Utah killer executed by firing squad

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Call it what you will but taking a human life is wrong. The law says so, no? But it's ok if the state does it? Sorry, can't buy that.

Can you buy it as an act of war? In defense of ones country?
Could you buy it in defense of your wife? Child? Or.....just plain wrong in all cases as you have stated?

[JoeRedskin]

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty filled with subtle complexities. Primarily, I oppose “revenge killing” because I agree with Lotus that killing, whether by an individual or the State, done to exact revenge on another individual ultimately creates more hate. Throughout history, societies have recognized the destructive nature of such killings and have moved away from them in order to advance. As I have said before, Hammurabi’s Code – “an eye for an eye” - was actually a limitation on revenge killing because prior to that it had been “your arm, your leg and your child for my wife’s eye”.

At the same time, I generally agree with Schneed that a society can decide to deny the right of life in the interest of justice. We as a society are entitled to and expect that our government to provide “justice”. Again, look through history at most revolutions and civil wars, populations will put up with tyrants/dictators, etc. but not injustice. The right to deny life is just another one of those balancing acts between individual liberty and group rights that exist when groups of people live in civil society.

The question for me is when does societal “justice” become societal “revenge”. I would suggest that often the death penalty, as it is applied in this country, is unjust as it seems that you may or may not get the death penalty depending on who you murder. Kill a hobo and get life in prison, kill a prominent pretty white girl, get the death penalty. This smacks more of revenge killing, i.e. we, as a society, valued the life of the pretty white girl more than the life of the hobo so we exact more “justice” from you for killing our favored individual. In such a case, it is not the denial of life that cries for justice – it is the denial of a specific life.

So, on one hand, I favor a fairly draconian application, you commit murder (i.e. you kill some one with “malice aforethought” or with such a “wanton disregard for others safety” that is the equivalent of malice).

On the other hand, I disagree with Schneed’s “cost of doing business” argument. To me, society’s justification for imposing the ultimate penalty is dependent upon the certainty that the criminal has committed the ultimate crime. Imposing the death penalty upon someone when we cannot be 100% sure the person is guilty borders on “wanton disregard for others safety” and undercuts the very argument for society’s “just” application of the death penalty (When an individual intentional kills someone and denies the victim of their right to life, it is wrong; BUT, if we intentionally kill someone who has not committed such a crime that’s just a big ole’ “oops” too bad so sad. To me that is a blatantly hypocritical stance - circle back to unjust and revenge killings).

Ultimately, and in my opinion, justice is something we as a society decide and for which we are all answerable. I generally agree with Schneed that we, as a society, can decide that it is “just” to deny an individual his right to life. At the same time, in the name of justice, this penalty is reserved for those we are 100% sure are guilty. However, if we are 100% sure they are guilty of murder, it does not matter who you murdered - you will die. Anything other than this strikes me as unjust and/or a form of revenge killing.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty filled with subtle complexities. Primarily, I oppose “revenge killing” because I agree with Lotus that killing, whether by an individual or the State, done to exact revenge on another individual ultimately creates more hate. Throughout history, societies have recognized the destructive nature of such killings and have moved away from them in order to advance. As I have said before, Hammurabi’s Code – “an eye for an eye” - was actually a limitation on revenge killing because prior to that it had been “your arm, your leg and your child for my wife’s eye”.

At the same time, I generally agree with Schneed that a society can decide to deny the right of life in the interest of justice. We as a society are entitled to and expect that our government to provide “justice”. Again, look through history at most revolutions and civil wars, populations will put up with tyrants/dictators, etc. but not injustice. The right to deny life is just another one of those balancing acts between individual liberty and group rights that exist when groups of people live in civil society.

The question for me is when does societal “justice” become societal “revenge”. I would suggest that often the death penalty, as it is applied in this country, is unjust as it seems that you may or may not get the death penalty depending on who you murder. Kill a hobo and get life in prison, kill a prominent pretty white girl, get the death penalty. This smacks more of revenge killing, i.e. we, as a society, valued the life of the pretty white girl more than the life of the hobo so we exact more “justice” from you for killing our favored individual. In such a case, it is not the denial of life that cries for justice – it is the denial of a specific life.

So, on one hand, I favor a fairly draconian application, you commit murder (i.e. you kill some one with “malice aforethought” or with such a “wanton disregard for others safety” that is the equivalent of malice).

On the other hand, I disagree with Schneed’s “cost of doing business” argument. To me, society’s justification for imposing the ultimate penalty is dependent upon the certainty that the criminal has committed the ultimate crime. Imposing the death penalty upon someone when we cannot be 100% sure the person is guilty borders on “wanton disregard for others safety” and undercuts the very argument for society’s “just” application of the death penalty (When an individual intentional kills someone and denies the victim of their right to life, it is wrong; BUT, if we intentionally kill someone who has not committed such a crime that’s just a big ole’ “oops” too bad so sad. To me that is a blatantly hypocritical stance - circle back to unjust and revenge killings).

Ultimately, and in my opinion, justice is something we as a society decide and for which we are all answerable. I generally agree with Schneed that we, as a society, can decide that it is “just” to deny an individual his right to life. At the same time, in the name of justice, this penalty is reserved for those we are 100% sure are guilty. However, if we are 100% sure they are guilty of murder, it does not matter who you murdered - you will die. Anything other than this strikes me as unjust and/or a form of revenge killing.

You are correct but there is more to it than that. Getting the death penalty depends not just on whom you kill, but also who you are. Statistics show that there is a strong racial bias. FOr the same crime, if you are black you have a far higher percentage chance of getting the death penalty than if you are white. The death penalty simply does not enact justice.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You are correct but there is more to it than that. Getting the death penalty depends not just on whom you kill, but also who you are. Statistics show that there is a strong racial bias. FOr the same crime, if you are black you have a far higher percentage chance of getting the death penalty than if you are white. The death penalty simply does not enact justice.

Yeah. I don't know if it is still the case, but about 10 years ago a study was done which showed that murderers who killed a white person were slightly more likely to get the death penalty than someone who murdered an african-american (like 55-45). On the other hand, an african american murderer (regardless of victim) was twice as likely to get the death sentence as a white person (regardless of victim).

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty filled with subtle complexities. Primarily, I oppose “revenge killing” because I agree with Lotus that killing, whether by an individual or the State, done to exact revenge on another individual ultimately creates more hate. Throughout history, societies have recognized the destructive nature of such killings and have moved away from them in order to advance. As I have said before, Hammurabi’s Code – “an eye for an eye” - was actually a limitation on revenge killing because prior to that it had been “your arm, your leg and your child for my wife’s eye”.

At the same time, I generally agree with Schneed that a society can decide to deny the right of life in the interest of justice. We as a society are entitled to and expect that our government to provide “justice”. Again, look through history at most revolutions and civil wars, populations will put up with tyrants/dictators, etc. but not injustice. The right to deny life is just another one of those balancing acts between individual liberty and group rights that exist when groups of people live in civil society.

The question for me is when does societal “justice” become societal “revenge”. I would suggest that often the death penalty, as it is applied in this country, is unjust as it seems that you may or may not get the death penalty depending on who you murder. Kill a hobo and get life in prison, kill a prominent pretty white girl, get the death penalty. This smacks more of revenge killing, i.e. we, as a society, valued the life of the pretty white girl more than the life of the hobo so we exact more “justice” from you for killing our favored individual. In such a case, it is not the denial of life that cries for justice – it is the denial of a specific life.

So, on one hand, I favor a fairly draconian application, you commit murder (i.e. you kill some one with “malice aforethought” or with such a “wanton disregard for others safety” that is the equivalent of malice).

On the other hand, I disagree with Schneed’s “cost of doing business” argument. To me, society’s justification for imposing the ultimate penalty is dependent upon the certainty that the criminal has committed the ultimate crime. Imposing the death penalty upon someone when we cannot be 100% sure the person is guilty borders on “wanton disregard for others safety” and undercuts the very argument for society’s “just” application of the death penalty (When an individual intentional kills someone and denies the victim of their right to life, it is wrong; BUT, if we intentionally kill someone who has not committed such a crime that’s just a big ole’ “oops” too bad so sad. To me that is a blatantly hypocritical stance - circle back to unjust and revenge killings).

Ultimately, and in my opinion, justice is something we as a society decide and for which we are all answerable. I generally agree with Schneed that we, as a society, can decide that it is “just” to deny an individual his right to life. At the same time, in the name of justice, this penalty is reserved for those we are 100% sure are guilty. However, if we are 100% sure they are guilty of murder, it does not matter who you murdered - you will die. Anything other than this strikes me as unjust and/or a form of revenge killing.

As usual, an extremely well-thought out, and well-articulated post from you.

Point of clarification on my "cost of doing business" point, I have to note that I see the risk of wrongly convicting as declining, because the burden of proof is increasing. So essentially, I'm asserting that statistics indicating the % of wrongful convictions are now not as applicable going forward, because of the "CSI effect" and the ever-increasing demands of juries that there be scientific forensic evidence present to gain a conviction. Circumstantial evidence is less and less often enough to convict.

And that's the way it should be. If we have the science, we should demand that it be employed.

So in summation on that point, I don't think the risk of wrongly putting someone to death is very great at this point. The errors are reduced (not eliminated, but reduced) by the prevalence of forensic science.

Given the high burden of proof and the lower error rates moving forward, I'm willing to accept the occasional death in the name of obtaining justice for the 99.9% that are rightfully convicted.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

As usual, an extremely well-thought out, and well-articulated post from you.

Point of clarification on my "cost of doing business" point, I have to note that I see the risk of wrongly convicting as declining, because the burden of proof is increasing. So essentially, I'm asserting that statistics indicating the % of wrongful convictions are now not as applicable going forward, because of the "CSI effect" and the ever-increasing demands of juries that there be scientific forensic evidence present to gain a conviction. Circumstantial evidence is less and less often enough to convict.

And that's the way it should be. If we have the science, we should demand that it be employed.

So in summation on that point, I don't think the risk of wrongly putting someone to death is very great at this point. The errors are reduced (not eliminated, but reduced) by the prevalence of forensic science.
Given the high burden of proof and the lower error rates moving forward, I'm willing to accept the occasional death in the name of obtaining justice for the 99.9% that are rightfully convicted.

I hear you on that. It comes down to this: Do we let 999 murderers live the rest of their life in jail to insure we do not kill 1 innocent man? or Do we kill a 999 guilty murderers with the knowledge that we have likely killed 1 innocent man? I believe we let them rot in jail.

For those where there is no doubt, I got no problem so long as it is the same regardless of who they are or who they murdered.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I hear you on that. It comes down to this: Do we let 999 murderers live the rest of their life in jail to insure we do not kill 1 innocent man? or Do we kill a 999 guilty murderers with the knowledge that we have likely killed 1 innocent man? I believe we let them rot in jail.

For those where there is no doubt, I got no problem so long as it is the same regardless of who they are or who they murdered.

I like that. I could subscribe to that newsletter.

[FRPLG]

As an aside...bravo for a rather civilized discussion on a serious hot button issue. Please no one be a jackass and ruin this.

[MTK]

When what goes down?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

When what goes down?

You don't actually think this country can keep on going on the way it has been forever do you? Collapse is coming soon enough. It might not be this year or next year, but it's coming. It has happened before, it will happen again. This time more of you will starve because you don't know how to grow food. You'll depend on (or be taken advantage of by), people like me. We have no problems with killing or murder. Actually, there are a few people that I'm going to off as soon as the cops are out of the way. This country is being run into the grown. I've prepared and I'm looking forward to it. It's going to be fun.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

You don't actually think this country can keep on going on the way it has been forever do you? Collapse is coming soon enough. It might not be this year or next year, but it's coming. It has happened before, it will happen again. This time more of you will starve because you don't know how to grow food. You'll depend on (or be taken advantage of by), people like me. We have no problems with killing or murder. Actually, there are a few people that I'm going to off as soon as the cops are out of the way. This country is being run into the grown. I've prepared and I'm looking forward to it. It's going to be fun.

Ahh yes, the obligatory prophet of doom: "The World is Ending Repent Now!!"

or, in TTE is case: "The USA is ending, stock you bomb shelter now!!"

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ahh yes, the obligatory prophet of doom: "The World is Ending Repent Now!!"

or, in TTE is case: "The USA is ending, stock you bomb shelter now!!"

7.62 rounds and rice to be exact.

[Trample the Elderly]

I was thinking, I've actually have more respect for this guy than many of the people I meet. He said he took people's lives with a gun, so he wanted to be killed by a gun. Live by the gun, die by the gun. That takes some balls.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

You don't actually think this country can keep on going on the way it has been forever do you? Collapse is coming soon enough. It might not be this year or next year, but it's coming. It has happened before, it will happen again. This time more of you will starve because you don't know how to grow food. You'll depend on (or be taken advantage of by), people like me. We have no problems with killing or murder. Actually, there are a few people that I'm going to off as soon as the cops are out of the way. This country is being run into the grown. I've prepared and I'm looking forward to it. It's going to be fun.

Thought you said you weren't into fairy tales?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Thought you said you weren't into fairy tales?

The Federal government is going to default on it's commitments.

If we didn't own Moodys our credit rating would be junk.

It is impossible to pay off this debt, ever.

We've been overtaken by China in manufacturing.

We're stuck in endless wars.

Sooner or later the Chinese are going to un-peg the Yuan from the dollar, probably when they no longer need our market to dump their cheap products.

Many countries want to dump the dollar as a reserve currency. The Russians introduced new world currency just recently.

Our number one export is arms.

Our number one cash crop is marijuana.

How is this a fairy tale?