Death Penalty

[Galitzyaner]

Didn't see a thread on this topic

Tonight, Alabama Will Execute a Man Who Didn't Commit Murder

[Sam Finkelstein]

Don’t know the facts here, but I personally am not in favor of the death penalty, only due to the fact that the justice system is far from foolproof.

[aygart]

@Shkop

[whYME]

Tonight, Alabama Will Execute a Man Who Didn't Commit Murder

"Alabama man Nathaniel Woods is scheduled to be executed tonight for three murders prosecutors acknowledge he did not commit."

This is the first I'm hearing of this case, but just from a quick glance this seems a bit disingenuous. They make it sound as if everyone agrees he's innocent.

If what the prosecution claims is true

Woods, Jefferson County prosecutors told the jury at his 2005 trial, hated law enforcement and had lured the officers into the house so Spencer could kill them. Though he did not fire the fatal shots, Woods had masterminded the plan, making his actions as equally significant as Spencer's

then this might not be the poster case for opposing the death penalty -even if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger.

[Yard sale]

 “Six months after the murders, records state Woods told a deputy sheriff that the deputy was “hiding behind [his] badge just like the other three mother f******” and promised to look for him if Woods was acquitted. In 2005, deputies found drawings in Woods’ cell of men shooting three flaming skulls and a police car riddled with bullet holes. Deputies also found lyrics to a song Woods had apparently written: “Seven execution styles murders I have no remorse because I’m the f****** murderer”

The world will be a better place without this animal.

[AJK]

Horrible thread title.

That said, I confess to being surprised (and somewhat disturbed) that a man is being executed without having "pulled the trigger."

I, too, am not in favor of the death penalty due to the imperfections of the criminal justice system, especially in light of the work done by the innocence project.

[gingyguy]

@Shkop

Are you sure you didn't meant to page @CountValentine ?

[hvaces42]

Horrible thread title.

That said, I confess to being surprised (and somewhat disturbed) that a man is being executed without having "pulled the trigger."

I, too, am not in favor of the death penalty due to the imperfections of the criminal justice system, especially in light of the work done by the innocence project.

Why is this any different than any other conspiracy that resulted in murder?

[dealfinder11]

While the justice system certainly has flaws it's still a pretty efficient system. While it gets a bad rap from the few times it messes up, the overwhelming majority of the times it works justly.
I  am personally on the fence if it should exist or not. The way I see it, there can be 4 arguments for the penalty (in no particular order).

1. To prevent future murders: i am sure there are a ton of statistics in favor or against this argument. (i.e. the psychological makeup of murderer could render this a moot point).
2. Justice: He did and bad deed and deserves and apt punishment: as someone who believes in G-d, i don't consider this society's role.
3. Families of the victims: I think this is the strongest argument for. They deserve some level of peace after losing a loved one.
4. Economical: This is the definitely the shakiest argument if we want to live in a humane society. No matter how egregious the crime, money is never a justification for societally approved murder.

[AJK]

While the justice system certainly has flaws it's still a pretty efficient system. While it gets a bad rap from the few times it messes up, the overwhelming majority of the times it works justly.
I  am personally on the fence if it should exist or not. The way I see it, there can be 4 arguments for the penalty (in no particular order).

1. To prevent future murders: i am sure there are a ton of statistics in favor or against this argument. (i.e. the psychological makeup of murderer could render this a moot point).
2. Justice: He did and bad deed and deserves and apt punishment: as someone who believes in G-d, i don't consider this society's role.
3. Families of the victims: I think this is the strongest argument for. They deserve some level of peace after losing a loved one.
4. Economical: This is the definitely the shakiest argument if we want to live in a humane society. No matter how egregious the crime, money is never a justification for societally approved murder.

"the overwhelming majority of the times it works justly"

So you're OK killing one innocent person because 99 deserve it?

"To prevent future murders"

You know what else prevents future murders? Life in a supermax.

[dealfinder11]

"the overwhelming majority of the times it works justly"

So you're OK killing one innocent person because 99 deserve it?

How do you value the the closure that the 99 families would get from the injustice done to them? No i am not pro any innocent people dying. But i don't subscribe to the notion that to a government and justice system, an innocent life has infinite value.

[YitzyS]

One point about this story, maybe not directly on this line of discussion. I find it despicable how people on social media are heralding him as a hero who should rest in peace and that the governor is the real murderer. Get a grip, people. You may be opposed to this death penalty, but this guy orchestrated the shooting of police officers. He's a rotten murder-wannabee. Maybe he didn't deserve to die - but he sure aint no saint.

Now my personal opinion - pulling the trigger shouldn't be the determining factor in a death penalty, so in this case, it could be upheld. But, our justice department is too fractured to support a death penalty as is. The penalty should remain, but more safeguards should be inserted into the system.

[AJK]

How do you value the the closure that the 99 families would get from the injustice done to them? No i am not pro any innocent people dying. But i don't subscribe to the notion that to a government and justice system, an innocent life has infinite value.

Sorry, I don't need be Dr. Phil or have a PhD in psychology to know that the "closure" of even 999 families is not worth the *life* of a wrongfully convicted innocent person, not to mention snuffing out all of his or her future generations, and the fact that closure can be obtained by means short of the death penalty.

[good sam]

I, too, am not in favor of the death penalty due to the imperfections of the criminal justice system, especially in light of the work done by the innocence project.

To clarify, you don't have a moral problem with the death penalty, just with its administration on a practical level?

I'm assuming you don't have a problem hanging Nazi war criminals?

[good sam]

This was considered a blunder by Dukakis. I don't see it. I think the question was disgusting and he answered it fine.

https://youtu.be/DF9gSyku-fc

What's an irrevocable death penalty anyway?

[yuneeq]

"the overwhelming majority of the times it works justly"

So you're OK killing one innocent person because 99 deserve it

This is another version of the trolley problem, and I also don’t subscribe to killing an innocent person for the Greater Good. But I doubt either of you will be able to convince the other.

[Randomex]

This is another version of the trolley problem

I don't see how.

[yuneeq]

I don't see how.

https://thelawblog.in/2016/12/27/the-trolley-problem/

“...Similar to the answer which involves saying yes to the train’s diversion but no to the deliberate pushing, the first argument against death penalty distinguishes between ‘killing a person’ and ‘letting a person die’. Hence, the preference for life imprisonment over death penalty. The second school of argument is based on utilitarianism or the principle of ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ as proposed by Jeremy Bentham and thus the methodology doesn’t really create that much of a hindrance since the outcome remains the same.“

[dealfinder11]

This is another version of the trolley problem, and I also don’t subscribe to killing an innocent person for the Greater Good. But I doubt either of you will be able to convince the other.

let me pose a hypothetical. Over 7 Thousand people die in the us daily. If I developed a technology that could save 100 of the most innocent and young people everyday, however it would cost 100 million dollars a life, do you think the government should allocate the necessary funds to fund that initiative?

[Sam Finkelstein]

let me pose a hypothetical. Over 7 Thousand people die in the us daily. If I developed a technology that could save 100 of the most innocent and young people everyday, however it would cost 100 million dollars a life, do you think the government should allocate the necessary funds to fund that initiative?

Plenty of people die simply because they can't afford healthcare. Old question, just a new way of asking it.