First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Georgia's only woman on death row is executed
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/30/15
The lengthy appeals process is a big issue. It's the main reason why the death penalty is more expensive than a lifetime of jail. It needs to be taken care of and changed. Appeals should not take 18 years for something as pressing as this.
51287 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/30/15

theYchromosome wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:

What I find ironic about this is that it happened a week after Pope Francis visited here and denounced the death penalty. One of his people even wrote to them about this specific case and asked them not to do it. I know the Pope has no say in U.S. laws, but it looks like a big slap in the face to just ignore him over such an important issue, even if the execution date was already set.


Although I'm against the death penalty, I definitely don't support enacting legislation based on the pope's opinions. I mean, what are you suggesting should have been done? "Oh, the pope's against the death penalty -- better call a special session of the state legislature to change our laws!" I wouldn't really call it a "slap in the face" to carry out our laws as usual.

For one, an anti-death-penalty pope is nothing new, so it isn't any more of an offense to the papal office now than it was decades ago. But more importantly, I'm not sure why his opinion should carry more weight than anyone else's. I'd say get rid of the death penalty because vengeance is a terrible motive for killing people, not because the pope is against it.



I'm not saying the Pope should have power over such a decision. All I said was that the timing of this execution was ironic since it came right after Pope Francis spoke to our lawmakers about this.


PrinceJudar wrote:

It's idiotic to suggest she should have been allowed out of prison after involvement in premeditated murder. For fucks sakes, she even did it for money. Prison isn't just a place for 'rehabilitation', it's to prevent assholes like her from hurting other people by keeping them locked up.

Rot in prison for her entire fucking life or death (whichever you find more 'nice'). Either way, she's a fucking piece of shit and not like the media portrays her.


Where have you seen anyone say she should've been released? The alternative to the death penalty isn't being released from prison, you know...
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 9/30/15
As others have stated I hate how the media treated this case but then again there's a reason so many people in America thinks the media is a complete joke.
As for the lady one less evil person in this world.
On the death penalty itself I fully support it as one of the options for the law to use, the only thing I don't support is the waiting period that comes with it.
Sogno- 
45684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/30/15

scoobydew wrote:

Women murderers are the worst way more dangerous and scary they plan their shit with to do list


haha why is this so funny
22940 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / Bay Area
Offline
Posted 9/30/15

Sogno- wrote:


scoobydew wrote:

Women murderers are the worst way more dangerous and scary they plan their shit with to do list


haha why is this so funny


to do list are deadly
zalbik 
10318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M / OR
Offline
Posted 9/30/15
This is part of a statement from the Murder Victim's family off CNN:


As the murderer, she's been given more rights and opportunity over the last 18 years than she ever afforded to Doug, who, again, is the victim here," it said. "She had no mercy, gave him no rights, no choices, nor the opportunity to live his life. His life was not hers to take.


Those of you that feel so deeply sorry for her are not even mentioning the person murdered.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/30/15 , edited 9/30/15
I still oppose the death penalty on both moral and practical grounds. Capital punishment's effectiveness as a deterrent has been called into question and the relative expense of pursuing a capital case far outstrips the alternatives, so practically speaking it's just not a very good option. You might try knocking down that expense by further constraining the appeals process, but with the prospect of wrongful conviction and an alarmingly high rate of wrongful executions one tends to shy away from that option. So what you end up with is a penalty that takes a very long time to implement (in this case approaching the amount of time that one would generally call a "life sentence"), costs a ridiculous amount of money, draws manpower away from other cases, takes up valuable court time, and runs a substantial risk of killing someone who didn't actually do anything.

Now, on the moral side of the issue things get a bit more complicated. While it is true that proportional penalties are the ideal since this would presumably provide equivalent restitution for some injury (such as ordering someone to pay the value of replacing a window they broke to the window's owner) it nevertheless remains the case that this sort of reasoning doesn't really apply all that smoothly when it comes to crimes like murder. Unfortunately, it's not really restitution to execute a murderer since the victims aren't getting anything other than a sense of closure they could just as readily obtain by other means when you do so.

So with restitution out of the way we return to proportionality, this time examining it in terms of the relationship between justice and fairness. Being made to pay the value of a broken window to its owner when you've been determined by a court of law to have broken it is both just and fair. There's no conflict between the two in that case. Similarly, execution is a fair outcome. The murderer deprived someone of life and was subsequently deprived of life themselves. That's definitely a proportional outcome. The problem is that execution is not a just outcome, and that's because execution inherently precludes any hope of vindication (once again, wrongful conviction is a thing), rehabilitation, and opportunities to give any sort of substantial restitution for one's wrongdoing (however small). It would be like evening out our window case by just smashing one of the breaker's windows. Okay, that's proportional, but it's not justice even if it isn't driven by petty revenge. You're just smashing windows. You're destroying instead of creating. You're making things worse.
24954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 9/30/15 , edited 9/30/15

BlueOni wrote:
So with restitution out of the way we return to proportionality, this time examining it in terms of the relationship between justice and fairness. Being made to pay the value of a broken window to its owner when you've been determined by a court of law to have broken it is both just and fair. There's no conflict between the two in that case. Similarly, execution is a fair outcome. The murderer deprived someone of life and was subsequently deprived of life themselves. That's definitely a proportional outcome. The problem is that execution is not a just outcome, and that's because execution inherently precludes any hope of vindication (once again, wrongful conviction is a thing), rehabilitation, and opportunities to give any sort of substantial restitution for one's wrongdoing (however small). It would be like evening out our window case by just smashing one of the breaker's windows. Okay, that's proportional, but it's not justice even if it isn't driven by petty revenge. You're just smashing windows. You're destroying instead of creating. You're making things worse.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDIgS-Soo9Q

Anyway, we should keep in mind that justice is more about the resolution of conflict and not about the profit from it, right? Why do we care about creating when we can simply destroy the source of the conflict once and for all? We can't exactly trust someone who has killed in cold blood - some lessons in self-control won't fix it like it would an impulsive/accidental killer. There's such a thing as beyond help and a reason why we feel disgust accepting the creations of someone who has killed in cold blood before.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/30/15

Kavalion wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDIgS-Soo9Q

Anyway, we should keep in mind that justice is more about the resolution of conflict and not about the profit from it, right? Why do we care about creating when we can simply destroy the source of the conflict once and for all? We can't exactly trust someone who has killed in cold blood - some lessons in self-control won't fix it like it would an impulsive/accidental killer. There's such a thing as beyond help and a reason why we feel disgust accepting the creations of someone who has killed in cold blood before.


Well, you opened with an Invader Zim reference and then proceeded to essentially sing the Doom song for the rest of the post.

But really, though: there's more than one way to resolve conflicts. Permanently incarcerating a person who cannot be rehabilitated is itself a way to resolve conflict, and it turns out that way is also relatively cheaper and leaves the opportunity for eventual discovery that this repulsive, cold-blooded murderer actually wasn't. It's the better approach to conflict resolution in my opinion.
24954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 9/30/15 , edited 9/30/15

BlueOni wrote:
Well, you opened with an Invader Zim reference and then proceeded to essentially sing the Doom song for the rest of the post.


Someone has to sing it for a proper discussion.


BlueOni wrote:
But really, though: there's more than one way to resolve conflicts. Permanently incarcerating a person who cannot be rehabilitated is itself a way to resolve conflict, and it turns out that way is also relatively cheaper and leaves the opportunity for eventual discovery that this repulsive, cold-blooded murderer actually wasn't. It's the better approach to conflict resolution in my opinion.


Yeah, I thought about mentioning that keeping them as a pet and disallowing any meaningful contribution to society is fairly effective in ending their existence and we certainly can't kill people willy-nilly without overwhelming evidence, considering the stories of people getting released a decade or more later when it turns out their kid really was probably killed by feral dogs.

But hey, as long as we establish that we don't actually care about people ever redeeming themselves in this case (if they really committed the crime), thumbs up.
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 10/1/15 , edited 10/1/15
Can anyone name a single person who has been executed (in the U.S.) only to find out they were innocent? With both sides of the debate, I have never heard such an example put forward - our justice system is pretty good and the bar high. Even if there were a few innocent people put to death (as yet there has not been a single one) is no reason to abolish the death penalty, the state isn't perfect ...pretty close in this regard, but not perfect.

The cost of executing criminal has been purposefully made more expensive as a way to make carrying out the death penalty prohibitive - they should get one or two appeals (maybe with the second appeal they give up the right to receive a pardon from the governor), then time to say their good byes to this world; no more than two years from original sentence to it being carried out.

The state isn't carrying out vengeance, but executing justice - even if one buys the ridiculous notion that the death penalty does not deter murder. I would also add child rape to the death penalty list.

I put forward Solution as our official executioner.
38129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
New Brunswick, Ca...
Offline
Posted 10/1/15
I would like to just point out, that the fact that this person was of the female gender should have no effect on the conversation itself, and thus it is not appropriate to have it in the title of the topic.

On the actual subject, I see both sides, and would leave it up to individual states/countries, but We need to do something about processing/Appeal time.
Posted 10/1/15 , edited 10/1/15

BlueOni wrote:

I still oppose the death penalty on both moral and practical grounds. Capital punishment's effectiveness as a deterrent has been called into question and the relative expense of pursuing a capital case far outstrips the alternatives, so practically speaking it's just not a very good option. You might try knocking down that expense by further constraining the appeals process, but with the prospect of wrongful conviction and an alarmingly high rate of wrongful executions one tends to shy away from that option. So what you end up with is a penalty that takes a very long time to implement (in this case approaching the amount of time that one would generally call a "life sentence"), costs a ridiculous amount of money, draws manpower away from other cases, takes up valuable court time, and runs a substantial risk of killing someone who didn't actually do anything.

Now, on the moral side of the issue things get a bit more complicated. While it is true that proportional penalties are the ideal since this would presumably provide equivalent restitution for some injury (such as ordering someone to pay the value of replacing a window they broke to the window's owner) it nevertheless remains the case that this sort of reasoning doesn't really apply all that smoothly when it comes to crimes like murder. Unfortunately, it's not really restitution to execute a murderer since the victims aren't getting anything other than a sense of closure they could just as readily obtain by other means when you do so.

So with restitution out of the way we return to proportionality, this time examining it in terms of the relationship between justice and fairness. Being made to pay the value of a broken window to its owner when you've been determined by a court of law to have broken it is both just and fair. There's no conflict between the two in that case. Similarly, execution is a fair outcome. The murderer deprived someone of life and was subsequently deprived of life themselves. That's definitely a proportional outcome. The problem is that execution is not a just outcome, and that's because execution inherently precludes any hope of vindication (once again, wrongful conviction is a thing), rehabilitation, and opportunities to give any sort of substantial restitution for one's wrongdoing (however small). It would be like evening out our window case by just smashing one of the breaker's windows. Okay, that's proportional, but it's not justice even if it isn't driven by petty revenge. You're just smashing windows. You're destroying instead of creating. You're making things worse.


I agree completely.

The whole topic isn't in regards to the gender, rather the death penalty itself. Yeah, it achieves closure to the families, but that's it. To some murderers that ask for it, it's like an easy way out. Personally, I find death too forgiving if you ask me. It's like comparing it to suicide (maybe that's the reason shooters shoot themselves in the end?).

The death penalty has been around for ages, yes, but there's also been ways people have found other effective means to punish people by making them make up for what they have done through services or other means to help others.

I would like to comment though, I'm a bit perplexed with societies way of handling closure. Some find execution a reasonable answer while others through forgiveness. Is one better than the other?
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/1/15

K3n21 wrote:

Yeah the whole ordeal is pretty sad and unfortunate.

18 years is hell of a long wait though...


It took 18 years? What was the point of even having it then? Half her life was spent for waiting an inevitable death. I'm not saying she doesn't or does deserve it. I'm just saying, making someone wait that long, when the family has probably long moved on from the pain. That seems even more cruel.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/1/15 , edited 10/1/15

dougeprofile wrote:

Can anyone name a single person who has been executed (in the U.S.) only to find out they were innocent? With both sides of the debate, I have never heard such an example put forward - our justice system is pretty good and the bar high.


One? Uno? Un? En? Ja. Meet George Stinney, Doug:



That is a fourteen year old boy who was sentenced to death and executed under ludicrous claims in the US justice system. He was eventually exonerated for the crime he was alleged of committing in 2014, but that was far too late to save his life. His trial, by the way, was a total farce. And yes, it took place in the USA. Not in Moscow, Minsk, or Beijing, where such things are expected. THE. US. OF. A.

And yes, there are estimates that wrongful conviction in capital crimes goes as high as 4% of cases, with estimates that more wrongful executions were completed. Since there's little room to keep a case open after the accused has been executed this makes sense, doesn't it?


Even if there were a few innocent people put to death (as yet there has not been a single one)...


Nnnnnnope. Pretty sure I just gave you an example.


...is no reason to abolish the death penalty, the state isn't perfect ...pretty close in this regard, but not perfect.


Sorry, but actually an estimated 4% wrongful conviction rate is pretty bad. Like, embarrassingly bad.


The cost of executing criminal has been purposefully made more expensive as a way to make carrying out the death penalty prohibitive - they should get one or two appeals (maybe with the second appeal they give up the right to receive a pardon from the governor), then time to say their good byes to this world; no more than two years from original sentence to it being carried out.


Yeah. Like, all these appeals to make sure we're like, not executing the wrong people, that have like, given innocent people a chance to survive over the last like, decade or two, they've got to like, go, you know, because like, justice and shit, like, chaaa?


The state isn't carrying out vengeance, but executing justice - even if one buys the ridiculous notion that the death penalty does not deter murder. I would also add child rape to the death penalty list.


I put a whole ethical analysis of this question out. Perhaps you'd like to address it someday.


I put forward Solution as our official executioner.


[ERROR: REFERENCE NOT RECOGNISED]
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.