The fate of the DC sniper

[Dunefar]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/09/scotus.sniper/index.html

The Supreme Court rejected John Allen Muhammed's death row appeal. Short of the governor granting clemency, Muhammed dies tomorrow evening. How do you feel about this? Why?

[Dunefar]

I run hot and cold with the death penalty, but if a man ever deserved it, it's Muhammed. The raw terror and senseless brutality combined with a near-airtight case? If you're going to execute anyone, he's it. So I voted for yes, his crimes justify it.

[Shale]

General opposition to the death penalty.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Voted Option 2.

[Cotigo]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.  Besides, which is a worse fate?  The fucker rotting in prison the rest of his life, or he himself being murdered? 

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Opposition to the death penalty as a whole for me. Even if he is undeniably guilty (and it sounds like he is), at the very simplest, incarceration for life, along with the ostracization that comes with it, is a fate worse than death.

[NotMiki]

I believe it's wrong, when you have a person at your mercy and have other reasonable choices available to you, to kill someone, period.  If ever there was a guy who deserved the worst, this guy is it, but I can't accept the idea of killing a helpless person to ease the suffering of other people, no matter how reprehensible he is.

I'm not gonna say killing him would make us as bad as him; it wouldn't.  And I do believe innocent people would likely suffer more if he were to live.  If you balance the scales of good to humanity, it probably weighs in favor of killing him.  But...it were a less terrible person's life on one side and a greater amount of suffering on the other, you could say the same thing.  I'm not willing to use that test.  The value of human life is the primary article of my faith, and if faith stands for anything, it stands for believing a certain way, acting a certain way, without heeding the consequences.

[Dhyerwolf]

I do indeed that there are cases where the death penalty is applicable, and this certainly qualifies. My general biggest problem with the death penalty is that it's completely irreversible in case of false conviction, but Dune's mention of an airtight case makes that seem unlikely (As I would imagine most 10 person killing sprees would be the types where false conviction is more difficult). My second biggest is my black heart of ice that dictates that I would prefer whatever uses less taxpayer money, and the long process that leads up to the culmination of the death penalty may use a lot more taxpayer resources than just putting him in prison until he naturally dies.

[NotMiki]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.html

little piece on the idea that a killer's death brings closure to the families of the victims.  psychologist says that witnessing the death will most likely not help a person achieve closure, but the piece doesn't really address whether simply knowing the killer is dead would be helpful (which is more to the point in my opinion).

[Ranmilia]

Four or five years ago I might've said the death penalty was fine, why, what would be the problem?  
Two years ago I might've said it was never acceptable.  
Now... mm.

On the one hand the death penalty certainly shouldn't be as widespread as it is.  On the other hand... having read some books and accounts from the US prison systems, I'm not sure I can really say that life imprisonment is a better option, as sad as that is.  The terrible state of the prison system tips me to saying that, especially in cases like this one where there's virtually no doubt of guilt and no reasonable chance of rehabilitation, I think the death penalty is acceptable.

[SageAcrin]

No, but due to the fact that I believe that cases strong enough to warrent the death penalty(Something I don't hold the same views on as most people, see Notmiki. It should be both very far beyond doubt *and* a certain level of heinous crime, more or less. I don't support it even then, but.) should instead lift the cruel and unusual punishment ban in those situations.

Too bad about that being constitutional, because, really, what would be a stronger deterrant; Killing someone, or breaking their kneecaps and hanging 'em up in a cage in some major city for a few years before they went to prison forever? The psychological impact of impending death for a few years can't be too awful much easier on a person, but the societal impact of watching that happen to someone that evil is sure as hell a good deterrent. (Insert your own inordinately, currently illegal, version of punishment if you don't like that one, but.)

The only real benefits a death penalty has is A: Deterrent value, and B: It makes sure the person will never be a danger to society ever again, and I like to think that our court system can do that without killing someone.

Well, and C: It makes people feel better. But honestly I think a certain level of suffering would work just as well psychologically.

[superaielman]

Voted option 1. It's about as clear cut a case as you can get for me with the death penalty, so I have no problems with using it here.

[OblivionKnight]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.  Besides, which is a worse fate?  The fucker rotting in prison the rest of his life, or he himself being murdered? 

[Cotigo]

I have a fundamental problem with the "no shred of doubt, so the death penalty is okay" school of thought.  Not so much because there's doubt in this case, but because it sets a scary precedent.  Exactly who decides whether there's doubt or not?  Regardless of who the judge is, what the jury decides, or even what the day's zeitgeist demands, in the end the decision is going to have a degree of human error.  There's always a shred of doubt.  What happens when someone is sentenced to the death penalty because everyone is sure there's no room for doubt in the verdict, and then some new technology comes along (ala DNA testing) that shows that everyone was in fact wrong?

That's a road we don't need to be going back down.  Progress is in the other direction.

[Grefter]

I voted other to be cool and different (and because I don't really have an opinion on this specific case).  The pros and cons of the death penalty vary way to much from person to person and country to country.  The US prison system is so fucked up that you can almost make a case for the death penalty to just make the population of said system far more manageable, but the time involved in an execution in its entirety is part of the problem.

I feel nothing regarding the sanctity of human life, many years ago I would have ranted and raved about the amazing thing that is the human mind, but I have seen what that can do and no longer find it remotely sacred.  So ultimately, human life isn't worth anything, but the cost between killing someone and incarcerating them indefinitely in the US are both ludicrously expensive so none of them are great choices.

So the answer is, if that was the judgment passed and it is acceptable within the laws then he should be executed because that is what you have chosen to do with him.

[Shale]

A lot of stuff I agree with

Exactly. Convictions in the court of public opinion are bad enough when they don't come with a lethal injection.

[Grefter]

You get out what you put in.  Your culture is fucked and your jury verdicts are equally fucked.  Your culture is less fucked and your jury verdicts are going to be less fucked. 

It is the same as voting and you know where the problem is.  Get to it.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Voted #5. Don't really see any good arguments for the death penalty (the logical one would be cost but that's not even true). It's more expensive / not a deterrent / has a slim chance of epically blowing up in your face.

(Side note, Sage: Once punishments reach a certain level, adding further punishment does not deter someone. People who make decisions with consequences that are, at worst, "give up your liberty for the rest of your life" are either not thinking rationally, or are willing to brave any consequence, depending on mindset of the criminal. Sooo... yeah, I'd be pretty opposed to torture. Never mind you're eventually going to end up torturing an innocent at some point if you make that legal.)

[Grefter]

Oh yes, violent retribution has never really been an incredibly effective deterrent.  I would direct you to the opening chapter or so of Discipline and Punish by Michelle Foucault for a reference point there.

Edit - That said, I cannot see a clear argument that the Death penalty is outright wrong either.  The expense is a matter of taste and is a very social thing that the US specifically has (see most other places with it being no where near as First World as the US pretty much) and while it is not a great deterrent, it is an incredibly effective preventative measure as it certainly cuts down on repeat offenders.

[SageAcrin]

Oh, I'm not really talking about violent deterrent so much as social shaming deterrent. I would think someone planning murder would be less likely to actually commit it if they saw the results of it somewhere obvious on the way home from work or something.

Mostly if people really want vengeance so badly, it seems like it fulfills the requirements without being so damn final. I'm willing to argue that the death penalty's no better as a deterrent, so there's a question of why we're doing it, and the answer seems to be added punishment along with making the families feel better. I don't see that death's necessarily required there.

And, in all seriousness, while I like the idea, I think it's too huge of a potential floodgate risk(Mostly the extrapolation of it from standard legal system to military legal system is obvious and that's just going to be too hard to resist torturing for information as a standard. I wouldn't even blame them from their point of view.). It's probably not practical in reality, I just think it's a lot fairer.

I'm basically just opposed to death penalty in general, though. I can see a case for torture *better*, is more what I'm getting at.

Edit: And the idea of preventing repeat offenders through death is kinda ridiculous. You could cut off the hands of a murderer and do the same thing, practically, with a much more obvious social impact, objectively, even ignoring prison. Subjectively it's pretty disgusting of course; No one said I had the guts to actually support such a thing. But hey.

[Grefter]

Edit: And the idea of preventing repeat offenders through death is kinda ridiculous.

A fuck load less ridiculous than the idea of preventing repeat offenders through Zero Tolerance policies or Three Strikes policies that is for sure.

It isn't a comfortable solution, but you cannot deny the effectiveness of a high turnover capital punishment system.  It is incredibly good at finding a problem and removing any possibility of that specific person of ever being a problem again.  It is not a solution that I really support or anything, but you can't just shrug off the effectiveness of capital punishment in general because of the way it functions in the First World.

[SageAcrin]

A fuck load less ridiculous than the idea of preventing repeat offenders through Zero Tolerance policies or Three Strikes policies that is for sure.

Well, I can't argue that.

It's usually pretty pointless, though, as by the time you get to a death penalty in first world countries, the alternative is life in prison, which, even ignoring how misleading that term can be, usually leaves people old enough when they get out to be bad at killing or whatever they did to get into the death penalty situation.

Admittedly I can't argue the economics. Death penalty doesn't have to be expensive, it just is because no one likes killing an innocent person.

[Lady Door]

We like our closed cases, closed doors, closed hearts and closed minds here in America. The death penalty happens when all of those things are true: there is a "definitive" conviction, he is sentenced to life in prison/death penalty, his case is unsympathetic/he is "unredeemable," and this is how we clean up after things we've shut away forever.

The death penalty makes a lot of sense historically, but it's about as archaic as public torture is. Modern society is sanitized (media aside) and moving with surprising swiftness toward Soylent Green scenarios, especially when it comes to death. The sense of closure given to the victim's families by having the killer killed is no small measure of relief, I imagine, but given the current court system...

I am ideologically in favor of the idea of the death penalty as a means to permanently remove members from society who otherwise pose a threat. The implementation, however, leaves much to be desired as far as the court system goes.

In practice, I don't know what I think. Life in prison is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. I question how much of a punishment it is for certain members of society who would otherwise be ostracized and eliminated from general social acceptance. It is far less a punishment in my eyes than it is a sanitization for the sake of everyone else.

The DC sniper was caught fairly red-handed. I have no sympathy for zealots and fanatics who go to violent extremes. Politically, his execution will fan the flames against extremists. Socially, he's already permanently removed from society. Economically, there's room for another to sit in jail in his place. Psychologically, two or three of his victims are still alive and I can only imagine those who went through the terror of his spree are only too glad to close this chapter. I went with option 2.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Come to think of it, though, I... sorta have no idea -why- I am against the death penalty. For starters, I pretty much agree with Grefter - the sanctity of life is a load of bullshit to me as a concept. However, it vaguely galls me that a society that tiptoes around the very idea of death in so many regards (to the point of utterly forgetting that much of our constructs were built around, in some way or another, the inevitability of death, unconsciously or consciously) can engage in, for example, the stark contradiction that is forbidding the individual from choosing whether he wants to die or not essentially regardless, yet having a tagged little clause that says the state can decide over this under a circumstance. I'm all the willing to accept that freedom just doesn't really exist and that the State is capable (and entitled) to control aspects of our lives we can't control either, but controlling the very life, even if circumstantially, honestly feels like a straight contract breach.

Besides the poor form of its practical implications (which doesn't help any), there's a conceptual inconsistency that I just can't seem to put into words properly, but glaringly stares at the death penalty, I feel. Alternatively, I just feel like humans are being pompous, self-aggrandizing shits when they take metaphorical stabs at "god" choices, and that bothers me even more.

[Grefter]

I am ideologically in favor of the idea of the death penalty as a means to permanently remove members from society who otherwise pose a threat. The implementation, however, leaves much to be desired as far as the court system goes.

Aaaaand here we have hit the heart of the function of the modern prison system (other than a control mechanism for people who -don't- break the law).  Justice isn't about punishment or retribution.  It is about restraint and safety for the other members of society  (See also why jailing small time drug users is a bad thing tm).


Aaaaaand Snow also hits the right points.  Being universally against the death penalty is short sighted, but you should certainly be following what you feel it should be applied to in your own country.  I do not feel strongly about death penalty in the US, I think it is odd that it is still there, but it is another component of the society that I do not understand like the gun prevalence, it just has no meaning socially here.  On the other hand, I don't really question why Indonesia or Fiji also have Death Penalties and don't bat an eyelid when people are quite clearly guilty of crimes that will get them executed over there (For context, people smuggling in drugs to those countries can be executed and Australian citizens have been caught doing so and it is something of a drama).