DC Sniper Execution Date Set -- 10 November

[General Zod]

Since when is the speed by which the convict expires has any bearing on the cost or time necessary to do so? As I said before, the man would have been cremated or buried anyway, so we are actually removing a step rather than adding anything unnecessary, such as executions.

Okay, now you're just being a wanker or intentionally trolling. Removing a step does not make something more efficient or even preferred.

[open_sketchbook]

We're not talking about morality right now; that discussion ended when we decided state sanctioned murder was a-okay! Now we're talking the bottom line, profit, see?

I would like to remind everyone we are taking about ending human life here. It doesn't matter how quick or painless it is; you are killing somebody as a form of punishment to make everyone else feel better. There is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary that the capital punishment is a deterrent, so it's all just sentimental bullshit anyway.

[General Zod]

We're not talking about morality right now; that discussion ended when we decided state sanctioned murder was a-okay! Now we're talking the bottom line, profit, see?

Nobody's talking about profit you retard. But thanks for proving you're not capable of actually discussing the subject without hysterics.

I would like to remind everyone we are taking about ending human life here. It doesn't matter how quick or painless it is; you are killing somebody as a form of punishment to make everyone else feel better. There is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary that the capital punishment is a deterrent, so it's all just sentimental bullshit anyway.

The point isn't some petty revenge, the point is to remove someone from society permanently whose proven themselves such a danger that they cannot be trusted to remain in it. But hey, why bother actually addressing points without strawmen?

[open_sketchbook]

The same can be achieved by locking the fucker up somewhere nice and deep, except by that method nobody else dies. We can then make the guy make license plates for us. You see, if were going to go for a less suffering overall model, I prefer to begin with not killing anyone, and work from there.

[General Zod]

The same can be achieved by locking the fucker up somewhere nice and deep, except by that method nobody else dies.

Except for the security guards and prison staff that have to interact with him. Cause hey, if you're going for locking them up permanently they have every reason to try escaping and won't have any compunction about killing to get out.

We can then make the guy make license plates for us. You see, if were going to go for a less suffering overall model, I prefer to begin with not killing anyone, and work from there.

Until they kill people in the prison itself, sure. But I guess their safety doesn't count.

[open_sketchbook]

A modern maximum security prison is extraordinarily hard to escape from, or even to get into a position whereby one could potentially attack a guard. Seriously, those things are practically automated. The risk is incredibly minor. I might hit somebody with my car tomorrow and accidentally kill them, is that justification to have the state put me to death? Chances are roughly similar.

[General Zod]

A modern maximum security prison is extraordinarily hard to escape from, or even to get into a position whereby one could potentially attack a guard. Seriously, those things are practically automated. The risk is incredibly minor. I might hit somebody with my car tomorrow and accidentally kill them, is that justification to have the state put me to death? Chances are roughly similar.

If you're not going to bother addressing what people have been actually saying then fuck off. I've already said the only justification for the death penalty is murder. (Which I already acknowledge is different from manslaughter before you try whining about semantics).

[open_sketchbook]

So, in other words, human life is precious enough to justify the taking of human life? Doesn't that seem a mite bit contradictory to you?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

OS, the attempt at reductio ad absurdum is cute, but it's ultimately just a red herring. The proposals were explicitly formulated to minimize human suffering, because that's an ethical goal.

Do you seriously think that people who spend 60 years in prison are not suffering? All those isolation ward serial killers go (even more) insane from the lack of human contact, that's been thoroughly demonstrated.

These people can't be a part of society anymore but until the very instant of the point where we remove them from it, they do deserve our compassion. That's all the formulation says.

[Solauren]

The same can be achieved by locking the fucker up somewhere nice and deep, except by that method nobody else dies. We can then make the guy make license plates for us. You see, if were going to go for a less suffering overall model, I prefer to begin with not killing anyone, and work from there.

So, you're prefer to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) per year on someone who has commited crimes to evil, they are to spend the rest of their life in jail, then spending $0.50 and putting them out of everyone's misery?

Do you know what kind of prison set-up is required to keep guys like the Belt-way sniper, Paul Bernardo, Jeffery Dalmer, et all safe and seperate from the general prison population?

Shit loads. I know, my cousin is one of Paul Bernardo's guard's, and I've heard all about the routine. The media has also published details about his cell (including photos) and described in detail what is needed to keep this murderer safe.

I'm sorry, but I'd sooner see that money spent on something more worth while; Like hiring more teachers, increase in public programs, etc, then keeping a sub-human sack of filth alive for the next 50+ years.


And since we are on the subject of suffering and human treatment; Do you really think being trapped in a jail cell 23 hours a day is humane? With limited to no human contact? That's humane? Really?

I'm sorry, I'd laugh, but that's not funny.

If you think that's humane, you need to beat you head off a clue-rock for a while.

Sure, there is no physical suffering, but there is mental suffering. Boredom, Isolation. Those feelings accumulate, and can have a crushing effect on someone.

But hey, if you want to waste hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to keep someone locked up in a cell, to be bored and isolated for the rest of their natural lives, and never have to worry about having food, warmth, or needing money, when there are people that haven't done anything that don't have near that level of security, who am I to judge?

[open_sketchbook]

I agree that the reduction of human suffering is a noble goal, but I also believe that taking lives is something we should avoid unless absolutely necessary. If you gave me a license to kill and a few million troops I could drop human suffering to nearly zero, even if that just involved randomly killing people until we could sustain the population, but I don't believe that is right. Life is all we have, and we should try and preserve it if we can, even if this person has done a reprehensible thing.

It was you guys talking about cost and efficiency; I was just mocking you all for it. Putting a price on human life is for insurance companies.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I agree that the reduction of human suffering is a noble goal, but I also believe that taking lives is something we should avoid unless absolutely necessary. If you gave me a license to kill and a few million troops I could drop human suffering to nearly zero, even if that just involved randomly killing people until we could sustain the population, but I don't believe that is right. Life is all we have, and we should try and preserve it if we can, even if this person has done a reprehensible thing.

You don't believe it's right because you're squeamish, and that alone. Humans are social animals. Take away the society, and you take away their life, you're just leaving a husk to deteoriate.

And no, you can't give them a life in prison. They'll make a shiv out of seran wrap (it's been done) by melting it and shaping it over their space heater and stab another prisoner to death with it because they're bored. That's the kind of person we're talking about executing, are we clear?

[General Zod]

I agree that the reduction of human suffering is a noble goal, but I also believe that taking lives is something we should avoid unless absolutely necessary. If you gave me a license to kill and a few million troops I could drop human suffering to nearly zero, even if that just involved randomly killing people until we could sustain the population, but I don't believe that is right. Life is all we have, and we should try and preserve it if we can, even if this person has done a reprehensible thing.

If proving themselves to be dangerous enough threat to society that they'll willfully murder to get what they want isn't "absolutely necessary" then what is? I don't think you've actually thought this through beyond gut instinct.

[open_sketchbook]

Well, that is different. That is not the argument I've seen offered before about this. Most people talk about justice being done or escape risk and various other bullshit, but I think you might be right. People that would go through a ton of effort to take the life of another out of boredom? That isn't a person anymore, thats a monster that needs to be put down. Evaluating his suffering is irrelevant because there is no rational evaluation back. Even most murderers find twisted justification using similar standards, knowing murder is wrong but believing it to be the best solution. But killing because you can? I can think of no other solution.

[Mayabird]

You don't believe it's right because you're squeamish, and that alone. Humans are social animals. Take away the society, and you take away their life, you're just leaving a husk to deteoriate.

Adding to this - it's not just a theoretical. In Japan it's called "institutional insanity," and it happens to many of the death row inmates because they're kept isolated without human contact for months at a time - they're not even allowed to talk to other prisoners. Amnesty International just wrote a report on it.

[General Zod]

Well, that is different. That is not the argument I've seen offered before about this. Most people talk about justice being done or escape risk and various other bullshit, but I think you might be right. People that would go through a ton of effort to take the life of another out of boredom? That isn't a person anymore, thats a monster that needs to be put down. Evaluating his suffering is irrelevant because there is no rational evaluation back. Even most murderers find twisted justification using similar standards, knowing murder is wrong but believing it to be the best solution. But killing because you can? I can think of no other solution.

Most murderers do it because they can. The motivations don't really matter so much once they've proven they're willing to murder someone else for purely selfish reasons.

[Solauren]

ACtually 'Because I can/could" is a prime motivator in a lot of violent crimes.

i.e Rape is rarely about the sex, more often then not, it's about control.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, that is different. That is not the argument I've seen offered before about this. Most people talk about justice being done or escape risk and various other bullshit, but I think you might be right. People that would go through a ton of effort to take the life of another out of boredom? That isn't a person anymore, thats a monster that needs to be put down. Evaluating his suffering is irrelevant because there is no rational evaluation back. Even most murderers find twisted justification using similar standards, knowing murder is wrong but believing it to be the best solution. But killing because you can? I can think of no other solution.

I find it amusing that you accuse others of being sentimental but then you pipe up with and with emphasis "ending human life". So what? What makes human life so special that you feel you need to keep alive a person where their only other responsible option the government can provide is to lock them away forever.

Whatever answer you come up with with be filled with your subjective interpretations. So, that's why we come to the facts. If you can't ever let someone out because they are so dangerous to society then it does become about efficiency and resources wasted on basically a useless person.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You don't believe it's right because you're squeamish, and that alone. Humans are social animals. Take away the society, and you take away their life, you're just leaving a husk to deteoriate.

Adding to this - it's not just a theoretical. In Japan it's called "institutional insanity," and it happens to many of the death row inmates because they're kept isolated without human contact for months at a time - they're not even allowed to talk to other prisoners. Amnesty International just wrote a report on it.

Which is basically what we do to people in Supermax here in the states who could easily be executed instead, like the Unabomber, and that would be the place that Muhammad would get sent if he wasn't up for the death penalty.

[Simon_Jester]

But aren't the standards of evidence the same regardless of whether the convict gets a prison term or execution?

Yes, but with a prison term you can always yank the guy out of prison afterwards if it turns out you screwed up. With a death sentence, you can't unkill someone, so you'd damn well better make sure you got it right before you kill them. And that means you need to be very thorough before you carry out the sentence. Which means keeping the guy alive on death row until you've had a chance to be that thorough. Which is why death penalty trials cost so much in the US; you basically can't* execute the guy until his lawyer has run out of reasons to appeal the sentence.

*shouldn't, anyway.

of course for my personal prefrence If I could choose my own form of execution.

Could I be in the primary kill zone for a weapon's test? (preferably nuclear, though a FAE would work)

Unfortunately we don't test nuclear weapons anymore, but something could probably be arranged if the military were willing to play along, which they probably won't be for some complicated paperwork reason.

As a practical matter - quite a few people would hold execution to a higher standard than "mere" life without parole for the simple fact you can't correct a mistaken execution.

I understand you can't correct a mistaken execution, but how do you 'correct' a mistaken life sentence? Especially with US prisons in mind where a stint most certainly will leave a person traumatized for life, if not dead.

Even here where we have humane prisons, how do you 'correct' taking decades of someone's life away from them?

You can't totally correct it, but at least the guy still physically exists. You can give him a big pile of money or whatever as a "we're sorry" present. It may not be very satisfying to them, but it's better than nothing.

Whereas if the state kills you, that's it, there is no possibility of ever doing ANYTHING to make up for it that you would really give a crap about.

Wasn't that done out of malice, rather than botching the hangings, though? The long drop has it's share of problems, I don't doubt that, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Albert Pierrepoint (Britain's 'last' hangman) was appalled at what he saw as the unprofessionalism of the American executioners because of how they sought to cause suffering rather than carry out a proper hanging.

Speaking for myself, I would not find it easy to give, say, Ernst Kaltenbrunner a quick death, especially not if I'd just lived through the Second World War. I'm not sure I'd be able to do the job properly, so I'm not surprised that the people who actually had it didn't either.

Supreme court ruled we cant you fucking sociopath

Fuck off ye cunt -- You're not the one who was worried sick one night that your brother was out late during the time that Boyd and Malvo were doing their sniper spree.

At the time, my brother was attending the school where a kid got shot by those two and I'm not baying for the state to kill the teenage accomplice. So I think this might be a good time for you to go take some moral high ground that's out of artillery range.

And no, you can't give them a life in prison. They'll make a shiv out of seran wrap (it's been done) by melting it and shaping it over their space heater and stab another prisoner to death with it because they're bored.

Now that... that is quite ingenious. I doubt I would ever have thought of stabbing someone to death with Saran wrap.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So, for those death penalty opponents here who think prison is a viable alternative--would you at least consider the death penalty for guys who murder for kicks in prison after already being jailed for life for murder?

[Alferd Packer]

I wonder: How long can someone be kept in a chemically-induced coma? It seems that the main issue of contention is the extreme isolation and boredom of Supermax and their ilk is more cruel than killing the prisoner. What if, then, a prisoner could be placed in an induced coma for several weeks, then roused as needed for a few days of activity/interaction/evaluation. Now your hypothetical murderer doesn't have the time he needs to improvise weapons, nor really the inclination, since he knows that he's only got a few hours of useful consciousness before he's put back under again.

Admittedly, this is probably quite dangerous and perhaps medically impossible, but assuming that it were possible to safely induce coma in a person for long stretches of time, would this not solve the problems associated with lifelong prison sentences in isolation?

[General Zod]

I wonder: How long can someone be kept in a chemically-induced coma? It seems that the main issue of contention is the extreme isolation and boredom of Supermax and their ilk is more cruel than killing the prisoner. What if, then, a prisoner could be placed in an induced coma for several weeks, then roused as needed for a few days of activity/interaction/evaluation. Now your hypothetical murderer doesn't have the time he needs to improvise weapons, nor really the inclination, since he knows that he's only got a few hours of useful consciousness before he's put back under again.

Admittedly, this is probably quite dangerous and perhaps medically impossible, but assuming that it were possible to safely induce coma in a person for long stretches of time, would this not solve the problems associated with lifelong prison sentences in isolation?

So basically the Demolition Man method?

[Alferd Packer]

So basically the Demolition Man method?

Well, maybe not with the whole Ice Nine freezing thing, but basically. The coma would allow, however, the muscles to atrophy, so arousal from the coma for medical evaluation would, I presume, be more frequent than the sentences imposed there. This has the added benefit of keeping an inmate physically weak and less able to harm others. Further, since in a coma there is no brain activity to speak of, you don't need to worry about the inmates dreaming or perceiving the passage of time. They go to sleep in January and wake up for a few days in March, or whatever the interval would be.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, at that point you really might as well kill them, I'd think. There comes a point at which keeping them physically incapacitated just so you can say that their heart is still beating is just... weird. I'd say morbid, but that's not the right word. I can't think of the word I'm looking for, though.

My view on the death penalty is that I personally don't have a problem with it, and I can't figure out whether or not it's one of those things society is in the process of deciding to be unjust yet.