PDA

View Full Version : Argument for the Death Penalty


ORAC
27th Aug 2016, 20:59
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1677451/girl-10-is-drugged-before-being-raped-dismembered-and-set-on-fire-as-her-mum-stepdad-and-his-cousin-are-arrested-by-cops/

A MOTHER has been arrested after her 10-year-old daughter was drugged, raped, strangled and dismembered on her birthday. Police officers in Albuquerque, New Mexico found tragic Victoria Martens’ burning remains in a bath tub in the family’s apartment.

Details of what Governor Susana Martinez and investigators described as an ‘unspeakable crime’ have emerged after cops detained the little girl’s mother, her boyfriend and his cousin..... Police say Victoria was injected with methamphetamine, sexually assaulted, strangled and stabbed before being dismembered. A caller told a police dispatcher before dawn on Wednesday that there was a disturbance in the apartment before officers visited the apartment to find the horrific crime scene. Albuquerque Police Chief Gorden Eden Jr said: “This homicide is the most gruesome act of evil I have ever seen in my career....

The girl’s mother, 35-year-old Michelle Martens, her 31-year-old boyfriend, Fabian Gonzales, and his 31-year-old cousin, Jessica Kelley, face charges of child abuse resulting in death, kidnapping and tampering with evidence. Gonzales and Kelley have also been charged with criminal sexual penetration of a minor.....

The Albuquerque Journal reported Thursday that Kelley has a criminal history dating back to 2003 and court records show that she acted as a lookout while a woman allegedly raped another inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center in September 2012. Kelley reportedly pleaded no contest to conspiracy to commit criminal sexual penetration and was sentenced to three years in prison minus nearly a year for time served.

According to the criminal complaint, the mother told police Gonzales drugged the girl so he could calm her down and have sex with her. She said Kelley held her hand over Victoria’s mouth and stabbed her in the stomach after Gonzales choked the child. The complaint also states that the mother told investigators that Gonzales and Kelley dismembered Victoria.

One of the police officers who arrived at the apartment found the girl’s body in a bathroom, rolled up in a blanket that had been set on fire. The officer put it out.......

Mug shots of Martens and Gonzales released by police showed them with bruises on their faces. In his statement in the criminal complaint, Gonzales said his cousin hit him and Martens with an iron.......

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/nintchdbpict000262132476.jpg?w=545

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/nintchdbpict000262128240.jpg?w=960

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/nintchdbpict000262128238.jpg?w=960

AeroSpark
27th Aug 2016, 21:14
I am strongly against the death penalty. I don't believe anyone has the right to take anothers life, whether in law or outside it.
However very occsionally a case comes up that makes me want to pull the trapdoor lever myself. this is one of them. Inhuman scum.

Shannon volmet
27th Aug 2016, 22:36
The perpetrators deserve to be locked up for life,in the harshest circumstances possible. If you think they should face death by whatever means (hanging, firing squad, gas chamber,electric chair etc.)then you pull the trigger or whatever and then try and live with the subsequent psychological consequences. Don't ask/expect someone else to do the job for you.

cavortingcheetah
27th Aug 2016, 22:38
One argument for having the death penalty is the people who don't get it.

parabellum
27th Aug 2016, 22:46
Shannon volmet - I suggest it would need many, many policeman just to control the queue of sane volunteers ready to send these miserable three to meet their maker.

Hydromet
27th Aug 2016, 23:47
I am strongly against the death penalty. I don't believe anyone has the right to take anothers life, whether in law or outside it.
However very occsionally a case comes up that makes me want to pull the trapdoor lever myself. this is one of them. Inhuman scum.

My feelings exactly.

SASless
28th Aug 2016, 00:00
Shannon,

Upon conviction for Murder of this poor child, and exhaustion of all Appeals, let me know where I need to be to carry out the Executions.

Psychological Consequences.....who are you kidding?

Some people need killing.....just like it was done in the Good Old Days.

Get a Rope, find a Tree, and hang 'em high!

Such a horrible tragedy that a beautiful child like that with all the promise in the World had to suffer as she did then be killed in such a gruesome manner.

You perpetrate crimes like that and you forfeit all right to life in my estimation.

It should not be a matter of if....but how quickly the Criminal Justice System can complete the process.

I cannot wait to hear the Defense telling us all about the bad childhood the killers had and the fact they were using drugs and golly gee whiz....they really cannot be held accountable for what they did as a result of them being high on drugs.

To accept that Crap....tells me that the young child's life is of absolutely no value to those who would remotely entertain that thought.

I see exactly the other way around....that Child's Life was precious....the Killers not so much if anything at all.

Tankertrashnav
28th Aug 2016, 01:00
In 1965, a man called Ian Brady, in conjunction with his girlfriend Myra Hindley was convicted of the murders of a number of children. During the trial they played a tape which Brady and Hindley had made of them torturing one of their victims, a girl called Lesley Anne Downey. People who heard the tapes were deeply affected psychologically by it. All that is just to reinforce that Brady and Hindley were no "ordinary" murderers.

Had this pair been tried a couple of years earlier before the abolition of the death penalty in the UK they would have undoubtedly been executed. This would have happened after a short time (a month or two) when the appeals procedure had been exhausted (no 20 years on death row in the UK, we never had a "death row"). Death by hanging would have been painless and instantaneous.

Instead they embarked on life sentences. This is my timeline - create your own.


In 1965, when I joined the RAF as a fresh faced young lad they were in jail*

In 1969 when I got married they were in jail

In 1977 when my twins were born they were in jail

In 1989 when I went to university to prepare for a second career they were in jail

In 1999 when I was watching the eclipse Brady went on hunger strike in jail

In 2002 Hindley died (in jail)

In 2012 when I retired from full time employment Brady was in jail

Since 2014 he has been asking that he be permitted to die - request denied

In 2015 he was reported as being "close to death"

In 2016 he is still alive (but probably not well) in jail

Ask yourself - would their punishment have been harsher had they been put to death swiftly? I somehow doubt it and I am pleased that Brady has now had over 50 years to reflect on his evil actions and suffer for them

* Initially a normal prison, later a top security facility for the criminally insane.

RatherBeFlying
28th Aug 2016, 01:10
Death penalty is too quick. Several decades in supermax is more like it.

piperboy84
28th Aug 2016, 01:58
Brady should have been given the electric chair, on low amperage initially till he fess's up where the remaining victims are buried, once verified wind it up to full current.

As for these monsters that brutalised and murdered the 10 year old, although I'm in favour of the death penalty but not for them, life in gen pop at one of those New Mexico penitentiaries would be better.

SASless
28th Aug 2016, 02:39
Tank,

The fallacy to that concept is as long as they are alive...there is hope and some pleasures to be had.

Hope for a Pardon, Hope for an Appeal, Hope for a Commutation of Sentence....even Hope for any number of things.

When stood on the Trap with the Noose around the Neck...knowing there is no last minute Reprieve....then the certainty of Death at the Hands of the State with no remorse or pity coming despite wanting to live themselves seems very harsh to me.

Sorry....but I am all for the Execution of Killers who did so in cruel ways or with premeditation.

Peter-RB
28th Aug 2016, 06:54
Three Lead Pills one each, all that is needed..ASAP

vapilot2004
28th Aug 2016, 07:15
The trouble with the death penalty is the punishment is irreversible. In the past, our criminal justice system has sentenced people who were later found out to be innocent and putting an innocent person to death is the worst kind of justice.

UniFoxOs
28th Aug 2016, 08:34
In the past, our criminal justice system has sentenced people who were later found out to be innocent and putting an innocent person to death is the worst kind of justice.

True, some of them were legally innocent - i.e. they did it but the evidence wasn't good enough (a certain 6 terrorists come to mind), and no doubt a few were really innocent. However please balance that against the number of deaths and serious crimes commited by those we haven't hung and have released to kill again, and also the number of innocents now found guilty on more flimsy evidence as the jury are less critical now they know the accused's life is not at stake,.

meadowrun
28th Aug 2016, 08:45
If the death penalty were applied only to those cases where the guilty finding is 100% sure/totally airtight by way of evidence/witnesses/confessions and that crime was premeditated then I'm all for it.


I do not wish to be part of paying one penny to keep murderers housed and fed anywhere no matter how cruel the imprisonment.

Curious Pax
28th Aug 2016, 08:49
So you would be prepared to die, or see a close loved one (son/daughter?) die due to a legal error? If not then why should any other family suffer that? As has been said, many wrongful convictions are later proved completely wrong, rather than just getting off on a technicality.

Pace
28th Aug 2016, 09:00
Uni fox

How can someone be legally innocent yet guilty and get a death sentence ? If they are legally innocent they walk from the court even if guilty of the crime

The other problem is more of a question? Should all murderers have the death sentence or only the media emotive ones and where do you draw the line ?

There was a case last week of an old aged pensioner who killed his wife suffering with dementia he got the minimum sentence as it was determined he himself was not all there and it was changed to diminished responsibility
The other extreme is this case where these people are monsters and why should we keep such scum at 200 k a year when that money could go to the NHS or for specialist medicines to people who deserve it

People who are innocent have been charged and convicted and others get away on technicalities
The law police and judicial system is not perfect yet the death sentence is final once it's carried out

The more gruesome the crime, the more media attention and the more pressure on the police to charge someone.
But yes when you see something like this it's understandable why many would call for the death sentence

VP959
28th Aug 2016, 09:06
It was the fact that our legal system seemed deeply flawed, in that innocent people were being found guilty of serious crimes, together with a number of appeals made after a death sentence had been carried out that showed that the convicted person had been innocent, that convinced me that the death penalty was just wrong.

However, we now have the ability to prove guilt or innocence to a much greater degree than we had when we abolished the death penalty, and there are, without any doubt whatsoever, some who the state should execute, rather than pay to keep locked up for life.

TTN mentioned Brady earlier, at a rough guess I think he's cost taxpayers around 10M to 12M just to keep him locked up; that's 10M to 12M that could have been spent on something useful, like health care. There's no question whatsoever of his guilt, and never has been, so he should, in my view, have been executed.

There are many others who have similarly been found guilty of murder on the basis of irrefutable evidence and executing them would save the state tens of millions a year.

I'm not advocating bringing back the death penalty for murder, no matter what, just for those extreme cases where there can be no possible doubt as to the guilt of the convicted person.

PDR1
28th Aug 2016, 09:38
Brady has expressed the desire to die many times over several years, because he finds death preferable to his continued incarceration. Therefore life in prison is a harsher punishment than death.

QED

PDR

MOSTAFA
28th Aug 2016, 10:24
Upon conviction for Murder of this poor child, and exhaustion of all Appeals, let me know where I need to be to carry out the Executions.

Spot on SAS, but give me 10 minutes and a saw first.

Sallyann1234
28th Aug 2016, 10:43
It's certainly attractive to say that the death penalty should be used where there is 100% certainty of guilt. But how do you draw the line between 99% and 100% ?

There will always be a degree of personal judgement by jurors and others, and when the crime is horrendous anyone involved will be influenced by a natural desire to see someone suffer the ultimate penalty.

onetrack
28th Aug 2016, 10:49
Tankertrashnav and PDR1 have it right. Incarcerate them under the most miserable circumstances and let them suffer as Brady has done.

VP959
28th Aug 2016, 10:56
My view is that the death penalty is the best solution for society when there is certainty as to guilt. Brady is an example; there was never any question whatsoever of his guilt. Hindley is an example where I think there is slight room for doubt - was she "under the spell" of Brady (who is an extremely manipulative and clever psychopath, by all accounts) or did she act entirely of her own free will?

Harold Shipman is another case where there was no doubt whatsoever as to his guilt, and there are others, like Sutcliffe, in the same category.

We now have the technology to prove, beyond any doubt, rather than just reasonable doubt, that a specific individual committed a specific murder. Not always, but when we do have such irrefutable evidence of guilt should we not seek to save taxpayers millions of pounds by executing the guilty?

I find it very hard to justify the very high costs of keeping people like Sutcliffe, Brady etc incarcerated for decades, when we are struggling to find the funds to keep our health service going.

ORAC
28th Aug 2016, 11:06
Bring back the concept of Outlawry. A sentence puts the criminal outside the law - they can be killed or treated as a wild unprotected animal. They forfeit all rights and property and any entitlement to recognition as a person under the law.

It was dropped as a punishment as being a fate literally worse than death.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw

Tankertrashnav
28th Aug 2016, 18:13
ORAC - you woolly minded liberal you!

Mr Optimistic
28th Aug 2016, 18:20
You have to feel sorry for the poor police and others who had to deal with this. Never have agreed with the death penalty though. Odd that the land of the free should deem to give the state this ultimate power over people. From time to time I wonder about allowing those affected by a dreadful crime the right to perform the execution but then recall this gives rise to blood feuds which is one reason it is a crime against the state and not against the victim. The Queen us always taking people to court here 😀. Not entirely convinced that I wouldn't take up the offer though if it was my family affected.

evansb
28th Aug 2016, 20:28
Do you think the police should be treated exactly the same as a civilian when fatal force is used?

vapilot2004
28th Aug 2016, 21:41
273 people were exonerated as of 2011 in the US using DNA evidence. Of those, 17 were awaiting execution on death row. Since 1973, 156 death row inmates had been exonerated via all legal means, including DNA.

Individual case details available here. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row)

vapilot2004
28th Aug 2016, 21:47
Do you think the police should be treated exactly the same as a civilian when fatal force is used?

Excellent, but difficult question. Police routinely use deadly force in carrying out their duties. There is a different criteria applied here as opposed to a death at the hand of a civilian. The current system of law enforcement protection against undue prosecution is a hodgepodge of local and state laws, procedures, and policies. It is far from perfect, however generally, police do fall under a different (and needed) standard when it comes to killing as is necessary to protect those that protect society.

PDR1
28th Aug 2016, 21:58
We now have the technology to prove, beyond any doubt, rather than just reasonable doubt, that a specific individual committed a specific murder.

I'm not sure we do, you know. Even the most extensive form of DNA testing under ideal conditions with a perfect sample only gives a probability of 1 in 20 million or so IIRC.

PDR

vapilot2004
28th Aug 2016, 22:18
All of my 'fluffy' argument regarding the wrongfully accused aside, and despite my distaste for state-sanctioned killing, if someone I knew and loved was murdered, I would sure as hell want their killers dead.

The discussion on cost saving is interesting. In US states that have the death penalty, publicly borne legal costs and the cost of housing a death row inmate works out to a minimum of $500,000 more than merely housing a 20-something prisoner for life.

evansb
28th Aug 2016, 22:43
Indeed. Few things are as keenly perceived as justice, and as inconsistently exacted.

Bit of a thread drift but...

A question few of us venture to ask and ponder is "what is the ultimate purpose of incarceration?".

Warehousing humans is costly to society as well as the incarcerated. The impact on the criminal's family can be as severe as the victim. In some white-collar and victim-less crimes, the criminal's family often suffer long lasting consequences. The results of the sins of the father still appear to be visited upon the sons and daughters..

Should only people who are a physical threat to society be incarcerated?
What are the alternatives to punishment for non-violent, and/or victim-less crimes? History has shown that vigilante justice is often far more severe than the rule of societal law.

Does incarceration prevent recidivism? The evidence is not so great as one would expect.


People with a criminal record have difficulty getting bank loans, and jobs. Their insurance premiums are often higher than non-criminals. They are frequently restricted in trans-border travel. It would seem that punishment goes far beyond that imposed by the legal system. It would also appear that society wants them to fail, and fail again.

SASless
28th Aug 2016, 22:44
1:20.000,000...compounded by other physical and testimonial evidence is far more than needed to convince me.

Of course you considered that when you made that post....right?

Surely, you did not just hip shoot from a preconceived notion about the Death Penalty based more on emotion alone rather without fully considering reality?

I can show you Video's of Murders committed during Robberies for example, that joined with Witness testimony, DNA Evidence, Fingerprint Evidence, Footwear Evidence and all sorts of other corroborating Evidence which leaves no room for about in the guilt of the Suspect.....but perhaps you would still suggest there is some "doubt" that should bar the State from making the charge Capital Murder.

DNA by itself only shows the Suspect was present beyond a reasonable doubt....but does not in itself show criminal culpability.

vapilot2004
28th Aug 2016, 23:29
Does incarceration prevent recidivism? The evidence is not so great as one would expect.

Many studies indicate our jails and prisons are not merely warehousing individuals, but in fact are institutions of 'higher' learning for criminals. Our failed war on drugs presents a prime example of how the US CJS fails miserably in handling non-violent drug offenders. Jailing addicts is not the answer - treatment is. The EU and Australia are examples where treatment is preferred over incarceration.

There are a few enlightened DOJ and CJ folks in the US that support a community model of rehabilitation. The name might seem misleading, in that it does not require the participation of local communities, but instead creates a community inside consisting of the prisoners themselves.

These communities are monitored by professionals who work to foster the creation of a healthy community. Once matured, these communities are self-regulating and self-sustaining. In several locations where such programs have been in place, recidivism, typically 50-75%, had dropped dramatically to less than 10% - clearly showing that rehabilitation is possible.

Funding is an issue as is the requirement for a top-down buy-in from the jail administrator in order for the programs to be effective. So instead of building and creating criminal universities, we return people to society in a better state than when they were locked up - which used to be a primary goal for criminal justice.

PDR1
28th Aug 2016, 23:39
1:20.000,000...compounded by other physical and testimonial evidence is far more than needed to convince me.

Of course you considered that when you made that post....right?

Surely, you did not just hip shoot from a preconceived notion about the Death Penalty based more on emotion alone rather without fully considering reality?

I can show you Video's of Murders committed during Robberies for example, that joined with Witness testimony, DNA Evidence, Fingerprint Evidence, Footwear Evidence and all sorts of other corroborating Evidence which leaves no room for about in the guilt of the Suspect.....but perhaps you would still suggest there is some "doubt" that should bar the State from making the charge Capital Murder.

DNA by itself only shows the Suspect was present beyond a reasonable doubt....but does not in itself show criminal culpability.

No, I'm not making that argument at all - I'm merely challenging the assertion:

We now have the technology to prove, beyond any doubt, rather than just reasonable doubt, that a specific individual committed a specific murder.

The basis of my challenge is that it's demonstrably untrue - which you seem to confirm in your response.

But I don't actually care because my primary opposition to the death penalty isn't that it might execute the innocent. As I said, in my opinion a lifetime of incarceration with the maximum of boredom is actually a harsher punishment - I am opposed to the death penalty because I don't want to give the guilty scroats an easy release. I might even go further and make it a lifetime of solitary incarceration, but that might be a tad expensive.

PDR

Gordy
29th Aug 2016, 02:28
Nice scars....I wonder how they got them. They will certainly have more... The average person behind bars in the US hate scum like these. They will need to be housed in adseg fro their own safety.

reynoldsno1
29th Aug 2016, 05:13
I watched a documentary about this man recently. He initially became a person of interest because his neighbour thought he "looked a bit like the composite sketch" ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Bloodsworth

ORAC
29th Aug 2016, 07:06
Bloodsworth - nominative determinism in action.....

Pontius Navigator
29th Aug 2016, 08:11
Where a person is detected, arrested, charged and convicted, then doubt may remain.

Where the scum is arrested at the scene, covered in the victims blood, knife in hand, and surrounded in broad daylight by many witnesses, dispense with the trial, go straight to execution.

VP959
29th Aug 2016, 08:59
I'm not sure we do, you know. Even the most extensive form of DNA testing under ideal conditions with a perfect sample only gives a probability of 1 in 20 million or so IIRC.

PDR
That is just one element of evidence. When you combine that with fingerprint evidence, CCTV evidence, other forensic evidence (transfer etc), plus witness testimony it really isn't hard in some cases to prove guilt way beyond the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion applied by the courts.

I gave examples. Is there any doubt, whatsoever, that Brady didn't commit the crimes he was found guilty of? Like many others, there isn't. Now we have the combined power of technology and conventional detection and witness testimony, in some cases, to prove, beyond doubt, guilt or innocence.

In those cases I see no good reason why tax payers should have to fund long term incarceration, it would be far more beneficial for society as a whole to just eliminate these criminals as soon as possible after they have been found guilty.

alwayzinit
29th Aug 2016, 09:22
There is always the option that lies between taking life away from these animals and allowing them to live.
A chemically induced coma. It a pretty common practice for those with serious injury to be put into an induced coma, to limit movement etc.
As an option to the Criminal Justice System Sentencing an induced coma has a number of advantages.
1) Should evidence emerge post sentencing the inmate can be woken up to attend whatever appeal hearings take place.
2) Guarding a coma inmate would pretty simple, they are not going to jump up and scale the nearest wall.
3) True justice would be served by depriving any sensory input, just as their actions of murdering their victim. They truly would have no life until they expire at the end of their natural life span.
Dead but not dead, alive but not alive.
Now that is what I would call a deterrent.

Planemike
29th Aug 2016, 09:24
Where the scum is arrested at the scene, covered in the victims blood, knife in hand, and surrounded in broad daylight by many witnesses, dispense with the trial, go straight to execution.


That is not justice, it is called mob rule.........

parabellum
29th Aug 2016, 10:12
If Brady really wants to die may I suggest no easy way out, back to the court, re sentenced to death, taken to a place of execution and hung by the neck until dead, see if he is so keen on dying now.

Curious Pax
29th Aug 2016, 10:45
Where a person is detected, arrested, charged and convicted, then doubt may remain.

Where the scum is arrested at the scene, covered in the victims blood, knife in hand, and surrounded in broad daylight by many witnesses, dispense with the trial, go straight to execution.

And if they were severely mentally ill?

PDR1
29th Aug 2016, 10:49
That is just one element of evidence. When you combine that with fingerprint evidence, CCTV evidence, other forensic evidence (transfer etc), plus witness testimony it really isn't hard in some cases to prove guilt way beyond the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion applied by the courts.


Indeed. But "way beyond reasonable doubt" is still not "beyond any doubt".

All I am saying is that people should not be blinded by the apparent capabilities of modern forensics - most of the techniques still only provide probabilities rather than certainties.

It's rather depressing to see just how many people seem to feel the need to indulge in judicial murder to reduce they weekly viagra bills.

PDR

meadowrun
29th Aug 2016, 10:52
All murderers who, with premeditation - kill, are mentally ill. They are sociopaths or psychopaths.
Are you saying there is an innocent type of mentally ill?

VP959
29th Aug 2016, 10:57
And if they were severely mentally ill?
There are always going to be cases where doubt exists as to whether a person committed a serious crime knowing it to be wrong.

However, how many murderers are really mentally ill, as distinct from those that claim to be as a part of their defence?

My view would be that someone who is found guilty, beyond doubt, of murder, who is not severely mentally ill or otherwise unable to be held responsible for their actions, should get the death penalty.

From all I've been reading about Sutcliffe recently it seems that he most probably never has been severely mentally ill, but has played that card to get better treatment by being detained at a secure mental institution rather than a prison (at a massive increase in cost to the tax payer).

I'm confident that we have the ability to determine whether there is doubt as a consequence of prevailing mental illness. I'm not convinced that Brady is mentally ill by any reasonable definition, he is just a very evil, persuasive and manipulative individual. We reward persuasive and manipulative individuals who are not evil, so I don't see that personality trait as an adequate reason for declaring him to be mentally ill and so less responsible for his crimes.

UniFoxOs
29th Aug 2016, 12:10
Indeed. But "way beyond reasonable doubt" is still not "beyond any doubt".

True, but the remaining doubt is unreasonable.

SASless
29th Aug 2016, 12:16
Mentally Ill or not....the Killer poses a continuing threat to Society and thus Society is obliged to protect itself from such threats.

Any question that applies to the Terrorists who killed the Bandsman?

Pontius Navigator
29th Aug 2016, 12:20
The case I was considering was Gunner Rigby.

Without a trial was intended to mean without a convoluted trial, just a confirmatory hearing.

Any sane person knows it is wrong to kill, ergo if you kill someone you are not sane. Insanity, temporary or otherwise, should be treated in mental facility. You don't need a trial to be locked up.

If you kill someone while driving your car you have a choice. Plead insanity or plead for manslaughter.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

VP959
29th Aug 2016, 12:24
The question really comes down to:

- Should we pay millions of pounds to incarcerate each evil person for their lifetime, in order to protect ourselves from them? or,

- Should we execute them at minimal cost to achieve the same goal?

If some of those incarcerated for life were animals we'd almost certainly take the view that it would be more humane to end their lives than allow them to remain incarcerated for decades, irrespective of the cost.

ORAC
29th Aug 2016, 12:32
In British criminal law, Blackstone's formulation is the principle that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

When this was quoted chidingly to the Chinese concerning their death penalty system, they asked the question, "better for who?"

In the case in question, I can see no moral case for not demanding the death penalty, and no justification for requiring the community to spend millions maintaining them for decades with funds which could be better spent elsewhere. Hell, better spend anywhere else.

VP959
29th Aug 2016, 13:52
In British criminal law, Blackstone's formulation is the principle that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

The major problem with this is that releasing a guilty murderer gives an increased risk that another innocent may suffer later, maybe more than one. It's a grand idealistic principle, but suffers from being detached from reality, as many idealistic principles are.

Tankertrashnav
29th Aug 2016, 18:40
Great, until you're the innocent one facing the drop, then your argument doesn't look too good. I guess Timothy Evan's last thoughts would have been fairly bitter about the system that was about to kill him unjustly. Still, he got a posthumous pardon 16 years after his execution (and 13 years after the real murderer Christie was hanged for the crimes), so all turned out well in the end!

ORAC
29th Aug 2016, 20:27
Utilitarianism - John Stuart Mill - the greatest good for the greatest number.

Xa6c3OTr6yA

racedo
29th Aug 2016, 21:13
Cops not up to much as the perps never attempted to escape and were shot in process....................... oh wait they not black.

I am against death penalty and nope wouldn't make exceptions for these vile pieces of scum.
Locking up for whole life knowing there is nothing to ever look forward to only death is punishment enough

ORAC
12th Sep 2018, 20:59
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/charlotte-teeling-killer-had-171-convictions-s9dnrt7d6

Charlotte Teeling’s killer had 171 previous convictions

A “callous” and “sadistic” killer with a history of attacking women was on licence from prison when he murdered a mother of two, it was revealed as he was jailed for life today. Richard Bailey, 41, who had 171 previous convictions, strangled and smothered Charlotte Teeling, 33, six hours after meeting her in a shop after a night out in Birmingham in February.

Security camera footage showed her chatting in a convenience store and she was last seen alive entering his home where she was murdered. Bailey slept on a mattress in the same room as her body and she was found dead a week later, with pornography scattered around the room......

As he was jailed for 29 years at Birmingham crown court today, it emerged that he had previous convictions for violent offences committed solely against women....... Jonas Hankin, QC, for the prosecution, said that “all of the offences of violence were perpetrated against women and in most cases women in vulnerable situations”........

Bailey showed no emotion as he was sentenced and was led away to shouts of “beast” and “scum” from the public gallery.

Passing a life sentence, Judge Patrick Thomas, QC, ruled that the murder involved “sexual or sadistic” conduct and told Bailey: “You told the police that Charlotte asked you to squeeze her neck. Even if that were the case — and I do not accept that it was — it is manifest that she did not consent to being injured, let alone killed. I find that you were applying force to Charlotte’s neck for your own satisfaction and that you covered her mouth to prevent her crying out.”

Commenting on the fact that Bailey left Ms Teeling’s body in his bedroom for more than a week, the judge added: “Your actions in making use of Charlotte’s bank card after you killed her demonstrate an extreme degree of callousness. So does the way you conducted yourself in those eight days. We know that you spent much of the following night in bars and fast-food restaurants, trying to use Charlotte’s card and occasionally succeeding.”......

flash8
12th Sep 2018, 21:07
No. because a mistake could very well be made, and one mistake is one too many. Anyway, death is far too easy for the worst offenders, prison and misery for the rest of their natural lives is the ultimate punishment. Those that commit especially heinous acts are often (so I believe) dealt with by the inmates justice system.... something that does not sound at all remotely palatable, with the Prison officers allegedly turning a blind eye.

cavortingcheetah
12th Sep 2018, 22:02
The death penalty should not be seen as a form of punishment but rather a means of ensuring that the executed will never commit another crime. So if by accident of justice you execute an innocent man from time to time in the course of exterminating the guilty, then that is but collateral damage to the task of protecting society and ensuring that the guilty will never do what they did again.

fitliker
13th Sep 2018, 01:56
"Some things just need killing "

BlankBox
13th Sep 2018, 02:16
...some of these clergy/priests are no frikken better...except most of their victims are now the "walking" dead...:mad:

WingNut60
13th Sep 2018, 11:27
No. because a mistake could very well be made, and one mistake is one too many...........

When there is any room for doubt then I agree.
The flaw in the argument is that it presumes that there is always room for doubt - that some element of doubt always exists about identity.
This argument, so frequently cited, is sometimes simply and demonstrably not the case.
Examples have already been given. They are not uncommon.

No one doubts that the idiot who drove his car into pedestrians in Melbourne last year was the perpetrator.
He was clearly captured on multiple CCTV's and eventually on live TV as he performed his victory lap.
The only thing not yet confirmed is the degree of his idiocy.

Intent, and capability to form intent, are a different question altogether.
Here there may be much more cause for doubt, mainly because the law makers have failed to formulated adequate definitions.
And if such doubt exists then give them the benefit, at least until the lawmakers get their act together and produce definitions that reflect community standards, not just those of a cabal of pseudo-scientists.

And please be a bit more realistic when using the "maybe it's the wrong man" defence.

The Nip
13th Sep 2018, 13:25
When there is any room for doubt then I agree.
The flaw in the argument is that it presumes that there is always room for doubt - that some element of doubt always exists about identity.
This argument, so frequently cited, is sometimes simply and demonstrably not the case.
Examples have already been given. They are not uncommon.

No one doubts that the idiot who drove his car into pedestrians in Melbourne last year was the perpetrator.
He was clearly captured on multiple CCTV's and eventually on live TV as he performed his victory lap.
The only thing not yet confirmed is the degree of his idiocy.

Intent, and capability to form intent, are a different question altogether.
Here there may be much more cause for doubt, mainly because the law makers have failed to formulated adequate definitions.
And if such doubt exists then give them the benefit, at least until the lawmakers get their act together and produce definitions that reflect community standards, not just those of a cabal of pseudo-scientists.

And please be a bit more realistic when using the "maybe it's the wrong man" defence.

While I understand the reason and concerns with someone being subject to the death penalty incorrectly convicted, I do think there are times whereby there can be no doubt.
The killers of Lee Rigby.

KenV
13th Sep 2018, 14:03
The perpetrators deserve to be locked up for life,in the harshest circumstances possible. If you think they should face death by whatever means (hanging, firing squad, gas chamber,electric chair etc.)then you pull the trigger or whatever and then try and live with the subsequent psychological consequences. Don't ask/expect someone else to do the job for you.Don't ask/expect someone else to do the job for you? Odd you should say that. The law here is that you MUST allow someone else, namely the state, "to do the job for you." If you "did the job" yourself, you would be charged with murder.

KenV
13th Sep 2018, 14:17
Any sane person knows it is wrong to kill, ergo if you kill someone you are not sane. Insanity, temporary or otherwise, should be treated in mental facility. You don't need a trial to be locked up.What simplistic hogwash! Let's explore this line of thinking:
Any sane person knows that stealing is wrong, so someone who steals must not be sane.
Any sane person knows that kidnap is wrong, so someone who kidnaps must not be sane.
Any sane person knows that rape is wrong, so someone who rapes must not be sane.
Any sane person knows that reckless driving is wrong, so someone who drives recklessly must not be sane.
Any sane person knows that littering is wrong, so someone who litters must not be sane.
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
Why are sanity and insanity the only choices? The real world is NOT binary and there are multiple answers. One of them is they are just plain evil. They know what they were doing was wrong but they did it anyway. Perhaps for money. Perhaps for a thrill. But still evil, not insane.

I have been in situations where I killed people. Not almost killed. No maybe killed. But killed them dead. I knew it was "wrong". But I had to weigh the consequences of not killing with the consequences of killing. I chose the latter. I was and am completely sane.

KenV
13th Sep 2018, 14:22
No. because a mistake could very well be made, and one mistake is one too many.I'll buy that. Now suppose the "mistake" is not executing a murderer and he goes on to kill dozens of more people. That is certainly "one mistake too many." Now, which mistake is "worse"?

Anyway, death is far too easy for the worst offenders, prison and misery for the rest of their natural lives is the ultimate punishment.In our system of law, "cruel or unusual punishment" is strictly prohibited. A punishment worse than death would almost certainly fall under the definition of "cruel or unusual". How do you propose to resolve that?

KenV
13th Sep 2018, 14:44
Here's a pretty cogent video on the morality of the death penalty. It's five minutes long and worth every minute:

LINK (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=prageru+death+penalty&view=detail&mid=CB4179B6C323E62CCF6CCB4179B6C323E62CCF6C&FORM=VIRE)

Pontius Navigator
13th Sep 2018, 15:06
Ken, reductio ad absurdum

KenV
13th Sep 2018, 15:47
Ken, reductio ad absurdum
Indeed. It's a powerful logical argument used by both Socrates and Aristotle that applies in the post I replied to exceptionally well.