For anyone, but especially if you do not support the death penalty
 

Would you have any significant emotional or moral objection if THIS killer, who is known beyond any doubt to be responsible for this crime, was taken out and shot?

I think that all of the arguments are in favour of abolition of the death penalty: the risk of miscarriages of justice, the effect on the dignity of the state if it kills a man, that it is proven not to be an effective deterrent, the burden that the hangman is asked to carry... but my purely emotional reaction is that this guy should be killed.

In the proper context, I can understand lethal self-defense, but I don't think I could ever support lethal retributive justice--not even as an emotional response.

This is a sad story.

Agreed. It's a truly horrible story but I still would never support the death penalty, it won't bring anyone back.

But it will take someone away who has shown they don't deserve to be a part of civilized society, and without said society being forced to subsidize the rest of their life.

Take someone away?

Studies have shown that it costs less to keep a prisoner in jail for life than it does to impose the death penalty. I've posted the data here before. It is not about money. It is about revenge.

I couldn't agree more. What I don't understand is why people's idea of revenge is so short sighted. I'm a pretty revengeful person, and I can't think anything that tastes sweeter than locking someone in an 8 x 10 cell for decades. Killing them lets them get off "easy" in my book.

I'm almost pissed when someone who's sentenced to life without parole finds a way to kill themselves. They cheated the punishment.

There are no instances imaginable in which the death penalty would be reasonable in my mind.

The best revenge. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

I think a big part of it is revenge, but more it is a ritual, an act of cleansing that rids society of the horror.

I dont intellectually support capital punishment, but I feel ambivalent, it would not trouble me for someone like this to be killed. And if necessary, i would be prepared be the one that dropped the hatch.

Revenge will always be to the detriment of the harmonious balance of a functional society. The purpose of law and justice is to maintain and restore this balance. There is no place for revenge in a system of law and justice. The same goes for lethal retribution.

Removing a killer from an open and free society seems to make more sense in terms of restoring harmony than does killing the killer.

Why do we wish to kill the killer? What does this do to us?

how do you go from the anecdotal (which is all the op provides) to a system-level view of the ways in which the death penalty does or does not function?

if you can't trace the steps. you can't say anything coherent.

i'm not sure what the precise point of this thread is - if you're sharing a story about a reprehensible act and stating that you'd not mind if THIS particular person were to die, then I guess I can understand that. For me, that does not track to a systemic approval of the death penalty. I suppose that's essentially what many of us are posting...hmmm...guess I'll grab a cup of coffee.

I took this not as an objective view of the system but as a personal opinion on the matter. If this thread were meant to be objective, it would have presented a better case. Or, a case, period, I should say.

I didn't see this, so I responded accordingly.

i actually wasn't talking about your posts, bg---i agree with your position (for what it's worth)--i meant it more at strange famous. and mister pig's point, which is basically the same, is phrased in a less aggressive way so maybe is a better point of departure for things from here....

I knew this. I was speaking about the OP exclusively. But thanks for the clarification.

Now that we're on the same page....

In terms of a system, stepping outside of the emotional response to an especially sadistic or horrid crime - I agree that there are many arguments against the death penalty.

There will be mistakes, there will be outrages against justice (like Derek Bentley); again and again the death penalty has been proven not to be an effective deterrent; any case where the death penalty exists will eventually lead to the state killing an innocent; the death penalty forces the state itself to become a murderer; that specifically hangman are required to kill on behalf of those who do not have the stomach to carry the blood on their hands; that enemies of the state can be made into martyr's.

Revenge is an argument FOR the death penalty, but I think a poor one. It is very understandable that the families of the victims want to see the killer pay the ultimate price - but it is not a good basis to create law upon.

I genuinely think, and I know I said it before, that the value of the death penalty is deeper than the usually given reasons... I certainly dont believe in a biblical eye for eye (which ends up blinding us all if you take it to its ultimate end) - but I do believe hanging is a ritual that is valuable to society, it is an act of cleansing and act of ridding society of the crimes of the killer. The killer is hanged not for the sake of some religious or moral idea of justice, and not to satisfy the pain of the victims loved ones: to wash the murder from the general society and in one action to cut the disgraced and degraded element away from society.

I do not support torture of any kind, or punishment that has any kind of sadistic level, I detest the system in America where people can sit on death row for decades constantly in terror of execution. Execution should be efficient and painless - the casting out of an individual who is proven unfit to live - without celebration, spectacle, or hate.

I would support only death by hanging is an acceptable means of execution, and that it must happen very quickly after the sentence is given, with one chance to appeal and one chance to appeal to the head of state for mercy. I support it only in cases of murder which are "the worst cases" (subjective, I know). In no case is it permissable for a woman or a child to be hanged (and that may be sexist, but it is my position).

I have to say Strange: I find your most recent post to be fucked up enough that I can't put together anything that seems like a coherent response. I seem to be toying with notions of whether or not a death-ritual as cleansing is the most productive introspective exercise society needs, and the bit on 'no chicks and kids' seems a bit off to me. And the whole 'get a rope' thing. And the part about not having multiple appeals, if you're given the caveat that the death penalty is appropriate.

That read like some odd Cormac McCarthy post.

wait, sf: you're talking about a sacrificial order.
the ritual purification of a community through the designation of a scapegoat--who embodies *the idea* of collective sin/guilt (but strictly speaking need not be personally guilty of anything).

well gee, that sounds a whole lot like the inner logic of the discourse of "the war on terror" and all kinds of other delightfully reactionary ways of thinking about the purification of the community so as to better enable it to stride manfully forward and fulfill its national destiny--lebensraum ho....

did you just discover rene girard or something?


maybe i'm wrong: could you try to be more explicit?

What the fuck?How does this make sense?

I can think of at least 13 people in my state of Illinois alone that are very glad right now that our death penalty is not as "efficient" as you'd like it to be and that they had more than two chances to appeal. Again, how does this make sense?

Do you read the things you write?

firstly - hanging is painless, and death is instant by broken neck - the only cases of it being drawn out are where the execution is bungled by an unskilled person.

secondly - I admit that there is a possibility of innocent people being killed, but I weigh this against the suffering of an inmate on death row for years and years.

thirdly - in my opinion the death penalty should only be given in a murder trial where the jury specifically requests it, the judge agree's with the juries request in sentencing, and the head of state ratifies the decision. I am only talking about the execution of the most sadistic killers.

fourthly - I really am not going to get into arguments with people who make references to my case and "lebensraum"... I believe the execution of the worst criminals free's society from the crimes, I dont really see the link with wanting to conquer Poland.

fifthly - the execution of children should not be supported by anyone, that I would prohibit the execution of females also is my own personal feeling and I dont make any arguments for it, other than it would be intolerable.

sixthly - the needs of the many must be put ahead of the rights of individuals sometimes. If you murder a baby, if you slaughter five innocent women (as examples) I believe you forfit your position in society and your right to be protected as a member of society. I would bet that nearly everyone believe that it is acceptable to kill in war, all Im doing is extending this argument, and I think some of the outrage at my comments is mis-placed...

Speaking for myself, I'm not angered by your comments...why would I be? You're some British dude with a machete and a copy of Marx. I just think it's an odd argument or statement, which doesn't track to anything meaningful in a systemic sense. You have a particular feeling that really bad people people should be ritualistically hung by a skilled hanger-of-people, as long as they have dicks. While it certainly is a different view, I don't really see a grassroots movement taking it up to bring about any policy changes. So I'm not sure what the point is, but hey - we're on a discussion board and I guess this is discussion. I'm off for a little walk in the woods and some fresh air.

Happy hanging :)

what i meant, comrade, was that your argument for a sacrificial purification of a national community puts you in a very dubious political tradition. what i meant, comrade, was that i thought making this argument was peculiar given that you've mentioned quite a few times your cp affiliation: so i concluded that either (a) you had just read some rené girard and were infatuated with the idea of sacrifice or (b) that you really had not thought out what you were saying.

i still don't have any idea.

frankly, it doesn't matter to me: i don't see anything remotely like a coherent series of steps leading from the anecdotal to the system level. basically, it looks to me like you are aghast at the story you found--which is reasonable--and think that this particular person probably deserves the death penalty--aren't really comfortable with that, so you floated the thread.

and if you really thought that the point of my post above was supporting the death penalty in this particular case meant that next you would invade poland--i dont know what to say. i am amazed.

rb, pig and smeth have approached and expressed my sentiments on these latter statements. I'm in too good of a mood to comment further.

This is a terrible, horrible story.

Does this man deserve to die? I'm sorry, I'd rather leave that one up to fate, not by a decision made by a court. Prison for life with no chance of parole? Sounds better but honestly still too harsh. Prison for 15-25 years and when let free, a requirement of paying for and attending bi-weekly anger management counseling for a minimum of 10 years - that's more like it.

I'd rather think that people can be reformed. Especially when it's a case of domestic abuse, not a systematic psycopathic killer.

gg, do you belieeve in whole life tarrifs in some cases?

for example, do people like Jeffrey Dahlmer and Peter Sutcliffe deserve to die in prison? Are there any circumstances in which they could be freed?

I dont think, for example at 85, Peter Sutcliffe would present any threat to anyone at that point... but do certain crimes demand certain sentances with have an extra dimension other than protecting the public.

Whole life tariffs, or life in prison sentences, are appropriate when a person is deemed by the court beyond reform.

Sutcliffe could be a threat to the public at age 85 if he spent all of his time in prison plotting how he could accomplish the same terrors with a deteriorating physique.

In my mind, the modern prison system is not in place solely to protect the public, but to reform the individual so they are no longer a threat. Give the person plenty of quiet alone time to figure out that, yeah, they didn't make very good choices. Then give them the education necessary to start a new life upon release.