Tookie executed

[silkworm]

It could be argued that, for those who don't see life in prison as being such a bad thing, being frozen would be a better deterrent. And someone who is a block of ice isn't going to escape to hurt anyone, not without some multi-million dollar Hollywood plot and the capabilities for cryonic resuscitation.

 

Like global warming? (NOTE: While the importance of differnet contributors of global warming is still up for debate, the fact that its happening can't be.) Why should we make the effort for a John Wayne Gacy or a Tim McVeigh?

 

You are still speaking statistically. People that have murdered in the past put others "at risk." People that drive drunk put others "at risk." As I have already proven, DUI drivers put many more people's lives in jeopardy than do locked up murderers. And there is no system that can stop DUI drivers, really, from driving cars other than locking them up. So, I think that, by your reasoning, a first DUI should really get you at least 5 years in jail and probably the rest of your life. That is, if it's acceptable to kill somebody due solely to the "risk" they pose to others.

 

I, like the law, am taking intent into account. In the DUI case someone who drives drunk and kills someone may have not had the intent to do so, but if they do it again it should assumed at that point that the person did intend to kill someone by drinking and driving, and should be put to death to protect others. By this point, the person's license should have been taken away and him driving anyway and killing someone else is a ticket to execution to protect others from him.

 

I'm not talking about DUIs in general either, I'm talking about those that result in the death of another person. If a DUI occurs that does not result in the death of another person, then there's no reason to kill that person. If someone has many attempted murders there's no reason to kill that person because who knows if that person really did try to kill anyone and there's no reason to protect someone else against their inability to do so. The only way to be sure is if they've done it successfully and more than once, and then they should be executed.

 

I am talking about rare instances here and any serial killer or multiple murderer should be considered a threat to others and should be executed to protect everyone. Yeah, it's too bad that the state has to kill someone, but what's worse is when that someone kills someone else that would still be alive if that person were no longer alive, especially when the state had that person and knew the risk and threat he posed.

 

I'd also like to point out that I don't believe in incarceration at the level it occurs, especially for drug offenses, and should only be reserved for violent criminals. I am not one to endorse any form of social control, but I do believe in protecting other people from being murdered and I also believe in doing it as effectively as possible.

 

To illustrate, here is a list of people who would qualify for my electric chair: Tim McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, the Carr Brothers, BTK.

 

People who haven't qualified:

Robert Blake (if he had been convicted), Michael Jackson (if he had been convicted), Scott Peterson, the Menendez Brothers, OJ Simpson (if he had been convicted, multiple murder but the same act for the same special reason (life in prison)).

 

I hope you can see the differences.

[bascule]

Like global warming? (NOTE: While the importance of differnet contributors of global warming is still up for debate, the fact that its happening can't be.)

 

Not that I want to derail the thread, but that statement ignores the fact that it'd be happening if humans never existed.

[Phi for All]

Why should we make the effort for a John Wayne Gacy or a Tim McVeigh?

Make the effort? I thought it was clear that my cryofreeze option was for when it was commercially feasible (i.e., cheap) and we could store them virtually free in a subzero climate.

 

Do you have any idea what it costs to utilize the death penalty? MAJOR effort, minimally effective, morally reprehensible. Old Testament justice for the computer age. We're better than that.

[AL]

You are still speaking statistically. People that have murdered in the past put others "at risk." People that drive drunk put others "at risk." As I have already proven, DUI drivers put many more people's lives in jeopardy than do locked up murderers. And there is no system that can stop DUI drivers, really, from driving cars other than locking them up. So, I think that, by your reasoning, a first DUI should really get you at least 5 years in jail and probably the rest of your life. That is, if it's acceptable to kill somebody due solely to the "risk" they pose to others.

Just a few weeks ago, Singapore executed a 25 year old Australian national for carrying heroin on an airplane into the country. He was executed by hanging, no less. There's a real-world example of taking the "putting people at risk" argument to an extreme.

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11965-5094037,00.html

[herpguy]

I'm against the death penalty for two reasons

1) I think it's wrong to kill anyone under any circumstance and

2) Wouldn't it be more painfull to be locked up your entire life than to be killed calmly. Ask yourself this question; would it hurt more to be locked up and bored your whole life or to be killed with zero pain.

[ecoli]

I'm against the death penalty for two reasons

1) I think it's wrong to kill anyone under any circumstance and

 

even self defense?

 

2) Wouldn't it be more painfull to be locked up your entire life than to be killed calmly. Ask yourself this question; would it hurt more to be locked up and bored your whole life or to be killed with zero pain.

 

Asking rhetorical question doesn't prove anything. Everybody will give a different answer, so you really can't generalize.

[silkworm]

Not that I want to derail the thread, but that statement ignores the fact that it'd be happening if humans never existed.

 

I was just trying to give the type of scenario (the movie plot eluded to) we'd be screwed by cryogenically freezing mass murderers, serial killers, terrorists, etc., and that is, they thaw out. I wasn't talking about causes of global warming, it's just obvious that it is happening. This whole thing is silly, but I felt like answering.

 

Do you have any idea what it costs to utilize the death penalty? MAJOR effort, minimally effective, morally reprehensible. Old Testament justice for the computer age. We're better than that.

 

Money is fictional and cycles, but considering money as real it's still money well spent (in EXTREME CASES THAT I'VE MENTIONED). Morals are relative. Justice is unattainable once a wrong has been done. Life is real and it's important to protect it.

 

Just a few weeks ago, Singapore executed a 25 year old Australian national for carrying heroin on an airplane into the country. He was executed by hanging, no less. There's a real-world example of taking the "putting people at risk" argument to an extreme.

 

That is ridiculous. They decapitate people in Saudi Arabia for drug charges too. Can you imagine living in a society where that is acceptable? What would be the point of living there? This is exactly why I stay out of Texas.

 

I'm against the death penalty for two reasons

1) I think it's wrong to kill anyone under any circumstance and

2) Wouldn't it be more painfull to be locked up your entire life than to be killed calmly. Ask yourself this question; would it hurt more to be locked up and bored your whole life or to be killed with zero pain.

 

Responses:

1) Even if you or someone else will be killed if the threat is not? Wouldn't it be wrong to let an innocent person by killed than to kill the person who was going to kill them?

2) Protection is more important than punishment, and the pain of being locked up depends on the person. Sociopaths generally feel alone anyway, and as long as your alive you still have a chance, right?

[Pangloss]

This is the kind of thing that really irks me:

 

"It makes no sense whatsoever to execute a children's book author."

 

- Todd Chretien, Savetookie.org

 

That's the whole quote. No next sentence. Full stop.

 

Unbelievable.

[H W Copeland]

This is an incredibly specious argument. You said not two sentences before :

 

 

Only two of these people killed while still in prison. Therefore' date=' the problem here is releasing people from prison, not inability to execute them. Many of these people on the list that you gave wouldn't have been subject to the death penalty anyway, as they committed manslaughter, not murder.[/quote']

The subject was murder not manslaughter.

 

And you can never be sure that a future parole board will not release one of them.

 

And sometimes they kill other prisoners, or guards.

 

And the question of the OP is whether or not there is a moral equivalency of executing a murderer and committing murder.

[H W Copeland]

I said there's no absolute metric of guilt' date=' and also stated my opinion if there was.

 

 

 

Yet we still execute the innocent.

 

 

 

Holy specious reasoning batman!

 

Let's deconstruct this argument really quick and point out how flawed this kind of reasoning is...

 

 

 

1) Not everyone who commits murder is put on death row

2) People on death row can still be released

 

In order for the death penalty to be effective in preventing these kinds of deaths the above would have to be reversed: those convicted of murder must instantly be put to death.

 

 

 

And last I checked:

1) People on death row can still escape

2) People on death row can still murder guards or other inmates

 

So again, the only way the death penalty can be effective in preventing these situations is if the penalty is carried out immediately after the trial.

 

This would dramatically increase the number of innocents executed, and consequently the only way these murders could've been prevented by capital punishment is to increase the number of innocents executed.

 

But apparently you don't find the [i']state[/i] executing innocent people to be more morally reprehensible than a deranged individual murdering innocent people. I hope you can hold the state to a higher standard than a murderer.

 

I see nothing in this post that refutes the position that if murderers were all executed, there would be less loss of innocent life.

 

But that is not the question......

 

The question is - as I stated in the post that you quoted - is there a moral equivalency between executing someone for murder and the murder(s) that he committed?

 

For the sake of the discussion, please assume that the executee is in fact guilty as charged.

[H W Copeland]

I oppose the death penalty in all instances.

 

It is not the deterrent people want it to be. It deters you and me' date=' maybe, but chances are we wouldn't kill anyone even if it were [i']legal[/i].

 

If it's not a deterrent, then it's vengeance, and that diminishes us as a society. Retribution assumes the penalty is justly deserved, and no human, even a murderer, deserves to die at the hands of another human. It may sound good to say it regarding some vicious killer, but getting what you deserve should never mean death. Civilized society should face its problems, not sweep them under the rug.

 

I think when cryogenic freezing becomes commercially feasible, the death penalty should be abolished and everyone who gets life imprisonment should be frozen and stored in Antarctica. No maintenance costs, no killing, no inhumane treatment, and your case can be reviewed every hundred years or so.

 

Do you think that is is justifiable to kill in self defense?

[H W Copeland]

Are you trying to tell me that an inmate given life without parole imprisoned in a Supermax Prison poses a risk to anyone? Maybe in the movies...

 

He certainly does. He may kill another prisoner or a guard or he may be paroled at a future date.

[Ophiolite]

This is the kind of thing that really irks me:

 

.........

 

Unbelievable.

I recommend beta-blockers. You mustn't get yourself so worked up. You are in sunny Florida, right? Smell the flowers; swim in the ocean; relax. You are in danger of acquiring an agenda and suite of prejudices to go with it. You're too nice a guy for that to happen to.

[Phi for All]

Do you think that is is justifiable to kill in self defense?

Justifiable in the sense that it makes it right to do so? Absolutely not. People use justifiability to avoid moral responsibility. Would I kill in self defense or to defend others from death? Absolutely, if there were no other way. But I would not try to sidestep the fact that I had taken the life of a fellow human.

 

Legally I am absolved from prosecution if I kill someone who is trying to kill me. That doesn't mean they "deserved" to die. It doesn't mean I would lose less sleep because it was legally justifiable. Failing my moral responsibility to preserve the lives of my fellow humans isn't something I could easily write off, even if I felt it was the necessary thing to do.

[Pangloss]

I recommend beta-blockers. You mustn't get yourself so worked up. You are in sunny Florida, right? Smell the flowers; swim in the ocean; relax. You are in danger of acquiring an agenda and suite of prejudices to go with it. You're too nice a guy for that to happen to.

 

Well I tend to take people at their word, so I appreciate the thought, but I'm not sure I approve of that implication. If the left is capable of making the distinction between opposing the death penalty and not supporting murder, then surely the right is capable of making the distinction between people who "oppose the death penalty but disapprove of murder", and, well, "complete idiots" (like the guy I quoted in Post #33).

 

Anyway, like I said, I'm opposed to the death penalty, so the nitwit I quoted isn't having an impact on my overall opinion. I just thought it was a ridiculous thing for him to say.

[ecoli]

He certainly does. He may kill another prisoner or a guard or he may be paroled at a future date.

 

Then that's because our prison system itself is faulty, not the concept of life imprisonment, itself.

[H W Copeland]

Then that's because our prison system itself is faulty, not the concept of life imprisonment, itself.

 

 

Never the less, if he was dead, he would kill no more.....

[H W Copeland]

Justifiable in the sense that it makes it right to do so? Absolutely not. People use justifiability to avoid moral responsibility. Would I kill in self defense or to defend others from death? Absolutely' date=' if there were no other way. But I would not try to sidestep the fact that I had taken the life of a fellow human.

 

Legally I am absolved from prosecution if I kill someone who is trying to kill me. That doesn't mean they "deserved" to die. It doesn't mean I would lose less sleep because it was legally justifiable. [b']Failing my moral responsibility to preserve the lives of my fellow humans isn't something I could easily write off, even if I felt it was the necessary thing to do[/b].

 

How about failing to keep someone from killing you or others? Wouldn't that weigh on your consience if you failed to do so because of your sense of morality?

[Ophiolite]

Doing the right thing always carries a price.

[Phi for All]

Never the less, if he was dead, he would kill no more.....

That sounds like an endorsement for the death penalty in all homicide cases. Kill them all and they will kill no more.

How about failing to keep someone from killing you or others? Wouldn't that weigh on your consience if you failed to do so because of your sense of morality?

How can you add double emphasis to what I wrote and still ask those questions? My response to you was about justification of killing in self defense. Let's define the term "justify" before you start doing the syntax252 thing, hmm?.

 

I think you're using justify to mean "prove or show evidence why certain decisions or actions have been taken". To me, that's an explanation. I'm using justify to mean "make right, to free from the penalty of responsibility". To me, this is an excuse. I make a great distinction between an explanation (or a reason) and an excuse. I could never excuse myself for killing or allowing someone else to be killed. It is something I would live with for the rest of my life, and I think it would be criminal of me to try to justify away my responsibility.

 

Doing the right thing always carries a price.

Extremely well put. Why do I always overestimate the need for clarity when writing?

[john5746]

Are you trying to tell me that an inmate given life without parole imprisoned in a Supermax Prison poses a risk to anyone? Maybe in the movies...

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3515308.html

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175842,00.html

 

It happens, but I would say the chances of that happening and the chances of an innocent person being executed are in the same ballpark. Given the choice, I would opt for the convict doing the killing, rather than the state.

 

I don't think the death penalty deters murders, but I think it sure does deter other crimes - who is going to sneak drugs into Singapore? But, that is very heavy-handed IMO. I doubt it really helps the surviving victims in the long run either. So, I am left with economics. I hate the idea of these guys living off of my money.

 

So, I would propose that all maximum-security convicts have to do some sort of work or community service. Writing children's books would qualify.

[H W Copeland]

That sounds like an endorsement for the death penalty in all homicide cases. Kill them all and they will kill no more.

How can you add double emphasis to what I wrote and still ask those questions? My response to you was about justification of killing in self defense. Let's define the term "justify" before you start doing the syntax252 thing' date=' hmm?.

 

I think you're using justify to mean "prove or show evidence why certain decisions or actions have been taken". To me, that's an explanation. I'm using justify to mean "make right, to free from the penalty of responsibility". To me, this is an excuse. I make a great distinction between an explanation (or a reason) and an excuse. I could never excuse myself for killing or allowing someone else to be killed. It is something I would live with for the rest of my life, and I think it would be criminal of me to try to justify away my responsibility.

 

?[/quote']

Well ok, but if it were me, I would focus on the lives that I saved, rather than the life I took. I would have a problem excusing myself if I just stood by and allowed someone else to be murdered when I could have stopped it.

 

If after all, we are talking about a case of someone about to murder presumable innocent people, don't you think that those innocents are a little more entitled to go on living that the murderer is entitled to kill them?

 

Who/what is syntax252?

[silkworm]

So, I would propose that all maximum-security convicts have to do some sort of work or community service. Writing children's books would qualify.

 

Hahahahaha. Tookie would have qualified for my electric chair so I find this ammusing. It looks as though he pretty much faked his status as a crypts cofounder, and was trying to manipulate his way into the life in prison, but he was a multiple murderer. I would care less if he only killed other gangsters, but he didn't so.... night night Tookie.

 

I'm thinking about writing a children's book about Tookie's execution.

[Phi for All]

Well ok, but if it were me, I would focus on the lives that I saved, rather than the life I took. I would have a problem excusing myself if I just stood by and allowed someone else to be murdered when I could have stopped it.

This is where we differ. I would have a problem "excusing" myself for ANY killing. That's not to say I wouldn't do it, just that I would not easily shrug it off just because I saved lives doing it.

 

If after all, we are talking about a case of someone about to murder presumable innocent people, don't you think that those innocents are a little more entitled to go on living that the murderer is entitled to kill them?

 

Who/what is syntax252?

This last statement is a classic syntax252, where you straw man the argument I'm trying to make by changing it to one you can more easily defend. You are not listening to or responding to what I'm saying, and so you are derailing the thread by making me clarify, over and over, my position.

 

Whatever value I place on one life over another doesn't make killing anyone any more just. Legal exoneration aside, I would still mourn the neccesity of having to take the life of anybody, and would not try to excuse myself of responsibility for their death by the easy expedient of "he had it coming". No one is more entitled to live than anyone else, and I may make a decision to end someone's life based on my own survival or that of others, but I refuse to excuse myself from responsibility for my actions. I may not go to jail, but I won't sleep easily for a long time after, no matter who I saved.

 

If I don't take responsibility, won't my next killing be easier to justify?

[john5746]

Hahahahaha. Tookie would have qualified for my electric chair so I find this ammusing. It looks as though he pretty much faked his status as a crypts cofounder' date=' and was trying to manipulate his way into the life in prison, but he was a multiple murderer. I would care less if he only killed other gangsters, but he didn't so.... night night Tookie.

 

I'm thinking about writing a children's book about Tookie's execution.[/quote']

 

 

Don't get me wrong, if it was on video tape, or they caught him at the scene, I would say shoot him in both kneecaps, file his teeth, bamboo under the nails and then shoot him in the head the next day. Torture would be a much better deterrent than death.

 

But, if we are not 100% sure, then it takes too much hassle with lawyers, etc. to be effective. So, that is my reason for the proposal, to get something out of keeping these people behind bars. If they are innocent, they can still work like the rest of us.