing to excise that part of it which is causing problems.

Hmmm, the only people I can think of living outside human societies are so called "beast children" who are sometimes raised by animals. They have no language, they usually don't live very long and they don't grow up to be what I'd call able-minded human beings. I was speaking of a "society" in a very large context. A human needs a group of people in order to become a human.

The fact that we couldn't find anything wrong with this heinous murderer doesn't mean that there was nothing wrong with him. Obviously there was, since he killed those children. We just don't know why he did that. I personally believe that people are "made" by the mixture of biology and social conditions. And although I'm not religious or spiritual, I believe that the world would become different and better if we reached new levels of sympathy both individually and collectively.

I actually interpret the person's words in a different manner than you did and I still believe he is a victim, because he sounds very bitter. In his thoughts he saw the world in a very gloomy light, so bad and sad that only he can redeem himself. He became so hard that he couldn't even cry. And why would he? He was in a dead-end. What could he do, he seems like a person who believes that there is no mercy in the world. The quote can be interpreted in many ways, who knows why he said what he said. It would've taken many years to find out what exactly was he thinking.

And well, Burke said something very profound, but we must think about these things very carefully... Good and evil are culturally related concepts. We can't rely on a slogan just because it sounds good, we have to chew on these things even after we think we've found the truth. That of course, goes for my opinions as well... and that's partly why I'm having this interesting conversation for you.

When a person is extremely ill, that person is either taken to prison, to an asylum or to a hospital. If the person is ill enough, it might make little different for him where he ends up... We have the responsibility to take care of these people who are not able to get along with other people while giving them the option of decide for their own life and even to kill themselves if they don't like their life here with the rest of us. To force them out of the system would be... Well, too simple. Too brutal. We could do better. A society should take the role of a caretaker, not a simple breeding pen, not some kind of factory where the unfit are eliminated. After we kill these people, they are wasted. In an enlightened world humans are wrong, misguided and ill, but they are not waste.

This kind of reminds me of some verses in Khalil Gibran's Prophet. A very nice book, the kind that doesn't give any direct answers but is pleasant to read.

You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked;
For they stand together before the face of the sun even as the black thread and the white are woven together. And when the black thread breaks, the weaver shall look into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also.

Society is more than just a group of people: "At its simplest, the term society refers to a small group of people sharing their own cultures and institutions. A society, then, is a network of relationships between people." You can get away from society by removing the network, isolating yourself from others, or by not relating to them at all. Looking back through history, there are many examples of people who lived their everyday life away from society. Its harder to live apart from society these days because there are so many people and so few uninhabited areas. Despite the difficulties, there are numerous people in the US that mange to do so.

If nobody (even psychologists who are against the death penalty) can't find a problem with him, then maybe there wasn't. Simply put: he killed the children because they weren't important to him. When a murderer chooses their victim, they don't instantly become mentally ill just because their target happens to be so young. We can't say that child murderers have some kind of mental problem just because we find it horrific, there needs to be some kind of evidence behind it. Since most mammals will kill the children of other males as a matter of principle, I'd say that finding such evidence will be quite difficult. Nobody would bat an eye at killing children for the vast majority of humanity's bloodthirsty history. I certainly don't think that there was anything wrong with the billions of people that came before us, and I don't think that we are naturally any better than them. The capacity for good and evil is in all of us and we, not society and not our ancestry, choose which will be embraced.

If people are nothing more than the mixture of biology and social condition, then we can effectively blame everything good and bad that has ever happened on something other than our own choices. If we can't choose to be evil, then we also can't choose to be good. Personally, I value responsibility over sympathy. Sympathy has no component of corrective action and feeling sympathy (this isn't directed at you in any manner) for evil people isn't too far from feeling sympathy for evil actions. Much like the people who sympathize with the plight of terrorists seem to forget that it is the innocent civilians, including children, who are paying the price.

So despite the fact that he had killed 168 people, it's not his fault because he is a bitter sounding? Sorry, but that doesn't compute. I find it more than a little irrational to believe that the solution to a gloomy world was to blow up buildings. If he wanted redemption don't you think he might have apologized or actively sought religion? I also don't think that he would have waived his extra appeals if he was interested in his own redemption. If he cared about the amount of mercy in the world he wouldn't have intentionally bombed a building with a bomb strong enough to be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. There is nothing that he did to make himself look like a victim, when there was plenty he could have done. Many people who are threatened with capital punishment play the victim card, he didn't. Not only that, he never claimed to be innocent. Even though actions speak louder than words, Timothy was clear in both action and word that he meant to do this and did not regret it.

While the definitions of good and evil vary from culture to culture, the premise that the lack of one encourages the spread of the other still holds true.

A mentally ill person is very rarely placed in prison because a prison does not have the facilities to deal with any issues they might have. The more ill they are, the more likely they are to be placed in a specialized care facility which is extremely different from a prison. People in prison have far more rights and freedoms than people in an asylum. Its why pleas of temporary insanity are far more common than pleas of insanity. In either case, they are not allowed to take their own life. It is technically illegal to commit suicide, especially since it would be seen as a symptom of insanity rather than a rational choice. Even assisted suicide is illegal in most countries. The only places that legally authorize assisted suicide are Oregon, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, and Japan.

I've asked repeatedly for an example where somebody who has committed such a crime has given back to society, and you (nor anybody else) have been unable to deliver. With the thousands of people who are executed each year, finding 1 person who has given back shouldn't be this impossible unless they really don't have anything to give back. I don't think that people who are executed are wasted in any manner. Somebody who is executed is far more visible than somebody who is left in prison to rot. Given that murder rates decreased when executions resumed, I'd say that each executed person helped prevent the future murder of somebody else. Besides, society didn't waste them they chose to waste themselves. If the death penalty is a possibility and you choose to kill 168 people, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what sentence the prosecution will seek. They commit the worthy crimes, not us.

Yet the broken thread is still pulled from the loom and replaced.

Me thinks we need to move to PMs. :)

Long reply is long. ^^;;

While it might not make the country safer, it is more ethical to imprison people than to execute them. I do understand what you said about having power you don't need to use instead of needing power you can't use. You have a point there, but I personally think that when we execute a person we go too far.

When it comes to a person's right to choose death, I don't think we should limit that either. So while I'm against death penalty I also support euthanasia although I don't think we should start installing suicide booths in every corner of the street.

Indifference towards murderers in my opinion is not that you let these evildoers run around free, but that you kill them and then brush the dust off your shoulders, simply concentrating on other things. This sort of behavior lessens human value. A person can talk about masses and society like it was an infinite amount of gray mass, but every number is an individual person with enormous potential. If a state is capable of murdering a convict criminal, it is just some steps away from being capable of murdering innocent bystanders... And for the record, I don't support warfare either - when it comes to waste of human life, there is nothing more senseless than a war.

There is a difference in killing an animal and killing a human. There is difference in getting a parking ticket and getting a lethal injection. If we don't see these differences and if we see the state-orchestrated loss of human life (even in theory) as a perfectly normal practice, we're traveling towards a very cold and uncaring future. If we don't try to do better than what we do now, how will tomorrow be any different?

"Grassroots level unrest" has nothing to do with capital punishment. I have no problem with punishing the wealthy who break the law (I think they out of too much as it is) but I'm not going to let the crimes of the poor be diminished just because they are poor. I'm an equal opportunity enforcer so to speak.

But law is not equal for the poor and the rich! While the crimes of the poor cannot be diminished, the reasons for their behavior can be explained more easily than the behavior of those who are not as likely to get caught in a life of crime. A wealthy white anglosaxon protestant has better chances of getting out of the ruse than say, poor immigrants representing an ethnic minority.

I have never seen a culture that encourages people to make the wrong choices, so I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to get at here.

It is not something that you can always see with your plain eye. But no matter what country we speak of, in popular culture there are always subtle and not-so-subtle nuances that insinuate that there is fortune and fame in being an anarchist. Some poor countries of South America especially come to mind, where violent gang life is often glorified to the extend you'd think it was some new kind of religion.

According to your quote society indeed is a group of people. At the simplest, a very small group, but it still counts. You can get away from the society and become a hermit, but you need the society to grow up as a person. A person must grow up somewhere where there are other people. He can become a hermit afterwards, but a child can't successfully grow up as a hermit. Thus, the norms of the society inevitably affect on the mind of a human being in the making.

If a person living in a human society does not recognize the importance of human life, then I'd say that there is a problem with this person. The fact that he does not recognize their value is the problem. It's different than any classical case of mental illness, but how long has the modern science been studying the works of a human mind? A hundred years? That's not a very long time.

I'd say that the person was embittered and angry and thus he killed 168 people. This is what happened. There no doubt was some reason behind this chain of events and I believe that the murderer was a victim of these events as much as the children were victims of his condition. One must keep in mind that we are not talking of a personal that is rational, we're not talking of someone who has a sound mind and so we can't expect him to follow logic that seems as normal to us. Even though the person claims that he had a message, that he was doing what he thing had to be done and that there was no reason to regret... You still can't say that his testimony would make any sense to a normal person.

I've asked repeatedly for an example where somebody who has committed such a crime has given back to society, and you (nor anybody else) have been unable to deliver. With the thousands of people who are executed each year, finding 1 person who has given back shouldn't be this impossible unless they really don't have anything to give back.

Surely you can't expect a Finnish student, while engaged in a conversation about ethics, to plunge into the bureaucratic works of the U.S. super state and among thousands of convicts hidden in death rows find one that has changed while living surrounded by a culture that does not excessively support rehabilitation? There might be one like that or there might not be. Has anyone truly searched for one? I believe that a study of this sort would require a lot of funding. From what I read, it seems that Lee Boyd Malvo learned his lesson and apologized for what he had done. He said that the murderer was gone and he was a new person, but I honestly can't say I know much about this man or his case. *shrug*

While the definitions of good and evil vary from culture to culture, the premise that the lack of one encourages the spread of the other still holds true.

Hmmm, I don't agree with that. When people are not good, they are not necessarily evil. But the more I think about it, the more puzzled I feel because understanding good and evil is like understanding the universe. We may talk about these things, but it is unlikely that we will find any reasonable answer because we can only come up with more questions and we are observing these things based on our culture-related understanding.

[/b]Yet the broken thread is still pulled from the loom and replaced[/b]

Unless there's no string left. We can't say for sure what Khalil Gibran's loom looks like.

Paying the price, terrorism, sympathy, evil and good are all things that are loaded with interpretation and articulations. I don't think I can even begin to start talking about these things without risking of writing a book in the process... But they are all very subjective and abstract concepts. It's hard to have a discussion that tries to turn these things from abstract to concrete because we probably wouldn't agree on what these concepts actually mean.

We could go on about this topic for... uh, for a very long time. Feel free to send me a pm if you want. But maybe it suffices to say that I'm against capital punishment whereas you support it in some cases, and that both of us are capable of debating in the internet without insulting the intelligence of the other? Even though we can't heal the world today, I think we both come out from this conversation richer than what we were when we entered it... =)


.

Lol, that dot wasn't supposed to bet there in the end! I copypasted your answer to my notepad in order to write one more huge ass reply. When I deleted a string of text the dot remained. So uh, please pay no attention to it. xD

Also, sorry for the many typos.

I'm PMing you my response.

ANybody else that would like to see it can PM me.

According to Amnesty International over half the world still allows executions. 105 countries still have laws allowing executions, even though they might not be used very often, while only 92 have expressly forbid it. At the same time, the number of executions in the US has been increasing. 2001 was the new high since our post 1970s stay of executions. To provide a little perspective in 2006 there were 53 executions, while China had 1,010. We haven't reached the numbers present during Prohibition, but thats partially because the easy criminal profits just aren't there any more.

I pointed out the differences of Finland (though any Scandinavian country would have worked) because those differences apply to many other subjects. It might not have been strictly necessary in this case, but it was similar enough to other discussions to include. It would be like applying the results of an elite private school to a public school environment. I don't mean to sound offensive or anything, quite the contrary. The history, geography, climate, and culture of the region worked out spectacularly well in create a peaceful and stable area. Its just that the rest of the world is lacking some of those critical pieces.

It might be about revenge for the family or families whose lives were directly touched, but a jury won't condone revenge. I don't know how it works in other countries, but in the US it is REALLY hard to get the death penalty. An entire 12 person jury of diverse people has to agree that the person is guilty of said crime. Then a different jury has to agree that the death penalty is a suitable punishment. Next comes an exhaustive appeal process that literally lasts years and involves multiple courts, juries, and judges. Even after all this happens, stays of punishment or pardons can be given by high political figures. Simple revenge won't pass such scrutiny.

Based on past experience, those who are on death row or life imprisonment don't add anything positive to society. If they can't learn that they did something heinously wrong in the years before their execution and do something to atone for it, I don't see any reason that another couple decades will help. Besides, isn't decades of contemplation of misdeeds and a lack of freedom more inhumane in the long run? That might be why the lifetime contemplation of their deeds kills as many as execution does: the suicide rate of lifers or death row inmates is three times the national rate. I asked you earlier about rehabilitating such people and you, nor any of the other people I've posed this to, have been able to come up with a successful example.

When we put down a horse, its for the mercy of the horse. When we put down a criminal its for the mercy of society. We might not like performing either action, but keeping them alive does more harm than good in both cases. The problem I have with paying for life imprisonment is that we are giving a free ride to somebody whose actions were so horrendous that we would shuffle them off to the side and isolate them from humanity. That money would be better off paying for just about anything else. When we have to take money away from schools, hospitals, or other public services to pay for prisons (its happened before) I think we are doing a tremendous disservice to the rest of society.

Guns have nothing to do with capital punishment. More guns are used to prevent crimes (do you really want to rob somebody who has a shotgun pointed at you?) than cause them. Compared to England, which has much stricter gun laws, the US has lower incidences of every crime except rape and murder. Coincidentally the only crimes in the US that have been punished by a death sentence in recent years has been rape and murder. Going on a murdering rampage has little to do with the weapons used. The fact that a rampage occurred is what gets people upset enough to sentence them to death.

Population is indeed a large part of the problem. Every one of the 10 most populous countries still allows the death penalty to be used in some cases. It might not be a common occurrence, but the laws are still there. Is death row for 1/10th of 1% of all people in prison really that bad? Especially given that 2/3 of those people will not receive the death sentence for some reason or another? Thats a pretty darn small percentage of the population to be causing such problems. A small country might get such a person every couple years. If Finland had the same percentage of its total population on death row right now, there would ~50 people there. Of that 50, less than 17 of them might eventually be executed. Its all relative.

Your vocabulary is better than many native English speakers, so this is actually a treat for me. If we all agreed on everything, this world would be pretty darn boring. ;)

Hmm, here ( http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-pen.....nist-countries ) Amnesty claims that "more than half the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice." Or perhaps I've misinterpreted something again... That is possible and in some cases even likely. But my point is mainly about ethics, not numbers. So to answer your last question, I think that even thought the numbers are relative and the damage might not seem big, we carve our laws on stones and they remain after we're gone. This might sound like 18th century pathos, but I believe that our laws define who we are. =)

The situation in Finland indeed is very good and that can be explained by many economical and even environmental factors, but then again a lot more poorer countries like Uzbekistan and Venezuela have also abolished capital punishment. I'd say that this supports the assumption that we're dealing with a moral choice, not a choice that depends on wealth of the country or such things.

I understand perfectly if an inmate sentenced to life in prison decides to take his own life, but it would be illogical to say that such cases prove that we should handle all cases in a similar way. Some people want to die. Others want to live. We can't make these choices for them. When we do that, doesn't it mean that we don't value human life any more than the murderer does? When there's a way to make a criminal harmless without killing him, shouldn't we refrain from further violence to show that we are better than him?

And as a side note, It would be terrible if we started gunning down criminals just so that those better off would have more "lebensraum". A good society takes care of all its people. Of course the gap between the rich and the poor in US is problematic, but I find it hard to believe that killing less than a hundred inmates a year would solve anything - not to say that we should kill more of them, I just don't see how it could make a difference. It also doesn't feel like the right way of solving things. Perhaps killing the rich ones would have better results, heh. I guess I'm something of a communist, 'cause I think that the selfishness of the high society is more dangerous than the grassroot level unrest.

I think that every human being has the potential to be worth more alive than dead and this potential should not be taken away. Have mass murderers been rehabilitated successfully? I don't know, I'm not even sure if they should be rehabilitated. I'm not sure anyone has ever really tried and I don't know if it's even possible to rehabilitate a murderer in a country where social pressure and in some extend popular culture as well encourage people to make the wrong choices. All I'm saying that if we take these people's life, in a way we sink to their level.

And yeah, I agree that guns should be discussed in another thread. When it comes to crime rates, I suppose they are strongly culture-related, so one has to be careful with comparative studying. Here in Finland we traditionally stab each other to death after heavy drinking. I kinda respect that, actually, because it makes murder a very personal experience. It's too easy to pull the trigger. Since we don't have much guns here in Finland we actually have to murder people with our bare hands. That requires some guts. :p

We got the same numbers, but I said things a little differently because the way amnesty international states things is a little misleading. Countries that don't use the death penalty for ordinary crimes or have a death penalty, but don't use it, should not be considered countries that have abolished the death penalty completely. Prohibiting by law is much different from forbidding by practice. It may be tomato vs. tomAto, but I think it is an important difference in this case.

Well, Uzbezistan and Venezuela both have considerably more crimes per capita than the US, so those probably aren't the best examples. :) Is it more ethical to make your country safer by executing the very worst criminals or to imprison them for decades and have the murder rate increase? I would love it if the world was safe enough that we wouldn't need capital punishment, but it obviously isn't. I'd rather not throw away a potential tool until after we have reached that stage. As I said earlier, I'd like to have it on the books and not use, rather than need to use it and not be able to.

I never said that we should treat every case, or even most cases, in such a manner. My point is that is if we are driving people toward suicide, in a situation where they have to try REALLY hard in order to be successful, then maybe life imprisonment isn't all that humane. I also see a bit of hypocrisy here since it is as illegal to help somebody commit suicide as it is for them to commit suicide. So much for choosing whether or not you want to die. Such laws prove that we value human life, but we also value the type of justice that needs to be applied in the worst of situations. I'd like to think that the other 99.999% of the population has already had ample time to show that we are better than such actions. Since the UN is willing to going to war in order to stop war and is willing to execute people who have murdered on a large scale I don't see any problem with a nation following this precedence on a more local scale.

Nobody is talking about gunning down anybody for any reason, let alone for lebensraum. I'd fight against that in a heart beat because I know where that has lead in the past. I agree that the gap between rich and poor is a problem, but I never said that executing people would solve it. I'm defending a form of punishment, not saying that it should be used more often. Some states have gotten rid of capital punishment after all, and I hope it works out for them, but I'm not going to force others to change just to fit my own notions. Despite the fact that the US saw a rise in murders when there was a referendum against the death penalty and a decrease when they were again allowed, I'm happy to let each state decide its own path. Executing criminals completely removes them from the system as nothing else can. We waste no more time on them, lose no more resources that could be better spent elsewhere, and reaffirm that if people are willing to commit the ultimate crimes they need to be prepared to pay the ultimate price.

"Grassroots level unrest" has nothing to do with capital punishment. I have no problem with punishing the wealthy who break the law (I think they out of too much as it is) but I'm not going to let the crimes of the poor be diminished just because they are poor. I'm an equal opportunity enforcer so to speak.

Yet isn't there also a point when we should decide "enough is enough" and just be done with it? We apply this principle to EVERYTHING else in our lives, so I see no reason not to apply it here as well. We certainly don't keep throwing our time, money, and effort on things that have spectacularly failed us. We even go out of our way to kill animals that kill humans for food, so not killing humans that kill for pleasure or gratification is a might hypocritical. There are limits that people should not cross without expecting the book to be thrown at them and if they cross it anyway, there isn't much reason to be overly lenient with them. i don't think that we are slinking to their level in any manner. Society is willing to go to war (for various purposes) and accidentally kill civilians, but killing the most violent criminals is wrong? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I have never seen a culture that encourages people to make the wrong choices, so I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to get at here.

I made a comparison to England because the UK as a whole is one of the largest immigrant populations in the US. Germans are another one, but they came later in history and weren't as formative in its creation.

Actually murder with a knife in the US might (I have no real way of checking so this might just be BS) be seen as worse than murder with a gun. The intimate nature of the action makes things much more personal for all involved, and juries will react to that. There is also the fact that it takes more skill to use a knife in a deadly manner, while using a gun is much simpler. Then again, with heavy drinking involved its pretty hard to hit the broad side of a barn. :P Feel free to make a journal on guns and I'll be happy to discuss them with you. :)

I'm against the death penalty simply because we have not made it anywhere approaching fair yet. Black people are still given harsher sentences than white people for the same crimes. Ditto for poor people.

I think if we're going to have the death penalty, it should only be reserved for people who are beyond rehabilitation; those who show no remorse and are very likely to repeat their crimes if ever released. Cases where they would be killed not out of vengeance or punishment, but simply to ensure that they could never harm anyone else again.

I also think there should be a second burden of proof before the death penalty can even be _considered_. Like, a person can't be sentenced to death on just eyewitness testimony. Only if there is DNA evidence or clear video/audio evidence. Hard, incontestible proof.

The same DNA evidence that has been tossed out in Harris County due to faulty protocols resulting in the conviction of innocents.

As long as a system is created by, or run through human endeavor, there is going to be inefficiency and error. The question is whether we can live with killing the occaisional innocent for the greater good of society.

Let's take all cases of faulty DNA testing resulting in wrongful conviction and put them in one pile, then take all the cases of witness testimony leading to wrongful conviction in another. Guess which pile is gonna be so enormous as to blot out the other one completely from sight?

Similarly, I'm sick of the media going nuts over cops killing people with tazers. Yes, okay, bad cops abuse them. But HOW is that worse than the same bad cop going apeshit with a gun? Misusing a tazer results in an occasional death. Misusing a gun results in a Hell Of A Lot More Deaths! Will the media please cover the greater threat accordingly, please!?

"The question is whether we can live with killing the occaisional innocent for the greater good of society."

No. And we shouldn't. There should never be a point where we as a society say it's an acceptable loss. Because any one of us could BE that occasional innocent one day. It may be an _unavoidable_ loss, but it should never be accepted.

RE: Tazers. My main gripe with the media is not so much that they _cover_ these stories, but that they seem to subtly insinuate that the _tazer_ is to blame. You never sense them blaming a gun when a cop wastes a guy who picked the wrong time to reach for his cell phone. Tazers may be dangerous, but they can never be considered more dangreous than a loaded gun.

Speaking as somebody who lived in a city that rioted because a cop did shoot and kill a suspect who was pulling up his pants, I can safely say that the media does blame guns. That entire police force now has to carry tazers instead of, or in addition too, their ordinary load out.

Not to get off topic but misused cars kill far more people, and do far more damage, than misused guns ever have.

*shrug* Maybe it's just my local news then. I cannot possibly exaggerate how irresponsibly they smear their fearmongering all over everything. If they can make something look like an apocalyptic epidemic, no matter how small of a threat it is in reality, they will.

And yes, I totally know lots more people die in car accidents. Still, I always come back to the fact that a car's primary purpose is transportation. It is not _designed_ to kill. A gun is.

Good rule of thumb: TV media = fear mongering

The primary purpose of a gun is to protect well being the user. Whether that means killing for food, intimidating a threat, providing income, or acting as the last line of defense. There are guns designed for killing, but there are also cars designed for killing as well.

A gun is a tool. That it makes it easier for a person to kill in no way diminishes the fact that a human being had to decide to pull the trigger.

And I like cars designed for killing, though I usually refer to them as 'tanks' or 'armored fighting vehicles'.

I agree 100%.

Ford certainly made enough tanks in WW2 to prove my point. Besides, armored cars are just designed to move people safely from place to place. They just value kevlar armor and missile launchers over airbags and air conditioning.

I share those values. I want a car with a missile launcher so badly.

Go ahead. Drive stupid. Do you feel lucky?

I think its in Nevada where a company offers \"team building exercises\" that consist of playing paintball with surplus tanks from around the world. Talk about having an awesome job. :)

Death is bad and execution a punishment because of the will to live. Every creature on the planet has the drive and will to live as long as possible. This is the way life as evolved. If you threaten to execute somebody, you cause them terrible fear. In that alone, you cause them terible punishment unless they are so depressed that they don't give a fuck for their life anymore. Only the depressed wish to die. They happy and even the not-so-happy want to keep on living. The death, itself, can cause suffering to both the executed during the dying process and their families throughout the entire ordeal and afterward.

Although it is true that death is apart of a natural process, execution and euthanasia are not. These are inventions of Man and do not exist in nature. Lemmings, do not fall off cliffs or drown themselves, salmon do not die on purpose, and male black widow spiders praying mantices don't want to get eaten.

Lemmings don't actually leap off cliffs, that was staged for a disney documentary :3

You have completely ruined that game for me now. :P

Isn't that the essence of what I said?

As someone mentioned earlier, the death penalty doesn't make an effective deterrent because of the "I'm not the one who'll get caught" mentality. So perhaps the problem doesn't lay in the punishment so much as the information and beliefs surrounding it. If a criminal truly believed that they weren't going to get away with their crime and would be harshly punished, I think there'd be less crime overall.

I do agree with the firing squad idea though. I don't know a bunch about the needle, but I don't understand why the electric chair is still used. That seems like about the most inhumane way of killing a person, along the lines of (short lived) torture.

I...don't think I should rant on a topic like this, but I do agree that there's a difference between sentenced to death and dying naturally. I believe it is wrong to kill, but it isn't wrong to die.

To quote inmates on Death Row from last year, the Death Penalty won't deterr them from kiling anyone. Given the chance they'll do it again, and again and again. The idea that the family needs to witness the death of the person who killed their child, relative, loved one, for closure is complete bullshit and the belief that seeing someone's death will make it all better somehow is also the wrong way of thinking IMHO.

Is it right for all those who have been convicted of any kind of murder? Not really. There are hundreds who didn't realize the consequence of their actions, who had moments of insanity, and for every case of wrongful conviction, there's probably a dozen more we don't see.

If we're going to be paying for their food and housing anyway, why do we not benefit from Lifers some how? Give them an opportunity to benefit our society by volunteering for medical research? Considering their crime, there's almost no chance that they can re-enter society without some kind of social stigma of their conviction or behavioral damage from being in the pen for some amount of time. What kind of quality of life could they really have if they're actually re-released? What's their quality of life right now??

We could benefit from cancer treatments or AIDS research just for starters with just a few that're willing to volunteer for the good of the world. Yes they are going to die, but rather than leave angry only knowing that they took a life with them and ruined dozens more, they can leave this world knowing that they just helped save thousands more in the long run.
Not exactly a glamorous concept, but using live people instead of lab rats or rabbits would be very beneficial to medical advancements.

Some people will continue to kill as long as they are able. So why bother with them? Instead of having to deal with them for several decades, we can get rid of them relatively quickly. It's not like they are ever going to do anything productive, so we might as well remove both a drain and a threat to our society.

Part of the desire for families to seek the death penalty is that they want the criminal to pay as high a penalty as possible. Another part is that they never want that person to cause such pain and suffering again. I'm sure there is also a fair about of hate, anger, and revenge thrown in there as well.

I don't think that anybody is seriously thinking that all murderers should be get the death penalty. The death penalty should only be used for the very worst of criminals such as serial murders/rapists or people whose crimes are incredibly cruel.

It is currently illegal to force a prisoner to work. If they do work, and produce a sellable product, we have to pay them for it. However, as a lifer there is very little motivation to do even this. They certainly don't have a reason to volunteer for medical research. Just being classified as a lifer means that they aren't going to reenter society regardless. In prison their life is actually pretty darn good. They have access to almost everything a free citizen can get. They get food, shelter, clothes, entertainment, and all without any responsibility or work. All at our expense. Not a bad life for somebody who did something so bad that we decided to separate them from the rest of society for the rest of their life.

No offense, but wanting to do medical tests on criminals leads to a slippery slope than will lead nowhere good. We already take care of any medical needs they have while in prison, so they can already make that offer if they wanted to. I can't think of a reason why any company would volunteer to walk into that particular lawsuit waiting to happen, but thats just me.

i understand conflicting viewpoints. for example, black market organs. you're taking organs from poor people and selling them at ridiculous prices, and yet thats the only way some people will get a replacement organ

however, i disagree with the above statement. issac newton was a very sickly child, and they didn't expect him to survive. under your statement, he should have been killed. but where would we be without him. my point is this. just because someone SEEMS to have no future DOESN'T mean he doesn't have one. that's why i'm against mercy killings

That's a bizarre extreme though. I don't advocate killing the sick and infirm or some kind of eugenics nightmare. Nor should people skip out on medical assistance. But in the case of a guaranteed scenario, like a blind horse with no legs, it's probably merciful to end their suffering as they are no longer capable of leading any form of life.

oh, when you put it like that yeah

I think that something that's under question in either the euthanasia or the capital punishment scenario is human rights.

Unfortunately, human rights seem to be looked upon as a blanket set of rules that apply to everyone. A criminal who is willing to devalue the lives and liberties of another has the same standing in regards to human rights as a complete innocent has. This raises an instant problem in my mind. How can you give someone consideration for human rights when s/he has willingly resigned their membership to the human race by behaving in a manner that is completely unacceptable? When an animal, even a beloved pet, a family member, forgets how to behave toward others and kills indiscriminately, that animal is killed to minimize the damage to the people surrounding him. Why is it not that way with a human being? I don't understand how a murderer or rapist can ever walk free on a technicality. If there are witnesses, who the hell cares about due process? When a human being acts in a way that shows an absolute disregard for other human life or well-being, time to minimize the damage. Death penalties may not be deterrents, but a dead man commits no murder. I know the legal system isn't perfect. I know innocents are sometimes convicted. People are flawed. When justice fails and a criminal walks free, he's free to harm others. When justice fails and an innocent is punished, it's tragic but the potential for further harm is limited. Sad but true statistics.

Euthanasia, is a matter of life versus choice. If someone chooses to die and has good reason to, it seems inhumane to force them to go on living. The argument often arises at times like this about how "All life is sacred." That's a matter moral/religious programming. War puts to lie every argument of life being sacred. In practice, the idea is a bit more like, "All life is sacred except for people who disagree with me." People with nothing to look forward to in life have a right to die, and wanting to die is only a mental health issue if there's no reason to seek death.

Death is only a punishment to those who don't seek it. Death isn't the crux of this matter, perspective is.

I agree with just about everything you just said. My biggest disagreement is that I don't ever want to rely on eyewitness testimony alone for a conviction. There are too many cases where the eyewitness is wrong for me to trust it with the life of another person. More innocent people have been put in prison because of an eyewitness than any other single reason. Getting people that way is a big mistake.

I didn't mean single eyewitness testimony.

I've heard of situations where a rape victim was a witness, to not only (obviously) her rape, but also the murder of her companion and then there were several police who showed up to interrupt the rape and the perpetrator got off on a technicality. In situations like those... Why is there a trial?

Because we would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person serve time. The laws on the police are just as binding as the ones on citizens, so we follow the laws and fill in the holes as we find them.

You ask an interesting idea, but yo miss one very important concept in all of this...

Who gives someone the right to decide if you live or die?

This is the point of those conflicts when someone kills another person against their will, and is in turn killed themselves. In the case of the one killed, they probably didn't want to be killed, so it probably wouldn't be seen as merciful. In the case of the murderer in turn being put to death, once again... it's doubtful he would be looking to die, and so it becomes a punishment for it to be made to happen.

Euthanasia isn't a good example sadly. Many animals are put to sleep for no better reason than because someone who has never been around the animal things they should be. I'm not talking about the hundreds of puppies and kittens and strays that it gets done to either. I mean animals who bit someone, who ran around attacking other people's pets, who attacked a young child carelessly left in their presence. In some cases, these animals were acting instinctively... something ANY pet owner should know about, and ANY person with even the basic concept of an animal should understand. And yet they get killed. Once more, though it *seems* like it's a mercy or something that has to be done, it's usually not the case. In one case, someone got into the tiger pit at a zoo, and they were killed. The police later killed the tiger. Why? Tigers are the worlds largest predator, and let's face it; a human without weapons is the worlds easiest prey. The tiger acted on it's instincts IN A PLACE IT WAS PUT IN TO KEEP PEOPLE AWAY... and they still killed it.

Death is both a natural thing and a mercy in some cases. But being killed isn't the same as death. It's not 'your time to go'. You haven't lived as long as you were going to. Someone else took that all from you, and decided that you were going to die. Therein lies the problem. In some cases, I wonder as well, like when someone is begging to be let die, or isn't even able to tell they're alive, being forced to breathe and fed intravenously... this isn't normal life anymore than murder is normal death. If someone truly wants to be dead, why force them to live?

In the end, death that is decided by someone else, and not by your actions, environment, etc isn't normal, and as such, tends to be thought of as a kind of punishment. But life too can be a punishment. It's up to the people who are set to decide which is whcih in the end what happens.

I may not have addressed this point clearly. Nobody has the right to decide whether someone lives or dies aside from themselves. Only if they cannot decide can the decision be made for them.

Society as a whole and a jury decide when it is acceptable to take a life. Voting citizens decide what punishments are worthy of death and how the death is carried out. The discussion we are having right now is little different than the one that was carried out to decide what was worth the death penalty in the first place.

Once we as a society agree on what actions warrant capital punishment, then it is the up to a jury. All a jury really does is decide which, if any, crimes the suspect committed and then what sentence would be fair.

Since death is natural, there really shouldn't be a problem with reciprocating death to somebody who has already taken the life of others.

Personally I'm not scared of dying. I look forward to it in fact. I mean I don't want to die now of course! Not until hopefully I'm old. But I just want to know what happens after death, what it feels like...

im not going to bother reading all the other comments right now, as i am easily influenced and dont want my viewpoint tainted...here is how i feel...

Capital "Punishment" is not punishment, people don't get this..just as the concept of "hell" is not punishment, the purpose of punishment is to teach a lesson to the person who has done wrong to not do it again, there for it cannot be a punishment because you cant learn anything if your dead...same with the concept of hell, its not a punishment, its just torture for the fun of it...

it also cannot be used as a deturent, study after study has shown that the death sentence has no effect on crime statistics, in alot of ways it actually encourages violent offenders to be more violent, and kill any witnesses to increase their odds of avoiding arrest

yes, Sir James Berry once said that to die would be an awfully great adventure, but its not someone making a decision to move on to what ever comes next, it is someone taking away that persons life and any chance they have at redemption...no one is the same person in 10 years, in 5 years, in 1 year...as they are right now, nobody, and the fact of the matter is is that there are very few unrepentant killers out there, fact is, the people the state puts to death are the ones who say "im sorry", its unrepentant killers like manson for instance, that we wont kill, why? because he thinks its funny...

and, also, i dont mean this the way its going to come out, i really, really dont, but it needs to be said... the concept of killing people for the good of society (murderers, crazy people, etcetera) isnt new, as a matter of fact, it was what a certain German politician based his entire political structure on, if removing certain people from society was deemed necessary...you know, degrading influences such as the elderly and infirm, black people, jews, and homosexuals, as long as its for the greater good of the people, and its done in a humane way, such as the way animals are put down, then, well, thats alright...

just to say again, i dont mean that the way it sounds, its just important to know the company that those kind of ideas tend to keep...nobody has the right to up and decide who is worthy of giving a second chance, and who society is better off without, nobody

i will say this, i to have conflicting thoughts on these topics, there was something a few months ago where a mother...did something im made too ill thinking about to put into words...if i had been a police officer there, i would have happily spared the tax payers the expense of a trial...but i cant stand the utter...cold bloodedness of it all..

So what are they supposed to learn from life imprisonment? You certainly won't have a chance to apply what was learned when you get out. In these terms, the only difference between these two sentences is how long they stay in prison before they die there.

It can't be used as a deterrent because it is so hard to get sentenced to death. Adding life imprisonment doesn't lower crime rates either for the exact same reason. We are talking about the top 1-5% of criminals here. The ones whose crime was so bad that a jury decided there was no hope for rehabilitating them. That type of criminal won't be deterred by anything of this earth. Killing witnesses is a non-issue since most crimes at this level are premeditated to begin with.

Sorry, but if it was bad enough to get a life or death sentence them saying "I'm sorry" isn't going to cut it for me. Even if in 10 years they say that they are "very sorry" it doesn't change the fact that they killed somebody else. I think that our current system is incredibly flawed, but I think making it easier to get out of prison is the wrong direction to take.

That German politician also looked back through history and saw that humanity has been doing since before recorded history. This has nothing to do with eugenics or a master race as murderers certainly aren't limited by race, gender, or creed. This is about following the laws that we have set out and having a final punishment for the very worst of crimes. We executed a number of Nazi leaders for this very reason.

One person doesn't make the decision. Society makes the laws, the system acts on it, a jury decides guilt, and a jury decides on the validity of the punishment. At no point does any one person decide if the subject should be executed. Indeed, the only way a single person can act is for a high government official to issue a pardon. So one person can save a life by overwriting the opinions of others, but no one person can take a life.

So it's okay for a police officer on the scene to be judge, jury, and executioner if the case is bad enough; but it isn't all right for actual judges and juries to decide whether a person should be executed for their crimes? Forgive me if I don't see how this system is fair or rational.

WARNING!!! I'M ABOUT TO GET RELIGIOUS!!!

I believe the entire universe is constructed on a principle of Balance. In order for anything thing to be created, something else has to be destroyed. Nature uninterrupted is the balance between Positive (constructive) and Negative (destructive). Killing and Death are natural parts of existence, but killing is a touchy subject. Killing another creature for food (required), in addition to other necessities (optional), is perfectly okay. But Murder is the problem. Murder is when you kill something else for the sole reason of killing it, for fun, or for fashion. Killing is okay, but Murder is not.

I do agree with what you're saying here, but that's not the point.

The point is that I have a near-irresistible urge to press your avatar to see if it makes a doorbell sound. ;)

*Ding-Dong*

That reminds me of a song I heard once:

"Ding dong! Your mom doesn't wear no socks!
Ding dong! I watched while she took 'em off!
Ding dong! She put 'em in a boat!
Ding dong! Now the boat doesn't even float!"

No, I did not make this up. And the guy hollered every line at the top of his lungs.

I've heard some REALLY weird songs myself!

"Let's go out to the Graveyard,
Let's break into a crypt!
Steal a corpse, take it to the lab,
Do some experiments on the slab!
Gotta bribe, bribe, bribe the night watchman,
Or we'll be behind bars!
For it's One!
Two!
Three plots dug up at the old graveyard!"

That one I wrote!

Good lord almighty!! *laughing uncontrollably*

That, my friend, is effing classic. <hands you a Grammy>

I'd like to thank my sick, twisted sense of humor!

And to all the people who stuck by me, heads off to you!

And finally to all the people who said I couldn't do it, you make the following words all the sweeter:

"How do ya like me now?"

Here's one of mine:

"I wish I was an Oscar Meyer weiner.
That is what I'd truly like to be.
For if I were an Oscar Meyer weiner,
Then I'd be shaped like a penis."

I know a few people who already are!

Tee hee! I actually performed that one live at open mic night in a trendy coffeehouse. I did it totally deadpan too. They fucking _loved_ me.

You have guts like me!

I've performed the Time Warp from Rocky Horror Picture Show twice in front of a few hundred people for no reason, and once in front of the whole school for an assembly!

I also plan to dress up like Dr. Eggman from Sonic, go out in public with a boom box and sing and dance "The REAL Eggman!"

Awesomeness. I'm not sure what wacky shenanigans I will pull at AnthroCon this year, but if there's an empty stage with a working mic anywhere, I may not be able to control myself...

AMEN!

Whackiness makes the world go 'round! For it is the weird that defines the noral!

Nver before have I seen so much whacking!

I think if capital punishment was more efficient, it'd be a better deterrent.

I reckon if the "painless injection" was increadbaly painful captial punishment would actualy work.
In my opinion some one who wants to die should be allowed, this includes sucicides (its their life after all). but there is a point where it goes from the greater good to evil, that was hitlers problem, uniting the country against the jews stroke of genius, killing them a step to far.

Goodness, there certainly is a lot of reading ahead of you, by the looks of this post.

My view is simple and to the point.

75% of all people convicted of a crime and imprisoned, are likely to commit another crime (usually the same one).

I have no problem with the Death Penatly, and in fact I wish it were harsher. I wouldn't mind people being executed for things such as drug smuggling, and even theft (large scale). We have far too many people in this world willing to do wrong than right, and the only way this problem can be fixed is by making the penatlies harsher. You also might be a little bit more reluctant to commit a crime if you know you'll be executed if you're caught.

PS: Get rid of Death Row too. It costs tax payers money to keep an inmate alive. Once you're sentenced to death you should but dragged out back instantly and shot by whomever you wronged.

Punishment does not fix problems, it masks them. Crime is indicative of larger social problems and how we function as a society. Only in rare cases is it to do with genetic or mental health issues, and even then those are merely symptoms of environmental problems. People steal when there is a massive disparity in wealth and people deal drugs when when society is oppressive or their prospects in life are depressing.

If you go around giving "excuses" for misbehaving badly, where does it end. No one will be to blame for their actions. Anyone can say that; it's not their fault they committed that crime, there was something mentally wrong with them, or the government made them do it. It's a defense that's been used millions of times before, but the "insanity defense" is very difficult to prove. "Depraved Injustice" is also another difficult stance to take on the stand. When do we stop making up make-believe mental illnesses and start taking responsibilities for our own wrong doing? Prisons are too "nice" these days, some people would rather be in jail than homeless on the streets, or even sometimes in their own (usually troubled) house holds. I'm just saying we protect the people who're doing "right" and destroy the "desire" for people to do wrong with fear of the ultimate concequence.

The desire should not be held back solely by fear. It should not even have a chance to gain hold.

True, but as human beings the desire to accomplish wealth the easiest ways possible will always be there. I'm guilty of that as well. I would commit a crime that netting me a lot of money if I knew I could get away with it. If the possibility that I would be killed if caught were there, I wouldn't do it.

If there is no desire for wealth then that problem doesn't arise.

Desire for \"wealth\" is nothing more that the desire for resources when there is a finite supply of them. Since there will never be an infinite supply of resources, a desire for wealth will always exist.

I gotta take the spiritual road on this, sorry guys. I just don't feel right taking someone else's choice (and by some one else, I mean God or gods or whoever ) and either suicide or killing someone else. 'course when it comes to self defense, fuck'em

I gotta take the spiritual road on this, sorry guys. I just don't feel right taking someone else's choice (and by some one else, I mean God or gods or whoever ) and either suicide or killing someone else. 'course when it comes to self defense, fuck'em

Sorry for the double, ffing pc

If society makes a law that says "do this act and the punishment is death" and then a criminal does said act then wasn't the choice already made? The criminal chose to break the law despite knowing the possibility of their fate.

But sometimes people also shoot each other in an accident... And sometimes they don't have a choice, sometimes they might be on drugs. If you happen live in the ghetto, your career options are inevitably pretty small. Also, law is not equal for everyone. It has a lot to do with one's ethnical background, wealth, luck and other factors.

An accidental shooting isn't murder. Killing while on drugs won't earn the death penalty unless the killing was particularly brutal and nasty. Not even first degree murder is usually worth the death penalty. Getting a jury to agree on the death penalty is very difficult and only happens for the worst of crimes. Certainly not crimes that can be easily excused or forgiven.

I've lived in the ghetto before so I know about hard time. So I know that choosing a life of crime can be easier than the alternatives. However, just leading a life of crime won't earn people the death penalty. As of Dec. 31, 2006 there were 2,258,983 people in prison in the US. Of that number there were 3,350 on death row or 1/10th of 1% of all prisoners. So its not like its easy to earn the death penalty. Simply social issues aren't enough to explain it. Especially since a proper jury (i.e. one that won't get thrown out of court) with people of mixed race, income, and background have to all agree on the sentence.

It might be a bit hard to determine whether something was accidental or not, whether the killer was on drugs, wheter he was insane and so on... In addition to running the local prison my dad has also worked almost 30 years as a prison psychologist and he once told me that in cases when someone say, rapes and kills a woman, it takes for that person years and years to find out why he did it, what was he thinking when he did it and what were the things that in his life lead him to do this. The truth cannot be found from the headlines or the verdict. When a person contemplates on the murder he or she commited, his or her feelings change throughout the years. When you compare this process to the process in court and the judgement that takes place there, the weeks and months of juridical evaluation are still short like the blink of an eye.

Methinks it's also worth noting that people under 25 years can be sentenced to death in certain US states. I can't remember what happened to Lee Boyd Malvo, but I think he was about 18 or 19 when he faced some death penalty trials. Even though juveniles wouldn't be sentenced to death in practice, in theory the society still allows it.

But still, I must admit that U.S. is not the worst country when it comes to death penalties. China, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Sudan are also on the list. From a western point of view USA just catches my eye because I live surrounded by American popular culture.

Deciding whether a shooting is accidental or not is relatively easy: If its a single shot, it might be an accident, if its multiple then it definitely isn't. If you immediately called for an ambulance its likely to be an ambulance, if you didn't it probably wasn't an accident. A drug test can tell whether you have been on drugs in the past weeks, so thats no difficulty. Mental examinations are fairly routine and practically required on the worst cases. The biggest thing though is that guns are a tool that requires a person to load a shell, release the safety, and pull the trigger in order for it to fire.

Their feelings change because they are being punished. We punish children who break things without waiting for them to psychoanalyze their actions and we get traffic tickets as soon as they are witnessed, so why are rape and murder so special? Even with that being the case, if there is a question of mental issues a court psychologist can step in at any point. Its part of the reason that it takes so long for a death penalty to be carried out. Timothy McVeigh's trial took 2 years to declare him guilty of all 11 counts, 2 weeks to sentence him, and another 4 years before he was actually executed. I'd think 6 years is more than long enough to find a relevant problem. As I've repeatedly said before "simply" raping and/or killing somebody isn't going to get the death penalty. It requires something extraordinarily bad to even be considered.

As of 2005 it is illegal in the US to execute people who committed while under the age of 18. Raising that number to 25 doesn't make a whole of sense in the US because you are legally considered an adult at 18. Even though I don't drink, I have a problem with the fact that you can be drafted at 18 but you can't purchase liquor until 21. Saying that you can kill others while serving the government, but can't be killed for any crime until 25 would really make me mad.

Malvo was 17 at the time of the attacks and could have gotten the death penalty in Virginia. However, the death penalty was never sought against Malvo because he cooperated with the authorities and provided evidence against the actual shooter, John Allen Muhammad. Malvo has received multiple life sentences while Muhammad received a death penalty and multiple life sentences.

The US is nowhere near as bad as other countries, but the US media and public has the freedom of speech to make it a very big deal.

The mind of a human changes all the time, it cannot be shut into a box and one cannot say that there is a fixed amount of time one requires in order to deal with having committed a murder. People are very different. Here's an example. My father used to interview many prisoners in his line of work. He interviewed one prisoner who had killed a woman. During the first year the man blamed alcohol, on the second year he blamed the situation, then he blamed the woman for wanting him to kill her... After many years the man realized that the woman had in a way, insulted his sexual abilities. The man had felt ashamed and that had lead to the situation in which he had killed her, accidentally or not, it's hard to say. Sometimes you just don't know. This case was a difficult one and even after the man realized why he had killed the woman, he couldn't get to the bottom of why he was insulted and what really happened. Maybe by now he has, I don't know.

I think that there is a very big difference whether you give someone a parking ticket or whether you execute someone with a lethal injection. The difference is so terrifying, that if one does not see it, then... Well, let's just say that I wouldn't want that person to be in charge of giving me a parking ticket lest he get it wrong. x)

I read this one article in the internet and although there were some religious connotations I think the article worded out my feelings pretty well: "It is well within the power of existing governments to provide means whereby murderers, as well as other criminals, can be isolated in institutions where they can be humanely treated as patients or people of unsound mind. And this must be made part of a general campaign of educative and remedial treatment of crime outside prison walls. Otherwise prisons will be -- what they too often are -- places for disposing of the materials which we manufacture outside. This process of first carefully manufacturing criminals and then killing them is an insult to our intelligence and culture. We must stop making them; and, if made, we must reform them."

Freedom of speech is a good thing, because it makes it possible for people to pinpoint the faults in the current system and make it better.

That might be the case for a "normal" murder, not it certainly isn't the case for a murder worthy of capital punishment.

Without knowing the details, I'd say that the situation would probably garner a charge of 2nd degree in the US. On the other hand, if he had planned the murder ahead of time and he actively wanted to kill her (regardless of the reason) he would be guilty of 1st degree murder, which averages about 30 years in prison. If the murder was particularly gruesome or vicious the sentence could easily reach a life imprisonment. Once again, the death penalty needs a little something extra to go from lifer to death sentence. If the person above was on death row and he gave those as his reasons for committing the crime it wouldn't change his sentence a bit. Being ashamed just doesn't justify murder.

The crime is indeed bigger, but is doesn't change the fact that somebody intentionally instigated it. There are many years between the sentencing and the execution for a valid mental challenge to be placed. If it doesn't occur or isn't sustained, then there probably isn't anything wrong with the criminal.

I agree that we must stop making them, but that has nothing to do with capital punishment. Reforming them first requires reformation to work. There still isn't an example of reforming such a criminal, so I'm not entirely certain its possible. Then again I don't think that treating them as "patients or people of unsound mind" is the right approach for somebody who chose to act in this manner. We would no longer be punishing them and it would be sending a bad message to other such criminals. The rise of murders following the US referendum on capital punishment comes to mind.

Yes, the example I mentioned isn't worth a capital punishment, but that wasn't my point. The process of understanding a murder is no different whether you kill one person or ten.

Does an ill person choose to be ill? If you look at a patient with multiple personalities disorder, does he or she choose to act all crazy? Should we just slap this person really hard and tell him or her to behave according to the norms of the society? We don't know what goes on in the head of a mass murderer, but even though our knowledge of human psyche is limited, we can't treat these people like normal people.

Abolishing capital punishment is all about sending the right message. People within a society cannot become "better people" unless the collective values of the society change. A change cannot happen overnight and I'm sure that there would be difficulties, but murder in every aspect is unethical; state operated murder is even worse, because it legitimizes murder. It sends the message of "if you can kill, so can we" and that primal justification of violence is what keeps our minds back in the stone age, so to speak.

I beg to differ to some extent. Murdering one person can be a reaction, an accident, a misconception, or other act that isn't particularly thought out. Murdering 10 people on the other hand is much more difficult. Even the mentally ill do not randomly decide that they are going to kill 10 people and go on a killing spree. As such, how you treat the action and the criminal must be treated differently. The difference between getting a ticket and murdering a single person is just as big as the gap between murdering 1 person or 10. Thats why 2nd and 3rd degree murder exist. Killing 10 people is intentional, killing 1 might not be. The difficulty of killing 10 people also make it considerably harder to accomplish then killing 1 person.

You say this like every criminal must be insane by some degree. Multiple personality disorder is a fairly rare condition (6-10% of all psychiatric patients in the US) so claiming that even a majority of murderers have it wouldn't be logical. Especially since such a condition can be used as a legal defense, but is rarely used. A mass murder is not necessarily insane, just as an insane person is not necessarily a mass murderer, so treating them identically is not a very good idea. Since the insane are not allowed to be executed in the US I'd say that the eventuality of insane criminals has already been dealt with. It is the criminals who are perfectly sane that are being executed and put into lifer prisons.

We did abolish capital punishment in the US for a few years, and we saw murder rates soar precipitately. Once the death penalty was reinstated we saw murder rates drop down again. So what message does that send us? If criminals murder more people when there isn't a capital punishment, then I'd think that the better message would be to keep capital punishment around as a mighty big stick. By getting rid of capital punishment I'd think that we are telling criminals that no matter how bad they are they will never have to pay the ultimate price. They will be getting the same type of punishment as a minor criminal but will have to endure it for much longer. I think that sending a message of "if you kill people, we can kill you" sends a much more beneficial message.

death is good for those who actually wish for it, but bad when someone doesnt want it yet (maybe this is oversimplifying things a bit too much, but it might jjust be crazy enough to be plausible)

Yet doesn't that make it a good punishment for those who do the most horrific crimes? I'm not talking petty crimes, or even most first degree murders, I'm talking about the murders that make you cringe and feel nauseous.

well it all depends on the person pretty much, if the person wants to die, and u kill him/her, then ur actually doing a favor =P

If they really wanted to die, they'd do it before they got caught. Then again, if they try to commit suicide and are caught they will be put on suicide watch and prevented from killing themselves. :)

hence the real torture

Except that very few people truly want to commit suicide. Even though the suicide rate on death row is three times the national average, thats still not many people who would prefer to die than live. Most of the people on death row do everything in their power to get their sentences commuted and live.

thats cuz they dont wanna die yet... but the ones that actually want to die for real are different