Tousled-hair, smoldering-eyed doll of a terrorist likely to be put to sleep.

cornflake said:

Let's see - he said killing is bad, but they felt they had to kill because their people were being killed. So, we're going to (potentially) kill him for killing people, for killing people. That makes sense.

Click to expand...

It's the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it?

kuwisdelu said:

The idea that taking a life means forfeiting one's own is not my issue with the death penalty. It's the presumption that it gives one of us the right to take it.

Click to expand...

Agree here. We're a violent culture with a higher rate of violent crime than countries in a similar socioeconomic place. Our go to solution to murder is to murder someone back, not in self defense (very few would argue that a cop shouldn't shoot someone who's clearly engaged in an act of terrorism if doing so is likely to save lives), but in retribution.

The old "eye for an eye" thing. But we don't deliberately employ that form of legal retribution against other violent criminals. Rapists are not forced to endure rape as their punishment. We do not burn the homes of arsonists.

I think one of the unintended consequences of our revenge based approach to murderers is to make us more violent. It doesn't bring the dead person back. It doesn't prevent murder. But it makes some of us feel a little better about murder, more accepting of it. And it reinforces the notion that vengeful punishment is the best way of solving problems. We've got a high murder rate, but at least we give those killers what's coming to them. Woo hoo, go us! It gives us something to focus on besides figuring out why we have so damned many murderers in our culture and figuring out what we need to do to fix it.

Chrissy said:

I don't have to respect your support of killing people capital punishment, for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

I propose that here, this forum, you do.

RYFW.

If a mod wants to correct that, so be it.

The following comments are in reference to the death penalty in general. I am absolutely NOT saying the man being discussed in this thread is innocent. I believe he was involved in the marathon bombing, and that he should answer for that.

I understand the point of view supporting capital punishment. There are people who, if guilty, have committed acts so heinous that there's no rehabilitation (there can't be for a person who doesn't regret their actions) and no incarceration will atone for them. In some cases, keeping a live prisoner only adds to their mystique and fame.

I understand all of that, but I still couldn't sit in the jury of a capital case and sentence someone to death. Not knowing that there's a chance of human error in the presentation or gathering of the facts. (You have to be death penalty certified to serve on a case of this kind in Texas, as in you have to be willing to give a guilty verdict if you know the death penalty is on the table.)

There are too many variables for a human being to screw up, and as horrible as an innocent life spent in prison is - an innocent life ended is worse. It's the one penalty that can't be rescinded once carried out, or recompensed once a mistake is discovered. The deceased's family can be compensated, but that does the accused and convicted no good - it also makes the people who found him/her guilty participants in the wrongful death of an innocent person.

William Haskins said:

nope, i get to invoke it because it is correct.

as is 'homicide' which i also used; as is 'killing'; as is 'execution' and so on...

but it's not murder.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's quibble over terms, that result in exactly the same, yanno, DEATHS.

robjvargas said:

I propose that here, this forum, you do.

RYFW.

If a mod wants to correct that, so be it.

Click to expand...

I do NOT have to respect the opinion that we should kill people.

I respect your right to have that opinion. I don't respect the opinion.

This is like a Japanese tea pouring ceremony.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I've always viewed the death penalty the same way I view putting out rat poison in my garage -- eliminating unwanted vermin.

Click to expand...

So says the ferret .

But really, I totally agree. Won't bother me a bit if he gets executed. If he doesn't, fine.

Regardless, I feel for the victims/families of the victims. I also feel it's cruelly ironic that it is in part the victims who will be supporting his imprisonment for the rest of his natural life should he not be executed. Horrid situation all the way around.

TerzaRima said:

This is like a Japanese tea pouring ceremony.

Click to expand...

I bring the wabi-sabi with me wherever I go.

I've noticed how, when talking about the death penalty, people are often like "I won't be sad if he's executed..." I won't shed a tear..." well, in case it isn't obvious, no one, even anti-death penalty advocates, are actually going to grieve over a murderer's murder, per se, AFAIK.

It's a matter of principle. It's a matter of what is right, for us, as a people. What we are SUPPOSED to do. No one is crying over executions of murderers, FFS. It's not an emotional issue. It's a moral issue. How are we supposed to treat these people??? That's the issue. Not how we "feel" about them.

Chrissy said:

Yes, let's quibble over terms, that result in exactly the same, yanno, DEATHS.

Click to expand...

It seems a bit more than a quibble; it's more a commonly agreed upon term to work as a basis for discussion. Murder is well defined legal term, killing is more free-for-all.

If you equate (well, equivocate really, I suppose) murder to killing, you're basically going to have to build your argument from a stand against all killing. It's a hard route to go; at some point it's going to get just ridiculously convoluted. Might be better just to accept that murder and kill are distinctly different things, otherwise you'll eventually find yourself trying to justify why it's perfectly alright in your opinion to murder lettuce to make a salad.

Seems to have gotten pretty charged for it it to only be a moral issue, IMO. It's a complex enough issue that I can easily see morals and emotion blending together. *shrug*

GHO57 said:

It seems a bit more than a quibble; it's more a commonly agreed upon term to work as a basis for discussion. Murder is well defined legal term, killing is more free-for-all.

Click to expand...

I think I can shed some light on where this "murder" vs "killing" thing is coming from.

Yes, murder is unlawful killing. But by what law?*

Obviously, if you believe the law is right, you won't see capital punishment as murder.

However, if you believe the law is wrong, you're in a language bind. Although it may be a legal term, "murder" is the most obvious word in the English language that comes to mind for killing that is morally wrong.

Unlike terms like "homocide" or "manslaughter," the word "murder" is in massively widespread use on the common lexicon in applications that wouldn't strictly fall under the legal definition.

So if you believe capital punishment is wrong — perhaps by a "higher law" than the US of A's, maybe nature's, maybe god's, whatever — then from that perspective, it makes sense to use the term "murder" to describe it.

Perhaps capital punishment is not murder by US law. But I would posit there exists more murders in a more general sense than those which can applicably be called "murder" under US law.

Maybe there is a better word to get this idea across than "murder," but "murder" feels rather right.

*The dude obviously isn't being tried under British Common Law, so clearly there's some wiggle room in the definition.

ladyleeona said:

Seems to have gotten pretty charged for it it to only be a moral issue, IMO.

Click to expand...

What moral issues are not charged?

GHO57 said:

It seems a bit more than a quibble; it's more a commonly agreed upon term to work as a basis for discussion. Murder is well defined legal term, killing is more free-for-all.

If you equate (well, equivocate really, I suppose) murder to killing, you're basically going to have to build your argument from a stand against all killing. It's a hard route to go; at some point it's going to get just ridiculously convoluted. Might be better just to accept that murder and kill are distinctly different things, otherwise you'll eventually find yourself trying to justify why it's perfectly alright in your opinion to murder lettuce to make a salad.

Click to expand...

As we all know, the U.S has created terms as to legal killing and illegal killing... and as pertains to this thread, murder is illegal, while capital punishment is legal.

Why is that?

No one can explain it, other than sentiments of "I won't cry over the execution of X murderer" combined with the highly astute commentary that "murder is illegal, but capital punishment is legal, so the fucker needs to die."

ladyleeona said:

Seems to have gotten pretty charged for it it to only be a moral issue, IMO. It's a complex enough issue that I can easily see and emotion blending together. *shrug*

Click to expand...

Yes, emotion always has an effect, but should it, in the case of taking a human life? I think not. Emotion is why most (all?) murders happen. We are not murderers. We need to do what is right.

If a person happens to think that taking the life of a murderer is right, while not simultaneously feeling the need to call the murderer a "shit stain".... well. Yeah.

William Haskins said:

his capacity to draw a breath, enjoy a meal, smile at a pleasant memory, enjoy a pen-pal relationship (or more), watch a tv, relish a book, jack off, daydream, get immersed in a conversation... these all are denied the four people killed by him.

shooting hoops or walking in his natural body, even an hour a day in a confined rec area are denied to dozens of the 240 people who had their limbs blown off and have to adapt to prosthetics, assuming they have medically stabilized enough to do so.

Click to expand...

I think I would rather be death, or be free but disabled, than spend years in supermax. I don't think you can downplay how harmful long-term seclusion is for the human mind (and I don't agree with supermax conditions, either, except in cases where there's no alternative).

Some people may feel differently. But it's not the state's place to make that decision. Whether or not living in prison (possibly for the rest of his life) makes him more fortunate than his victims is debatable. I certainly don't think that it does.

William Haskins said:

do we have the right to lock him in a cage for life?

the power of the state to punish is a continuum.

if you agree that a cop has the right to cuff a criminal, or a judge to imprison him, you have already submitted to a model that empowers the state to exact justice.

Click to expand...

The key difference, I think, is that locking people up can be necessary in order to protect the public or keep people from fleeing. It's not entirely about punishment, even though that's part of it. Even innocent people can be detained for some amount of time while they await trial.

And even though we give the government power to exact justice, this is hardly an absolute power. People can appeal their convictions. People can sue the government if they're given illegal treatment. In a trial, the onus is on the prosecution to prove someone's guilt. I don't think it's fair to suggest that because we're okay with some aspects of the justice system, we must be okay with the state doing whatever it wants. That makes no sense. There are a lot of things that the corrections system cannot do to people. Would you argue that because the state has the power to lock people up, it should have the power to starve and assault prisoners, as well? I doubt it. Well, to me, capital punishment should fall under the list of things that the state should not be allowed to do to people.

robjvargas said:

I propose that here, this forum, you do.

RYFW.

If a mod wants to correct that, so be it.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between respecting a person, or treating them with respect, and respecting their opinions. As far as I know, the former falls under the RYFW rule. The latter doesn't, or else we would be required to show respect for anything people might say on these forums.

I can treat you with respect and believe that you're deserving of respect as a person, but I have absolutely no respect for support of the death penalty. It goes against everything that I believe is right, and I'm under no obligation to have respect for that.

Well said, Kuwi.

For me, given the arbitrary way the death penalty is applied, especially in certain parts of the country, and how it is very often a stepping stone to some local official's desire to be seen as tough on crime, I feel quite comfortable using the term murder. Ambition is a common enough motive for murder in other circumstances.

To Cyia's point, I've always had a HUGE problem with the idea of death penalty certifications - given where I live it's not something I'm likely to have to contend with, but if someone who believes the death penalty is morally wrong is automatically disqualified from having a say in the judgment that person faces, it seems very much like stacking the deck to me. (And yes, I get the statutory reasons why it's done that way, but I still find them lacking)

William Haskins said:

it's descended from british common law, not a US construct.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction. Especially since it's so... relevant... to the thread.

kuwisdelu said:

What moral issues are not charged?

Click to expand...

...Which was my point.

By stating my apathy, I was basically accused of accusing anti-dealth penalty people of being emotional. Then I was told it is just a moral issue.

But then moral issues are agreed to usually also be emotional, so here we are.

I stand by what I said. Anyone else wants to look at it and see it as a slight to their perspective they are welcome to it.

ladyleeona said:

...Which was my point.

By stating my apathy, I was basically accused of accusing anti-dealth penalty people of being emotional. Then I was told it is just a moral issue.

But then moral issues are agreed to usually also be emotional, so here we are.

Click to expand...

I believe you and Chrissy were talking about different sets of emotions.

Feeling strongly over your convictions of right vs wrong is a separate matter from weeping for a terrorist or not feeling sympathy for the victims. They are not related.

The idea was that those convictions are not being based on an emotional response. Not that one isn't invested in fighting for them.

ladyleeona said:

...Which was my point.

By stating my apathy, I was basically accused of accusing anti-dealth penalty people of being emotional. Then I was told it is just a moral issue.

But then moral issues are agreed to usually also be emotional, so here we are.

I stand by what I said. Anyone else wants to look at it and see it as a slight to their perspective they are welcome to it.

Click to expand...

First, in case you meant me, I was not accusing you personally of being apathetic. It's so freaking common that people don't care that murderers die that it's not even worth elaborating on?

But I disagree with the idea that moral issues are emotional. They shouldn't be, as much as emotions can be taken out of anything. Morals are issues of what is right, regardless of what one feels.

So, no matter how much I want that bastard to die a painful death, I cannot, morally, take his life, because morally, no life is my right to take.

kuwisdelu said:

I believe you and Chrissy were talking about different sets of emotions.

Feeling strongly over your convictions of right vs wrong is a separate matter from weeping for a terrorist or not feeling sympathy for the victims. They are not related.

Click to expand...

Possibly. It is past my bedtime.

Do I want to open up another can of worms, or not, or...

Oh what the hell, I'll bite the unintended bait.

Chrissy said:

because morally, no life is my right to take.

Click to expand...

What about your own?

kuwisdelu said:

Do I want to open up another can of worms, or not, or...

Oh what the hell, I'll bite the unintended bait.



What about your own?

Click to expand...

Except for your own I mean.

raburrell said:

if someone who believes the death penalty is morally wrong is automatically disqualified from having a say in the judgment that person faces, it seems very much like stacking the deck to me.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that asking questions tied to the guilt of the accused as qualifiers could put the selected jury in a guilty mindset.

Chrissy said:

First, in case you meant me, I was not accusing you personally of being apathetic. It's so freaking common that people don't care that murderers die that it's not even worth elaborating on?

But I disagree with the idea that moral issues are emotional. They shouldn't be, as much as emotions can be taken out of anything. Morals are issues of what is right, regardless of what one feels.

So, no matter how much I want that bastard to die a painful death, I cannot, morally, take his life, because morally, no life is my right to take.

Click to expand...

I know you weren't accusing me of being apathetic--i gave that label to myself. However, i did assume, perhaps erroneously, that your post was referencing mine as it contained the attitude you said bothered you. I wasn't terribly offended regardless .

I have yet to find a moral issue that isn't emotional. If I believe so strongly in the morality of the death penalty (for cases of this post) and you find it to be horribly immoral and oppose it, there will be emotions involved. How can there not be? In a world in which one could entirely separate from past experiences, or personal or religious views, moral issues Wouldn't be emotional. I find myself hard pressed to separate, as think many other people do. I think it's almost impossible. Ideal, but impossible. (Which is not to say we shouldn't try.)

Deciding what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is like trying to tease apart the black and white from the gray. It's all different on a person to person basis.

(And because I'm typing this sloooowly on my phone, I'm sure the conversation is 12 posts down by now...it.)

Btw--I have no idea how the demon face got on my post and I don't know how to get rid of the damn thing

Eta--got the little bastard.

ladyleeona said:

In a world in which one could entirely separate from past experiences, or personal or religious views, moral issues Wouldn't be emotional. I find myself hard pressed to separate, as think many other people do. I think it's almost impossible. Ideal, but impossible. (Which is not to say we shouldn't try.)

Click to expand...

I don't think that's possible, nor do I agree it's ideal or desirable.

Our personal experiences are part of what define our humanity, and to deny them, I think, would be to deny our humanity. When deciding issues of life and death, when deciding morality — which in essence is deciding what it means to us to be human — that is the last thing we want to do.

No, I don't believe we should make those decisions based purely on emotion, no. But we should let them guide us, and meditate and reflect on where those emotions come from, and what they mean to us. That's the only way we can be true to ourselves.

Goddammit, I sound like a goddamn Jedi.