another botched execution.

[methylatedghosts]

I share your sentiment, but when I read the article and think about it, that murderer killed not one, but two innocent people. I think those two victims were in different cases and time frames. If so, if he was executed earlier for the first murder, the result of dishes... I mean deaths, would have been one innocent and one murderer instead of two innocents. If I get to choose, I'd choose the former scenario. I don't think it is good to keep the murderer alive and give him an opportunity to murder a third innocent person (let alone the possibility of it being someone we love, God forbid) just like he had one with the second victim.

No, I don't like execution, but I think it has to be there as very last resort option.

Dunno, I could be wrong in my analysis. I just care for the innocent more than I do murderers. Any thoughts?

If you put the guy in prison after the first murder, you'd have the same result, only now there's just 1 dead person instead of 3.

To me, executing someone puts you at the same level as them. Even lower because while just as cold and calculated, you don't have the excuse of poor upbringing or mental health etc. What sane person thinks that sweeping a problem like murder under the rug via execution is going to prevent more crimes? At least, while they're alive and well in prison you have a chance to communicate with them, to figure out where we're going wrong in society to make people even imagine murder is a good idea. Kill them, and you lose another chance to solve the problem in society at large and prevent others from making the same mistakes

 

[Father Heathen]

To me, executing someone puts you at the same level as them.

While I do question the use of capital punishment for various reasons, I also find the sort of sentiment expressed by your statement to be completely assinine and nonsensical.

 

[Smart_Guy]

If you put the guy in prison after the first murder, you'd have the same result, only now there's just 1 dead person instead of 3.

To me, executing someone puts you at the same level as them. Even lower because while just as cold and calculated, you don't have the excuse of poor upbringing or mental health etc. What sane person thinks that sweeping a problem like murder under the rug via execution is going to prevent more crimes? At least, while they're alive and well in prison you have a chance to communicate with them, to figure out where we're going wrong in society to make people even imagine murder is a good idea. Kill them, and you lose another chance to solve the problem in society at large and prevent others from making the same mistakes

I wish it is as easy as that my friend, I really do.

But I don't get something, did they not put him in prison after the first murder? What if they did? It would mean that the second victim was killed even tho he was put in prison as you suggested, having the number of innocent victims still two. Or in a different scenario, do you perhaps mean imprison him for life? Does that not present him an opportunity to commit murder in prison or maybe runaway and commit another one? Escaped inmates are not unheard of.

Anyways, you and I live in peacefully. I dunno how it feels to lose someone we love to a brute murder or extreme rape case. I dunno how it feels knowing the convict is still alive with opportunities presented for him to repeat the same horror.

Dunno, I'm just thinking about it. It is not like I want people to be executed. Laws of execution were put in the first place as warnings to offenders and attempt to repel them, not to execute them for fun. Life is not perfect. I believe we must be flexible in judgements.

Last but not the least, we are only living peacefully in our homes posting these thoughts on our computers sitting in our comfortable seats. Laws are decided by governments with good knowledge about the surroundings all around the country. They could still be tyrants, but they are in position to know better than us in such matters. And honestly, out of experience, I believe USA cares about the welfare of its community., enough to not make such a decision rashly.

 

[methylatedghosts]

While I do question the use of capital punishment for various reasons, I also find the sort of sentiment expressed by your statement to be completely assinine and nonsensical.

why is that? To me, saying "I'll kill you for killing him", that eye-for-an-eye mentality is rather primitive, and does very little to solve the problem itself

 

[Smart_Guy]

why is that? To me, saying "I'll kill you for killing him", that eye-for-an-eye mentality is rather primitive, and does very little to solve the problem itself

Yes but the purpose behind the killing on the murderer's side is clearly worse than the that on the government's side!

The murderer kills for their own selfish motives but the government does it to prevent further murder cases.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I wish it is as easy as that my friend, I really do.

But I don't get something, did they not put him in prison after the first murder? What if they did? It would mean that the second victim was killed even tho he was put in prison as you suggested, having the number of innocent victims still two. Or in a different scenario, do you perhaps mean imprison him for life? Does that not present him an opportunity to commit murder in prison or maybe runaway and commit another one? Escaped inmates are not unheard of.

Releasing a man from prison who then goes on to murder another person is not a problem solved by execution either. That's a parole board issue mostly, and I'm not convinced that released prisoners are given adequate rehabilitation either. Prison escapes are also not solved by executing the escapee

Anyways, you and I live in peacefully. I dunno how it feels to lose someone we love to a brute murder or extreme rape case. I dunno how it feels knowing the convict is still alive with opportunities presented for him to repeat the same horror.

Dunno, I'm just thinking about it. It is not like I want people to be executed. Laws of execution were put in the first place as warnings to offenders and attempt to repel them, not to execute them for fun. Life is not perfect. I believe we must be flexible in judgements.

Last but not the least, we are only living peacefully in our homes posting these thoughts on our computers sitting in our comfortable seats. Laws are decided by governments with good knowledge about the surroundings all around the country. They could still be tyrants, but they are in position to know better than us in such matters. And honestly, out of experience, I believe USA cares about the welfare of its community., enough to not make such a decision rashly.

Thing is, I'm willing to bet that one of the last things on the mind of a person about to murder another is "I could get executed for this". A burglar is probably equally unlikely to be thinking about the possibilities of prison while in the act

 

[methylatedghosts]

Yes but the purpose behind the killing on the murderer's side is clearly worse than the that on the government's side!

The murderer kills for their own selfish motives but the government does it to prevent further murder cases.

Executing guy 1 won't prevent guy 2 from murdering someone. All it does is stop guy 1 from murdering - something also achievable by keeping him in prison and giving him greater access to rehab

 

[Smart_Guy]

Releasing a man from prison who then goes on to murder another person is not a problem solved by execution either. That's a parole board issue mostly, and I'm not convinced that released prisoners are given adequate rehabilitation either. Prison escapes are also not solved by executing the escapee

Not solved by execution, I agree, but definitely a spree stopped, at least for that specific murderer (a soft reminder; we are talking about murderers here). If at some point the released or escaped murderer's next victim happens to be someone we love (God forbid), who knows how would we feel then. That also leads back to my first argument of having two innocent victims + more, against only one victim and a possible serial murders stopped with the second dead being the murderer.

But if things do turn perfect, if we humans reach a way to stop murders and extreme rape crimes for good, I swear, I'd be the first to go with banning executions for good.

Thing is, I'm willing to bet that one of the last things on the mind of a person about to murder another is "I could get executed for this". A burglar is probably equally unlikely to be thinking about the possibilities of prison while in the act

Yes but how can we tell that for sure? You're a kind and peaceful person not a murderer to know how one could think. As I said, this life is not perfect. It is too big for you and me to think widely enough and cover all aspects about it.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Executing guy 1 won't prevent guy 2 from murdering someone. All it does is stop guy 1 from murdering - something also achievable by keeping him in prison and giving him greater access to rehab

What I meant was that no matter what, those who apply execution, are never ever close to the same bad and evil level of the murderer; the point I believe @Father Heathen was implying. The intentions the two have are most likely completely opposite to each other.

 

[methylatedghosts]

What I meant was that no matter what, those who apply execution, are never ever close to the same bad and evil level of the murderer; the point I believe @Father Heathen was implying. The intentions the two have are most likely completely opposite to each other.

They both are intending to kill a person - to end their existence, no? Only real difference is that one is doing it within the law.

 

[Smart_Guy]

They both are intending to kill a person - to end their existence, no? Only real difference is that one is doing it within the law.

Good thinking, but I honestly don't see (I'm not saying you're wrong) doing it within law is to simply "end an existence", specially if it is in a country that typically cares for its people like USA. Although it does end an existence, the purpose/intention is not so per se. It is because the law chose the welfare of the innocent over the murderer. Chose giving justice to the innocent instead of the murderer. I know both are humans with rights, but at some point there are priorities. The safety of the innocent is by all means prioritized over a not-so-certain rehab of murderers and/or extreme rapists. Risking the safety of the innocent who could just happen to be their when the murderer decides to kill them, I see is not worth it compared to rehabbing the murderer.

Murderers intentionally kill victims for their own lust and selfish deeds while the law doesn't.

I'm not really trying to convince you or any thing, I'm only sharing my views and opinion. I respect your views and opinion. I know you care for all people and don't want anyone to be hurt, but we cannot be too lenient nor too serious. We need to be in the middle, to have all options, but control them. This world is not perfect. It can be so beautiful to live yet so ugly.

 

[Father Heathen]

They both are intending to kill a person - to end their existence, no? Only real difference is that one is doing it within the law.

You're comparing the guilty criminal to the innocent victim as if their circumstances were the same. That's why it's assinine and nonsensical.

 

[methylatedghosts]

You're comparing the guilty criminal to the innocent victim as if their circumstances were the same. That's why it's assinine and nonsensical.

I don't think I said that at all. Or at least, not what I meant.

Whether you're using a bat or a needle, whether the law says you're allowed to or not, whether you're motivated by drugs, revenge, or warped sense of justice, you are killing a person - you are intending to end the existence of another human being - and that is never ok. To me, it's not a thing you can justify.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't think I said that at all. Or at least, not what I meant.

Whether you're using a bat or a needle, whether the law says you're allowed to or not, whether you're motivated by drugs, revenge, or warped sense of justice, you are killing a person - you are intending to end the existence of another human being - and that is never ok. To me, it's not a thing you can justify.

"That's how I feel" isn't a very persuasive argument.

 

[methylatedghosts]

"That's how I feel" isn't a very persuasive argument.

Oh, good I don't much like arguing ^_^

On a side note...

I don't feel that simply calling something asinine and nonsensical neither makes it so, nor is it much of ah argument either...,

 

[Pegg]

If you put the guy in prison after the first murder, you'd have the same result, only now there's just 1 dead person instead of 3.

To me, executing someone puts you at the same level as them. Even lower because while just as cold and calculated, you don't have the excuse of poor upbringing or mental health etc. What sane person thinks that sweeping a problem like murder under the rug via execution is going to prevent more crimes? At least, while they're alive and well in prison you have a chance to communicate with them, to figure out where we're going wrong in society to make people even imagine murder is a good idea. Kill them, and you lose another chance to solve the problem in society at large and prevent others from making the same mistakes

for justice to prevail, there must be a death penalty. Im sure if one of your family members was killed by the person, you'd feel differently.

We do exactly the same thing to animals who attack and kill humans. If the family dog turns vicious and attacks someone, we know it must be put down so that it doesnt hurt anyone else. A person is no different really, if they choose to kill someone, they are worse then animals.

 

[Skwim]

for justice to prevail, there must be a death penalty.

Because justice demands an eye for an eye. No exceptions, E V E R !

Matthew 5:39
. . . but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

We do exactly the same thing to animals who attack and kill humans. If the family dog turns vicious and attacks someone, we know it must be put down so that it doesnt hurt anyone else. A person is no different really, if they choose to kill someone, they are worse then animals.

And we're justified in killing humans for food because that's what we do to animals. A person is no different really, they have edible meat on them which is just as nutritiousness as the meat of other animals.

 

[methylatedghosts]

for justice to prevail, there must be a death penalty. Im sure if one of your family members was killed by the person, you'd feel differently.

We do exactly the same thing to animals who attack and kill humans. If the family dog turns vicious and attacks someone, we know it must be put down so that it doesnt hurt anyone else. A person is no different really, if they choose to kill someone, they are worse then animals.

Do you include the judge, jury and executioner in that last statement, or do you conveniently ignore them - the fact that we are also animals aside. I may be ignorant on the matter, but to my knowledge no other animal kills it's own kind for some perverted sense of "justice".

In my country, the last person to be executed was 1957. The murder rate increased for a time, but we're now at the lowest levels since 25 years ago.

An eye for an eye is not justice. It does NOTHING to solve the problem, and there is NO excuse for it. It doesn't even make sense, like the mother who strikes her child for striking another... "don't kill people, or we'll kill you". When all is said and done, you are ending the life of another human being, regardless of which side of the law you're on, and that kind of primitive "justice" is simply unjustifiable.

I notice people often bring up "what if it's someone you know who got murdered" while conveniently ignoring the fact that the murderer also has beloved friends and family. So I turn that on you. Can you confidently say you would support killing your husband or child if they killed someone else? Why should you have to suffer through that kind of grief as well as knowing they'd done it, and the only contact you could have with them is one hour per week, under the watchful eye of a man in uniform with a gun...?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Because justice demands an eye for an eye. No exceptions, E V E R !

Matthew 5:39
. . . but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Not sure about Christianity, but in Islam there are exceptions. Maybe turning the other cheek is part of those exceptions.

But that's another subject for another time

 

[methylatedghosts]

Would you volunteer to be the one to inject the man in the chair?

I'm sure it's easy to support executions when there's someone else to do the act for you.

Would you kill a man...?