Bush OKs execution of Army death row prisoner

[desert_fox 32]

Good for Bush....now shoot the SOB. He lost his right to live after the 3rd murder or so.

[Moto-zutto 0]

I'm in the Military currently deployed to the Middle East right now. I'm off for the day and the computer hut is empty!! YAY!!!

There are a lot of good points made on this topic. Very interesting reading. When you sign the dotted line to join the Military you take a huge responsibility. You take the gamble that maybe you are put into harms way for no reason. Maybe you will have to do a lot of things that you do not want to do, but we all took that oath. Yes there are many mixed feelings about the war over here. Why are we here? Why is it taking so long? Why so much money? Several factors that we all do not understand fully. Believe me the News twist many things around over here, this is my 4th tour over here and I've witnessed a lot, and watched the news repot something totally different.

I'm for the death penalty. This guy does not deserve any different treatment than anyone else. He committed some serious crimes, and yes it is taking human life, the most amazing gift, the same gift he took from his victims. I think he should get the death penalty just for rape. Just my opinion. I can respect the feelings if you are against the death penalty. If he killed or raped a family member, or loved one, emotions would probably make you feel differently. If he killed or raped one of my family members or loved one, they would not have time to decide his fate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm in the Military currently deployed to the Middle East right now. I'm off for the day and the computer hut is empty!! YAY!!!

There are a lot of good points made on this topic. Very interesting reading. When you sign the dotted line to join the Military you take a huge responsibility. You take the gamble that maybe you are put into harms way for no reason. Maybe you will have to do a lot of things that you do not want to do, but we all took that oath. Yes there are many mixed feelings about the war over here. Why are we here? Why is it taking so long? Why so much money? Several factors that we all do not understand fully. Believe me the News twist many things around over here, this is my 4th tour over here and I've witnessed a lot, and watched the news repot something totally different.

I'm for the death penalty. This guy does not deserve any different treatment than anyone else. He committed some serious crimes, and yes it is taking human life, the most amazing gift, the same gift he took from his victims. I think he should get the death penalty just for rape. Just my opinion. I can respect the feelings if you are against the death penalty. If he killed or raped a family member, or loved one, emotions would probably make you feel differently. If he killed or raped one of my family members or loved one, they would not have time to decide his fate.

Well this is something of a red herring because it implies that the justice system exists to provide some sort of vicarious revenge.

I don't dispute that if someone were to kill my wife that I would more than likely want to take a knife to them. The point of course is that this would be me at my absolute worst. I would hope that society as a whole can do a bit better than me at my worst.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I'm in the Military currently deployed to the Middle East right now. I'm off for the day and the computer hut is empty!! YAY!!!

There are a lot of good points made on this topic. Very interesting reading. When you sign the dotted line to join the Military you take a huge responsibility. You take the gamble that maybe you are put into harms way for no reason. Maybe you will have to do a lot of things that you do not want to do, but we all took that oath. Yes there are many mixed feelings about the war over here. Why are we here? Why is it taking so long? Why so much money? Several factors that we all do not understand fully. Believe me the News twist many things around over here, this is my 4th tour over here and I've witnessed a lot, and watched the news repot something totally different.

I'm for the death penalty. This guy does not deserve any different treatment than anyone else. He committed some serious crimes, and yes it is taking human life, the most amazing gift, the same gift he took from his victims. I think he should get the death penalty just for rape. Just my opinion. I can respect the feelings if you are against the death penalty. If he killed or raped a family member, or loved one, emotions would probably make you feel differently. If he killed or raped one of my family members or loved one, they would not have time to decide his fate.

Well this is something of a red herring because it implies that the justice system exists to provide some sort of vicarious revenge.

I don't dispute that if someone were to kill my wife that I would more than likely want to take a knife to them. The point of course is that this would be me at my absolute worst. I would hope that society as a whole can do a bit better than me at my worst.

I am impressed Sir; very impressed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I should add too that while individuals can apparently justify the death penalty based on emotional response, our criminal law doesn't have its basis in emotion.

[Ban Hammer 13,521]

i thought we settled this issue on the death penalty over a year ago:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72588

[NavarreMan 10]

But that is part of the problem, we are getting further from the "meat cleaver" approach. We are leaning toward everything is treatable and society pays for it as a whole. I am sure we can find excuses for all behavior if we get the right "experts" to testify. Where do you draw the line? Chikatilo (sp) had a crappy childhood, do you treat him or remove him? What do you do with the Manson's of the world? At some point don't you necessarily have to use the cleaver to draw that line?

Are we really moving away from that approach though? There are still cases where courts refuse to separate the mad from the bad (the big furore over pedophiles being one such example). Clearly you can't excuse the crime, or refuse to acknowledge that such people are dangerous, but you do have cases where clear warning signs were in evidence for months or years before but nothing was done - then it would seem that executing the person is only addressing the least useful aspect of the case and doing little or nothing to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Just one example - Child Services in NY has taken a beating for the murders of several children that were on its at-risk register, because their staff either didn't take the time to investigate or follow up on specific complaints in a timely manner. Were they directly responsible for the child's deaths? Of course not... But clearly the institution failed in such a way that made those crimes possible. Is recognising this less, the same or more important than ensuring that those who actually did the killing are themselves killed...

Clearly its a complex question...

As to "who pays" - well society as a whole always pays. It doesn't recoup the damage by executing its diseased elements.

I see this as 2 distinctly different issues. One is criminal and one is civil. I agree that execution will never bring a victim back but it will prevent the next victim. In removing the perpetrator, you are in effect preventing the next victim by/of that perpetrator.

Well sure - but that's a tad simplistic in my view.

If we look at the example I pointed out earlier regarding Child Services in New York that would seem to disprove your assertion. What happened was that a child was murdered by its "parents" despite numerous warning signs and Child Services being aware of the problem. While this story was making headlines and the "parents" were being indicted for murder, another "risk list" child was killed in similar circumstances.

While we're not talking the Death Penalty in these cases - its a fair bet that these people won't be in a position to do this to another child, but at the same time the underlying problem that allowed it to happen remains unaddressed.

You can draw lines wherever you want...

You want simplistic:

IMO

If you can't play by the rules you can't be in the game.

You can put whatever value you want on human life because we are so much better and more advanced than other lifeforms, but there are still scumbags out there who rape, murder and cause other mayhem for their own sick satisfaction and you would prefer to have them as your next door neighbor. Well that is fine with me as long as (NIMBY approach here) they are your neighbors and not mine. How much sleep did you lose when they offed Ted Bundy? Confessed to 33(?) murders and suspected in at least 3 more. What possible good would it do to keep this maniac locked up for the rest of his life? Game over!

As for the 2nd issue of correcting some contributing social issues - that's for another thread but I am all for it. We'll start by locking up the deadbeat parents and letting the kids enter the foster care system. The State can pay for the program and we then can sleep well at night knowing that the kids will grow up to be fine outstanding citizens. It is real easy to point the finger and say the system failed those children. It is most likey true that more could have been done. But since we cannot dispose of crappy parents it makes things a little more difficult. Any more room in Australia?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that is part of the problem, we are getting further from the "meat cleaver" approach. We are leaning toward everything is treatable and society pays for it as a whole. I am sure we can find excuses for all behavior if we get the right "experts" to testify. Where do you draw the line? Chikatilo (sp) had a crappy childhood, do you treat him or remove him? What do you do with the Manson's of the world? At some point don't you necessarily have to use the cleaver to draw that line?

Are we really moving away from that approach though? There are still cases where courts refuse to separate the mad from the bad (the big furore over pedophiles being one such example). Clearly you can't excuse the crime, or refuse to acknowledge that such people are dangerous, but you do have cases where clear warning signs were in evidence for months or years before but nothing was done - then it would seem that executing the person is only addressing the least useful aspect of the case and doing little or nothing to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Just one example - Child Services in NY has taken a beating for the murders of several children that were on its at-risk register, because their staff either didn't take the time to investigate or follow up on specific complaints in a timely manner. Were they directly responsible for the child's deaths? Of course not... But clearly the institution failed in such a way that made those crimes possible. Is recognising this less, the same or more important than ensuring that those who actually did the killing are themselves killed...

Clearly its a complex question...

As to "who pays" - well society as a whole always pays. It doesn't recoup the damage by executing its diseased elements.

I see this as 2 distinctly different issues. One is criminal and one is civil. I agree that execution will never bring a victim back but it will prevent the next victim. In removing the perpetrator, you are in effect preventing the next victim by/of that perpetrator.

Well sure - but that's a tad simplistic in my view.

If we look at the example I pointed out earlier regarding Child Services in New York that would seem to disprove your assertion. What happened was that a child was murdered by its "parents" despite numerous warning signs and Child Services being aware of the problem. While this story was making headlines and the "parents" were being indicted for murder, another "risk list" child was killed in similar circumstances.

While we're not talking the Death Penalty in these cases - its a fair bet that these people won't be in a position to do this to another child, but at the same time the underlying problem that allowed it to happen remains unaddressed.

You can draw lines wherever you want...

You want simplistic:

IMO

If you can't play by the rules you can't be in the game.

You can put whatever value you want on human life because we are so much better and more advanced than other lifeforms, but there are still scumbags out there who rape, murder and cause other mayhem for their own sick satisfaction and you would prefer to have them as your next door neighbor. Well that is fine with me as long as (NIMBY approach here) they are your neighbors and not mine. How much sleep did you lose when they offed Ted Bundy? Confessed to 33(?) murders and suspected in at least 3 more. What possible good would it do to keep this maniac locked up for the rest of his life? Game over!

With all due respect - I'm not really inclined to continue with this when you continue respond to my arguments with this over-emotional knee-jerking. You've already misquoted me in such a way as to suggest that I think that an abusive childhood should be reason enough to get someone off a murder rap, despite the fact that I've never said or implied anything to that effect. Nor do I believe it... if that point really needs to be made.

Now I'm apparently supposed to want murderers and rapists as my "next door neighbors"? I'm not sure where you get that idea from.... I've never once said that I think dangerous people should be let off for their crimes, or otherwise should not face the consequences of their actions. This is somewhat typical of most debates on this issue (which is often why they fall apart) in that that there are people who seem to believe that anyone who opposes the Death Penalty must somehow sympathises with criminals. If you honestly believe that my beliefs would extend to that - I'm not sure what to say really...

[NavarreMan 10]

But that is part of the problem, we are getting further from the "meat cleaver" approach. We are leaning toward everything is treatable and society pays for it as a whole. I am sure we can find excuses for all behavior if we get the right "experts" to testify. Where do you draw the line? Chikatilo (sp) had a crappy childhood, do you treat him or remove him? What do you do with the Manson's of the world? At some point don't you necessarily have to use the cleaver to draw that line?

Are we really moving away from that approach though? There are still cases where courts refuse to separate the mad from the bad (the big furore over pedophiles being one such example). Clearly you can't excuse the crime, or refuse to acknowledge that such people are dangerous, but you do have cases where clear warning signs were in evidence for months or years before but nothing was done - then it would seem that executing the person is only addressing the least useful aspect of the case and doing little or nothing to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Just one example - Child Services in NY has taken a beating for the murders of several children that were on its at-risk register, because their staff either didn't take the time to investigate or follow up on specific complaints in a timely manner. Were they directly responsible for the child's deaths? Of course not... But clearly the institution failed in such a way that made those crimes possible. Is recognising this less, the same or more important than ensuring that those who actually did the killing are themselves killed...

Clearly its a complex question...

As to "who pays" - well society as a whole always pays. It doesn't recoup the damage by executing its diseased elements.

I see this as 2 distinctly different issues. One is criminal and one is civil. I agree that execution will never bring a victim back but it will prevent the next victim. In removing the perpetrator, you are in effect preventing the next victim by/of that perpetrator.

Well sure - but that's a tad simplistic in my view.

If we look at the example I pointed out earlier regarding Child Services in New York that would seem to disprove your assertion. What happened was that a child was murdered by its "parents" despite numerous warning signs and Child Services being aware of the problem. While this story was making headlines and the "parents" were being indicted for murder, another "risk list" child was killed in similar circumstances.

While we're not talking the Death Penalty in these cases - its a fair bet that these people won't be in a position to do this to another child, but at the same time the underlying problem that allowed it to happen remains unaddressed.

You can draw lines wherever you want...

You want simplistic:

IMO

If you can't play by the rules you can't be in the game.

You can put whatever value you want on human life because we are so much better and more advanced than other lifeforms, but there are still scumbags out there who rape, murder and cause other mayhem for their own sick satisfaction and you would prefer to have them as your next door neighbor. Well that is fine with me as long as (NIMBY approach here) they are your neighbors and not mine. How much sleep did you lose when they offed Ted Bundy? Confessed to 33(?) murders and suspected in at least 3 more. What possible good would it do to keep this maniac locked up for the rest of his life? Game over!

With all due respect - I'm not really inclined to continue with this when you continue respond to my arguments with this over-emotional knee-jerking. You've already misquoted me in such a way as to suggest that I think that an abusive childhood should be reason enough to get someone off a murder rap, despite the fact that I've never said or implied anything to that effect. Nor do I believe it... if that point really needs to be made.

Now I'm apparently supposed to want murderers and rapists as my "next door neighbors"? I'm not sure where you get that idea from.... I've never once said that I think dangerous people should be let off for their crimes, or otherwise should not face the consequences of their actions. This is somewhat typical of most debates on this issue (which is often why they fall apart) in that that there are people who seem to believe that anyone who opposes the Death Penalty must somehow sympathises with criminals. If you honestly believe that my beliefs would extend to that - I'm not sure what to say really...

Alrighty then: we'll use a quote from you.

If we look at the example I pointed out earlier regarding Child Services in New York that would seem to disprove your assertion.

My assertion is that by putting a convicted murderer to death you prevent that criminal from committing another crime. Nothing emotional about it. No knee-jerking involved. It is just simple fact. Now - disprove away!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I already answered that question in the post you quoted. Quite simply you're using black and white reasoning to avoid touching on a wider issue. In that respect - I'm not sure what you think that post really proves. It certainly doesn't prove your allegations that I sympathise with criminals or that I want to find excuses for their crimes.

Once again. I don't.

But again I'm not really surprised to see that a debate about a complex moral/ethical issue has now devolved into mud-slinging. Its par for the course on VJ these days. You don't want to acknowledge the moral/ethical complexities of this topic - that's fine. However I'd rather you not apply baseless accusations to those who do.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Number 6

[NavarreMan 10]

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. I don't have any moral or ethical complexities about permanently removing from society those who refuse to play nice. Rules are rules and the punishment should fit the crime. You are over-intellectualizing about my thoughts on this matter. It is not rocket science. And like your accusation of emotional response, your claim of mud-slinging is also baseless.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. I don't have any moral or ethical complexities about permanently removing from society those who refuse to play nice. Rules are rules and the punishment should fit the crime. You are over-intellectualizing about my thoughts on this matter. It is not rocket science. And like your accusation of emotional response, your claim of mud-slinging is also baseless.

Man - you more or less accused me of stating that I think a bad childhood should be reason enough to let someone off of a murder charge. Mud-slinging... Emotional overreaction... What would you call that?

[NavarreMan 10]

Perhaps I misunderstood your intended meaning in this post:

That isn't really a very satisfactory answer though is it. Sure one guy is killed on the basis of removing him from society for the good of everyone else - but it sounds to me like an easy answer that doesn't want to address underlying problems in specific cases. I mean why was there a big debate (in Florida I think?) about the ethics of executing people who are mentally imcompetant - where paranoid schizophrenics have committed murders because for one reason or another they weren't diagnosed or weren't in a position to acquire the medication needed to control their condition.

There are always nuances - and this meat-cleaver approach to solving problems often seems woefully short-sighted.

This sounded to me like you are trying to defend the actions of the guilty. Perhaps, like you, I read more into it than was there. Regardless I am not nearly as sympathetic. The neighbor issue came about from the idea that if you release a paraniod schizophrenic because they now have the medication they need, they will obviously need to live somewhere. My feeling is that I would prefer not to have them next door to me. My feeling is that if the possiblilty exists that they could kill because they forget to take a pill, maybe we should carefully consider the consequinces of having them live anywhere.

I did like and agree with your statement about hoping society could do better than you at your worst. But it took less than a second to remember that we are talking about a rather rare individual here that generally has no regard for social order and rules. The biggest problem I see with convicted murderers is they have nothing left to lose and that makes them very dangerous. Much different from a person doing small time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well the problem with the DP (in principle) is that the chance of a wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice is always there and I wouldn't want it on my conscience to know that a certain percentage is executed because of someone's failure of judgement.

And of course once you go down the route of having a DP for capital cases - the tendency is to extend this to other offences besides murder (i.e. the recent hoo-ha about child rape cases)

I know it is the ultimate revenge for the families and friends of murder victims, but I would like to think that we still have the human and moral capacity to overcome ancient eye-for-an-eye instincts. And I want the society I live in to operate on a higher moral level, as far as possible.

Finally, if you look at the persons getting executed and those who don't (or even get let off), you find it is very much a question of who can afford top notch lawyers and who can't.

Take this story for instance. This guy would have been executed today if he hadn't gotten a last minute stay. I don't know what you think about this - but clearly either the guy is innocent or he isn't and the fact that there is a doubt over which of the two actually did the crime makes this a difficult call to make - do you execute the one, the other of both? As you say execution is final after all...

Can't leave something like that to chance - you really do have to be 110% sure.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps I misunderstood your intended meaning in this post:

That isn't really a very satisfactory answer though is it. Sure one guy is killed on the basis of removing him from society for the good of everyone else - but it sounds to me like an easy answer that doesn't want to address underlying problems in specific cases. I mean why was there a big debate (in Florida I think?) about the ethics of executing people who are mentally imcompetant - where paranoid schizophrenics have committed murders because for one reason or another they weren't diagnosed or weren't in a position to acquire the medication needed to control their condition.

There are always nuances - and this meat-cleaver approach to solving problems often seems woefully short-sighted.

This sounded to me like you are trying to defend the actions of the guilty. Perhaps, like you, I read more into it than was there. Regardless I am not nearly as sympathetic. The neighbor issue came about from the idea that if you release a paraniod schizophrenic because they now have the medication they need, they will obviously need to live somewhere. My feeling is that I would prefer not to have them next door to me. My feeling is that if the possiblilty exists that they could kill because they forget to take a pill, maybe we should carefully consider the consequinces of having them live anywhere.

I did like and agree with your statement about hoping society could do better than you at your worst. But it took less than a second to remember that we are talking about a rather rare individual here that generally has no regard for social order and rules. The biggest problem I see with convicted murderers is they have nothing left to lose and that makes them very dangerous. Much different from a person doing small time.

I wasn't - just pointing out the obvious that the court system routinely makes distinctions in capital cases (as indeed it does in most criminal cases) and the sentence a gang murderer might receive from a judge could differ from someone deemed to be mentally ill or below the age of adult prosecution (pretty much the idea behind "diminished responsibility).