Utah killer executed

[Stalins Organ]

You forgot a reason to kill them - they have commited an evil deed that is sufficient for society to want to remove them.

also pretty much every god/holy book says you should do so.

Personally I find the argument that capital punishment has not deterred those who kill to be circular.

It's like saying that speeding fines do not stop speeding, or jail/fines/probation, etc does not stop other crime.

Why not do away with it all?

What is it that you expect to "gain" by punishing anyone for anything?

I know for a fact that the risk of punishment deters me from all sorts of things...but maybe I'm jsut a wimp......

[Stalins Organ]

AFAIK dropping bombs on civilians is not outlawed. What is outlawed is targeting civilians.

If they happen to be within the blast radius of a weapon aimed at a military target then that's perfectly legal - whether the weapon hit the target or not.

[JonS]

AFAIK dropping bombs on civilians is not outlawed. What is outlawed is targeting civilians.

If they happen to be within the blast radius of a weapon aimed at a military target then that's perfectly legal - whether the weapon hit the target or not.

You should either be more careful with your choice of words, or avoid trying to set cute semantic gotchas.

I am aware of the distinction, and assumed you were talking about targetting of civilians, which your phrase "dropping bombs on civilians" clearly implies. An alternate phrasing of "dropping bombs on munitions factories adjacent to daycare centres" would imply targetting of a military instalation with a high probability of civilian casualties (which may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances of a given attack, in particular as they relate to proportionality, limitation, military necessity, and humanity. Which makes the second part of your post factually incorrect.)

[JonS]

also pretty much every god/holy book says you should do so.

So? That'd have to be the feeblest argument going. Why would I care what the Bible/Koran/FSM/whoever has to say on the matter?

Personally I find the argument that capital punishment has not deterred those who kill to be circular. It's like saying that speeding fines do not stop speeding, or jail/fines/probation, etc does not stop other crime.

Why not do away with it all?

Because deterrance isn't the desired result?

What is it that you expect to "gain" by punishing anyone for anything?

Um ... that would be punishment.

I know for a fact that the risk of punishment deters me from all sorts of things...but maybe I'm jsut a wimp......

Induitably. However, I think the point is that the 'risk' of the death penalty isn't a sufficiently greater deterrant to the 'risk' of imprisonment to be worth - to society - the additional drawbacks.

[Stalins Organ]

No Jon - my use of "dropping bombs on civilians" means nothing more than "dropping bombs on civilians".

As you yourself say, it is presumptive to conclude I meant something else.

And if punishment is the object of goaling/fining/etc., then what more punishment can be assigned for a crime than death of the perpetrator?

And while you obviously believe that the "risk" of a death penalty is greater than the "risk" of imprsonment to society, stating it as if it were a fact is just another logical fallacy on your part.

I believe there are circumstances where it would be a lesser risk.

[JonS]

No Jon - my use of "dropping bombs on civilians" means nothing more than "dropping bombs on civilians".

Well, in that case it is meaningless and therefore unanswerable.

As you yourself say, it is presumptive to conclude I meant something else.

Just so. I now realise that my mistake was to assume you meant to say something, when instead you meant to say nothing at all. My bad.

[dieseltaylor]

Seems like a lot of re-hashing and obsfucation of my arguement.

1] We know the current systems jail innocent people. The remedy is that we do not execute people unless the evidence is incontrovertible and the murder premeditated.

2] Murderers released from prison do murder again - note however by my first rule not all murderers would be executed anyway.

3] I am disheartened to find that no-one has advanced the cause of crimes of passion as opposed to deliberate crime. Crimes of passion are another case in my book as people can in the heat of the moment do unnatural things.

4] You will note that in case 3] that one could include Directors who deliberately place people at risk.

5] Basing arguments on the inadequacies of the US experience is crap as they have perhaps the worst judicial system of the Western nations.

Society and individuals rights. As a member of society we have an implied contract we do not go around robbing and raping and murdering because if we did society would collapse. Therefore we support a police force to protect us, and expect villains to be punished.

JonS

# Moral issue c.f. Hoolaman's post. It's immoral to deliberately harm anyone, least of all those who are already under you complete control.

Reasons to kill prisoners:

# acts as a deterent. Unfortunately(?), it doesn't.

# revenge. Is this even part of our criminal justice system?

# stops them reoffending. This is essentially punishing someone for potential future offending, as opposed to punishing them for something they have actually done. I don't think punishing crimes not yet comitted is part of our criminal justice system*.

JonS post gives somethings to hang on. Firstly moral issues. That is rich really from a society prepared to go and kill some other nationals because their rulers may be supporting something the West does not like. Seems a very fine point indeed to say that because we totally control a convicted murderer that means his/her life is more valuable than some innocent native somewhere. Its pure cant to suggest life is sacrosanct.

For the good of the nation/society we go to war and kill innocents. For the good of society please explain why certain classes of murderers should not be topped. Keeping people alive for life is an expense, and if we release after decades then there is the danger of more innocent people being killed.

Is capital punishment a deterrent - well lets put it this way if I were deliberately considering murder the risk reward favours me taking a punt on a ten year term as preferable to dying. After all a decade would be enough to get a degree in crimnology. I doubt there have been many surveys asking how many people seriously considered murdering someone but decided the risk was not worth the candle. Incidentally according to Wikipedia there was a spike in murders following the abolition pretty much of the death penalty in the US. Though there may have been other factors operating.

The concept that justice has to be seen to be done is a very important one for society and I would make the argument that high profile cases of criminals [corrupt politicians, fraudsters, murderers] need to be dealt with severely for the benefit of societies belief that there is a just system. If the population believe that money buys the system. or that detection rates are abysmal, or punishments are laughable, then crime is likely to increase. Knowledge that the average murderer gets out after a decade may be felt more acceptable if it is known that the "serious" murderers are executed.

Punish or revenge seem to me to be quite close in intent and the semantics. Keeping someone incarcerated for ever may sound cruel. Myrs Hindley who tortured and killed children lived for 37 years after her victims, enjoyed several lesbian relationships and was fed and protected by the State. Curiously she was a heavy smoker and died aged 60 partially due to the State providing her with plenty of fags. According to a psychiatrist know to me she was very manipulative with above average intelligence. In all honesty can anyone say that Myra Hindley suffered for her crime. Do you really think Society felt good about the outcome.

[JonS]

JonS post gives somethings to hang on. Firstly moral issues. That is rich really from a society prepared to go and kill some other nationals because their rulers may be supporting something the West does not like. Seems a very fine point indeed to say that because we totally control a convicted murderer that means his/her life is more valuable than some innocent native somewhere. Its pure cant to suggest life is sacrosanct.

Un-bunch your panties, because that's not really what I said. One does, however, have a duty of care for people who are under your care. This is one of the reasons that torture is unacceptable.

For the good of society please explain why certain classes of murderers should not be topped. Keeping people alive for life is an expense, and if we release after decades then there is the danger of more innocent people being killed.

Concern about the cost is a revolting reason to kill someone. How far are you prepared to extend that line of thinking?

Concern about crimes that have yet to occur is valid, but punishing - killling - someone because they might, at some point in the distant future, do something? Eh, not so much. It's reasonably likely that next time I drive a car I'll drive above the speed limit. Perhaps I should trot down to the police station now and give them a couple of C-notes, just in case, or maybe they could just take it straight out of my wages. Does that sould like a good idea?

The concept that justice has to be seen to be done is a very important one for society

No argument there.

and I would make the argument that high profile cases of criminals [corrupt politicians, fraudsters, murderers] need to be dealt with severely for the benefit of societies belief that there is a just system.

Or there. And not just high profile cases either. It'd be nice t think that all cases were dealt with on their merits, rather than because you happen to think they're important or 'high profile enough.'

If the population believe that money buys the system. or that detection rates are abysmal, or punishments are laughable, then crime is likely to increase.

No argument there either.

You do realise, of course, that you are talking about fixing a borked justice system. Adding the borked concept of captical punishment to an already borked justice system isn't going to fix it. Sort the rest of it out, then, maybe, we can talk.

Myra Hindley who tortured and killed children lived for 37 years after her victims, enjoyed several lesbian relationships and was fed and protected by the State. Curiously she was a heavy smoker and died aged 60 partially due to the State providing her with plenty of fags. ... In all honesty can anyone say that Myra Hindley suffered for her crime.

Lolwut? What have you done in the last 37 years - where have you been, who have you met, what did you see, what did you experience, what did you buy, what did you eat?

Myra Hindley lived a highly regimented life in exactly the same location, with no privacy or personal possessions beyond a toothbrush. Essentialy, she lost all of her liberty and freedom. That is the punishment we choose to impose on criminals. If you don't care about freedom, libery, travel, privacy, and the like, then sure: Myra Hindley never suffered for her crime

She also didn't harm anyone else, which kinda puts the lie to that idea.

Do you really think Society felt good about the outcome.

I don't know about Society (where do you send the mail? What's the phone number?), but I feel pretty good about it.

[Affentitten]

If you don't care about freedom, libery, travel, privacy, and the like, then sure: Myra Hindley never suffered for her crime

I think I speak for a lot of guys when I say that it's not really loss of liberty that terrifies me about going to prison!

[hoolaman]

For the good of the nation/society we go to war and kill innocents. For the good of society please explain why certain classes of murderers should not be topped. Keeping people alive for life is an expense, and if we release after decades then there is the danger of more innocent people being killed.

It just doesn't occur to me that killing someone is any better than imprisoning them for life, maybe capital punishment really is a matter of taste. But there is only one of those options that can be reversed, so I'd rather err on the side of caution. Even a four year old knows that two wrongs don't make a right, and many murder victims families hold this to be true as well.

The argument that human life is not sacrosanct because there is war kind of misses the point. Nation states give rights and obligations to their own citizens that they don't extend to the other billions of people in the world. In fact nations spend most of the time trying to get one up on the other guy, from trade sanctions, protectionism, immigration control etc. war is diplomacy by another means and is ideally not about killing at all, it is about achieving other ends. Killing a criminal is about killing, nothing more.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

But there is only one of those options that can be reversed,

That's just not true. Someone jailed for years cannot get those years back either. Lock a guy in for life or take his life, it really isn't that great a difference

And again, that's discussing dubious convictions in the first place, whereas proponents here have argued for it to be imposed only on those where there is conclusive proof. In these days of CCTV, DNA, mobile phone tracking and numerous other forensic advances we can get reliable convictions.

And while the death penalty opponents sit on their self built mountain of morality, society gets to pay for the incarceration, including the smokes, porn magazines and healthcare, of some dude who cannot be allowed back in to that society. How is that more just?

And while the deterrence factor is pretty disputed, those who'd chose to commit acts where a death penalty is on the books for can't exactly claim it's unfair.

I really don't think there is much of a moral case against the death penalty. It's mostly a case of preference, in that I agree. And most citizens do seem to prefer getting rid the worst of the worst.

No, I can only reasonably entertain as valid those objections that are practical. I think most justice systems aren't reliable enough in most cases. And yet, even in those less reliable systems there would be the occasional case where ridding the world of the offender would be the reasonable thing to do.

If a judicial system could exercise the utmost restraint in handing down the death penalty, I'd be all in favour. For instance, I think the Dutch judicial system might be up to it. OTOH, the US system is very unreliable in terms of restraint and I personally would not want it on the books, as is. But even that has guys like the Ft Hood shooter, whose continued existence is clearly rather pointless.

[JonS]

... proponents here have argued for [the death penalty] to be imposed only on those where there is conclusive proof. ...

Uh ... I'm pretty sure that's suposed to already be the case. It just doesn't work that way.

... In these days of CCTV, DNA, mobile phone tracking and numerous other forensic advances ...

All of which are wildly unreliable, but because of dopey programs like CSI have the veneer of absolute reliability (in much the same way that the many TTBs in "24" became a rallying cry for the pro-torture lobby). For years and years polygraphs were - and in some cases still are - seen as foolproof, but has been shown to be little more than a dowsing rod with flashing lights.

Leaving aside the practical objections with relying on technology to act as a standin for our consciences, there is also a pragmatic concern. The assumption seems to be that the state - and all its agents - will always act reliably and honourably.

[JonS]

That's just not true. Someone jailed for years cannot get those years back either. Lock a guy in for life or take his life, it really isn't that great a difference

True, they can't get the years spent in jail back. They do, however, get the years of their life left back. Something which is obviously impractical with the other approach. Compensation is also possible in the case of wrongful imprisonment, but a bit more challenging for wrongful executions.

Incidentally, ragarding the execution being cheaper than imprisonment? Not so much.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm going disregard the bit where you trot out old cases and go straight for the bit where you disqualified yourself from sensible discussion on the matter.

All of which are wildly unreliable, but because of dopey programs like CSI have the veneer of absolute reliability

To describe DNA evidence as "wildly unreliable" is just discreditable.

It is not. Just because shows like CSI overegg the pudding doesn't mean it's too be discarded like you did.

Really, I'm all for respecting opposing viewpoints, but what you said just now is just too stupid.

[JonS]

I'm not sure why you'd ignore old cases. Sure, they're inconvienient for you, but like murder there should be not statute of limitations on wrongful execution. Also, at least one of them is quite literally the most recent relevant case.

DNA evidence is far and away the best of them, but it isn't infallible.

Also, this:

Yeah, sure, it's a cartoon, but look up the phrase "CSI-Effect", on which it is based.

[JonS]

My stance on the death penalty is much the same as my stance on using torture to resolve TTBs:

In the fictional world in which you can be absolutely sure that [this person is guilty of premeditated child rape and murder]/[this person knows the location of the TTB] then I am in favour of [the death penalty]/[torture].

Unfortunately(?) in the real world, that level of surity (and those kinds of TTB scenarios) just does not happen. So in the real world - in conjucnction with all the other really good reasons to be opposed - I am opposed to the death penalty (and torture).

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm well aware of the CSI effect. And btw that has tended to make it more difficult to get a conviction.

Nonetheless, to say DNA evidence is "wildly unreliable" is amazing drivel.

[JonS]

Perhaps. To imply it leads to infallible convictions is amazingly credulous.

[dieseltaylor]

Laughably the case for costs rests on some dubious figures from the most expensive state of the most expensive country in the world. This is further made murky byt he fact that ther US justice system sucks. And because it sucks thye have built in huge safeguards to delay executions. Perhaps being more rigorous at the trial might be a better method all round.

If we look at the specific case of the guy who murdered two men in court whilst on trial for a third murder one cannot but feel that there would be NO grounds for appeal. Therefore the life cost of looking after hime would be zero as opposed to somewhat over $1M for 40 years incarceration. [Figure based on annual cost for a prisoner in 1993 with someone on death row being a few hundred dollars more expensive. You will appreciate that with inflation the costs would double at least every decade]

Bearing in mind my distinction about murderers to be executed would exclude all of those that were done in passion and therefore would form only a small part of the total number of murders committed.

Most people convicted of murder may get lightish sentences as per the current regime in the UK. There does exist a group though were death is the logical answer. Mexican gand killers are hardly the type of person where keeping them in goal all the remainder of their life seems very logical. Who knows dying might suggest a chat to the DA.

BTW as for Myra Hindley and her toothbrush - you really have no idea how much comfort there is in prison.

[hoolaman]

I'm not sure why you'd ignore old cases. Sure, they're inconvienient for you, but like murder there should be not statute of limitations on wrongful execution. Also, at least one of them is quite literally the most recent relevant case.

DNA evidence is far and away the best of them, but it isn't infallible.

Also, this:

Yeah, sure, it's a cartoon, but look up the phrase "CSI-Effect", on which it is based.

Lol. I work in an analytical lab (nothing to do with forensics) and the CSI effect is a running joke. Mostly in the context of people's unrealistic expectations of what is possible.

But apparently if you set up a lab with really poor lighting and install some UV lamps, you can do an analysis that takes 48 hours and 5mL of sample in 4 seconds with whatever they scraped up off the floor.

[hoolaman]

Bearing in mind my distinction about murderers to be executed would exclude all of those that were done in passion and therefore would form only a small part of the total number of murders committed.

Why are crimes of passion exempt? The perpetrators are surely more unstable than someone who plans their crime for months. What is the difference in the suffering of the victim and the prosecution of justice between some guy strangling his wife in a fit of rage and some transient strangling a university student in a fit of strangliness?

What gives a judge or more particularly a jury the right to decide on the subtleties of whether one crime warrants execution and another does not? In past times you could be executed for sodomy or adultery or witchcraft or even petty crime, but that seems archaic and excessive these days.

There does exist a group though were death is the logical answer. Mexican gand killers are hardly the type of person where keeping them in goal all the remainder of their life seems very logical.

Well of course if they are brown its a slam dunk.

[dieseltaylor]

Hoolaman - I can see lots of shades of grey and it is only the blackest of crimes that deserve the death penalty.

If I killed an intruder who broke into my house during the night then that is hardly premeditated and in the same league as if I killed several people or decided to murder the PM.

As I have repeatedly tried to make clear not all murders are equivalent. Rendering someone a vegetable in a vicious assault is not the same degree as most assaults and we do not expect them to be treated the same.

If I decide not to fit safety equipment to my Bhopal plant but do to my US plant and then kill 2000 Indians am I not guilty of deliberate murder? If I design a car where the chances of dying from a rear-end shunt are higher than any other car do I pull it from production, do I re-design it, or do I just go on selling it having decided the extra deaths caused will be covered by sales.

This reference is of course to the Pinto case, which on further investigation, is largely mythical in terms of Pinto lethality:

http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf

but enshrined in memory and many text books.

However the general point remains that deliberate "murder" or inhuman crimes can be punished by execution without having all murderers deserve the death penalty argument.

[Stalins Organ]

What gives a judge or more particularly a jury the right to decide on the subtleties of whether one crime warrants execution and another does not?

society does....or would do if it decided to.

Just as it gives then the right - actually the duty - to decide on subtleties in non-capital cases. That is precisely why "we" have judges and juries - to make such decisions as "we" decide they should make.

[Dietrich]

I wonder what percentage of the people who lobby and protest against the death penalty have had loved ones murdered. Likewise, I wonder what percentage of the people who support the death penalty have not had loved ones murdered.

That said, does the desire of those who have had loved ones murdered for the killer to be put to death effectively constitute some sort of wrong[ful] bias?

I wonder what percentage of people in other countries/cultures lobby and protest against the death penalty (if such is practiced in their region).

[JonS]

That said, does the desire of those who have had loved ones murdered for the killer to be put to death effectively constitute some sort of wrong[ful] bias?

This.

Victims have an expectation of justice. They don't get to define what justice is.