The death penalty

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I did read your post- I asked a different question, however I withdraw it. Pointless to proceed with it at this point.

It would not be ineffective deterrent if used quickly upon completion of the full course of the law.

Look- I am not all gung ho throwing parties when someone is executed. It's an unpleasant business- but I think if you start removing it completely you have a problem.

That post is my answer. I'm against it period, partly because you can't draw a line between "positive" and "maybe", so it's not worth the risk. As for quick completeion, that's just not an option. Sure, if there was some magic way that we could be 100% sure, and whisk someone off to the gas chamber, then that's one thing. But it's not possible, and too many times, the lengthy appeals process exhonerates wrongly convicted people who would have been killed had the process been quicker. It's an impossible thing to solve. Speed it up, and the likelihood of making a mistake increases. Slow it down and the point becomes moot. So now you're just killing for the gratification of the victims' families which brings me to my third point, that it doesn't even satisfy that need.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't care if you catch the guy in the act and thus can be sure that he murdered someone. Murdering him in return is not right. Taking a human life is God's province alone. No war, no self-defense, no retailiation makes it right. It may be necessary to do so (in the instance of self-defense, for example), but necessity doesn't make it right.

So, my personal stance is not based on innocent people being executed (though they are), or whether the death penalty is a deterrent (it's not), or whether victims' families feel no closure (they generally don't), or whether it's more expensive to execute someone than to support them for life in prison (it is), or whether the death penalty is unfairly applied to poor people and people of color (it is). It's based on the fact that, according to my personal moral values, it's absolutely, positively morally wrong.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

You and I are in total agreement, iSm.

So, do I win anything for "worst idea for a thread topic" ?

[innerSpaceman]

No, it's ok. Just because GC doesn't want to read this or Neph is getting a little hot under the collar, does not mean you shouldn't post provocative threads.

When starting the LoT, we considered not having a "political" forum at all, as the conversations tend to veer from cool swankness. In the end, however, we decided that we would certainly not make it a highlight of these boards, but to deny any discussion of the real world would also be less than fully swanky.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I have some issues with minors being executed; not because anything magically changes on the day they turn 18, but that is the legal standard we have set for ourselves, so yes, things do change on that day. If the prosecutors think they committed an adult crime, try them as an adult. If they don't meet the standards for that, then you try them as a juvenile. And I don't think it's proper to execute juveniles; then again, I don't think it's appropriate to release them at 21 either. "Ok, boys, you've spent time in jail, so now go play nice". Right.

Executing adults? Slightly different issue. If one is capable of understanding the rules of society, and you break them, yes, you are subject to dying if that's the rule. If you're not capable of understanding and following the rules, you need to be someplace where you are supervised. Who gets to decide? That gets sticky.

You're right that the death penalty has serious problems. It's not a proper deterrent, it is improperly applied, and it doesn't give closure to the families. But really, I think some crimes are so horrific that the person doesn't deserve to continue breathing.

I do agree that Texas plays fast and loose with the rules. Too quick to execute people.

I guess my answer is that I agree with the death penalty in some cases, but I think less than we currently have it.

[€uroMeinke]

I don't understand why people feel that beliefs have to be consistent - why can't I believe on thing in one situation and it's opposite in another? I hold many inconsistent beliefs - so?

[Name]

::shrug::

[scaeagles]

I have oft vacillated on the issue at hand. I used a big word, but now I'm not sure if I spelled it right, so I could look stupid right now. Oh, well.

I have never consider the act of killing to be equivalent to the act of murder. Murder involves lawlessness and typically malice. Killing in and of itself does not. As ISM pointed out, killing in self defense is often a necessity. There are many such examples, none of which are pleasant to think about, but many, many are necessary and justifyable.

That being said, I see the death penalty not as being lawless, though many disagree with the law. I disagree with a lot of laws. I do not think the death penalty in the current form is acceptable. I do not think, however, that we want to get into games of comparing what we do here in America to other countries, as there are things throughout the world that are not in line what what we do here. For example, I believe that the US is one of only 5 countries that permits abortion with basically no restrictions. Does this mean we should change this law because our views are out of line with most of the rest of the world? I would suspect most here would say no. What the rest of the world has to say about it sways me not.

Sadly, the justice system in America has gone the way of the Sophists in Greece, particularly in high profile cases. You couldn't pay me enough to follow (though not a death penalty case) the Michael Jackson trial. Didn't care to follow Scott Peterson or OJ, either.

I suppose that's a big, big way of saying that I am still not sure what I think about it. It would seem to me in particularly eggregious cases, such as will be the case with the recently apprehended BTK killer, it would be warranted and even desirable.

[Nephythys]

Iranian serial killer flogged, stabbed and hanged in public

Wed Mar 16, 9:28 AM ET Mideast - AFP



PAKDASHT, Iran (AFP) - An Iranian serial killer convicted of kidnapping and murdering 21 people, most of them little boys, was publicly flogged and hanged south of Tehran before thousands of spectators.

Mohammad Bijeh, branded "the vampire of the desert" in the Iranian press, was lashed 100 times, stabbed in the back by a furious brother of one victim before a blue nylon rope was placed around his neck by the mother of another murdered child.


The 22-year-old killer, who remained calm and kept silent throughout the punishment, was then hauled into the air by a crane to cries from the crowd of "make him twist".


"Dance and think of what you did to our kids," shouted one father, as Bijeh was throttled to death over several minutes. Hanging by a crane does not involve the neck being broken.


Few tears were shed during the hanging. Instead, the crowd vented its rage.


"Hit him harder, the b*stard," yelled Ali Khosravi, whose 10-year-old son Kayvan was killed and then burned by Bijeh.


Bijeh also reportedly ate the leg of his one of his victims just to see what it tasted like.


"This is the best day of my life. I would like to strangle him and burn him myself," added Khosravi as stood holding the hand of his eight-year-old daughter Sarah.

There's a deterrent.