Texas drops special last meal for death row inmates

[Implode]

but that's the point where we become no better than the criminal we're trying to arraign.

I've always hated this line because it equates cold, willful murder with retribution. Yes the act is essentially the same but the purpose behind the two are different and the latter is absolutely justified. If someone offs an innocent person when/if they themselves get offed they sure as hell aren't innocent.

I agree, but I don't equate the murder with retribution. Rather, I see it the other way 'round; the revenge is not just if means to that end are just as vicious and cold-blooded as the act it's avenging.

This. Completely this.

[MasterShakezula]

I don't feel strongly either way.

What a criminal's sentence can be allowed to go to is to be decided by the state.  If the state allows the death penalty, then I'm all for letting it go to use, if that's the verdict.  If the state's law declares that they are fine with making use of it, they have the right to do so, IMO

Unless the Fed declares it unconstitutional to use it, I see no reason why individual states shouldn't be allowed to.

[73109]

Killing somebody because they killed somebody never made sense to me.

I understand the innocent vs. not innocent perspective, but it still is dumb.

[Sigz]

Regardless of whether they 'deserve' it, or whether it's right or wrong, I simply don't see what's supposed to be accomplished by executing a criminal.

[antigoon]

Regardless of whether they 'deserve' it, or whether it's right or wrong, I simply don't see what's supposed to be accomplished by executing a criminal.

It makes people feel good.

[Nigerius Rex]

Regardless of whether they 'deserve' it, or whether it's right or wrong, I simply don't see what's supposed to be accomplished by executing a criminal.

It makes people feel good.

Also, they are dead. They cant hurt anyone anywhere ever whereas in prison for life can and usually does mean gang violence or other crimes.

[Super Dude]

Except, as has been reported in the thread already, unless you just decide to take the bastard out back and shoot him, death is ridiculously expensive.

[Orion1967]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, my insanely conservative acquaintance.

Justice is blind. An eye for an eye makes a just world.


..............damn.

Well played 

[Nigerius Rex]

Except, as has been reported in the thread already, unless you just decide to take the bastard out back and shoot him, death is ridiculously expensive.

The error lies in process and not necessarily in the punishment itself. I don't support the death penalty as it is currently implemented in the United States, but killing scumbags is a-ok with me.

[Super Dude]

So basically no chance of appeal, meaning a man condemned to death is fucked, innocent or guilty. Nice.

[Sigz]

Yeah, I don't see how you can possibly have a streamlined process that guarantees only guilty people will be executed.

[Super Dude]

Indeed, it would require nothing less than the judge and jury possess clairvoyance and insight of divine proportions.

[skydivingninja]

That person has forfeited their own basic human rights.  That's a nice way of putting it.  Can't say that I necessarily disagree with you.  However,  just because that's the case doesn't mean that we should treat them like animals.  Personally,  I'm a big fan of striving to be better than scumbags and animals.  We're not discussing whether it's right to whack him or not in this thread.  We're discussing whether it's reasonable to show a small amount of compassion in the process.  I say that if we're going to stoop to the level of the animal in our punishment,  which like it or not is generally the case with these things,  then trying to do it with at least a modicum of humanity is an important gesture.

This was pretty much my opinion on the matter till the whole Troy Davis debacle made me question the death penalty thing. 

[Scheavo]

As a general rule, I don't support the death penalty; but when you have someone who abducts, rapes, and kills people, confesses, and takes joy in the fact that he's done all of these things... then I get I really don't care what happens to that person anymore. I think we could make an exception for such extremely rare cases, especially considering the level or proof (and admission) involved in these cases.

It's interesting though, cause I do buy the argument that "it's not about who they are, it's about who we are." I guess I just don't care if I kill someone who is truly fucking evil (not just someone who kills someone, but someone who plans on killing tons of paper, takes extreme joy in the fact, etc).

[Super Dude]

And I agree with you there, but how many of these people are truly fucking evil?  Especially considering there are a fair share who are in fact innocent.

Charles Manson?  Sure, take him out back and shoot him in the head.  Adolf Hitler?  Doesn't even deserve even that much.  But how many are we gonna have like either of 'em?

[j]

I guess I just don't care if I kill someone who is truly fucking evil (not just someone who kills someone, but someone who plans on killing tons of paper, takes extreme joy in the fact, etc).

Assuming it isn't self-defense, or some other extenuating circumstance, I don't see how somebody who intentionally takes another person's life is any different from someone who does so and then laughs about it.  The outcome is the same, the person is just acting like an asshole afterward.  You and I can't discern true remorse even if the person outwardly seems to be remorseful, and this is without even considering the mental stability of the individual.  And how do you determine if someone is going to kill a bunch more people?  Do the cops have to find detailed plans all over their place of residence, or do they just have to maniacally claim they intend to do so during a trial or something?  Or do they just have to *seem* like they are likely to?  I think it's an interesting consideration, I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are.

EDIT: Even in SD's extreme examples, just because you or I wouldn't feel bad about offing those guys doesn't mean it makes sense to do it on any level, let alone ethically acceptable.

I'm anti-death penalty in almost all cases, but I think there is a decent argument or two to be made for the opposition.  But I'd be happy if I never had to hear "it's cheaper to execute criminals" or "it's an effective deterrent to potential murderers" again in my life.

-J

[Super Dude]

I guess I just don't care if I kill someone who is truly fucking evil (not just someone who kills someone, but someone who plans on killing tons of paper, takes extreme joy in the fact, etc).

Assuming it isn't self-defense, or some other extenuating circumstance, I don't see how somebody who intentionally takes another person's life is any different from someone who does so and then laughs about it.  The outcome is the same, the person is just acting like an asshole afterward.  You and I can't discern true remorse even if the person outwardly seems to be remorseful, and this is without even considering the mental stability of the individual.  And how do you determine if someone is going to kill a bunch more people?  Do the cops have to find detailed plans all over their place of residence, or do they just have to maniacally claim they intend to do so during a trial or something?  Or do they just have to *seem* like they are likely to?  I think it's an interesting consideration, I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are.

EDIT: Even in SD's extreme examples, just because you or I wouldn't feel bad about offing those guys doesn't mean it makes sense to do it on any level, let alone ethically acceptable.

I'm anti-death penalty in almost all cases, but I think there is a decent argument or two to be made for the opposition.  But I'd be happy if I never had to hear "it's cheaper to execute criminals" or "it's an effective deterrent to potential murderers" again in my life.

-J

That argument has always annoyed me.  If it was such an effective deterrent, people would've stopped murdering each other centuries ago.

[Scheavo]

I guess I just don't care if I kill someone who is truly fucking evil (not just someone who kills someone, but someone who plans on killing tons of paper, takes extreme joy in the fact, etc).

Assuming it isn't self-defense, or some other extenuating circumstance, I don't see how somebody who intentionally takes another person's life is any different from someone who does so and then laughs about it.  The outcome is the same, the person is just acting like an asshole afterward.  You and I can't discern true remorse even if the person outwardly seems to be remorseful, and this is without even considering the mental stability of the individual.  And how do you determine if someone is going to kill a bunch more people?  Do the cops have to find detailed plans all over their place of residence, or do they just have to maniacally claim they intend to do so during a trial or something?  Or do they just have to *seem* like they are likely to?  I think it's an interesting consideration, I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are.

EDIT: Even in SD's extreme examples, just because you or I wouldn't feel bad about offing those guys doesn't mean it makes sense to do it on any level, let alone ethically acceptable.

I'm anti-death penalty in almost all cases, but I think there is a decent argument or two to be made for the opposition.  But I'd be happy if I never had to hear "it's cheaper to execute criminals" or "it's an effective deterrent to potential murderers" again in my life.

-J

Here's where I think there's a difference: most people will commit a murder for reasons other than the actual murder, meaning they're going to be effected by it. If you kill someone out of love, jealousy, revenge, etc, you could easily come to regret your actions. If it's due to a life of crime, poverty is probably the caue of it, not an evil behavior or personality. Serial killers and psychopaths just aren't going to care, learn or grow.

And no, I still think there's plenty of people who don't fit this description who will just end up rotting in jail.

And I agree with you there, but how many of these people are truly fucking evil?  Especially considering there are a fair share who are in fact innocent.

Charles Manson?  Sure, take him out back and shoot him in the head.  Adolf Hitler?  Doesn't even deserve even that much.  But how many are we gonna have like either of 'em?

No clue, but I am talking specifically to the exceptions here. It should be rare enough, that when it does happen, everyone in the nation hears about it (unless there's that many mass murders, rapists, serial killers, etc.)

I mean, I'd easily say 99/100 of the cases where there's a death penalty now, I don't think it should be in place.

[j]

Here's where I think there's a difference: most people will commit a murder for reasons other than the actual murder, meaning they're going to be effected by it. If you kill someone out of love, jealousy, revenge, etc, you could easily come to regret your actions. If it's due to a life of crime, poverty is probably the caue of it, not an evil behavior or personality. Serial killers and psychopaths just aren't going to care, learn or grow.

So the goal is for the person to feel regret?  A jealous woman who kills her cheating husband may have a motive that is relatively easy to understand, if not excuse, but the end result is the same as a psychopath killing a person in cold blood.  Both have taken a life.  Maybe the psychopath is likely to kill again; so incarcerate him indefinitely.  Who are we to say he will never feel regret, or that he is really "evil?"  Maybe the jealous woman's husband had it coming in some part.  Does the clear moral transgression of the victim (even though most would say it is lesser in magnitude) make her crime less heinous?  Maybe she will kill the next guy that cheats on her too?

I understand this is all purely speculative, and you certainly won't find me marching in protest of the execution of Gary Ridgway or some other horrible serial killer.  But in the strictest sense, there really is no concrete, definitive reason to kill somebody who can be just as effectively removed from society by incarceration.  Most of the arguments boil down to making arbitrary calls about things that are impossible to quantify.

-J

[Scheavo]

So the goal is for the person to feel regret?  A jealous woman who kills her cheating husband may have a motive that is relatively easy to understand, if not excuse, but the end result is the same as a psychopath killing a person in cold blood.

It's not the same for the woman who killed her husband, and I think when determining justice, the guilty person in question plays role in exactly what constitutes justice. Say a mentally challenged person kills someone - are you going to say that the same punishment should qualify as for other people? The crime is the same, but obviously there is more to it than simply someone dying. Otherwise, why make a difference between manslaughter in murder? Both are pragmatically the same.

As I said, this means for the vast vast majority of actual cases, there would be no death penalty. Abduct and kill a handful of people, have completely undeniable evidence, and testimony ("Hey, we sorta found 5 bodies in your freezer..."), then I'd say that's a big difference between a wife killing her husband because he was a real asshole. Intent is hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean it's something absent from justice.

[Super Dude]

Or of course, there's always the classic case of wife kills abusive husband. I don't really have more to add, just throwing that out there.

[Zook]

Death penalty or not, I still don't get the compassion for the lives of brutal serial killers, child molesters and rapists.

[Dark Castle]

Death penalty or not, I still don't get the compassion for the lives of brutal serial killers, child molesters and rapists.

Why not be the better man and let them have one last meal, one last thing that shows an ounce of humanity and compassion?

[j]

It's not the same for the woman who killed her husband, and I think when determining justice, the guilty person in question plays role in exactly what constitutes justice. Say a mentally challenged person kills someone - are you going to say that the same punishment should qualify as for other people? The crime is the same, but obviously there is more to it than simply someone dying. Otherwise, why make a difference between manslaughter in murder? Both are pragmatically the same.

I thought we were assuming that the people in question both intentionally, knowingly killed a person.  We're past manslaughter or cases of plain mental deficiency.  We say "well the wife's crime is a little more excusable because we know her husband was doing something bad," but that's the same as saying "this lady's husband deserved to die more than the person randomly chosen by this psychopath."  Shaky ground to be making judgments on, IMO.

My point is that there is a calculated murder in both cases.  Not that the sentence for every murder should be the same, obviously, but in the end, where and how do you draw the line between somebody whose crimes warrant the death penalty and somebody whose do not?  It inevitably ends up relying a lot on emotion and legal finagling.

As I said, this means for the vast vast majority of actual cases, there would be no death penalty. Abduct and kill a handful of people, have completely undeniable evidence, and testimony ("Hey, we sorta found 5 bodies in your freezer..."), then I'd say that's a big difference between a wife killing her husband because he was a real asshole. Intent is hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean it's something absent from justice.

And I agree, but so many cases don't neatly fit the paradigm like these examples.

-J

[Scheavo]

Well, we can do tests for psychopathic traits, and other things. My point basically revolves around that ability to rehabilitate someone, which is something we can actually quantify to a good degree.

I thought we were assuming that the people in question both intentionally, knowingly killed a person.  We're past manslaughter or cases of plain mental deficiency.  We say "well the wife's crime is a little more excusable because we know her husband was doing something bad," but that's the same as saying "this lady's husband deserved to die more than the person randomly chosen by this psychopath."  Shaky ground to be making judgments on, IMO.

As to the first sentence, good point. However, I don't see how it's all like comparing the two people murdered. In fact, it's not even considering the people murdered at all, but rather the intent, motive and identity of the person killing. Justice is towards that individual, so justice should be dependent upon that individual. You do agree intent matters, at least presence of, so I don't think it's really all that unreasonable to think that the intent of a love-torn / abused woman is different than the intent of a psychopathic killer.

Say the woman is being abused - her intent than is to escape abuse. A criminals is to have basic subsistence. Neither of these compare to a serial killers joyful intent.

And I agree, but so many cases don't neatly fit the paradigm like these examples.

I think that's why they're exceptions to the rule. I think it would be wrong for us to say that we can never execute someone, ever, no matter the circumstance. It's a blurry issue, but I'm all for having actual execution being extremely rare, to avoid the controversial middle, and pick an area where it's still rather easy to tell what's going on.

[Implode]

Death penalty or not, I still don't get the compassion for the lives of brutal serial killers, child molesters and rapists.

It's not about compassion for those specific people. It's about compassion for human beings in general. Be the better person, and don't fall into killing some one just because it makes you feel better.

[Zook]

Some human beings in general don't deserve any compassion.

I could never inject the poison or throw the switch, but I still think that those guilty of violent crimes (those truly guilty, not falsely accused) do not deserve to live any longer. To me, it's not about being the better man or being compassionate for human beings, it's about getting rid of a monster.

On the flip side, I get a bit perturbed when I hear that alligators and crocodiles are destroyed after attacking humans. It's not that I don't feel any compassion for the victims, it's that those creatures are just acting on animal instincts and aren't just like "My name's Little Nicky and I'm gonna kill all you suckas for no reason". Serial killers, rapists, child murderers/molesters, as fucked up as they are, still know damn well what they are doing.

[Implode]

it's about getting rid of a monster.

Then I guess I wonder, what gives anyone the right to decide who lives and who dies?

[Zook]

it's about getting rid of a monster.

Then I guess I wonder, what gives anyone the right to decide who lives and who dies?

Would you be asking that same question if an escaped convict went on a rampage and murdered a few hundred people?

[Implode]

Yes. We could easily detain any person. So why kill them? And if your response is, "they don't deserve to live," then what gives you the right to make that call?

[MasterShakezula]

I'm curious, how would you feel about a person if they, say, abducted your family, raped them, murdered them, and defiled their corpses? And sent their organs to you.

I doubt you'd feel too compassionate about that hypothetical fellow. 

I mean, I don't feel too strongly either way regarding the death penalty, but, still, I can definitely understand why some people want to see convicts die.  I can also understand the reasons behind wanting to spare their lives, as well, but, still, they are horrendous human beings.  Mind you, I am not exactly decided on this issue; I was just putting into perspective why some victims would want those who have done wrong upon them would feel so strongly in favor of it. 

[73109]

I would want them dead, and I would want to do it. That doesn't change that he still should not be killed.

[MasterShakezula]

I see; if you are not going to kill this hypothetical convict, what do you want to do to deal with this person?

Do you believe in their being able to be "fixed" and brought back into the mainstream after years of imprisonment and rehabilitation, or do you feel that murder is justification for life in prison and that the convict is "incurable"?

[Super Dude]

I'm curious, how would you feel about a person if they, say, abducted your family, raped them, murdered them, and defiled their corpses? And sent their organs to you.

I doubt you'd feel too compassionate about that hypothetical fellow. 

I mean, I don't feel too strongly either way regarding the death penalty, but, still, I can definitely understand why some people want to see convicts die.  I can also understand the reasons behind wanting to spare their lives, as well, but, still, they are horrendous human beings.  Mind you, I am not exactly decided on this issue; I was just putting into perspective why some victims would want those who have done wrong upon them would feel so strongly in favor of it.

I mean, the whole point of living in a society based on the rule of law is to dispel the urges created by our passionate, irrational feelings.  If such a system wasn't in place, we'd basically be living in a state of nature in which anyone can revenge upon anyone using any justification at all, because justice need not exist.

[73109]

I believe in an attempt at rehabilitation 100% of the time. Only after many real and hard fought attempts at rehabilitation should a convict just be locked in a cell for the rest of his life. I'm not saying that we should let them out of prison, but some form of rehabilitation.