A Guy Beat, Raped, Shot, and Buried Alive a 19 Year Old Girl. Guess Who's The Victim?

[Bill the Cat]

The fact remains that the cultures most similar to the US, such as Canada and Australia, have significantly less murders and violent crime and incarcerated individuals. No doubt there are various factors at work but it is reasonable to assume that the abolition of the death penalty is one of them.

Actually, no it isn't. Their crime rates have historically been significantly lower than the US, even before they abolished the death penalty.

I consider that speculative at best. As my post said, there are no studies that interview those who considered crime, but refrained for specific reasons.

In passing, it is interesting to note that the US is the only first-world nation where religion still plays a major part in its politics and culture and yet overall it is the most violent of the first world countries. One wonders whether religion contributes to this or is merely ineffective in preventing it.

Violent crime rate has dropped significantly since the early 90's. Religion has not been excluded from the equation, so I wouldn't put much stock in causation.

[Teallaura]

Back to the OP.... I reviewed some of the info for the records released, it wasn't the drugs FYI, but a very very poorly trained and badly done IV line, which you don't let a phlebotomist do this type of line threading in the 1st place. Technically a physician, CRNA, NP or Anesthesiologist are the ONLY one's qualified with the assistance of several RN's to do this procedure. Phlebotomists are not even qualified to locate it. Secondly on a person with this kind of history the line shouldn't have been threaded in the 1st place in this location, there are 4 other types of IV's that can be done that are safer and will not collapse, though a physician or advanced nurse must do them.
The only other issue I would address, is while we need to make sure we have the right person, when we most certainly do (consider Ted Bundy, Ted Kazcynski, John Robinson etc.) While Vengence is the Lord's I would bring in the concept of not allowing one person so evil to ever kill again either behind bars or in society, then propose letting God have is final say so. I believe true vengence is the judgement of the soul as opposed to the removal from being allowed to kill.

Thanks. Changes the question - AMA steadfastly opposes physician participation and anesthesiologists and nurses follow suit. I agree there are a number of procedures a phlebotomist should never try - I wonder if that was just the best they could do because no one else would do it? (NOT a justification!)

[Teallaura]

Using whose money? The person's or persons' who wrongly convicted him?

I'd use judicial funds, yes - but WE are the ones that are ultimately responsible when OUR government takes any action - so it's perfectly legit for tax payers to foot the bill. We the People comes with duties as well as rights.

[Teallaura]

Yes, and a death sentence can be reversed if new evidence is introduced before the sentence is carried out. So it is only a matter or time, not of kind. When the innocent man dies in prison the end is the same - restitution is no longer an option.

You can't 'reverse' an execution - this is stupid.

[Teallaura]

No it doesn't. Most states had the death penalty for most of our (US) history. That didn't lead us to unchecked power. And no, I'm not a vigilante since I want to work through the laws of the land - not circumvent them. Now again, Komisarjevsky and Hayes were caught red handed. There is zero question of guilt. So what more protections do they deserve? What would be morally wrong with executing them?

Yes it does - you suggested no trial was necessary ergo you void all the attendant protections - and release the check on judicial power by eliminating Due Process. Straight to 'unchecked power' - and using your own argumentative style against you, it follows that you personally support unchecked governmental power.

God alone gets to decide when someone deserves vengence - or no longer deserves mercy. Due Process is right and appropriate not only because you could always be wrong but because we are to show mercy - including giving people a fair chance to defend themselves no matter what they did.

You are not God. God tells us that He doesn't want our sacrifices, He wants us to show mercy. It is a foolish Christian that becomes unwilling to be merciful.

[Teallaura]

It's interesting to me that some of the people who are normally very critical of the ability of government to get things right seem very confident in the government's ability to ensure the right people are being executed.

They aren't, really - they are more confident that they can tell guilty from innocent and by extension, that juries will get it right. They are blinded by their outrage that guilty have gone unpunished and don't see that it's just as bad to punish the innocent.

Same exact thing happens on the anti-DP side in reverse - I cringe at the immorality arguments because virtually all are 'arguments from outrage'. (Same thing Seer is doing now).

No system is perfect which is why we build protections into them - and why we should be very hesitant to enact penalties that can never be reversed.

[Carrikature]

They aren't, really - they are more confident that they can tell guilty from innocent and by extension, that juries will get it right. They are blinded by their outrage that guilty have gone unpunished and don't see that it's just as bad to punish the innocent.

Same exact thing happens on the anti-DP side in reverse - I cringe at the immorality arguments because virtually all are 'arguments from outrage'. (Same thing Seer is doing now).

No system is perfect which is why we build protections into them - and why we should be very hesitant to enact penalties that can never be reversed.

More agreement from me!


As a devil's advocate, are we not allowed to make mistakes, to do the best we can with the processes we have with an expectation of understanding/mercy from God? I have to admit that I think Bonhoeffer (assuming I've understood him properly) may have a point that the search for a guilt-free process of action and judgment is both impossible to realize and even misguided in its goals. That seems to apply equally well to secular morality, afaict.

[seer]

You can't 'reverse' an execution - this is stupid.

And you can't reverse it when an innocent man dies in prison.

[Carrikature]

And you can't reverse it when an innocent man dies in prison.

There's a pretty obvious difference between "oops you died" and "we killed you".

[Teallaura]

And you can't reverse it when an innocent man dies in prison.

But my chances of preventing that are significantly higher - or don't you watch the news?

[Teallaura]

More agreement from me!


As a devil's advocate, are we not allowed to make mistakes, to do the best we can with the processes we have with an expectation of understanding/mercy from God? I have to admit that I think Bonhoeffer (assuming I've understood him properly) may have a point that the search for a guilt-free process of action and judgment is both impossible to realize and even misguided in its goals. That seems to apply equally well to secular morality, afaict.

The sky is falling!!!!

In any case and error doesn't actually justify an injustice - when it happens we have a responsibility to try, as much as possible, to make amends.

Judicial process and individual morality differ significantly enough that I need to think about that - I'll get back to you.

[seer]

Yes it does - you suggested no trial was necessary ergo you void all the attendant protections - and release the check on judicial power by eliminating Due Process. Straight to 'unchecked power' - and using your own argumentative style against you, it follows that you personally support unchecked governmental power.

Where have I ever suggested that Komisarjevsky and Hayes shouldn't have due process? I'm asking you, that now that they have received Due Process why shouldn't they be executed. One of your main objections revolved around the possibility an innocent man being put to death - this is not the case here. There are open and shut cases, this is one, Nidal Hasan is another.

You are not God. God tells us that He doesn't want our sacrifices, He wants us to show mercy. It is a foolish Christian that becomes unwilling to be merciful.

Komisarjevsky and Hayes did not kill my family, so I'm not in a position to forgive them. If the Petit family wants to offer forgiveness that is up to them. That does not remove the State's right to apply justice.

[seer]

There's a pretty obvious difference between "oops you died" and "we killed you".

It is not a oops you died - it is we keep you in prison until you die...

[Teallaura]

Where have I ever suggested that Komisarjevsky and Hayes shouldn't have due process? I'm asking you, that now that they have received Due Process why shouldn't they be executed. One of your main objections revolved around the possibility an innocent man being put to death - this is not the case here. There are open and shut cases, this is one, Nidal Hasan is another.

Right here:

But there is no reason to spend more money on these two men. Their guilt is certain - so why not execute them now? The Petit family wants them executed - where is their justice?

Fairly obvious you are talking about summary execution - especially since you made no mention of a trial previously. So the point stands.

Komisarjevsky and Hayes did not kill my family, so I'm not in a position to forgive them. If the Petit family wants to offer forgiveness that is up to them. That does not remove the State's right to apply justice.

You are, however, showing no mercy - and that is on you, not the victim's family or the state. You're arguing now purely from outrage - and it's stupid. I already addressed the issue of punishment - you now need to show that only execution accomplishes justice. What the victim's family wants or needs isn't at issue - it's not just to base judgment solely or even primarily on the victims - nor would it be justice if somehow it turned out you were wrong after all (which I doubt - just pointing out the obvious you keep missing).

[Sparko]

It is not a oops you died - it is we keep you in prison until you die...

But you die whether you are in prison or not. Locking someone up for life doesn't kill them. In fact the state does a pretty good job of over providing for prisoners: cable TV, exercise, free meals, medical, etc.

Quite a bit different from actively executing someone.