Against death penalty - but this is just plain weird

[NastyWoman]

This case before the Supreme Court has me, an opponent of the death oenalty, scratching my head. What do you think of this as a defense? The man claims that he shouldn't get the death penalty for multiple murders because he wasn't trying to kill these people at all, he was aiming for someone else and missed... 

I will try to copy some of the article text later but I can't get it to work on my iPad. Sorry about that until then please follow the link below


www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article146493934.html?ref=yfp

 

[sesfw]

Our church is having a 5 week discussion on capital punishment.  I can't honestly say I'm either for or against this.  With everything going on in this world, each case has to be dealt with individually.  Unfortunately money talks and things would get out of hand very quickly.

His intention was to commit a killing but 2 innocent people got in the way.  And he should get off? ........... I don't know what the answer is.

Argument last week was it's cheaper money wise to keep someone in prison for the rest of their natural lives instead of the death penalty.  Considering the cost of years of appeals built into the system to make sure no mistake is being made, millions of tax funds are being spent.

But that doesn't consider all the appeals the attorneys file to get a life sentence reduced, therefore the same amount of funds.

My question ..... and I'm strictly a buck-passer here, what do we do about the mentality of the perpetrators to begin with?  How many of these brains have been fried with drugs?  Maybe their parents drug use changed DNA? ....... I don't have an answer

[busymom]

I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty, simply because innocent people get executed due to lousy defense in court.


Still, if he was planning to kill one person, & killed someone else (or two others) by mistake, what's the difference?  He still intended to kill someone, he just missed his target & murdered others instead.  Death is still death.

[Pants]

Apr 25, 2017 11:53:17 GMT -5 busymom said:

I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty, simply because innocent people get executed due to lousy defense in court.


Still, if he was planning to kill one person, & killed someone else (or two others) by mistake, what's the difference?  He still intended to kill someone, he just missed his target & murdered others instead.  Death is still death.

I think his argument is instead of premeditated murder, he actually committed attempted murder and 2 counts of manslaughter. 

Which is so macabre that I'm actually laughing over here. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Put him behind the condemned man at the next execution by firing squad. If he accidentally gets shot ten times, well... they were aiming for the other guy.

[Shooby]

We need the death penalty.  The death penalty says a message that if you dare to take someone's life, then you lose your own. It puts a premium on human life versus a shrug and life in prison with 3 hots and a cot playing Xbox.

[billisonboard]

Apr 25, 2017 17:20:16 GMT -5 Shooby said:

We need the death penalty.  The death penalty says a message that if you dare to take someone's life, then you lose your own. It puts a premium on human life versus a shrug and life in prison with 3 hots and a cot playing Xbox.

Not killing again when killing has been done places an even higher premium on life in my opinion.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Apr 25, 2017 17:20:16 GMT -5 Shooby said:

We need the death penalty.  The death penalty says a message that if you dare to take someone's life, then you lose your own. It puts a premium on human life versus a shrug and life in prison with 3 hots and a cot playing Xbox.

I used to believe that too. But my BIL is a judge and told me the fear of a death penalty doesn't stop anyone. Also the cost to execute someone exceeds the cost of incarceration for life. And I don't mean a cot playing Xbox, but hard time. I'm not sure what the answer is.

[Tennesseer]

In states with the death penalty, murder still occurs just as murders still occur in non-death penalty states.  The death penalty is not much of a deterrent.  

[Virgil Showlion]

The death penalty has always been about justice. Death is the only just punishment for depraved rape or murder.

That it's ideally cheap and minimizes burden on victims' families are "bonuses" for lack of a more elegant term.

[mmhmm]

Apr 25, 2017 17:36:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The death penalty has always been about justice. Death is the only just punishment for depraved rape or murder.

That it's ideally cheap and minimizes burden on victims' families are "bonuses" for lack of a more elegant term.

I've always thought of the death penalty as more about preservation of public safety (and vengeance) than justice. To take the life of another is, to me, a very serious step. It doesn't undo the crime that's been committed; nor, does it really help the loved ones of the one who's been lost and/or the one who was a victim. Death as the only just punishment is, I think, a matter of opinion.

That said, a vicious murderer is not someone I want to think of walking our streets. I'm not adverse to ending the lives of those who value life so little as to take it without compunction.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 25, 2017 17:53:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 25, 2017 17:36:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The death penalty has always been about justice. Death is the only just punishment for depraved rape or murder.

That it's ideally cheap and minimizes burden on victims' families are "bonuses" for lack of a more elegant term.

I've always thought of the death penalty as more about preservation of public safety (and vengeance) than justice. To take the life of another is, to me, a very serious step. It doesn't undo the crime that's been committed; nor, does it really help the loved ones of the one who's been lost and/or the one who was a victim. Death as the only just punishment is, I think, a matter of opinion.

That said, a vicious murderer is not someone I want to think of walking our streets. I'm not adverse to ending the lives of those who value life so little as to take it without compunction.

Locking up a murderer without possibility of parole is sufficient to keep him off the streets.

"Death as the only just punishment" is a moral judgment. That's as far as we can go without bringing religion into the discussion. Suffice it to say that factors such as cost, deterrence, closure, danger to the public, (in)humaneness of alternatives, etc. aren't relevant (in the sense that justice is paramount).

I've noticed that an increasing number of people object to the death penalty not because they consider it unfitting but because they don't trust the police and courts. In their minds, two wrongs (corrupt courts and unjust punishments) make a right.

[mmhmm]

Apr 25, 2017 18:50:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 25, 2017 17:53:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've always thought of the death penalty as more about preservation of public safety (and vengeance) than justice. To take the life of another is, to me, a very serious step. It doesn't undo the crime that's been committed; nor, does it really help the loved ones of the one who's been lost and/or the one who was a victim. Death as the only just punishment is, I think, a matter of opinion.

That said, a vicious murderer is not someone I want to think of walking our streets. I'm not adverse to ending the lives of those who value life so little as to take it without compunction.

Locking up a murderer without possibility of parole is sufficient to keep him off the streets.

"Death as the only just punishment" is a moral judgment. That's as far as we can go without bringing religion into the discussion. Suffice it to say that factors such as cost, deterrence, closure, danger to the public, (in)humaneness of alternatives, etc. aren't relevant (in the sense that justice is paramount).

I've noticed that an increasing number of people object to the death penalty not because they consider it unfitting but because they don't trust the police and courts. In their minds, two wrongs (corrupt courts and unjust punishments) make a right.

There's good reason for distrust, IMO. Too often, prisoners who have life w/o parole sentences are released. Governors can commute sentences. Appeals can result in charges being dropped for reasons that have little, if anything, to do with the crime that was committed. While some may worry more about unjust punishments and corrupt courts, I (and those who think as I do) worry more about a vicious criminal taking even more innocent lives. DNA has been a game-changer, as I see it, and allows juries to be more precise in identifying the correct perpetrator. Will mistakes be made? Probably, but I feel there will be fewer than in the past.    

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 25, 2017 19:00:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 25, 2017 18:50:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Locking up a murderer without possibility of parole is sufficient to keep him off the streets.

"Death as the only just punishment" is a moral judgment. That's as far as we can go without bringing religion into the discussion. Suffice it to say that factors such as cost, deterrence, closure, danger to the public, (in)humaneness of alternatives, etc. aren't relevant (in the sense that justice is paramount).

I've noticed that an increasing number of people object to the death penalty not because they consider it unfitting but because they don't trust the police and courts. In their minds, two wrongs (corrupt courts and unjust punishments) make a right.

There's good reason for distrust, IMO. Too often, prisoners who have life w/o parole sentences are released. Governors can commute sentences. Appeals can result in charges being dropped for reasons that have little, if anything, to do with the crime that was committed. While some may worry more about unjust punishments and corrupt courts, I (and those who think as I do) worry more about a vicious criminal taking even more innocent lives. DNA has been a game-changer, as I see it, and allows juries to be more precise in identifying the correct perpetrator. Will mistakes be made? Probably, but I feel there will be fewer than in the past.    

Very good points to support your contention, but I maintain that all other benefits/drawbacks are secondary to whether the death penalty (versus lifelong imprisonment) is just. It's not an issue where one can deduce rightness by weighing the practical pros and cons.

This is, of course, in my worldview, which follows from scripture.

[mmhmm]

Apr 26, 2017 9:17:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 25, 2017 19:00:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

There's good reason for distrust, IMO. Too often, prisoners who have life w/o parole sentences are released. Governors can commute sentences. Appeals can result in charges being dropped for reasons that have little, if anything, to do with the crime that was committed. While some may worry more about unjust punishments and corrupt courts, I (and those who think as I do) worry more about a vicious criminal taking even more innocent lives. DNA has been a game-changer, as I see it, and allows juries to be more precise in identifying the correct perpetrator. Will mistakes be made? Probably, but I feel there will be fewer than in the past.    

Very good points to support your contention, but I maintain that all other benefits/drawbacks are secondary to whether the death penalty (versus lifelong imprisonment) is just. It's not an issue where one can deduce rightness by weighing the practical pros and cons.

This is, of course, in my worldview, which follows from scripture.

I can certainly understand your point of view even if I tend to see things a bit differently. It's through exchanges such as this we can all expand our trains of thought and learn from the viewpoints of others.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 25, 2017 18:50:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Locking up a murderer without possibility of parole is sufficient to keep him off the streets.  But it doesn't keep him from murdering again.  There are other prisoners and corrections officers available for him to kill.

"Death as the only just punishment" is a moral judgment. That's as far as we can go without bringing religion into the discussion. Suffice it to say that factors such as cost, deterrence, closure, danger to the public, (in)humaneness of alternatives, etc. aren't relevant (in the sense that justice is paramount).  Hard one to answer.  The death penalty may not be a deterrent to others but it sure as heck is a deterrent to the guy put to death.  He can't do it again - that's for sure.  Money would not ever figure in to my decision on how I feel about this and I'm on the fence and have been for years. 

I've noticed that an increasing number of people object to the death penalty not because they consider it unfitting but because they don't trust the police and courts. In their minds, two wrongs (corrupt courts and unjust punishments) make a right. Several convictions have been overturned due to new DNA procedures.  While it's not the fault of the police or the courts since this tests weren't available years ago, it sure is their fault they charged the wrong person to begin with.  It's not just the police and the courts, tho.  Eye witness testimony can be unreliable at best; contrived at worst.  This is always going to be the case.  Mistakes are going to be made.  Is it worth it?  I can't decide?  It sure wouldn't be hard to decide if it was my brother or sister or someone I loved who was actually innocent and was killed anyway.