why not death penalty?

Accused serial bomber Eric Robert Rudolph will avoid a possible death sentence by pleading guilty to a string of attacks in Alabama and Georgia, including a deadly blast during the 1996 Olympics, and several on abortion clinics.


I am for the death penalty when there is no doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt won't cut it, but this case seems to be playing politics because of the places he bombed.

It has been suggested by many prosecutors that if he went to trial a death sentence would be hard to get because of sympathetic "cultural views" of potential jurors because he bombed abortion clinics.

Seeing as this was pre-meditated I fail to see any justification for a plea bargain. This is domestic terrorism.

Thoughts

There should be certain cases where there is a mandatory death penalty sentence. No plea bargain, and appeal cannt reverse your sentence if you are truly guilty.

No death penalty.

The State taking a life means that I am doing it. I don't want to do it. I do not believe in "an eye for an eye" mentality.

Lock up, with no hope of parole, fine. Death penalty, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

No death penalty.

The State taking a life means that I am doing it. I don't want to do it. I do not believe in "an eye for an eye" mentality.

Lock up, with no hope of parole, fine. Death penalty, no.

---

And I suppose you don't mind paying for these worthless bastards who didn't care about the people they killed ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPerry

And I suppose you don't mind paying for these worthless bastards who didn't care about the people they killed ?

---

No, I don't. That's what it takes, I don't think the cost is a factor when we are discussing whether the State should take lives on my behalf.

I do object to paying for workshy bastards with the attitude "why should I get a job, I get as much in benefits". But that's another discussion.

I don't agree with the death penalty unless I know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the person in question is guilty of a heinous crime.

And as I've said before, it would require some pretty massive evidence, and pretty much me seeing the crime firsthand for me to agree with any death sentence. This because I think that there are far too many instances where innocent people have been executed.

However, if others get executed for less, when this bloke doesn't, then that's a severe breach of protocol by the court. Politics shouldn't be allowed to interfere with justice on this level.

Next time it might as well be someone who dies because of the same people, if they are allowed that kind of power.

J2-

Why do you think in this case life is the way to go? Please be honest if it has anything to do with the fact that it was abortion clinics he bombed.
I do appreciate you are in no way for him going unpunished, just wonder why no death.


@ all

I appreciate the anti death sentence moral view. I myself have some reservations about it but they do tend to be about the current system being too open to mistakes. I don't view it as a deterrent at all. It is punishment.
That said the thread is about the direct question I asked J2, which leads to me wondering if there is a view that it's "almost" ok to kill if it's "for the right cause"...this cause being the wish to ban abortions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

@ all

I appreciate the anti death sentence moral view. I myself have some reservations about it but they do tend to be about the current system being too open to mistakes. I don't view it as a deterrent at all. It is punishment.
That said the thread is about the direct question I asked J2, which leads to me wondering if there is a view that it's "almost" ok to kill if it's "for the right cause"...this cause being the wish to ban abortions.

---

For the right cause if that cause is self preservation or looking after your family but certainly not for any political reasons.

Btw, I do not agree with the death penalty in any circumstance, sure there is the moral stance which I consider just but further to that a more punitive approach would be to lock-up the offender, for example a serial murderer or pedophile, without hope of parole nor enhanced status - or even visitors.

My argument is not that we get it wrong sometimes, tho' that in itself would be enough.

My argument is that it is wrong to take a human life, save when you are in mortal danger yourself and are defending your own life, or that of other innocents.

A prisoner in maximum security is no threat and therefore there is no need to kill them.

As to the cost, make them work for their keep. Give them a roof over their head and a survival diet, but make them work for everything else. Pay them in credits which they can use to buy better food or clothes or toothpaste or juice, instead of water or whatever. Do not allow cigarettes, why should we, they are there to protect society and to be punished for their actions.

Profits made go to the State to help pay for them.

I have no problem with life without parole as a punishment but it's the possible double standard because of the abortion clinics being his target. I suspect if he had blown up a library or a government building he wouldn't be considered for a plea bargain.

we have debated the moral issue of the death penalty often on this board so please could we steer clear of that as an issue on itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

For the right cause if that cause is self preservation or looking after your family but certainly not for any political reasons.

---

I don't believe his crimes had anything to do with self preservation. these were not self defense crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I don't believe his crimes had anything to do with self preservation. these were not self defense crimes.

---

Well, yeah. From what I wrote I assumed the reader would extrapolate that I believed it was not okay to kill for anything other than preserving one's own life or that of a loved one.

:blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Well, yeah. From what I wrote I assumed the reader would extrapolate that I believed it was not okay to kill for anything other than preserving one's own life or that of a loved one.

:blink:

---

That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.

Most of my life I have been an advocate for capital punishment. Now I have changed my mind. It is not a deterrent; otherwise they would not be carrying it out. It is a preventative measure, only in the sense that it prevents the guilty person from recommitting the offence. I recently saw a paedophile being executed in Iran, richly deserved. At the same time I said this type of punishment is not working or this person would not have committed the horrible crimes he was guilty of.

As the capital punishment act stood in the UK before it was abolished, and as it stands in most countries that still have capital punishment, the following were a rough guide to Capital offences.

Killing a Police Officer, Prison Officer in pursuit of their duties. Killing in the furtherance of theft. Premeditated killing and a few other ones I cannot remember.

Absent from the above list, were child killers and persons who were mentally unstable at the time of the crime (or later). In my opinion these are exactly the people who should have received capital punishment. How many instances have you read of people getting released or escaping from mental institutes and killing again? Far too many in my opinion.

Quote:

---

I think, in this specific case, that he should be sentenced to life, strapped over a barrel, so that any of his colleagues so inclined might give him a nice "poke" as they pass.

---

J2! Is there something that you would like to talk about? We are here to help. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.

---

Well, I am not a Christian, I just happen to think that the killing of people, organised by the state or otherwise, is wrong.

I'm not aware of the statistics but I think that the cost of keeping an incarcerated man alive until the end of his days while making him work for the benefit of the society he wronged, as you outlined, wouldn't greatly outweigh the huge legal costs involved in the many appeals that the condemned man would have orchestrated.

But that's just logistics. It's the human aspect I'm more concerned with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.

---

From a Christian standpoint does the Church make a distinction between killing and self defense?

Certainly we humans believe that we have the right to defend ourselves, even if it means the death of another, but does the Church make such a distinction.

If someone were about to kill my child, I can't see myself turning the other cheek as Christ says.

When God said, "Thou shall not kill", I did not see an asterik at the end which allowed for certain exceptions. God let his Son be killed without interference.

So when God puts us in a situation in which we must stand by and let a love one die, is that not a test of faith. God told you not to kill, God knew this situation would arise. Certainly God has a reason for this event.

If killing is your only option, to save the life of a loved one, or even yourself, is there something in the scripture which allows for this exception?

NM :frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

NM :frusty:

---

Spam :glare:

For Vidcc:

The death penalty does not serve as deterrent and can be used politically to silence people, permanently. It is exploitable.

Lock 'em up, throw away the key and make them earn their daily bread.



For Me:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him...." (Ex. 22:2-3)

This passage is interpreted to mean that if someone enters your house and you cannot assess his relative danger to you and your family, you are able to kill that person without punishmnet.

If, however, it can be clearly seen that this person has no weapon and is after material belongings, then to kill him is murder.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items below are lounge level material
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Bible is proof that God is a lawyer. It clearly states something, but in the fine print elsewhere in a large document there is a single line which modifies that assertion. Should have been an asterisk on the Ten Commandments.

Wouldn't that have freaked Moses out.

"Lord, WTF is an asterisk?"
"Just put it, Moses."
"But Lord, I don't understand"
" Look, to be quite frank, I work in mysterious ways. Some other person, far removed from you in time and space will be making a comment relevant to this line and I want people to refer to that passage in the Bible."
"Lord, you are freaking me out, what is a Bible"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

For Me:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him...." (Ex. 22:2-3)

This passage is interpreted to mean that if someone enters your house and you cannot assess his relative danger to you and your family, you are able to kill that person without punishmnet.

If, however, it can be clearly seen that this person has no weapon and is after material belongings, then to kill him is murder.

---

That seems reasonable. Thanks, hobbes.

I see no cause to kill a man for the sake of a plasma TV and a game cube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

For Vidcc:

The death penalty does not serve as deterrent and can be used politically to silence people, permanently. It is exploitable.

Lock 'em up, throw away the key and make them earn their daily bread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

I don't view it as a deterrent at all. It is punishment.

---

To me it's not to silence him in this instance but more a case of telling him he did wrong and must be punished while winking at him.
"you bad bad boy ;) " :dry:


@all
The point to this thread is the double standard because of places the crimewas aimed at. A plea bargain would not be considered for someone like timothy mcveigh so why for this man?
The people that the proscecution are saying would make it hard to gain the death penalty because they are anti abortion so would be sympathetic are the same people more or less that are pro death penalty and would give no second thought to condeming the likes of mcviegh, scott peterson or any other murderer/ terrorist to death.
But for the sake of the point of the thread lets say that we don't have the death penalty and he is being offered 30 years instead of life without parole.

jPaul summed up my feelings about it in his first post.
I'd like to keep blood off my hands, thanks.

My apologies Vidcc, I was not reading closely.

Human psychology plays a large in role in our court system. As I mentioned in another thread, many doctors, who have done absolutely nothing wrong are successfully sued, with settlements being made out-of-court simply because the insurance companies fear that a jury will act on emotion and not culpability.

I sat on a jury once and I realized it was the job of the lawyers to emotionally manipulate and confuse the jury. One of the women pulled me aside and expressed her disappointment in being selected. "Damn, I thought I would be sent home. I want to watch Jerry Springer".

You deal with this level of mentality in your jurors, I think the lawyers were just trying to make sure they got something and were will to sacrifice the whole enchilada.

I think human psycholgy drove their decision about what to pursue.

I advocate torture or exile over the death penalty.

With torture, it might serve as a deterrent.

Either hard torture or make the person a slave.
That way he isn't being killed (no murder).

Exile is another option. See the movie "No Escape".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I advocate torture or exile over the death penalty.

With torture, it might serve as a deterrent.

Either hard torture or make the person a slave.
That way he isn't being killed (no murder).

Exile is another option. See the movie "No Escape".

---

How many times do you feel you have to demonstrate that you are a twat.

I think most people already know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

How many times do you feel you have to demonstrate that you are a twat.

I think most people already know it.

---

sparsely raises his hand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparsely

sparsely raises his hand

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Exile is another option. See the movie "No Escape".

---

I disagree with everything else you said in your post but that film (No Escape) was an entertaining film. Based on a book by the way, and (you guessed it) the book was far superior.

This irrelevant post was brought to you by the Whatever Happened To Ray Liotta Foundation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

How many times do you feel you have to demonstrate that you are a twat.

I think most people already know it.

---

You have no real solutions, just ideals that mean shit in the real world.
Anything relating to being a pussy falls in your court.

I'll advocate torture over the death penalty.

Now I'd be more stringent as to how that decision comes about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The point to this thread is the double standard because of places the crime was aimed at. A plea bargain would not be considered for someone like timothy mcveigh so why for this man?

---

quite simply, there should be no plea bargain, IMO
if a state is going to employ the death penalty, then stick with it
i.e....if they fry one serial bomber, fry em all
regardless of the political, religious, or whatever, nature of the murder(s), bombing(s), etc
otherwise do away with the penalty all together

oh, and to the people who dont seem to think the death penalty is a deterent...
well....you're half right, but not for the reasons you may believe
it fails simply because it is rarely carried out
even if a prisoner is actually executed, it can take upwards of 20-30 years or so
most probably die of natural causes before they ever are executed,
or appeal until the penalty is lifted by some bleeding heart liberal :P

I am guessing if they sent em to the chair/chamber/etc,
say, within a few days of passing sentence.....
they may think twice about lighting the fuse on that bomb
perhaps not, but it would be interesting to see what the results would be
if they actually carried out a few more executions

-edit-
they could always hire me for the experiment :devil:
"what? you bombed a school and killed 37 kids?" ZAP!
"huh? you knifed to death, then dumped your wife into the canal because you caught her cheating?" ZAP!
"WTF? you beat your 3 month old child to death because he/she was crying too loud?" ZAP! ZAP! ZZZZZZZZZZZZAP!

and I could pull the lever all day w/o conscience
I could even sit in the courtroom, with an executioner's hood on,
so the fkrs know if they get sentenced...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

quite simply, there should be no plea bargain, IMO
if a state is going to employ the death penalty, then stick with it
i.e....if they fry one serial bomber, fry em all
regardless of the political, religious, or whatever, nature of the murder(s), bombing(s), etc
otherwise do away with the penalty all together

oh, and to the people who dont seem to think the death penalty is a deterent...
well....you're half right, but not for the reasons you may believe
it fails simply because it is rarely carried out
even if a prisoner is actually executed, it can take upwards of 20-30 years or so
most probably die of natural causes before they ever are executed,
or appeal until the penalty is lifted by some bleeding heart liberal :P

I am guessing if they sent em to the chair/chamber/etc,
say, within a few days of passing sentence.....
they may think twice about lighting the fuse on that bomb
perhaps not, but it would be interesting to see what the results would be
if they actually carried out a few more executions

-edit-
they could always hire me for the experiment :devil:
"what? you bombed a school and killed 37 kids?" ZAP!
"huh? you knifed to death, then dumped your wife into the canal because you caught her cheating?" ZAP!
"WTF? you beat your 3 month old child to death because he/she was crying too loud?" ZAP! ZAP! ZZZZZZZZZZZZAP!

and I could pull the lever all day w/o conscience
I could even sit in the courtroom, with an executioner's hood on,
so the fkrs know if they get sentenced...

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

To those the death penalty isn't a deterrent I say it depends on the type of criminal.

There are some that don't mind prison for the rest of their life and some that aren't afraid to die (as FKDUP said, it really does take forever).

Prisoners are coddled too much.

For many, having been in prison is a badge of honor.
Why should prisonerS have 3 meals a day while a mother struggles to feed herself and 2 kids.

Drop the prisoner on an island and leave with a conscience. ;)

Let's look at the real world.

Do countries with a death penalty have significantly lower levels of murder (or any crime which would have the potential for a death penalty) than those which do not.

Even if they do, which I doubt, does that mean that the death penalty is a good thing. Is it a good enough deterrent to justify the taking of another life.

I don't think so, but again I live in a country where the death penalty is extinct. It was fully abolished in 1999 when the last few crimes for which it was available were removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Let's look at the real world.

Do countries with a death penalty have significantly lower levels of murder (or any crime which would have the potential for a death penalty) than those which do not.

Even if they do, which I doubt, does that mean that the death penalty is a good thing. Is it a good enough deterrent to justify the taking of another life.

I don't think so, but again I live in a country where the death penalty is extinct. It was fully abolished in 1999 when the last few crimes for which it was available were removed.

---

Well as FKDUP said, our death penalty means you may at the end of 20-30 years. Not a deterrent when compared to someone chopping one's head off. :sick:

So if it's not a deterrent, why have it.

It serves no purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

So if it's not a deterrent, why have it.

It serves no purpose.

---

Ah, but it does. It serves political purposes.

As mentioned it permanently silences troublesome folk but further than that, what a dramatic statement it is when an electioneer says that he's so tough on crime, he's prepared to kill. It is in our nature to want revenge when we are wronged and when this instinct is qualified by a politician advocating it, the notion seems somehow more palatable - to some. People like FCKDUP will see killing people as just and make statements containing the words 'fry' and 'zap' like it's a Batman review.

Clearly it makes more sense, morally and probably financially, to abolish the death penalty but while it serves a political purpose - ie while the public swallows the rhetoric spewed forth by the politicians - it will continue to exist in certain areas.

If the death penalty was a deterrent then it would never need to be implemented. :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Ah, but it does. It serves political purposes.

As mentioned it permanently silences troublesome folk but further than that, what a dramatic statement it is when an electioneer says that he's so tough on crime, he's prepared to kill. It is in our nature to want revenge when we are wronged and when this instinct is qualified by a politician advocating it, the notion seems somehow more palatable - to some. People like FCKDUP will see killing people as just and make statements containing the words 'fry' and 'zap' like it's a Batman review.

Clearly it makes more sense, morally and probably financially, to abolish the death penalty but while it serves a political purpose - ie while the public swallows the rhetoric spewed forth by the politicians - it will continue to exist in certain areas.

---

Ah, the heady mix of politics and revenge.

What sort of way is that to run a country.

I can't see how a thinking electorate would vote someone into power based on that as a platform

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

So if it's not a deterrent, why have it.

It serves no purpose.

---

How do you know it's not a deterrent? :huh:

Is the wrath of God a deterrent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

How do you know it's not a deterrent? :huh:

Is the wrath of God a deterrent?

---

Sorry, I was replying to what you said (in the post prior to mine, where you seemed to agree with FKDUP), allied to my own belief that your level of crime for which it was a penalty was no lower than our's.

What makes you think it is a deterrent. I see nothing to support this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Ah, the heady mix of politics and revenge.

What sort of way is that to run a country.

I can't see how a thinking electorate would vote someone into power based on that as a platform

---

Actually, for most of human history, that "platform" has been exactly what people were in favor of.
Christians of all stripes bought into it just as avidly as everyone else.

Personally, I favor capital punishment.
Not as a deterrent, I think that argument is irrelevant.
Some crimes are simply so heinous and the perpetrators so unrepentant that getting "voted off the island" is the only sane response.