The death sentence.

I hear that freezing to death is one of the more pleasant ways to die...

I don't really think shipping folk to Antarctica is the solution anyway. A rifle shot on a firing line is far more economical, if that's your problem.

But, for the sake of argument, I don't see why you would even need guards. The boat ride is not that expensive, compared to upkeep in a standard prison. Think of the other savings! The accomodations can be carved in the ice. Fuel and generators can be economical if kept in the ice huts. They will have to raise crops hydroponically, if they want more than the surplus rations we rotate off the shelves here.

If they have committed crimes so depraved that we question whether they should live, then they should not live anyplace from which they can escape.

Look at Australia today! That worked rather well, don't you think?

If folk want to whine that we should preserve the lives of murderous scum, then they should consider that things are preserved rather well in the deep freeze...


So chill out!

Both to the head. Freezing to death is NOT pleasant... although usually you've passed out before you die.

Ideally, we'd export them to a medium-sized island, give them some shovels and some rations, and tell them "The temperature falls below zero within sixty days. It'll get far lower. Start digging."

digging through the old posts...

i am against the death penalty for reasons that have already been said. karma works - let god(s) or fate or whoever judge them, it's not our place. we are a fallible species.

now, what should be done with the violent criminals...

lock them up (that part is obvious). not in a cushy american prison - i'm thinking they should go into a concrete bunker. the only amenities: bread & water & air enough to breathe. maybe straw pallets to sleep on. no parole, no release. imprisonment should be IMPRISONMENT, not a hotel stay.

i have no sympathy for violent criminals, but that doesn't supercede "thou shalt not kill"

aryne *

It is illegal to kill another person. It's as simple as that

Hmmm...

So, let's not kill the mass-murderer, let's just use slow torture on him for the rest of his life by giving him "bread and water and air enough to breathe"...

I don't think we should rely on "karma" to protect the citizens of the NOW, while at the same time trying to keep ourselves from falling as low as mass-murderers, murder-rapists etc... by inflicting torture on them.

The question is, considering the extent of the crimes committed, considering the context, what to do in the now so that the society in which we live be exempt from these individuals, without torturing them, nor giving them a possible haven in prison...

A sentence of death in extreme cases of horrible crimes is, in my opinion, an acceptable compromise between the respect for a human's individual life and the immediate disrespect one rightly has for the life of monsters.

But death sentences in states, provinces, countries, should never come alone, without measures to understand the why of these crimes.
I didn't check the statistics recently, but I do wonder, for example, how many among the men in the US who were put to death were black. A marked social disproportion in such statistic would rather point out to a State's joint culpability in the crimes, or worse a case of flagrant racist bias ingrained in the culture...

These decisions are absolutely not easy to make.

But sometimes they can be.
Dahmer, Bundy, Bernardo, and some others... so, ok, maybe they had tough childhoods, or whatever...
But they are/were awfully dangerous monsters, with a taste for hate, death, rape in their mind (and human flesh in at least one of them...).
I wouldn't blink while injecting a letal dose that would bring a quick painless death to them and the like.

Not a blink.

OK, let's use dahmer as an example here. he killed people, chopped them up, ate some of them & left pieces of others all over his apartment. IMO a depraved monster, i think i'm not alone in believing that.

he caused a LOT of suffering. so why should we provide him with a nice comfortable FREE living, or kill him quickly "so he doesn't suffer?" IMO he's forfeited rights to comfort by causing so much uncofrort.

the "bread & water & air only" - i'm not saying use that for every thug or drug dealer on the street. that's for the most violent & "sickest" out there - people who IMO deserve it.

i'm also not saying that's a perfect solution. but -
- they'd have food, clothing, shelter, their cellmates for companionship (which may not be a good thing - but that isn't a moot-appropriate topic) & endless time to THINK. for some it would be torture, yes. but not for the majority, and a prison system can't tailor itself to coddle individual prisoners - then it wouldn't be a prison system.

remember this is IMO. and i think it would be interesting to at least try. but america would never do this - too many lawyers. and built-in freedoms to prevent cruel people like me from carrying out these sort of plans.

aryne *

I have two problems with the death penalty. First, it is a contradiction. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "we kill people who kill people to set an example that killing is wrong". To me that says it all. Second, our justice system is my no means fool proof. Just as guilty people are set free, there are those who are convicted and put to death for crimes they didn't commit. And at that point, there is no appeal....what is done is done. To me it is much more sick to take a seemingly healthy person, calmly lead them to a chamber, strap them down so they can't run away, and kill them...with people watching no less. How can that be the right thing to do, when under other circumstances it is the wrong thing to do? If killing is wrong.....KILLING IS WRONG!

According to the law as it stands, a statement like "If killing is wrong.....KILLING IS WRONG!" is quite inaccurate. I have no problem if you hold that as your personal opinion, but it holds no weight under law. The state may sanction killing by its soldiers in several different situations, as with its police officers. As well, killing to defend one's life or property is also partly sanctioned (in theory, anyways).

You take a life, you lose your life. |I

You're right, I do hold it as my personal opinion. I think that killing is wrong. But more importantly, I think that death as a punishment for killing someone is more wrong. And as for the law....just because a government sanctions the killing of others doesn't make it right.....hence the statement: killing is wrong. Just think if everyone in the world held the same opinion........

Oh, one more thing....I know you might not think that a realistic point of view, but it keeps my conscious clear.

Let's play a little game with your conscience, shall we?

Would your conscience be clean if...

... you casted a vote to make the death penalty illegal in your country?

... if your vote was the one that made it that way? (not so unbelievable after the Florida results)

... if the laws were passed, and the death sentence was outlawed in all of the states?

... if a man raped and killed a woman in your neighbourhood?

... if he was given "life" ("life" = 15 years in Canada) in a maximum-security prison that afforded him a better standard of living than his previous life as a construction worker?

... if he escaped from the aforementioned maximum-security prison?

... if you knew he was in your neighbourhood?

... if he raped and then tortured to death the woman's daughter who testified against him?

... if you were tied to a chair and forced to watch it?

... if you were next?

.
For me, in clear-cut cases of monstruous murderers like Bundy, Dahmer, Bernardo, etc..., the death penalty is not a punishment per se.
So, in some sense, it doesn't deserve fully its name!
The only "penalty" (imo) is what the convicted murderer suffers while waiting his death.

Punishment is for someone who needs to learn the hard way.
Being dead doesn't give the dead person enlightenment.

Death "penalty" is (should be) a measure for protecting the others that live on, that survive, that may be the next victims, etc...


Yes, there is something wrong in killing;
so is there, also for example, in war.

But sometimes war and the killing of the enemy's soldiers are necessary when the said enemy go on with their rampage and killings.
And I contend that, similarly, in our "war" against indisputably recognized violent and hainous crimes, we must also make that crucial decision of ending the endengering person's life.
Not as a punishment to him, but as survival for us; and also, as JL may suggest, so that we won't see the day when maybe the murderer escapes and go kill someone dear to us.

Again, these are tough decisions, not to be taken lightly, especially since our culture (western), contrary to what many of us may think, is far, far from immune to extreme prejudices and stupidity.

When I personally say that I'm not against the death penalty, and for it in some of the cases where the case is clear-cut, it is not however a total agreement of what is happening, say, in some States of the US, or in Iran, or any such countries/places where the death penalty is law. Neither can I condemn any isolated case where there might have been a mistake commited, for I do not have all the related materials by which this decision was made.
But if, say, just for the sake of an example, one could show by numbers that 70% of all execution in Southern USA were black males (or red-headed irish descendents, whatever...), then one could/should! doubt the integrity of the law enforcers/judges in those regions.

Because of such possible (and i'm sure actual!) cases of cultural prejudgment/prejudices, the death "penalty" should then be a quite extra-ordinary method of dealing with extra-ordinary individuals; and absolutely shouldn't be an extension of age-old lynching mobs.
The means look/sound the same, but the ideas behind them aren't - or rather shouldn't be; revenge, even though it is an understandable emotional response, can easily blind us, whoever we are: citizen, policeman/policewoman, attorney, judge...


Here one could then ask: but what is then a clear-cut case, where the death penalty could be applicable?

There's no absolute answer here, not even a precise one that could cover all cases.

But there's one that comes to mind: in a case where the murderer admits his hainous crimes, including methods, and, say, the localisation of the cadavers; and/or cases where the actual crimes where caught on film (eg Bernardo and his girlfriend who videotapes their rapes/murders), or withnessed directly by many people.


To be noted also is that even among people who don't disagree about the death "penalty" there come details that will even separate them from each other; the abortion issue could be such an example.


------

Of course, I and you and anyone in this thread could be dead wrong (no pun intended) about their opinion.
The age-old dilemma of "killing the killer" won't be resolved just between us.
It is however important that we do explain ourselves about what we believe, whether it is a strong belief or not.

Maybe there'll be one day a solution not unlike Burgess' idea exposed in A Clockwork Orange (I only saw Kubrick's movie though myself...).
As a comparable example, for many decades some convicted pedophile rapists got reduced sentences by accepting to be castrated (although many psychologist say that this may not deter some of them from doing their crimes again).



(Btw, all of this make me think again of that old/almost forgotten doctrine that Origen called apocatastasis... Simplistically presented, it's about all souls coming back to the christian god ( Ã* la Origen), through its all-powerfull power of love. Of course, it was quickly set aside as an heresy...)

Regardless of whether or not the death penalty is legal or not, people will still commit unspeakable crimes, including the one in your scenario. So as far as my conscious is considered, the guilt would not be mine, because I did not commit the crime. So by putting the blame on me for casting the vote that did away with the death penalty, that gave the criminal the chance to escape from prison to commit crimes once again, you are basically saying that it is my fault that further crimes were committed.

For most people the death penalty is probably a good deterrent from committing horrible crimes. But for those that find no problem with killing people in such horrible ways, I hardly doubt a punishment such as death makes any difference to them. And in some cases, it is what they expect and hope for, Mc Veigh is an example. He believes that by being put to death, he is becoming a martyr for his cause.

Most of the world has realized by now that this barbaric practice is WRONG, why can't America? Even if you don't believe in God, you must still believe in a change of heart. Even the worst of criminals can change their ways. My father leads a religious group in a prison, so I can tell you for a fact that it happens. We do not have the right to take anothers life, NO MATTER WHAT

anduin:

"people will still commit unspeakable crimes, including the one in your scenario."

Not the second and the third. Only the first is possible.

"you are basically saying that it is my fault that further crimes were committed."

You're seeing an ulterior motive there that isn't there. Each of those was an individual question, and was intended to provoke an individual answer. If you feel that you're answering them truthfully, then I can respect that.

Darth Tater:

Firstly, I'm not an American. I've never been out of Canada in my life.

Secondly... "Even if you don't believe in God, you must still believe in a change of heart." "We do not have the right to take anothers life, NO MATTER WHAT"

Where do I start?

One moment.

Exodus 21:12, 21:14, 21:15, 21:16, 21:17, 21:29, 22:19, 31:14, 31:15, 35:2. Leviticus 20:2, 20:9, 20:10, 20:11, 20:12, 20:13, 20:15, 20:16, 20:27, 24:16, 24:17, 24:21, 27:29. Numbers 1:51, 3:10, 3:38, 18:7, 25:5, 35:16, 35:17, 35:18, 35:21, 35:30, 35:31. Deuteronomy 13:5, 13:9, 17:6, 17:7, 17:12, 18:20, 24:16

They're verses in which God, through Moses, details various situations in which He expects capital punishment in Israel.

The key one for understanding is probably Numbers 35:19 NIV: "The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death."

Another one about "We do not have the right to take anothers life, NO MATTER WHAT"...

"These are the names of David's mighty men: Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter. Next to him was Eleazar son of Dodai the Ahohite. As one of the three mighty men, he was with David when they taunted the Philistines gathered [at Pas Dammim] for battle. Then the men of Israel retreated,"...
Exodus 23:8-9 NIV

Heroes. Heroes. David, God's chosen king, and his fellow warriors. Heroes.

And in advance, the New Testament perspective... is twofold.

John 8:7-11, and Luke 23:41.

the government is postponing his execution until june 11.

the fbi really screwed up on this one...

aryne *

...

*mutters something under his breath*

David Threinen was convicted of the murders of four Saskatchewan children, and is currently incarcerated for life. After spending 25 years in prison, he was granted an appeal hearing. What did he say there?

"I will spend the rest of my life in prison. I will die here. I'm where I belong."

"Even though I know if I was released today I would not reoffend, my thing is I don't deserve to be released."

"My family doesn't get another chance. The victims' families don't get another chance. The victims don't get another chance. Who the hell am I to get another chance? I've had my chance."

(I'm not making this up. Straight out of the Leader-Post.)

Don't ya love it when people who don't understand the Bible quote it? Capital punishment was necessary in old testament times, and it really wasn't specifically a religious thing. Had a lot to do with culture, and other historical stuff I won't get into now. However, I'm reading from the New Testament here

"Whoever is without blame let him throw the first stone"

... I feel this will get messy...

... of the Bible...

"Don't ya love it when people who don't understand the Bible quote it?"

Have you read it cover-to-cover? How many times? I've done it several times. With several different translations.

How many verses have you memorized? I've memorized dozens. What gives you the right to look down your nose at me? By the start of the next Bible Quizzing season, I'll have memorized First and Second Corinthians word-perfect. Hopefully I'll be able to go to Cranbrook, maybe even the Internationals, but that's secondary.

Question my credentials at your own risk. You may have "better", but that doesn't invalidate the fact that I've carefully studied these things.

Back on subject:

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter WHY, but GOD DID AUTHORIZE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. You can't deny it. He gave it EXPLICIT authorization.

Does it mean it's valid now? Not really. But it WAS valid at one point.

And if you read my previous post, I pointed you to TWO verses, not just the one you quoted. The other one was where the thief on the cross beside Christ said, and I quote, "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve."