WeAreTheKey

The Death Penalty. A highly controvertial topic.

I often feel that they use it too much and in the wrong instances. I do, however, believe it does have a place in society. This is why.

**Warning: The above linked article contains disturbing information**

okay, well i cant properly make any kind of educated commentary on this cause i couldnt even bring myself to read the second page...
I have always been conflicted with the death penalty.. I think in all honesty.. it seems that crimes against children to such an extent is probably one of the issues I would see as .. i dont know th eproper term.. I guess this extent of atrocity I find hard to see as something one could be rehabilitated into the general population as..murder on an adult..iffy, but still ..hard to believe.. but more likely..but to take an innocent child, defenseles being and treat it in such a horrific manner, and show.. no remose, admission, regret or own up in any manner.. that seems VERY hard to rehaibilitate.. very hard.. adn as COLD as it sound, why bother keeping some one cared for, for 80 years+ who will never see the light of the free wold, when they have robbed one of everything.. I REALIZE this is contradictory to well allot of what i may say feel think.. but i think there is a line that can be crossed inmy mind. a point of no return.. and it very much has to deal with the age of an induvidual, the act, the level of remore/understnding/ the victim themselves..(the helpless individual being a serious definign character)

So as of right now.. this is my view...though generally I am opposed to death sentancing..

I agree with you. There should be a very high threshold for Capital Punishment. But the rape, torture, and murder of a little girl is definitely within that threshold. I truly hope that before this man can "peacefully" be put to sleep by the government, he is "ended" in prison in the same fashion that he ended the life of that poor two-year old girl.

Sorry to be a splash of cold water on your guys' Kill-A-Thon Festival over here... but I disagree.

I don't see what the age of the victim has to do with anything, nor the 'horrible'-ness of the crime.
Obviously, the worse the crime, the more people in society may want to 'hurt' or 'seek revenge' on the perpetrator, and in a primal sense, killing them may seem the most 'natural' way to go about that.
But if we pause for a moment to really think about it.... what is the point?

One way to look at it is terms of gains (+) and losses (-) that society experiences. At the moment of any such horrendous crime, the world has already experienced multiple losses. The loss of life, the loss of innocence, the loss of comfort and happiness of the family, etc...
And no act afterwards will in any way reverse those losses and get them back. The best that can be done in terms of gains at that point is to start some fund or organization like some people do, something like "Emily's Fund" or something, which helps victim's families or donates to some charity or something.
No other action does any good whatsoever, and beyond them, anything is likely based on an emotional reaction alone which, while totally valid as an emotional response, should not apply to the legal or justice system, imo. Nor the medical field, or foreign policy, or legislature etc...
Our 'fury' simply should not apply to any of these areas.

Also, criminals such as these will be behind bars for the rest of their lives most likely, so they are no threat to society and have been cut off from the human experience of living in any real sense of the word. Life in prison is noriously shitty and seems a fitting punishment for someone of that wretched calibur. If we kill them, then what happens to their suffering, and their misery? It is erased! Death by death penalty isn't really painful these days, it's mostly lethal injection, aka, go to sleep and never wake up. So.... that is justice? That is punishment?
NO - that is escape. Would YOU rather face an ugly, sterile, rough life in a prison cell with no real joy or pleasure or life experiences.... or would you rather be put to sleep and not have to go through that?
I think most people would say "OPTION B!!" because it is truly more merciful as far as 'punishment' or 'justice' go.

Which leaves only the monetary argument of "why should we have to pay money to keep these monsters alive?" Which is really no argument at all, unless you really want to break down serious matters of life, death, and justice and weigh them against MONEY and what percentage of your taxes go where... that's fairly absurd, imo.

So I just can't see any valid reason for the death penalty, which you'll notice is called the death penalty, i.e. punishment.
But, especially if you don't believe in an afterlife, what kind of penalty is gently snuffing out their life? Especially versus a life in prison....?

It's just odd as well to say that certain crimes deserve death, but others don't, and it doesn't matter how much pain is caused, or how much death is even caused, but rather the age and/or sex of any of the victims.
Would killing a 20-year old deserve the death penalty? How about a 15-year old? A 10-year old? A 5-year old, but only if it's a girl?
I know it's a weird question, but where would we draw the line, and why?
Like if you kill someone who's just old enough, you're off the death hook.
It's all so abstractly based, because as far as I know, people don't get the death penalty for going on an arson spree and burning down 25 homes, as long as no one dies. But there is likely at least as much pain and suffering caused by that as from the painful murder of one child.

Basically, it seems pointless and self-contradictory to me. But that's just me. Whatchoo think?

You make an excellent argument, as usual, Transfixed. I do respectully disagree with certain points, however.

First, the circumstances of the crime are not only valid, but crucial, in determining the proper punishment of a criminal. It's not about reversing a horrible act, for no sane person actually believes a dead loved one comes back to life by killing their killer. It's about proper punishment and penalty for the criminal act. The criminal and the crime must surely be taken into account.

Second, the age of the victim and the nature of the crime can and do matter in determining sentencing (although obviously not the sex, I didn't mean to imply that). In this case, this adult was charged with the care and well-being of this helpless small child. Adults abusing their responsibilities as caretakers of children is the ultimate crime! And it's not like he took care to painlessly put her down in her sleep, but he ravagely raped and beat her to death. How can the manner and means of pain and suffering of the victim not be taken into account for punishment? A husband in the heat of passion blowing away a guy that's sleeping with his wife is different than the kind of crime in this story. Both deserve severe penalties, but only one deserves death.

Third, it seems to me that death is the ultimate penalty that people face in modern society (nothing cruel and unusual allowed). There is a reason that most murderers plead with judges and juries to receive a life sentence rather than a death sentence. As a general rule, humans reeeeeally don't want to die! People can still experience a life in prison, even happiness, and it is my view that some people simply forfeit their right to exist on this planet based on their actions. And to me the "line" should not that hard to determine.

Finally, as a side note, IMO, someone burning an entire neighborhood, or city, to the ground without death causes a miniscule fraction of the suffering as the loss of a single person, especially a child.

I totally agree that the punishment/sentence should be relative to the crime, I didn't mean to imply that the nature of a crime should have nothing to do with the sentencing, only that it shouldn't be relevant to the question of "should people be put to death".
Obviously I would say that stealing someone's pepsi from their fridge should not equal the penalty of robbing them blind whiel they're on vacation, for example.
But I don't think killing someone accomplishes anything, other than a false sense of satisfaction for the family of the victim. And again, there may be a difference between a cheating husband being killed and a young child being killed, but what exactly is that difference, why is it relevant, and where do we draw the line? At 12? When someone hits puberty does their death become less horrible?

One could even make the argument (for discussion's sake) that the death of a child is actually less tragic than the death of an adult, because an adult has more work, family, projects, networks etc that may rely on their existence, and their death may leave a gaping hole in multiple areas of existence, especially if the adult is themself a parent. If they are, their death is denying a child a parent for life, which is more damaging than the reverse, of denying a parent a child, which could theoretically be at least somewhat helped by....having another child.
I guess an awkward analogy would be like dumping out a cup of water when there's only a small amount at the bottom, versus dumping out a cup that's over 1/2 full. If that water represents "life experience building for decades towards creating a stable happy life for an entire family", then it's not too hard to see that being "dumped" as more tragic.

As far as a death v.s. burning down an entire neighborhood or city, I'm not so sure that the death is naturally more tragic. It's not simply "stuff" that gets burned up and can be replaced, like "oh no, my Michael Bolton cd's!!!", there are often lifetimes of sentimental things in people's homes that they have an extremely strong connection to, and I can see people being absolutely devastated by the loss of it. As well as some people's entire life works, their whole careers, family photos, historical heirlooms, becoming instantly homeless and likely financially ruined etc etc.... I know that none of these thigns individually are worth more than a human life, but taken altogether and spread over many many homes and many families.... this would equal a tremendous amount of pain and emotional suffering. Not saying a life is worth less than my stuff, but.... I would be destroyed terribly by losing all of my possessions, writings, artoworks, music, photos, videos etc.... I would never be the same and it would leave a huge hole in my life and heart.

Just saying....

Also, I think people in court try to avoid the death penalty because they haven't come to terms with what life in prison actually entails. They have no context for it. And many people attempt to commit suicide when they DO get to prison because they see it as a much nicer alternative to 50 years of non-existence, surrounded by other murderers & rapists. I think I'd do myself in faced with such a life.....but again, that's just me.

Yes, perhaps age shouldn't be the determining factor. The person who rapes and murders a 45 year-old person should be facing down death as well. And perhaps from a Utilitarian perspective of who is "worth" more, at the moment, to their community and society, an adult death removes more "value".

But a child has not had the opportunity to even become "valuable" to society. They are supposed to be protected and nurtured by adults so they have the opportunity to become "valuable". And adults have the ability to understand what is happening and potentially fight back. Young children are utterly helpless in the shadow of adults. They have absolutely no ability for defense against an attack.

Also, for most people, there is no stronger connection/love in the universe more powerful than a parent to their child. Therefore, the forced removal of that connection, especially by the brutal means of another person, is emotionally the most damaging crime that can be committed. Juries and judges certainly have, and should, take that into consideration. And I'm not sure why some small sense of satisfaction for justice for a parent who sees their child's rapist and murderer put to death would be 'false'.

As for the death vs "things" argument: While it would certainly suck if I lost everything I own, I could live happily without any of it. If I was faced with the choice of (A) Losing every possession I have in the world, or (B) Losing a human life, even someone I've never met (excepting, of course, murderers who deserve to die), I'd chuck all my stuff in a heartbeat. In fact, to save a single life, I'd chuck all YOUR stuff , and all the stuff of everyone I love in the world, to save one life. It's not even a hard decision. We'd all buy new stuff. Would I feel bad for doing it? Yes. Would I feel guilty? No.

All the stuff in the world doesn't add up to one life, IMO, excepting those lives that forfeit their humanity through brutal, murderous ways.

I didn't mean to weigh the 'value' of life by such a sterile scale of 'usefulness', but rather by the hole that is left in the world by their absence, and by the tragedy of a life's worth of work left unfinished. It's true that the level of tragedy is up against the fact that a child hasn't even had the opportunity to have life experiences, which is also tragic... to me, all in all, they equal out pretty evenly.

And I agree with this: "there is no stronger connection/love in the universe more powerful than a parent to their child. Therefore, the forced removal of that connection, especially by the brutal means of another person, is emotionally the most damaging crime that can be committed."
And considering that to be true, is it not more tragic for a child to lose their parent, than for a parent to lose their child? And is it therefore not more tragic for an adult to be killed than a child? At least sometimes?

I called the satisfaction of seeing a murderer put to death "false" because as I said, it is not much of a real punishment, and the 'satisfaction' stems from some psychological association people have with killing someone who has done horrible things, like if they could beat them to death painfully, that may surely be satisfying.....but lethal injection is pretty far removed from that type of death, and again, once they're dead, there's no more pain, suffering, or torment that they'll EVER have to deal with.
It's based on a semi-imaginary sense of retribution, that we're "hurting" them back for their crimes.....but we're really not.

I had a feeling you'd say that "stuff" is worth less than life, and I attempted to head you off at the pass by agreeing with you, which I do. But how do we judge the terrible-ness of a crime if not by the pain and suffering that it causes? And how can we be certain that destroying 25, 50 or 100 people's homes and everything in them is less tragic than one person's life? It may seem like it's obviously less tragic.....but I'm not so sure. You may not have any particular attachment to the things in your home, but many people do, and their pets, their life's works, and the many deep emotional connections people can have with certain things equal A LOT of pain when they're erased.
SO - let's say murder is a 10 on a scale of tragedy. And burning down someone's home is a 7.
How many 7's does it take before we cannot reasonably describe the situation as more tragic than the loss of one life?
I think the "appropriate" answer is that life is obviously worth more.
But I think the "honest" answer isn't quite so clear.

I don't mean to imply that you're wrong at all, just saying how I see it.

OKay.. I think I am a convert...


While on a basic emotioonal level..fear, anger, injustice caused need to react.. I still feel not fully confident that the death penalty is not a bad idea when dealing with those who prey on innocent in a viscious and unremorseful manner... The thought spent online and in person discussing this topichas allowed somewhat the initial visceral reaction to reading said article that sparked the discussion to dissapate eonough for less angry and discusted thoughts..

I think ONE of my reasonings for siding on the Death side is because of my instinctual protective parental primalistic ures to keep our children safe, and with so many childmolesters, rapiasts, murderers falling through the cracks of the legal system, and rarely being reformed into functional beings.. it is hard to feel comfort in the Life sentance.. Its hard to have any real confidence at times in the legal system to protect the "herd" from the cannibals..And so when some one so crudly turns not just on a fellow human but the weakest, most precious of us all (especially when it is theactual parents of said victim) it naturally seemsthat the predator has some major flaw, that is self destructive to the species.. and is in a way a danger.. instinctivly people without the selfdestruct flaw react by circling the wagons to keep the herd safer..
While it isnt unnatural to react this way, generally animals would react in the same manner-(obviously not always, ie, male lion taking over pride eating babies..is apparently acceptible..) But the real thing is we are different from our animal brethren..and we are at least on an unspoken level commited to a higher level of evolution.. and we see things I guess dualistically.. there is the life of the human animal and the life of the conscious animal..

We all despite our variety in theology, philosophy, and anti.. all beleive in one way or another life ending is THE END. It is the end.. the after life is debatable, but the biological life..it's end is very clear. and no matter how far removed from natural mindset of a healthy human one is, even those who crave death fear death. Which is why people use Death penalty as a "punishment" it si part of our history, our culture, and unfortunatly to humans, they feel that death at times is the only way they can truly control another human.. fear of death..

But what are the side effects of living in a death soaked fear soaked society?

Look around you, violence all time high, and growing more and more preverse... almost as a junkie trying to get to the next plateau of highness..

If we accept violence as an acceptible form of retribution or how to bring justice to the unjustified.. Doesnt that- isnt that how we got to the level we have escalated to? If it is acceptible to kill "bad guys" children grow up pretending to kill bad guys, playing killing.. and like all young animals, children as well elarn through play, play becomes the template for the real world.. if our chilren grow up seeing violence adn death as a way of handling the "bad people" it is that much easier for the "bad" people to become the "bad" problems..

If we say it is okay for us to kill these people but not these people are we not just being hypocrites? For we all have "bad" parts, thoughts, make mistakes(granted I am NOT iN ANY WAY GIVING THIS BEhAVIOR a fre pass, or even an excuse) we are a product of our environment, our experiences/lack there of, our biology and our choices.. but
when it comes down to it all..

We are all human.

Even though a part of my brain is screaming "but people like that are evil
!!!!""
I know, I KNOW, that evil is just a biproduct of my programming, a part of what i have been fed by my environment.. He is not evil-his actions are HORRENDOUS- but they are the actions of a man who is lacking the proper constructs for adequate survival.
Life in prison, will protect the functional parts of society from him and if properly mantained prison will force him to face everything that he has done thought and felt in his life, I think mandatory psychotherapy, and discussion should be a part ofthe prison system.. The family will never be able to have their daughter back, never be able to undo the tradgedy, but they wouldnt be able to have that satisfaction even if they had his head on a stake, SUre the moment of vengance might be momentarily therapeutic, but that is the same kind of behavior that we DONT want tofeed, His life being taken away from him, and being forced to deal with it really is far worse than killing him off, and sweeping his existence under the rug.. Plus I hear prison doesnt think to kindly of those who prey on children..So it isnt like he would be havign the time of his life..He might be praying for death...and not given it.. That sounds more like hell to me than death itself..

SO yeah death rally retracted, gonna go with life in prison.. with mandatory psychotherapy and no chance of release parole or anything of that manner..(not for all cases obviously..)

OH and on a side note.. the death penalty is really bogus anyways.. they get sentanced then wait around in prison for "x" amount of years before they are actually executed... if they were really serious about these penalties.. why not just do it..

it seems to me the death penalty is more so a fear tactic rather than an actual solution..or diversion.. (cause if youre suicidal.. whats the death penalty but a release..) just a side thought...