Aurora shootings: an open discussion on the death penalty.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

they still use the guillotine in austria

if you ever watched austrian TV then you know why we need the weekly beheading at the courtyard.

[4LOM]

Besides since the start of construction improvments have been made to safety and regulations . The aim is always 0 deaths on a construction site and while deaths do accure its human error

This is also a description of the death penalty and DNA evidence.

The death penalty is decided by people , I think its wrong for a jury or a judge to decide who lives and dies . I would also argue that the death penalty is more of a attempt of ? deterence then justice . How can so many other countries have justice without the death penalty ?

It's not decided by people without the guidance of laws and precedent, so not entirely up to the whims of individuals. Death penalty was unconstitutional in the US in the 70's because it was to0 whimy.

And if it was about deterence, then no need to have it, since it doesn't deter.

Those countries don't have justice systems if (1) justice is giving people what they deserve (retribution) and (2) they don't punish people based on desert.

They might punish for good consequences (like deterrence) but if they don't punish for retributive/desert reasons, then they have consequential systems not justice systems.

working as a electrician , driver or working construction is all vouluntary , nobody is really signing up for being on death row

Some wrongders do, but innocent people (and electricians) don't.

But that's another way how killed-innocents is similar to killed-electricians.
Innocent person voluntarily went to the loading dock where he was mistaken for some killer and got death penalty.
Same as the welder he goes there for work, and gets killed by accident.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

4lom makin me lol good work sir bounty hunter

[weedpop]

Innocent electricians, construction workers, and drivers get killed all the time. But we don't ban electricity, construction, or driving. Why think innocent people dying from death penalty is enough to justify not having it?

I thought this was just a witty reference to a tired old gun control argument. Too bad you're serious.

[4LOM]

Too bad you're serious.

It's not about seriousness, but whether the analogy holds

[via]

It's pointless - this guy obviously doesn't care about a potential death penalty, killing him doesn't do anything to prevent future mass shootings caused by undocumented mental illness and access to weapons, and if we're just killing him because it'll make people feel better, what does that even say about us as a society?
I mean, sure, kill him. But I don't think we should pretend there's some moral value inherent in the death penalty being meant for cases like this, and justifying it by saying we've rid the world of a monster or that he's evil scum or whatever. This is one crazy dude that doesn't have any idea what's going on outside of his wacky brain.

Does this put you in support of solitary confinement, then? Or what would your sentence be?

Restating my original point, and the one most people seem to be siding with, is that while being opposed to execution on paper, most people will support it in a specific case scenario... which really just makes us in favor of the death penalty.

 The process is so heavy, though. A jury must vote for that, meaning twelve people sentenced the execution of another human being. If you are on a jury for a case like this, voting guilty means that person is going to die. Aiding and abetting another death. Who really has the right to say whether someone should live or die? In this case (Aurora), we're judging someone for making that judgment, then reversing it and making that judgement about/to them. This person decided that those strangers should die, then is sat in front of group of strangers to decide whether or not he should die.

My point isn't to sympathize with James Holmes at all. I think I support the death penalty in this case... but it isn't very hard to point out the flawed logic or hypocrisies in the system. Obviously he did what he did knowing what the consequences could/would be, and still went through with them, making his "judgement by strangers" a completely different scenario than the ones of the lives he took, but I still don't know if the hurried decision of a group of random people is the most infallible verdict.

The human brain is finicky, impulsive, ever changing, and makes mistakes. Is that really what should be behind the drivers seat of whether or not a person should be executed? Think about the person you were five or ten years ago... how you dressed, the music you listened to, the politics or social quos you subscribed to. Do you still stand by those opinions, or have you changed? Now think about if in the middle of that time, you were asked to decide if someone lived or died. Do you trust your former self to have made the decision you would make today? So does that make that decision right or wrong? Or is there a right answer?

I'll stop here. I'm fucking wasted and will stop rambling. I think what I'm saying is making sense, though.

[papasmurfsdog]

Expand Quote

All deaths result of Elecricity , construction and driving are accidents . The ones where people are run over , electrecuted or pushed off a construction site on purpose is murder which is still illegal

The deathpenelties only purpose is to kill , there is no other function . Construction Electricity and cars have other uses and deaths are unfortunnate side effect of the purpose

no offence but this is one of the worst comparences ive ever heard

[close]

Construction is a purposeful activity where we can foresee that innocent people will die.
The death penalty is a purposeful activity where we foresee that innocent people die.

If we have no qualms with the former, why the latter?

The purposes are different, but it's not that the death penalty kills innocent people on purpose. Killing isn't even the purpose of the death penalty, justice is; we wouldn't kill if we didn't think justice was being served.

So the purposeful activity of scratching the itch on my ass is the same a someone's purposeful activity of studying to cure cancer? Since no one died doing either one that means that they have the same outcome and impact on society by your logic.

[4LOM]

So the purposeful activity of scratching the itch on my ass is the same a someone's purposeful activity of studying to cure cancer? Since no one died doing either one that means that they have the same outcome and impact on society by your logic.

If justice is more valuable than buildings, and justice is served by the death penalty (some people deserve it), then innocent people dying from the death penalty should be more acceptable than innocent people dying construction - since something more valuable is served by the death penalty than construction.

Since many people think it's the opposite - they're more concerned about the death of innocent people due to the death penalty than contruction - many people have their values skewed; they care more about building than justice.

[wallieD]

well firstly i think we need to find out if heaven n hell r real. if we kill him and hell isnt real lol hes just getting out of it, but if hell is real then ya go 4 it. but if hell isnt real then living a lifetime in a small cell is more fitting. and oh yeah, DO NOT use the electric chair in these situations. i saw a documentary called Shocker from the 80's one time and this murderer was put in the chair, but it backfired like the electricity didn't kill him it just made him powerful. he could jump in and out of television screens and shit. pretty trippy stuff, maybe the chair isn't even an option anymore after that but im not sure

[oldgoodburger]

is the motive for this shit known yet?

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

wait 4lom you ar

Expand Quote

Innocent electricians, construction workers, and drivers get killed all the time. But we don't ban electricity, construction, or driving. Why think innocent people dying from death penalty is enough to justify not having it?

[close]

I thought this was just a witty reference to a tired old gun control argument. Too bad you're serious.

wait...hes being serious?

[Will Easley]

Personally if I was in charge of such a decision, I'd hang his ass on the spot. None of this $90,000 a year to keep someone in death row bullshit just take his ass somewhere & hang em. Obviously you couldn't do this for everybody but look, dude is 100% proven guilty & fucked in the head. Solitary confinement ain't gonna do shit but drive him crazy as taxpayers pay for his food & shelter. Kill his ass the easy way & donate the body to science. Give his kidneys to someone who needs a transplant or something & do some good with what's left of em.

The death penalty has always been a touchy subject but as we all know, death is inevitable. Its one thing if it's a young kid with the rest of his life cut short, or an adult with family responsibilities, but James Holmes ain't gon do shit but rot in prison until he dies (barring the 0.01% percent chance his crazy yet highly intelligent ass somehow escapes) . I say just rid the world of a sick human being & call it a day. Obviously this wouldn't work as regular procedure for any number of reasons, but in this particular situation, that's what makes the most sense to me.

[ChronicBluntSlider]

wait 4lom you ar

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Innocent electricians, construction workers, and drivers get killed all the time. But we don't ban electricity, construction, or driving. Why think innocent people dying from death penalty is enough to justify not having it?

[close]

I thought this was just a witty reference to a tired old gun control argument. Too bad you're serious.

[close]

wait...hes being serious?

I assumed he was joking too. Why ban murder, assuming that most murderers believed their victims deserved to die? Why think innocent people dying from murder is enough to justify not having it?

[Monty Burns]

Not sure if 4LOM is debating cause he actualy belives his points or just to fuck with ,  whats worse is hes smarter then me and a better debater and doing it in his own first language .

I still think the comparison of construction / driving and electrician is a really bad example to the death penatly but Im a too shitty debater to prove it wrong .  If I was having beers with 4LOM during this convo , I would drink up and without a word just leave ...

[chockfullofthat]

Jabba the Hut had some solid execution methods.  We might not have space monsters but we have sharks, snakes, and crocs.  The government's creativity is uninspiring.

[4LOM]

and without a word just leave ...

And leave me with the check? You're a real class act Monty Burns.

[Merked]

Expand Quote

It's like saying, "Imprisoning someone because they imprisoned someone when its illegal to imprison someone make no sense." But most wouldn't make that argument. Locke made a simple way around this: by having a death penalty, we are stating that life is so sacred that the only crime worthy of losing one's life is killing other people. ?�Locke made this argument. ?�By infringing on an individual's right to live, one has forfeited his right to live.

[close]

I think his point is the paradox of punishment - we ought to do (kill) what we ought not to do (kill).
The difference is that the wrongdoer deserves it, the victim did not.


And if a right is inalienable (is that in Locke?) then how can it be forfeited?

Expand Quote

Psychopaths can't feel empathy or sympathy for other people, so I wonder how many (mass) murders or sadistic killers will sit in their cell or in isolation and actually regret their actions. ?�If they're mentally or have been socialized to be incapable of recognizing other people's emotions and comprehending the true extent/nature of their actions, they basically get put in a cell and feel bad they go caught.

[close]

Are such people morally responsible for their actions?

Empathy/sympathy seems to be a part of being a moral agent.
So, if you don't have it, you're not a moral agent.
If you're not a moral agent, you're not morally responsible for your actions.
If you're not morally responible, you can't be justly punished.

So, we can't justly punish people that lack sympathy.

Mind=blown.

Yet, there isn't really difinitive proof that these people cannot feel any emotion.  Brain scans promote the idea that their neurocircuits for emotions do not respond correctly to stimuli, but these test are not full proof.  Moreover, these antisocial behavorial people can and do feel pain and empathy for themselves if something bad happens to them.  Therefore, they are capable of feeling something; that being, something for themselves.  They are also extremely elusive in there motives and can manipulate people on a whim.  Thus, saying they cannot feel emotion can be a ploy to better themselves.  It is a tricky subject.

Nonetheless, I like your point, but I still think these people should be held accountable for their own actions.  Just because they "can't feel" how they are hurting others does not give them the right to hurt others.  

Great thread btw.

[360 frip]

Jabba the Hut had some solid execution methods.  We might not have space monsters but we have sharks, snakes, and crocs.  The government's creativity is uninspiring.

From what I have  seen neither the Salacc pit or the Rancor monster were very effective.

This guy looks crazy. Surprised they haven't pushed for diminished responsibility.

[Dontfearthereefer]

Expand Quote

Jabba the Hut had some solid execution methods.  We might not have space monsters but we have sharks, snakes, and crocs.  The government's creativity is uninspiring.

[close]

From what I have  seen neither the Salacc pit or the Rancor monster were very effective.

This guy looks crazy. Surprised they haven't pushed for diminished responsibility.

well to be fair, the sarlacc did take out some people, though they were not the intended victims

and i mean luke was training to be a jedi at the time, and on the home planet of the rancor, dathomir is where the force sensitive night sisters reside who train the rancors like dogs, so maybe the rancor for whatever reason could feel luke's sensitivity to the force and got confused because its former masters would have the same aura. who knows for sure though

[KOOL MIKE]

death or a cell, im down with this nutbag gettin either, even if the motherfucker doesn't feel empathy or sympathy he knows other motherfuckers do and that its not the right thing to do, i hear he is meant to be some intelligent cocksucker, well intelligent cocksuckin motherfuckers could figure that out and he did, some people are just sick fucks and they will do whatever the fuck theyre sick fuck self wants to do.

[360 frip]

Expand Quote

well to be fair, the sarlacc did take out some people, though they were not the intended victims

[close]

A perfect example of the fallibility of capital punishment!

Haha! Too perfect.

[Sleazy]

i'm always amazed when people say that the death penalty is pointless or accomplishes nothing. you like to think that the lack of focus on the victims is a systemic thing and that normal people wouldn't think that way. if you were talking to a victim (family member in these kinds of cases) would you really casually dismiss the death penalty as pointless and of no value the way you've done it in this thread? that shit just seems so cold to me. you could at least acknowledge that it might have value for victims who've had horrible things done to their loved ones by these kinds of assholes.

for me it's real simple. how would i feel if i was in the victims shoes. if someone did something horrible to my family i'd want to kill them myself but you can't. however it's nice to know that the system won't take that away from you and that theirs hope that those fuckers will get theirs.

that said, i agree with the sentiments about "not with on circumstantial evidence" and all that. you need to be really sure you have the right guy but in those cases fuck them. solitaries a bitch but doing that last walk seems pretty bad too.

[Dontfearthereefer]

even jesus wanted a just little more time when he was walking spanish down the hall

[oyolar]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

It's like saying, "Imprisoning someone because they imprisoned someone when its illegal to imprison someone make no sense." But most wouldn't make that argument. Locke made a simple way around this: by having a death penalty, we are stating that life is so sacred that the only crime worthy of losing one's life is killing other people. ?�Locke made this argument. ?�By infringing on an individual's right to live, one has forfeited his right to live.

[close]

I think his point is the paradox of punishment - we ought to do (kill) what we ought not to do (kill).
The difference is that the wrongdoer deserves it, the victim did not.


And if a right is inalienable (is that in Locke?) then how can it be forfeited?

Expand Quote

Psychopaths can't feel empathy or sympathy for other people, so I wonder how many (mass) murders or sadistic killers will sit in their cell or in isolation and actually regret their actions. ?�If they're mentally or have been socialized to be incapable of recognizing other people's emotions and comprehending the true extent/nature of their actions, they basically get put in a cell and feel bad they go caught.

[close]

Are such people morally responsible for their actions?

Empathy/sympathy seems to be a part of being a moral agent.
So, if you don't have it, you're not a moral agent.
If you're not a moral agent, you're not morally responsible for your actions.
If you're not morally responible, you can't be justly punished.

So, we can't justly punish people that lack sympathy.

[close]

Mind=blown.

Yet, there isn't really difinitive proof that these people cannot feel any emotion.  Brain scans promote the idea that their neurocircuits for emotions do not respond correctly to stimuli, but these test are not full proof.  Moreover, these antisocial behavorial people can and do feel pain and empathy for themselves if something bad happens to them.  Therefore, they are capable of feeling something; that being, something for themselves.  They are also extremely elusive in there motives and can manipulate people on a whim.  Thus, saying they cannot feel emotion can be a ploy to better themselves.  It is a tricky subject.

Nonetheless, I like your point, but I still think these people should be held accountable for their own actions.  Just because they "can't feel" how they are hurting others does not give them the right to hurt others.  

Great thread btw.

Replying on my phone so I can't edit responses easily, but the moral agent argument isn't that strong. It presumes that laws prohibiting murder are based only on an emotive/empathetic basis when they are not. There are logical arguments against murder, so even if one can't empathize with other people and understand that they are harming a feeling human being, they could understand the social costs of murder (at least theoretically).

As for Locke and life as an inalienable right, "inalienable" for him means that it cannot be deprived of a person from birth or unjustly. It can, however, be stripped away from a person if the individual does not respect that right in another person. If you deprive a person of their right to life, you have forfeited your access to it.

Your comparison of construction accidents and the death penalty is flawed because you presume that the cost of an innocent life can be equated between the two. If we view the death penalty as killing a guilty party for justice against the unjust killing of an innocent party, when the death penalty kills an innocent individual, it is committing the exact crime it is attempting to correct/deter. If, as a society, we frown upon innocents being killed and wish to create systems to correct this, once we kill an innocent (via capital punishment), we must create a system to handle this risk.

Basically, we cannot accept the risk of an innocent person dying when they die in a process dedicated to preventing or providing retribution for their unnecessary death. Construction is not designed to deter murder. it's a false equivalency.

[via]

Expand Quote

Obviously he did what he did knowing what the consequences could/would be, and still went through with them, making his "judgement by strangers" a completely different scenario than the ones of the lives he took, but I still don't know if the hurried decision of a group of random people is the most infallible verdict.

[close]

I don't agree that he understood the consequences of his actions. If he was severely mentally ill, which he obviously was, do you think he really planned this out and thought through all potential legal and moral ramifications of his actions?

Maybe not morally. He felt this needed to happen for a reason, and if that reason was anything other than living in infamy, he probably feels justified in his actions. The article even says he still shows no sign of remorse.

But legally, yes. Just because he has his warped views that made killing those people necessary, those warped views are only in his head. The penalties of crime are not opinions. To be his age and having been a mostly functioning member of society, up until he snapped, he definitely understood the legal side of what he was doing.

He isn't sitting in court looking confused like "What is this place, and why am I here?".

[Seamus_McShamebag]

I took a class on Scandinavian history and, from what I could tell, the Vikings had about the raddest form of justice that I have ever seen...

"The 'ting' was the Viking word for a legislative assembly and a court. A criminal was brought here to stand trial. The presumed facts of the case were established by a panel (Old Norse "kvidr") of people stating what they THOUGHT was the truth.

A jury of 12, two times twelve or three times twelve, depending on the importance of the case, decided the question of guilt. The 'law-sayer' told the jury what the law said about the crime committed and the accused was either convicted or declared innocent by the jury.

If convicted, the criminal was either fined or declared an out-law. To be an outlaw meant that the criminal had to live out in the wilderness and no one was allowed to help him in any way, and he was free game for his enemies. They were free to do their best to hunt him down and kill him."

Somebody gets found guilty and if their crime was severe enough then they are turned loose on the world with no protection under the law.  This is where the victims get to split some skulls.

I think this is about as close to nature as you can get.  There aren't any pack animals that I know of that are just going to let a member threaten the well-being of the pack without retribution.  It's just instinct to either kill or chase off threats.

[papasmurfsdog]

Not sure if 4LOM is debating cause he actualy belives his points or just to fuck with ,  whats worse is hes smarter then me and a better debater and doing it in his own first language .

I still think the comparison of construction / driving and electrician is a really bad example to the death penatly but Im a too shitty debater to prove it wrong .  If I was having beers with 4LOM during this convo , I would drink up and without a word just leave ...

I think it's a homework assignment for his philosophy 101 class...

[Monty Burns]

Expand Quote

and without a word just leave ...

[close]

And leave me with the check? You're a real class act Monty Burns.

Ill pay my own check with money , you can pay your own  with some philosophy / debate  thing , check with the bartender

[nino brown]

THIS MAN IS A MK ULTRA VITCIM, HE DOESNT DESERVE THIS SHIT HE WAS PROGRAMMED TO KILL AND HE WASNT THE ONLY ONE SHOOTING I CANT BELIEVE NO ONE HAS BOUGHT THIS UPP YET  YOU PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING BLIND AND WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING THE GOVERMENT TELLS/MISINFORMS YOU ON

[MFLUDER]

THIS MAN IS A MK ULTRA VITCIM, HE DOESNT DESERVE THIS SHIT HE WAS PROGRAMMED TO KILL AND HE WASNT THE ONLY ONE SHOOTING I CANT BELIEVE NO ONE HAS BOUGHT THIS UPP YET?  YOU PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING BLIND AND WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING THE GOVERMENT TELLS/MISINFORMS YOU ON

Jews did 911?