How do you kill someone for killing someone and expect that to stop killing?

[autorank]

:shrug:

[deaniac21]

1. It keeps the killer from killing again.

[autorank]

5. Without any doubt, if the executioners ax is sharp enough. But

does it create an environment where killing is an acceptable solution on the margins of law abiding
people and among those whose grandiosity elevates them to the point where they can employ that
solution.

[deaniac21]

6. No

[timeforpeace]

85. Your premise is flawed. No one expects it to stop killing. Why do you think that?

[deaniac21]

110. I just said that the executed would stop killing. Sorry, I only know

English.

[the other one]

57. Then we should execute all criminals.

If they are dead, they won't do it again, whatever it is.

Eliminate recidivism and eliminate the need for prisons at the same time.

[Raineyb]

81. Well as we don't seem to think killing is wrong why bother?

We can just hire him to be the executioner then he'd have sanction.

:sarcasm: although I don't think it should be needed.

[cliffordu]

2. Maybe that's not the point.

Maybe the point is, if you slaughter a bunch of people, your life is forfeit.

[imdjh]

3. In the greater scheme of this, executing Hasan doesn't matter. BUT....

... the defense of that would be the absolute certainty we have that he committed the crimes and that there is no excuse for the crimes he committed. The real problem comes along when we are a mite less certain of the guilt, or the absence of a mitigating circumstance.

[Oregone]

10. So does that deter killing, or, just, well...what?

[cliffordu]

15. Maybe that just needs to be the rule:

Slaughter a bunch of people, or kill a kid, or kill for money, you die.

You have to believe certain acts that are so abhorrent that the perpetrator must die for them.


I do. Your mileage may vary.

[Oregone]

26. Ok, fine, its the "rule". But, um, what does that rule accomplish?

Im speaking in terms of the society at large, now (being that a killer is already imprisoned at that point).

Does it deter future killing? Right? It must do something Id think

[cliffordu]

44. Nope, it does NOT have to do anything except make thestatement:

If you value human life so little that you would kill dozens at random, or murder a child, or kill for money, then Humanity has no further use for you. Your life, like those of your victims, is forfeit.

Simple statement. It's a sad thing, but necessary, imnsho.

[Oregone]

55. But the statement accomplishes nothing right?

Like a drunk guy shouting at the moon accomplishes nothing? Just a bunch of noise?

Whats the value in doing that?

[cliffordu]

58. I like how your questions aren't questions at all.

:hurts:

Why don't you just come out and say it? Are you a coward?

[Oregone]

62. I have nothing to say. That aside, yes, I am a coward

But thats irrelevant to the topic at hand. What is the utility of making such social statements? How does it manifest positively for the people?

[cliffordu]

65. I answered the question upthread. Now you're just playin'

[Oregone]

69. No, its a different question about one of your answers

Does making such a statement have utility and impart beneficial results to a society or is it benign?

[cliffordu]

70. No, it is NOT benign. It's a dirty, filthy business and must be the last resort.

I'll leave to you to decide whether it has a beneficial result or a utility to society.

[Oregone]

71. So its "dirty" and "filthy" to do it, but you wont affirm it has a beneficial impact?

Is such dirt and filth worth introducing if not everyone can be sure of its explicit, objective benefit?

[cliffordu]

73. I dunno, what do you think? Does it HAVE to have a tangible benefit??

[Oregone]

74. Well, if it has negative filthy and dirty consequences, shouldn't it introduce something positive...

...that justifies the problems?

Is it good public policy to have laws that have malicious components and no beneficial impact?

[cliffordu]

75. In my estimation it does have a beneficial impact. Apparently.

And the dirty filthy business part of what I said pertains to the act of it.

Afterwords it's just taking out the garbage.

[Oregone]

77. So the state-sponsored killing of humans (some innocent mind you), doesn't have to have benefits?

Seems irrational to pursue a problematic course of action for no intended benefit at all. Is irrationality a sound basis for public policy?

[cliffordu]

79. Again, muddying the discussion by changing what has been said

to fit your preconceptions/political stance.

"A problematic course of action for no intended benefit at all..."

Please. You stopped conversing in earnest in #55.

Nice to see you finally get honest.

[Oregone]

83. Well, an expensive "dirty" and "filthy" act that kills humans, some innocent, seems "problematic"

Or even "malignant". But as you have suggested, certainly not "benign".

I'm not sure what desirable Ends, if any exists, is worth accomplishing with this Means. You honestly haven't really suggested one.

I truly am open to an honest contribution in that regard, but a symbolic "statement" without an explicit objective benefit does not seem worth such malignancy. It truly suggests an irrational basis for the creation of this policy.

[Mimosa]

96. Clifford, ITA

Swift punishment combined with strong community values used to deter violent crimes. This was true even in the poorest times in this country and others.

(I've studied this issue among others for 30 years.)

Cliffordu, you're among my fave DUers. *smile*

[cliffordu]

103. Why, thanks...

And right back atcha!

That's Frida Kahlo - your avatar - correct??

[Mimosa]

105. That's Frida: one of many sanctioned DU avatars ;)

Love the movie "Frida". It's underrated.

I've been reading your posts ever since i joined DU. I think I joined in 2004.

Goodnight and *hugs*

[sabrina 1]

76. That's a very Biblical solution.

But we live in the 21st Century now and all other civilized nations have realized that state executions do nothing to deter violence, nor do they contribute anything to a civil society.

We are alone among civilized nations who still engage in the dark ages practice of state sanctioned murder. Even countries like Saudi Arabia are moving slightly ahead of us having recently outlawed the execution of minors.

The judicial system is supposed to be about justice, not revenge. Watching part of the coverage of this tonight, I felt nauseated by the spectacle of perfectly respectable looking individuals devouring every tidbit of information about how a man died. It was ghoulish.

We are a culture of death. The man executed tonight was a highly trained killer paid for by our tax dollars. I wonder how many Iraqis he killed in the First Gulf War. That of course, we do not consider crime.

The Fort Hood killer was also trained to kill by our military. And another Gulf War Veteran trained to kill was responsible for the OK City bombing.

I don't know the number of soldiers who have returned, killed family members and then killed themselves, but it's a lot, starting with the four pilots who killed their wives and then themselves several years ago.

They are sent to war where they see horrific things, and then left on their own to deal with the effects of what they saw. It's clear huge numbers of them cannot cope and badly need help. There's money for everything else, but not for them once they have served their purpose.

All of our wars after WW11 were not necessary. We glorify killing in the countries we attack, we call their dead citizens 'collateral damage' and then act shocked and horrified when it happens here.

And then we continue the cycle of violence by taking revenge on the killer

Movies, tv shows, even children's games, all glorify death and destruction.

When we grow up we'll probably join the rest of the civilized world and end this macabre, uncivilized practice. But watching the coverage tonight, it won't be anytime soon.

Only two people came across as civilized, one the defense attorney who broke down in tears, and the other the brother of a victim who said he had forgiven the killer as not doing so would only 'rot my own soul'.

The rest, without realizing it I suppose, had become infected with the same desease themselves, hatred, that eventually drove John Muhammed to the awful acts he committed.

The Death Penalty turns us into something not much better than the one we condemn to death. It's a thin line. That is why I oppose it.

[cliffordu]

78. There are so many innacuracies in your post I'll only respond to your last sentence.

Mohmmmed killed all those people because he needed cover for killing his ex wife, who was going to be killed by him and that kid when he'd established a random body count to act as cover for him - to cast guilt somewhere else.

He didn't crack - it was a premeditated execution of how many people?

And Mohammed wasn't trained to be a killer in the military, he was a fucking cook or a jeep mechanic or something. As far as I remember from the press reports here near Seattle (where he was from) he never killed anyone in combat.

I do know dozens of men and have met hundreds who were 'highly trained killers' with extensive combat experience and I believe that this blaming the murders of innocents by combat veterans due to combat experiences is bullshit, and that they occur MOSTLY for the same reasons they do everywhere else. Jealousy, money......

They get a lot of press, because they occur in the fishbowl of the military, and, incidentally, are committed by people you are obviously afraid of, from the sound of your post.

I'm glad I don't inhabit your world. Your fear is amazing.

[sabrina 1]

82. Fear? I have no fear at all. If I did, like you, I would support the

killing of men like this.

You post is so full of inaccuracies I'm not going to bother with it. Live in your world of excuses. I know plenty of military people also, several who fought in Iraq. And I hate to tell you, but they do not agree with you at all.

Of course there are many who can adjust back into society, but to deny that war does not drastically change people, and in some cases, turn them into anti-social dangerous killers, only confirms the state of denial some Americans are in about the results of their love affair with violence.

As for this particular killer, his own wife, the one you claim, he intended to kill, has said that after he returned from Iraq he was completely changed. And as far as him killing her, (I have not read that, but it doesn't matter) as I said above, he would not be the first Iraq Veteran to do so.

I know one Iraq veteran who refused to go back for a second tour because he was ordered to shoot children. He publicly spoke out about his experiences there. He was strong enough to refuse. He has spoken out about the mental deterioration of the men he was in charge of and went to jail himself, rather than go back.

As for the Iraqi people, they have been terrorized, their children killed and maimed for no reason at all. Who should we put to death for those crimes?

The only fear I have is that this will all continue and more people will die unnecessarily.

If there had been no war in Iraq, the Fort Hood murders would never have happened, nor any of the too many to count other murders and suicides that have happened since it started. Not to mention those who have died there.

[Mimosa]

101. More on Muhammad

John Williams (later NOI Muhammad) was actually born in New orleans and he was a truck driver and mechanic in the Army:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muhammad

My sole sympathy is for all the victims and their friends and families.

[11 Bravo]

115. What a steaming crock of horseshit.

"Trained killer" John Allen Mohammed was trained as a truck mechanic. "Trained killer" Nidal Hasan was a fucking shrink. Timothy McVeigh did have an MOS involving actually firing a weapon, but he fired a 25 mm cannon from a Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the Gulf War. His grandfather is the one who initially got him interested in firearms.
Your entire argument goes right down the crapper when you fling around such misleading crap.

[Selatius]

89. That's a value judgment that doesn't really address the question the OP raised.

How is the death penalty acting as a deterrent? That's the question that isn't being addressed. The evidence doesn't really seem to support the idea that it deters criminals.

[cliffordu]

107. Nope it does not - prison of any stripe seems to have little effect on criminals, does it?

Sending a mass murderer like this guy or a child killer of a killer for hire to the death chamber is NOT a deterrent.

Like I said in a previous post - It simply states that there are acts that are so abhorrent that, if you commit them your life is forfeit. Period.


And I'm not talking about killing some guy in a bar fight, either. I'm talking about the willful slaughter of innocents..."special circumstances" or I believe is what some states call it.

This is not about retribution, it's about the minimal level of conduct to stay in the gene pool.

As a college sweetheart said to me as she was packing to leave me for good:

"Ya gotta have standards, ya know..."

[Selatius]

121. That's the problem. There are different standards people have. Witness pro- vs. anti-death penalty.

I have felt for a long time that there are two types of killings, unnecessary killings and necessary killings. A necessary killing would be the equivalent of fighting World War 2 for the sake of self-preservation. An unnecessary act of killing would be invading Iraq. Having said that, I generally feel that if a killer is safely sequestered behind bars in a little cell away from the society he has hurt, then killing him beyond that point is unnecessary. It would be necessary if, for instance, he escaped and was inside your home trying to kill you, your family, and your friends. You aren't obviously going to wait for the police to arrive. It may be inevitable that killing him would be the only thing preventing a higher body count.

[MichaelHarris]

4. I can promise you from the bottom of my heart

THAT GUY won't be killing anymore.

[autorank]

7. That's a given

None of the executed will kill again. But what impact does that have on the crime of murder and
lesser crimes involving killing.

[cliffordu]

34. That's beside the point.

The point is:

If you do what that prick did, you will die. Cause that's how we roll.

Your argument is like saying that sending people to prison for bank robbery doesn't deter bank robbers so it's no use locking them up.

[HughMoran]

8. It's a moral conundrum

Killing is wrong.

Killing is wrong, except when done as punishment for killing.

The person who kills for punishment is not wrong.

Killing is wrong except when the government says it isn't.

But killing is once again wrong when the government kills an innocent due to a mistake.

:freak:

[TwilightZone]

11. Eye for an eye.

Isn't that what supporters of the death penalty tend to point to, particularly conservatives and the religious right?

It must be OK if it's in the Bible. To them, it's not the government who is approving. It's God.

[HughMoran]

13. More immorality in the bible than most any other book in existence

:shrug:

[TwilightZone]

23. Oh, I agree.

My point was that the underlying basis for capital punishment goes much further (for some people) than just government approval. If people honestly believe that their God wants us executing people, the road to convincing them otherwise is steeper than many people may realize.

Kind of like Bush believing that God wanted him to invade Iraq....

[HughMoran]

36. Yes, if one has "faith" that "killing" is "good" based on the bible

then there is no more discussion to be had with that individual regarding the death penalty.

[TwilightZone]

39. Agreed.

[autorank]

32. Right imho. Then killing is sacrosanct.

What did God have in mind with these words: "Thou shalt not kill." I view this as a cultural
artifact and not the word of god but those who do come up with justifications for killing saying
it's 'thou shalt not murder' that's meant.

[Bluerthanblue]

24. it's "Just-us"

when 'we' do it. It's a crime when others do.

According to some.

If it is wrong to knowingly take another persons life by choice- it should be equally wrong (or especially wrong) for it to be done under the sanction of the "state".

[HughMoran]

31. I agree

What could be more premeditated than the slow & deliberate process of having the state "kill" a human being.

[autorank]

37. I also agree

I think that life in prison is much harsher than execution for anybody.

[knowbody0]

9. likewise, have you ever met a terrorist

who had not been terrified?

and again, how do you make a terrorist? Kill his parents, burn his village.


humanity, the horrors of its logic. me thinks it mayhaps be time for an extended time out. we very much need to rethink so many ideals.


also, hi

[autorank]

14. Something about a comandment

Not in the religious sense but as a social norm. What would happen if we operated by the
philosophy - killing people is simply wrong except when you're defending yourself and the
killing results from that. I don't oppose killing if you're defending your life.

I suppose there are a very few who enjoy killing, serial killers for example, but I suspect
that a lot of killing is Hatfields vs. McCoys.

hi to you!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. How many people willing to commit capital murder stop to consider the possibility of the DP?

That's a question I'd really like an answer to. It takes a specific type of person to commit capital murder. Somehow I doubt they're the type who take a moment to reflect on the ramifications of their actions before they act.

[autorank]

17. I'm sure a lot of killers don't think of the victim

until after the fact. Consider Bush and Cheney, for example. They launched that invasion of
Iraq and that killed a lot of people. Then the structure they destroyed resulted in civil
strife where the citizens of Iraq killed each other, nearly 1,000,000 deaths. Neither of
the former leaders seems the least bit put out by any of that. They're not even questioned
about it because our press doesn't have the courage to ask the question.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

56. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but it's not what I was referring to

How is the death penalty supposed to be a deterrent to those who commit murder? Capital punishment is only applied in a limited number of murder cases. They have to fit a specific criteria before it's considered. These cases depict acts of conscious willful murder.

What I wonder is how many people who commit these specific murders ever stop to consider the possibility of their being put to death for their actions before they murder the victim(s)? In other words, are they conscious of the possibility of the death penalty and just disregard it, or are they so caught up in the act of violence that they simply act without regard to the price they may later have to pay? I feel it's most likely the latter in most cases. If so, doesn't that make the death penalty no more than an instrument of vengeance and not a deterrent to capital murder?

If it's to stop the specific murderer from committing more murders, would life in prison lock-up do the same?

Capital punishment just seems a barbaric solution to me.

Edited for a comma.

[jaysunb]

72. I know people who have murdered .

Every one of them had a "fuck'em" attitude and claimed they didn't care what the consequences were. Unrepentant and in some cases, emboldened.

Who are these people ? Black men and women who killed other black people and served 5-10 years, paroled-- and in one case killed again.

How do we decide who committed the most heinous crime and should be punished w/ death and others who take the lives of people who are not part of widespread adulation and/or media saturation? Who should establish the level of punishment be for the same crime ?

:shrug:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

16. Well

It has become quite the pastime for El Norte.

The level of violence in this nation is beyond the pale. It's inherent in the social and economic structures of the country. No band-aid will help.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/167/35892.html

[autorank]

20. Max Webar

He defined the state as that entity which can kill with legitimacy. Maybe it's time to make that
illegitimate. Primo link!

[Kaleva]

18. The death penalty is the ultimate traffic ticket.

The only difference is you won't be able to speed (kill) no more.

[autorank]

22. But the judge doesn't go out and speed to make the point

You're told no more with a fine, etc.

[tuvor]

19. It's called capital punishment, not capital deterrent. n/t

[autorank]

25. Is that other party "grand" because it's called the GOP

The law has two goals for adults, punishment and prevention. Rehabilitation has been dropped
most everywhere, it seems.

Is getting off of life in prison better than serving it?

[tabasco]

21. How does a killed killer kill again?

I can play this game too!

[autorank]

27. Not a game. The dead killer is finished. But society isn't It has more to kill.

Thus, the example becomes an alternative for those who think that they're judge and jury, and
that thought can only be for the instant that it takes to kill another.

[Oregone]

29. So, does this "example" prevent future killing?

Or is it just something to be gleeful about? Does gleefulness prevent future murders?

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. A killed killer can't kill again if he's killed for killing.

If a sheet slitter could slit sheets!

[Bluerthanblue]

30. how many people has Charles Manson killed since he was imprisoned?

it isn't a game-

That is the point.

A man was intentionally killed tonite with your blessing. If that doesn't matter to you- you are stepping towards that edge which makes doing what John Allen Mohammed did acceptable. Murder is wrong.

[Xicano]

33. Has Charles Manson killed again?

Has Charles Manson been executed? No and no.

I agree with the OP's premise.


(Edit) Bluerthanblue beat me to the point. Sorry Bluerthanblue.

[Bluerthanblue]

53. no problem-

:evilgrin:
great minds...

i agree with the OP too.

[NNN0LHI]

35. Same way we invade and occupy countries with bombs and guns to "liberate" them

Its just another one of our own crazy forms of liberation.

Don

[autorank]

43. Liberation from the mortal plain

But that's not what the "rulers" have in mind. I've always wanted to hear someone ask them how
one million dead Iraqi civilians can enjoy democracy if they're dead? One of their many planning
errors.

[Sebass1271]

38. what do you want to do with Bin Laden?

put him in a pedestal??
:sarcasm:

[TwilightZone]

42. Executing bin Laden would make him a martyr.

We'd probably be better off letting him rot in jail, were we able to capture him alive.

[Sebass1271]

45. so, the argument is that since they will see their criminals

as martyrs, we shouldn't serve justice on them, just send them to jail. Idiotic argument.

[TwilightZone]

48. The only justice is death?

Wow, that's a new one. Then why do we have a justice system? And jails?

[autorank]

50. Blood from a stone

He's probably dead. But if we captured him, a lifetime of questioning and information would do
us all a great deal of good. I'd be quite comfortable knowing he was locked up somewhere in this
country, after a trial, of course, which he would lose in a heartbeat.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

61. Let his corpse continue to decompose where ever it may be.

Anything else leans toward necrophilia.

[onenote]

40. how do you imprison someone for imprisoning someone and expect that to stop imprisoning

someone kidnaps someone or holds them hostage in their home and they are punished by being put in prison.

or someone defrauds someone out of money and the penalty is not merely restitution but taking more money than they stole.

we can play this game all night long i suspect

[autorank]

46. Kidnappers can get the death penalty too

They're not kidnapped, they're apprehended and tried. If guilty they're imprisoned. The difference
is that usually, not always, they're alive (not so when they're killed by the state). The fraudster
is forced legally to return the defrauded amount. But killing is final and sets an example for
further killing on the margins and amongst the temporarily deluded.

[piedmont]

80. Not for simple kidnapping

They're not kidnapped, they're apprehended and tried. If guilty they're imprisoned. The difference
is that usually, not always, they're alive (not so when they're killed by the state). The fraudster
is forced legally to return the defrauded amount. But killing is final and sets an example for
further killing on the margins and amongst the temporarily deluded.

You've just set up euphemisms for the penalties our society has set up for the example crimes, and act like it's different than the death penalty. People who imprison other people get imprisoned. People who swindle or rob other people are forcibly parted from their money.
By your logic, are we not setting an example that imprisoning one's neighbors is acceptable behavior, or that taking others' money is ok?

[LynnTheDem]

41. You don't, and it doesn't. There's a reason why all modern nations have abolished the DP...

[autorank]

47. In this case, we should go along with the majority

[flvegan]

49. Oh, they have no such expectations that it might influence someone else

to NOT kill someone. It's simple bloodlust. Revenge.

[autorank]

52. Which breeds the cult of revenge

There's always a reason to kill if that's on the table.

[VOX]

51. Refusal to let go of the DP puts the U.S. in the company of radical Islamic states...

A look at any global death-penalty map is strange and unsettling -- most death-penalty nations are driven by some sort of religious extremism. Most secular democracies have abandoned the DP.

Another point of view: How big is a government that has the power to take a life via state-sanctioned killing? I realize that some crimes are so heinous in nature that anything but death to the perpetrator seems unjust. That's the sticking point where Americans need to become enlightened, if that's possible -- that taking another life just keeps the cycle going.

Mods: Hope the length of reference material is okay -- necessary to flesh out the subject matter. Thanks.

- - - - - -

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/dpindex.html

Pacific News Service, 22 August 2002
In Bad Company - Death Penalty Nations Marked by Extremism
by Andrew Reding
African American and rights groups are calling on President Bush to condemn the decision of an Islamic court in Nigeria to affirm a death sentence by stoning for a woman convicted of adultery. But the president is in an awkward position, having recently ignored requests from 17 foreign governments — including a direct appeal from his friend the president of Mexico — to ask the state of Texas to suspend the execution of a Mexican citizen.

Together, the two incidents underscore the extent to which the United States and radical Islam have become strange bedfellows in resisting the global tide toward abolition of the death penalty. The presence of other strange bedfellows — communist and authoritarian regimes — deepens the question.

<snip>

With few exceptions, the nations that have abolished capital punishment or discontinued its use are secular democracies. They include every nation in Europe except Belarus, and every country in Latin America except Cuba and Guatemala. Among the other death penalty abolitionists are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Republic of South Africa. Newly democratic Russia has suspended executions, and pledged to abolish the death penalty.

Those who retain the death penalty fall into four slots.

The first is the entire Islamic world, with the exception of Turkey, which has a secular democracy, and the former Soviet Republics of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.

The second is India, the world’s second most populous country, whose government is in the hands of Hindu fundamentalists.

The third is what remains of the communist world: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba.

The fourth is a grab bag of authoritarian governments, including Guatemala, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe.

What these four have in common is one or more of the following: religious fundamentalism, communist ideology or despotism. Clearly the latter two have no relevance to the United States.

But the distribution of the death penalty inside the United States clearly points to the influence of religious fundamentalism, in this case of the Christian variety.

Capital punishment has been abolished in 11 states, covering the Northeast and upper Midwest, plus Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico — all places where the religious right is weak. In two more states — Illinois and Maryland — it has been suspended.

In the remaining 37 states, the death penalty is still in effect. But nowhere is enthusiasm greater than in the southern Bible Belt, the crescent extending from Virginia to Florida to Texas to Missouri, and in Mormon Utah. Almost nine out of 10 executions occur in that region.

Underlying religious fundamentalism in all its forms is a sense of holy righteousness. There is a struggle underway between forces of “good” and “evil,” with the Almighty — whether called God or Allah — on the side of the righteous. Those tainted as evil are dehumanized, making it easier to forfeit their right to life.

<snip>

[autorank]

54. Yes. What an excellent example

[Lucky Luciano]

59. I dunno man, but I know I have wanted to smash someone's kneecaps to a fine powder with a

baseball bat (followed by their head) after they stole money from me, so I can easily unserstand executing the sniper.


*Do note that I never actually smashed anybody with a bat ever - and I never will.

[autorank]

63. Well

I had similar thoughts but like you, I didn't do anything about it. It's having those thoughts and
acting on them that creates the problem. But having them does help with understanding those who
favor the death penalty. I live where the sniper practiced and remember being sent out to buy
gas for my wife and daughter. The suggested that I move around in a random fashion or
stand inside away from the windows. Always thinking of me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. Ehhhh... I Don't Care If It Stops The Killing Or Not. That Piece Of Shit Deserved To Die.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. May he be rotting in hell as we speak.

[Me.]

64. Quite

A man in Somali was stoned for adultery, the woman will be once her baby is born. It was legal, just as our executions are. Killing begats killing. Legal or criminal, blood is shed and the earth it spills upon doesn't know the difference.

[autorank]

90. It demeans the killers

:hi:

[kwenu]

66. I think this argument has been over for decades now.

Execution is NOT a deterrent to killing. That has been proven time and time again. Execution is, quite simply, society's retribution. A determination by a jury that the killer's right to live has been forfeited by his or her actions and should be extinguished.

[autorank]

91. So we kill him?

[Life Long Dem]

67. Kill or be killed.

[autorank]

92. If you're in that situation, that's what will happen

I started this in reaction to seeing an announcement that the sniper had been executed. Virginia made sure he had an excellent lawyer and a fair trial. But it doesn't change my experience living through that and I don't feel a bit safer with him gone. Virginia prisons really suck, a lifetime of a miserable existence. You can have all the conversions you want, you still get treated like crap and nobody even knows where the prisons are. Think the guy go off easy.

[forum slut]

68. people have been killing people for millions of years. What makes you think anything will stop it?

Have you forgotten? we are descended from beasts and that beast isn't going away any time soon.

[autorank]

93. I hear he's on his way back

The Europeans dumped it. We're still the Wild West.

[xocet]

84. Cool...

I like the way that some people in this thread are so revenge-based. Hell is even invoked. One cannot beat revenge in this life and in the "next." Iran has nothing on us. China is good at executions, too. Maybe, the USA, China and Iran should form an execution club - swap methodologies, et cetera. One right-wing radio host has even suggested that the USA simply is not executing people fast enough - let's up the efficiency and not fall behind, people!

Naturally, there is no harm in any of this - after all, the executed innocent are spending their "next lives" floating around on clouds, playing a harp and sipping tall glasses of lemonade with Cameron Todd Willingham. Given that the system is perfect - there is no problem using execution as punishment instead of life in prison.

While this ball is rolling, the USA should adopt the http://www.deadkennedys.com/albums_fresh.html#1">Biafra policy regarding the poor. That would deter poverty.

Just remember the mantra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Metal_%28film%29">"{INSERT NAME HERE} is nothin' but a low-down, double-dealin', back-stabbin', larcenous perverted WORM!! Hanging's too good for him! Burning's too good for him! He should be torn into little-bitty pieces and buried alive!"

[autorank]

94. Perfect

[1]

86. we killed him because he needed killing...

i don't expect anything more than that.

[autorank]

95. Finally #1

We needed killing, not him. He was lost years ago, totally brain dead.

[1]

100. whatever. he's dead, right? good... cry, wring your hands all you want over that...

he needed killing. and it got done.

i'll sleep fine tonight.

[Mimosa]

98. ITA. Societal hygiene.

That vicious SOB totally crossed the line. Worthless. Let the Creator and/or the gods sort it all out.

[Norwood]

87. The killer dies and he can no longer kill?

Seems like a pretty simple concept to me

[autorank]

97. You're right

But if we create a culture of death, then there's more killing. The guy would have spend 30-40 lousy years in truly lousy prisons.

[bleever]

88. My friend, I'm with you.

Don't validate killing.

[autorank]

99. We are one

The sniper was trained to snipe but even if he wasn't, it hurts us on a continuing basis by
setting an example.

Great seeing you!

PS My Sniper Story

[Withywindle]

102. I don't think anyone expects it to stop killing, alas.

But murderers are people who have revoked someone ELSE's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without even the possibility of a trial. Without years of appeals. Without an opportunity to come to terms with death and say goodbye to loved ones.

It may not deter all murders. It may not deter even a few. But to argue that the State has no right to play God rings hollow in the face of the fact that the murderer has done exactly that.


(Full disclosure: I have lost three friends to homicides over the years. None of the perps have been executed. I must confess, I think it'd be nice, but the courts ruled otherwise and I accept that.)

Murder victims die without due process. No appeals lawyers are with them in the moment of death. Their killer does not take their basic human rights into account. And the means of death in state executions is always far more merciful than the shooting/raping/stabbing/strangling that their killers inflicted.

[ZombieHorde]

104. People love killing. All kinds of people.

I am not into killing, but I think wasting the meat is a shame.

[proteus_lives]

106. I don't think that the death penalty has a huge effort on preventing crime.

But it doesn't change the fact that some people deserve to die for their crimes.

[joeybee12]

108. capital punishment is not a deterrent...

...never has been, never will be.

[autorank]

109. Proven again and again and what's the point of punishment w/out deterrence

if the example is set for the crime that's being punished?

[pampango]

111. These murderers just don't understand how precious we think life is, so we have to teach them.

Perhaps we should rape the rapists, punch the brawlers, steal stuff from the robbers, so they all would really learn what we think of their crimes.

To kill people to prove that killing people is wrong, while emotionally satisfying, is just wrong.

[autorank]

118. Absolutely

[Fire1]

112. Pretty much. K&R

[autorank]

119. Pretty much how I feel

When I hear about certain crimes, particularly when I was a potential target (DC sniper), I'll think, for a moment, kill them. I come around quickly and realize that it's all about me and not the larger good, which is to stop killing. But the reflexive response is there.

In the case of the sniper's execution, it occurred to me what a dumb ass government my state has. While it executes people at the 2nd most rapid rate next to Texas, our fool for a governor makes sure that stem cell research sponsored by the state avoids embryonic stem cells to honor life, i.e., discarded fetuses. But he has no problem executing people. I fully respect the differences on this thread and with my friends and peers, but when it comes to holier than thou politicians, I can't stand the thought of being associated with them on this issue.

[branders seine]

113. it doesn't stop killing.

it stops *him* killing.

[aikoaiko]

114. The death penalty is a good punishment.

You hardly ever see one arguing for the death penalty instead of life.

[RagAss]

116. "It's turtles all the way down"

[rucky]

117. Because everyone involved is dead?

:shrug:

[autorank]

120. Correct for $800.00 End of discussion

:donut: