’)It’s likely that about 51 minutes after I post this, the DC Sniper wil have been put to death in Virginia. The death penalty is best invoked with guys like John Allen Muhammad who not only killed innocents in cold blood but did so while terrorizing an entire region. The only regret I’ve got is that Maryland isn’t the one doing this execution, but there’s effectively a ban on that here.
Oliver, love following you on Twitter and I agree with you 90% of the time … but this ain’t one of ‘em. The death penalty accomplishes nothing. I have absolutely no sympathy for John Allen Muhammad, but that’s entirely beside the point. Wrong is wrong; and the death penalty is just plain wrong. Once a person like Muhammad has been removed from society and incapacitated by imprisonment, killing him for retribution is just plain gratuitous. It’s beneath us.
That won’t stop me from loving your blog, though. Just can’t agree with you this time.
Be well, my friend.
Thanks for reading, you’re free to be wrong on the death penalty.
But I understand and respect people opposed to it, I just believe it is a tool we must have for the most evil among us.
+1 Dave
I will agree with Oliver on this topic when he one day proves to me that the state has never, ever executed an innocent human being.
Death penalty proponents may consider the sacrifice of one innocent life to be necessary for this machine, but I find them lacking in both imagination and empathy. It is sickening to be blamed for something one did not do. It is an atrocity to be killed for it.
Good fucking riddance. He was a monster and deserved to die. I am only sad that it was done in a humane, medical manner. I wish he suffered long and hard first.
I would have preferred him to be dispatched by the Brazen Bull or perhaps the Scaphism. Something slow and painful.
Which rather proves the point that the death penalty has everything to do with vengeance and little to do with protecting society.
I should note that I’m on the vengeance side of things. I don’t think the death penalty is any sort of deterrent: monsters are going to kill.
I’m not at all comfortable with the idea of the government being in the vengeance business, nor with the message it sends my kids. (Not to mention the likelihood of executing an innocent, or the inequitable way in which “justice” is applied.) That, and the fact that it serves no useful purpose other than vengeance makes it a no brainer.
Not in my name.
Superman would be ashamed of you.
Well, yeah Quaker, I agree with you. It IS about revenge and payback and I am all for that in cases like this. He broke the rules of society and paid the price accordingly. He forfeits his own right to live as a result.
I don’t believe the death penalty exists as a deterrent because people like him or the BTK guy or the Juarez killer don’t give a damn about the laws of society. They are psychotic cold blooded people and need to be deleted properly.
And that’s not a message I particularly want to send my kids – that vengeance is justified, particularly when carried out by the state in cold blood.
But see, that’s the only time it’s justified; when the state does it.
Still on the fence a bout it, except when it involves death of children.
I don’t get that argument – why give the state the power of life and death over its citizens? It’s a truism that power corrupts. And there is ample evidence that too many prosecutors want only one thing – a conviction, regardless of the guilt of the accused.
why give the state the power of life and death over its citizens? It’s a truism that power corrupts
Some states have it, some don’t. The ones that do can use it if they choose to do so in whatever trial it is. It’s a punishment, albeit the most extreme. It’s pretty cut and dry. Do this, ya die.
Part of me thinks maybe John Muhammad should have spent the rest of his life in some shithole solitary cage. But would he ever give a shit? Would he show any remorse or suffer for his actions?
He got off easy, basically getting a humane euthanasia that was anticipated and controlled, not like how he killed his victims.
Now I certainly think the death penalty should only be used for instances like his. Murderers go to jail all the time and don’t get it, they’ll get 40 to life or whatever.
And it is a major major problem when innocents go the chair. You got me there.
Besides which, I don’t believe that vengeance is a valid outcome for a criminal justice system. Restorative justice, not retribution. Protect society, rehabilitate when possible. But vengeance brings us down to the level of the perpetrator.
Even if it means we execute innocent people as well?
This isn’t a hypoethetical any longer. We know for a fact that innocents have been exected by the state.
You’re OK with that?
No. Every effort should be made to exclude innocent people from conviction, let alone the death penalty.
But we know for a fact that innocents have died, so you’re OK with that. A death penalty enforced by humans will always murder some innocents.
I’m not OK with that. Advanced societies shouldn’t be OK with that.
I also gotta disagree with ya, odub.
I really find the yes column more persuasive here:
Should the death penalty be banned as a form of punishment?
It doesn’t prove anything, save anything or fix anything to have the government kill people. To the contrary, it further desensitizes us to violence. The more ya kill, the more ya wanna kill.
It’s a hard thing to preach to someone who’s lost someone and wants “justice.” But I’d honestly rather spend the time convincing them the death penalty isn’t the answer than to argue in favor of killing someone’s murdering relative.
Now, if the crazy sonofabitch wants to die — I’m fine with that.
Yes this guy deserved to die and I am not weeping one bit at his passing. The problem is, in dispatching him, we all become executioners. It degrades US! It dehumanizes US! By all means, let us protect ourselves and the rest of society, but let’s not lower ourselves to the level of the DC sniper.
Wrong. Wrong.
It has to be about societal vengeance because prison is a perfectly effective way to protect society from demented murderous humans.
This is one spot I disagree with you, as well, OW.
Don’t you think it’s weird that you fall in line with conservatives on this issue? And when have you ever known conservatives to be right about anything?
1. Conservatives are never right about anything.
2. Conservatives think the death penalty is a good thing.
Therefore…
3. The death penalty is not a good thing.
(I have more substantive objections as well, but they’ve been outlined above already. Thanks, Southern Quaker.)
“I will agree with Oliver on this topic when he one day proves to me that the state has never, ever executed an innocent human being.”
Exactly. Whatever satisfaction or closure the families get are a drop in the bucket compared to the crime of executing an innocent person. So I’m not shedding any tears, but of course we hear about the high-profile execution of a guy like this. We don’t hear about the miscarriages of justices until the innocent are already dead.
The death penalty is immoral and wrong. Justice is administered by humans, and humans are fallible.
“I will agree with Oliver on this topic when he one day proves to me that the state has never, ever executed an innocent human being.”
I would still disagree. I don’t know what we gain by killing others in the name of justice. I’d sooner have the most vile and horrible people we have in this country live a long, long time in miserable conditions.
That’s a bit of a hyperbole, Mambo. Oliver can never prove to me that we have never executed an innocent human being and it is a hundred times more likely that we have. So I will never agree with Oliver on this, because the scenario is impossible.
We release innocent men from prison all the time after they’ve served decades of a wrongful sentence. They’re just lucky they weren’t convicted of a capital crime. But it stands to reason that there are more Cameron Willinghams on the books.
That’s a bit of a hyperbole, Mambo.
Yes, of course, you’re right. Quick reading + a hot-button issue = my misunderstanding of the words that are right in front of my face.
I guess it is up to me to be the conservative scapegoat.
First of all, even prisoners sentenced to “life, without the possibility of parole” can be released. They can escape, and they can kill prisoners, staff or visitors while in prison.
Second, the people, as a community, are entitled to have the laws enforced as they wish. If they seek a final retribution, a Lex Talionis, then they should get it.
I don’t feel degraded or dehumanized at all. Another piece of societal detritus has been disposed of — nothing more, nothing less.
Is there a possibilty that an innocent may be executed? Perhaps there is. But I would suggest to you that you weigh that against every single person who was killed by a convicted murder who was not executed. I am sure they number in the thousands compared to the handful of innocent people who have been executed.
And who says it doesn’t work? No man who was executed ever killed again. I would call that batting .1000
As for the idea that “If a conservative is for it, it must be wrong,” I disagree. I think that if Oliver, Burn and I agree, that it MOST CERTAINLY is correct.
Frank, this is one area in which you disagree with the Church, then.
I think that if Oliver, Burn and I agree, that it MOST CERTAINLY is correct.
Lord help us all.
Is there a possibilty that an innocent may be executed? Perhaps there is. But I would suggest to you that you weigh that against every single person who was killed by a convicted murder who was not executed.
Consider the horror of one man in prison for years without cause, a man led to his death without cause. Consider the horror visited upon that man’s family. Consider the horror of the victims’ loved ones who may one day learn that (a) the perpetrator has never been caught and that (b) said perpetrator claimed another victim through proxy of our imperfect justice system.
If you can seriously imagine this scenario and still say that our death penalties are worth the life of one innocent man, then I would suggest to you, Frank, that you aren’t a conservative. You’re a fucking sociopath.
I think in light of your agreement, that OW and Burn ought to rethink their position.
And seriously, it’s downright evil to suggest that the lives of a handful of innocents is somehow fine as a sacrifice for the ability to execute actual murderers. That’s fucking crazy. The bile rises in the back of my throat considering your commentary.
Southern Quaker: It may not be the only area… And I am not so sure that the Catholic Church’s opposition to capital punishment is dogma.
But I will check
No, it’s not dogmatic, but John Paul II made a pretty strong case in his Evangelium Vitae and other writings:
Capital Punishment – The Pope’s Position
And he also felt – rather strongly – that it should be applied in very limited cases, and only as a last resort for society to protect itself. None of these conditions, he felt, were applicable in the U.S. justice system.
Southern Quaker: If the Pope doesn’t speak ex cathedra, then his opinions are just that – opinions; they are not dogma. It would seem the Pope and I disagree on yet another issue. But I won’t hold that against him.
Is there a possibilty that an innocent may be executed? Perhaps there is. But I would suggest to you that you weigh that against every single person who was killed by a convicted murder who was not executed. I am sure they number in the thousands compared to the handful of innocent people who have been executed.
So morality is just a question of doing the math? Good to know, Frank.
A person who supports the death penalty supports the murder of innocent people, often due to the worst forms of racism. You should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
Rick Perry executed Cameron Todd Willingham even though he was innocent. People once wanted Tom Joyner’s great uncles to be executed
I read in the Economist last year that it’s now more expensive to execute than imprison for life, on the average. So the old conservative canard that we’re wasting tax dollars giving color tv to murderers no longer even holds water.
Second, the people, as a community, are entitled to have the laws enforced as they wish. If they seek a final retribution, a Lex Talionis, then they should get it.
No they aren’t. You can’t flog people in the streets. You can’t use a guillotine in town square.
I don’t feel degraded or dehumanized at all. Another piece of societal detritus has been disposed of — nothing more, nothing less.
Well, it’s hard to sink lower than rock bottom.
Is there a possibilty that an innocent may be executed? Perhaps there is. But I would suggest to you that you weigh that against every single person who was killed by a convicted murder who was not executed. I am sure they number in the thousands compared to the handful of innocent people who have been executed.
This is very dangerous thinking, Frank. Where do you draw the line? How many is “too many”? I think Dexter really illustrates the moral issues with this line of thinking nicely.
I read in the Economist last year that it’s now more expensive to execute than imprison for life, on the average. So the old conservative canard that we’re wasting tax dollars giving color tv to murderers no longer even holds water.
But without socialized vengeance, how are the ultra-cons going to feel good about themselves?
fafaroo: Your self-righteousness means nothing to me.
Jaim, the myth that more black men are innocently executed is just that a – a myth. I have done some research on that subject on my own. And, no I don’t support the murder of innocent people. No innocent people are murdered when they are wrongfully found guilty, unless there is a deliberate setup underway, in which case I have no involvement in their crime.
Zython, what does Dexter, a character on television, have to do with anything? His “thinking” is done for him by a scriptwriter.
And you are ongoing proof that insults are not arguments. What makes you think I am rock bottom? Perhaps you feel I should be executed, because I disagree with you, is that it?
the myth that more black men are innocently executed is just that a – a myth. I have done some research on that subject on my own.
I’d like to see that research.
No innocent people are murdered when they are wrongfully found guilty, unless there is a deliberate setup underway, in which case I have no involvement in their crime.
What the fuck?
Perhaps you feel I should be executed, because I disagree with you, is that it?
What the fuck?
No innocent people are murdered when they are wrongfully found guilty, unless there is a deliberate setup underway, in which case I have no involvement in their crime.
Frank, your sentences mean nothing to me.
Several points worth mentioning;
Regarding a man’s innocence or guilt, it is the wrongful conviction not the penalty that is problematic. Imprisoning an innocent man is no better than executing him. That execution removes the possibility that the innocent might one day be set free is true enough but an unjust sentence is an unjust sentence regardless of the penalty. Jaim’s position that he would support the death penalty if you could prove that an innocent had never been executed is a strawman. Using his reasoning he could not support any punishment unless you could prove to his satifaction that no one had ever been punished while innocent.
Second, another line of reasoning beyond vengence or deterrence is that some acts are so heinous that by committing one you are forfeiting your right to life. Personally I would put most murders in this class.
And last this little gem;
“Don’t you think it’s weird that you fall in line with conservatives on this issue? And when have you ever known conservatives to be right about anything?
1. Conservatives are never right about anything.
2. Conservatives think the death penalty is a good thing.
Therefore…
3. The death penalty is not a good thing.”
It’s hard to determine if Mambo is toying with us a bit here or if he is really that detached from reality. LOL Mambo you’re supposed to be making a living with your mind, critical thought, the scientific method etc. etc. what a hack.
It’s hard to determine if Mambo is toying with us a bit here or if he is really that detached from reality.
Your inability to figure out whether I’m being deadly serious here or whether that was a tongue-in-cheek comment demonstrates just what a fucking idiot you are, AO.
Mambo you’re supposed to be making a living with your mind, critical thought, the scientific method etc. etc. what a hack.
Again, for the umpteenth time, AO – you don’t know anything about how good or bad I am at my job. My career is not in politics, and my personal occupational success is in no way related to my political beliefs. On top of this, if you think that scientists must be “politically neutral” in order to be rational, reasonable, and good at their careers, then you are sadly mistaken. And you would have to condemn the healthy majority of scientists who hold strong political beliefs that (a) differ from your views, and (b) are not “unbiased” in the way you think they need to be.
Or, to put it just a little more succinctly: Fuck you.
AO: Imprisoning an innocent man is no better than executing him. That execution removes the possibility that the innocent might one day be set free is true enough but an unjust sentence is an unjust sentence regardless of the penalty.
Not all forms of injustice are equivalent. For example…
[S]ome acts are so heinous that by committing one you are forfeiting your right to life. Personally I would put most murders in this class.
Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the death penalty — which, it cannot be denied, is murder — is an especially heinous form of injustice if it is meted out to an innocent person?
Phillip Garrido imprisoned an innocent person for 18 years. A heinous act, to be sure, but Garrido will not face the death penalty for it. Consider that Jaycee Dugard is now reunited with her family; that would be impossible if Garrido had killed her.
My position is that imprisonment is at the same time more just and more punitive than execution. If, like Oliver, your motivation is vengeance, I don’t see how killing someone fits the bill. Doesn’t that let the murderer off the hook by ending their suffering? How is being put to sleep a punishment? Wouldn’t it be more venge-tastic to make them sit for years and years in a little room with no way to get out, ever? On the other hand, if, like me, your concern is moral consistency and justice, imprisonment A) avoids the hypocrisy of visiting physical violence on someone as a punishment for visiting physical violence on someone, B) protects society by removing the offender, and C) holds open the possibility, however slight, that if the prisoner is found to be innocent, he or she can be released.
While you argument appears to be sound and logical, you failed to note that all of the DC Sniper’s victims magically came back to life the instant he was executed. It was awesome!
Stupid even for you, AO. The problem with the death penalty is that we can never be certain in all cases. We know for a fact that innocents have died. We know for a fact that they will continue to do so.
Unlike you, I don’t thnk the government can be trusted 100% of the time.
“Second, the people, as a community, are entitled to have the laws enforced as they wish.”
This principle should then apply to all manner of social behavior including gay marriages and choice, for example. Once you relativise capital punishment as simply the will of the people, then everything goes. God is dead, the center can not hold.
The majority of Americans don’t want abortion to be criminalized either.
Case closed for Frank!
Zython, what does Dexter, a character on television, have to do with anything? His “thinking” is done for him by a scriptwriter.
It’s a story. The characters are supposed to be life-like, that’s what makes a good story. By your logic, John Galt’s monologues are worthless since they were written by an author. I know Dexter was made to entertain, but it doesn’t make the analogy any less apt.
What makes you think I am rock bottom?
The fact that you don’t care how many innocents you kill to get revenge one a guilty person? If that’s not rock bottom, it’s pretty damn close.
Perhaps you feel I should be executed, because I disagree with you, is that it?
Unlike ultra-cons like yourself, I don’t believe in killing to obtain what I desire.
Everything is fine with the death penalty right up until Sarah Palin or one of here minion get/seize power and homosexuals become fodder. Think about it.
see this for example of CURRENT reliance on same….
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/death_state_update.php
Enjoy.
Anyone who thinks that there is only “a chance” that an innocent person could be executed needs to read Trial by Fire.
There are countless other stories like Cameron Todd Willingham’s; his just happens to be so egregious that it’s difficult to ignore.
My major issue with the DP is roughly threefold:
1. possibility of mistake
2. uneven and inconsistent application
3. use as a political football–elected judges and prosecutors seeking or imposing it not so much in the interests of justice as in boosting their popularity/reelection chances
If you could come up with a mechanism that 1) minimizes the possibility of error and maximizes opportunities to show error, 2)removes politics and arbitrariness from the equation, focusing instead on tangible criteria and some kind of non-partisan panel deciding when the DP should be sought/imposed, then I’d be ok with the death penalty for the most heinous crimes–premeditation and special circumstances such as rape/murder, kidnap/murder, murder of children, mass/multiple murder, group-targeted murder(i.e. “hate murder”, which yes does seem redundant), police murder (of police or by police) or torture/murder. No offense to convenience store employees, but I don’t think murder of one should qualify for the DP.
What is clear to me in this comment thread is that death penalty proponents only look at the people involved in death penalty cases as monsters or statistics.
Even guilty psychopaths are human beings. When you allow yourself to dehumanize even the most horrific of murderers it seems to make it easier for one to also view those whose guilt is in question as mere numbers on a chalkboard.
Some of us actually lived here during this terrorist attack. We ducked down when getting gas, we lived in constant fear. I wish they would have had this fuckers death on pay-per-view!!
You may wish to emigrate to Saudi Arabia. Sounds about your speed.
No, I prefer to live here. There IS NO DOUBT about this fuckers guilt. I hope he burns in eternal hell
We only have one life to live. Let’s not waste it by making bad decisions. We were given a free-will to choose life or death. Let us make it a point to always choose life. No matter how hard life is sometimes, it’s always good to be alive!
I don’t agree with the death penalty for several reasons:
1. I believe in avoiding killing people as a fundamental moral principle. I don’t want my government killing on my behalf, and I don’t think getting the government to kill someone I hate absolves me of the moral implications of that. Cons get all moral about, say, abortion, the sanctity of human life and limiting the ability of the government to “kill” in that instance. Yet they are OK with the government as a tool for vengeance.
1(a). Vengeance and retribution is not justice. Asking the government to kill for us so we can satisfy some blood lust panders to a base instinct that has little to do with justice and the rule of law. It is fancified mob rule.
2. A government that kills reflects a lower value placed on human life, which has an impact on how society views human life. The easier it is for a government to take a life, the easier it is for its citizens. The DC sniper, for example, was a vet and was trained by his government to kill, no doubt creating a mindset that saw people as targets.
3. The possibility of getting it wrong is always there. And executing an innocent person is so monstrous that it can’t be risked. I always find it odd to reconcile the fact that conservative types want less government power in almost every sphere, yet are OK with the government being able to kill. They don’t trust the government to deliver mail or renew drivers licenses well, but think the business of killing will go just fine. Or that they are OK with the occasional innocent death. See #1.
And I have no idea what “No innocent people are murdered when they are wrongfully found guilty” is supposed to mean, unless it is that the police always arrest people that are guilty of something and courts are involved in finding technicalities to turn these criminals loose. Which is unspeakable nonsense and essentially sanctioning state murder. Offensive and boneheaded on so many levels.
4. Practically speaking, as a deterrent, it just doesn’t work. So what’s the point? Vengeance? See #1(a).
“No innocent people are murdered when they are wrongfully found guilty”
I hope I’m wrong, but I believe Frank is alluding to the belief that, to have been arrested and found guilty of a serious crime, you must have been guilty of something, because cops only ever arrest the really bad, scary types who are lifelong criminals. Like <a href="these guys.
I do understand what Frank is trying to say.
He is hanging his entire argument on a definition of “murdered” that means “pre-meditated and with conscious desire to kill.” In this flimsy scenario, capital punishment is only murder if the victim has been maliciously railroaded by a lying plaintiff, corrupt cop/judge/lawyer, or otherwise.
Anything else? Unfortunate accident, like a car pile-up on the highway. Too bad for that guy, but I wasn’t driving.
In December 2002, I had the opportunity to meet Iran Brown. He was a shy 13 year old, and lucky to be alive. Meeting this kid, and knowing that he was chosen for death solidified my belief that Muhammed, and Malvo deserved their fate.
Spider J : Despite your couching it in the most evil context available, you are right. As bad as I might feel about a highway accident, I don’t feel I share any responsibility for it, unless I was actually involved.
I don’t have to do any couching, Frank. Executing an innocent human being is evil. And comparing that act, which is the end result of an imperfect system, to a run-of-the-mill traffic accident–yeah, that’s evil too.
And unless you’re not paying taxes, you and I are responsible for it.
Jaim,
As usual you miss the point. Two seperate issues. 1. Is the death penalty wrong? 2. Are some people wrongly convicted and incidently executed?
““I will agree with Oliver on this topic when he one day proves to me that the state has never, ever executed an innocent human being.”
“Exactly.”
The position you agree with appears to be that the death penalty is wrong because sometimes a person is wrongfully convicted and subsequently executed. That same flawed reasoning can be directed at any penalty. The outrage is that any person should be wrongfully convicted by prosecutors misusing their power, withholding information and acting unlawfully. The subsequent penatly is not the issue. You accusation of my trust in the government vs your own is to put it rather mildly on par with most of what you profess to believe, rather ridiculous and unable to stand up to close examination..
Mambo,
One need not know precisely what you do to realize from your writings that you have a closed mind unsuitable for work where quantifying and qualifying data might run up against your preconceived ideas. You simply lack the mental agility. The example of yours I first quoted is a textbook example of both your closemindedness and imperviousness to rational applications of logic and critical thought. In short, you’re a hack.
One need not know precisely what you do to realize from your writings that you have a closed mind unsuitable for work where quantifying and qualifying data might run up against your preconceived ideas. You simply lack the mental agility. The example of yours I first quoted is a textbook example of both your closemindedness and imperviousness to rational applications of logic and critical thought.
You know why this is funny, AO? Because it’s so ridiculously incorrect. But then again, most things you write here are completely ridiculous horseshit. OK, though… I’ll entertain your idea. Please quote me and demonstrate how I am closed-minded, and how I am somehow impervious to rational application of logic and critical thought. Because I don’t think you can do it. Bring it on, asshole.
In short, you’re a hack.
The irony is delicious.
Here’s the thread, idiot: http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/10/30/obama-doesnt-take-it-like-a-good-liberal/#comments
Perhaps you could tell me exactly what you mean. Quote me, explain how I’m “closed-minded”, and explain to me how this signifies my “lack of mental agility.” I don’t think you can present a cohesive, reasonable case. Fuck, you can’t even do it when you actually might have a case to be made. In this case, you’ve got nothing. And you’ve already admitted that you’re nothing but a lowly troll on these boards, anyway.
Oh, and an interesting thing about that thread I posted above… you misattribute a quote to me. Something I didn’t say, you decided that I wrote it… and used this as some sort of argument against me. Hmm, that seems like something a dishonest, ignorant, dickheaded hack would do. Or maybe an idiot.
So which is it, AO?
Put up or shut up, troll.
Yep. That’s what I thought, AO.
Nope. The death penalty is wrong because some people are wrongly executed. The two issues are intrinsically linked.
What’s so hard to understand about this?
“The subsequent penatly is not the issue.”
My god you’re stupid. If you are executed for a crime you didn’t commit, the “issue” is that you are fucking dead and have been wrongly murdered by the state.
I’ll try and use smaller words for your pea-brain next time.
“You accusation of my trust in the government”
You think the government can be trusted to mete out death when we know for a fact that innocents have been executed. You have way too much trust in the authority and competence of governments. And you are woefully wrong about the death penalty.
You think the government can be trusted to mete out death when we know for a fact that innocents have been executed.
Have you ever had surgery done by a doctor who, because he made a mistake, caused someone’s death? It’s possible, and you’d never know. Does that mean that neither you, nor anyone anywhere should have surgery?
The possibility that an innocent man might die in no way effects the deterrent effect of the death penalty, such as it is. It does not effect the victims’ loved ones desire for closure, in any way. It does not effect the community’s judgement that some crimes are so heinous, that the person who commits them does not deserve to live, in any way.
So, to restate A O ’s argument in other words, not to put too fine a point on it, the occasional, rare, innocent man that is executed (and I emphasize occasional and rare, because, given the fact that the average time between sentence and execution in America is something like 12 years, there can’t be too many innocent men being executed, if so few guilty men are being executed) can be considered “collateral damage” in the never – ending war on crime.
You disgust me.
OW, this guy is on your side on this issue. That doesn’t concern you?
That same flawed reasoning can be directed at any penalty.
How you can accuse anyone of logic that doesn’t “stand up to close examination” simply boggles the mind.
Amused, on close examination, I’m sure you’ll discover that every other penalty our system metes out can be reversed at any time. Death, not so much.
Yes, you can never give the person wrongly imprisoned those lost years back but you can set them free to enjoy the years they have remaining.
Dead people, on the other hand, tend to stay dead.
“…in other words, not to put too fine a point on it, the occasional, rare, innocent man that is executed … can be considered “collateral damage” in the never – ending war on crime.
And that’s why you’re a sick, moral coward, Frank.
“Have you ever had surgery done by a doctor who, because he made a mistake, caused someone’s death? It’s possible, and you’d never know. Does that mean that neither you, nor anyone anywhere should have surgery?”
This is dumb, even by your standards. A mistake in surgery that kills someone is awful. I mistaken execution is even more awful.
So let’s, um, not have executions? Unfortunately we can’t keep people from getting sick.
“the deterrent effect of the death penalty”
The death penalty has existed for thousands of years. People still murder. It is not a deterrent and never has been.
“‘collateral damage’”
Cool. If your children are ever wrongfully executed I won’t shed a tear, and neither will you apparently. Because it’s for the greater good!
the greater good…
/Hot Fuzz
That Catholic stuff about respecting innocent human life is just a “suggestion,” according to Pope Frank. What a miserable human being.
Frank, you’re getting stranger every day. I’m not even sure you believe your last post. Bizarre.
The possibility that an innocent man might die in no way effects the deterrent effect of the death penalty, such as it is.
It’s kinda hard to negatively impact an effect that doesn’t exist.
It does not effect the victims’ loved ones desire for vengeance, in any way.
Fixed.
can be considered “collateral damage” in the never – ending war on crime.
Wow…just wow. The level of disconcern you have with people’s lives is just fascinating. And by fascinating, I mean disgusting.
The possibility that an innocent man might die in no way effects the deterrent effect of the death penalty, such as it is.
It isn’t.
It does not effect the victims’ loved ones desire for closure, in any way.
WTF??? Do you honestly believe that the victims’ families would not be traumatized to find out that the WRONG PERSON was not only convicted for the death of their loved one, but also EXECUTED for it??
It does not effect the community’s judgement that some crimes are so heinous, that the person who commits them does not deserve to live, in any way.
Even when the person who commits evil gets off scot free, and a perfectly innocent person is killed? I don’t want to live in your community, Frank.
Welcome to the hypocricy and self-righteous indignation parade.
What a load of crap !
If the death penalty has no deterrent value , then executing an innocent man would not affect it. If the the loved ones of the victims desire closure, the possibility that an innocent man might be executed would not affect that. If the community desires retribution, or feels that some person’s crimes are so heinous, that the fact that an innocent man could conceivably be executed (a remote chance) would not change that desire*.
Jaim, you’re one of the hypocrites: If anyone could be wrongfully executed, you’re supposed to be outraged. See? Already, you have decided that there is one innocent person being executed you don’t care about.
And, as for the “guilty” ones?
Surely, you wouldn’t be terribly upset if Pres Bush, or VP Cheney, or Secy Rice , ascended the gallows?
Hypocrite!
The level of disconcern you have with people’s lives
The lack of concern you have for people’s lives
Fixed
Thus ends Zython’s grammar. syntax and vocabulary lesson for today.
* In fact, it would tend to put pressure on the community — through its law enforcement and prosecution institutions — to make great efforts to see to it that the right man is caught and punished. The idea that executions should be done away with, because an innocent man might be executed, is in the same category with doing away with the Police Department because crimes are still being committed [see Amused Observer's comment above].
Wow, Frank. 8/10 on the Rant Incoherence Scale (RIS, or as its known colloquially your “RISible rating.”)
“If the death penalty has no deterrent value , then executing an innocent man would not affect it.”
Well, that’s a great argument. Executing the wrong person for no reason isn’t worse than executing the wrong person for a valid reason? Huh??? Gee, Mr. Innocent, not only is your death meaningless, the meaninglessness of your death is actually used as a justification! Seems sensible.
The fact that an innocent person may be killed doesn’t slake the desire for vengeance in the hearts of the victims, but it should have an impact on what the state decides to do to satiate that desire. Retribution should not be the state’s business. Justice should. The two are not synonymous.
And the surgery analogy doesn’t work. First, *I* decide if someone is going to perform surgery on me. I don’t make *someone else* submit to surgery. The state doesn’t compel people to submit to surgery. If I decide that I will undergo surgery, that it will not have the desired outcome, even through doctor error, is a risk I take and am aware that I am taking. There is no informed consent in capital punsishment.
You’re a sick man, Frank. Seek help.
“If the death penalty has no deterrent value , then executing an innocent man would not affect it.”
Sure would have an impact on him and his family though. Oh, but that’s of no concern. It’s served it’s “closure” function.
You said somewhere that you studied social sciences; I’m starting to think that you stopped reading after Auguste Comte’s idea of social cohesion at whatever the price.
There is no informed consent in capital punsishment.
But there are innumerable opportunites to appeal the decision; there are many ways to attack the prosecution: jury acts inappropriately, the “error of the constable,” prosecutorial misfeasanc or malfeasnace, or even felonious acts, mishandling of evidence. All these things make it exceedingly difficult to execute an innocent man. And, if a policeman has been found to give a false testimony, or a prosecutor has been found to deliberately force a false guilty verdict, or a judge has been found to have acted improperly, all their cases will be subject to closer scrutiny, to insure that none of those cases were cases of an innocent man being found guilty.
fafaroo: An insult is an insult, not an argument. 1 out of 10 on the Intelligence Scale.
fafaroo: An insult is an insult, not an argument. 1 out of 10 on the Intelligence Scale.
Frank, responding with reason to most of what you’ve written here would be like having to tell a competent adult “No, the square peg doesn’t fit in the round hole.” This is, of course, assuming you’re a competent adult.
You’re “reasoning” on every point is so incoherent it reads like free association.
Re-read this, for instance:
How, how is it the same? I defy you to give a logical explanation for the this comparison.
Frank wrote: “If the death penalty has no deterrent value , then executing an innocent man would not affect it.”
Frank, you realize that this sentence makes no fucking sense, correct?
“there are innumerable opportunites to appeal the decision”
And yet, we know that the state has still murdered innocent people. This doesn’t change anything. If the conviction was based on bad evidence and nobody blows a whistle, the bad evidence remains.
“And, if a policeman has been found to give a false testimony, or a prosecutor has been found to deliberately force a false guilty verdict, or a judge has been found to have acted improperly, all their cases will be subject to closer scrutiny, to insure that none of those cases were cases of an innocent man being found guilty.”
So? We need higher standards. We need to get rid of bad cops and lawyers and judges. This isn’t either/or though. We need the best judicial system possible. But even the best system, since it’s a system run by humans and the government, will fail at times.
Just as with AO, I’m amazed at how much power you want the government to have, and how naive you are to think that they can operate without error.
Just as with AO, I’m amazed at how much power you want the government to have, and how naive you are to think that they can operate without error.
No, no, no, Jaim. They want the government to have less power! Which is why they want the government intruding on peoples’ bedrooms, want abortion banned, a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage, etc. They just EXPECT the government to kill people – it’s one of the few things that they think the government can do well, apparently.
True Mambo. I mean, we all remember how much smaller and less intrusive the government became when Bush was POTUS and the GOP ran Congress.
Let me correct one thing: When I wrote: “If the death penalty has no deterrent value , then executing an innocent man would not affect it,” I was being ironic and darkly humorous.
I was, at one time, opposed to the death penalty, simply because I saw it as “One person is dead — the victim; then two people are dead — the victim and the killer.”
But then I realized that if the community desired final retribution, or thought of certain crimes as so heinous, that the people who committed them did not deserve to live, they were entitled to get their way, regardless of what I thought.
Cherry picking, twisting my words around, clever word play, calling me stupid or insane , doesn’t change that, at all.
When will you guys learn that?
LOL Mambo,
I don’t neccesarily post comments on your time schedule, sorry I’ll try to do better.
“Please quote me and demonstrate how I am closed-minded, and how I am somehow impervious to rational application of logic and critical thought.”
‘
I already did Mambo, but once again;
“And when have you ever known conservatives to be right about anything?
1. Conservatives are never right about anything.
2. Conservatives think the death penalty is a good thing.
Therefore…
3. The death penalty is not a good thing.”
LOL, that’s a position you want to defend as an example of an open mind, and a statement that demonstates your abilities as a logician? You know the only real downside to shooting fish in a barrel is eventually the water will all leak out. Hack is a charitable term in your case, fraud might be closer to the truth.
Thanks, AO, for again demonstrating that you’re an idiot. In choosing whether I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment or was being completely dead serious, you chose “serious.”
Wrong. Idiot. You fail.
Try again.
You know what I think? I think that you are just trying to get a rise out of me, like a common shithead troll would. You’ve got nothing to back up your commentary, and you simply insist that your personal attacks have merit with no basis in reality.
You are incorrect.
Now, if you care to put forth additional quotes that I have typed here, and explain how they are indicative of me being closed-minded and lacking the mental agility to analyze data, go ahead. You will likely fail to support your hypothesis, and then have to slink away with your tail between your legs in shame. That is, if you are capable of feeling shame – which seems unlikely.
Your move again, idiot.
“Cherry picking, twisting my words around, clever word play, calling me stupid or insane , doesn’t change that, at all.
When will you guys learn that?”
The short answer, never.
But then I realized that if the community desired final retribution, or thought of certain crimes as so heinous, that the people who committed them did not deserve to live, they were entitled to get their way, regardless of what I thought.
If the community desired, say, a final solution, I’m sure you’d be down with it too, Frank.
Let me correct one thing: When I wrote: “If the death penalty has no deterrent value , then executing an innocent man would not affect it,” I was being ironic and darkly humorous.
This sounds like damage control to me.
Cherry picking, twisting my words around, clever word play, calling me stupid or insane , doesn’t change that, at all.
What are we cherry-picking? You stated yourself that you don’t care if an innocent man is killed by the state.
But then I realized that if the community desired final retribution, or thought of certain crimes as so heinous, that the people who committed them did not deserve to live, they were entitled to get their way, regardless of what I thought.
No, they don’t have that right. Why do you think the 8th amendment exists?