‘Justice is death’ for alleged shooter in Batman rampage...

[Broomstick]

There's also the question of justice, and how valuable you think it is to provide the victim's families with a cathartic sense that justice has been served.

I think you're presuming that everyone would have the same viewpoint in regards to the death penalty. Not everyone views killing yet another human being as either "cathartic" or "justice". Indeed, there have been people who have been appalled at the notion of deliberately killing another human being and who have argued against it even after the loss of a family member to murder.

[Flagg]

I find both their attitudes on mentally ill criminals disturbing, frankly. It speaks to either ignorance or downright being a piece of shit human being.

[Channel72]

I think you're presuming that everyone would have the same viewpoint in regards to the death penalty. Not everyone views killing yet another human being as either "cathartic" or "justice". Indeed, there have been people who have been appalled at the notion of deliberately killing another human being and who have argued against it even after the loss of a family member to murder.

But obviously some people do. If we polled the immediate families of the victims and obtained greater than 50% support for the death penalty, would you lend any weight to that?

I find both their attitudes on mentally ill criminals disturbing, frankly. It speaks to either ignorance or downright being a piece of shit human being.

Society doesn't have infinite resources. There are all sorts of pressing medical issues. Frankly, investing serious time and resources into curing the criminally insane (which is likely an extremely difficult problem) is not priority #1 right now. Mass murdering psychopaths aren't exactly common, you know. The death penalty is an acceptable alternative until neuroscience advances to the point where we can actually do something about this in a cost-effective manner. I'm sorry if you find that uncompassionate or being a "piece of shit human being", but that's the reality.

[Flagg]

I think you're presuming that everyone would have the same viewpoint in regards to the death penalty. Not everyone views killing yet another human being as either "cathartic" or "justice". Indeed, there have been people who have been appalled at the notion of deliberately killing another human being and who have argued against it even after the loss of a family member to murder.

But obviously some people do. If we polled the immediate families of the victims and obtained greater than 50% support for the death penalty, would you lend any weight to that?

I find both their attitudes on mentally ill criminals disturbing, frankly. It speaks to either ignorance or downright being a piece of shit human being.

Society doesn't have infinite resources. There are all sorts of pressing medical issues. Frankly, investing serious time and resources into curing the criminally insane (which is likely an extremely difficult problem) is not priority #1 right now. Mass murdering psychopaths aren't exactly common, you know. The death penalty is an acceptable alternative until neuroscience advances to the point where we can actually do something about this in a cost-effective manner. I'm sorry if you find that uncompassionate or being a "piece of shit human being", but that's the reality.

Please provide evidence for these claims. And the prior claims.

[Channel72]

What claim in particular do you find objectionable?

[Flagg]

Your casual disregard of the mentally ill is both disgusting and tragic.

I agree with Elfdart. As neuroscience and medical technology improves, we may eventually come up with very effective strategies for helping people prone to violent or psychotic behavior. But the Batman shooter is clearly a very serious threat to society, and the foremost responsibility of the State is to protect the well-being of its citizens. Since there's no question of guilt here, I don't see the point in keeping this guy alive. He's a constant safety risk, and there's no known way to effectively treat him short of lobotomizing the man. There's also the question of justice, and how valuable you think it is to provide the victim's families with a cathartic sense that justice has been served.

He's in jail, please demonstrate how he is more dangerous than any other murderer. I'd also like to see evidence that whatever his illness may be, it cannot be treated.

[Channel72]

He's in jail, please demonstrate how he is more dangerous than any other murderer.

He's not necessarily any more dangerous. But this is somewhat circular. I'm arguing that many other murderers should also be put to death. Usually, the best argument against the death penalty is that our justice system/forensic technology is often very flawed, and there is a serious risk of accidentally executing an innocent person. However, that is not the case here.

I'd also like to see evidence that whatever his illness may be, it cannot be treated.

I think rather it is your burden to demonstrate that criminally insane individuals can be reliably "cured" to the extent that they can function as normal individuals. That would be a rather incredible medical breakthrough.

[Thanas]

I think rather it is your burden to demonstrate that criminally insane individuals can be reliably "cured" to the extent that they can function as normal individuals. That would be a rather incredible medical breakthrough.

How do you define criminally insane?

[Broomstick]

I think you're presuming that everyone would have the same viewpoint in regards to the death penalty. Not everyone views killing yet another human being as either "cathartic" or "justice". Indeed, there have been people who have been appalled at the notion of deliberately killing another human being and who have argued against it even after the loss of a family member to murder.

But obviously some people do. If we polled the immediate families of the victims and obtained greater than 50% support for the death penalty, would you lend any weight to that?

No. "I want" is not the same as being entitled to something, or justified in obtaining it by any means available. I have stated this several times in various threads but under my ethics the only justifiable reason for taking another human life is self-defense or the defense of others. If the perpetrator is in custody and no longer a danger there is no ethical rationale to kill him and to do so isn't "justice" it's state-sanctioned murder.

Of course, I'm well aware not everyone operates under the same ethical rules as I do.

Society doesn't have infinite resources. There are all sorts of pressing medical issues. Frankly, investing serious time and resources into curing the criminally insane (which is likely an extremely difficult problem) is not priority #1 right now.

By that rationale we should execute people with Alzheimer's as they are a much more common drain on society. Nope, sorry, killing sick people, even if their illness is "only" mental, is not acceptable.

The death penalty is an acceptable alternative until neuroscience advances to the point where we can actually do something about this in a cost-effective manner.

Again, it is NOT acceptable to many other people. Stop talking like your position is the default you piece of shit. At least have the honesty to say "in my opinion" rather than spewing your repulsive and morally bankrupt (by my ethics) position.

[Channel72]

No. "I want" is not the same as being entitled to something, or justified in obtaining it by any means available. I have stated this several times in various threads but under my ethics the only justifiable reason for taking another human life is self-defense or the defense of others. If the perpetrator is in custody and no longer a danger there is no ethical rationale to kill him and to do so isn't "justice" it's state-sanctioned murder.

Why do you think state-sanctioned murder is necessarily a bad thing? The "State" in a democractic Republic basically represents (with many exceptions and caveats) the will of the people whom it is designed to protect. So what exactly is wrong with state-sanctioned murder? It's not as if it is applied by dictatorial fiat.

By that rationale we should execute people with Alzheimer's as they are a much more common drain on society. Nope, sorry, killing sick people, even if their illness is "only" mental, is not acceptable.

People with Alzheimer's are not a danger to society. They haven't broken any social contract, so society is still obligated to protect them.

Again, it is NOT acceptable to many other people. Stop talking like your position is the default you piece of shit. At least have the honesty to say "in my opinion" rather than spewing your repulsive and morally bankrupt (by my ethics) position.

I'd rather not continuously qualify my statements with "in my opinion...", when this should be tautologically obvious.

[Broomstick]

Why do you think state-sanctioned murder is necessarily a bad thing?

One more time: the only justification for taking a human life is either self defense or the defense of others. If a person can be safely confined then there is no justification for killing him. To kill him without justification is murder.

Is there any part of that you fail to understand?

The "State" in a democractic Republic basically represents (with many exceptions and caveats) the will of the people whom it is designed to protect.

Then why do we limit the power of the state? The majority are not always right, what you are advocating leads eventually to vigilante justice and lynch mobs when the majority vote to eliminate a minority without proper due process or protection of human rights..

By that rationale we should execute people with Alzheimer's as they are a much more common drain on society. Nope, sorry, killing sick people, even if their illness is "only" mental, is not acceptable.

People with Alzheimer's are not a danger to society.

A criminal properly confined in a modern prison is no longer a danger to society, either.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

But obviously some people do. If we polled the immediate families of the victims and obtained greater than 50% support for the death penalty, would you lend any weight to that?

Oh, look, an argument from popularity. Fucking awesome. And also things like the right to life are now a popularity contest, with the most skewed voters possible to boot. I can hear you now, saying "but Train, he already violated another's right to life", so what? Violation of the right to life by the elected government of a country is now equal to some murderous fuckface?

[Channel72]

One more time: the only justification for taking a human life is either self defense or the defense of others. If a person can be safely confined then there is no justification for killing him. To kill him without justification is murder.

Your argument here is patently subjective. The prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials, for example, would clearly disagree with you. State-imposed death as punishment for certain heinous crimes is perfectly acceptable to many people. The "State", as the collective representative of the will of the people, is the highest authority in any civilization. There's no reason why the State shouldn't have the option to forcefully extinguish the life of (murder) certain citizens if they flagrantly disregard their social contract, especially in cases where rehabilitation is extremely unlikely or technologically/medically impractical.

Then why do we limit the power of the state? The majority are not always right, what you are advocating leads eventually to vigilante justice and lynch mobs when the majority vote to eliminate a minority without proper due process or protection of human rights.

I agree. But it is your burden to demonstrate that the State has any ethical responsibility to protect the rights of citizens who flagrantly disregard the laws and the lives of others. A citizen who commits mass murder has essentially forfeited his/her right to expect protection and acknowledgement of rights from the State.

[Broomstick]

One more time: the only justification for taking a human life is either self defense or the defense of others. If a person can be safely confined then there is no justification for killing him. To kill him without justification is murder.

What you're saying is patently subjective.

So? Arguably all morality is subjective. I stated my basis for my stance in plain English. Why do you have trouble comprehending what I said?

The prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials, for example, would clearly disagree with you.

So? The Nazis also disagree with me, does that make them right?

State-imposed death as punishment for certain heinous crimes is perfectly acceptable to many people.

And UNacceptable to many people. Why do you discount their viewpoints? I am hardly the only one to take a stance against state-sponsored murder.

The "State", as the collective representative of the will of the people, is the highest authority in any civilization.

So... if the "will of the people" is to enslave others that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to kill the disabled or imprison/work to death/execute other people due solely to their ethnic background that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to cut off the external genitalia of young girls that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to castrate young boys to preserve their high pitched singing voices is that OK?

There's no reason why the State shouldn't have the option of forcefully extinguishing the life of certain citizens if they flagrantly disregard their social contract, especially in cases where rehabilitation is extremely unlikely or impractical.

If a person is incapable (whether psychologically or by being restrained) of harming others there is no justification for killing a person. This is no reason the state has to kill people who are not posing a danger to others.

A citizen who commits mass murder has essentially forfeited his/her right to expect protection and acknowledgement of rights from the State.

And yet... many states (both in the sense of nations and about 1/3 of the US states) exist just fine without needing a death penalty so clearly it is not essential to protecting the rights and safety of citizens (or really, humans in general because I don't see where we should treat non-citizens a less worthy than citizens when it comes to basic rights and safety).

[Elfdart]

There are plenty of lunatics available for study already, and most aren't as dangerous as this particular fucktard. If the court finds him guilty and sentences him to death, good riddance.

Yeah, beyond executing him, there's also the little point of trying to do something with your health system that will ensure people like him are properly medicated. You know, so they don't become mass murderers. But then people won't be as readily able to be toughguys on the Intrawebz who don't give a goat's greasy dick.

Nice False Dilemma. Since when are executing mass murderers on one hand and treating the rest of the mentally ill on the other mutually exclusive?

Your casual disregard of the mentally ill is both disgusting and tragic.

No, your special pleading for the poor helpless mass murderer who was caught in the act is what's "disgusting and tragic". I'm all for treating the mentally ill as much as possible, just as I'm all in favor of treating the physically ill as much as possible. However, I have no sympathy for spree killers whether they're bipolar, psychotic, diabetic, HIV-positive, afflicted with gangrene or just cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. If Ted Bundy's execution in the electric chair meant his high cholesterol went untreated...

Well, it takes sadder tales to make me cry.

This fucktard killed and wounded dozens of people, and if anyone deserves to be put out of their misery it's him. It's one thing to oppose the death penalty in general, but to whine and cry because a lunatic (who had enough control over his actions to plan his attack and rig up his home with explosives) might get the same treatment as other mass murderers is moronic pearl-clutching at its worst.

[Broomstick]

My ethical objections to the death penalty don't have a clause "except for egregious cases". Nor am I "whining" (though others might be). If Dzhokhar had died during capture I wouldn't shed any tears over him. While there is a certain utility in questioning him and trying to get information from him he was dangerous enough that if the choice was between live capture and someone else getting hurt or killed vs. his death I'd be OK with his death as it would be justified to protect others from him. I don't have a problem with Tamerlane being killed in a confrontation with police as, again, he was a dangerous person who was a threat to others and it was apparently not possible to capture him alive, therefore, use of deadly force was justified in that case.

But, once the person is in custody, as Dzhokhar now is, and no longer able to hurt others, there is no longer any justification for killing him. Frankly, life in prison might be more horrible for him than execution. Well, too bad for him. Likewise, if he suffers permanent injury after his crimes and the police pursuit I won't shed any tears for him. Actions have consequences. I just don't think state-sponsored killing should be one of them.

[Flagg]

There are plenty of lunatics available for study already, and most aren't as dangerous as this particular fucktard. If the court finds him guilty and sentences him to death, good riddance.

Yeah, beyond executing him, there's also the little point of trying to do something with your health system that will ensure people like him are properly medicated. You know, so they don't become mass murderers. But then people won't be as readily able to be toughguys on the Intrawebz who don't give a goat's greasy dick.

Nice False Dilemma. Since when are executing mass murderers on one hand and treating the rest of the mentally ill on the other mutually exclusive?

Your casual disregard of the mentally ill is both disgusting and tragic.

No, your special pleading for the poor helpless mass murderer who was caught in the act is what's "disgusting and tragic". I'm all for treating the mentally ill as much as possible, just as I'm all in favor of treating the physically ill as much as possible. However, I have no sympathy for spree killers whether they're bipolar, psychotic, diabetic, HIV-positive, afflicted with gangrene or just cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. If Ted Bundy's execution in the electric chair meant his high cholesterol went untreated...

Well, it takes sadder tales to make me cry.

This fucktard killed and wounded dozens of people, and if anyone deserves to be put out of their misery it's him. It's one thing to oppose the death penalty in general, but to whine and cry because a lunatic (who had enough control over his actions to plan his attack and rig up his home with explosives) might get the same treatment as other mass murderers is moronic pearl-clutching at its worst.

You're a retarded jackass. Plenty of mass murderers who kill more people have been sent to prison for life. But again, your casual disregard of the mentally ill is sickening. And nice comparing something that negatively effects behavior beyond a persons control with avoidable diseases.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This fucktard killed and wounded dozens of people, and if anyone deserves to be put out of their misery it's him. It's one thing to oppose the death penalty in general, but to whine and cry because a lunatic (who had enough control over his actions to plan his attack and rig up his home with explosives) might get the same treatment as other mass murderers is moronic pearl-clutching at its worst.

I have addressed this very argument in this very thread. Please have the decency to read.

The individual in question was psychotic. Psychosis being the state of fundamental disconnection with reality. In other words, the world he percieved was different than the world you or I live in, and he was unable to tell the difference. Delusional. Not hallucinating. This could be delusions of profound persecution, paranoia regarding malevolent conspiracies that everyone but you happen to be in on, or demonic/angelic command hallucinations. A psychotic person can in fact have the control and forsight--within their premises, which are deranged--to load their house with explosives and make provisions to avoid capture. But they are NOT responsible for their actions in the moral and social context that you or I might perceive. They try to avoid capture because, for example, they genuinely believe that they will be taken by THEm to a re-education facility like in 1984 if captured. They rig their house with explosives because they believe that The Dark Ones will come for them in their sleep and it is better to take out the entire apartment than have that happen etc etc etc.

And no, they cannot reason their way out of that. Those circuits in the brain are down for the count. That is what makes psychotic delusions different from LSD hallucinations.

[Channel72]

The "State", as the collective representative of the will of the people, is the highest authority in any civilization.

So... if the "will of the people" is to enslave others that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to kill the disabled or imprison/work to death/execute other people due solely to their ethnic background that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to cut off the external genitalia of young girls that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to castrate young boys to preserve their high pitched singing voices is that OK?

Please demonstrate that executing condemned murderers is in anyway morally equivalent to any of the things you listed here.

If a person is incapable (whether psychologically or by being restrained) of harming others there is no justification for killing a person. This is no reason the state has to kill people who are not posing a danger to others.

The justification is so that the state doesn't have to indefinitely constrain a dangerous murderer prone to psychotic behavior who puts various prison staff at risk. You'd probably agree that the State is responsible for removing dangerous people from society, but for some reason you think it's better to achieve this via indefinite incarceration instead of just state-sponsored killing. You have yet to really explain why. The only real argument against state-sponsored killing is to compensate for potential flaws in the justice system (where an innocent man may be accidentally executed). But in certain cases (like the Batman shooter) there is no doubt about guilt.

A citizen who commits mass murder has essentially forfeited his/her right to expect protection and acknowledgement of rights from the State.

And yet... many states (both in the sense of nations and about 1/3 of the US states) exist just fine without needing a death penalty so clearly it is not essential to protecting the rights and safety of citizens (or really, humans in general because I don't see where we should treat non-citizens a less worthy than citizens when it comes to basic rights and safety).

A lot of states exist just "fine" with many sub-optimal laws and procedures. Who cares?

[loomer]

Please demonstrate that executing condemned murderers is in anyway morally equivalent to any of the things you listed here.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be making a rather significant error here.

...The "State", as the collective representative of the will of the people, is the highest authority in any civilization...

If this is true, then there is no morality greater than the collective will.

[Broomstick]

Channel72, we can go around and around on this but the problem here is that you seem wholly incapable of understanding any viewpoint other than your own. Here is it again, my justification for my position:

The only justification for taking a human life is either self defense or the defense of others.

There are NO exceptions in there for mass murderers, cannibals, pedophiles, or other "monsters". There are NO exceptions in there dealing with "efficiency" or "cost-effectiveness". There are NO exceptions in there for appeasing the bloodthirstiness of the relatives of victims or the general population.

So... if the "will of the people" is to enslave others that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to kill the disabled or imprison/work to death/execute other people due solely to their ethnic background that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to cut off the external genitalia of young girls that's OK? If it's the "will of the people" to castrate young boys to preserve their high pitched singing voices is that OK?

Please demonstrate that executing condemned murderers is in anyway morally equivalent to any of the things you listed here.

None of those people are posing a threat. Neither is a securely constrained murderer. At least not under my system. Under certain other systems the disabled/ people of X group/women without FGM/whatever ARE seen as a threat: the disabled as a "drain" and a monetary cost to society, the X ethnic group "contaminating" and "diluting" the purity of another group, uncut women as sex-crazed whores threatening the morality of society and the health of their offspring....

Also, YOU proposed that the "will of the people" should dictate who lives and who dies. Used to be it was the "will of the people" to hang black men from tree branches in the American south, does it being the "will of the people" make that OK? If not in that case, why in any case? Why should a mob be able to determine who lives and who dies?

The justification is so that the state doesn't have to indefinitely constrain a dangerous murderer prone to psychotic behavior who puts various prison staff at risk.

By that rationale we shouldn't have doctors treat people with communicable and deadly diseases. People who work in prisons assume some risk as part of their work, just as police, firemen, and yes, even doctors do.

But note, I did say that if someone can not be safely restrained then death is back on the table. If someone is so dangerous they can not be rendered harmless by confinement then the justification of "defense of others" comes into play. If you're in, say, primitive conditions and simply can not manage and maximum security confinement then yes, said person may have to be put to death to prevent further killing beyond that. However, in the modern US I find it hard to imagine that we could not confine someone in a safe manner. This isn't some 19th Century frontier town we're talking about, it's Boston, one of the oldest if not the oldest cities in the US in a modern nation. Unless someone is so dangerous they can't be safely contained there is no justification for killing them and that level of risk has not been demonstrated in this case.

You'd probably agree that the State is responsible for removing dangerous people from society, but for some reason you think it's better to achieve this via indefinite incarceration instead of just state-sponsored killing. You have yet to really explain why.

Yes, that is exactly my position and I have already explained why:

The only justification for taking a human life is either self defense or the defense of others.

I'm sorry if you find it incomprehensible that someone is operating from a different ethical system than you do. I find it disturbing that you can't wrap your head around it even as a hypothetical exercise. Yes I really do believe that.

The only real argument against state-sponsored killing is to compensate for potential flaws in the justice system (where an innocent man may be accidentally executed).

No sir, that is YOUR OPINION, which you continue to state as unquestionable fact. Why is it so necessary for you that the state kills people? Why is a nation with capital punishment superior to one without? Can you provide some sort of data that, say, would prove nations with the death penalty have less crime or fewer murders than those without? It certainly can't be that nations with the death penalty have lower incarceration rates because the US, with 2/3 of the states and the Federal death penalty, imprisons more of its population percentage wise than nations without the death penalty. It's definitely not saving us money!

But in certain cases (like the Batman shooter) there is no doubt about guilt.

I guess you don't believe in "not guilty by reason of insanity", then? Please clarify that, just for the record. Do you think batshit crazy people should be held to the same standard as mentally normal adults?

And yet... many states (both in the sense of nations and about 1/3 of the US states) exist just fine without needing a death penalty so clearly it is not essential to protecting the rights and safety of citizens (or really, humans in general because I don't see where we should treat non-citizens a less worthy than citizens when it comes to basic rights and safety).

A lot of states exist just "fine" with many sub-optimal laws and procedures. Who cares?

Demonstrate that lack of a death penalty is "sub-optimal". Do nations without a death penalty have a higher crime rate? Incarceration rate (already demonstrated to be "no")? Higher murder rate? Does having a death penalty in any way correlate with greater safety for the the nation's citizens?

[Alkaloid]

A lot of states exist just "fine" with many sub-optimal laws and procedures. Who cares?

People who aren't wild about executing people because the alternatives are 'too hard'?

Oh, and for the record, your spiel about doubts regarding a convicted criminal and whether they should be executed are complete shit. A trial is there to establish innocence or guilt, once guilt is decided one guilty person is no more guilty than another, so both should be able to be executed legally or neither should be given they committed the same crime. Otherwise enjoy your legal system that has one rule for one and one for another.

So, yes, cruel and unusual punishment. Probably with some charges of professional malfeasance to go with it.

I menat if he requested to be executed by hanging, and they deliberately executed him via the chair as a final fuck you, I'd think there would be a non trivial chance that is actually murder as he was illegally killed, his tight to choos the manner of his death having been violated. Tricky to prove though.

[Broomstick]

That's probably why Delaware has removed the option. In that state at least it's no longer an issue. Everyone there condemned to die gets the needle now.

[Channel72]

Channel72, we can go around and around on this but the problem here is that you seem wholly incapable of understanding any viewpoint other than your own. Here is it again, my justification for my position:

The only justification for taking a human life is either self defense or the defense of others.

There are NO exceptions in there for mass murderers, cannibals, pedophiles, or other "monsters". There are NO exceptions in there dealing with "efficiency" or "cost-effectiveness". There are NO exceptions in there for appeasing the bloodthirstiness of the relatives of victims or the general population.

I'm capable of understanding what you believe, especially when you put it in that font size - however you seem to think that just because ethics are subjective, you can state any ethical position as axiomatic. Ethics may be subjective, but it's desirable to formulate a consistent ethical system that works. You believe that constraining people indefinitely for decades is somehow morally superior to killing them. In either case, the state is imposing it's will on the guilty person and removing his freedom. But for some reason you think that removing his actual life is somehow crossing the moral event horizon. Why?

Also, YOU proposed that the "will of the people" should dictate who lives and who dies. Used to be it was the "will of the people" to hang black men from tree branches in the American south, does it being the "will of the people" make that OK? If not in that case, why in any case? Why should a mob be able to determine who lives and who dies?

Just because the majority opinion has been used to justify unethical things in the past doesn't mean that majority opinion is to be disregarded entirely or given no weight. I love it when people trot out this silly argument - "well the majority used to endorse slavery! etc." Okay? So? So are you then proposing that majority opinion should be entirely meaningless? (That question is rhetorical, obviously I know you're not proposing that.) The point is, your whole spiel here about "majority opinion" is begging the question, because you certainly believe that majority vote is (at least somewhat) important in a democracy. However, you also believe that majority opinion should sometimes be overridden/ignored to comply with a State-imposed system of ethics (in cases like slavery, segregation, or the death penalty, in your view). Except the ethics of the death penality is the very issue we are discussing, so you can't tacitly assume it's unethical (or morally equivalent to something like slavery and segregation), and then declare that majority opinion regarding the death penality is invalid.

The justification is so that the state doesn't have to indefinitely constrain a dangerous murderer prone to psychotic behavior who puts various prison staff at risk.

By that rationale we shouldn't have doctors treat people with communicable and deadly diseases. People who work in prisons assume some risk as part of their work, just as police, firemen, and yes, even doctors do.

Wrong. Again, people with communicable or deadly diseases haven't forfeited their right to be protected by society. Mass-murderers have, so there's no reason to go on risking the lives of prison personnel. Yes, people who work in prisons will always be exposed to risk, but there's no reason not to decrease that risk by executing the most dangerous criminals.

But note, I did say that if someone can not be safely restrained then death is back on the table. If someone is so dangerous they can not be rendered harmless by confinement then the justification of "defense of others" comes into play. If you're in, say, primitive conditions and simply can not manage and maximum security confinement then yes, said person may have to be put to death to prevent further killing beyond that. However, in the modern US I find it hard to imagine that we could not confine someone in a safe manner. This isn't some 19th Century frontier town we're talking about, it's Boston, one of the oldest if not the oldest cities in the US in a modern nation. Unless someone is so dangerous they can't be safely contained there is no justification for killing them and that level of risk has not been demonstrated in this case.

Okay, that's reasonable.

The only real argument against state-sponsored killing is to compensate for potential flaws in the justice system (where an innocent man may be accidentally executed).

No sir, that is YOUR OPINION, which you continue to state as unquestionable fact. Why is it so necessary for you that the state kills people? Why is a nation with capital punishment superior to one without? Can you provide some sort of data that, say, would prove nations with the death penalty have less crime or fewer murders than those without? It certainly can't be that nations with the death penalty have lower incarceration rates because the US, with 2/3 of the states and the Federal death penalty, imprisons more of its population percentage wise than nations without the death penalty. It's definitely not saving us money!

Firstly, I could ask you the same question. Why is it a superior solution to remove someone's freedom and then restrain them for decades indefinitely? Also, the obscenely high incarceration rates in the United States have nothing to do with the death penalty - it's mostly a result of ridiculous drug laws and a corporate prison system, but that's an entirely different discussion. As for the death penalty as an effective deterrence of crime, the research is basically inconclusive. However, I'm not arguing that the death penalty is a great deterrence for crime. I think it should only be reserved for the most heinous criminal acts (mass murder), so it should be relatively rare enough as to have little impact on crime rate. My argument for the death penalty is that it is morally superior (both from the viewpoint of the condemned prisoner and the prison staff) to execute a dangerous criminal than to constrain him/her for decades on end.

But in certain cases (like the Batman shooter) there is no doubt about guilt.

I guess you don't believe in "not guilty by reason of insanity", then? Please clarify that, just for the record. Do you think batshit crazy people should be held to the same standard as mentally normal adults?

To be honest, I don't know. I think it depends a lot on the particular case, and the particular form of insanity. If someone is so delusional that they are prone to mass-murder, and there is no known way to treat them, then I think the death penalty should be considered.

Demonstrate that lack of a death penalty is "sub-optimal". Do nations without a death penalty have a higher crime rate? Incarceration rate (already demonstrated to be "no")? Higher murder rate? Does having a death penalty in any way correlate with greater safety for the the nation's citizens?

As I mentioned above, the research on this is inconclusive.

[TimothyC]

Wrong thread - Please Delete