Capital Punishment Reprise

[davjohns 1]

The context is the current legal system. You do not get to argue that anything should be changed. Capital punishment is an option. LWOP is an option. Both carry the attendant perils that they have in reality.

Execution perils: The convicted could subsequently be exonerated by other evidence. Mandatory appeals are costly. There is a moral implication for society. There is a potential burden on the person who has to throw the switch. Etc.

LWOP perils: They can commit crimes while in prison. They can escape. They can be pardoned, paroled, sentence commuted, etc. and commit more attrocities. There is a cost to keeping them contained. Etc.

YOU get to decide what the relative chances are that the perils of the sentence will come to pass. You determine if there are perils I have not enumerated and you can take them into consideration and assign them probabilities as your conscience dictates. You can research the perils and probabilities in the real world (or not) as your conscience dictates.

Caveat: IF you determine that there is a chance of escape, parole or other release AND there is a chance they will commit other crimes...YOU must be the victim. You are not allowed to make the moral decision to execute or not and project the potential consequences on someone else. That is morally reprehensible and invalidates your opinion entirely. If you believe there is ANY chance they could get away and commit similar acts, it must be YOUR daughter raped while they photograph it, your head bashed with a baseball bat, your wife raped and strangled, your daughters set on fire and you will escape to live with the memories. Again, the probability is left to you.

Conversely, if you decide that execution is the proper solution, YOU must throw the switch, inject, etc. You are similary barred from placing the moral implications of your decision on someone else. If the convicts are later exonerated, you must live with that as well. If someone is to be sued or prosecuted for the wrongful execution, you are on the line. Again, the probabilities are up to you.

The consequences of your decision, remote or assured, are yours and yours alone. In effect, YOU are society. You make the determination, but you pay for whatever effects result from that decision.

The case is a copy and paste from the internet. It is:

As Jennifer Hawke-Petit and 11-year-old Michaela Petit shopped at a local supermarket, unbeknownst to them, they had been targeted by Komisarjevsky, who followed them home, and planned to later rob the family by home invasion. Anticipating their deeds, Hayes and Komisarjevsky exchanged text messages that were later introduced in court. Hayes first messaged Komisarjevsky: "I'm chomping at the bit to get started. Need a margarita soon". Hayes then texts: "We still on?" Komisarjevsky replies "Yes". Hayes' next text asks, "Soon?", to which Komisarjevsky replied with "I'm putting the kid to bed hold your horses". Hayes then asserts "Dude, the horses want to get loose. LOL."

According to Hayes' confession, the two men planned to rob the house and flee the scene with the family bound and unharmed. Hayes attributed the outcome of the spree to a change in their plan. Upon their early morning arrival, they found William Petit sleeping on a couch on the porch. With a bat Komisarjevsky had found in the yard, he bludgeoned William and then restrained him in the basement at gun point. The children and their mother were each bound and locked in their respective rooms. Hayes says he and Komisarjevsky were not satisfied with their haul, and that a bankbook was found which had an available balance. Hayes convinced Jennifer to withdraw $15,000 from her line of credit. A gas station's video surveillance shows Hayes purchasing $10 worth of gasoline in two cans he had taken from the Petit home. After returning to the house, and unloading the gas, he took her to the bank. The prosecution later entered this as evidence of premeditation.

The bank surveillance cameras captured the transaction which shows Hawke-Petit in the morning of July 23 as she informed the teller of her situation. The teller then called 911 and reported the details to police. Hawke-Petit left the bank, was picked up by Hayes, who had escorted her there, and drove away. These actions were reported to the 911 dispatcher and recorded in real time. The teller stated that Hawke-Petit had indicated the assailants were "being nice", and she believed they only wanted money.

The Cheshire police response to the bank tellers' "urgent bid" began with assessing the situation and setting up a vehicle perimeter. These preliminary measures employed by the police exhausted more than half an hour and provided the time used by the assailants to conclude their modified plan.

During this time, Hayes and Komisarjevsky escalated the aggravated nature of their crimes. Komisarjevsky sexually assaulted the 11-year-old daughter, Michaela. Komisarjevsky, who had photographed the sexual assault of the youth on his cell phone, then provoked Hayes to rape Hawke-Petit. While Hayes was raping Hawke-Petit on the floor of her living room, Komisarjevsky entered the room announcing that William Petit had escaped. Hayes then strangled Hawke-Petit, doused her lifeless body and parts of the house including the daughters' rooms with gasoline. The daughters, while tied to their beds, had both been doused with gasoline; each had her head covered with a pillowcase. A fire was then ignited, and Hayes and Komisarjevsky fled the scene. 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela both died from smoke inhalation.

William Petit had been able to free himself, escape his confines, and call to a neighbor for help. The neighbor indicated that he did not recognize Petit, due to the severity of Petit's injuries. In court testimony, William Petit stated that he felt a "jolt of adrenaline" coupled with a need to escape upon hearing one of the perpetrators state: "Don't worry, it's going to be all over in a couple of minutes." Petit then told the jury, "I thought, it's now or never because in my mind at that moment, I thought they were going to shoot all of us."

Hayes and Komisarjevsky fled the scene using the Petit family car. They were immediately spotted by police surveillance, pursued by police, apprehended, and arrested one block away. The whole invasion lasted seven hours.

The scenario was revealed in a confession by Hayes just hours after the killings. Detectives testified that Hayes exuded a strong stench of gasoline throughout the interrogation. Each perpetrator was said to have blamed or implicated the other as the mastermind and driving force behind the spree. There were even attempts to blame William Petit as an accomplice. A diary kept by Komisarjevsky was entered into evidence which also blamed William. This account called him a "coward" and claimed he could have stopped the murders had he wanted to.

The jury has found the evidence credible and convincing. The accused are convicted of all the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. What is your sentence?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,006]

To modify the perils a bit:

Execution perils: The convicted could subsequently be exonerated by other evidence. Mandatory appeals are costly. There is a moral implication for society. There is a potential burden on the person who has to throw the switch. They could escape while on death row. They could be pardoned and commit more atrocities. They might commit crimes on death row. Their sentence could be commuted.

LWOP perils: They can commit crimes while in prison. They can escape. They can be pardoned, paroled, sentence commuted, etc. and commit more attrocities. There is a cost to keeping them contained.

[Marinus 0]

The caveat is rather nonsensical. At the time you make the decision you've no way to know that your family will be the victim in case of an escape, unless the criminals threaten you they'll rape and murder your family if you don't sentence them to die. Other than that it's a variant of sorts on the "Imagine it's your family..." which is a great way to develop some seriously flawed ethics.

[BillyVance 34]

Is this the Massachusetts case, IIRC?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The caveat is rather nonsensical. At the time you make the decision you've no way to know that your family will be the victim in case of an escape, unless the criminals threaten you they'll rape and murder your family if you don't sentence them to die.

the point of the 1st caviat is to personalize the execution by putting yourself in the position of executioner

the other caveat's point is to personalize the consequences of failure of LWOP to someone close to you - since our responsibility is to protect ALL those in society and not just those close to us

by personalizing both of the caveat's in this manner - you then mimic the effect/mindset of being personally responsible for society in general - which is the real point of justice (not revenge, etc, but balance and protection)


you take exception to the second caviat but not the first - your bias is showing - you can put yourself in the person of executioner and appreciate the difficulty - we already know that from the emotive arguments

you take exception to the second caviat - so you are willing to play the lottery that any negative potentials to LWOP are born by a stranger instead of you, I'd think someone so empathic about the issue and the affect on societal morals would care about the consequences even if it's some stranger


Davjohns is 'trying' to be objective in the thread by posting caveats in a balanced manor - play the rules and challenge your perception a bit - each of us will find it harder to accept one role over the other (executioner vs future victim), but both are valid

edit: I was unnecessarily confrontative in the original wording, changed it to be let obstructive. mea culpa

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[killler 2]

Bill did you read the case? You are a very smart person... So ether you didn't read the case or you want to play the appeals game to waste time and money.... Because you have 100% not a chance that they didn't do it....

And the case happened in CT...

killler....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

They could escape while on death row. They could be pardoned and commit more atrocities. They might commit crimes on death row. Their sentence could be commuted.

seems you departed from the concept of "execution" these are all really more risks for LWOP

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,006]

>seems you departed from the concept of "execution" these are all really more risks for LWOP

They are risks for both. The average time on death row is around 20 years, and odds of a pardon are higher for a death row prisoner than a lifer who committed similar crimes. Davjohns made it clear that the context is the current legal system, and that you can't change anything.

[Marinus 0]

You're right, only one half of the caveat is nonsensical.
And there's something about me being hypocritical (?) of changing my ethics when it's me or my loved ones that will be victim. I am, and most likely you, Davjohns and 99%+ of humans are too. If you've to choose between the life of your spouse and that of me and my spouse, you'll probably choose to save your spouse, if you OTOH have to choose between saving 2 random strangers and saving 1 random strangers, you'll probably safe the couple. When it gets that personal people generally make an exemption on their ethics. So if you know upfront your family will be victimized in case of an escape or something, it might influence your decision.

Edit to add:

Quote

play the rules and challenge your perception a bit

I can, but the result has probably little to do with the standards I try to hold myself to, because I've to put my loved ones on the line which would make me more in favour of eliminating that threat by killing the murderers. With the methods used in the US killing wouldn't be that hard to do because of the methods used. flipping a switch just hasn't the impact of beheading or even shooting someone, so th psychological consequences are probably less severe.

That would be even more the case for a recidiving (sp?) drunk driver that will kill my whole family if I don't execute him but instead sentence him to a normal punishment for a DUI btw.

[billvon 3,006]

>Bill did you read the case?

Yes I did.

>So ether you didn't read the case or you want to play the appeals game to waste time
>and money.... Because you have 100% not a chance that they didn't do it....

Right. But appeals are mandatory, and take decades - whether you think he really did it or not. Davjohns was quite explicit that this question was framed within the current legal climate, not some imaginary "Verdict - guilty! BANG!" world.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Is this the Massachusetts case, IIRC?

I think it was Connecticut.

[killler 2]

One appeal... not twenty appeals.....

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Is this the Massachusetts case, IIRC?

I think it was Connecticut.

Thanks for the correction. I knew it was up in that general region.

What those two guys did was beyond barbaric, IMO.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[billvon 3,006]

>One appeal... not twenty appeals.....

Great idea!

Now back to the question at hand. The original post said to assume the current legal environment, which means many appeals - which means decades before an execution. That's plenty of time to escape, or kill other prisoners, or get pardoned.

[wmw999 2,457]

Quote

One appeal... not twenty appeals.....

Of course, if the lawyer for that one appeal didn't do an even halfway good job, or new information comes out, then maybe that one appeal wasn't reasonable after all.

There's a line somewhere, but drawing it arbitrarily doesn't work, because not every defense is good. And saying that everyone who has the money should get a good defense probably isn't the best approach.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The original post said to assume the current legal environment, which means many appeals - which means decades before an execution. That's plenty of time to escape, or kill other prisoners, or get pardoned.

you're so clever

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Caveat: IF you determine that there is a chance of escape, parole or other release AND there is a chance they will commit other crimes...YOU must be the victim. You are not allowed to make the moral decision to execute or not and project the potential consequences on someone else. That is morally reprehensible and invalidates your opinion entirely. If you believe there is ANY chance they could get away and commit similar acts, it must be YOUR daughter raped while they photograph it, your head bashed with a baseball bat, your wife raped and strangled, your daughters set on fire and you will escape to live with the memories. Again, the probability is left to you.

Conversely, if you decide that execution is the proper solution, YOU must throw the switch, inject, etc. You are similary barred from placing the moral implications of your decision on someone else. If the convicts are later exonerated, you must live with that as well. If someone is to be sued or prosecuted for the wrongful execution, you are on the line. Again, the probabilities are up to you.

Oh, OK. So this is a debate about the merits of capital punishment in psychic fairyland.


Dropping the extraneous bollocks, and assuming this case takes place in the real feckin' world, then if I had a choice between LWOP and CP I would choose LWOP. If a guilty verdict had to carry the death penalty, I would still find them guilty.

In the wider picture, I would not want to keep the death penalty for cases as (seemingly) cut and dried as this, because there is no way to reserve the death penalty for cases where the defendent is really really 100% definitely totally guilty and we're absolutely sure there were no mistakes and we certainly won't find out ten years down the line that everyone involved lied and cheated scouts honour no returns. Can't work like that.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[davjohns 1]

Quote

To modify the perils a bit:

Execution perils: The convicted could subsequently be exonerated by other evidence. Mandatory appeals are costly. There is a moral implication for society. There is a potential burden on the person who has to throw the switch. They could escape while on death row. They could be pardoned and commit more atrocities. They might commit crimes on death row. Their sentence could be commuted.

LWOP perils: They can commit crimes while in prison. They can escape. They can be pardoned, paroled, sentence commuted, etc. and commit more attrocities. There is a cost to keeping them contained.

I have no objection. I specificall said you could add perils I missed and assign probabilities as you deem correct.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

The caveat is rather nonsensical. At the time you make the decision you've no way to know that your family will be the victim in case of an escape, unless the criminals threaten you they'll rape and murder your family if you don't sentence them to die. Other than that it's a variant of sorts on the "Imagine it's your family..." which is a great way to develop some seriously flawed ethics.

Not at all. I just preempted the morally repugnant idea that the consequences are most likely to fall on someone else. Since you are society in this case, you make the decision and you suffer the consequences. You also get to assign the probability of those consequences coming to pass.

The 'imagine it's your family' argument is used for events that have already happened. It is therefore a certainty. I have given you a case where you determine how certain the consequences are.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Caveat: IF you determine that there is a chance of escape, parole or other release AND there is a chance they will commit other crimes...YOU must be the victim. You are not allowed to make the moral decision to execute or not and project the potential consequences on someone else. That is morally reprehensible and invalidates your opinion entirely. If you believe there is ANY chance they could get away and commit similar acts, it must be YOUR daughter raped while they photograph it, your head bashed with a baseball bat, your wife raped and strangled, your daughters set on fire and you will escape to live with the memories. Again, the probability is left to you.

Conversely, if you decide that execution is the proper solution, YOU must throw the switch, inject, etc. You are similary barred from placing the moral implications of your decision on someone else. If the convicts are later exonerated, you must live with that as well. If someone is to be sued or prosecuted for the wrongful execution, you are on the line. Again, the probabilities are up to you.

Oh, OK. So this is a debate about the merits of capital punishment in psychic fairyland.


Dropping the extraneous bollocks, and assuming this case takes place in the real feckin' world, then if I had a choice between LWOP and CP I would choose LWOP. If a guilty verdict had to carry the death penalty, I would still find them guilty.

In the wider picture, I would not want to keep the death penalty for cases as (seemingly) cut and dried as this, because there is no way to reserve the death penalty for cases where the defendent is really really 100% definitely totally guilty and we're absolutely sure there were no mistakes and we certainly won't find out ten years down the line that everyone involved lied and cheated scouts honour no returns. Can't work like that.

You ignored the rules. You came to a conclusion and then bent the facts to fit your conclusion. The subject case is the only case. You don't get to say there is no way to change the law to make it apply to all cases, therefore I reject this case. This is what you did. IF you accept that in this case and this case only, there is a valid argument for capital punishment, then and only then, we can move on to what pre-requisites would be necessary to insure the legitimacy of the death penalty and prevent misuse. You have jumped to a conclusion that you can never be sure enough. If you are sure enough in this case without a theory that involves government conspiracy, space aliens, hallucinogens and Area 54, then we have to accept that there are rare cases. If you do not accept that this case is clear enough...what the hell more do you want? There are pictures on the guy's cell phone, video tapes at the convenience store, confessions, counter-accusations, eye witness testimony, DNA, text messages and a friggin diary!

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[killler 2]

What I can't seem to figure out is.... All the people that are so anti-death penalty, Are willing to shoot and kill the guy during/right after the crime... If killing a person after being found guilty of the same crime is so wrong... Then how can it be ok to kill the guy at all.... How can it be????

I think life, ALL life has the same rights.... From a person down to a bed bug.... People have come up with a code of conduct to live by... So people play the game with the same rule book... Some people are so evil and the crime so brutal that they don't go to jail and lose a turn... Their piece is removed from the board and they are done... This case that David has used is a clear cut case of people needing their removal from the game....

killler....

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

You came to a conclusion and then bent the facts to fit your conclusion.

What facts?

Quote

The subject case is the only case.

In fairyland, yes. In the real world, where it matters, no.

Quote

You have jumped to a conclusion that you can never be sure enough.

No I didn't.

Quote

If you are sure enough in this case without a theory that involves government conspiracy, space aliens, hallucinogens and Area 54, then we have to accept that there are rare cases. If you do not accept that this case is clear enough...what the hell more do you want? There are pictures on the guy's cell phone, video tapes at the convenience store, confessions, counter-accusations, eye witness testimony, DNA, text messages and a friggin diary!

You've missed the point. Read the post again, but less angry.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[piisfish 140]

being in a country where death penalty is not a solution, I do still think that these people shouldn't be able to be prosecuted.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

The context is the current legal system. You do not get to argue that anything should be changed. Capital punishment is an option. LWOP is an option. Both carry the attendant perils that they have in reality.

Execution perils: The convicted could subsequently be exonerated by other evidence. Mandatory appeals are costly. There is a moral implication for society. There is a potential burden on the person who has to throw the switch. Etc.

LWOP perils: They can commit crimes while in prison. They can escape. They can be pardoned, paroled, sentence commuted, etc. and commit more attrocities. There is a cost to keeping them contained. Etc.

YOU get to decide what the relative chances are that the perils of the sentence will come to pass.

The jury has found the evidence credible and convincing. The accused are convicted of all the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. What is your sentence?

I don't get all the extraneous talk.

Execution: Immediately upon exiting the court room.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

You came to a conclusion and then bent the facts to fit your conclusion.

What facts?

Quote

The subject case is the only case.

In fairyland, yes. In the real world, where it matters, no.

Quote

You have jumped to a conclusion that you can never be sure enough.

No I didn't.

Quote

If you are sure enough in this case without a theory that involves government conspiracy, space aliens, hallucinogens and Area 54, then we have to accept that there are rare cases. If you do not accept that this case is clear enough...what the hell more do you want? There are pictures on the guy's cell phone, video tapes at the convenience store, confessions, counter-accusations, eye witness testimony, DNA, text messages and a friggin diary!

You've missed the point. Read the post again, but less angry.

I'm not angry at all. You made clear that you are against the death penalty because you can never be sure enough of the facts. I asked about this specific case. Are you sure enough of this case? I used humor to describe how these facts are about as solid as you can get. Sorry you interpreted that as anger.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.