For those opposed to the death penalty, explain why it shouldn't be used in this case

reply to post by Sheeper



You're right, in this case as well as many others the man is not just a repeat offender, but a multiple repeat offender. Maybe if we started holding the judicial system accountable for constantly releasing and rereleasing multiple offenders they would start keeping the ones that just can not function in society locked away from society.

I feel that the comparison is at least partially applicable (though I also concede that this is only my opinion and that I could be wrong) in my view.

It's easy to say to yourself, "Well, there's a difference between murdering millions of innocent people on the basis of ethnicity, creed, or what have you, and putting one brutal murderer to death." That's true. There is definitely a difference, and to ignore it would constitute ignorance in my opinion. However, there is also a similarity, and to ignore that would make me ignorant as well in my opinion. That similarity is in the fact that in both instances a human being is deciding on the basis of criteria that they set, whether another human being should live or die.

Didn't someone just say earlier in this thread that this individual has been involved in murder since childhood? What might that say about the sanity or neurological status of this individual? Well, I don't know of course, being neither a doctor nor a lawyer, but it at least raises the prospect for a factor beyond their control. Is this person a psychopath by definition? If so, can they control that? Is it a fundamental part of their neurological and/or psychological makeup? If so, then, though I know this is an entirely unpopular point of view and I am making myself a flame target for suggesting it: is it their fault? We may say, "But they show no remorse and they don't regret what they've done. They chose to do it." My question is: Did they even have the mental capacity to make any other choice? Are they even capable of remorse? If not, how is that their fault?

I make a distinction between blame and responsibility. This individual is responsible for those acts, but are they to blame or is their condition ultimately to blame?

Therein lays the crucial point in my opinion. If we can kill this person (and they are a person, whether we like to acknowledge that humanity produces such monsters or not) on the basis of mental illness or neurological dysfunction, then how far does that go? Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line, and are we so infallible as to draw it with absolute justice, precision, and wisdom, all the time and without fail? Do we then say, “But we know it’s for the best in this instance?” What is to stop us from saying that every time?

Someone else also posted that killing this individual would prevent them from killing again. This is true. Wouldn't keeping them confined from society do the same, though? Others have said that they don't wish to pay for the meals and sheltering of such a being. Yet we will pay to kill them? We are willing to part with our money to take life, but not to protect it? I just can't feel that way. I'm sorry if that offends.

Again, this is only my opinion, and I respect the views of those who disagree.

[edit on 6/8/2008 by AceWombat04]

reply to post by AceWombat04


Keep in mind, that we don't want him Executed because he is mentally defunct, we Need to execute him because he is a predatory human who has demonstrated repeatedly, the willingness and compulsion to prey upon and destroy innocent members of his own species.

There is no Cure for what this man suffers from. The only solution is total removal from society, regardless of the fact that we do have the ability to "contain" such a monster.

Imagine the immense amount of resources and manpower that would be need to contain 10 000 Hannibal Lecters, when a 5-cent bullet and a grave dug by a prison work detail would suffice....

Originally posted by doctormcauley


There is no Cure for what this man suffers from. The only solution is total removal from society, regardless of the fact that we do have the ability to "contain" such a monster.

Has killing idividuals like this in the past Cured society of their existence, or these types of crimes.

Imagine the immense amount of resources and manpower that would be need to contain 10 000 Hannibal Lecters, when a 5-cent bullet and a grave dug by a prison work detail would suffice....

Well, Hannibal got away in a few of those movies.....lets hope we don't have 10,000 of 'em running around. We should be more afraid of becoming Hannibal, then scaring ourselves with the possiblitiy of having uncontrolable numbers of these individuals on our hands and so rationalize killing them....especially because it is cheap.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by doctormcauley
Imagine the immense amount of resources and manpower that would be need to contain 10 000 Hannibal Lecters, when a 5-cent bullet and a grave dug by a prison work detail would suffice....

It is actually very expensive to execute people, I believe the cost can run about 8 million per execution (plus realize many sentenced to execution will cost that much before their sentences are lifted).

Then there is the Brian Nicholas case, guy on trial for raping his girlfriend jumps a guard in his holding cell at the courthouse, takes the guards gun, then proceeds to walk into the courtroom and shoot the judge and transcriber lady to death in front of a packed courtroom. It was caught on tape, there were multiple witnesses.

The defense team for Brian Nichols has spent $1.8 million so far - nearly half the state's entire annual public-defender budget - and say they need more money. (By comparison, the state prosecutor has spent $5 million - in a case where the accused confessed and several of the murders were caught on tape.)

As a result of what it claims are outrageous costs, the state is refusing to pay the defense team and the judge in the case is threatening a state office with contempt of court. Meanwhile, not only the Nichols case, but all of the state's nearly 80 other death penalty cases have ground to a halt.

Originally posted by doctormcauley
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

Keep in mind, that we don't want him Executed because he is mentally defunct, we Need to execute him because he is a predatory human who has demonstrated repeatedly, the willingness and compulsion to prey upon and destroy innocent members of his own species.

There is no Cure for what this man suffers from. The only solution is total removal from society, regardless of the fact that we do have the ability to "contain" such a monster.

Imagine the immense amount of resources and manpower that would be need to contain 10 000 Hannibal Lecters, when a 5-cent bullet and a grave dug by a prison work detail would suffice....

Indeed. I would gladly pay to keep someone alive though if I could. Again, this is only my opinion.

I don't think the state should have the power to take its own citizen's lives. The judiciary can and does make mistakes, and I don't believe its necessary to kill someone in order to stop them from being a risk to others. No necessity + potential for error makes it an unfavourable position.

Simple as that.

This guy is a bloody monster, and were there a situation where he could not be safely put away somewhere where he could not repeat his crimes, I would gladly do the deed myself and rid the world of his presence.

Fortunately, this sort of institutions do exist, and we usually call them prisons.

5 cent .22 bullet + 2 prisoners with shovels in a prison graveyard

That is how it should be done, not an 8 million dollar injection.

And yes, death does remove a person from existence and has done so continually throughout time.

-My Retort

The Muslims get a lot of flack for their laws, but Sharia law regarding the death penalty does offer choices. The courts decide if execution is appropriate, and then the victims family can decide whether or not they want the convicted killer to be executed.

i, for one, don't believe death to be all that bad. so these bastards should rot in jail in their own personal hell in solitary for literally the rest of their living days. none of this 25 years BS - until they're a grey old dying man. that's LIFE IMPRISONMENT. anyone living in solitary confinement for decade after decade would go nuts-literally crazy with no human contact, no touch of the outside world. that's how you torture someone - apart from the obvious crimes they committed in the first place.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by ToolFanMael

 

EXACTLY. Primal instinct. Gut reaction. Visceral revenge.

These are not the values of a civilized system of Justice.

Here's a question. Who's making money off of the death penalty?

you're right.. I guess I was just putting myself in the shoes of the parents for a second if thats even possible.. I cant imagine having something like this happen to my child.. I dont care what anyone says.. you think you can convince the parents of any less? but they would come to the same realization at some point.. nothing is gonna undo what was done

very good point about whos making money off of it for sure man, it always makes me sick to my stomach when I hear this stuff.. I dont know what the solution is.. but im pretty sure its not death penalty or life in prison.. I hope the family and victim find peace some day!

thanks for the reply.. made me re think what I said for sure

Originally posted by garyo1954
Honest answer:

Killing this guy is not going to stop one murder, one rape, or any other crime.
But it may cause the next person to go ahead a commit murder so that there would be no witnesses.

Actually it could stop many rapes and murders. Someone like that enjoys power over thier victims and will not stop until they are dead. His crimes would most likely escalate- think of that horror. He was trying to kill her anyway, but she was strong and survived. And rape is not necessarily lesser in damage than murder. Rape kills a part of that person and the victim is forever damaged by it.

reply to post by Oreyeon


I dont know if carrying a weapon would have helped. THere are a couple of scenarios that come to mind:
#1 He caught her by asking her if she knew where Mrs... lived, so she was off guard anyway. If you are not used to drawing a gun and using it, the likelihood of actually getting to it before he got her (he looks to be a big strong guy, too) doesnt seem good.

#2 Some well-meaning guy comes up to ask where Mrs... lives and she shoots him out of alarm. Maybe thats not likely. I dont know.

In some cases you are just giving your attacker another weapon to use against you, so it may not always be the best idea. Guns, I mean. Non-lethal weapons are never a bad idea, especially for women.

It is actually very expensive to execute people, I believe the cost can run about 8 million per execution (plus realize many sentenced to execution will cost that much before their sentences are lifted).


How expensive would it be to put this #$%hole with a large group of #$%holes like him and give them free run(in a confined setting that is). It will eventually even out to the ONE strongest #$%hole...then he gets the 8 million injection as a reward. I see no problem with allowing these rape, torture, mutilating, depraved acting individuals to do this to eachother...who knows, maybe this guy will get some of what he did. It all boils down to POWER. They think by doing these acts that they have gathered the POWER over the victim, or themselves, or everyone, etc. Put them in a cage as a mass and allow them to expend this POWER for a cost-efficient, and somewhat agreeable albeit enjoyable(for them) solution. Thats my take.

lock him in a pure white room. no human contact. no reading material or anything else for that matter(only a toilet). food may be served after prisoner has been knocked unconcious through some sort of gas. leave him with nothing but his thoughts.