The Mole-Man blogging was less depressing.

What, Satanist murderers aren’t funny too?

…

Yeah, I guess you’re right.

What a charmer– he tests my devotion to the decrees on Capital punishment. Still, I’m sure Satan can figure out something that will make this guy’s afterlife suck… he’s a bastard like that.

Don’t worry Brad, the left will find a reason to oppose capital punishment here too.

Speaking of Satanists, will California execute Richard Ramirez by 2020?

There is an advantage (if you can call it one) in seeing the world in strict black/white terms. It means that you aren’t faced with massive ethical dillema’s like this one. The guy is evil, therefore we (the state) should kill him because the world would be a better place.

Unfortunately thinking in strict black and white terms will inevitably lead to some poor guy being railroaded and at that point we have a bigger ethical dilemma than debating whether or not a serial killer should be put to death or just thrown into some hole to rot the rest of his life.

But just because I wonder about the efficacy and the morality of the death penalty (which ain’t legal in Canada) doesn’t mean that I shed many tears when certain people are executed.

Gary- do you ever leave your house?

Mr Ruppert:

I have a question for you. Why is it important to you (personally)
when (and if) Mr. Ramirez is killed ?

billions of people have been born on this planet according to the homo sapien template–a highly complex pattern for a living organism. sometimes stuff doesn’t connect. or fit. something goes wrong. you get the proverbial “headful of bad wiring.”

so whaddaya do with something that flawed? we can’t fix it. we don’t want to keep it. but locking it up for the length of its life is a kindness?

I am not opposed to the death penalty in principle. Just in practice.
just my two cents.

In other news, its not that Gary doesn’t ever leave the house, it is that “Gary” is run by a team of five, on shifts, 24/7. Kind of like the guys trying to get PVP Field Marshall for the 1337 gear.

I know I shouldn’t, but here goes . . .

First off, I’m with Brad in my lack of tears for Darrell Ferguson. It’s not really about him; it’s about us — and by “us,” I mean citizens in a country that has and uses a death penalty. See, here’s what I don’t get: my reading of the story is that the primary reason it’s good to execute Ferguson is that “he enjoyed killing.” But when you read or listen to the comments of those who favor the death penalty, well . . . they seem to “enjoy” both the prospect and the reality of executions. They celebrate. They pop champagne and do little happy dances whenever someone moves from death row to death. Why is it OK to enjoy killing in that circumstance? It’s creepy.

Flawed is one thing. You can work with flawed. In the Instance of Ramirez, though, “flawed” isn’t really the right word.
Rainman was flawed. This guy is compleatly insane and evil, a term I don’t throw around lightly. I wouldn’t loose a blink of sleep over his excecution.
That doesn’t solve the question of SHOULD he be excecuted, though. I believe that the point of incarceration over death is that there is either hope for attonement: for example, jail time for drunk drivers; or if it truely would be a punishment worse then death. Now it gets tricky.
Continueing with Ramirez. If he raped and killed purely for the joy of it, if that is truely all he craved was the suffering of others, then I say inject him and salf his shallow grave.
If he was doing it for the power of it, which I suspect is the case, and the suffering was just a neat icing on his cake of fear and terror, probably the best thing to do is lock him up. Strip him of the power, strip him of the notariety, strip him of who he was, and let him waste away into nothingness. Then salf his shallow grave.
Justic is about social revenge. Weither it’s a $50 fine, or a month in jail, or the leathal injection, it’s about paying some manner of penitance for breaking the rules of society.
Bleh.

Having said that; Gary, you’re a twat. “Speaking of Satanists, will California execute Richard Ramirez by 2020?” Right. It’s not the robberies, or the 15+ murders and multilple, brutal rapes, it’s that he’s a SATANIST. That’s why he needs to die. A HISPANIC Satanist, at that!. In fact, you may well be a cum-guzzling monstar-ass twat, but we won’t really know for sure till the commitee releases it’s finding.

I, christian said,
August 8, 2006 at 22:12
..so whaddaya do with something that flawed? we can’t fix it. we don’t want to keep it. but locking it up for the length of its life is a kindness?

Hey,you’re right! Why, the same could be said for the mentally disabled too… or the physically disabled, while we’re at it. I mean, really, it would be doing them a favor if we just ended those poor cripples suffering. And while we’re at it, everyone else who is physically or mentally infirm should really be removed from the general populace, since they would just pass on their poor genes to another generation of retards.

Hmmm…. this sort of sounds familiar… can’t quite place it, tho.

jackass.

they’re not guilty of hideous crimes.

or a complete lack of morality or humanity.

Gary,

Whatever happened to the culture of life(tm)?

Reasons why “teh Left” might oppose capital punishment in this case (I know nothing about the case, this is just philosophical):
— the possibility of prosecutorial misconduct
— the possibility of defense incompetence
— the possibility of a corrupt or prejudiced judge
— the possibility of corrupt, incompetent, or prejudiced detectives
— the possibility of a corrupt, incompetent, or prejudiced crime lab
— the possibility of a corrupt or prejudiced witness
— the possibility of a prejudiced jury
— the possibility of a clean trial still coming up with the wrong answer
— the possibility of mental incompetance in the defendant
— the possibility of mental illness in the defendant

See, I’m from Texas. We execute people with one or more of these factors in play in their cases all the fucking time. Once you pull the switch, there’s no “takebacks” or “oops, sorry DNA proved you didn’t do that”. In my lifetime, Texas has executed at least two people who were later *cleared* by subsequent evidence. (Not “would have been a reasonable doubt”–that number’s a lot higher: I’m talking fucking cleared!)

As far as “enjoying killing,” read some of the press reports and interviews from when W was governer down here. He dedicated NO MORE THAN 20 minutes to consider any final appeal or stay order, and he never read any of the case files himself, not one. He never spoke to any principle in any case nor read any letters or briefs sent to him in support of the defendent. And in one case, he mocked a convicted felon’s last word in a TV interview.

And then he pumped his fist and said “it feels good!” when he ordered the first attack on Iraq.

I hate to sound like a wingnut, but I’m kind of going to. You’re either for capital punishment or you’re against it. I know, it sounds like a typical false dichotomy, but it really isn’t. To me, it’s just like Free Speech. You can’t say you’re for free speech and then advocate to keep skinheads or evangelist nutjobs from being able to say their piece. You can’t say “I’m against the death penalty, but this dude is SO bad that it’s ok with me if you kill him”. Doesn’t work that way. It’s the really bad speech, and the really bad guys, that make honoring your beliefs necessary. If it was easy, there would be no controversy.

My main point when it comes to capital punishment is simply this. People always want to make it about the guy. He’s evil, locking him up is not a kindness, the victim’s family needs closure, whatever. I don’t see it that way. To me, the guy is inconsequential. This debate is about me, about us. What kind of society do we want to have, what kind of people do we want to be? Do I want my government to advocate killing it’s citizens? That’s barbaric, truly Old Testament stuff. No, the society I want to live in protects it citizens without murdering it’s people, NO MATTER WHAT.

mikey

– the possibility of prosecutorial misconduct
– the possibility of defense incompetence
– the possibility of a corrupt or prejudiced judge
– the possibility of corrupt, incompetent, or prejudiced detectives
– the possibility of a corrupt, incompetent, or prejudiced crime lab
– the possibility of a corrupt or prejudiced witness
– the possibility of a prejudiced jury
– the possibility of a clean trial still coming up with the wrong answer
– the possibility of mental incompetance in the defendant
– the possibility of mental illness in the defendant

Dorothy, I always really like what you have to say. Except this. I HATE this. Because it says to me “Eliminate all doubt of guilt and exculpatory factors and then, sure, go ahead and kill the guy”. And there we are, right back with China and Iran (oh, and don’t forget Saddam), killing our citizens while saying “killing is wrong”. Well of COURSE it is…

mikey

Mikey: yes, reasonable.

and yes, what power is vested in any self-created group to take the life of one of its members?

the other side of it is the history of detention and “rehabilitation” in this country, and in fact, around the world.

the famous “enlightened” (Quaker) penal experiment of Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia led to astonishing suffering and insanity among inmates. Wasn’t supposed to. The solitude and the humane treatment were supposed to cure/heal/fix them.

given the lack of commitment to real rehabilitation, why is it acceptable to torture someone for a lifetime, knowing full well prison life will be that painful?

and then of course there’s the possibility of parole, or escape, and confronting the horror of finding this guy in your home with your loved ones bludgeoned, tied up, brutalized, raped, murdered. Still sure you want to share a planet with someone who doesn’t share your moral sensibilities?

I, christian said,
August 8, 2006 at 23:09

… to share a planet with someone who doesn’t share your moral sensibilities?

If the criterion for ‘allowing’ another person to continue living or choosing to kill that
person is whether or not he or she shares your ‘moral sensibility’ (whatever that may
be) I think you may have quite a lot of killing to do.

The death penalty is the most premeditated killing yet concieved.

But if that fucker had killed my son I would have beat him into a fine powder.

The thing is, if you want this guy to be executed, you have to assume that a certain number of innocent people will also be executed so that you can have that privilege. You simply can’t have one without the other. This is why I am against the death penalty in all cases. Not only do I think it is barbaric in principle, it is also unworkable in practice.

The death penalty is flat-out wrong, morally and ethically, and should not be a part of civilized societies. Then again, the society that wingnuts want is far from “civilized.” That’s why they’ll do little happy dances whenever someone is executed. They’re animals.

I oppose the death penalty. Even for paid trolls like ‘Ruppert’ and ‘Chung’. Because, as mikey said, it’s a reflection on what kind of society one lives in.

I don’t think it is morally wrong. If someone intentially and maliciously kills someone, they deserve to die.

But Kathleen, not to turn it into a giant debate, but if you intentionally and maliciously kill them, how are you different FROM them?

mikey

you still haven’t answered the question.

opponents of capital punishment always evade this.

(and I suspect rarely volunteer their time to do rehab and actually meet guys like this)

what are you going to do with them?

But Kathleen, not to turn it into a giant debate, but if you intentionally and maliciously kill them, how are you different FROM them?

it’s not malicious, and *I* am not doing it.

easy question.

First thing to do with “them” would be: don’t kill them.

Second: incarcerate/instituionalize (as particular case warrants).

Third: Psychiatric/medical treatment

Do you have any other questions?

It may not be “malicious,” Kathleen, but you are doing it. (Read a death warrant.)

Ahhh, I see.

What are you going to do with them? There is currently no option – you throw away the key. If you didn’t have half a million substance abusers clogging up the prisons, this would not be a problem. But even if it IS a problem, you still have to do it. If you say it’s a worse punishment than death, ok, maybe it is, but government executions are the worst form of murder, so it has to be more moral…

mikey

Malicious: Sneaking into someone’s house at night, shooting someone in the head, then mutilating thier body. And maybe raping the wife before beating her to death.
Not Malicious: Arresting someone, trying them in a court of law, going through the appeals system, then administering a leathal injection after the anti-septic alcohol swab.
*shrug* I’m nitpicky like that. If excecutions were administered via Grizzly Bear Maulings, I’d probably be more inclined to be against it.

It may not be “malicious,� Kathleen, but you are doing it. (Read a death warrant.)

no, *I* am not doing it. I have responsibility for it, as a citizen, as does everyone else. But I am not doing it. and the person who does actually pull the trigger, so to speak, is acting as an instrumentality of the state. Just like the arresting officer, or the district attorney. Or the taxpayer.

I think I’ve seen this argument before, SomeGuy. I am reminded of
the distinction made between, let’s say a so-called terrorist cutting
off a man’s head, and a brave young American dropping white phosphoros
on people from a distance far enough away that the brave pilot does not
see his victims.

So, if I understand this, we have no problem with killing, we just prefer it
with a little technological update and some “aesthetic distance.”

I have read recently the opinion that civilians in Lebanon are not to be pitied because
they “allowed” Hiz’b’allah to operate in their towns. Maybe the Lebanese could use
your argument, Kathleen.

“What are you going to do with them? There is currently no option – you throw away the key”

that at least is honest.

AND

“First thing to do with “themâ€? would be: don’t kill them.

Second: incarcerate/instituionalize (as particular case warrants).

Third: Psychiatric/medical treatment

Do you have any other questions?”

uh, yeah. do you actually have any real experience with the legal, prison, or psychiatric systems whatsoever?

if you did, you’d know what a typical conscience-salving out that is.

you assume that once they’re out of sight, everything is just dandy. any idea what REALLY happens in those systems, and places?

but that satisfies you as being morally correct.

If excecutions were administered via Grizzly Bear Maulings, I’d probably be more inclined to be against it.

There is no difference. The net outcome is the same. If the only thing that makes killing wrong is the concommitant pain, then SOMEBODY’S worldview is terribly fucked up…

mikey

you assume that once they’re out of sight, everything is just dandy. any idea what REALLY happens in those systems, and places?

In a society, you have to protect the citizenry from the more dangerous elements, and you MUST administer punishments for crimes, and those punishments MUST reflect the moral standards of the community and be known, predictable and repeatable. I’m not out to give a murderer a pass, yeah, he ain’t gonna be happy in prison, but it’s wrong to kill him, so he’s gotta live with it…

mikey

I don’t see how you could know what I assume. And one thing I never assume in
this country is that anything is “just dandy.”

You ask if I have ‘real experience’ in these matters … are you proposing
a “credentials battle” ? which I usually find comes at the moment in a conversation
where one person has become thoroughly frustrated at being unable to convince
the other person.

By the way, is there something wrong with “salving” the “conscience”? (Presuming
we actually have such things.)

“…the legal, prison, or psychiatric systems …”

Your argument seems to conclude that these systems are so bad
and cannot be reformed, it would simply be more humane to kill
the inmates/prisoners.

Isn’t that pessimistic and a bit extreme?

I guess salving the conscience beats getting off your ass and doing the genuinely difficult work of being either personally involved, or actually observing the efficacy of a program or policy.

you offer bland generalities as solutions to a very specific problem and very thorny moral dilemma–generalities that sound just fine but don’t work out in reality very often.

but if it works for you…

I’m only going to post here once. I don’t want to Hijack this thread.

There is a circle of people, Luke Ford, Cheryl Shuman, Cathy Seipp, Patrick Frey Patterico), Kenny (Mafia) “The Rat” Gallo, and a few others…… As soon as Kenny “The Rat” Gallo replies to me about An Ultimate Fighting Legal Sport Request here:

Hollywoodmafia
A Blog about the LA Family of Cosa Nostra and all the other Organized crime
figures and groups in California. … Hollywoodmafia Site · REAL HOLLYWOOD MAFIA …
http://www.hollywoodmafia.blogspot.com/ – Cached

On Mr. Gallo’s Blog today, Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, I will be Blogging about it on my website.

I may even issue The Legal Challenge to Patrick Frey since he say’s I’m Stalking him.

Let the Sporting entertainment begin………………

MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
__________

The OJ Simpson Case

well, that’s enough me. Someone sitting on his ass in front of his computer
accusing me of “sitting on my ass” and not solving his crime problem by …
what? agreeing with you that killing people is the moral solution to a
“moral dilemma”?

and my answer to your question was very specific…. no generalities.

I guess salving the conscience beats getting off your ass and doing the genuinely difficult work of being either personally involved, or actually observing the efficacy of a program or policy.

I’m not sure how being involved in the corrections business gives an opinion more weight. I’ve never been a teacher but I have opinions about the American Education System. I HAVE been an inmate a few times, but I don’t think that’s the root cause of my anti – death penalty stance.

you offer bland generalities as solutions to a very specific problem and very thorny moral dilemma–generalities that sound just fine but don’t work out in reality very often.

I’m sure there’s a good, healthy debate about how to address the shortcomings and inequities of the American Penitentary system, but as far as the Death Penalty goes – this statement makes no sense. You either think it’s ok for a society to execute it’s citizens or you don’t. Something like 87 nations have abolished the death penalty. Has that solved their prison problem? Of course not. Are they better, more advanced societies for it? I’m gonna go with yes, they are…

Shhhh, everybody hide. Mario’s back…

mikey

although, the sentence “well, that’s enough me” probably expresses some
subconscious “authorial intent,” I meant to type: “Well, that’s enough FOR me.”

I have read recently the opinion that civilians in Lebanon are not to be pitied because
they “allowedâ€? Hiz’b’allah to operate in their towns. Maybe the Lebanese could use
your argument, Kathleen.

this is so stupid that I really cannot reply. WTF are you talking about?

Gee, I don’t think it was stupid. And I am disappointed that you have no response.

Gee, I don’t think it was stupid. And I am disappointed that you have no response.

I am sure you don’t think it is stupid. But unless you are just posting to talk to yourself…..

and like I said, I can’t respond because I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

well, there’s always the chance that I am only talking to myself,
but I’m going to continue thinking I was talking to you and others
‘here.’

And if you can’t respond to my analogy, I hardly think I can respond
to your non-response.

I hardly think I can respond to your non-response.

you have got to be kidding me. I am not asking you to respond to my (non) response. I am asking you to explain what you are talking about. Then I can respond.

I am beginning to suspect you don’t actually know what you meant either.

I assure you that I understand my analogy …. (Hint: it has do with the responsibility
of the average citizen for actions taken by his or her government) … but, you know,
analogies are a bit like Jazz, and you remember what Louis Armstrong said
(or was it Duke Ellington?) when a woman asked him, “What is Jazz?”
and he replied: “Lady, if you have to ask, you’ll never know.”

wow, you really must have been a champion debater. Has trying to end an argument with “if you have to ask, you’ll never know” ever actually worked for you?

so let’s piece this together, since you are apparently unable to form simple sentences. Or perhaps so morally and intellectually superior to me, that you don’t need to trouble your beautiful mind.

I say that, as citizens, we have a responsibility for our government’s execution of someone. And then you say, that is wrong because it is a justification for bombing Lebanese civilians?

with me so far everyone?

so, to respond to what I assume to be your point. What is the connection between having responsibility for something and deserving to be killed? again, I say WTF are you talking about.

Well, I do my best with sentence structure. Of course, I wouldn’t compare
my skills (such as they are) with yours.

But, as I read your comment about the citizenry’s responsibility for state
executions, you seemed to be carving out a little distance for yourself —
that since you (personally) were not carrying out the killing, your
responsibility only went so far.

“… where the executioner’s face is always well hidden”

Uncle Bob Said that

Insults rarely “win friends & influence people”

Me & Dale Carnegie wanted you know that.

one more thing:

Until you mentioned it, I had no idea I was in an argument,
or that I was trying to end it.

I have read recently the opinion that civilians in Lebanon are not to be pitied because
they “allowed� Hiz’b’allah to operate in their towns. Maybe the Lebanese could use
your argument, Kathleen.

yeah, that is really not insulting at all. Perhaps you need to re-read Dale Carnegie.

“Lady, if you have to ask, you’ll never know.�

this is also very friendly. I recommend using it on the street. I think that was in Chapter 8 of Mr. Carnegie’s work.

You were insulted by that? Or, am I misunderstanding you …
are you suggesting I’ve insulted the Lebanese? or Hiz’b’allah?

I guess we should never underestimate the power of the
over-reaching analogy.

Please forgive me. And please stop screaming at me.

I thought the Jazz story was kind of cute. Thought you’d enjoy it.

Whoops.

then I guess we just had a misunderstanding from the beginning (and more along the way). My apologies. I might humby suggest that, the next time someone asks you to explain what you mean, you might try doing so.

Sheesh, I gave you a hint.

And I’ve gotten myself in trouble, now and then, explaining things to people
who accuse me of being patronizing or condescending by offering the
explanation.

Oh well, can’t win for losing, I guess

Mikey said (in suitably dismissive terms)
the victim’s family needs closure, whatever

Yeah, this ‘closure’ business is vastly over-rated. It’s a term from lit.crit., (which stole it from gestalt psychology), which somehow infiltrated popular culture (I remember hearing it in an episode of Northern Exposure). Now people have this bizarre idea that once they ‘achieve closure’, then the Closure Fairy will tap them with her magic wand and their miserable experiences will go away.

I’ve heard people being interviewed after the execution of the guy who murdered their child, with the interview-prat asking halfwitted questions like “Do you feel better now you Have Closure”, and they were shaking their heads in disappointed incomprehension. So let’s abandon the term, and stop giving people the idea that grieving for loss is a simple matter of tying up loose plot threads.

If we could give ‘backstory’ back to literary theory as well, that would be even better.

A man who said he worshipped Satan and enjoyed killing three people, stabbing and beating them and stomping on them with steel-toed boots, was executed Tuesday.

Was he a member of Hezbollah or Hamas?

The death penalty is a black mark on our criminal justice system. It does not provide the families of murder victims’ rapid closure because of the lengthy appeals process. It does not deter future murders. It is more expensive to administer the death penalty than keeping an inmate in prison for life. Innocent people have been sentenced to death and either executed or exonerated and released from prison after spending many years on death row. And, in a country that claims to be based upon Judeo-Christian traditions, it is morally wrong. The killing of convicted criminals by the state is unfair, unjust and unnecessarily cruel and inhuman. It is a blemish on our otherwise civilized society.

Mixter

Bah.

Fixed yet?

Guess not. Try again.

Jose is always screwing things up.

Jose Chung said,
Was he a member of Hezbollah or Hamas?

Hey, I’ll bite…
Was he a Marine?

This guy got exactly what he wanted. Taught by xtians from an early age that there was an evil power more powerful than any other, he, like many decided to worhip instead of fear that power. I admire a mind that can turn the tables like that. I’ll bet he was smiling when they pulled the switch (or whatever).

Mikey,

I guess I wasn’t clear enough on my “reasons to opose the death penalty” list. I think it’s physically impossible to be certain that all those issues are resolved in any given case, particularly this one: “the possibility of a clean trial still coming up with the wrong answer.”

Because we are humans and make mistakes, it is not possible to justly impose capital punishment. Since we can’t do it 100% fairly and 100% accurately, we can’t do it. If we ever manage to resolve all those possible error conditions, then it’s time to have the debate over whether the death penatly is morally repugnant in its own right. Until that moment arrives, however, the moral implications of the death penalty are completely irrelevant.

Historically speaking, just to geek out for a moment, the death penalty is literally an anachronism – in the vast majority of the western world, the purpose of the penal system was gradually reformed in the course of the enlightenment, a reform that the practice of the death penalty escaped. The penal system had largely functioned historically as a retributive mechanism, treating crime as an offense to the person of the sovereign, and punishment as the just meting of a very personal revenge. Through the enlightenment, as the operating notion of sovereignty changed (not to mention the related change in views of individual autonomy), the penal system was changed into a system of rehabilitation. The death penalty is the sole remainder of the retributive penal system of the pre-enlightenment western world.
I don’t necessarily think the endless noodling over the morality of the death penalty is nearly important as noticing that it’s completely inconsistent with the way we have chosen to structure our society – if you share in the post-enlightenment ideal of individual autonomy and responsibility, or political communities formed by the consent of the governed, then the death penalty can’t really fit comfortably in the same basket as the things you call “just.� Sorry.
BTW – Like some limpdick Rumplestiltskin troll, Jose Chung goes away if you cuss him out enough. I especially like the expressions “asshat� and “cum guzzling ass twat,� as applied to Mr. Fuckwad McCocksucker Chung.

CS, thank you. I have dedicated my life to learning to curse in many languages, many situations and many dialects. If I can curse creatively and harshly at wingnuts, my day is complete and I’ll happily await to see if the sun rises tomorrow…

mikey

I actually have a couple of other reasons to oppose the death penalty, beyond just the fact that there’s often some doubt as to guilt.

1) The death penalty is rarely applied in the case of, say, serial killers. In my state, at least, they often get to plea bargain into life-without-parole because the prosecutors don’t want to take a chance of losing, and because death penalty trials for serial killers are hugely expensive.

2) This bothers me mostly because as far as I’m concerned, the state has no business stepping in and telling the grieving friends and family of one victim that the murder wasn’t as bad as this other murder, so we will execute this guy and not that guy. But this argument leaves an out for, say, Timothy McVeigh and Gary Ridgway, one of whom got the death penalty, and one of whom plea bargained into life-without-parole.

D. Sidhe –
Wait, you oppose the death penalty because you think all murders should be punished by execution and it can’t be this way in practice? That’s some really impressive intellectual consistency – way to go.

Fuck, you guys. I have to say that I am ambivalent here. I admire all you for having your stands all staked out and such, but I honestly have to say I don’t fucking know where I stand.

I used to be completely and unequivicably opposed to the death penalty.

But then I began to doubt my own certainty. Are there people whose crimes are so heinous that no other punishment is appropriate? Are there people who are too dangerous to allow to live? I appreciate the question posed above, “What do you do with them?”

Yes, I know there is injustice, and I think that in most capital cases, the death penalty is abused, and unfairly imposed.

But what do you do with a Richard Ramirez, a Ted Bundy, a Timothy McVeigh? What would you do with a Jeffrey Dahmer, had he not been killed in prison? What do you do with a serial killer, someone who really enjoys killing others?

Maybe it’s just my own emotional weakness — I lived in the Pacific Northwest during the time that Westley Alan Dodd was killing children, and my own child was the same age as his victims. The news account of what Dodd revealed about how he killed – and how cold-heartedly he didn it – a toddler from Oregon was chilling to me as a parent. Dodd also stated that he enjoyed killing and he would kill again if he had any opportunity to do so.

I cannot think of any possiblity where this man would have been rehabilitated. I cannot think of any reason to have kept this man alive into his old age.

So I began to doubt.

I still can’t take a complete and wholehearted stand. I remain – generally opposed. But not completely….

Call me a hypocrit, call me a moral weakling, call me whatever. I am human enough to understand that there are things that we will always doubt.

Ermm, and I kinda screwed up my post there at the end.

If I were impaneled on a jury, and I was asked what my feelings were about the death penalty, I think I would say I was generally opposed.

But….

Meanwhile (Black) males who get to go to (Black) heaven (jail), and whos crimes on white victims are never “racially motivated”, or “hate”. They’re always, always a “good kid”, “honor roll student” who “went down the wrong path”. Getting support from the “community”, the jew, and the jew-duped*** white that it really be “Willie Lynch’s” fault, and that Jesus saves!

(*** I could have gave the conservative Israel firster GOP loser terms liberals, or “secularists”, I am a liberal, a secularist, and a stone cold white racist, I don’t think they contridict as much as the conservative jesus Israel firster worldview),

All that’s left for the white criminal is satan. No community. No forgiveness. No posturing of the victims families to avoid making racist remarks about the dark demon who’s an “innocent” “victim of white privalege”.

A white is a psychopath, a black, made the wrong discision with the wrong crowd. Hail satan.

“Wait, you oppose the death penalty because you think all murders should be punished by execution and it can’t be this way in practice?”

Where the fuck did I say that? In fact, I oppose the death penalty because I think it’s barbaric and there are better ways to handle criminals.

What I *said* was, I oppose the state telling some dead woman’s mother that her daughter’s death was not as bad as that of someone else’s daughter, and therefore only one of them gets “revenge”. To turn it around, I don’t think the state should be telling someone that her daughter’s death was *worse*, either.

Those value judgments are almost inherently arbitrary on anything other than a sheer body count basis. And if we can’t make those decisions consistent, then we need to stop doing it at all.

Pay attention, next time. Idiot.

I apologize for referring to cs as an idiot. Just because you were mocking me, probably doesn’t mean I should mock you.

Look, I thought what I said was pretty clear. I do not think the state should make decisions about whose life is more or less worthwhile, and that goes for the victims as well. If you kill a drug dealer for money, you are just as guilty of murder as if you kill a housewife for her car. If you *are* a drug dealer who kills someone for money, you are just as guilty as if you are a housewife who kills someone in a road rage incident.

I’ve personally heard few death penalty supporters who will not admit that at least part of it is about either “closure” or “revenge” or someone “not deserving to live anymore”.

Using that logic, the death penalty, to me, says that this crime was worse than that crime. Or that this victim was more innocent than that victim. Or that this criminal is more evil than that criminal.

How is any of that anything you would be willing to say to a victim’s family? Does the prosecutor really get to stand up and say, “Well, he went fast, so it wasn’t that bad”?

Is that something you’d want to hear when you’ve just lost someone you love? We build up this whole “This criminal is evil and inhuman and deserves to die and it will give the family closure” structure, and how can anyone in a case where the death penalty is not sought feel that they are being deprived of closure, or that their suffering is being dismissed?

I can almost sort of see where you got the notion that I think someone being given the death penalty is the best possible result for the family of the victim. I absolutely do not, but it does appear to be a common belief among supporters. And that logic hurts people I doubt supporters mean to be hurting.

We are clearly, in many cases, not willing to execute criminals. My place in this is that I don’t understand why we draw that line where we do and decide that we *are* willing to execute others.

That said. I do understand that it can be a useful tool for prosecutors. Dandy. It’s just the killing-people part I wish we could get rid of. But I’m kind of a hard-liner on that, and most people are not. If you’ve come to a different conclusion than I, and if you act on it, say by voting for someone who signs death warrants right and left, then I want to know you’ve got some reasons for it. Even if I don’t like your reasons.

Oh, noes!! Who stuck the “bold” tag on?
Ya gotta wonder, though. There are a certain, admittedly small number of hard-core Satanists out there. Why do so few of them act like this guy? You’d think they would, but very few of them do things that are actually evil. They’re about as faithful to Satanic acts as the pro-war nutbars are to being good christians.

Oh, effing GREAT. I see, now, that it was Jose that got the italics and bold tags stuck on. Speaking as someone who has only ever managed to get one tag at a time stuck on, I wanna be the first to congratulate him. Thanx, Jose!

Gee, I thought Gary and Jose were assholes, but they don’t hold a candle to “Beeritus”, who is just… disgusting. Extremely, monumentally disgusting. Beeritus, you say you are a “liberal,” yet I haven’t seen one single thing you’ve said that makes me think you are. The racism is darned charming, though. Not that it will do the slightest bit of good to mention this, but blacks are far more likely to be sentenced to death than whites for performing similar crimes. They’re also far more likely to get a jail sentence than a fine in drug-related crimes. Now, why would that be, exactly?

Marq-
Regarding why hardcore Satanists don’t all act like that guy: as I understand it, which is not all that well, institutionalized Satanism of the Anton LeVay stripe is far more of a satire or conventional morality than it is a religious practice. It aims, in some strange post-Nietzschean way, by way of embracing conventional notions of evil and celebrating them as good, to vitiate moral notions altogether. It’s a fairly silly moral shell game, but they’d probably say it’s about choosing personal freedom – the freedom to create one’s own values, moral or otherwise. (That plus, dressing in black and drinking blood and fucking on altars is awesome!)

BTW d. Sidhe – When you suggest as objections to the death penalty that 1. it isn’t applied to all serial killers & 2. since it isn’t applied evenly it thereby effectively values some murders over others, it just fucking follows that you have to believe that 1. it should be applied to all serial killers and 2. (since you want it applied evenly) to all other murders, if it is to be applied consistently. I understand that objection perfectly – it’s called argument from consistency. I just think it a fucking dumb objection to the state killing people.

Once again, you have it exactly backward. It does not follow, fucking or otherwise, that I believe it should be applied to all of anyone. In fact, I believe it should be applied to all of *no one*. Jesus, this is a straightforward yes or no thing here, and you’ve got me saying yes when I said no.

So, okay, yes, I want it applied evenly. As in, not at all.

I take back my apology. You are an idiot.

Sidhe –
Um. Yeah, actually, I get that you’re opposed to the death penalty. You’ve made that clear. All I’m saying is that the reason you gave yesterday for being opposed is dumb. I mean, here’s a quote, dude:

“Using that logic, the death penalty, to me, says that this crime was worse than that crime. Or that this victim was more innocent than that victim. Or that this criminal is more evil than that criminal.”

Um, yep. In fact, the differential punishment of crime based on the recognition of mitigating circumstances (and thereby of differing degrees of responsibility and guilt) is pretty much the entire point of penal systems – a system that to some arguable degree of accuracy reflects our society’s view on the functioning of morality.
Here’s another quote:

“How is any of that anything you would be willing to say to a victim’s family? Does the prosecutor really get to stand up and say, “Well, he went fast, so it wasn’t that badâ€??”

Yep. We punish housebreaking differently from armed robbery, just like we punish manslaughter differently than fucking sadistic torture murderers. So yeah, attorneys do get to say things exactly like that, and victim’s families get to hear that all the time. Got a better idea, fuckwit?

Seriously, go reread what you wrote, then deal with the fact that what you wrote was stupid. I mean, it’s good that you’re against the death penalty, but I think you probably got there by accident. But that’s ok, I guess – just don’t mistake “won’t someone please think of the victim’s families� for actual thought.

Thanks for sharing, cs.