Maryland abolishes death penalty

Further development in the Arias case. After her verdict was read she didn't huddle with her attorneys nor did she speak to family. She spoke the the media and said she rather die than live in prison. Proves my point, she wants to avoid responsibility and accountability for her actions by simply not being here anymore. What a coward.
 
I'm not sure what you're asking mckindog. I'm challenging the idea that someone can be "simply, completely, [&] indisputably, evil". I don't believe this. My point about Sauron should be obvious: if someone becomes evil (because they were not evil to begin with), then they can un-become evil.
 
mckindog said:
More or less.
I'm not so much concerned of the sentence, but the nature of the crime.
I had no personal connection to it, but the case happened within an hour of my home.
Its enormity basically flipped me from my position of being opposed to capital punishment.
Like many on here, I used to think society was a better place by not stooping to the cruel and unnecessary punishment of the death penalty. I still believe that in most cases.
But monsters like these are the exception. These are not pathetic creatures like Gollum. There are no shades of gray, no questions, no 'yes, but.' They are Sauron - simply, completely, indisputably, evil.
Cried pointed to the need for distance, to make sure vengeance and retribution are not your motivating factors. And he is right.
But the opposite is also true.
When you debate these things strictly on a philosophical level, and you neglect to talk about what actually happened, you have to guard against your ideals blinding you to the actual facts of the case.
This pair targeted a girl for no other reason than she was vulnerable. They committed the most dreadful acts imaginable against her for no other reason than they thought it might be fun.
They had no more remorse than you would have about swatting a fly.
There is no doubt, no extenuating circumstance.
They exemplify the very worst in humanity. Ending their lives is not stooping to their level.
Letting them live is devaluing the life of their victim and every other person like her.
Click to expand...
Mckindog, I can understand the rage about people killing, and especially when it's just for fun.
But when I read this I do have the impression that you are busy with the sentence. Ending someone's life is a punishment isn't it? Or is it a "practical measurement" only?

What do you think about alternatives, such as longer sentences in jail?

I have some more questions about this case. I might have missed it but were these guys sick (insane) or not?
And did that have influence on their sentence?

And when a prison sentence ends, will they be researched to see how dangerous they (still) could be for society?

I wonder how form and length of a different sentence than the death penalty can form a "good" alternative?

Because, if there is a good alternative, then it can be argued that the death penalty is unnecessary.
 
Forostar said:
Mckindog, I can understand the rage about people killing, and especially when it's just for fun.
But when I read this I do have the impression that you are busy with the sentence. Ending someone's life is a punishment isn't it? Or is it a "practical measurement" only?

What do you think about alternatives, such as longer sentences in jail?

I have some more questions about this case. I might have missed it but were these guys sick (insane) or not?
And did that have influence on their sentence?

And when a prison sentence ends, will they be researched to see how dangerous they (still) could be for society?

I wonder how form and length of a different sentence than the death penalty can form a "good" alternative?

Because, if there is a good alternative, then it can be argued that the death penalty is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Sorry for any confusion: I was trying to say I am not taking issue with whether these guys get 10 years, or 25.
I think the circumstances of their crime warrants the death penalty.

They were not found insane. And yes, they will be heavily scrutinized before ever being let out - to the point It is likely their release will never happen.

I searched for a reason why our society is better for feeding and sheltering these men and others of their ilk for the rest of their lives.
I've been unable to find one.
 
You clearly (as you stated) don't think killing these people is "stooping" to their level. For those of us who disagree with this premise the answer to your question is obvious. It is stooping to their level. Ending their lives renders our condemnation of their cruelty & lack of respect for life utterly hypocritical. The only real difference is they killed for "fun" (worthy of our condemnation) while we kill in the name of justice, etc (--& the fact that we don't know what else to do with them.) The moral high ground we command in this situation is elevated by a distance immeasurably small.
 
Cried, did you read what these guys did?
To be clear, I totally respect your opinion on this issue, I wish I shared it.
But equating their actions to a state-sanctioned, fair trial court decision authorizing death by lethal injection is like equating an Olympic gold medal in the 100 metres to winning first place during a middle school sports day.

I think where we differ is I see these guys with malice and forethought crossed an ultimate moral horizon where to remain healthy, society is better off without them. You think they have not crossed that horizon, or perhaps that such a horizon does not exist. That's a legitimate, laudable point of view. It's also a much easier view to hold when you are talking about philosophy rather than teenage girls being trapped like rats and submitted to unspeakable torture while some unrepentant monster gets his rocks off.

I do not see the death penalty in this case as hypocritical, because I don't see it as an eye for an eye. That would include prolonged death by sexual torture.
In this case, I see the death penalty as the most logical consequence of their heinous action.
 
I bring it back, again, to what I find objectionable about the death penalty --what you/we/state are doing; not what crime the criminals have committed. To me, this (what the crime is) is an irrelevance. Hence why I have no interest in this particular case.

Olympic winner; school winner --same thing. Both runners. Both winners. It's just a matter of scale.
 
mckindog said:
Sorry for any confusion: I was trying to say I am not taking issue with whether these guys get 10 years, or 25.
I think the circumstances of their crime warrants the death penalty.

They were not found insane. And yes, they will be heavily scrutinized before ever being let out - to the point It is likely their release will never happen.

I searched for a reason why our society is better for feeding and sheltering these men and others of their ilk for the rest of their lives.
I've been unable to find one.
Click to expand...
Locking someone in a cell excludes them from society. Maybe it's not on purpose but it sounds a bit like you're playing "doing time" down by naming it shelter and feeding, while that's happening with most people who are not in jails.

Why do you drag society in it? There's the obvious connection when it comes to a possible threat. But which other connections are you making? Money? Is this the classic argument that paying for a criminal's prison sentence is expensive?

I don't understand why you express indifference on the length of their sentence.
Does that indicate that you absolutely don't want to consider an alternative?

Why not? What's underneath?
 
Forostar said:
Locking someone in a cell excludes them from society. Maybe it's not on purpose but it sounds a bit like you're playing "doing time" down by naming it shelter and feeding, while that's happening with most people who are not in jails.

Why do you drag society in it? There's the obvious connection when it comes to a possible threat. But which other connections are you making? Money? Is this the classic argument that paying for a criminal's prison sentence is expensive?

I don't understand why you express indifference on the length of their sentence.
Does that indicate that you absolutely don't want to consider an alternative?

Why not? What's underneath?
?
Click to expand...
I'll try to answer point by point, but the iPad makes it tough. Hope you can follows this.

Locking people in a cell separates them from society, it does not exclude them. Society is still responsible for care, security and (hopefully) rehabilitation.

I am downplaying jail time, but only in the context of comparing it to what was done to the victim.

I'm not dragging society into this, it is an essential pillar of the discussion: society decides what to do with murderers based on society's values on justice, morals, thoughts about public safety, political reality, and, yes, practicality.

Expense is not my predominant concern here. All kinds of money is squandered in the administration of justice, but the alternative is usually worse. Is the fact I will paying for these two, probably for the rest of my life, bothersome? Sure. But I certainly do not think they should die because they are expensive.

I am not indifferent to their sentence. I just was trying to stay on topic - the death penalty.

I have considered the alternatives, and frankly remain hopeful someone can dissuade me from my conclusion: that I would rather live in a society that permanently eliminates people capable - beyond any sort of doubt - of committing this type of atrocity.

Clearly, it is matter of conscience. The state taking any life (except a fetus in its early stages, or in a time of war, or while defending the peace?) is currently contrary to the conscience of the majority. In the vast majority of cases I would agree. In cases like above, my conscience tells me the available responses are inadequate, that a moral horizon was crossed here from where the perpetrators cannot return, that such action demands just consequence, and that society's surviving teenage girls and their families deserve more.
 
Just got around to reading the article. Yes, the two young men who committed this crime are remorseless monsters. The sad thing is, as awful as this crime was, I've evidently been so desensitized that I actually found myself thinking that, in the grand scheme of things, this case is not even particularly unusual. The most remarkable part of the story is the stupidity of the two guys, who seemed to understand that they could be implicated by their electronic communications, but sent such communications anyway. This case certainly involves the sort of aggravating circumstances that would permit the death penalty under many states' laws.

I'll throw another situation into the ring as a comparison to the death penalty, this time more directly related to the death penalty debate than the abortion issue I raised earlier: the practice of using drone strikes to carry out what some have described as essentially summary executions, without trial, of suspected terrorists/combatants. Here's an article describing two new books on the subject. Here's another article describing the Obama Administration's legal justification for carrying out drone strikes -- including on American citizens abroad. (The second article links to a PDF of the leaked White House legal memo itself.) I have to admit that I am ambivalent about this practice. On the one hand, the U.S. is at war with al-Qaeda (whatever that means), and if we can attack enemy positions without endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers, great. On the other hand, it does set a number of dangerous precedents that I find troubling, and seems to suggest that the President has near-unlimited authority in the fight against terrorism. Curious as to others' thoughts.
 
Because it is putting people to death. Specifically, it is targeted killing of alleged criminals, including U.S. citizens abroad, without the due process protections normally afforded criminal defendants. Curious how you didn't see them as related.
 
I think it is helpful to discuss other legal or at least quasi-legal ways people are put to death (depending on what you define as a person ...thinking about abortion here). That general view will guide most peoples' view of the death penalty. Beyond that, the application is important. It is possible to be in favor of the death penalty in general, but be opposed to the application of it or the safe guards around it. It is a complex issue and I am not sure saying "I am for it" or "I am against it" really covers it ... or makes for an interesting conversation.
 
War puts people to death. In Gaza and Iran and in Syria people are put the death. All different subjects and different topics. I am glad to discuss these matters in other topics, but here I find them sidesteps.
 
mckindog said:
In cases like above, my conscience tells me the available responses are inadequate, that a moral horizon was crossed here from where the perpetrators cannot return, that such action demands just consequence, and that society's surviving teenage girls and their families deserve more.
Click to expand...
It will be hard to draw the line.

About deserving; Having revenge or whatever feeling/thing they deserve, won't it be short lived? It won't bring anyone back. After the while, conscience can play up again, when the rage is less furious.

edit:
Bearfan, it doesn't mean others are not willing to discuss these topics out here (actually, some of them already did). It's just me voicing that I wish to stick with the death penalty topic, or trying to present suiting alternatives (which are not off-topic).
 
bearfan said:
Okay, so I will just say I agree with the death penalty in some cases and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Wish I had said that!

(Seriously, it's been a most worthwhile conversation, and I agree with Bearfan that these "tangents" are worth exploring.
 
Forostar said:
War puts people to death. In Gaza and Iran and in Syria people are put the death. All different subjects and different topics. I am glad to discuss these matters in other topics, but here I find them sidesteps.
Click to expand...

Personally, I like the 'sidesteps'. I think the help to define where a person's morality lies. And that's the whole point, right? I mean, isn't it a question of whether or not we find the death penalty morally acceptable? So, I think it's a good thing to dive in to where our moral lines stand. Do we think it's ok to kill during war, but not peace? Kill terrorists or enemies when we are not at war? That's what I'm always curious about. Clearly it's not an issue of legality, but how we feel the death penalty fits into our moral views.
 
Forostar said:
War puts people to death. In Gaza and Iran and in Syria people are put the death. All different subjects and different topics. I am glad to discuss these matters in other topics, but here I find them sidesteps.
Click to expand...
That is itself a sidestep. Take the following real-life example: an American-born man is allegedly working with al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. The U.S. is not at war with Yemen. Nevertheless, the U.S. Justice Department authorizes the assassination of that American citizen, essentially convicting him of the crime of terrorism in abstentia. Is that war or the death penalty? The U.S. government has taken the position that it is warfare, and that the U.S. citizen is a combatant -- therefore, it is fair game. Forostar's post necessarily assumes the validity of that position, as he classes it as "war" and therefore different than the death penalty. My point is, that's not at all clear. Again, the U.S. is not at war with Yemen. Yemen is not a combat zone. While terrorists are presumably being trained in Yemen to later carry out terrorist attacks on the U.S. and/or its allies, that could conceivably be the case within the U.S. too. So, is any targeted killing of an alleged terrorist, regardless of whether he is in a combat theater, an act of warfare? Or, is it an extrajudicial application of the death penalty to accused (but not convicted) criminals? Could the "enemy combatants are fair game" rationale extend to domestic terrorists? (Note: the U.S. has chosen to treat the surviving Boston Marathon bomber as a criminal, not as an enemy combatant.) Maybe Foro is right in one sense, perhaps this is a tangent that deserves its own thread, but I certainly think it is pretty closely related to the death penalty debate. If a person is not opposed to targeted killings of accused criminals in non-combat zones, how can that person also be morally opposed to the death penalty for criminals convicted pursuant to due process?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top