More proof of immorality in the application of the death penalty

[BaliBabyDoc]

News and Disturber

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Gov. Mike Easley denied clemency Thursday for Elias Syriani, the Charlotte man condemned to death for the 1990 stabbing death of his wife.

The decision came despite pleas from the Syriani children, who had asked the governor and prosecutors to spare their father's life so they could forge a relationship with him and restore family memories that were severed by the killing.

"After careful review of the facts and circumstances of this crime and conviction, I find no convincing reason to grant clemency and overturn the unanimous jury verdict affirmed by the state and federal courts," Easley said in a statement.

Syriani, 67, was scheduled to die at 2 a.m. Friday by injection at Central Prison in Raleigh. The children - three daughters and a son, who witnessed the attack in the family car - began visiting their father at the prison Thursday morning.

I posted the entire article b/c it doesn't make sense to excerpt it.

Fundamentally, I am opposed to the death penalty. I think it's morally reprehensible for the "state" to endorse killing for any reason.

Obviously, it's an open and shut case about this guy's guilt. He brutally killed his wife. IIRC, stabbing her many times with a screwdriver while his pre-teen son watched in horror.

But I think this case exemplifies the moral depravity and poor logic in the death penalty.

Argument #1: Death penalty serves as a deterrent.
In a fit of rage, who exactly is going to stop and say to themselves, "hmm, this woman is the love of my life but I'm going to kill her . . . but wait . . . if I kill her I may get the death penalty."

Argument #2: Death penalty provides justice and closure for the family.
Unless of course the family was both victim and perpetrator. Obviously, this varies by case. Some relatives would vigorously endorse, "hang the bastard . . . where's the rope?" In this case, the three women and one man lost their mother when they were children. They shunned their father for 13 years for his crime. They then reconnected with him. Now the STATE is going to take their sole remaining parent . . . against their wills.

Argument #3: Death penalty provides justice for the victim as represented by the state.
I've never agreed with this one. No crime was committed against the state. It was committed against a person. But unless the state gives out passes to see Jesus, I'm not sure how justice gets delivered to the victim. Unless of course, the victim is vengeful. Then they can indeed have justice (well at least revenge) by criminals execution.

But this case also turns that one on its ear, since one must assume the victim's notion of justice CLEARLY means she would prefer her husband dead rather than enrich the lives of their children.

 

[techs]

It has been proven the death penalty is not a deterrent. It is vengeance.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: techs
It has been proven the death penalty is not a deterrent. It is vengeance.

:thumbsup:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: techs
It has been proven the death penalty is not a deterrent. It is vengeance.

Well, I certainly agree with you that the preponderence of evidence points in that direction. But my argument is a bit more nuanced. If we equate, justice for the victim=justice for the family, then wouldn't justice be served by commuting this guy's sentence to life in prison?

If the guy was a threat to the public, by all means lock him up for life.
If the guy has no remorse, by all means lock him up for life.

But unlike the "typical" death penalty case, it seems like the most injust thing to do is to execute this man against the expressed wishes of the people that have suffered the most due to his crime. Arguably, they are the only people that really suffered due to his crime.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: techs
It has been proven the death penalty is not a deterrent. It is vengeance.

It clears up space too!

 

[ntdz]

Your poll is a logical fallacy, specifically option G. Fix it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Your poll is a logical fallacy, specifically option G. Fix it.

It' a discussion about the death penalty . . . there's rarely anything that's logical about it.

Accordingly, people are free to pick whichever option fits their POV.

Option G reflects an impression held by many people. In fact, it's essentially required by Christians that want to cling to the justice argument for the death penalty.

Murder is an unambiguous moral wrong. It's actually on the list . . . you know of "Thou shall not . . ." Accordingly, they have to cling to various other passages of the Bible to justify killing (Deuteronomy "eye for an eye" . . . and other shyte like that). Obviously, if you buy into such proportionality theories then killing someone that killed someone else is OK. Despite being an intentional killing it doesn't count as murder. In fact, it can be considered as codified justice. Badda bing badda boom . . . you've got Option G.

Contribute something or move on, Chief.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But this case also turns that one on its ear, since one must assume the victim's notion of justice CLEARLY means she would prefer her husband dead rather than enrich the lives of their children.

Does having their murderous father around really enrich the children's lives?

 

[her209]

They (NC) shouldn't kill the man, but they shouldn't let him out either.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But this case also turns that one on its ear, since one must assume the victim's notion of justice CLEARLY means she would prefer her husband dead rather than enrich the lives of their children.

Does having their murderous father around really enrich the children's lives?

According to his daughter . . . yes.
According to his other daughter . . . yes.
According to his other daughter . . . yes.
According to the son that witnessed the murder . . . yes.

A single event does not define a person. If that was the case, George Bush would be President Cokehead Drunk.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But this case also turns that one on its ear, since one must assume the victim's notion of justice CLEARLY means she would prefer her husband dead rather than enrich the lives of their children.

Does having their murderous father around really enrich the children's lives?

According to his daughter . . . yes.
According to his other daughter . . . yes.
According to his other daughter . . . yes.
According to the son that witnessed the murder . . . yes.

A single event does not define a person. If that was the case, George Bush would be President Cokehead Drunk.

Actually a single event does define a person. A single crime of which one is convicted and sentenced defines you as a convict. Are you against any form of punishment? Does any murderer even belong behind bars much less executed?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But this case also turns that one on its ear, since one must assume the victim's notion of justice CLEARLY means she would prefer her husband dead rather than enrich the lives of their children.

Does having their murderous father around really enrich the children's lives?

According to his daughter . . . yes.
According to his other daughter . . . yes.
According to his other daughter . . . yes.
According to the son that witnessed the murder . . . yes.

A single event does not define a person. If that was the case, George Bush would be President Cokehead Drunk.

Actually a single event does define a person. A single crime of which one is convicted and sentenced defines you as a convict. Are you against any form of punishment? Does any murderer even belong behind bars much less executed?

Dude, read the friggin' thread. I seriously doubt anyone has even mentioned the word pardon. I'm just pointing out the moral weakness and warped logic of our justice system.

Fifteen years in the state pen for killing your spouse sounds about right to me. He's 67 and he has kids that want to keep him around. I say cut him lose b/c it seems the just thing to do. Plus, as a NC taxpayer I would prefer he move in with his kids or get a job instead of occupying space that's needed for real threats to society.

The state cannot return the mother to her children but it can return the father. What could possibly be more just?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude, read the friggin' thread. I seriously doubt anyone has even mentioned the word pardon. I'm just pointing out the moral weakness and warped logic of our justice system.

You haven't pointed out anything of the sort. Just because you say it's warped doesn't make it so. However from what I've seen of you in this forum, you consider yourself the foremost expert on every topic imaginable, therefore arguing with you is pointless.

Fifteen years in the state pen for killing your spouse sounds about right to me. He's 67 and he has kids that want to keep him around. I say cut him lose b/c it seems the just thing to do. Plus, as a NC taxpayer I would prefer he move in with his kids or get a job instead of occupying space that's needed for real threats to society.

Why is fifteen years right? What makes that the correct number? A gut feeling? How is that any less arbitrary than any other punishment meted out by the justice system? Because BaliBabyDoc thinks so?

The state cannot return the mother to her children but it can return the father. What could possibly be more just?

Forfeiture of life seems just to a lot of people. Should a person decide to take the life of another intentionally, what could be more just than taking theirs in return?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Move along . . . I'm sure there's a baby harp seal that needs to be clubbed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: techs
It has been proven the death penalty is not a deterrent. It is restitution.

Fixed.

 

[Vic]

What I find amusing about the anti-death penalty crowd is that they always neglect to bring up the only alternative for the convicted murderer, which is that he/she spend the remainder of his/her life in solitary confinement in a 6x9 cell. And they call themselves compassionate and pretend to have the moral high ground... :roll:

 

[tommywishbone]

I selected (A). FWIW, I was prosecuted under the California death penalty statute. The People of the State of California lost that one. The 648 in Quentin's North & East blocks will have to go it alone.

The death penalty is absurd. It cost 10's of millions and does nothing that 'life without' does not accomplish.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Move along . . . I'm sure there's a baby harp seal that needs to be clubbed.

Nice. Anybody who disagrees with you is a seal clubber. Typical of you and your elitism, BaliBabyDoc. I'll ignore your childish attack and continue.

Despite my arguing here, I'm against the death penalty myself, just not for the reasons that you are. I feel the average murder suspect lacks the resources to adequately defend themselves from the state, and there are probably quit a few innocent people sitting in prison for life or on death row. In open and shut cases like this one though, where the son witnessed the murder, I'm less inclined to argue against the death penalty.

However, your thread title is totally devoid of any basis in fact. You say that this is PROOF of immorality, yet I see no proof at all. Morality is subjective and there's no way to prove it. You can't prove something is immoral any more than you can prove that the Mona Lisa is a good painting.

As for the test for the death penalty not meeting any of your criteria, why does it need to? I do feel that for the most part the death penalty is used a vengeance tool by society. Murder is the most heinous of crimes, and people are going to react to it emotionally. Many people empathize with the friends and family of the victim and as such want revenge.

In this case your argument is that the friends and family don't seek revenge. Unfortunately for the family, they don't get to choose the punishment based on their desires. If we were to allow victims to choose a lighter punishment because of their lack of vengeance, should we also allow a victim who feels more vengeance to choose a greater punishment? There's a reason sentencing guidelines exist, it's for uniformity to avoid emotional decision making. And just like prison term guidelines, there are guidelines for when and how the death penalty is applicable as well.

 

[maddogchen]

I wonder which poll option the dead wife would have picked.

edit: here's a weird idea. We should all be encouraged to write in our wills that in the event that we get murdered, what we want to happen to the murderer. Death or Life in prison. And it would be the state's duty to carry it out. What you guys think?

 

[dmcowen674]

Every situation is different.

It seems there could be middle ground reached in this situation.

The man could be sent to the family that wants him under house arrest. He could even have a job as well.

This would relieve the cost of housing by taxpayers while at same time allowing the re-connection the family is requesting.

Justice is not always black & white.

This Country no longer knows the meaning of anything.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fundamentally, I am opposed to the death penalty. I think it's morally reprehensible for the "state" to endorse killing for any reason.

Just think of it as a very late-term abortion - you seem to be a huge fan of those.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fundamentally, I am opposed to the death penalty. I think it's morally reprehensible for the "state" to endorse killing for any reason.

Just think of it as a very late-term abortion - you seem to be a huge fan of those.

Sounds like you are against them. Why don't you consider this one as well. Maybe you would be fighting to save this man's life instead of opening up a beer and grabbing the popcorn.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fundamentally, I am opposed to the death penalty. I think it's morally reprehensible for the "state" to endorse killing for any reason.

Just think of it as a very late-term abortion - you seem to be a huge fan of those.

Sounds like you are against them. Why don't you consider this one as well. Maybe you would be fighting to save this man's life instead of opening up a beer and grabbing the popcorn.

To ease your troubled mind, let me go on the record with the following:
1) I don't drink beer - well, maybe once a year, but I haven't got much taste for any sort of alcohol, so I generally pass. I do like popcorn, however.
2) I'm opposed to the death penalty - didn't used to be, but for a variety of reasons I've changed my mind on that.

 

[Questionmark]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Argument #3: Death penalty provides justice for the victim as represented by the state.
I've never agreed with this one. No crime was committed against the state. It was committed against a person. But unless the state gives out passes to see Jesus, I'm not sure how justice gets delivered to the victim. Unless of course, the victim is vengeful. Then they can indeed have justice (well at least revenge) by criminals execution.

But this case also turns that one on its ear, since one must assume the victim's notion of justice CLEARLY means she would prefer her husband dead rather than enrich the lives of their children.

If the state is not going to administer justice on behalf of the victim, Who is? Its the governments job to keep the population in line with rules. If those rules are broken, the victim,especially in a MURDER case, is not responsible for retribution towards the criminal.

If the state doesn't have the right to take life, who said this guy had that right? I believe if you violate someone else's rights, the government is entitled to take your. In respects to the 'crime of passion', what murder do you know of that wasn't a 'crime of passion'? Even killing a clerk at a convienence store is for passion, passion for money, that is.

How does spending time with the man that brutally killed their mother enrich the lives of
their children? Where were the children for 13 years? What law said that the family of the victim determines the length of the punishment for convicted murders? I'm sure there are children whose fathers are on death row that would love to get their dad out of there. You can't just make exceptions to laws just because it tugs at your heart or makes a nice Hallmark card.

 

[zendari]

People can break out of jail.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fundamentally, I am opposed to the death penalty. I think it's morally reprehensible for the "state" to endorse killing for any reason.

Just think of it as a very late-term abortion - you seem to be a huge fan of those.

Sounds like you are against them. Why don't you consider this one as well. Maybe you would be fighting to save this man's life instead of opening up a beer and grabbing the popcorn.

Yup, because innocent fetus is the same as rapist/murdering scum.