Utah killer executed by firing squad

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Lotus

A firing squad is abnormal as a method of execution. They only used it because he requested it.

We as a country need to wake up and abolish the death penalty. It is an expensive waste.

Note:
1) contrary to popular belief, the death penalty is more expensive. It costs about $750,000 to keep someone in maximum security for life, and maximum security protects society by keeping the murderer locked up. However, because of legal appeals, each death penalty case costs $3-4 million. So, for example, a recent study showed that Florida could save $51 million a year by abolishing the death penalty. The old argument that "I'm not gonna pay to keep a murderer alive" is financial nonsense. This is a big reason why New Jersey abolished the death penalty last year.

2) numerous studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime. Almost all of the states with the highest murder rates have the death penalty. Almost all of the states with the lowest murder rates do not have the death penalty.

While I don't disagree with you on your main point I would say your reasoning is the type of reasoning that will never ever result in the death penalty being really abolished.

1) As far as I know there isn't a large contingent of death penalty advocates who are for it simply because they think it's cheaper. Mostly because that is blatantly immoral. They're for it because they think the killers deserve it. A cost argument is completely lost on them.

2) Here you have presented a statistical fallacy. Or more accurately been presented a statistical fallacy that you then bought hook line and sinker. Most of these studies are woeful. They are conducted by biased organizations and done in a poorly devised economical analysis. Basically the studies don't actually study whether the death penalty is a quality deterrent...they study whether the death penalty eliminates murder. Subtle distinction. For example...none of the studies I know of have adequately addressed whether Fla actually has less murder because of the death penalty or not. For all we know the death penalty in Fla does the best job in preventing murder but it simply isn't good enough to actually eliminate it. Maybe without the death penalty the murder rate would sky rocket to crazy levels.

I would guess you and I would agree that on the face of it I can't see how the death penalty actually deters murder. It seems like basic common sense to me that if you are the type that is going to kill someone in a manner "deserving" of the death penalty then the threat of the death penalty is probably moot.

The best argument in my mind is that killing people for anything is just wrong. It is what we're trying to punish. Seems damn hypocritical and damn ironic to punish someone by doing to them what they did to somebody.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

While I don't disagree with you on your main point I would say your reasoning is the type of reasoning that will never ever result in the death penalty being really abolished.

1) As far as I know there isn't a large contingent of death penalty advocates who are for it simply because they think it's cheaper. Mostly because that is blatantly immoral. They're for it because they think the killers deserve it. A cost argument is completely lost on them.

2) Here you have presented a statistical fallacy. Or more accurately been presented a statistical fallacy that you then bought hook line and sinker. Most of these studies are woeful. They are conducted by biased organizations and done in a poorly devised economical analysis. Basically the studies don't actually study whether the death penalty is a quality deterrent...they study whether the death penalty eliminates murder. Subtle distinction. For example...none of the studies I know of have adequately addressed whether Fla actually has less murder because of the death penalty or not. For all we know the death penalty in Fla does the best job in preventing murder but it simply isn't good enough to actually eliminate it. Maybe without the death penalty the murder rate would sky rocket to crazy levels.

I would guess you and I would agree that on the face of it I can't see how the death penalty actually deters murder. It seems like basic common sense to me that if you are the type that is going to kill someone in a manner "deserving" of the death penalty then the threat of the death penalty is probably moot.

The best argument in my mind is that killing people for anything is just wrong. It is what we're trying to punish. Seems damn hypocritical and damn ironic to punish someone by doing to them what they did to somebody.

Pretty much what it boils down to for me.

Killing is wrong, end of story. There shouldn't be any exceptions.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Pretty much what it boils down to for me.

Killing is wrong, end of story. There shouldn't be any exceptions.

God killed people in the Bible. So is God wrong?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

God killed people in the Bible. So is God wrong?

LOL, yep.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

LOL, yep.

I may not be the most religious person in the world, but even I am not prepared to tell the big man he's wrong. IMO that's the epitome of arrogance. You'll have to fight that battle on your own.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Pretty much what it boils down to for me.

Killing is wrong, end of story. There shouldn't be any exceptions.

I don't agree. And I don't see it as hypocritical, there's a distinction.

Someone who murders in cold blood took the life of another, thereby taking that person's right to life. It follows that they themselves are now no longer deserving of maintaining their own right to life. They forfeited that right the moment they snuffed out the life of another.

All we're doing as a society is evening the score. I don't see that as murder at all. In my mind, killing is 100% justified in the case of convicted murderers. I could pull the trigger myself, I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over taking out someone who murdered.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't agree. And I don't see it as hypocritical, there's a distinction.

Someone who murders in cold blood took the life of another, thereby taking that person's right to life. It follows that they themselves are now no longer deserving of maintaining their own right to life. They forfeited that right the moment they snuffed out the life of another.

All we're doing as a society is evening the score. I don't see that as murder at all. In my mind, killing is 100% justified in the case of convicted murderers. I could pull the trigger myself, I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over taking out someone who murdered.

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Lotus

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

I'm sure that's what people in India say to themselves when Pakistani gunman shoot up hotels and murder people in cold blood. I wonder if the Indian security forces stopped and said that to each other before they shot those admitted CIA led "terrorist"?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Lotus

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

What does that even mean? Seriously, that's so contrived.

I think of it as a right for a right. You take away someone else's right to live, then you lose your own. Fair's fair.

I'm not a fan of forgiving murderers.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

What does that even mean? Seriously, that's so contrived.

I think of it as a right for a right. You take away someone else's right to live, then you lose your own. Fair's fair.

I'm not a fan of forgiving murderers.

No one here has argued for forgiving murderers. Keeping someone in jail for life in maximum security is not forgiveness.

As far as the Gandhi quote goes, what is means is that the "eye-for-an-eye" philosophy which you espouse only leads to a downward spiral of violence.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Lotus

No one here has argued for forgiving murderers. Keeping someone in jail for life in maximum security is not forgiveness.

As far as the Gandhi quote goes, what is means is that the "eye-for-an-eye" philosophy which you espouse only leads to a downward spiral of violence.

Not really. Murderer kills someone, gets convicted and sentenced to death, He is then killed. Spiral over.

And many of those sentenced to death have committed multiple murders, so eliminating them actually stops the spiral of violence.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Lotus

No one here has argued for forgiving murderers. Keeping someone in jail for life in maximum security is not forgiveness.

As far as the Gandhi quote goes, what is means is that the "eye-for-an-eye" philosophy which you espouse only leads to a downward spiral of violence.

I don't have a problem with "violence" (wrong term here) when it's designed to achieve something for the greater good.

Historical violence I'm in favor of:

- US Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Revolutionary War that resulted in the establishment of our nation in the name of freeing ourselves from England's oppressive rule

- Northern aggression that kept the United States together as the southern states seceded from the union in the 1800s.

- US retaliation for the bombing of Pearl Harbor and our subsequent response in the Pacific and against the Nazis.

- Beating up that punk ass bully who pantsed my little brother every day for 6 days in a row.

When it comes down to it, killing people who murdered others makes me feel good. I'd be one of the folks sitting in the front row cheering as he went out.

I don't believe in God or any higher power. I believe man is the ultimate rule of law, and as such ye shall reap what ye sow.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't agree. And I don't see it as hypocritical, there's a distinction.

Someone who murders in cold blood took the life of another, thereby taking that person's right to life. It follows that they themselves are now no longer deserving of maintaining their own right to life. They forfeited that right the moment they snuffed out the life of another.

All we're doing as a society is evening the score. I don't see that as murder at all. In my mind, killing is 100% justified in the case of convicted murderers. I could pull the trigger myself, I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over taking out someone who murdered.

What about when the State kills a convicted murderer who was later proven to be innocent? Is that murder? If so, who should be killed in retaliation for that? How do we settle that score?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

What about when the State kills a convicted murderer who was later proven to be innocent? Is that murder? If so, who should be killed in retaliation for that? How do we settle that score?

A cost of doing business that I'm willing to accept, given today's increasing burden of proof when it comes to finding evidence required to obtain a conviction.

It's for the greater good. The accidental conviction and execution would have been done out of error, and therefore not equivocal to cold blooded murder.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

What about when the State kills a convicted murderer who was later proven to be innocent? Is that murder? If so, who should be killed in retaliation for that? How do we settle that score?

No, because there was no malicious intent.