Scott Peterson gets death penalty recommendation — Page 5

Why would you ever apologize for bringing theater into the discussion? And you're very right, that's a very fitting scene.

---

To those anti death penalty, here is a problem

Someone gets life as opposed to death & knows he or she can never be executed. If this person kills a guard or another prisoner , knowing full well they will not be executed, they have nothing to lose by another killing. What do they get , another life sentence? By not executing, someone else has needlessly lost their life

Capital punishment has been described as cruel & unusual. How cruel & unusual is the punishment for the innocent person or persons killed. Their live or lives were snuffed out & yet we have pity for the killer.

In New York, year ago, we had 2 killers who walked into a Wendy's , took the 4 or 5 employees into the cellar. There they had their hands tied, plastic bags put over their head . They pleaded for their lives & were summarily executed. I am sorry but I cannot feel pity for the killers

---

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 09:11 PM

"I've never seen any evidence that the death penalty deters anyone from committing murder. Those who plot ahead of time tend to function under the belief that they will not be caught."


You're right. And I believe it was said in one of my Criminology classes that, in fact, there's a higher proportion of murders committed in states with the death penalty than not. If anyone cares, I can try to find sources for that.

---

Personally,
I think Scott should:
1. Be made to watch:
Bklyn, Lazer Vaudeville, Jewtopia and Modern Orthodox while Eden screetches on top of her lungs.
PUNISHMENT.
Then, he can sit in on Jackie Mason when he sings.
That could do him in for sure.

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 09:41 PM

With a bit of Sebastard Bach in the mix for variety.

Roxy, maybe hard labour? Solitary confinement? You have a point, but at the same time, to play devil's advocate, there are a few hypothetical situations that would serve for an anti-death penalty agenda. For example, what about innocent people who get setenced to death? Or offenders who show remorse and may otherwise deserve to use the rest of their lives behind bars making some form of good?

---

Yup, and I see where you're coming from. I used to be very anti-death penalty, but after visiting some institutions in BC and Washington and talking to many offenders, I became a bit more hesitant to stay entirely on one side. While meeting them makes them seem more human than their crimes would give them credit for, there's also many, many people convicted of heinous crimes who don't deserve any mercy. Some people are just not able to be rehabilitated. If I were to be hesitant to support the death penalty, it would be because of the innocent people who could be sentenced to death, but also because I think death is mercy compared to the conditions in prison. Especially for sex offenders and child killers - the hierarchy in prison will make their life much tougher behind bars than a needle can provide.

---

I'd just like to echo ifitfloat's comments about pity. Don't get me wrong, I feel no pity towards Scott in ANY way. This isn't about pity, it's about a state's right to take away anyone's life. If there were not some intrinsic value to human life that we believe it is immoral to breech, then murder would not be the heinous crime we see it as. It is good and healthy for our society to be angry—otherwise something is wrong with society. This anger is at the taking of life because it has intrinsic value. How can this moral outrage not be extended to the taking of a life by the state?

And Tiff, if it's not a huge trouble, I would actually love those sources. I also have sources about the deterrent effects if anyone wants them.

While the autonomy of a person demands that they be punished for their crimes, this does not necessarily concede that the death penalty as a punishment for these crimes is morally justified. While the focus of most discussions about the death penalty is on what the criminal deserves, I argue that the discussion should rest instead on the right of society—and by extension, the criminal justice system—to take away a criminal’s fundamental right to life and that in doing so, it can be argued that the death penalty, even if administered without fault, is morally reprehensible.

Interesting poll: A poll conducted of citizens in New York, Nebraska, Kansas, and Massachusetts, demonstrated that when given the alternatives of death penalty, life in prison without parole (LWOP), and life in prison without parole plus restitution to victims’ families (LWOP+R), people generally preferred LWOP to the death penalty and overwhelmingly preferred LWOP+R to capital punishment. Therefore, while people may believe that the death penalty is preferable to no punishment, it is not clear that the majority of people prefer the death penalty to other punishments.

We punish to communicate a point—to society, to the criminal, to potential criminals—that this behavior is intolerable and has consequences. What, then, are we telling these people when we punish murderers by killing them? We, in effect, are saying that killing is not always wrong. That we can come up with instances in which killing is okay. And whether we agree on the morality or immorality of this prima facie norm against killing is immaterial—the message we send is mixed—it is absolutely wrong to kill, unless you are the government. Some harms are unacceptable because they are not the sorts of things persons are ever entitled to do, even as a punishment. Maiming, bodily mutilation, and torture seem to be disqualified for this reason--this is what people term "cruel and unusual punishment." I would argue that this should be extended to capital punishment. Killing is wrong because it is “the sort of thing persons are never entitled to do.” Taking someone else’s life is never okay, no matter who is doing the killing.

---

*grumble* Okay, Jess. I'll see what I can do. I'll do a Google search tonight, but I heard this in passing from a couple of professors in my lectures, so it's probably easier for me to ask them instead.

As for your poll, it's interesting, but not necessarily conclusive. After all, with the exception of Nebraska, the other 3 states all do not have the death penalty, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps in the other states with the death penalty, the public may have a different perspective.

I can see what you're saying. As I've said a few times in this thread, I'm on the fence about the death penalty. I don't think the government projects any positive image in sanctioning a "justified" death for certain offenders, but at the same time, is a life sentence really the best we can do?

And don't get me started on restorative justice. I've started to warm up to it, and while I'm hardly a penal abolitionist, I do think it should be used more often as an alternative - or in addition to - incarceration.

---

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 10:58 PM

Here, Jess, I just found this. Hardly an unbiased website, but they say their source is from the FBI UCS. Death penalty states have about a 1.5x higher murder rate per 100,000 people than non-death penalty states.


ETA: Oops, a URL might actually help.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169

---

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 11:03 PM

I am not familiar with the phrase. Restore what?

I have a better torture then death:
He can be made to watch:
I SEE FIRE IN A DEAD MANS EYE TILL HE BEGS TO BE KILLED.
90 minutes was enough for me.

Haha, don't be embarrassed. Just keep me in mind when I'm an articling law student, looking to relocate, okay?

I think it would be hard to have community-focussed restorative justice (even in a really left-leaning city like Vancouver, perceptions of offenders are less than human), but I think victim/offender mediation may actually serve some good. Right now there's a really high-profile murder case going on in Vancouver where a 15-year-old girl was killed allegedly by 2 schoolmates who had bullied her at school, beat her up, and drown her under a bridge, and the co-accused who was convicted is now in mediation with the victim's family. I don't know if I could ever have that open of a mind, but it's a good way to alleviate the prison overcrowding just a little, as long as both parties are genuinely willing.

---