Family participation in the death penalty

[suncowiam]

That's a fair assessment to suggest that life in prison is better than a death sentence. I'll agree with that.

However, like I said before, there are cases that can be 100% true. Some cases are based on circumstantial evidence which places conviction on a probability. Those cases that are 100 percent can be allowed maximum punishment including capital punishment.

I'll just add an example of cases that can be 100% true.

There is no doubt who the shooter in the parkland massacre was and what was done. I don't need to mention names.

We can safely convict him and punish him to the extent of the law.

 

[Shad]

That's a fair assessment to suggest that life in prison is better than a death sentence. I'll agree with that. However, like I said before, there are cases that can be 100% true. Some cases are based on circumstantial evidence which places conviction on a probability. Those cases that are 100 percent can be allowed maximum punishment including capital punishment.

I agree when evidence is overwhelming death can be a sentence. I favour the death penalty for multiple homicides be it in a short time or over time line serial killers.

 

[suncowiam]

I agree when evidence is overwhelming death can be a sentence. I favour the death penalty for multiple homicides be it in a short time or over time line serial killers.

Then I'm in agreement but do note that this is a shared opinion.

 

[suncowiam]

That's pretty dismissive from someone who goes on to say that some things are irrefutable.

If we knew which cases were irrefutable there'd be no false conviction, no false imprisonment, no false execution.

Yeah, let me bring up an example of an irrefutable case.

The parkland massacre. Do you agree with me that case was irrefutable concerning who did it and what was done?

Some evidence are irrefutable.

And I wasn't being dismissive. If you took it that way then that's your perception. I acknowledged that what was presented was an opinion and you are entitled to it. So in essence, I accepted your opinion. But to suggest any of it to be objective is a well, a stretch. If you think any of your presentation was objective, then please help prove it.

 

[Curious George]

The criminal system is concerned about a/the victim at least as said victim is one of a crime. No victim means a lot of crimes do not exist. In trials the victim is constantly referenced.

I was referring to the U.S. system, I sgould have specified. Criminal trials are concerned with the alleged offender not the victim. That victims are referenced does not mean that the trial is concerned with the victim.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yeah, let me bring up an example of an irrefutable case.

The parkland massacre. Do you agree with me that case was irrefutable concerning who did it and what was done?

Some evidence are irrefutable.

And I wasn't being dismissive. If you took it that way then that's your perception. I acknowledged that what was presented was an opinion and you are entitled to it. So in essence, I accepted your opinion. But to suggest any of it to be objective is a well, a stretch. If you think any of your presentation was objective, then please help prove it.

I dont believe in cases which dont have a margin for error. Every time an execution happened they believed the evidence was irrefutable and every post death exoneration shows the hubris of that mentality.

Depends on what you mean by objective. My objection is calling clinical psychology subjective as a conveniance. Its not 'just an opinion' to say encouraging vengence in victims is emotionally unhealthy. It's the consensus of modern psychology. And while that certainly has a margin for error, so does every diagnosis, ever, in all of medicine.

 

[oldbadger]

In the case of a murder conviction and death sentence for a child rapist/murderer, should a family member have the option of pulling the switch or administrating the needle?

Switch or Needle?
Why bother with those?
To pretend that switches and needles are somehow a proper technique seems strange to me.
If you want relatives to kill the convict, just do what some Asian countries do, line up a machine gun which will unload its entire magazine in to the convict (victim) in a few seconds, and then in the USA the relatives can all hold the lanyard together. It could be a family reunion.

Special Safety Advice...... remember suitable ear protection, not for the convict (victim) but for everybody else.

 

[Revoltingest]

Switch or Needle?
Why bother with those?
To pretend that switches and needles are somehow a proper technique seems strange to me.
If you want relatives to kill the convict, just do what some Asian countries do, line up a machine gun which will unload its entire magazine in to the convict (victim) in a few seconds, and then in the USA the relatives can all hold the lanyard together. It could be a family reunion.

Special Safety Advice...... remember suitable ear protection, not for the convict (victim) but for everybody else.

No machine gun.
A rifleman taking a head shot is the quickest & most reliable method available.
Wanna put suspenders with that belt? Get 2 riflemen.

 

[suncowiam]

I dont believe in cases which dont have a margin for error. Every time an execution happened they believed the evidence was irrefutable and every post death exoneration shows the hubris of that mentality.

Depends on what you mean by objective. My objection is calling clinical psychology subjective as a conveniance. Its not 'just an opinion' to say encouraging vengence in victims is emotionally unhealthy. It's the consensus of modern psychology. And while that certainly has a margin for error, so does every diagnosis, ever, in all of medicine.

I gave you an example of what I believe is to be irrefutable. The parkland massacre. Do you agree or not?

Clinical psychology is not subjective per se but it's observations are still probabilities. So an observation made on, as an example, say 60 percent of the population should not be enforced on the entire population. So I believe what you said about psychological analysis of revenge, however, does that really suggest it can be enforced to everyone? Oh, and then here's the kicker with social science, the same theory can fall flat on it's face if the environment changes. Here's a study that suggests something else considering revenge.

Revenge Is Good for You! Part 1

Just like economies are based are various dynamic factors, so is psychology. One just cant suggest that every situation will be the same with the same results.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I gave you an example of what I believe is to be irrefutable. The parkland massacre. Do you agree or not?

Clinical psychology is not subjective per se but it's observations are still probabilities. So an observation made on, as an example, say 60 percent of the population should not be enforced on the entire population. So I believe what you said about psychological analysis of revenge, however, does that really suggest it can be enforced to everyone? Oh, and then here's the kicker with social science, the same theory can fall flat on it's face if the environment changes. Here's a study that suggests something else considering revenge.

Revenge Is Good for You! Part 1

Just like economies are based are various dynamic factors, so is psychology. One just cant suggest that every situation will be the same with the same results.

As I said, no. I dont think any case, no matter how open and shut it seems, should be seen as irrefutable. It sets a dangerous precedent. And I'm completely against death penalty, in any case, for numerous reasons. But, as related to the OP, I'm especially against mixing judicial decisions and hyper emotional drives for vengence.

That study is talking about revenge fantasies, fiction writing as a way of getting catharsis and blowing off steam. Not indulging in actual revenge harms against other people. Much less actively killing people who have harmed you.
There is a significant difference between the feeling of wanting to do something and actually doing it.
Here's a bunch more.
The Power of Forgiveness: Why Revenge Doesn't Work
Five Biggest Problems With Revenge and Their Best Remedies | Psychology Today
From Wanting Revenge to Healing, to Overcoming Your Mental Illness
Why is it so easy to hold a grudge?

 

[BSM1]

Switch or Needle?
Why bother with those?
To pretend that switches and needles are somehow a proper technique seems strange to me.
If you want relatives to kill the convict, just do what some Asian countries do, line up a machine gun which will unload its entire magazine in to the convict (victim) in a few seconds, and then in the USA the relatives can all hold the lanyard together. It could be a family reunion.

Special Safety Advice...... remember suitable ear protection, not for the convict (victim) but for everybody else.

No machine gun.
A rifleman taking a head shot is the quickest & most reliable method available.
Wanna put suspenders with that belt? Get 2 riflemen.

This would be my preferred method of execution. If there ever came a time that I should be condemned to death, then I would want to face my executioner.

 

[Revoltingest]

This would be my preferred method of execution. If there ever came a time that I should be condemned to death, then I would want to face my executioner.

No kidding.
A high power rifle bullet to the head by a skilled marksman at close range.
The only better way to die would be from extreme wealth.

 

[BSM1]

No kidding.
A high power rifle bullet to the head by a skilled marksman at close range.
The only better way to die would be from extreme wealth.

Right now it seems I'm immune to both....

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yeah, let me bring up an example of an irrefutable case.

The parkland massacre. Do you agree with me that case was irrefutable concerning who did it and what was done?

Concerning who did it and what was done? pretty close to irrefutable. Taking all mitigating factors into account? Very much not.

Further, the problem becomes "the line" again. Who decides? So we agree that the Parkland case is "100% irrefutable". What's the difference between that one and a "99%" case? Who decides? What guarantees are there that the mechanism that decides "well this is obviously a 100% case", doesn't say so for a 99% case, and after that, a 90% case? Or a 60% case?

For myself, I don't think we need to be that desperate to kill people that we need to take the risk. I'd rather let any number of guilty men go free rather than punish an innocent.

 

[suncowiam]

Concerning who did it and what was done? pretty close to irrefutable. Taking all mitigating factors into account? Very much not.

Further, the problem becomes "the line" again. Who decides? So we agree that the Parkland case is "100% irrefutable". What's the difference between that one and a "99%" case? Who decides? What guarantees are there that the mechanism that decides "well this is obviously a 100% case", doesn't say so for a 99% case, and after that, a 90% case? Or a 60% case?

For myself, I don't think we need to be that desperate to kill people that we need to take the risk. I'd rather let any number of guilty men go free rather than punish an innocent.

No one is being desperate to kill people. It is actually quite a distinguished qualification before we condemn someone to death. We have to convict a person of a capital crime to a 100%, at least to my stipulation. Once we can irrefutably do that, then I don't see that as desperation but a very thorough judicial process ensuring justice has been done.

Concerning any case, the question remains if there is reasonable doubt. That basically entails a verdict of 100% or less. Anything less regardless of a quantified value places the case into a questionable status. That is the logic. So cases that are irrefutable like the Parkland case, we can continue with punishment allowed to us with the extent of the law. If it's not irrefutable, then I would agree to continue with a different course of determination of punishment that offers a chance to redeem the case.

 

[suncowiam]

As I said, no. I dont think any case, no matter how open and shut it seems, should be seen as irrefutable. It sets a dangerous precedent. And I'm completely against death penalty, in any case, for numerous reasons. But, as related to the OP, I'm especially against mixing judicial decisions and hyper emotional drives for vengence.

That study is talking about revenge fantasies, fiction writing as a way of getting catharsis and blowing off steam. Not indulging in actual revenge harms against other people. Much less actively killing people who have harmed you.
There is a significant difference between the feeling of wanting to do something and actually doing it.
Here's a bunch more.
The Power of Forgiveness: Why Revenge Doesn't Work
Five Biggest Problems With Revenge and Their Best Remedies | Psychology Today
From Wanting Revenge to Healing, to Overcoming Your Mental Illness
Why is it so easy to hold a grudge?

Let me just stop you from going further and just focus on your assertion that any case should not be deemed as irrefutable.

I used the Parkland massacre as an example to highlight a case that by all intent, should be irrefutable. There are hundreds of eye-witnesses, all of which will basically describe the same story. There are video cameras placed around the school and from on-duty police officers, which will provide evidence to collaborate the same story. Plus, the shooter was caught with the murder weapon. Forensic evidence will place the bullets gathered from the victims to the gun involved. Not to mention gun powder residue from the perpetrator to the gun both collaborating the same story. Uhm, do you really want to continue to suggest that a case like this should be deemed non-irrefutable?

If you want to suggest a dangerous precedent, then consider what your logic would entail in suggesting that we cannot convict criminals irrefutably to the crimes they have done. That would hurt society by not removing the same individuals from public. Thus also not providing closure to the friends and families of the victims, not to mention the surround communities.

I just want to focus on this one subject, so please do not jump to any further subjects. Do you still believe that all cases would be deemed non irrefutable?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No one is being desperate to kill people. It is actually quite a distinguished qualification before we condemn someone to death. We have to convict a person of a capital crime to a 100%, at least to my stipulation. Once we can irrefutably do that, then I don't see that as desperation but a very thorough judicial process ensuring justice has been done.

Concerning any case, the question remains if there is reasonable doubt. That basically entails a verdict of 100% or less. Anything less regardless of a quantified value places the case into a questionable status. That is the logic. So cases that are irrefutable like the Parkland case, we can continue with punishment allowed to us with the extent of the law. If it's not irrefutable, then I would agree to continue with a different course of determination of punishment that offers a chance to redeem the case.

Well I don't believe we're at or anywhere near the 100% level of certainty. Hence my objection.

 

[Watchmen]

In the case of a murder conviction and death sentence for a child rapist/murderer, should a family member have the option of pulling the switch or administrating the needle?

No. It’s a state action. Not a family action.

 

[oldbadger]

No machine gun.
A rifleman taking a head shot is the quickest & most reliable method available.
Wanna put suspenders with that belt? Get 2 riflemen.

But elderly Mrs Kowalski might want to take part in the execution of her husband's murderer.

A rifle would just knock her over and bust her collar-bone.

That's no good. How about an enormous mouse trap with string attachment for her?

 

[oldbadger]

This would be my preferred method of execution. If there ever came a time that I should be condemned to death, then I would want to face my executioner.

If I was asked to choose my preferred method of death, I think I might opt for death by liver destruction, and please could I be served with two bottles of bourbon each day until that time might come. I would look each deliverer in the eye, each morning.