Rationalizing the Death Penalty

First, let me make this clear.
I'm not dehumanzing criminals as animals.
I'm pro animal, we are ALL animals.
Criminals are the same as us and them.

Not all criminals are killers. Not all killers are the same either.
The difference is one of intent, repeated acting on those intentions of killing.

Second, for me, it's not revenge, I don't believe in revenge.
I believe in removing someone who shouldn't be living in society.
Jail is another society, one for punishment and rehabilitation.
Mass murderers, serial murders and "maybe" spree murders are on a whole different level.
They aren't safe in society, really why be in prison forever? Isn't that cruel?

I'm not lumping all murderers together.
There are different types of killers.
I'm not talking about drug deals gone bad.
Or someone going postal.
Or someone who was protecting themselves.
etc, etc, etc.

Anything circumstantial is not an option.
Anything beyond any doubt is not an option.

You are expanding my criteria, than the strict principals I stated for myself.

And yes, this does mean I'd have the death penalty for some and not others. All killings are not alike.
The requirement for a death penalty should be a very high bar.

And I haven't said that those assigned to death are ready to die.
No, like most beings, they want to live, even in prison.
And if given the choice, they would like to out of prison.
And if given the choice, I'm sure they would kill again.
Choice is an irrelevant argument.
Choice is out of their hands. They have been caught.
Just like they took it out of the hands of their victims forever, repeatedly.
This is not fantasy, this is reality.

Again, those people arguing against the death penalty here
are at times expanding the criteria I stated to make a point.
Skilling, was not a mass murderer. No death penalty.
Those people he hurt, still live...life moves on for them.
Besides, there were still questions as to his involvement.
Again, this would eliminate him from being considered.
It has to be foolproof, no questions.

I did review the Ruth Ellis case.
There were tons of bad evidence, circumstantial, bad protocol, etc.
Under the criteria I stated, she wouldn't even get close to the death penalty.

A woman who brutally tortures, rapes and kills children
and you have proof of it, thru video tape.
Yes, that's someone to be considered.

Let's stick to the argument.
Let's not get personal.
And let's not expand it to make a point.
I'm talking reasoning discussion, not hyperbole.

---------

Here's a question.
Jeffrey Dahmer or this guy in the article I started all this with for an example.
How would you feel about them being down the street from you?
Being near your kids or loved ones?
Paying for their meals, comfort and life for all of their lives out of your taxes?

I've had many open-minded, good-hearted individuals making the same arguments you have.
Then I mention, what would you do if they went after your child?
I can't tell you how fast the words, "I'd kill them" come out of their mouths.

Here, I'm not talking about emotion. Reaction. Vengence.
I'm talking about making a rational logical decision, to remove an unnecessary individual from the burdens of society...including jail.

You know what the guy in the article did...it is described there.
Jeffrey Dahmer for reference, his murders involved rape, dismemberment, necrophilia and cannibalism. Proven, and then some...
Dahmer is dead, BTW. Killed by his fellow inmates.
Is this any more fair?

 

I would never want to make a game out of this. (or business, this is a conflict of interest)

Nor do I want to make any criminal, even mass murderers, "pay"
This is not about extracting a price, a pain...not to make them suffer.
It is about removing a known and proven cancer from the world.

 

Calling someone a cancer is also dehumanizing. Does this make them easier to kill?

 

At least we seem to have moved from the medieval demonstrative towards (misguided) utilitarianism.

This thread makes me want to reread Foucault. How crazy is that?

 

Again, for some reason we are moving towards the words, "torture" and "dehumanize" and "animal".
Excuse me for using the word, cancer as a metaphor...I shall endevour to be more literal in the future.

I oppose torture and suffering, period.
Execution should be fast & efficient, with as little pain as possible.

Again, I am fully cognizant what a human is, their present, past and future self.
I'm also aware of what an animal is, and they are at times more worth than many humans.

I've seen both sides of life, the implications of tragedy.
Birth, baby death, death from pain, unnecessary death, and more. (LIVE, up front, personal)
Please do NOT tell me I dehumanize.

You have no idea of my compassion and how much I consider others.
I'm known for this compassion, this consideration. Many think I'm too liberal.

So tell me, other than calling me names...a debating tactic to dismiss or undermine your opponent.
Do you have anything to convince me otherwise?

I accept the fact that you don't like the Death Penalty, so be it.
But you haven't convinced me that your way is more fair and less torturing, than mine. (for heinous multi-murderers, that is)

hmm...spend the rest of your life, in prison...behind bars.
I've seen pictures of the Manson family...after all these years...no, decades...in prison. (First assigned to death, then to life, because of CA law changes)
They look like living death...drawn, wane, worthless, life-less.
They aren't getting out...they get the joy of having joke parole hearings. (Let's have a formal hearing, then deny, deny, deny...forever)
Gee, that sounds SO MUCH more fair, less cruel.

And they are doing SO MUCH for society being there. Giving back, participating. And they obviously will do so also in the future...
I think not.

We often put animals to sleep so they won't experience long-term unrecovering pain.
Or even so they won't always have to live their lives in a cramped cage.
Why?

But humans...I hear people, many of your non-death supporters want their fellow humans in there, as punishment,
to make them continue to pay...to make them suffer like those they wronged.
The reasons to do prison are varied...from benign to malevolent...
So even this is debatable.

And certainly one that you plan on keeping, "preserved" in the human equivalent of a chicken hen house UNTIL DEATH. (oops, a metaphor)
Don't tell me you are being more "humane".

 

I think that it is worth pointing out that there were ~3200 people on death row in the USA, vs. 43 executions actually carried out in 2011 (13 so far in 2012)
Statistically that's a death rate of about 135 per 100,000 per year. The death rate for the US population as a whole is about 84/100,000 Canada is about 77/100,000.
Interminable appeals, (with the state paying for the expenses of both prosecution and defense, in most cases, no wonder it's expensive) appeals almost exclusively based on legal technicalities or matters of procedure, with no real question of guilt vs. innocence remaining. Just an expensive legal jousting match.
Odds of a death sentence being actually carried out in a timely manner (or at all, for that matter) are so infinitesimally small that of course it is not a deterrent.
So for all practical purposes we don't have an actual death penalty.

Instead, we have this intense and expensive Death Penalty Theater™ in its place.

Lindy