An Evil Man was Executed Today

[lxskllr]

No, but the same system that rushes to execute that shooter might be used to execute some other innocent person.

Yup. Everyone says "We'll only use it when it's REALLY deserved!". That's supposed to be what it is now, and it's a fraudulent, error filled clusterfuck.

 

[SAWYER]

Reading that guy's wiki made me remember anther serial killer wiki I read awhile back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish

 

[zinfamous]

So you would have had us execute these 143 innocent people?

and look at how the rate of exoneration skyrocket in the 90s and 2000s, (presumably with better evidence available).

So, basically, how many innocent people have we murdered before this?

 

[zinfamous]

Reading that guy's wiki made me remember anther serial killer wiki I read awhile back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish

His family had a history of mental illness. His uncle suffered from religious mania.

:hmm: Think that's still classified in the DSM?

 

[zinfamous]

So the shooter at the theater in Aurora, Colorado may be innocent?

Is it ever worth killing an innocent person? Ever?

You have to understand that it is the very same institution that is tasked with commuting the sentences of both.

Either we accept it or we don't.

So, it's up to you if you can accept government-sanctioned murder of one innocent person, so long as one mass shooter meets the same justice. (another discussion--but is that justice? Who is bringing those people back?)

I don't accept that.

 

[akahoovy]

Is it ever worth killing an innocent person? Ever?

You have to understand that it is the very same institution that is tasked with commuting the sentences of both.

Either we accept it or we don't.

So, it's up to you if you can accept government-sanctioned murder of one innocent person, so long as one mass shooter meets the same justice. (another discussion--but is that justice? Who is bringing those people back?)

I don't accept that.

You may be misunderstanding me or just trying to be obtuse by watering down my point. What I want wouldn't apply to everyone on death row. What I'm trying to raise the point of is, what's the point of having someone who has done something terrible where there is incontrovertible evidence, eye witness accounts or video, whatever, sit on death row for years?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Is it ever worth killing an innocent person? Ever?

You have to understand that it is the very same institution that is tasked with commuting the sentences of both.

Either we accept it or we don't.

So, it's up to you if you can accept government-sanctioned murder of one innocent person, so long as one mass shooter meets the same justice. (another discussion--but is that justice? Who is bringing those people back?)

I don't accept that.

I see it the other way...when we KNOW they're guilty (caught in the act, confessed, etc) then ONLY death will suffice - and that only because we ban torture.

If you don't want the government doing it I'm fine taking care of it myself, in fact I'd prefer it...but they NEED to die. I will never accept anything less. Period. No matter what.

 

[ThinClient]

No, some of us aren't for a death penalty. I personally think it is a relic of a more brutal era that has no use or benefit in modern society.

But this is Off Topic so I am trying not to derail the thread with the mounds of evidence to support my beliefs.

Yep, letting a convicted mass murderer rot in a cell at $40,000 per year for each prisoner while the prisoner simultaneously locks up the court system with appeal after appeal after appeal while good people who still deserve to live get their own court issue delayed and delayed.

Fuck that.

The Colorado movie theater shooter should have been shot immediately after his trial.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Probably not as evil as this guy

 

[Agent11]

Too many innocent people on jail and death row for me to support any of the above mentioned express line executions.

I cannot understand this logic.

What does it say about our society that we think it is more humane to lock an innocent person in a cage with the scum of the earth for life rather than kill them humanely?

They have already been found guilty of a heinous crime, their life is destroyed, and their freedom stolen. It would be more humane to end their suffering.

 

[ThinClient]

Probably not as evil as this guy

Holy fuck.

That guy was FREED?!

Yet more proof that life south of the Rio needs to be wiped off the map.

 

[ThinClient]

I cannot understand this logic.

What does it say about our society that we think it is more humane to lock an innocent person in a cage with the scum of the earth for life rather than kill them humanely?

Apparently money is more important than preventing the suffering of yet another human.

 

[lxskllr]

You may be misunderstanding me or just trying to be obtuse by watering down my point. What I want wouldn't apply to everyone on death row. What I'm trying to raise the point of is, what's the point of having someone who has done something terrible where there is incontrovertible evidence, eye witness accounts or video, whatever, sit on death row for years?

That's what it's supposed to be now, but it isn't. If you're killing someone, don't you want to be absolutely sure? People get exonerated all the time, and it's not through diligence by the courts or prosecutors. It's outsiders coming in, and going above and beyond to get their client off.

So, if we only kill the worst, with incontrovertible proof, what category does your theoretical guy belong in? You can't make up laws as you go. Jail for that guy but fuck that one. You don't have laws at all at that point. I'm not entirely opposed to getting rid of laws, but that should apply to everyone. Not some super organization that passes judgment on the masses. That's a dictatorship.

I have no problem jailing people for life. There aren't that many, and if the room is needed, there's plenty of drug guys that can be released to make room.

 

[davmat787]

and look at how the rate of exoneration skyrocket in the 90s and 2000s, (presumably with better evidence available).

So, basically, how many innocent people have we murdered before this?

DNA evidence and the technology advances in processing it most likely explain the increased rate of exoneration, surely in your line of work you know this anyway.

Also, www.innocenceproject.org . Once you become aware of the number of innocents put to death and later exonerated, or exonerated while in prison, it is impossible to logically support the death penalty. The .gov can't even build a freakin' website but lets have no problem with them putting citizens to death.

 

[Doppel]

Probably not as evil as this guy

Released are you fking kidding me.

Anyway I basically am giving full proxy argumentative rights to poofyhairyguy to represent my position in this matter.

It is good to see so many people against the death penalty. It is absolute horse shit. I wouldn't to hesitate to shoot dead somebody in self defense, but killing a prisoner who no longer poses a threat is utterly barbaric, and that doesn't even touch upon the innocents.

 

[KK]

Hey, that ain't Obama.

 

[desura]

Probably not as evil as this guy

He claimed that, by 1978, he had killed over 100 of them and that he had been caught by a native tribe, who were preparing to execute him, when an American missionary intervened and persuaded them to hand him over to the state police

stupid christians

 

[Howard]

Evil? Who knows. Insane? Yes.

 

[ThinClient]

He claimed that, by 1978, he had killed over 100 of them and that he had been caught by a native tribe, who were preparing to execute him, when an American missionary intervened and persuaded them to hand him over to the state police

stupid christians

What the actual shit. DOING GOD'S WORK, BROS.

 

[zinfamous]

You may be misunderstanding me or just trying to be obtuse by watering down my point. What I want wouldn't apply to everyone on death row. What I'm trying to raise the point of is, what's the point of having someone who has done something terrible where there is incontrovertible evidence, eye witness accounts or video, whatever, sit on death row for years?

Yeah, I think there is little point to that--but in my view, they wouldn't be sitting on death row for years, because death row wouldn't exist.

It's a completely untenable system because it invariably leads to state-sanctioned murder of innocent people. We know it has done that, and we know it will continue to do that.

They would be sitting in prison for life...which would actually be more efficient than what we have now. Death row is expensive because it has to be--one can't argue that we need to "make it cheaper," because that process is what allows us to exonerate the innocent. Imagine how many of those, sitting there 3 or 10 years even, would have been killed needlessly?

There is simply no way to improve that system without accepting that you are condemning innocent people, in greater numbers than we ever have.

I can't accept that system.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Once you become aware of the number of innocents put to death and later exonerated, or exonerated while in prison, it is impossible to logically support the death penalty.

Exactly. DNA evidence exonerated hundreds of people, some still in death row and some already dead. Who knows what technology will come in the next 30 years to help solve crimes? If everyone is serving life in prison, maybe some can still be exonerated while they are alive. You can't undo death.

So to recap the death penalty is: A. A poor deterrent B. More expensive with no way to change that and C. Robs innocent people of a chance of exoneration

 

[Agent11]

Why not make prosecutors meet a standard of evidence in order to seek the death penalty as well as expedite executions?

Would lower or eliminate the number of innocents, many of which were railroaded on circumstantial evidence.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Why not make prosecutors meet a standard of evidence in order to seek the death penalty as well as expedite executions?

Would lower or eliminate the number of innocents, many of which were railroaded on circumstantial evidence.

We have a high standard set by the Supreme Court of when the death penalty applies. The problem is a thorough process is the opposite of a fast process. Oh and the fact that no process can fix human behavior, like the fact minorities are much more likely to get the death penalty.

The system can only be fixed if humans can be, and then we won't need the system.

 

[Braznor]

They executed a mentally ill man.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I cannot understand this logic.

What does it say about our society that we think it is more humane to lock an innocent person in a cage with the scum of the earth for life rather than kill them humanely?

They have already been found guilty of a heinous crime, their life is destroyed, and their freedom stolen. It would be more humane to end their suffering.

in your system, you'd likely be an easy candidate for execution, given you lack basic human empathy and are likely prone to be a serial killer, let's just kill you off to be safe