Executions suspended in Florida and California

[Alcon]

A question to those who support the death penalty for the catharsis of seeing a murderer killed:

What is more important: your personal pleasure from seeing a life taken in punishment, or punishing someone in a way that is less pleasant and allows their release if they turn out to be innocent?

Feel free to attack me for false dichotomy.

[Alcon]

My personal pleasure in seeing justice served.  And I would prefer to use execution methods discarded over the past half-century.

That's disgusting.

Wouldn't you feel immense pleasure and satisfaction watching a man who butchered his mom, raped his baby sister, and then cut them into little pieces, and froze them in a freezer swinging from the gallows on a wire or being fried in an electric chair?  I would.

Pleasure is less important than seeing justice is served (which includes, if the man happens to be innocent, having room for his release) and not giving them the easy way out. 

My personal pleasure in seeing justice served.  And I would prefer to use execution methods discarded over the past half-century.

What, do you have some kind of torture fetish?

What, do you have some sort of attraction to convicted murderers?   

Oh, come on, you know what a load of crap that is.  Supporting life imprisonment instead of the death penalty means you have an "attraction to convicted murderers"?  How the hell does that work?

It's rather annoying when death penalty supporters claim that their position is the only anti-crime one, without explaining how life in prison is "easier."

[Alcon]

The death penalty is like Raid for murderers.  It kills them -- dead.  No need to worry about those cockroaches further after that.

The thing about the death penalty is that it's Raid for everyone who gets convicted, not just for murderers.  The main issue I have with it is the fact that you can't exactly go "oops, we screwed up" if you execute a guy and then find out he was innocent.  I think far too many conservatives simply take it as a given that convincted people are definitely guilty and never even consider the fact that a guy on death row might not have done what he was accused of.

If you have 100% conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, fine, but with any less strong proof, I would be very wary at using the death penalty.  If you're scared about a guy getting parole, then make it harder to get parole.  It's not a dichotomy between killing the person and setting him free.

Unless you have 100% conclusive proof beyond the shadow of a (reasonable) doubt, you aren't supposed to convict of murder in the first place.  There is no higher standard of guiltiness applied to the death penalty; only of heinousness.  There is no real way that a higher standard could be applied.

There have been documented cases where innocent people have been killed.  Radelet found that at least 23 innocent people were put to death since 1900; in addition, 119 people were released from Death Row since 1973.

I don't care about the catharsis that people get from seeing people put to death.  That's too many innocent lives.  Period.  Once one innocent person is put to death, the "let's see justice done" attitude that many here encourage goes from noble to potentially dangerous, in my mind.

Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't really feel "immense pleasure," Frodo.  Because killing that man would do nothing but end a virtually meaningless life.  It wouldn't bring back the dead.  It wouldn't have any meaning beyond basic gut instinct to see those we hate hurt.  And I can suspend my more animalistic tendencies in favour of what I know is right.

[Alcon]

Unless you have 100% conclusive proof beyond the shadow of a (reasonable) doubt

I didn't mean beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard for a usual conviction; I meant beyond virtually any doubt.

But how can we ask that a jury and judge distinguish between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "virtually any doubt"?  That's kind of a tall order.  Having a judge say that something is "beyond reasonable doubt" but NOT beyond "virtually any doubt" is kind of setting up for a reversal of conviction.  And, frankly, how much of a difference is there?

Would someone who had already extended to "beyond a reasonable doubt" have all that much trouble in virtually every case of extending it to "virtually any doubt"?  I can't really think of an instance where I wouldn't.

How can you be so sure that putting them to death would be the 'easy way out'?  I'm sure deep-down they rather fear being put to death would be a swifter way of sending them into the eternal torment of hell, as opposed to to spending the rest of their earthly lives rotting in a prison at taxpayer expense.  Neither is pleasant, but one is a lesser evil than the other.

With appeals, it costs the taxpayers more to send someone to death, if I recall correctly.

And how is 70 years in jail followed by forever in Hell any better than immediate forever in Hell?  Of course, this is kind of a moot point for those who may not believe in Heaven and Hell.  Some of us more agnostic folk might like to assure that they have their torture while the torture is hot, so to speak.

And again, what about the innocents?

I was being deliberately a jerk -surely you would have known that.

Sorry, that's why I was kicking around your ass a little - I thought that was a bit out of character for you. 

[Alcon]

But how can we ask that a jury and judge distinguish between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "virtually any doubt"?  That's kind of a tall order.  Having a judge say that something is "beyond reasonable doubt" but NOT beyond "virtually any doubt" is kind of setting up for a reversal of conviction.

Well, if it's beyond reasonable doubt but not beyond virtually any doubt, the guy gets a life sentence rather than death, simple as that.  I'm not suggesting you let the guy go free if you can't put him to death.

The picture I have in my mind is some nutcase who goes on a rampaging killing spree, admits to it, expresses pleasure in having done it, and says that he'd do it again if he had the chance.  I have no problem with killing someone like that.

I'd certainly have a lot more qualms there, although I still have a moral qualm with the state being sanctioned to kill as they see fit.

But certainly, that would address all the other issues.  But that's definitely not how the system is instituted right now.

[Alcon]

Hmmm. Interesting question. I guess I'm more for a punishment that will make 100% sure that evil criminals will never hurt anyone again. My intense dislike for rapists and child predators must be a holdover from my days as a conservative.

And...by the way...I don't want to go back to an old post that I've already replied to, but again, just because I don't like the death penalty doesn't mean my hatred for rapists and child predators is any less intense. 

[Alcon]

I'd like to see that study or article.

Gladly.

Well, why do we fear death?  We do all we can to prevent it, and to extend our lives as much as possible so as to forestall the inevitable.

And we don't fear being trapped the same way?  Death is only more frightening on one scale because it is immediate.  Personally, I would rather die than spend 70 years in isolation.  Who wouldn't?  Death is quicker.

For those of us that do believe in them, whether you believe in it or not is irrelevant -the fact of the matter is they exist for the believers and the non-believers alike.

Moving on, since you're arguing personal religious beliefs with no factual basis.

I support any measures necessary to weed out the guilty from the innocent, as would any other (mainstream) death penalty proponent.

That's a non-answer.  Either account for the 100+ people who have been wrongly killed, or admit that you have no solution.

[Alcon]

Main issue I have with life imprisonment right now is that criminals have access to many leisure activities, and even though they are separated from society, they are treated extremely well and many of them do have private interaction with other people.  For all the complaints of Amnesty International (other idiots, etc.), American prisoners have some of the best conditions in the world (you should see what the French prisoners get, for example; of course they don't stay in prison very long).

I would be fine with a system with no death penalty that made the murderers work in manual labor 15-16 hours a day with no leisure activities, on basic food and water and base sleeping conditions, with no interpersonal activity. (and probably a little torture too ). 

But that's not going to happen because of one major reason:  The USSC would probably rule it unconstitutional due to violation of the 8th Amendment "cruel and unusual punishment" provision.

So, the alternative is clearly better, first because talk and references to the death penalty in the Constitution are numerous (and are therefore unlikely to be viewed as immaterial), unless we get more Brennans or Marshalls on the court (egads!), and because death is never a nice thing for a prisoner.  I doubt it's a way out except for only the weirdest criminal minds and most of those people would have committed suicide at one point or another, anyway, so its no loss.

Again, you're working on the assumption that everyone subjected to the death penalty is innocent.  And you are ignoring the fact that most people who get the death penalty stay on Death Row for much of their lives.  But without that, we'd have fewer appeals, fewer opportunities to make sure justice was served and - as a result - more innocents killed.  Either way, the death penalty is going to end up costing more, whether it be money or innocent lives.

The 15-16 hours a day thing sounds fine; torture, not so much.  15-16 hours plus isolation with no leisure is enough to instill misery.  Not because I don't hate the guilty, mind you, but because of the potential for innocent.

[Alcon]

The system is pretty much effective. If we woory about exacuting the wrong guy then I think we should do more DNA tests to confirm the condemed person's guilt. 

Again, your argument is misplaced.  There is not a higher standard for conviction than for sentencing to death, and it would be almost impossible to make one.