[peeb]

US supreme court rules against death penalty in child rape cases | World news | guardian.co.uk

Good news? Bad news? No news?
5-4 on an eighth amendment issue - looks like good news to me, even with the hot-button context, getting some more clarity on the role of the death penalty.

[subego]

Good news.

I'm not so sure about this "national consensus" thing though. We have national consensus but the SC has a split decision?

FWIW, I'm a big believer in the idea there are people who deserve to die, I'm just not a fan of the state doing it.

[Jawbone54]

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty.

I take care of the really bad ones myself.

[64stang06]

Don't tell this guy... (A Time to Kill)

[Luca Rescigno]

Executing people for a crime that didn't result in someone's death seems like a really dangerous precedent to set.

[peeb]

SCOTUS agrees.

[Shaddim]

Using the death penalty for this is wrong. Besides, it's not like the person is going to live long once they get sent to prison. Once they're in general population it'll all be handled.

[peeb]

Ah yes. You're against the death penalty, but for vigilante justice....

[Shaddim]

*taking peeb off ignore for once*

It's a fact of life, hardened criminals don't care for child molesters. Likely because many of them were raped and abused. Anyone who rapes a kid will be handled roughly, usually they'll be sexually violated, maimed, and possibly killed.

Also, I'm not against capital punishment, but it should be reserved for premeditated murder and treason.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Also, I'm not against capital punishment, but it should be reserved for premeditated murder and treason.

I would be more comfortable with this if we developed a legal standard for "beyond a shadow of a doubt", that if someone was proven guilty under, then you can kill them. Otherwise, too much potential for mistakes.

A different, yet interesting idea is to have the only capital crime be killing a prison guard.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would be more comfortable with this if we developed a legal standard for "beyond a shadow of a doubt", that if someone was proven guilty under, then you can kill them. Otherwise, too much potential for mistakes.

A different, yet interesting idea is to have the only capital crime be killing a prison guard.

I've heard a lot of talk of requiring DNA evidence in order for the death penalty to be an option. Many death row inmates have been exonerated thanks to modern DNA analysis... some posthumously. I'm all for it. Ideally there would be no death penalty, but I can't really argue against it if it's only used against people who have been absolutely proven to be guilty. I believe John Kerry advocated this. Not sure on Barack Obama.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would be more comfortable with this if we developed a legal standard for "beyond a shadow of a doubt", that if someone was proven guilty under, then you can kill them. Otherwise, too much potential for mistakes.

A different, yet interesting idea is to have the only capital crime be killing a prison guard.

Well, I will agree with you there. We really need to classify murder more accurately. For example, if there is no doubt whatsoever that a person committed the crime, then they could be executed. Otherwise, if the evidence is largely circumstantial, they would get "life".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

*taking peeb off ignore for once*

It's a fact of life, hardened criminals don't care for child molesters. Likely because many of them were raped and abused. Anyone who rapes a kid will be handled roughly, usually they'll be sexually violated, maimed, and possibly killed.

Also, I'm not against capital punishment, but it should be reserved for premeditated murder and treason.

Serial killers like Ted Bundy. They will kill again if they were to escape or be released from prison.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Serial killers like Ted Bundy. They will kill again if they were to escape or be released from prison.

Strawman. Serial killers aren't freed, and they don't escape, unless you watch too much TV. The decision is a correct one, IMO, but I'm against the death penalty altogether. The state has no more business murdering someone than an individual does, and telling people that we're going to kill them for killing someone else strikes me as rather odd. Do what I Say, Not What I Do, doesn't work.

[vmarks]

You know, I think it's very disturbing that we have
(1) the notion that we can keep communities safe by imprisoning people who are proven to be unfit for society
(2) but we cannot keep these unfit people safe from harm in prison.

There is no reason I can conceive of that we allow for crimes of assault, rape, mutilation, or murder to take place in prison, especially when we are the guardians of these unfit people.

[Randman]

I dunno. I think the death penalty, if used as a deterrent, can be useful. I don't think it is used in an useful manner in the US but that's another post.

For something like rape of a child, I think public torture and execution within 72 hours would stop a lot of these troubled people from crossing the line and raping a freakin' kid.

[Luca Rescigno]

Yeah, the death penalty isn't really useful as a deterrent when all it means is that you sit around on death row for decades and EVENTUALLY they stick a needle in your arm and you fall asleep forever.

I'm against the death penalty, but I cannot argue that it isn't useful when applied liberally and publicly. That's a technique that's been used for a long time throughout history. But I don't think it's what the U.S. should be doing.

Another interesting couple of points raised, I believe from the majority ruling: One, allowing the death penalty for rape could cause a child to give testimony that would lead to the death of one of his or her parents (yeah, this could happen with murder as well, I guess, but it's less likely). That could affect the child's testimony. Two, children don't give very good testimony in the first place. You can never really tell if a kid's telling the truth or not. In the case of the actual guy whose case made it to the supreme court in this instance, the victim changed her story two years after she was raped. Imagine how hard it would be for a young child, who doesn't even know what's going on, to remember such a traumatic experience with enough detail to provide permissible evidence.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Randman 

I dunno. I think the death penalty, if used as a deterrent, can be useful. I don't think it is used in an useful manner in the US but that's another post.

For something like rape of a child, I think public torture and execution within 72 hours would stop a lot of these troubled people from crossing the line and raping a freakin' kid.

So, that would make these "troubled" people somehow less troubled? People who commit heinous crimes are not logical, like you and I. They generally commit crimes during times of passion and emotional instability. Many, if not most, violent criminals, have been subjected to emotional damage throughout their childhoods (that's the reason they're in prison, as they don't think of the consequences of their actions). These people don't keep up on current events and don't care what the laws are; their actions are based on anger and any of a number of other emotions. They don't sit around and contemplate whether they're going to get the death penalty if they kill someone.

[vmarks]

So, that would make these "troubled" people somehow less troubled? People who commit heinous crimes are not logical, like you and I. They generally commit crimes during times of passion and emotional instability. Many, if not most, violent criminals, have been subjected to emotional damage throughout their childhoods (that's the reason they're in prison, as they don't think of the consequences of their actions). These people don't keep up on current events and don't care what the laws are; their actions are based on anger and any of a number of other emotions. They don't sit around and contemplate whether they're going to get the death penalty if they kill someone.

These people are not in prison because they are illogical.
These people are not in prison because they are emotionally unstable.
These people are not in prison because they have been subjected to emotional damage in their childhood.
These people are not in prison because they don't keep up on current events and what laws are.
These people are not in prison because they are angry or any number of other emotions.

These people are in prison because of their actions which harmed another person.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So, that would make these "troubled" people somehow less troubled? People who commit heinous crimes are not logical, like you and I. They generally commit crimes during times of passion and emotional instability. Many, if not most, violent criminals, have been subjected to emotional damage throughout their childhoods (that's the reason they're in prison, as they don't think of the consequences of their actions). These people don't keep up on current events and don't care what the laws are; their actions are based on anger and any of a number of other emotions. They don't sit around and contemplate whether they're going to get the death penalty if they kill someone.

These people are not in prison because they are illogical.
These people are not in prison because they are emotionally unstable.
These people are not in prison because they have been subjected to emotional damage in their childhood.
These people are not in prison because they don't keep up on current events and what laws are.
These people are not in prison because they are angry or any number of other emotions.

These people are in prison because of their actions which harmed another person.

It's kind of obvious that they're in prison because of their actions, isn't it? Unfortunately, you seem to know very little about what motivates people to function, which is understandable, as you obviously see things only in the way you want to. The world doesn't always function according to vmarks' vision. Sometimes it functions according to motivations caused by external forces, and anger, rage, passion, hatred, etc., are some of those forces. Some of us can actually learn what motivates people to do certain things, while those same emotions don't motivate others in a similar direction.

My ex spent ten years as a prison psychologist, at one of the world's largest prisons. I would dare say she knows a little more about human motivations than you do.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's kind of obvious that they're in prison because of their actions, isn't it? Unfortunately, you seem to know very little about what motivates people to function, which is understandable, as you obviously see things only in the way you want to. The world doesn't always function according to vmarks' vision. Sometimes it functions according to motivations caused by external forces, and anger, rage, passion, hatred, etc., are some of those forces. Some of us can actually learn what motivates people to do certain things, while those same emotions don't motivate others in a similar direction.

My ex spent ten years as a prison psychologist, at one of the world's largest prisons. I would dare say she knows a little more about human motivations than you do.

Let her post then.

And if these types of people cannot control themselves, then what to do? Let them roam free and continue to rape and sodomize children? True, molesters get a type of justice served on them in prison. I say let them get that then kill them. We could stand to thin out the flock anyways.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

you Know, I Think It's Very Disturbing That We Have
(1) The Notion That We Can Keep Communities Safe By Imprisoning People Who Are Proven To Be Unfit For Society
(2) But We Cannot Keep These Unfit People Safe From Harm In Prison.

There Is No Reason I Can Conceive Of That We Allow For Crimes Of Assault, Rape, Mutilation, Or Murder To Take Place In Prison, Especially When We Are The Guardians Of These Unfit People.

QFT

white text

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Randman 

Let her post then.

And if these types of people cannot control themselves, then what to do? Let them roam free and continue to rape and sodomize children? True, molesters get a type of justice served on them in prison. I say let them get that then kill them. We could stand to thin out the flock anyways.

Did I say, at any time, that we should let these people roam free and continue to rape and sodomize children? I didn't think so. I said that I was against the death penalty for rapists, which was what the subject of this thread was about.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Strawman. Serial killers aren't freed, and they don't escape, unless you watch too much TV. The decision is a correct one, IMO, but I'm against the death penalty altogether. The state has no more business murdering someone than an individual does, and telling people that we're going to kill them for killing someone else strikes me as rather odd. Do what I Say, Not What I Do, doesn't work.

Ted Bundy escaped, twice.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's kind of obvious that they're in prison because of their actions, isn't it? Unfortunately, you seem to know very little about what motivates people to function, which is understandable, as you obviously see things only in the way you want to. The world doesn't always function according to vmarks' vision. Sometimes it functions according to motivations caused by external forces, and anger, rage, passion, hatred, etc., are some of those forces. Some of us can actually learn what motivates people to do certain things, while those same emotions don't motivate others in a similar direction.

My ex spent ten years as a prison psychologist, at one of the world's largest prisons. I would dare say she knows a little more about human motivations than you do.

Motivations do not excuse or explain actions, and motivations do not change guilt or innocence.

We do not, should not, punish people for their motivations.

We punish people for the actions they do which harm people.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ted Bundy escaped, twice.

That was years ago, when security wasn't as good as it is now, and good for you; you provided one example, so that must extrapolate out to the entire prison population.

[Randman]

One should be more than enough.

Anyway, I still stand by my first post on this that the death penalty is flawed but if a certain type of criminal should be put to death for their crimes, child rapists should be at the front of the line. My 2¢.

Supreme Court rejects death penalty for child rape
By James Oliphant
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court Wednesday effectively slammed the door on the prospect of expanding capital punishment in America, holding that the death penalty for violent crimes that do not end in a death is unconstitutional regardless of the victim's age.
In the 5-4 decision, the court overturned a Louisiana law that called for the death penalty for raping a child and removed from that state's death row a man convicted of the brutal rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion saying, in essence, that the crime, awful as it is, does not merit capital punishment. "The incongruity between the crime of child rape and the harshness of the death penalty poses risks of over-punishment and counsels against a constitutional ruling that the death penalty can be expanded to include this offense," Kennedy wrote.
The opinion is one of a series of Supreme Court decisions in recent years scaling back the death penalty and citing a national consensus on limiting its application. In 2002, the court held that states could not execute the mentally retarded. Three years later, the court prohibited defendants who were juveniles at the time they committed murder from being put to death.
"We live in a society that appears to embrace some aspects of the death penalty, but the direction we have gone in recent years is to limit it, not broaden it," said Billy Sothern, a New Orleans lawyer who was part of the team that represented the defendant, Patrick Kennedy. He was one of only two men nationwide facing execution for crimes that didn't result in a death, both in Louisiana.
Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, criticized the court's decision at a Chicago news conference. "I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," he said. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."
Obama has frequently cited the near-abolishment of the death penalty in Illinois as one of his top legislative accomplishments.
His likely Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, also disagreed with the ruling. "Today's Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime," McCain said. "That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing."
The four members of the court's conservative wing also sharply criticized the decision, saying that a small but growing number of states had determined that the rape of a child merited the death penalty and the court's majority was interfering with that judgment.
"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," wrote Justice Samuel Alito. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty." Alito was joined in his dissent by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts Jr.
The court in 1977 first ruled that the death penalty for rapists was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. But that decision involved the rape of a 16-year-old girl, whom the court considered an adult.
More than a decade ago, Louisiana passed a statute making rape a capital crime if the victim was younger than 12, contending that the rape of a child placed the crime in a different category.
Several states, such as Texas, Georgia and South Carolina, have passed laws similar to Louisiana's, although they all require that the assailant committed a second, separate offense before the death penalty is an option.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
In Louisiana, the law had been used sparingly, with the state saying it has sought the death penalty in only five cases, twice obtaining a capital verdict. Kennedy has maintained his innocence throughout, and he had been offered a deal of life in prison if he pleaded guilty. He refused and was sentenced to death in 2003.
He and his stepdaughter originally claimed that two neighborhood boys assaulted her in March 1998 in the backyard of their home in Jefferson Parish, across the Mississippi River from New Orleans. But police found several inconsistencies in his story and blood on sheets inside the home. The girl was badly injured and required surgery.
Kennedy will still face life in prison with no possibility of parole. His lawyers are working on an appeal of his conviction.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Justice Kennedy's opinion cited several policy concerns that led the majority to conclude the Louisiana law was flawed. Victims, Kennedy said, were less likely to come forward to implicate family members who might be executed. Kennedy also noted that victims likely would have to testify repeatedly during the extended appeals process that typically marks capital cases, prolonging their trauma.
He was joined in the opinion by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
———
(Chicago Tribune correspondent John D. McCormick contributed to this report from Chicago.)
———
(c) 2008, Chicago Tribune.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Motivations do not excuse or explain actions, and motivations do not change guilt or innocence.

We do not, should not, punish people for their motivations.

We punish people for the actions they do which harm people.

Motivations may indeed explain actions, but I never said they should excuse them. Unfortunately, you think everything is simple and black and white, and you can't see the world through anything other than your eyes, so there's no point in furthering this discussion.

[vmarks]

What reason other than to excuse actions do you need to explain motivations?

The only question that should matter is, was a person harmed, and was the person who caused the harm convicted and sentenced?

Isn't that why we have equal justice under the law?

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

We do not, should not, punish people for their motivations.

We punish people for the actions they do which harm people.

Really?

I always thought the difference between say, second and first degree murder was one of motivation.

A first and second degree case can involve a (more or less) equivalent degree of harm to the victim, but will have widely varying consequences for the perpetrator.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Randman 

I dunno. I think the death penalty, if used as a deterrent, can be useful. I don't think it is used in an useful manner in the US but that's another post.

For something like rape of a child, I think public torture and execution within 72 hours would stop a lot of these troubled people from crossing the line and raping a freakin' kid.

Well, if only we didn't have that pesky constitution!

Don't be absurd. People who commit these kind of crimes can't be deterred. They can only be identified and isolated.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by subego 

Really?

I always thought the difference between say, second and first degree murder was one of motivation.

A first and second degree case can involve a (more or less) equivalent degree of harm to the victim, but will have widely varying consequences for the perpetrator.

It's not about the motivation of the perpetrator, it's about who the victim is. Apparently, police, witnesses to a crime, and whether or not the perpetrator pre-meditated on the murder make it a first degree crime. Murdering anyone else, or not pre-meditating make it a second degree crime.

Even so, it's about the perpetrator's actions, not motivations.

We don't care -why- a person kills a policeman or witness to a crime. That's who was murdered? First degree.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Even so, it's about the perpetrator's actions, not motivations.

I buy it.

I was thinking solely about the premeditation part, but you make a good point that that's really an action.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You know, I think it's very disturbing that we have
(1) the notion that we can keep communities safe by imprisoning people who are proven to be unfit for society
(2) but we cannot keep these unfit people safe from harm in prison.

There is no reason I can conceive of that we allow for crimes of assault, rape, mutilation, or murder to take place in prison, especially when we are the guardians of these unfit people.

I agree with you in principal, but unfortunately, it's a simple reality of prisons. Human beings aren't cattle- cattle aren't smart enough to figure out that a simple fence can't really hold or control them in large numbers. People on the other hand are perfectly capable of figuring out the limits at which an always smaller guard force simply can't control them, or even effectively watch them.

The could be a bit more control with more prison space and more guards, but the reality is usually the opposite: overcrowded/understaffed. We could build more prisons, lower security for non and less violent offenders, but then you run into the NIMBY crowd, and justifiably so for most people. And there's a limit to segregating inmates from each other that has negative consequences of its own- so the reality is prisoners will be mixed together, always outnumber their guards, have a prisoner-run gang culture that's in every way the true 'authority' in most prisons, and not much that can realistically ever be done about it.


As for the death penalty against child rapists- the best argument I've heard against this is that it would automatically turn many more child rapists into child murderers. If a person knows he's likely to die just for raping the child, he'd feel 'nothing to lose' and everything to gain by then killing the child, eliminating them as a witness. It's death either way. It's not a big leap at all for someone depraved enough to rape children in the first place to just turn to murder if the stakes of getting caught are just as high.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Well, if only we didn't have that pesky constitution!

Don't be absurd. People who commit these kind of crimes can't be deterred. They can only be identified and isolated.

They can be killed to protect the rest of the population. Killing a KNOWN killer saves lives, which is a good thing. Even if it's the lives of convicted criminals. Why should a person doing time for robbery be placed in a facility that houses murderers? Isn't that cruel too?

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And there's a limit to segregating inmates from each other that has negative consequences of its own

This is nitpicky, but I think the negative consequences arise out of segregating inmates from people.

Other than the practical (financial) limitations, assuming they got enough of it, what would be wrong with inmates getting their social interaction exclusively from people who weren't inmates?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is nitpicky, but I think the negative consequences arise out of segregating inmates from people.

Other inmates aren't people? I'm not quite sure what your argument is here. It's pretty much 100% impossible -in every sense of the world impossible- to ever have a prison where the majority population wouldn't be inmates. (Unless of course we're talking about the small town county jail- I'm talking about a true prison.)

It's proven that too much solitary confinement literally drives people insane, so you can't realistically keep inmates away from other inmates.

Other than the practical (financial) limitations, assuming they got enough of it, what would be wrong with inmates getting their social interaction exclusively from people who weren't inmates?

I'm all for more things like 'house arrest' using tracking device technology for low risk, non-violent people- then their interaction would be almost exclusively with non-inmates. Let's have more of it- especially to keep the prisons from being even more overcrowded.

There's also the sort of 'joke that's not really a joke' about white collar country-club prisons, where I'm sure an inmate would be far less likely to be raped and beat up by roving gangs of CPAs in for embezzlement, vs. 'real' prison.

But let's face it- if we're talking about child rapists, they don't get sent to country-club prison, they get sent to real prison. And deservedly so- rape is an extremely violent crime, they too ARE violent criminals.

I just don't see how you could ever break it down to afford one set of violent criminals the luxury of not going to jail with other violent criminals, and even if you could, -say, have prisons just for child molesters- I believe human nature being what it is, you'd still get a criminally run hierarchy that rules the prison, with the strongest bunch of rapists preying on the weakest- basically the mindset that landed them in jail in the first place manifesting itself.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's pretty much 100% impossible -in every sense of the world impossible- to ever have a prison where the majority population wouldn't be inmates.

Since I'm already on the nitpick train, are you being poetic, or are there actually multiple senses in which this is impossible?

It seems to me that it's exactly one sense of the word impossible. The "way too expensive, no one would ever pay for it" sense.

I understand (and wouldn't totally disagree) if you were to argue that was the only sense that mattered.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's proven that too much solitary confinement literally drives people insane

This is what I meant by the negative consequences arise out of segregating inmates from people: solitary confinement.

Solitary confinement is not the same as segregating inmates from other inmates, it just happens to be, as you have correctly pointed out, the only practical way to do it.

The reason I'm even bothering to nitpick is that I thought it was possible the reason you said "segregating inmates" was because there is some negative consequence (other than costing too much) that didn't have to do with solitary confinement.

I gather this isn't why you phrased it that way.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

What reason other than to excuse actions do you need to explain motivations?

To prevent those actions? Seems better than retaliate them to me.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You know, I think it's very disturbing that we have
(1) the notion that we can keep communities safe by imprisoning people who are proven to be unfit for society
(2) but we cannot keep these unfit people safe from harm in prison.

There is no reason I can conceive of that we allow for crimes of assault, rape, mutilation, or murder to take place in prison, especially when we are the guardians of these unfit people.

Vengeance?

There was this documentary on British television a few months ago about what might be the most humane way of executing somebody. An American guy interviewed on the programme was outraged by the idea, because he felt that if some vermin had done something that merited the death penalty, he didn’t deserve to have an easy death but should be made to suffer as much as possible.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that this type of attitude regarding punishing criminals is not uncommon.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Randman 

I dunno. I think the death penalty, if used as a deterrent, can be useful. I don't think it is used in an useful manner in the US but that's another post.

For something like rape of a child, I think public torture and execution within 72 hours would stop a lot of these troubled people from crossing the line and raping a freakin' kid.

Hey, why execute them at all? Let’s torture them forever. If they look like they might snuff it, have a little break, then start again. Bastards might last for years if you’re lucky. Even better deterrent, isn’t it?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that this type of attitude regarding punishing criminals is not uncommon.

Maybe not if you live in the Middle Ages.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Since I'm already on the nitpick train, are you being poetic, or are there actually multiple senses in which this is impossible?

It seems to me that it's exactly one sense of the word impossible. The "way too expensive, no one would ever pay for it" sense.

I understand (and wouldn't totally disagree) if you were to argue that was the only sense that mattered.

No, I mean the "it's not possible, even with all the money in the world" sense of impossible.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No, I mean the "it's not possible, even with all the money in the world" sense of impossible.

I wish you'd quit waffling and state your opinion in absolute terms once in awhile.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Vengeance?

There was this documentary on British television a few months ago about what might be the most humane way of executing somebody. An American guy interviewed on the programme was outraged by the idea, because he felt that if some vermin had done something that merited the death penalty, he didn’t deserve to have an easy death but should be made to suffer as much as possible.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that this type of attitude regarding punishing criminals is not uncommon.

vengeance? No thanks.
Justice and equality under the law, if you please.

[red rocket]

Just in case I wasn’t sufficiently clear: I am not endorsing vengeance as a justification for punishing criminals. I do however have the impression that the mindset which does view it as the primary purpose of criminal justice is widespread. In my experience, the majority of people in the so-called civilised world are not terribly enthusiastic about reforming killers and rapists, especially those who are (or think they are) somehow affected by the crime. Frequently, the only public outcry one hears whenever somebody in prison has managed to commit suicide is that they have cheated justice and got away too easy. Let’s be realistic, most people don’t share mankind’s loftiest ideals of humane treatment and compassion when it comes to treating ‘monsters’, they’re vindictive and bloodthirsty, and demand some variant of of lex talionis to satisfy their sense of justice.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They can be killed to protect the rest of the population. Killing a KNOWN killer saves lives, which is a good thing. Even if it's the lives of convicted criminals. Why should a person doing time for robbery be placed in a facility that houses murderers? Isn't that cruel too?

And there lies the rub: KNOWN. Some cases of murder are cut and dry (ie bad man wrongly, intentionally kills innocent person). Others aren't. Until we have a system that's 100% effective in differentiating the two it's always, always going to be a messy, morally questionable affair.