Saddle Up, It's Rodeo Time

[mikeb302000]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14199078">BBC News has the video.

Mark Stroman is scheduled to be executed today. That would be Texas-sanctioned pre-meditated murder. The unusual thing about this case is the only surviving victim has forgiven his attacker and opposes his execution.

What's your opinion? Is the death penalty warranted in cases like this?

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(Cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[RandySF]

1. I would need to know the details

Personally, I have no objections to executing the very worst offenders, especially those who kill children. On the other hand, California's is costing the state billions that could be put to better use. So, I also don't object to locking some people so they never again see the light of day.

[mikeb302000]

4. for me no details are necessary

life without the possibility of parole should be the max.

[MADem]

2. Well, you can't leave justice up to the victim.

They do that crap in Saudi Arabia, and the rich walk free after killing people left and right, in a country where a poor schmuck loses his hand for stealing bread. Run over someone with your car? Pay off the survivors. Get mad and beat a servant to death? Pay off the survivors. Justice is available for sale over there--of course, it can, in some cases, be bought over here, too, but it's a harder row to hoe.

I am not a real fan of the death penalty, I don't think it deters terribly well, but I tend not to get as outraged by it when the person getting the needle is plainly guilty. I have issues with these cases where there's a genuine question about the guilt of the person, where the lawyer slept through the trial, or the evidence went missing, or the DNA tests weren't run, or what have you.

So, I guess I'm of two minds on this matter.

I doubt Texas will care what I think, at any rate.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. This is actually a tough question. Are there people who are so amoral

that society needs to pull their cork? Yes. Is our justice system sophisticated enough to know the difference? Sadly, we are a nation of idiots that can't distinguish the difference between a psycopath and a president so we are in no position to be making the determination that "We The People" have any business condemming anyone to death. We won't even bring up the fact that it's cheaper to put someone in prison for the rest of their lifes.

Oh, on top of that, when the prisons are full (which they are) the laws are wrong.

Depending on where you live, the cost of incarcerating an individule is far in excess of what that person should be able to earn to live a decent life. Do you really believe that mnost people would rather be in jail than earning a living that would actually support them and their families? Yeah, that's what jails are for. There are always a handfull, just not enough to fill our prisons.

[mikeb302000]

5. the cost is an interesting factor

but for me it's a matter of moral consistency. We can't tell the bad guys "do not kill," and then turn around and kill them for disobeying.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Basing an argument against the death penalty on cases where the accused is clearly guilty*

misses the point, I think.

There certainly are some actions so evil that one could make a case that killing people who commit them is not excessive.

However, the reason that I, at least, passionately oppose the death penalty is that any state that makes a policy of killing such people invariably also sometimes kills innocent people, or people whose crimes are only sufficient to justify imprisonment. The only way not to execute the innocent is not to execute the guilty.

Incidentally, I don't think that whether or not his victims have forgiven him should be taken into account in sentencing - punish criminals for what they did, not how other people felt about it.

*I know nothing about Mr Stroman's case; he may in fact not be clearly guilty, but I haven't seen it suggested that he is not; my argument does not depend on this specific case.