h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I presume that this entry is intended to support for the case for capital punishment; it is hardly the miscarraige of justice that the conviction and death of an innocent man would represent.

[The UK hanged an innocent person on the basis of a tenuous legal argument fifty years ago...]

I'd hardly call either characters innocent. When they armed themselves with a gun, knife and knucklebuster, they communicated their intent to threaten bodily harm on someone, anyone, should the need arise. Any armed commission of a crime that results in the death of an innocent is murder, whether that be the main intent of the crime or not, in my book.

One can be pro or anti the death penalty, but making a case against it would necessitate a clearer case of innocence than that presented here. Innocent would have had to mean that the accused was not one of those perpetrating the crime. Simply not being the one with the gun is not sufficient for me to call either innocent.

I would have argued that the death of the officer was equally shared by both, and both should have suffered the same legal fate. This would mean that the true miscarraige was letting the other perpetrator off with less than the same death penalty, at the time.

Frankly, without the recovery of the bullet, I wonder why the subject of a .32 calibre round is even discussed. And, even if the bullet did not come from either of the young criminals, it was their action that precipitated the exchange and thus is still their joint responsibility.

I'm sure that there have been mistakes that resulted in the death of wrongly convicted persons. I'm certain that the various justice systems have not always been perfect. I'm thankful that forensics have improved to minimize the possibility in most capital cases.

Still, I support each society's right to enact a death penalty for the crimes they feel are the most heinous, when the evidence is strong enough to prove the case to meet the burden of proof proscribed. I equally support each society's right to eliminate the death penalty if they feel it serves no purpose, or the danger of wrongful convictions is too heavy for the public to bear.

For each case that supports one argument, there are many which can equally tear at the heartstrings to support the opposite. It's time to drop the emotional, ancecdotal arguments and concentrate on society's right to protect itself from those who would prey upon it in the manner they feel is most fitting and proper. This should always be by the voice of the people, directly; not just the voice of their representatives. After that, the rule of law should prevail.

IMHO,

You talk utter crap. Have you *read* the entry? Derek Bentley and Chris Craig went to rob a warehouse. Chris Craig ended up shooting a policeman why Derek stood meekly by, and the latter probably never even said 'let him have it!' Derek was under arrest anyway: he went quietly. If, 'in your book', carrying a knuckleduster is enough to warrant somebody being hanged, then if your sort ever got into power I'd *beg* to be the first against the wall. Get it over and done with quickly, instead of a lingering torment.

Oh, and while we're at it, your fatuous comment about forensics eliminating doubt in capital cases needs to be dismissed as well. Ever heard of the Greiss test? No? Well look it up, and while you're doing that, look up Dr. Frank Skuse as well.

I never thought I'd find a literate, well-adjusted citizen of the 21st Century supporting the death penalty Fords...

There have been many miscarriages of this nature, although a better "poster boy" for abolition than Bentley, might be Timothy Evans, hanged in 1950 for murders committed by Reginald Christie

I don't suppose we can keep this civil?

I mean, I know people get hot under the collar on these topics, but this is H2G2.

How does murdering a mentally retarded 19 year old who never harmed anyone protect society? Moreover, how does *prescribing* such a brutal kind of justice merit a civil response?

The idea of "society's right to protect itself" would be relevant here if capital punishment could be shown to have any deterrent effect. Quite the opposite: it has been shown to have none whatever.

Capital punishment is, at best, revenge. This is a deep-rooted human instinct but not a helpful one in modern society. And for modern read post-stone-age.

The purpose of the "cities of refuge" in the Old Testament was to protect unitentional or accidental killers from the relations of their victims, who would have pursued them seeking revenge.

See Numbers 35:11 and Deuteronomy 19:2-7 (written at least 2,500 years ago). Even by then it was seen that revenge can escalate a harm already done.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12712a.htm

al and unintentional being key words there.

Just for the sake of arguement, allow me to point out that someone on row usually stays there for many many years before , with the ability to appeal and re-appeal.
Life sentence, once handed down, is not appeal-able.

Therefore, someone wrongfully sentenced to has more of an opportunity to dispute the ruling and prove their innocence than someone sentenced to life in prision.

At least, that's how it works in the USA.

Over here, a life sentence is a life sentence, but you don't necessarily (in fact incredibly rarely) spend all of it in jail, although once released you are always subject to recall if you commit further crimes.

As the cases of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six illustrate, the appeal process can be resuscitated whenever new evidence comes to light or if it can be demonstrated that the original verdict was at fault. Still too little and too late for some of them, but at least the judicial system does not necessarily forget people once the prison door closes.

Hi folks:

Thank you all for chiming in. I felt that this entry was meant to inspire debate and had no doubt that it would. With that fruitful concept in mind, let me take this in order.

FM, my friend;

Yes, I read the entry. Did you read my response? As you pointed out, they went with the intent of committing a crime. That places the moral imperative right in their pockets. They could have both surrendered with little consequence. Anything that happened as a result of their flagrant violation of the law must be held against them. Who would you blame, the policeman? I already wrote that the partner should be EQUALLY liable for the actions.

Misquoting me will not strengthen your argument. I never said anything about forensics 'eliminating doubt'; I merely said that it is improving ["I'm thankful that forensics have improved to MINIMIZE the posibility in MOST capital cases."] And in THIS case, there was NO DOUBT who the guilty two men were.

AND, frankly, I never said that I was pro death penalty, only on the side of a society's right to either enact a death penalty or abolish one. I'm afraid that you have volunteered to be 'first against the wall' on false premises.

Psycorp:
Thanks for the vote of confidence. My intent was to approach the subject rationally, and with respect for differences of opinion. That's why I (were it in my power) would insist that this kind of decision be driven by the society's view of their need for protection. I've heard it said that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be put to death. That may be true, but it's better that one innocent man suffer a miscarraige of justice than one million guilty go free. The trick is for each society to come up with the right number between 10 and one million.

AB:
Thanks. That is precisely what I meant to communicate, and much more concise. The entry described the case well enough, but fails to make a pertinent argument for aboloshing a death penalty.

Howl:
I couldn't agree more. Leaving the emotions out of it is precisely what I have suggested. This must be reasoned (and reasonable) or it will prove to be indefensible. There may be good reasons for a death penalty and good reasons against one. Society must find the balance, but not through anecdotes. That would be like removing all guns from the police because some innocent got killed when the intent is to make it possible for the police to counter armed criminals. How effective would unarmed police be against an armed criminal who has no respect for law, order, or the authority inherent in the badge?

FM, again:
When society exacts what it determines to be justice, it is not murder. There is nothing premeditated or personal involved (or, at least, there should not be).
(By the way, the word I used was from the root 'proscribe'; look it up.)
I am not saying that it is automatically 'right' to sentence any individual to a death penalty. You may feel that it was an injustice. I may feel it was an injustice. Certainly the laws can be written with this type of situation in mind. For that, we take our case to the lawmakers.

My point was not that the 'death penalty' is the answer for EVERY society, nor that it should it be abolished from ALL societies. My personal preference, I chose to leave out of this conversation.

Recumbentman:
I respect your beliefe that capital punishment has little, if any, deterrent effect on a society; but, even you must admit that a heinous child raping murderer will never commit the crime again if a state authorized, and society mandated, sentence has been carried out. I would not expect a death penalty to stop crime, only the sentenced criminal. Revenge, I agree, should have nothing to do with it. Still, I have to wonder if it isn't even less humane to cage a human for the last 60-70 years of their life, instead of simply taking theirs in 'retribution' (not revenge).

There are plenty of victims (and, family of victims) of crime and violence who would like nothing more than to see the pain, humiliation, and loss they suffered visited upon the perpetrators (if they are lucky enough to have seen them caught and convicted). Others want the perpetrators forgiven.

My opinion is that, once the crime has been reported and solved, SOCIETY's laws should prevail. It would be selfish for a victim to feel that they are the only ones with a vested interest in the outcome. The likely future victims must also be considered.

Frankly, there's a lot in the Old Testament that disagrees with both itself and the New Testament. What worked 2000+ years ago may not be relevant today. And, we are not currently discussing 'accidental' killers. This is not a case of 'accidentally' killing someone while driving.

Now, the subject of family revenge, versus society's justices, is another whole topic for conversation. I don't support the vigilanty concept (though I cannot swear that I would not be tempted if the my own dear family were grievously harmed).

Howl, again:
Thanks for the viewpoint. Many condemned criminals are never actually so punished. That may also be a form of miscarraige of justice, depending on one's views.

AD:
Thank you, as well, for demonstrating how diffent societies struggle with the question of a death penalty.

FordsTowel:
My concern is the absolute support or condemnation of a death penalty. Whether or not a society chooses to impose one, I feel that their moral right to do so is linked to the burden of proof they use when convicting and sentencing.

Thanks to all. You have my admiration for standing up for your beliefs.

In the US, guilt must be found 'beyond reasonable doubt', not 'with absence of doubt'. The latter is the only circumstance that I could see where the death penalty fits the crime. At least someone in prison can be released if it is later shown that they are not guilty. Losing time from your life is bad enough, granting life to the dead is not possible.

The legal system is well aware that the innocent have been convicted of crimes and spend time in jail. It is logical then, barring perfection, that innocent people have been exicuted. Even with all of today's sophisticated methods, do we believe that we are unable to be tricked with false evidence? Given the possibility that some of the condemned will be killed despite their innocence, is the court not knowingly acting in a manner that resembles manslaughter?

Killing a person as a punishment is clearly an antiquated concept. Historically, hangings were performed for an audience who presumably would avoid the crime after seeing the punishment. In our more 'civilized' society the exicution is not a public event. The killing of the 'guilty' seems to be less a method of deterrent and more a direct punishment for a crime.

Why would a person on death row be prevented from suicide. Does this mean the condemned are looking foward to the result of their punishment? A person sentenced to life in jail is not allowed to end their life!

So which is the worse punishment?

I do not understand why a better use for these lives is not found. They would be great at sweeping those areas that have land mines. They would be an intimidating addition to the armed forces; a will to destroy and no value for their own life, they sound like a reasonable counter to the so-called 'terrorists'. How about the most realistic crash test dummy ever?

This kind of thought scares people. The almost humane act of exicution is like getting out of jail early for a lifer.


Addressing directly the comment by Fords(don't forget to bring a)Towel: You suggest that both of the armed robbers are equally guilty in the resulting death. I disagree that they are 'equally' guilty, any more than two people in a speeding car are.

The two acted together only in the commission of the armed robbery, after being discovered their actions became independent and took two very different courses. The killing was not planned, and was the result of Craig's decision making process while away from Bentley.

Hiya, NGC:

If 'absence of doubt' were the standard, I seriously doubt that anyone could be executed.

As long as a lawyer can contend that some alien-cloned automaton MAY HAVE commited a crime, I imagine that noone would be given the death penalty. That is why the term 'reasonable doubt' was created.

I believe it was meant to cover situations where the eye-witness and the evidence agree to a point where there are can be no other suspects that could be considered; that motive, ability, and opportunity have been proven; and that no supportable alibi has been offered. If courts aren't holding the 'reasonable doubt' standard to strict enough controls, that would be reason to try and change the system.

Perfection is a laudible goal, but we don't have perfection in anything. It's not inherent in the design of automobiles, pharmacological products, appliances, or any of the many things than can harm us on a daily basis. Why would we insist on it in our legal system? Perfection would require some god-person to 'know' and exact justice. Nice, but I'll not hold my breath.

You may have a point about visibility. Perhaps if executions were public events, televised and recorded, they might either act as a deterrent after all or cause such revulsion in the populace as to get the practice abolished.

You have also some creative uses in mind for those who have accepted their guilt and their culpability. Those who oppose the death penalty, outright, seem to want to deny death even to those convicted who embrace it.

I respect your disagreeing with my contention on equality of guilt. If I said guilt, that may have been the wrong word to choose. I feel that they are equally culpable, for they chose to act in concert with one another whether the various outcomes had been discussed or not.

In the case of a speeding car, if the passenger had no reason to expect the driver to speed, of course the passenger is not to blame. Shall we say the same for a passenger that eggs on the driver to see 'what the car can do'? Sometimes, pressure causes bad results. The person who pays for a murder is just as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger. Each made, and acted upon, their choice.

Your choice of terms in the last paragraph says it all. They 'acted TOGETHER only in the ARMED robbery'. Anyone who participates in an ARMED robbery must accept the consequences of the outcome from robbing while armed. If he had no idea that his partner was armed, I might have felt differently. Planning is entirely beside the point, and part of the scope of the law. The intent is to make it clear that, if you participate, you are culpable; and had better be prepared to suffer as an equal participant.

What if no one knew which character had the gun? If forensics could not prove who fired it? We already know that the bullet was not recovered. It was the joint action to commit an ARMED robbery that resulted in the death. They joint instigators are to blame. Splitting it up sends the wrong message to other would-be crime teams. Let the other guy do the shooting and I'll still get away; or, if caught, I won'te be punished as severely. Is that the right message to send?

All my best, in hopes of rational discourse,

FT: I am *not* your friend, so don't patronise me. Derek Bentley was *not* guilty. Even if we was, the whole conduct of the investigation and trial would cast a big shadow over the verdict.

You smack of somebody trying to have it both ways in this discussion: you seem to intimate that murdering people in the name of justice (because that is what an execution is: legalised murder) would have been quite acceptable in this case yet you can't bring yourself to actually publically support it, presumably for fear of opprobrium. Well, I have a good phrase for somebody who pretends to engage with contentious and emotive discussions without actually doing so: 'time-waster'. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.

Fords: You present a number of interesting arguments, and i dare say I couldn't have presented them better if i agreed with 'em.

(no hard feelings about 'don't forget to bring a towel', right? {For any who don't get it, the reference is from South Park's character 'Towlie', who appears whenever water activities are mentioned with the towel reminder. He then promptly asks "Wanna get high?". The boys always decline.} Do you take offence to being called 'Towlie'?)

The concept of 'reasonable doubt' was created to help offset the 'burden of proof' that must be established by the prosecution in order to convict. By (US) law a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, but once indicted is not found 'innocent', only 'not guilty'.

When a case involving a person who has been found guilty and put in jail is found to have reached the wrong verdict, the person can be set free. This is not an option when a person is put to death. In such a case should the Judge and Jury be condemned to the punishment of manslaughter?

It is true that everyday things can cause death like driving, but these risks tend to be accepted by the participant. This does not stop us from insisting on standards that eliminate the most dangerous elements. In the same way an innocent person in jail may die unexpectedly, but an innocent person who is put to death by a system that knows it's own imperfection should have a pretty hefty lawsuit on their hands, cold and dead as they may be.

When it comes to weather guilt can or should be shared, and to what degree cooperation is a factor is a complex topic. When one person commits armed robbery and noone is killed they are charged with armed robbery. If during the course of the crime a person is killed accidently some level of manslaughter or murder will be charged because that criminal's actions resulted in a death.

If in the case of having two perpetrators of the initial crime, at what point do their actions once again become independent? If two guys steal a car and one goes home while the other takes it to commit an unplanned drive-by killing, are they both guilty of murder?

I think the Bentley case shows that Bentley had no intention of using a weapon, and was not a part of the gunfight that took the Officers life. His ties to the robbing endevour with Craig were cut when Bentley surrendered, thus his part of the armed robbery did not result in the killing. Just like Bentley's surrender didn't mean that Craig was no longer resisting arrest.

Only the driver gets the ticket for speeding even if the passenger was egging them on. It is the responsibility of the driver to operate within the law. Even if the passenger is fully aware of the driver's violation of law, they are not held responsible. (i'm not a lawyer, that be wrong)

>If 'absence of doubt' were the standard, I seriously doubt that anyone could be executed.<

Do you KNOW, or just seriously doubt. 'Cuz I seriously know that anyone could be executed.

If you want to send a message and stop crime how about this; randomly apply the death penalty for any illegal act. Imagine a guy is caught speeding and when he shows up to pay a fine he's tossed in the gas chamber! You'd be real careful about speeding. Jaywalking would take on a whole new signifigence, and you wouldn't worry about the military guys on every corner; they're just keeping the peace...

Is killing one innocent person a fair price to be able to kill nine baby raping nun killers? Would you offer to die to kill the same nine? Does this remind you of anything?

No offense meant, Felonious Monk: Agitate for diagrams F66763?thread=1197462

I operate on the assumption that we're all friends here, even if we disagree on something. I'll note that you don't feel the same way, and earnestly try to avoid applying that assumption to you.

Frankly, I'm don't care if either was guilty or not, put on trial or not, sentenced or not, or even executed or not. I consider them trivial, and not germaine to my assertion that this is not a very good case to use if one wishes to argue against a death penalty.

Now, if your English is better than you have given us reason to believe, let me try to explain one last time that I'm not trying to have it either way or both ways. I contend that societies have a right to choose their legal system, its punishment system, its rehabilitation system, penal system, etc. It certainly sounds like YOU want a voice in yours, and that is precisely what I am defending.

You have defined execution as 'leaglised murder' and I simply don't agree. We must be using different dictionaries. I don't grant you the right to redefine the word for this discussion; but, hey, do as you please for yourself. Regardless, your assertion that your definition is valid does not make it so.

Briefly, on the 'contentious and emotive discussion' bit; I have been asking that emotions be left out of it. If you want emotions, start another thread, related to the entry, and I'll be glad to ignore it.

I deplore that society has a need to protect itself in this way, but I'm not opposed to it if the safeguards are robust. I'm not sure I can make my position any clearer.

Hiya neongreencat:

Absolutely, no hard feelings on the towel things (though I confess that I know nothing about South Park or its characters, except for a vague memory about Kenny getting killed a lot).

I'm sure that some societies differ from the U.S. 'reasonable doubt', but it sounds like you missed a very important bit. Just for the sake of accuracy, allow me to correct it and you can tell me if you agree.

[By (US) law a defendant is innocent until proven guilty,]
Should this not read: By (US) law a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty?

This simply means that innocence need not be established, and that it is societies burden, as represented by the legal system, to prove guilt to a given standard. You'll recall that civil and criminal law in the U.S. have different standards for proof.

Yes, the U.S. courts have no power to find one innocent. Another presumption is that, just because the legal system has failed to prove its case, being aquitted does not equate to 'innocence'.

[When a case involving a person who has been found guilty and put in jail is found to have reached the wrong verdict, the person can be set free. This is not an option when a person is put to death.]
Absolutely true. Death is a final solution that cannot be reversed.

[In such a case should the Judge and Jury be condemned to the punishment of manslaughter?]
I'd suggest, no; the reason being that they have been authorized by society to perform these functions. There would be no personal intent involved except to arrive at the truth (and, we all know how elusive that can be). They are merely acting as agents or automatons to carry out the program in society's name. This is one reason that I'm so keen on seeing that DNA evidence can set the innocent free and prevent the innocent for going to prison.

I do agree that society bears a terrile burden when it exercises the death penalty. Anytime something comes to light that proves that a legally delivered verdict was wrong, resulting in wrongful imprisonment or death, should be met with a lawsuit; and a hefty enough one to make the system (if it continues to exist) all the more robust.

On the part of your discussion on shared guilt, I thought that the U.S. calls all deaths a felony when they occur during another felony crime, and especially if the deaht is the result of gunfire? The intent, if I understand the law correctly, is to make criminals think carefully about carrying or using firearms when they commit a crime.

How would you rule if a van of criminals approach a warehouse gate, one criminal shoots the guard dead according to their plan, and then they rob the place? Certainly, the guard is no less dead than in an accidental shooting. How do you explain the difference to the guard's family.

In the case of the stolen car/drive-by shooting, it seems to me that these are two separate crimes, at two separate times, in two separate locations. I'm not sure that anyone could make a convincing argument for connecting the two.

[His ties to the robbing endevour with Craig were cut when Bentley surrendered]
I've been avoiding addressing the case in question. If I had to, I'd say that your logic sounds faulty. No offense meant. I'm not attacking your intelligence or your ethics, just the logic.

If Bentley were shot dead, instead of surrendered, the ties would not be cut in the eyes of the court. Why should they be cut simply because one criminal surrenders before the other? If a gang of twelve men injured your mother, over different areas of her body and resulting in her death, and none of the injuries were severe enough to cause death by itself, would you let them all off of the murder charge? I think I would want them all held guilty, even if six of them surrendered before she died.

True, the traffic officer can only issue tickets to the speeding driver. That is a limitation imposed by the law, and is based on the assumption that the driver is the one with the final choice and the control to limit the speed of the vehicle. But, does that relieve the other of personal guilt, even if no legal guilt is attached?

What if the driver had a gun to his head? What if his pregnant wife was the passenger and bleeding on the way to the hospital? What if the engine accelerated and the cruise control locked? These are all things that the court might use in deciding the ultimate guilt or innocence. The ticket is merely the indictment, attesting to the fact that the law was observed to have been broken.

I'll never know what Bently's or Craig's intent was. It's hard to participate in a gunfight when you have no gun. We have no reason to believe that he would not have fired along with his friend, anymore than we can assume that he would have.

BTW: you must realize that both men resisted arrest. You cannot define a gunfight any other way. They were both resisting arrest; they just did not quit at the same time. Perhaps the shooter was just afraid that the officers would be gunning for him, and surrendered to save his skin. He obviously did not have his friend in mind when he shot the officer.

[Do you KNOW, or just seriously doubt. 'Cuz I seriously know that anyone could be executed.]
I'm not certain what you mean here. I feel that good defense lawyers would always be able to establish that there is some element of doubt, however infinitesimal. Total Absence Of Doubt, is a horribly high standard for proof to reach. How many serial killers do we want roaming the streets? It's bad enough that technicalities can destroy an otherwise solid case. (I do feel that the legal system must be rigorously held to the highest standards of behavior; so I expect that technicalities will continue to allow the guilty to go free.)

Facetious as the offer seems, I'll vote against the 'randome death penalty' concept. You might as well just apply it randomly to the whole population. Most all of us are guilty of some legal transgression, even if it is out of ignorance or accident. Gee, Random Death Penalty is what the criminals do, isn't it? That would make us all criminals. Equality at last, eh?

As I suggested, the ten guilty going free, in exchange for saving one innocent (10:1) from being punished is a fine concept. Where would you stop? 5:1, 10:1, 50:1, 1,000:1, higher? We could just let them all go free.

If you were asked to let 50,000 baby-raping nun-killers free, because one of them was innocent but you know not which one, would you? Personally, if I was one of the 50,000, I'd say 'Take us all out; better I go down with them, than they run free!'

Again, I'm not trying to make the decisions or rule the world. I'm just defending society's right to make these decisions based on the feeling of the whole. It's called democracy, I think.

All opinions are valid from the opiner's point of view. I'll accept yours for what it is, and defend your right to hold it. I'm hoping that you, and those who agree with you, are working assiduously to eliminate the death penalty where you are. But, I'll also hope that those who feel the other way will be just as ardent in their support of the death penalty. It's the only way for society to make such an important and far-reaching decision.



Hi there Delicia! Thanks for dropping by!

Hi FT, I really have nothing to add to what you said here to the legal and philosophic side of the subject matter.
I'm a bit surprised that this entry was left to pass in this form, presenting only one side of the argument in what I sounds to me a tone of smug self righteousness. Same applies to the attempts to shut down every debate about this. The discussion IS open, by no means closed in the manner the flat earth debate is. A paradigm change has not taken place here, not for everybody.
I confess it's difficult for me to keep emotions out of it. I always think of the other side, the murder victims, the officers shot on duty. The dead are so terribly silent, they don't have no vociferous lobby.
But we don't want emotions in this thread, otherwise I'd have asked what's wrong with vengeance?

FordsTowel- Hi

Again you make many good points, and I stand corrected that by US law a defendant is *presumed innocent, though they may not *be innocent. It was not my meaning to suggest they were necessarily innocent, unless proven guilty. Good point.

I agree with your assertion that 'this is not a very good case to use if one wishes to argue against a death penalty'. This case has such a variety of issues involved that using any single factor kinda' gets lost in the sauce.

I don't exactly disagree with capital punishment for those guilty of terrible crimes as a deterrent for future criminals, but some of them will be innocent. I do not suggest that the judgement of guilt should not be punished, to spare the innocent. I would just point out that death is not the only severe punishment available, but it is the most drastic and irreversible.

neon

I'd like to again thank those who are willing to discuss (debate?) rationally on this serious social matter.

Thank you Delicia. You brought up a point that I was reluctant to mention, that this hardly seems like the kind of entry that has survived a properly rigorous peer review and editing standards filtering.

I feel the same as you, it appears, that far too much attention is paid to the plight of the obviously involved and not enough to the silenced witnesses. I suppose that some guilty parties are also victims, but our laws don't allow you to take out your hurt and pain on others.

I suppose that this is also the argument against vengence. People can be emotional, the legal system cannot afford the luxury. The legal system must be calm, cool, rational, and consistent, and treat all crimes with the appropriate controls and safeguards. Lynch mobs are prime examples of emotions run wild, exacting punishment where only the suspicion of guilt is present.

What's wrong with vengence? I'm not sure that I can say anything is 'wrong' with vengence. Vengence for vengence's sake is very selfish. It only serves to satisfy the revenger's immediate need to feel less ineffectual. There are psychological costs. And, if you revenge someone's death, and their family wants to revenge against you, and your family re-revenges, etc. it can create a vicious, non-productive cycle. By assigning the role to society's constructs, the vengence becomes justice and the cycle can be broken.

I suspect, though, that even if the court system were 'perfected', and guilt could always be established in an undeniably accurate fashion, there would still be people morally opposed to the death penalty. There voices must be heard, too. Everyone in a society should have an equal say on matters of how they interact and solve these issues. The remaining problem will always be that not everyone can have their way.

It has been suggested, by Sci-Fi writers, that moving out to the stars could afford factions of societies to set up their own system preferences on other worlds. Knowing something of human nature, I suspect that this would not solve anything once four or five generations have passed.

Hi, again, neongreencat:
Nice to see you're still with us. I thought that the omission of 'presumed' was merely an oversight. No harm done; I just wanted to clarify that in the thread.

Thanks for the second paragraph. That kinda says it all, eh?

Your third paragraph, too, is spot on. I would not advocate the death penalty be automatic, even for a specific subset of criminal activity. It should, in my mind, only be exercised when the evidence and logic are so overwhelmingly in line, and no reasonable counter-argument holds up to examination, that guilt is undeniably proven.

The next question would be, how swift must justice be to consider itself fair and effective? Should interminable appeals be allowed, touching only on the technicalities of case and the mechanics of the court system? Should politicians be able to step in and postpone the sentence? Is it worse to hold a prisoner in a limbo state, or to exact punishment swiftly?

Someone put it "justice postponed is justice denied". So, if there is a legal death penalty, how long should the system allow it to be postponed? I'm making no judgements right now, but I'd vote my conscience if afforded the opportunity.

We've avoided most of the Bible stuff, like 'an eye for an eye'. Likewise we need not discuss letting 'god sort it out', as we are of many different faiths and belief systems here.

If I had wanted to discourse on the crime at hand, I'd have wanted to know a whole lot more first. There is an automatic sympathy evoked when one uses the word 'retarded', but no mention was made to the actual psychological diagnosis. If this was merely a learning disability or attention disorder, I would not consider it enough to create mitigating circumstances. If he had become psycopathic or sociopathic, the system failed him far earlier than his brush with the law. If it took away his ability to separate right and wrong, I would have considered him innocent, for the law requires intent.

I want to thank you all, yet again. I suspect that we've said about all that can be said on both sides of the death penalty issue, although that was not my original intent.

I've taken up so much more than my fair share of space here (only because as the thread initiator, I felt duty bound to continue responding). I think I'll do something else for awhile. Anyone who feels compelled to continue here, is welcome. If someone wants to discuss things further with me, you can contact me at my PS. G'day all.