Maryland abolishes death penalty

You say eligible. That means you think some killers, but not all, deserve the death penalty. Where to draw that line? All premeditated murders, and noone else? Only those premeditated murders that cause public outcry?

Believe me, I think Anders Behring Breivik deserves to die for what he did. I also think Vidkun Quisling and Henry Oliver Rinnan (google the names if they don't ring any bells) deserved what they got. However, I hold the stance that nobody has the right to give them just that, and that if Quisling and Rinnan had been on trial today I would have favoured life in prison, not death. (They were both shot after WWII).
 
Well, here is one Capital Murder statute .. I pretty much agree with it.. There are of course variations from state to state, but I think this covers most of them

The following is an example of a state statute governing capital offenses
  • (a) The following are capital offenses:
  • (1) Murder by the defendant during a kidnapping in the first degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.
  • (2) Murder by the defendant during a robbery in the first degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.
  • (3) Murder by the defendant during a rape in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant; or murder by the defendant during sodomy in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.
  • (4) Murder by the defendant during a burglary in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.
  • (5) Murder of any police officer, sheriff, deputy, state trooper, federal law enforcement officer, or any other state or federal peace officer of any kind, or prison or jail guard, while such officer or guard is on duty, regardless of whether the defendant knew or should have known the victim was an officer or guard on duty, or because of some official or job-related act or performance of such officer or guard.
  • (6) Murder committed while the defendant is under sentence of life imprisonment.
  • (7) Murder done for a pecuniary or other valuable consideration or pursuant to a contract or for hire.
  • (8) Murder by the defendant during sexual abuse in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.
  • (9) Murder by the defendant during arson in the first or second degree committed by the defendant; or murder by the defendant by means of explosives or explosion.
  • (10) Murder wherein two or more persons are murdered by the defendant by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct.
  • (11) Murder by the defendant when the victim is a state or federal public official or former public official and the murder stems from or is caused by or is related to his official position, act, or capacity.
  • (12) Murder by the defendant during the act of unlawfully assuming control of any aircraft by use of threats or force with intent to obtain any valuable consideration for the release of said aircraft or any passenger or crewmen thereon or to direct the route or movement of said aircraft, or otherwise exert control over said aircraft.
  • (13) Murder by a defendant who has been convicted of any other murder in the 20 years preceding the crime; provided that the murder which constitutes the capital crime shall be murder as defined in subsection (b) of this section; and provided further that the prior murder conviction referred to shall include murder in any degree as defined at the time and place of the prior conviction.
  • (14) Murder when the victim is subpoenaed, or has been subpoenaed, to testify, or the victim had testified, in any preliminary hearing, grand jury proceeding, criminal trial or criminal proceeding of whatever nature, or civil trial or civil proceeding of whatever nature, in any municipal, state, or federal court, when the murder stems from, is caused by, or is related to the capacity or role of the victim as a witness.
  • (15) Murder when the victim is less than fourteen years of age.
  • (16) Murder committed by or through the use of a deadly weapon fired or otherwise used from outside a dwelling while the victim is in a dwelling.
  • (17) Murder committed by or through the use of a deadly weapon while the victim is in a vehicle.
  • (18) Murder committed by or through the use of a deadly weapon fired or otherwise used within or from a vehicle.
  • (b) Except as specifically provided to the contrary in the last part of subdivision (a)(13) of this section, the terms "murder" and "murder by the defendant" as used in this section to define capital offenses mean murder as defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(1), but not as defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(2) and (3). Subject to the provisions of Section 13A-5-41, murder as defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(2) and (3), as well as murder as defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(1), may be a lesser included offense of the capital offenses defined in subsection (a) of this section.
  • (c) A defendant who does not personally commit the act of killing which constitutes the murder is not guilty of a capital offense defined in subsection (li) of this section unless that defendant is legally accountable for the murder because of complicity in the murder itself under the provisions of Section 13A-2-23, in addition to being guilty of the other elements of the capital offense as defined in subsection (a) of this section.
  • (d) To the extent that a crime other than murder is an element of a capital offense defined in subsection (a) of this section, a defendant's guilt of that other crime may also be established under Section 13A-2-23. When the defendant's guilt of that other crime is established under Section 13A-2-23, that crime shall be deemed to have been "committed by the defendant" within the meaning of that phrase as it is used in subsection (a) of this section.
 
Big fuck off lists aren't helpful. It's like you can't think for yourself or something; either that, or you're unwilling to actually state here (which is fair enough) why you support the death penalty. Why do you think it's okay for the state to kill people, as punishment for killing people? Pretty simple question. This has nothing to do with the US. This is straight up: why is it ever justified to take another human life? How does executing someone not make you the same as them? i.e. a killer.
 
I did say why I support it .. I was asked what conditions it should be applied to ... which I did generally state before .

The fundamental difference between death by death penalty versus the murder which brought about the death penalty is quite simple. In one case someone has been given due process the other case is flat out murder.

To turn this around a bit, if you look at medical evidence a baby/fetus is viable at 23 months in ... yet there are provisions to allow the termination of that life ... that is done based on the fact someone forgot to wear a rubber or take a pill ... Many people have no problem with that, but have an issue with the termination of someone who has killed in cold blood?
 
Okay, let's take no. 5 here as an example:

"Murder of any police officer, sheriff, deputy, state trooper, federal law enforcement officer, or any other state or federal peace officer of any kind, or prison or jail guard, while such officer or guard is on duty, regardless of whether the defendant knew or should have known the victim was an officer or guard on duty, or because of some official or job-related act or performance of such officer or guard."

Let us assume the murderer did not know that his victim was a police officer. Why is it a capital offense to kill a police officer on duty, whereas the same murder would only qualify for prison if the victim was off duty - and the perpetrator did not know which was the case? To me, this just further illustrates that it is not easy to draw a line between capital offenses and other offenses.

Is it not so that one jury might sentence a defendant to a long prison term and another jury might sentence him to death for the same crime?

Edit: This was written before seeing the last three posts above this one. I do see the paradox about abortion. Personally I think abortion should only be carried out for medical reasons. But the question of when the embryo becomes a human, with the unalienable rights that follow, is a rather different discussion.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
Edit: This was written before seeing the last three posts above this one.

Okay, let's take no. 5 here as an example:

"Murder of any police officer, sheriff, deputy, state trooper, federal law enforcement officer, or any other state or federal peace officer of any kind, or prison or jail guard, while such officer or guard is on duty, regardless of whether the defendant knew or should have known the victim was an officer or guard on duty, or because of some official or job-related act or performance of such officer or guard."

Let us assume the murderer did not know that his victim was a police officer. Why is it a capital offense to kill a police officer on duty, whereas the same murder would only qualify for prison if the victim was off duty - and the perpetrator did not know which was the case? To me, this just further illustrates that it is not easy to draw a line between capital offenses and other offenses.

Is it not so that one jury might sentence a defendant to a long prison term and another jury might sentence him to death for the same crime?
Click to expand...

I would agree with that one, in some states the prosecution has to prove the defendant knew the victim was a policeman.
 
Killing is a crime therefore the state should not be allowed to kill is only a valid argument if you are willing to follow it through to the nth degree.
Flash called my jail argument absurd, but didn't respond to it with a logical argument why
Bearfan's abortion example is another great example of the double standard here.
How about war - the most obvious example of state sanctioned killing.
 
It's easy to call capital punishment vengeance and life imprisonment justice, tell me why that's the case.
 
mckindog said:
How about war - the most obvious example of state sanctioned killing.
Click to expand...

Well, is a war morally justified if it is not initiated in order to stop other atrocities? When you start a war, it should be because the alternative would be worse. When the choice is not between death and not death, but between the death of your friends and the death of your enemies. This moral problem is the entire reason why some wars are being questioned.
 
mckindog said:
Killing is a crime therefore the state should not be allowed to kill is only a valid argument if you are willing to follow it through to the nth degree.
Flash called my jail argument absurd, but didn't respond to it with a logical argument why
Click to expand...

Your question simply asked me if I supported any kind of punishment of criminals. I obviously do. And I did respond with a logical argument, I think you won't ever have the right to take a person's life away from him. A killer's fault is taking the life of a person away from him, so what's the difference ? Death penalty is being equal to a killer. It's no preserving the rights of others, you can do it by simply jailing the killer.
 
mckindog said:
It's easy to call capital punishment vengeance and life imprisonment justice, tell me why that's the case.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it is not easy. Life imprisonment also takes away a right (the right to liberty) - but of course, there are other issues than just "justice" to be considered. The most obvious one is public safety - you would of course not want a killer go free so that he could kill more people. But as I see it, imprisonment is just the lesser of several evils. Which evils?

  • Letting the perpetrator commit new crimes. This infringes the right of others.
  • Letting other potential perpetrators think it is OK to commit this crime.
  • Taking away the perpetrator's liberty
  • Taking away the perpetrator's life
Obviously, in order to avoid the first two, one has to select one of the last two. The distinction between the last two is fundamental to the discussion.
 
You do not have the right to take his life away from him, but taking his property, or his freedom is OK. Why?
Why are the lives of a soldier or a fetus different?
 
My last post was responding to Flash.
In response to Wingman's excellent post, why is taking away liberty better than than taking away life?
 
mckindog said:
You do not have the right to take his life away from him, but taking his property, or his freedom is OK. Why?
Why are the livs of a soldier or a fetus different?
Click to expand...

Life is a natural right you gain once you're born. Freedom and property aren't. Obviously freedom is the one to be preferred and property is the one to be desired. But freedom is a social thing that you personally can't decide and property is something you can only gain by time. On the other hand, life isn't attached to anything from its start.

For the other question, the answer is simple. A fetus isn't a socialized creature therefore judging its fate by social standards, rules is folly. It should be up to the people who willingly or unwillingly caused its creation and from a medical standpoint, doctors. On the other hand, a soldier is a socialized creature.
 
The debate around termination/abortion is indeed a good example to raise. This also involves (depending on when you define life; medically or otherwise) people (medical professionals in this case) making choices about life & death. However, the reasons you (bearfan) cite for termination (i.e. the pregnancy is unplanned) at 23 weeks is not legal already in the UK. The option of termination is usually a difficult decision around the viability of the foetus (then & when/if born) &/or to do with the life of the mother. This isn't exactly the same as deliberately ending a life (by execution) when you had the clear alternative to lock them up instead, & not killing them.

At a purely philosophical level it is totally relevant to carry it through to the "nth degree", as you pithily dismiss mckindog. And you ask "How about war - the most obvious example of state sanctioned killing." What about it? Yes, this is also state sanctioned killing. Does calling people "combatants" makes you fell better about their deaths?
 
The Flash said:
Life is a natural right you gain once you're born. Freedom and property aren't. Obviously freedom is the one to be preferred and property is the one to be desired. But freedom is a social thing that you personally can't decide and property is something you can only gain by time.
Click to expand...

If I read this correctly, the right to life is more important than the right to freedom or the right to property.
Would you kill a man to protect your freedom, or your property, or that of your loved ones?
 
mckindog said:
If I read this correctly, the right to life is more important than the right to freedom or the right to property.
Would you kill a man to protect your freedom, or your property, or that of your loved ones?
Click to expand...

Nope. I didn't say right to life is more important than the right to freedom or right to property. I stated their points of origin because to me it is what makes the difference between them.

Edit : That nope wasn't an answer to the question you asked, I'm not answering it since it's caused by a misunderstanding on your side. It's irrelevant anyway because people decide to kill somebody in order to protect their freedom of themselves or their loved ones' knowing that they're committing a crime. People don't think if it's rightful or not at that point.

Cornfed Hick said:
I'm blown away by the penetrating sophistication of this reasoning.
Click to expand...

Since I'm here explaining my opinion, I doubt it's sophistication. I just stated it simply to engage in the conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top