Hypothetical: Would You Spare A Serial Killer?

[SCcreampieLvr]

simple to me

I would gladly pull the trigger myself. I would not hesitate. I dont give a fuck how talented or smart the guy is. Blow his brains out.

 

[rcfstl]

as a parent I would say "Let me pull the trigger on the beast" as a member of the human race and he will save millions "Cut off his balls and keep him working to save people"

 

[elsol]

"Lets say I picked up the gun to hand it to you ............ when it accidentally went off ................... several times."

That was an incredibly sexy thing to say.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[SonOfAGhost]

Democracy isn't the same as Majority Rule.

Actually thats EXACTLY what democracy is.

Obviously impractical beyond small groups of people which is why most 'democracies' are in actually various forms of representative democracy. Sadly most such governments gradually forget that the people are smarter collectively than the elitists that would rule them.

In the extreme you get 'elected' dictatorships like we have in Canada. It's been at least 12 years, and 4 elections, (but probably longer, I just don't know the #s myself) since any party got more than 24% of eligible votes. Our last 4 "elected" PMs effectively have had absolute power and behaved accordingly. They appoint (not nominate) our head of state, supreme court and senate, along with over 3 000 senior government officials and diplomats. Just yesterday a known Quebec seperatist was sworn in as our head of state. Her job qualifications? The PM thought she was cute. The PM alone decides all foreign and domestic policy.

We'll have capital punishment again when we get another PM that wants it. Lose it again when we have another PM that doesn't. Lather, rinse, repeat. The will of the people here is irrelevant. You should be happy to live in a 2 party state so that at least your representatives reflect the will of the people, even if the policies they implement sometimes don't.

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privilege

 

[thebullet]

I have a difficult time being glib about capital punishment. How does one reconcile the use of capital punishment with being a part of a mature society?

"An eye for an eye" was appropriate 2,500 years ago, perhaps. But is it still appropriate?

I'm embarrassed by the violence that is such an intregal part of American culture. Other mature, far less violent cultures around the world are saying that capital punishment is no longer acceptable.

As are many Americans, I'm ambivilent about the issue. Some criminals are so dispicable that it is easy to say: burn them. That's the easy thing to say. But how does that affect the American psyche? Is it good for us as a people to engage in corporate murder?

This easy acceptance of violence and death: does it lead to an unconscious indifference to human suffering? As many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war, most as the result of 'collateral damage'. This fact doesn't seem to bother many Americans.

I would like to know why? Why are we so indifferent to other peoples' deaths?

Why do we allow prisoners to be executed, knowing that a certain percentage of them (perhaps even a large percentage of them) are not guilty of the crimes of which they've been convicted?

Why is there no outcry against the torture of prisoners (the vast majority of whom have not been accused of any crimes and who our government knows are not criminals) in Iraq, Cuba and Jersey City?

Are we a mature society?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I believe strongly in capital punishment but I'm not a fanatic about it. I believe it should be reserved for only the most heinous and depraved of killers and that there should be an even higher standard of proof before pronouncing sentence. The case in question easily meets both those requirements that I would require.

 

[thebullet]

I don't disagree with you, Boxlicker. But how does one establish the burder of proof? The # of cases that have recently been reversed through the use of DNA evidence is troubling. I just can't bring myself to live with any margin of error.

 

[elsol]

Are we a mature society?

If you believe in evolution, it took MILLIONS of year to arrive at us.

I, personally, believe humanity is at the baby stage of 'Mom is not a part of me! WHAT THE FUCK!!!!'

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't disagree with you, Boxlicker. But how does one establish the burder of proof? The # of cases that have recently been reversed through the use of DNA evidence is troubling. I just can't bring myself to live with any margin of error.

I also believe there should be no margin of error, especially in capital cases, but in any kind of case. DNA is relatively new but there are persons in jail or on Death Row who might be exonerated through its use. In any case where is might be relevant, texts should be made, usind DNA or any other scientific evidence. Some prosecutors say it is expensive to test but I say that is BS. Do it anyhow. If the cost is a million dollars and one innocent person is released, the money would be well spent. Supposedly, the purpose of the criminal court system is to protect the innocent and that's what should be done.

Edited to add: The real problem is that government agencies, such as prosecutors' offices, absolutely hate to admit that they are not perfect and that they can make errors.

 

[elsol]

Edited to add: The real problem is that government agencies, such as prosecutors' offices, absolutely hate to admit that they are not perfect and that they can make errors.

The real problem is that WE don't accept that they could be imperfect when WE want things done.

We need to accept their failures in 'good faith'... but how many people question the very laws and principles that are there to protect US when something bad happens.

We want our chocolate sin cake to be zero calories...

Ain't gonna happen.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Late comer, but on the subject: <cut throat>. Sorry, but without remorse, without any hope of justice on Earth, it doesn't matter if they are providing other social services. Use his work certainly, but we as a society will just have to deal with the lack of any new creations from the man (and it will be a man). We have other smart people, other talented people, other psychotic people, we don't need him. He's guilty, he's unrepentant, there is no margin of error...Hand him over to the parents of the children and let them decide his fate even if it is to exact revenge in an attempt to drown out the pain and hatred he has poured into their hearts.

Now, if he had remorse on the other hand, if he truly and fully understood what he had done, truly felt remorse and not as an appeal copout, and wanted to devote the rest of his life to somehow attempting to atone at least slightly to the grave sin he has committed, then that is another story. That sort of guilt and atonement would provide an actual justice element and give meaning to a sentence involving life. He's going to die someday and he will be held accountable then, but until then, you might as well let him dwell in a Hell of his own making. The so-called advances he might provide has no bearing in either case.

On capital punishment in general: It's all about justice or in the failure of that, providing some amount of revenge for the family of the victims. You don't want to waste an innocent man, not just because it's wrong, but because it makes it worse for the victim's loved ones. They have lost someone they loved, delighted in the slaughter of someone (making them worry that they may in some small way be similar to the monster that did the act (until they realize that the fact that they torture themselves about it means they're not)), and then later find out that the person who they smiled at as they watched die didn't even do it, was scared and hoping for a mercy of truth that never came.

I mean, placing that weight of burden on the soul of the family in question is simply cruel and that's before you involve the many affected by the lost life of the innocent man. Doing that places an unneccessary karmic weight on their souls, already tattered by the mere long process of law.

I don't know. I'm sort of in the middle. It's not justice, it's revenge, but there's poetry in revenge sometimes. There's poetry in handing Polanski a brick and full immunity from prosecution and putting him in a room with Charles Manson for ten minutes. It's not just, it's not to be confused with justice, but if the person is guilty and unrepentant, there's no justice anyway. The most you can gain is black, dark, primal, sinful poetry.

On the other hand, is it okay to stain the souls of the grieving, have them bear the load of delighting or participating in the death of another human, even one as monstrous as Manson? To have them carry that weight in place of their grief and rage? I don't know fully. Perhaps in truth, the most honest system is to let the grieving decide the fate of the unquestionably guilty, whether they are to be spared or killed.