The prisons are full

Remove all ads!

By the nature of their position, the words of a high ranking religious authority cannot be seperated from theology. When you talk about the Pope, he is the highest mortal authority to the Catholic faith.

I would shed no tears for the rapist that dies for his crime, whether the state opts for the death penalty or the inmates eliminate him. I would agree that a lengthy incarceration should be appropriate.

No violence involved, then restitution is optimal for a first offence, like fines, repayment of the victim, community service. Incarceration only for severe repeat offenders. If Violence is used, then it falls under assault...

Incarceration and removal of Driving priveleges is about all we can do. Calling it "Reckless Endangerment" might not be inappropriate...

If it's accidental or negligent, then it's a civil matter. If the driver is drunk, then it's drunk driving. If it's deliberate, it's either Assault or attempted murder, and should be dealt with as such.

Fix or replace what you damaged (restitution), and likely fines and community service would work.

That's assault (unless she drowns, then it's murder). Likely incarceration...

I don't think it is a crime, but if the attempt fails, then get them some help!

The option should be available, but consider the circumstances in each case. The Death penalty may not be that common on lesser charges. A Judge would need to rule on what degree of clemency should be applied.

For offenses where such would be impractical, then set a range of time that they should be locked away. Much like now. Restitution only applies to the economic damage, but other harm caused by theft, graffiti or willful damage could be addressed by jail time.

That's exactly the situation. They had a gang of them that wanted to kill the bugger, but the guard stood his ground. I find the concept of solitary confinement to be another factor that further crowds the prisons.

Which begs the question: Why should the state care?

I really should agree, but if he didn't care about the harm he inflicted on those he molested, where do we draw that line on how much we care about him?

 

WHich brings about the question, why not take an eye for an eye in all those situations? When someone pushes an old lady into a river, why not simply push them back into the river? Or a non-leathal stabbing - why not just stab them in an equal manner?

Or to give you another, slightly more far fetched example. A person has kidnapped numerous young people, not for monetary gains, but for a... pleasure, I guess. He cuts them up slowly, peice by piece, right in front of thier own eyes, until they finally drop dead. Now, if we take an eye for an eye, exactly the same punishment should happen to him - cut up, peice by peice, until he dies. A torturous punishment, I'm sure you'll agree. Should an eye for an eye apply here?

 

Actually Gnarf, I was trying to explain to you that the situations are not identical and therefore cannot be compared as such. This is what we call logic, not a 'stupid idea'.

Did they know for certain that the murder was going to take place? I struggle to see how that is possible- we cannot predict the future with absolute assurance of being correct. Regardless, the problem was with the protection system- it should be that which is examined.

As I have tried to explain to you, you can only infer that the state preferred the life of person A if they knew beforehand that person B would be murdered. They, obviously, cannot know this.

Oh, and the conscending tone is not really necessary.

If you use that to support capital punishment, then you have to take back your more recent comments like:

because natural law as quoted requires 'an equal and opposite reaction'. You cannot only apply the law in situations where you like the outcome. We are back to raping rapists.

Besides, if you wish to use natural law, perhaps you would like to prove its existence?

Then how about imprisoning and raping them? Both punishment and protection.

I said that they were not enough to support an argument on their own, not that they were irrelevant.

Perhaps because they are still human?

As an aside, no, it doesn't beg the question at all.

 

Because then the offender is free to offend again. This puts innocent civilians at risk again. Sure you can do those things but still lock them up afterwards for a set period of time.

Theoretically, it should, but the 8th Ammendment would prevent this in the US. Most nations that think they're better than everyone else have similar procedures in place within their constitution to takt that option away from the courts. We have to settle for the electric chair, gas ghamber or lethal injection in these cases.

You're right. The Killer broke the law to kill an innocent civilian. His fate should be worse than what the victim got because of the illegal nature and undo suffering caused by the crime. Again, the 8th ammendment or similar law in other nations would limit what we can legally do to this scum bag.

The person seeking the protection seemed to think so, was not protected adequately, and died. Should a murderer live because the state is lazy? If so, then the state could save a lot of money on law enforcement because the laws don't matter any more...

Equal and opposite yes, but excuse my lack of sympathy for a dead rapist. Truthfully, capital punishment is too good for a rapist, but again, legal policies like the 8th ammendment mean that incarceration is all that can be done.

No complaints here, but try getting that past the people that are too squeemish to execute a horrible murderer...

Would they be enough to rebutt the theological comments from another religion?

So was the victim. Did they care?

 

So torture is an alright punishment? You have a lot of hatred in you, Gnarf, especially for someone who claims to follow the teaches of Jesus Christ.

Can't this be flipped on its tail and say "Should the murderer die simply because the state is lazy?"

But anyway, back to my line of thought from before. So I'm driving in my car, over the speed limit. The road is slippery and I lose control. The car skids into someone on the side of the road, instantly killing them. With an eye-for-an-eye reasoning, I killed someone, so this should mean death for me. Do you agree?

 

Anyway, I just heard that nearly 40% of the US inmates are imprisoned for non-violent crimes, mostly related to the "War on Drugs." If that's true, there's a darn good way to empty many of the prisons. If many of the softer crimes were handled by fines or community service (I'd suspect more than a few cases are for small-scale possession of soft drugs) this should solve the problem fairly well.

And if you guys insist on discussing death penalty, can someone answer something for me? On one of the graphics provided, I noticed that executions per year increased several times between the 1960's and the 1990's. Is there a particular explanation of why this happened?

 

Frustration, not hatred. I feel no sympathy for someone who faces great pain for inflicting great pain on another. I know that the 8th ammendment is important, but this is one case where the 8th ammendment doesn't apply. Theoretically, a criminal should suffer equivalent to the pain he inflicts. In most cases, this is not practical or constitutional. Therefore killing a murderer is not hatred, but justice. keeping him alive only mocks the victim and prolongs the suffering of the victim's family and friends.

After all the things you pointed out about how much extra work is involved in executing a murderer, I see not seeking the death penalty as laziness. Further, the murderer is dying because he Murdered and innocent citizen, not because the state is lazy.

I am using that for deliberate killing. What you describe is an accident. Yes, there would be incarceration and removal of driving priveleges, but you would likely live with the consequences for the rest of your life.

That has been mentioned here, but it is not as controversial as the death penalty, so it gets a few "Yeah, maybe they should..." type comments and is lost in the shuffle.

I don't know but that's a good start...

 

The vast majority of murders or manslaughters are resolved in this way. The system, more or less, works, and while the victims of the crime might not be fully satisfied, neither are they mocked: the perpetrator is punished. While they may like it to be more severely, justice should also consider the needs of everyone involved (which also involves society and other groups that may be impacted): this is what makes it different from vengeance. I would admit your point if being in jail was such a pleasant experience, but I rather doubt it is. It's not that jail is an ineffective deterrent, it's that many people don't think they'll end in jail or at the time don't have a better option. Several centuries ago, capital punishment was much more common - and conditions in jails were much worse than today. Crime still existed, and arguably no less than today (actually, it would be interesting to see the crime rate and occurence of heavy crimes in long historical periods).

On this issue: does the concept of blood money (I believe that is the term for a compensation paid by the murderer or his family to the family of the deceased) exist in the current US jurisprudence?

More is the pity, because the thread was about the prisons being overcrowded. In that case, whether they should contain, say, 45% of their inhabitants is more relevant than whether they should contain .002 . Better to make a new thread than to hijack an old one, imo.

A step can be a good start only if it's in the right direction.

 

Okay, I can accept that. However, that means that an eye for an eye only applies in select cases. Why does it not apply here? What is special about this case? If you take a look at the Code of Hammurabi, and other historic examples of eye for an eye philosophies, you'll often see that there is no difference between manslaughter and murder - you killed so you get killed. However, you disagree with this. Why?

 

The State complacently allows an innocent citizen to die at the hands of a murderer. the State then keeps them alive, provides free food and shelter at a standard of living better than that of many elderly, poor or disabled citizens. It is an insult to the victim and his family.

Again, you're valuing the killer above his victim. By considering his needs and that of his family over a fair sentence for the horrible crime committed.

If it's the first, then they are morons. You do the crime, you do the time. And if you kill, you should then die. As for the second, there is a legal clause for self defence...

I've been saying that it is the right direction, but there are those that vehemently disagree.

Deliberate murder should be punished by having the state deliberately kill the killer. Your intention was clearly not to kill, therefore it was accidental. Preventable, yes, but accidental. Your reckless actions are punishable for being reckless. The fact that an innocent was killed was simply unfortunate, and something you'll carry for the rest of your life.

I don't get the difference between Manslaughter and Murder myself. Either one sees you taking direct action leading to the death of another, and as such would be punishable by death.

 

Heh, you notice you just contradicted yourself there, in a small (unimportant) way. Your second last paragraph perfectly highlighted the difference between murder and manslaughter, then your last says they should be treated the same

Anyway, I accept what you said in your first paragraph, but what I want to know is WHY. Why should an eye for an eye not apply in accidental cases? Because it's unfair? Because it is too harsh punishment? Because it won't act as a proper deterant?

 

You already said it - murder is deliberately killing someone. That the intent of your action is that the other person dies. Just as there is 1st and 2nd degree murder (1st is premeditated), there are also two distinct forms of manslaughter - voluntary and involuntary. Rotku's example of hitting someone with a car is the text book example of the involuntary type, as it was accidental. Voluntary would be like if you got into a fight with someone punched the guy, and he fell down a flight of stairs and broke his neck and died. Your actions certainly led to his death, but you weren't intending to kill him.

 

It's the words that threw me off. I really didn't know the difference until AFI spelled it out. That also explains why Manslaughter is, in the US, not punishable by death.

Murder implies malice, Manslaughter implies negligence. It is the malicious, deliberate killing of another human that I want punished by deliberate execution (The executioner would likely feel little or no malice). Negligence as an action (or in some cases, lack of required action) is not the same action. It is the act, not the result that should be punished.

In your earlier example, the action was driving like an idiot. You are speeding on lousy road conditions. Those are the offences. The fact that someone died was unfortunate, and would lead to a more serious charge, but since it was not a deliberate killing, the death penalty should not apply. Incarceration and revokation of driving priveleges would likely satisfy the criminal side, and then a lawsuit would answer the civil aspects of the case.

 

So really what is been said is that an eye-for-an-eye is not consistently be used as grounds for choosing the punishment - that there are other things that must be taken into account. You're arguing that it's the intent that counts, not the result, which does exclude manslaughter. However, Canadian Law tends to disagree with you. Let me give you yet another example:

I kidnap someone, intending to hold them ransom. I have them held up in some house somewhere, for weeks and weeks. However, during this time, I get wind that the police might be on to me, so I flee, leaving the kidnapped person bound in the house. Between the time it takes the police to find the house and the time I left, the victim has died of starvation. I had no malice intent to kill them. Infact, I hate the entire idea of killing another human. However, they have died. According to most laws, I would be charged for murder, as it the person died while I was committing another crime - Felony murder, I believe it is called - so it's the axe for me.

Another example. I'm robbing a bank. I have taken a gun along with me, with the intent of only using it as a threat - so I left it unloaded obviously. The first thing I do is take the gun off the one security guard: big difference, this gun is loaded. In the excitment, I get the guns confused. Bang. Murder without malice, yet death for me.

Or to take a real life example. A kid (well, 18 or so) stole a car from a lady, while she was quickly stopping at a shop. While making a get away with the car, he realises that there is a preschooler in the car. Panicing, he dumps the car in a park, and takes off on foot. The tempreature happens to be in the high 30s (C). By the time people find the car, the kid has died from heat exhaustion. He did not set out with the intent to kidnap and kill a preschooler, yet the child died during another crime. Murder?

Are these cases where the law is wrong? If I am remembering right, you have previously agreed with these sort of cases been charged as murder, when the death was caused during the act of another crime. Why, when there is no malice or intent to murder, should it be considered murder?

This may seem slightly off topic, sorry, but I am hopefully going somewhere with it.

 

Rotku, it is my understanding that if someone is in the middle of committing a criminal offense, and someone dies as a result of their action (or inaction), the legal system considers that a murder. It likely varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While they won't classify it as the worst form of murder (termed "1st degree" by many) it is still a murder of some degree. There's a difference between

A: Someone driving their own car to work, losing concentration for any number of reasons, and then hitting and killing a pedestrian.

and

B: A fellow stealing a vehicle, joyriding around in it, fleeing from cops, and in the midst of the pursuit hitting and killing a pedestrian.

Now, the pedestrian is dead, and surely the family of that pedestrian would want to see some penalty levied on othe first driver, but the offense of the second fellow is considered worse in the eyes of many people. I see that as entirely rational, though slick defense lawyers will try to say that there is no difference in offenses. I don't buy their arguments in such a case.

Incidentally, I wouldn't argue for the death penalty for B UNLESS it was the third or fourth time he'd been stealing cars and fleeing from the police. In that case, he's demonstrated a pattern of defiance for the laws of society and a callous disregard for the lives of his fellow citizens. He may well still be a human being, but IMHO his life has less value than that of the pedestrian he killed, and he should pay a stiff price, no matter how much he cries and says his mother never hugged him.

 

Okay, after a few days of thought, I want to back track a few steps.

Do you agree with these basic assumptions:

(1) Human life is valuable; and
(2) If there was an equal, viable alternative* form of punishment, that did not involve killing, it should be used in all cases.

* By an 'equal, viable alternative' I mean a form that has the same net effect; that society as a whole, the families and friends of the victims, and the court systems feel no detrimental (nor beneficial) effect from the alternative. I don't care if there currently exists no such form, I am happy to speak hypothetically here, for now.

 

I believe it was quoted earlier that A death resulting from an indictable offence, under Canadian Law is first degree Murder. Therefore, Rotku, Yes, they should be considered murder. In thehe first case, a kidnapping is sufficiently malicious, the second, the presence of firearms in the posession of the criminal, and the third, a callous disregard for human life, all qualify them as such.


AS LKD stated, the penalty for the second of his examples would be harsher, but again, the court does not have to levy the death penalty, but they should have the option. Unfortunately, Canada does not have the death penalty, so this is no longer an issue.

Rotku: AS for your most recent point, I do not see any other EQUAL punishment for deliberate murder, other than the deliberate execution of the criminal. The court does reserve the right to extend a degree of leniency however, and as such, can reduce the charge to incarceration if there is just reason to spare the life of someone who did not give their victim that consideration. An example I can think of would be someone who shot and killed a rapist/murderer who attacked a member of their family...

 

Rotku, I agree that human life is valuable --- to a point. I just saw on the news a fellow with 70 (count them, seventy) felony convictions who was out on statutory release and, to no one's surprise, really, has broken the terms of his release. There's a Canada-wide warrant out for his arrest and everyone is hoping he's caught before another innocent citizen is injured / killed / raped / robbed or whatever by this guy.

Now try as I might, I simply do not believe that this guy's life is as valuable as the life of my daughter. She's 13 years old, and not the perfect kid by any stretch of the imagination, but she doesn't have freaking 70 felony convictions. No matter how many excuses get made for this bastard, I want him caught and his threat to society neutralized. It's pretty clear that the "catch and release" system that is presently in place (the one that says his life is equal in value to that of my daughter) is not working. His actions and choices have reduced his worth. I have no faith in the system to keep him locked away for good. The only way to ensure the safety of the rest of society is to kill him. I guarantee you he'll never commit another crime.

 

I agree, LKD. People like that should not be out wandering around. Hell, I'll even agree that your daughter's life should be placed above this man's, if it came down to one or the other. However, it sounds like the problem there, once again, is the prison systems - if you felt for certain that he would be locked up for life then there is no real need for the death penalty, is there?

Gnarf, I am speaking hypothetically here. Let's imagine 100 years in the future, this great new technology was invented, which met my above criteria. If there was this punishment "that has the same net effect; that society as a whole, the families and friends of the victims, and the court systems feel no detrimental (nor beneficial) effect from the alternative", then the death penalty should be avoided. Correct?

 

Rotku: For this to be equal, they would need to be able to raise the dead. To restore life to the victim, first and foremost, then to kill the killer and restore him to life after a set period of time. I don't see that happening...