Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I would consider Daniel Lewis Lee’s method worse. Among his victims was an eight-year-old girl. What he and his partner did was to shock them with a taser until they lost consciousness, and then put plastic bags over their heads while they were still alive, and then tape the plastic bags closed so they died of asphyxiation. Then he weighted the bodies down and threw them into a swamp. None of these are nice people, but a bullet to head seems a bit quicker and less cruel. Hang ’em all!
Amen.
From the discussion it’s apparent that it is possible to discern the truly evil and wholly deserving of human wrath by means of capital punishment from the run of the mill scum of the earth killers you only lock up forever or perhaps exile to a wasteland forever. What I don’t get, though, is why it’s entirely OK to euthanize someone via an”dignified death” cocktail, but not OK to give the same (?) cocktail to a truly evil soulless killer, who would readily kill again just because.
Cheaper too . . .
You can line them up three deep and use a .45 and, uh, okay, that may be TMI. I said nothing.
I like to think we are better than they are, and that’s why we do it this way. But I understand your point.
Deserve’s got nothin to do with it.
Regarding why the libs reliably support murderers – that’s just what they do. They betray.
When I was an impressionable 12 year-old, a teacher who was opposed to the death penalty told me that unless I was willing to throw the switch myself, I should not in good conscience be in favor of the death penalty.
I thought about it for a while. And I concluded that I would, in all seriousness, be willing to be the executioner. I doubt I would lose sleep.
The teacher thought I was a monster.
If you worked as an executioner, could you carry out your job without knowing the details of the crime of the person you are executing? Or would you want to know what their heinous deeds were so that you could assure yourself that you were doing the right thing?
As a Christian, I don’t think I would feel right about getting paid to execute people. I believe the executioner is an instrument of God’s justice, but I wouldn’t want to be that instrument.
I’m curious if your teacher, like many so-called “educators,” was a big fan of Che Guevara.
If you need an executioner, call me. I’ll do it for the cost of travel.
Honestly, we should just go back to firing squad. Quick, certain, and does not require special equipment. (you could rig up a remote rig to make it easier on the executioner)
Cruel? It’s used for euthanasia with big animals, and we know how to shoot people so they die quickly.
Unusual? Not in America, that’s for sure.
Yeah, just use whatever Vets use to put down animals.
If it was “cruel”, the ASPCA and the animal rights nuts would have already told us so.
Spoiler alert: you are not a monster. You are rational. And she was wrong to inflict her opinion on you.
Well, it would be useful to decide whether to give the condemned one strike of the axe, or several…
I always liked Dennis Prager’s response to the challenge: he could throw the switch and then go have a nice deli sandwich with a Kosher dill pickle on the side afterward.
Okay, I may have made up the details, but you get the point.
As weird as it sounds, death penalty opponents might argue that the sheer monstrosity of a crime is evidence of limited capacity or emotional disorder. A sane criminal would only dispatch victims as needed to silence a witness or effect some other rationally conceived criminal purpose. In contrast, sadism and gratuitous infliction of pain are likely indicative of childhood abuse or trauma, therefore, the death penalty cannot be lawfully applied because of the existence of diminished capacity. The sicker the crime, the more the death penalty should not be applied according to this view. New trials and overturned verdicts have been ordered for a failure to make just such an argument about childhood abuse at trial or sentencing.
My sole reservation about the death penalty is that I have very limited confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to get it right and ensure that the right guy is getting the needle. After the Innocence Project used DNA evidence to free a number of long-time death row inmates in Illinois, George Will made the wry remark that when opponents of the death penalty are talking to law-and-order conservatives (represent, my peeps!) they should frame the issue by saying that the death penalty is just another badly run government program.
I find “cruel and unusual” lines of attack on lethal injection to be specious and annoying along with much of what is advanced for abolishing the death penalty. And in general, I hate the fact that because we often rely on under-equipped public defenders to handle capital cases, the grounds for appeal become seemingly endless. A killer with a weak trial defense winds up with half the faculty of Harvard Law on appeal. Maybe we should frontload those legal resources–if the death penalty is at issue, there should be resources provided for a quality defense so there are fewer mistakes and fewer post-trial issues –and quicker executions.
I have three objections to the death penalty. None have anything to do with sympathy for the condemned.
1.) Executions brutalize the people who must perform them, and the culture in which they are performed. Whatever you know of the person in the chair (or on the gurney), he is a defenseless human being, and you are killing him. If you’re the executioner, the medic, or the chaplain, you are participating in the killing of a human being and even if you imagine yourself being able to do this once… you don’t know unless you’ve actually had to do it. I don’t believe it is reasonable to ask prison personnel to participate in the deliberate, organized killing of a person. (Incidentally, it is pretty tough to keep a homicidal person alive and imprisoned, too—there’s no good solution to this problem, only trade-offs.) And yes, I connect this with abortion, which also brutalizes everyone involved in the killing. Though of course, in the case of abortion, the victim is definitely innocent, and so abortion is worse.
2.) The best possible outcome (among a generally pretty dismal lot of outcomes) for the surviving family and friends of the victim is that the murderer realizes what he has done and feels genuine remorse. Yes, this is unlikely. But it isn’t actually impossible. Unless the murderer is dead. In which case (as far as we know) he is beyond the reach of genuine guilt and atonement.
3.) Sometimes…we get it wrong.
Right. YOU’RE the monster.
Geeze.