Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Dubiously guilty man set to die Sept. 23!

Killing killers because killing is wrong is about as sensible as eating cannibals because cannibalism is wrong.

Sometimes lethal force is necessary, and if someone is trying to harm you and your family and you shoot the creep in the face to stop him, so be it. Once they are in prison? There's no immediate danger excuse, and killing a prisoner isn't self-defense, it's just revenge, and caters to the very worst qualities that people are supposed to rise above, to prove that we are more than just animals, that we have souls and a respect for life, even the lives of those that have wronged us.

The commandment isn't 'do unto others because you are scared they might do unto you.' The Lord's Prayer admonishes us to fear no evil, not even in the face of death. A life lived in fear is a sad and wasteful thing, and that's true whether you're religious or not.

Ah ha! And this is then a major difference in our point of views. According to my beliefs, NO Life is inheirently of lesser value than any other. A dog is as 'worthy' as a man and a man is no more 'worthy' than a tree. Their value is strictly determined by what they contribute to Life in general. A murderer particularly is of no 'worth'.
So I would not see it as 'coming down to their level' to remove a proven threat to other lives. Anymore than I would see it as 'barbaric' for someone to defend themselves from an attack using whatever means are at their disposal, 'wrong' to put down a rabid dog or 'immoral' to kill a virus or bacteria that caused disease, suffering or death in another lifeform. If anything, the man would be of a greater threat level because he has chosen to be a danger while as the dog probably didn't have a lot of control over it's state and the bacteria or virus does not have a thought process at all that we are aware of.
My only conclusion is that any further attempt to discuss Capitol Punishment with you is futile since we have completely different beliefs in the 'Sanctity' of Life.Should I presume that the majority of the rest of those against Capitol Punishment have the same or similar views? Or does one of you have another perspective?

You notice that I at no point mentioned the worth of the dog's life, Dude. That's not what I was primarily concerned with.

My point is that human beings are not supposed to be ruled by instinct, whereas it's normal and natural for dogs to be so. The majority of convicted murderers can hardly be said to have acted on the instinct that would motivate even a healthy animal.

So your metaphor doesn't really work for me.

But that is a falacious argument, because I am not talking about punishing someone for what they might do.... the murder has already proven that they are a danger by killing someone for some reason other than self-defence. And I never talked about 'making the punishment fit the crime' either (for instance I did not suggest raping rapists or child molestors, I feel they should just be put down with the murderers). Also, I do not believe in prisons in general and certainly not in any long-term sentences. As far as I am concerned, there are only 2 types of criminals: Those that CAN be fixed and Those that CAN'T be fixed. If they can be fixed... do it. If they can not be fixed then why maintain them? And studies have shown that locking 'soft' offenders up with 'hard' offenders usually results in making the 'soft' offenders worse... not better. So why are we doing it? Isn't there a way to say.... tag them, keep them under constant servailance, make them get psychological and medical treatment, learn a useful and gainful skill and then let them go into society? I don't know, I am sure it would take a lot of work... I also think it would provide a lot of work for councilers, therapists, 'probation' workers (lots of these instead of prison guards). There has got to be a better system.

I don't know how to get you to understand this... YOU keep saying that killing a murderer is wrong for moral reasons and that it 'brings us down' to the murderer's level. THAT is YOUR belief, but NOT MINE. As I just tried to explain, in my belief system the dog would be as inherently worthy as the man and only their actions should determine if they are dangerous or not and if so they should be delt with in a similar manner. So, we can have no meaningful converstion on the subject because we have completely different belief systems. THAT is why my 'metaphor' doesn't work for you. For you it is a bad metaphor, for me it is a straight up comparison. I am not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine. Does any further discussion between us on this subject serve any meaninful purpose?

NLL, I'm going to put this as politely as I can:

If you engage in a conversation, you are not the sole arbiter of when and how it ends. Unless you can persuade a mod to lock the thread, of course.

The most obvious way for you to get us to stop responding would be for you to stop posting in this thread.

Of course the same could be said of you. Unfortunately, I have a terrible character flaw in that when someone says something I don't agree with or that I take offence at, I respond. I wish I didn't have this flaw, it would make my life easier, but I do. Also, I often want to understand why the person says or feels the things they do. I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) your entire opinion is based on your religious conviction that it is wrong to kill another human for any reason other than immediate self defence. Is that correct?

Please read more carefully, NLL. I don't even believe in God. I've mentioned this before in other threads we were both involved in. Religion isn't the only basis for morality out there.

No, I don't believe that premeditated killing of others is right. The fact that our legal system accentuates so many inequalities that already exist only adds an extra layer of wrongness.

Sorry, just checked some of those posts you mentioned. My memory is not always the best either. So, why do you believe Man is better than other Life, or even other Animals?

Humans have a mutual responsibility to one another, as humans, that we can't share with animals. Animals act on instinct and can't reason as we do. I don't know if that makes us "better." It does endow a human who might feel the urge to kill with responsibilities that a dog doesn't have.

If you add legal authority to the picture, you add an extra layer of responsibility. Which is why I find the thought of innocent people being legally put to death particularly repugnant.

NLL,

You stated your point of view well, but there are 2 things in this response which doesn't help your argument. The first is the "Ah Ha!" This is not a game of Gotcha. It is a discussion of a topic in which people have different but valid points of view. I may not agree with someone's point of view and I may try to persuade them to my point of view, but I gain nothing by playing Gotcha.

Second is your last paragraph. People can indeed agree to disagree and stop discussing something. As cleome stated, she made no referrence to the sanctity of life whether a person, a dog, or a virus. But you make assumptions about her point of view on the sanctity of life. Her point of view on the sanctity of life could be the same or very similar to your.

Also your analogy of captial punishment to a rabid dog doesn't work because rabies is a fatal disease and once the symptoms appear the person or animal will die. Treatment after symptoms appear is unlikely to prevent death. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002310/

So, once you have a rabid dog, it is just a matter of time before it will die. Putting it down is more akin to euthanasia than capital punishment. Or do you think that no person who commits a violent crime can ever repent of their act and be rehabilitated, and thus have a fatal defect and should be euthanized? Even given that there are some people who can't be "fixed". how does one determine who can and who can't be fixed?

Think about it for a bit before firing off a reply.

glad to see the discussion taking on a better tone. Lots better explanations of positions.

I will say this as my own point of view. some people say that killing killers makes you no better if they are incarcerated and no longer able to commit murder.

And thats simply not true.

Pee Wee Gaskins was a local serial killer here in the Pee Dee region. He was horribly abused as a child, and it twisted and warped him in horrible ways. He used to drive around in an old hearse he had purchased with his dead victims in it. And there were many.

Once caught and incarcerated, he continued to kill... in prison. Now think of that. He's in prison for multiple murders. His date of execution was delayed multiple times because he would hold knowledge of the location of the bodies of his victims, and when the date was at hand, he'd reveal a location and everything would be delayed or slowed yet again.

What finally ended it was when he murdered another prisoner.

Someone commits an act of passion murder once, yes, its "understandable" that things might have gotten out of hand for someone otherwise normal. If there are questions about whether the murder was done by them, yeah, I can easily see not instigating the death penalty for them.

But some people, like Pee Wee, have no regard for human life other than how they intend to use it, abuse it, and kill it. That is undeniable.

We feel sorry for the child that was, that was horribly abused and tortured, twisted and bent. But at some point, the monster, who continues to kill with no compunction or remorse, must be put down.

Its not just a rehabilitation system, it's also a Penal system, as in penalizing people.

That's a strong story, Rick. If a case can ever be made for the death penalty, that's the kind of situation that could do it.

But if we go back to the title of this thread, "Dubiously guilty man set to die," we're dealing with some different questions. Rehab and/or penalties can be supported if the right person is convicted. In this case, as well as many others, it seems possible that the wrong person received the ultimate penalty. Here in Georgia there are a lot of civilized people who think the evidence in this particular case was "strong enough," especially since a cop was killed, and that's good enough to take the man's life.

And I agree, evidence of guilt should be incontrovertible. There should be absolutely NO QUESTION in establishing guilt.

Death penalty should not apply with circumstantial evidence as far as I'm concerned.

I also have problems with Precedence. It effective takes the place of legal rules.. without any input from anyone outside the justice system, which, lets be honest, is set up for the criminals and legal workers.

the average person that pays bills and works and never causes trouble is not very valued in the system, while the person that makes a career out of being in and out of the legal system is. Judges get paid off them, lawyers, legal workers, guards, prisons, secretaries.... all of them earn livings off the penal system.

I've got lots of problems with the legal system, not limited to the death penalty. But when there's no doubt at all, when the evidence and the system clearly show guilt of a murder, I do not have a problem with hookin' them up.

And here's why. this person has shown that they have no regard for human life other than their own. They do not care about it. Perhaps they might reform, but even if, it is still a penal system, not just a rehabilitation system.

Some folks can call it the flawed eye for an eye system, or simple revenge, or what have you. But some people in this world are simply wired wrong in the head. And as citizens, I believe that we have a responsibility to not only rehabilitate, but punish as well when the situation calls for it.

It's like this, this is one of a few situations where it absolutely should be personal. "Society" will not be sitting at home at night holding a child whose parent has been murdered. Society will not come home to a cold house and empty heart because a wife, a mother, a husband, a child has been killed. There will be shows of empathy and sympathy, but at the end of the day, those people will go home to their families.

Pee Wee was a locally infamous monster. There are far more of them than most people realize.

Eh. Thats just my take. Others mileage may vary.

But I will say this.. some one deliberately kills my kid, I'll give the justice system a chance to do right. And if they dont' because of some BS, because someone doesn't do their job properly, etc... and the killer walks, it wouldn't be for long. There are rules in life that go far beyond what any politician can get written down on paper. And yeah, I would consider someone like that, with a predisposition to murder or harm children an imminent threat, armed at the time or not.

And I'd do it for someone else's kid as well. It's not a mark of compassion from a society to let a monster like that live, its a sign that children have no value in our society.

Completely different from the described situation above, but that's just my take.

This entire thread puts nothing in my mind so much as Carole King's "Smackwater Jack."

"You can't talk to a man
With a shotgun in his hand..."

I assume you mean precedent. Precedent has its place. Precedent is legal rule. The idea is that once a rule of law is established, it wastes time and money to keep trying it. Precedent also gives guidance to judges. This is particularly true for lower court judges.

But precedent is not something written in stone. For decades the precedent of "separate but equal" held sway. But that precedent was overturned. Likewise, you can argue that the facts in your case are sufficiently different from the precedent that the precedent should not be used.

And yet, it's used many times to exclude things that can be relevant, in guilt or innocence. I rank it right there with the IRS being allowed to write it's own rules and laws with little to zero congressional oversite. It can be useful, but it can also be harmful, when the purpose of the justice system is to bring about truth and through that justice, not serve the law itself.

You don't build a house to buy a hammer, you buy a hammer to build a house. Seems like all to often that is glossed over in the name of expediency.

And yeah, thats what I meant. Ya'll know I aint knot bee know spellah!

Quislet Esq,
First, sorry to respond so late, but I haven't had time to get back on since 15 minutes after my last response previous to this one. So, some points about your post:

1. The "Ah Ha!" was ment to represent a light bulb going off over my head because I thought I had a revelation about the nature of some one else's thought process, not as a 'gotcha'.
2. I am certanly sorry I didn't come up with a better analogy at the time than the rabid dog, because a couple of you seem to be fixated on the dog now, and I still haven't really gotten any clue on what I was trying to figure out.
3. Yes, I think that some murderers really can't help themselves, that it is possible that it is a deffect they are born with and Yes, I still think they should be eliminated since they are a clear danger to other people. On the flip side of that, Yes I think some people that have committed a murder might be able to be fixed. I can't think of a real life case off hand, but the first guy arrested in the beginning of 'Minority Report' would be the type... a crime of 'passion' related specifically to the cercumstances and would not be repeated because those ccercumstances will never repeat.
4. People are making that decision now, so let them keep making it. We only need to make sure that the evidence is there and safeguards are put in place to eliminate individual prejudices. For instance (and I realize it has flaws, but it is a start), I can actually imagine 'blind' trials where the jury is given all the facts about the case, all the evidence, but no faces or names to go with the defendant or the victems. They determine guilt AND the penalty... Death or Reabilitation.

NLL,

The blind trial might be a good idea. However, part of what a jury does is weigh the truthfulness of the testimony given. And in most crimes the victim does testify. (in some cases, the victim is the only witness) And people need to see the witness testify because body language and inflection go towards whether you think a person is telling the truth or lying.

But even if blind trials could be effective, mistakes can be made, witnesses who have faulty recollections or misidentify the suspect (some witnesses even lie). Actually eyewitness testimony can be pretty bad. And there are still police officers who plant evidence and district attorneys that withhold exculpatory evidence. Don't get me wrong, I think that most police officers and district attorneys do the best job they can and would not plant evidence or withhold exculpatory evidence. Plus innocent people have been known to confess to crimes they did not commit. Again, no matter what system we could come up with, it is fallible imperfect humans administering it. No system will ever be 100% errorproof. What if that innocent person who slips through the crack is you or someone you love?

There are some I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty given to. The CT home invaders, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy. (given time I could come up with a few more) But I'd rather they were given life sentences then having an innocent person executed.

Rick,

I think you are confusing precedent with the exclusionary rule also known as the fruit of the poisonous tree. That is where evidence that is obtained illegally is excluded. And one result is that the guilty party could go free. But there has to be some penalty when evidence is obtained illegally (and yes <strike>sometimes</strike> probably most times it is because of an honest mistake rather than malice) or there would be no reason for the police to not get evidence anyway they could. Even if that means they can question you for hours on end without letting the lawyer you requested be present or just barge into your house or stop your car for no reason and search it.

But there are two exceptions to the exclusionary rule. They are almost the same. Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery. Independent Source is if the excluded evidence can be and is discovered by a means that is not related to the violation of Constitutional or statutory rights. Inevitable Discovery is if the police would have discovered the evidence eventually through normal police procedures.

Well, it can be I suppose, but I was thinking more of times when things are deemed to not be allowed because of precedent in some other case, or special instructions given, etc...

Well, the admissibility or inadmissibility of particular evidence obtained in a particular manner would be a matter of precedent. But it all works out under the Exclusionary rule.

I mean do we have to try over and over whether the crack found in a shoebox under the bed on the second floor was an illegal search when the police detained the suspect on his front porch and didn't have a search warrant for the house? Do we have to try over and over again whether that big package of drugs the police officer saw through the open window (while he was on the sidewalk) should be excluded because the police officer didn't have a search warrant? (the precedent is that because it was in plain view, it is not an illegal search)

The moral is don't leave your drugs near an open window where they can be seen. Put them in a shoe box under your bed. Um... no wait.. The moral is that precedent works in favor of admissibility as much as it works to exclude evidence.

And as I said in my earlier post, precedent can be overturned. Not easily mind you because lawyers and judges like things that have been settled to remain settled. And when things are settled everyone can know what to do and what not to do.

Good points, true. My point is, the objective is to seek the truth, and through that justice. What will be allowed and wont be allowed is frequently left up to the individual discretion of judges, or even before that, what a prosecutor or a defendent's attorney chooses to bring up, or even to turn over to the opposing team.

Sorry, but tooooo many instances of personal prejudice, etc.. which come into play with judges, DA's, etc... allowing a bad day to influence. No real impartiality when rules and precedent are allowed to be applied as someone chooses.

As I said, the idea has flaws. However that is not one of them. Only experts in human behavior could truly have any possibility of determining if the 'body language and inflection' are genuine, intentionally faked or false due to some mental or physical disorder. Even an expert can be fooled by a reasonablely talented actor.. so no, I don't think that lack of seeing the witness, or the defendant is a problem. If I was dertermining whether they were telling the truth, I would rather have the results of a lie-detector examination (yes, these can be beat to, but not nearly as easily) and/or chemical examination or be informed of their willingness (or lack of) to submit to them. Yes, that is extreme, but in a case of your life being staked on it, wouldn't you be willing to offer any proof you can?

Personal prejudice/bias is a reason for precedent. Judge Bleedingheart thinks it was wrong for the police to trick the defendent into confessing, but the precedent of Illinois v Perkins means he has to allow such testimony. DA Hangem might want to withhold from the defense attorney the identity of witness Bishop Goode who said he was with defedent Gangmemberwitharecordforviolentcrimes in another town when that little girl got shot in a drive by, but because of the precedent of Brady v Maryland the DA knows that the defendent would get a new trial, he will look bad, and all his past cases will be subjected to scrutiny.

As I said to NoLongerLegion, no matter what you do the system is run by fallible imperfect humans subjected to personal prejudice/bias. precedent tries to take some of that personal prejudice/bias out of the equation. In the Supreme Court case about inevitable discovery, Nix v Williams , Chief Justice Burger said that there has to be a balance between "the interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime" Chief Justice Burger admits that the exclusionary rule is "admittedly [a] drastic and socially costly course [that] is needed to deter police from violations of constitutional and statutory protections."

No one likes it when an obviously guilty party gets "let off on a technicality", but no one likes a police misconduct either.