He gets to go out of his cell for an hour a day?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/23/btk.killer.ap/index.html

I don't understand. They don't have a hose that will reach far enough?

*rolls eyes* Ok that public defender should be required to spend one week living in that cell with the guy and then have to repeat that statement while trying to look himself in the eye in a mirror.

Uhh, well under international laws reguarding prisons that is the worst they can do to him. They have to let him excersise for an hour a day. As far as the other privilages, since they can't let him out of his cell to work like lower risk prisoners you will quickly have him insane... insane people get out of prison... he behaves himself, he gets little priveledges that 1. keep him sane so he stays in prison 2. he is a cooperative and isn't a danger to the guards 3. TV is a form of torture and should be banned by the Geniva Convention 4. are really minor and will not diminish the fact he will die in prison in solitary confinement 5. he will remain sane and will continue to experience his punishment, driving him to insanity gives him an out besides death.

This guy tortured and killed little children slowly after having them listen to the torture and killing of their mother. I had to go in at 10pm for my entire teenage years due to this anus of a human (I grew up there). Dude was a good Christian tho (see? that word DOES have connotations sometimes that need to be overcome in my head anyway) and was head of the sunday school of his church.

There is no chance to keep him sane. He hasn't been sane in years if he ever was. He made a little kid hang slowly so that her toes touched the ground, letting her stay alive just so long as she had the strength to stand tiptoe. I am against the death penalty, but he should be given no quarter. Let god forgive him, but I cannot.

He wasn't a "good christian" obviously. He CLAIMED to be a good christian, big difference.

There are some people who have proven themselves by their actions to be so far out of the realm of what is acceptable and forgivable that they really do need to spend the remainder of their existance in this world being PUNISHED...over and over and over. He is already insane. He is already never getting out. If he could ever get out then our justice system has betrayed us. We're not going to drive him insane, he's already there... so just keep punishing him and reminding him over and over...this is why you are being punished. Television is not a punishment....well most of it isn't anyway.

No, you're looking at it all wrong, this one hour out of the cell is actually a good thing.

Maybe it means an inmate could be paid to locate him, to stick a butter knife in that son of a bitch's eye socket and be done with it...

Or, start a tourist attraction where you allow people to fire high speed pellet and paintball guns at him in the cell as much as they want. And for the one hour a day, it would function pretty much the same way, only with a slightly moving target. Hell I'd pay to do that, it could bring in enough revenue to keep the jail running.

I'd be interested in reading some defintion of JUSTICE.

Would your defintion of justice permit or deny a society the option of a death penalty?

I am against the death penalty except in brutal cases where there is DNA evidence accompanied by a confession. Rader fits that category. I'd rather society not pay 35k a year for him to exist -- an amount that many low income families would love to have to live on. He serves no purpose other than as a reminder of loss to the loved ones of the people he tortured and killed. He terrorized a community for 30 some odd years and hid behind the facade of cub scout leader and church congregation president. That sickens me. It is VERY rare for me to support the death penalty, but in this case, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

.

Thats a pretty lame reasoning Nolan, but admirable that you tried.

What were humans to do about formulating ideas about justice prior to DNA evidence?!?!

I'm pro death penalty in the right situations.

This is NOT one of them.

He would get off far too easily.

When the deserved punishment is so great that death would be seen as a release, it's comming must be delayed as long as possible.

I'm against the death penalty but I admit to times when I really wish I weren't. I can definately understand the reasons people have for being for it.

In the majority of cases, prison itself is punishment enough...it is not a happy place.

But there are some people who need to really KNOW they are being punished, to wake up every day and know they are paying a price. This guy is one of them. Making him comfortable, letting him earn rewards, even keeping him isolated and safer than the rest of the prison population... all of these things detract from that constant feeling of paying the price.

There should be a higher level of punishment for the most vicious offenders. Let them be around the general population and see all of the comforts the other prisoners have that they can NEVER have and then remind them every day that even those small comforts will never be theirs. These prisoners should have to watch the others enjoying the benefits of televisions and time in the yard while being forced to merely observe from their completely bare and tiny little cells.

Wow.

I think I will refrain from answering any further inquiries from you.

Here I was sort of perplexed at my feeling that you were being arrogant in the Why does it seem the SL population hates Christians? thread tonight, where you represent your opinions as fact, and are telling people they are "wrong", when there is no way to really know who is wrong or right unless you created the human race yourself. Thanks for taking away any doubt I had as to whether or not I was misjudging.

Ciao.

it WAS a lame response for a defintion of JUSTICE. I gladly accept your resignation from responding to me. Nice way to drop out without having to think about a reasonable response.

Sorry, Reitsuki, but I have to be fair and say that your response is lame too.

Where is the consistency in your thinking? How can you be for the death penalty and against it solely based on your perception of retribution at that specific time?

Like your response was reasonable. Give me a break, oh he who has all the answers, and wants others opinions just just so he can dismiss them arrogantly and pick them apart like a smartass. I have plenty of reasonable responses - for reasonable people.

It is clear to me however, that you only ask questions so that you can then dismiss people offhandedly and smugly, so as to make yourself feel superior (unless perhaps the response you get is agreeable to your own beliefs). So wtf is the point in answering your setups?

Here, try opening your mind - you may need something powerful though.

Depends what you mean by JUSTICE.

"Justice" in the sense of the primitive (everday) definition of "an eye for an eye," is revenge and therefore not really very just (or even sensible). The death penalty falls in that category.

"Justice" in the sense of retribution is closer to a "just" response to crime and would dissalow the death penalty. There is no possible retribution for death, especially deaths such as these, so ostracizing the offender is the only sane response.

I favor the later definition but would argue that for the most part, any sort of justice in relation to the majority of violent crime committed today is illusory.

Still nothing worthwhile to add?

Move Zig.
For great justice.

I agree that "an eye for an eye" is revenge and therefore not a sensible argument to justify the justice of a death penalty. But I wonder about the idea that a society depends on the cooperation of its people in order to sustain itself (survival of the tribe, so to speak). What is a society to do (given limited resources) when burdened with the resposibility of dealing with those who refuse to cooperate? It's more than just "doing your time". There are legitimate issues of trust and security. How can a society know that those who are not cooperative can ever be trusted again, even after "rehabilitation" (to whatever extent the society beleives or proves this is possible).

I guess I would argue that a society has a right to protect itself from those who betray the groups trust by acting non-cooperatively, while not sustainig the burden of caring for them in prisons.

The severity of punishment requires serious consideration on the part of the greater society, but how much responsibility do they need to take for those who refuse to cooperate?

There are new ways to guard against putting to death innocent people, as Nolan pointed out. DNA evidence is an excellent tool, but it does not define the principle upon we we determine the legitimacy of putting to death those we find to be beyond rehabilitation and an excessive burden on society.

Arguments about what is more hurtful to the criminal, death or life in prison, also seem inadequate answers to the question what is justice (in regards to the option of a death penalty).

Like the other thread about Christianity, I'm focused on the idea that there is an answer that corresponds to our human nature and our inherent need for cooperation in society.

What right do we have, and what do we protect is we institute a death penalty?

I totally support the death penalty in situations where is it clear that the person is guilty.

How do I decide that? I have to take it on a case by case basis. The only problem is, I don't trust the judgement of other people!

I really think they need to just bring all death penalty cases before me and allow me to sign off on each one. To make it a little more dramatic, I would like to have them brought before me while I sit on a throne.

They will be forced to kneel as I extend my fist in front of me. I will then either provide a simple thumbs up or thumbs down. Thumbs up, they can go back to prison. Thumbs down they are immediately taken away and executed.

I have given this issue a lot of thought over the years and this is the only solution I could find that is humane, efficient and fair.

Ignoring any moral inclinations:

Failing to let him out for an hour a day can cause certain kinds of skin poisoning that can prove lethal, as well as causing him to occupy himself in a fantasy ("happy place"-ism) without having any reason for that illusion to be broken.

The 1 hour per day guarantees a longer, less enjoyable existance. I'm all for it.

This is a "life worse than death" policy, right? So, would you say that you are not against the death penalty on grounds that it is inhumane treatment?

Would you agree to a death penalty if you could be certain to know that it would be worse than being alive?

Would you agree to the death penalty if you could be assured that God was cool with it that one time?

What about if I assured you that the person would enjoy it?

What if the mother of the victim proclaimed it Justice Served?

What if....

I understand Reitsuki's stance, although perhaps not for the same reasons.

I'm in favor of the death penalty for certain serious crimes provided there is no shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty. The only reason I oppose the death penalty is that even one wrongfully executed person is one too many.

But then I don't view the death penalty as retribution. I view it as permanantly removing a person from a community that they have grieviously damaged.