Jessica gets her Justice today!

[WMR]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

How can I answer that?

I'm sure, emotionally, vengeance would be foremost in my mind.

But it's a good thing that it's the state that prosecutes, that it's society that intervenes on my behalf to bring about justice. I don't have any desire to live in a world run by vigilantism. The law exists to take the power of vengeance from my hands.

How can society maintain order if every murderer who can find a psychiatrist willing to take the stand and testify to his mental instability has his sentence mitigated?

At the end of the day, must there not be at least some immutable level of personal responsibility regardless of upbringing, 'mental deficiency,' or perceived societal failure?

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by WilyMoROCKS

How can society maintain order if every murderer who can find a psychiatrist willing to take the stand and testify to his mental instability has his sentence mitigated?

At the end of the day, must there not be at least some level of immutable sense of personal responsibility regardless of upbringing, 'mental deficiency,' or perceived societal failure?

Wow.

Speaking of straw men. I'd make the same argument if this was Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Daumer. Or the sleazy rich kid who killed because he could, and thought he could get away with it.

Executing restores nothing to the social order that life in prison without parole couldn't do just as well. If you search your heart, you'll know I'm right. Executing people simply satisfies mass bloodlust. It doesn't bring about justice.

[WMR]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Wow.

Speaking of straw men. I'd make the same argument if this was Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Daumer. Or the sleazy rich kid who killed because he could, and thought he could get away with it.

Executing restores nothing to the social order that life in prison without parole couldn't do just as well. If you search your heart, you'll know I'm right. Executing people simply satisfies mass bloodlust. It doesn't bring about justice.

I'm not even necessarily speaking of execution. If someone is found mentally incompetent, they can be remanded to the state and often released once found "rehabilitated."

Is that fair? Is the system functioning correctly? That's what I'm trying to get at.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Executing restores nothing to the social order that life in prison without parole couldn't do just as well.

Sure it does. Society is still effected negativley by the criminal after his/her incarceration. It incurs the cost of housing them, feeding them, medical care, etc. Soceity must dedicate finite resources to build prisions, staff and maintain them. Land that could be use for more productive ventures is used by prisons. Society contines to pay and pay for the criminals behavior long after the crime was committed.

Execution puts a stop to all that nonsense.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by WilyMoROCKS

I'm not even necessarily speaking of execution. If someone is found mentally incompetent, they can be remanded to the state and often released once found "rehabilitated."

Is that fair? Is the system functioning correctly? That's what I'm trying to get at.

No, respectfully, that's not what you're getting at.

But to answer that question: obviously the state is either incapable of rehabilitating this man or unable or unwilling to continue to pay for the rehabilitation of this man. But that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about vis. the application of the death penalty.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

And society paying for his 'rehabilitation' and room and board for the reminder of his days is?

It costs more to execute 'em. So even leaving behind the moral argument, from a purely financial perspective it makes sense not to kill people.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

It costs more to execute 'em. So even leaving behind the moral argument, from a purely financial perspective it makes sense not to kill people.

How so?

I would assume the cost of executions is bloated by the lengthy appeals process and the delay in delivery of the sentence.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

How so?

I would assume the cost of executions is bloated by the lengthy appeals process and the delay in delivery of the sentence.

It usually is those kinds of costs. But under law we (and that means you too) are entitled to certain appeals.

Should we chuck those out too?

Where does it end?

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Land that could be use for more productive ventures is used by prisons. Society contines to pay and pay for the criminals behavior long after the crime was committed.

Execution puts a stop to all that nonsense.

Your argument--unless I am misinterpreting what you're saying--is that society is burdened by the cost of feeding and housing prisoners, and having land taken up by prisons versus alternatives. And that "executions put a stop to all of that nonsense." I could not disagree with you more.

To begin, the number of people who have committed crimes that would fall within the realm of being worthy of capital punishment are miniscule compared to the prison population as a whole. So executing more people isn't going to solve the problems you listed--assuming, of course, that we don't start executing people for theft or drug use or what have you.

Secondly, society does not pay merely to feed and house prisoners, it pays also to rehabilitate them. If society does not believe that rehabilitation is possible, then every criminal--regardless of offense--should simply be locked up for life. Releasing them back into the public at large would be a failure of the government to protect its citizenry.

Finally, you complain about the cost you, as a taxpayer, must pay to keep people like Couey alive in prison. But this neglects two things: one, the immense costs associated with placing someone on death row and subsequently executing them, and two, the fact that there are a number of people who object to the idea of their tax money being used to execute people.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

It costs more to execute 'em. So even leaving behind the moral argument, from a purely financial perspective it makes sense not to kill people.

Just did a quick search and found several websites detailing the costs. Will research further after dinner. Interesting stuff.

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

It usually is those kinds of costs. But under law we (and that means you too) are entitled to certain appeals.

Should we chuck those out too?

Of course there should be appeals. I have no problems with that. How many and the length of time between them is a different question.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Of course there should be appeals. I have no problems with that. How many and the length of time between them is a different question.

When the state is prepared to kill a man, they'd better make damn certain they're right.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

To begin, the number of people who have committed crimes that would fall within the realm of being worthy of capital punishment are miniscule compared to the prison population as a whole. So executing more people isn't going to solve the problems you listed--assuming, of course, that we don't start executing people for theft or drug use or what have you..

I'm not looking at execution as an overall cost savings plan. Mearly minimizing the costs of the inmate who's been sentenced to death.

Originally Posted by registerthis

Secondly, society does not pay merely to feed and house prisoners, it pays also to rehabilitate them. If society does not believe that rehabilitation is possible, then every criminal--regardless of offense--should simply be locked up for life.

Who said anything about rehibilitation not being possible? Some criminals stand a good chance to be rehibilitated and reintroduced to society. By all means we should invest the resources to help these people out. Other other cases rehabilitation is likely not possible.

Originally Posted by registerthis

Finally, you complain about the cost you, as a taxpayer, must pay to keep people like Couey alive in prison. But this neglects two things: one, the immense costs associated with placing someone on death row and subsequently executing them, and two, the fact that there are a number of people who object to the idea of their tax money being used to execute people.

But have those costs been increased over time as due to external factors unrelated to the cost of the execution itself?

I object to many of the ways my tax money is used, but that doesn't mean the government should stop using it as they deam fit.

[Ltlabner]

At the end of all this back and forth remains some sad facts.

Jessica died clutching a stuffed animal trying to claw her way out of a grave.

Coey is a sick man who need to pay some price for his actions. Argue over the amount of the price, but laws are about punishment and he should pay something for his actions.

[Chip R]

I haven't really followed this case that much so am I correct in understanding that the killer should have not been on the street to begin with because of a mental defect or he has comitted crimes in the past? Or was this just a slipup that allowed him back on the street, i.e. no Miranda, bad search warrant, etc?

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Chip R

I haven't really followed this case that much so am I correct in understanding that the killer should have not been on the street to begin with because of a mental defect or he has comitted crimes in the past? Or was this just a slipup that allowed him back on the street, i.e. no Miranda, bad search warrant, etc?

No, he was a convicted sex offender at the time of Jessica's murder.