One related to the joke thread controversy

[JimmyHAD]

Years ago I saw an episode on Sixty Minutes featuring a Texas lawyer, Richard "Racehorse" Haynes, who made a name for himself defending criminals. Some of them who had committed murder. In the feature it depicted a case where the defendant had unquestionably killed a man. Haynes defense succeeded in getting a not guilty plea for the guy. Afterwards when asked why he thought the jury found the man not guilty he said,"Because some people need killing."

I was going to post this in this thread with the joke about killing the terrorist that some didn't think was funny. I thought about it and decided that the topic deserved a separate thread. Some of the folks who posted in the fore mentioned thread don't think that shooting the attacker in that hypothetical is correct or necessary. Which brought Theo Van Gogh to mind. The great grandson of Vincent Van Gogh's brother Theo he was a film maker in Amsterdam.

He had made a film that was offensive to some of the Islamic persuasion. While bicycling in the city he was accosted by a radical Islamic fundamentalist and shot. According to witnesses, wounded, he tried to crawl away from his attacker and said, "Wait, let's talk."

His assailant was apparently a man of few words and he shot Theo a few more times and then slit his throat nearly beheading him. He then stabbed Theo in the chest pinning a letter of protest , or maybe a critique on the film, to the dead man's chest.

It went downhill from there with bystanders and police seriously wounded as the killer tried to escape. Unfortunately the Europeans are more civilized than their USA counterparts so the killer was sentenced to life rather than given the death penalty he so richly deserves. The point is, some people deserve to be killed and Theo's attacker is a case in point.

[smokelaw1]

For one to "deserve" death and for it to be morally acceptable for a man (or a state) to pass out said punishment are two things that, at least for me, are entirely separate and distinct.

[Wildtim]

If a man deserves death, as determined by society, society also has the power to allow that sentence to be carried out as the moral burden will not be born solely by the executioner but by each and every member of society as whole. It isn't about man or state but about society and what society has to do in order to protect itself and maintain its solidarity.

The sentence of life in prison is nothing more than sentencing someone to death by natural causes, by another name. It makes those uninvolved feel better about themselves through self-deception but robs the emotional victims of the crime of the closure they deserve and society would be kinder to grant them

[smokelaw1]

Great post. I never meant to imply that the executioner, if the state handed down the DP, would bear the moral burden on his/her own.

I just happen to believe that the system is not so perfect to be trusted to put one to death. Death is irreversible. Imprisonment is reversible.

I'd rather 100 guilty men stay alive in prison for the rest of their natural life than one innocent man be put to death. That is the core of my death penalty opposition. There are other reasons and other arguments I have made, but this one holds the major force for me.

If there was an all-knowing all seeing being (not saying there isn't) who can tell, with no possibility of error (some kind of super-judge) and pass down the appropriate punishment, then it falls to THAT being, and that being alone, to pass on the ultimate punishment, IMHO. Some people might even believe that death isn't the ultimate punishment. That this super-judge could do something worse than death, and that lasts longer...and is hotter. But I digress.


NOW...if this man had murdered MY family, would I exact revenge? Very possibly. And I would be morally (and likely legally) wrong in doing so. Sometimes I am not a moral creature...but I strive to be (and believe our society should as well).

[Wildtim]

This is where I disagree: To me the death penalty has its greatest value as a means of closure for the survivers effected by the crime. They and all of society actually should experience the closure of the event, they deserve the means to move on. There is also the deterence aspect which is very real because death is a primal fear in all of us, and having that as a punishment possiblity plays upon that. Since the benefits of the death penelty are for the survivers to feel tht closure with the innocent society benefits simply by carrying out the act, guilt or innocence are not really a part of it, it more like a human sacrifice in this manner. Whatever person is sacrificed has been deemed worthy of that happening by society that it may relieve its pain, no matter where the crime they supposedly commited is something they are guilty of society has accepted the burden of their death and is therefore served by it. For the "innocent" man individually, it sucks, but society is not guilty of a moral wrong.

[smokelaw1]

Very cool argument. I disagree completely, but that means absolutely nothing. Thanks for giving me another way to look at it.
And thank you for pointing out that it sucks for the individual, but it is "necessary" (maybe not completely, hence the quotes) for the survival and health of the society. I look forward to confronting people smarter than I am with it next time we argue death penalty (even if we are on the same side of the issue, usually).

EDIT: Oh, and Oglethorpe...if I witnessed the act? You are quite right. Legally and morally the playing field very well might change quite a bit. Legally more than morally, most likely, but I just got busy and can't think about it anymore.

[ChrisL]

This is where I disagree: To me the death penalty has its greatest value as a means of closure for the survivers effected by the crime. They and all of society actually should experience the closure of the event, they deserve the means to move on. There is also the deterence aspect which is very real because death is a primal fear in all of us, and having that as a punishment possiblity plays upon that. Since the benefits of the death penelty are for the survivers to feel tht closure with the innocent society benefits simply by carrying out the act, guilt or innocence are not really a part of it, it more like a human sacrifice in this manner. Whatever person is sacrificed has been deemed worthy of that happening by society that it may relieve its pain, no matter where the crime they supposedly commited is something they are guilty of society has accepted the burden of their death and is therefore served by it. For the "innocent" man individually, it sucks, but society is not guilty of a moral wrong.

I've actually given this assertion some thought through the years in regard to how I would feel if I was personally affected in such a horrific way of suffering the loss of one dear to me at the hands of another in murder. I can honestly say sentencing and carrying out a death sentence to the perpetrator would not provide me closure. It wouldn't. No amount of torture, no one method of killing and no amount of post death desecration of the perp's corpse would bring back my loved one. It would be pointless to me. Moreover, in my opinion, if I were to call for the death of the perp to avenge the death of my loved one, I would feel that I reduced myself in some way by dealing with them on their murderous terms. They'd win twice. Just my own personal feeling on the subject.

Chris L

[Oglethorpe]

I'd rather 100 guilty men stay alive in prison for the rest of their natural life than one innocent man be put to death. That is the core of my death penalty opposition. There are other reasons and other arguments I have made, but this one holds the major force for me.

Amen. And the documented number of cases of such are scary.

However...

NOW...if this man had murdered MY family, would I exact revenge? Very possibly. And I would be morally (and likely legally) wrong in doing so. Sometimes I am not a moral creature...but I strive to be (and believe our society should as well).

Morality is very... gray. While you may go one way, I would not call myself morally wrong if I watched an assailant murder my family and proceeded to gun said assailant down or even beat him to a bloody pulp with my bare hands (the latter the more likely case as I do not own a gun). Protection for ones domain and loved ones goes beyond morality. It's instinct. It's ingrained on your DNA.

So, (and I'm sure many would agree with me) pray for the man who tries to break into my house and touch my family.

[Kees]

For one to "deserve" death and for it to be morally acceptable for a man (or a state) to pass out said punishment are two things that, at least for me, are entirely separate and distinct.

According to his own laws, the sharia, Theo van Gogh's assassin deserved a death penalty. Now he is costing Dutch society over 1000 Euros a month in gaol.

[Rajagra]

According to his own laws, the sharia, Theo van Gogh's assassin deserved a death penalty. Now he is costing Dutch society over 1000 Euros a month in goal.

This is another thing that angers me. Why does it cost so much to lock someone in a cell and give them three meals a day?

If the cost wasn't so artificially high, they wouldn't be releasing offenders so early. (At least that is the case here.)

I don't actually want the death penalty. I just want murdering scum kept off the streets.