I'm Too Fat To Be Executed!!!

[DesignFox]

The point remains that if this fuck up wants sympathy because he's too fat to take a lethal injection, there are other ways of disposing of his wretched ass...

Sorry. I have NO SYMPATHY for rapist/murderers. Call it whatever you want, THOSE kinds of sickos should be put down. I don't agree with torture- much as they would deserve it, I don't want the prison system to fail and allow people like that an ass raping by their fellow inmates. I DO however believe that repeat rapists/murderers be disposed of. They cannot be rehabilitated. I don't want them around. Period.

If you've got a dangerous animal that consistently and repeatedly has been proven to have attacked others, you kill it. Perhaps humanely, but you kill it. Why the FUCK do we keep HUMANS around who are even MORE of a danger to the rest of humanity???

I don't get it.

[AFPheonix]

Hmm, you're right. Nobody is trying to do anything. Good thing, too. After all, it shows to the world that the US is 100% in agreement 100% of the time with our government.

What's that you say? My links showed a different picture? There are lots of people in this country who disagree? That if the percentages are to be believed at face value from those links, we have some 100,000,000 people who think that Bush should be impeached? That's not possible.

After all, the US is one singular entity. There's no differences of opinion within its borders. People here are uniform in their agreement. And that's why it's acceptable to say that "the US" is nearly indistinguishable from a terrorist organization.

Much like it's acceptable to say that Arabs are terrorists. They're all under the same umbrella. They're one singular group, with members being indistinguishable from each other, right? No dissenting voices there, right?

</sarcasm>

Whether I agree with you or not about the responsibility for Bush and company being in office is irrelevant. A significant segment of the population did not vote for Bush. Another, even bigger, segment wants him impeached. For some reason, the man is untouchable at this point, and I'm unable to explain it.

And, personally, I take great offense at being lumped into the group that approves of his actions.

And yet, there is no movement on those articles of impeachment. Yes, a percentage of the population support it, you and me included, but not enough care to let their representatives know to get the ball rolling. Maybe it will be different now that there are several really good books out detailing some of the really bad shit that has been going down, but I'm not holding my breath.
While a significant segment didn't vote, a more significant segment DID. That's what scares me. Those of us that didn't apparently didn't make enough of a stink around the 2004 elections.
You can take offense all you want, I'm in that boat too, but we are still citizens of a country that has done some seriously awful things over the last 8 or more years, and all we can seem to do about it is hang out on the internet. Yay team.

[Flyndaran]

I am 100% against the death penalty as a barbaric form of institutionalized murderous revenge.
The U.S. is the only "civilized" country that still practices it.

For the record, I am american and am truly disgusted with the evils this nation has committed. The fact that kidnapping and torture of children is now condoned has destroyed any good feelings I may have had for this country.
I truly wish I were rich enough to move somewhere civilized.

[Greenday]

If the US sucks so badly, then go ahead and move. No one is forcing you to stay. And you don't have to be rich at all to move.

DesignFox put it nicely. You'd put a dog down for repeatedly attacking people. Why not the same for a human who does even worse?

[Rapscallion]

I don't view the death penalty as revenge, but more as being certain that someone is not going to do it again. We're talking about people who have been able to commit murder (murder over here is defined as premeditated, whereas manslaughter is spur-of-moment). I don't see why we should suffer the existence of someone who is willing to kill another human being.

I'm in the UK and we don't have the death penalty. I wouldn't object to it being brought back for the worst cases where the case was proven beyond doubt, and a unanimous recommendation to this end being brought by the jury.

Civilised. What does that mean to you? It's subjective. Civilised could mean locking a murderer away in a small room for twenty-three hours a day, or a relatively painless death, or letting them out with the chance they'll decide to kill another person.

What's wrong with institutionalised vengeance, anyway? It sends a clear message that society finds certain activities abherent and will enact the severest penalties on those committing major transgressions. Statistics on both sides can show it's a deterrent or that it isn't, but it stops proven murderers from doing it again.

Which countries do you consider civilised to your standards of civilisation?

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Vengeance is emotional and laws should have nothing to do with irrational feelings. They should first deal with maintaining society, and second rehabilitate criminals all the while following the precept that it is far better to let many guilty go free than to punish one innnocent.

The death penalty in the U.S. is grossly racist, sexist, and highly influenced by media inflamed public and politics.
Conviction is based on reasonable doubt, meaing that no matter how magically above board trials are, there will always be innocents found guilty.
This is what I call the "Oops" factor. "Sorry for imprisoning your family member for a crime he didn't commit for X years.".. Vs. " Sorry for executing your family member."

Civilized nations don't murder their people.

As to which nations are civilized? I would have to conduct in depth research, but I can definitely name which ones fail if they aren't democratic, have national religions, don't allow abortions, don't allow gay rights, or allow gross animal abuse with little to no punishment.

Don't allow people to live that kill others? So kill everyone that kills? That seems horribly hypocritical of a society without even mentioning that wars would make large sections of the population murderers.

The it stops murderers from murdering again defense is somewhat silly. Killing thieves stops them fro stealing too. Heck, recidivism rates for thieves is MUCH higher than killers and even rapists. Your likely argument is that that is too extreme, which is exactly what I say about killing criminals.

Dehumanizing murderers no matter how horrific their crimes, is emotion driven delusion. They are still human, and we must afford them dignity, not because they deserve it, but because we must avoid falling down the same pit they did dehumanizing their victims.
Mercy seems to be a tossed away fad for so many now a days, and that saddens me. It also seems somewhat ironic, that I, a hard line atheist, feels the need to preach mercy so often.

[daleduke17]

Was Hammurabi not civilized then?

Eye for an eye.

[Flyndaran]

Was Hammurabi not civilized then?

Eye for an eye.

I wondered if anyone was going to bring up ancient governments.
They couldn't afford prisons, so that left them with very limited forms of punishment.
Besides, Hammurabi didn't state that an eye for an eye be the law. He stated that it should never be MORE extreme of punishment than that. In orther words he was trying to condemn those wanting massive overkill in laws.

And to actually answer your question, no, of course not. City states ruled totally by force of arms is not civilized.

[Rapscallion]

'Civilised countries don't murder their people.'

First of all, that's your preference of civilisation. You're assuming that your version of what is civilised is what should be.

Second, the term 'murder' refers to illegal homicide, whereas 'execution' is the killing by the state under the laws of the state of those who have shown themselves to be against the tenets of life for the citizens of that state. In short, execution is legal. It's not murder. That's muddying the waters with inaccurate usage of English.

'Vengeance is emotional and laws should have nothing to do with irrational feelings.'

Why should they not serve the needs of the outraged population? We're not perfectly rational beings. Someone takes some property from another person and they are caught and convicted, they end up in prison. The populace sees justice done and the perpetrator suffers as a consequence of their actions. The society, the people who make the law, is somewhat mollified by the eventual result. Someone kills another person, and a similar result occurs, but the crime is greater and the punishment is also greater.

Is it irrational to want revenge against someone who has killed someone of your family or social group? I think not.

You're not in a Utopian society. We're not perfect. Your standards and ethics are not mine, nor do they exactly match those of others.

'They should first deal with maintaining society, and second rehabilitate criminals all the while following the precept that it is far better to let many guilty go free than to punish one innnocent.'

You're in the minority. My reasoning for this? If enough people disagreed, they'd vote out the people who were making the laws to execute people.

'Don't allow people to live that kill others? So kill everyone that kills? That seems horribly hypocritical of a society without even mentioning that wars would make large sections of the population murderers.'

Once again, murder is an illegal act. War is a state of conflict declared within the laws of a state on behalf of its people. An illegal war? Fine - arrange to have the people involved punished within the bounds of the law, but the average war (if there is such a thing) is not creating murderers.

'The it stops murderers from murdering again defense is somewhat silly. Killing thieves stops them fro stealing too. Heck, recidivism rates for thieves is MUCH higher than killers and even rapists. Your likely argument is that that is too extreme, which is exactly what I say about killing criminals.'

Silly? It's one of the most definite statements I can make. I can't deny the accuracy of the concept - can you? We're also not debating the issues of executing thieves or rapists. As far as I can make out, this is about murderers facing the death penalty, not thieves. The guy involved murdered a person (possibly more). So, should we execute or not? What are your alternatives?

Sure, I'd very much prefer that he hadn't done that, but he did, and he did so willingly.

My stance is that it's more dehumanising and reflects worse on society to lock someone away for many years than to execute them. Life sentencing shows a lack of desire to actually do something about a situation, instead preferring to hide a problem away and forget about it. I don't expect that everyone will agree, but that's part of living in a democracy.

Rapscallion

[DesignFox]

I agree with what Raps said that life imprisonment seems like "hiding" the problem away. Why hide the problem? Just be rid of it. Permanently.

Also, I'm not talking about a one time offender. I DO believe that people make mistakes, and while I ask that they PAY for their mistakes, I don't ask for a punishment that is disproportionate to the crime.

REPEAT offenders on the other hand...goodbye, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I'll sleep better at night knowing there is one less mad dog running loose in society.

[AFPheonix]

If the death penalty worked in the ways that you guys envision it, only "putting down" the repeat murderers and bad guys, then fine. But it doesn't. There have been multiple men and women who have been killed who have been found to be innocent. Usually poor minorities who couldn't stick up for themselves. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be party to something like that.

[AFPheonix]

If the US sucks so badly, then go ahead and move. No one is forcing you to stay. And you don't have to be rich at all to move.

Sorry about the double post, but goddamn I hate this argument. How DARE someone point out the bad things about the place they love. Seriously? It's because I love this country that I speak out against the horrible things that are done in its name. It's not just this Administration either. Horrible things have been done for a long time and it's up to us as the populace to own them and put a stop to them.

[Flyndaran]

I agree with what Raps said that life imprisonment seems like "hiding" the problem away. Why hide the problem? Just be rid of it. Permanently.

Also, I'm not talking about a one time offender. I DO believe that people make mistakes, and while I ask that they PAY for their mistakes, I don't ask for a punishment that is disproportionate to the crime.

REPEAT offenders on the other hand...goodbye, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I'll sleep better at night knowing there is one less mad dog running loose in society.

"The problem", and "mad dog" are dehumanizing terms. Doing that to make yourself feel better about murdering people is not the road to civilized behavior for an individual or a society.

Disproportionate to the crime? That seems to imply an eye for an eye, which is quite reasonable... if you are living thousands of years ago.

[Greenday]

Sorry about the double post, but goddamn I hate this argument. How DARE someone point out the bad things about the place they love. Seriously? It's because I love this country that I speak out against the horrible things that are done in its name. It's not just this Administration either. Horrible things have been done for a long time and it's up to us as the populace to own them and put a stop to them.

I see a difference between saying what you don't like about your country, and just saying your country sucks so badly that you wished you could move. I bitch about the problems of America all the time, but I'm not going to leave America. I'd never want to do that. All I was saying was if Flyndaran desires to leave America so badly...go ahead.

[Sylvia727]

Disproportionate to the crime? That seems to imply an eye for an eye, which is quite reasonable... if you are living thousands of years ago.

Repaying equal value for damage done doesn't seem "uncivilized" or "unreasonable" to me. In the case of a murder, it might be twenty years of incarceration that the state has deemed equal value.

And "mad dog" is a dehumanizing term, because no one likes being called kin to someone who can rape and kill time and time again. Their mentality is closer to a feral animal than to a civilized person.

Many of your arguments seem to say that just the fact of being human affords murderers some protection from full punishment; that there is some intrinsic value in all humans that is worth protecting even at the expense of the state and, in the case of repeat offenders, at the expense of their future victims. While I agree that all human life is precious, I don't understand why we should bother shielding criminals from the consequences of their own actions. If someone chooses to become a threat to people around him, then he has no right to demand that these same citizens of the state not protect themselves from him.