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

Recumbentman (I've always loved your cycle, still riding?)
True, not convincing, but it is logical. If you're intent on murder, speeding tickets are hardly your biggest concern. If you're intent on robbing, at any cost (thus the weapons), carrying an illegal weapon is only a concern if you get caught, right? And, even then, it's probably not the worst charge that will be levelled against you.

I actually favor rehabilitation when it seems plausible, especially in non-violent cases. In the most horrific cases, I feel it is not worth the risk to society. There's too much chance of working the system or escaping outright. There's a lot of grey in between that could be thrashed out, but here is probably not the place.

MH:
The bit about the 'alls' was just my musing. A bit off topic, even if it is germaine to the discussion, regarding my 'feelings' about the state of things from a victim's viewpoint (even criminals can be victims of other criminals).

Execute Mr. Martin? No, but I'd not give him an award either. He did not premeditate to kill anyone. I believe he'd have been content to sit in his darkened house one more night without having to aim his shotgun at anyone. His charge would be unjustifiable manslaughter which I would not consider a death penalty offense.

Criminals DO have protection under the law, at least until proven guilty. That is what the system is supposed to provide, and bends over backwards, at times, to ensure. We let many accused free, even if they've shown their propensity for criminal behavior, just because some guaranteed right was ignored or abused.

Do I like them being set free? No, but we need that in our system to enforce compliance on those protections.

I agree that it seems to favor the accused and, in many cases, the guilty.

Personally (and this probably goes for all of us), I have opinions on what crimes might merit the death penalty.
Some of my basic choices would be:
Premeditated Murder as opposed to crimes of passion (or crimes of the moment like Mr. Martin's)
Killing someone in the commission of a felony crime (accidentally or otherwise)
Any rape that includes great bodily harm
Any act of terrorism intending mutliple deaths such as an armed massacre at a restaurant or school, with weapons, explosives, gas, etc.
Kidnap/Torture involving live burial, burning, electric shock, drilling, beatings, biting, cutting, breaking of bones, or horrific surgeries that mame or disfigure.
And, anything even worse.

If the evidence is strong enough that the crime has been planned and resources collect to commit it, I wouldn't even insist that the incident ever had a chance to occur. I'd rather those most heinous of criminals be stopped before the actually did something that would warrant the death penalty with the assumption that the impending act was due to take place.

Some guy who creates a torture chambre, prepares his artifacts, stalks his prey, and documents his intentions, is just as guilty imho, and we should feel secure in not having to lose a life to capture and deal with him as if he had lived his intentions.

How about you?

I was going to say, since the death penalty doesn't actually prevent the crime, then in practice all you are doing is preventing someone from reoffending, and assuming that they would reoffend. Given that you assume they would reoffend, then do you execute people who are "likely to offend"?

But you pre-empted even that, by saying you would.

So now, essentially, you're killing people who haven't committed a crime.

There are so many problems with this I hardly know where to begin. But just imagine, with a little creativity, under your law, I could actually get you killed by the government. I can literally get away with murder.

I'll come back to this tomorrow afternoon.

It's an interesting observation but I can't quite grasp on what it is founded - perhaps the emotion is in the eye of the reader?

MH, haloo:

I realise that it sounded extreme, and perhaps I could have put it more clearly. In the case of a premptive capture, the death penalty is probably not possible, given our culture. I merely said that I would not 'insist' that the crime had been committed, but that doesn't mean I'd feel particularly comfortable with the concept.

Much of our law is based on Judeo-Christian doctrine. In both, the 'intent' is what counts, not the actual commission of the act. Without intent, you do not have premeditation. Without the bodies, you just got lucky.

From a strictly practical viewpoint, the lack of blood and gore should not prevent the carrying out of justice. The criminal's success rate should not be the driving metric.

Rationally, it's counter-intuitive to lessen the sentence of a person just because they were careless enough to get caught. The result is smarter criminals who won't make the same mistakes next time, resulting in more efficient and grandiose crimes.

The burden of proof, if such a thing were proposed would probably have to be much higher than if the aftermath had produced evidence; but, frankly, any government intent on falsifying charges would have no moral reason to refrain from fabricating evidence as well.

No, 'essentially', I would not kill people who haven't committed a crime. That is a misinterpretation. The suggestion was that planning a crime is a crime unto itself. It's just a matter of how severly you punish it. Call it conspiracy to commit greivous harm or murder.

If the plan is sufficiently far along that the only bit left is its actually commission, and the intent to commit is demonstrable (such as catching them attempting to commit), whether someone actually got killed may be said to be of secondary importance. It's like being unable to charge someone with premeditated murder because the victim survived the attack, albeit spending the rest of their life in a coma at the end of which murder charges can finally be filed (if the death is a result of the criminal injuries).

I've read too many stories about abused wives who get killed by a stalking ex-spouse because the police could do nothing until a crime was documentably committed. Court orders are ignored (a crime) and police protection brief, eventually resulting in the ex's opportunity to complete their demonstrated intent. Even time imprisoned for the stalking and threatening is not enough to sway some of them from their eventual success.

It all basically comes down to how much protection society wants from its worst, most anti-social elements. If we cannot 'cure' them (a horrible thought in the minds of many, to make of someone something different than their 'natural self'), and cannot permanently remove them from society by imprisonment (no prison has ever been that secure; abuse there can run rampant both by the system and other inmates, and it has a tendency to turn even some of the sane insane; not to mention the concerns around the cruelty factor of life-imprisonment), our options quickly evaporate.

I merely suggest that we could be doing more to protect the innocent and law abiding, even if it at the expense of the guilty and those intent on guilt, though only in the most blatantly obvious and provable cases; we still need our protections and balance of course.

If such a thing were ever seriously proposed, I'd want to see lengthy and thorough, reasoned debate on the topic and its potential for both protection and harm; and, of course, an eventually education of, and vote by, the citizenry of the society.

Glad I'm not King, PM, or President, etc.

I find it suddenly strange that this is the only thread inspired by the piece, and that it has come so far from my original observation about the entry's fitness as a test case for the death penalty. Go figure.

Still, it is a stimulating conversation. I just feel a bit 'guilty' over how much space I've taken , just because of my self-imposed responsibility as the thread's initiator.

This is your thread, FT, and if the conversation has legs then there is no need to apologise for that!

I am surprised by your appeal to logic, here: "True, not convincing, but it is logical. If you're intent on murder, speeding tickets are hardly your biggest concern."

I do not agree with the logic that says that if you are taking a risk then you can have nothing against taking another added risk.


MH:

>Isn't this [the idea that transgressors still merit the protection of the law] the measure of a just society?

I agree there.

>Of course there must be a balance, and at the moment, I feel that too much of the balance favours the criminal.

This is the point.

Journalists will unscrupulously highlight cases of perceived leniency to stir up the outrage of readers/viewers; but do the figures stand up?

If courts (or the laws) are perceived to be too lenient, is this an informed perception or an anecdotal one? In general, what we get from news media is anecdotal.

What still bothers me is that the entry has been waved through as it stands now, one-sided and skewed, and to the front page to boot. H2G2 normally being so hot on balance and all.

One-sided and skewed? That's a bit much. The Entry reports on a case which has been officially found, many years later, and with grave implications, to have been a miscarriage of justice.

It is not a small matter when a government or a judiciary admits it has been mistaken. Surely we can then frankly report the mistake that was made, without being accused of imbalance?

Good point made by many with regard to the entry, but like it or leave it, 'tis now such.

Many thanks to FordsTowel, who has contributed to the conversation regardless of it's wandering, (and an attempt to resign), to see it thru.

Good work!

It doesn't really matter which side in the debate one stands on, even if I was dead against the death penalty, I would still find the entry imbalanced.
For instance insinuating that elusive 0.32 bullet existed in fact is characteristic for the pervasive tone of the whole entry, even without the picked footnotes.
That the government now admitted something or other doesn't mean a thing to me, at the moment governments are admitting all sorts of things on pressure from vociferous interest groups.
One could have the case written up just giving the bare bones, and let everybody make what they can of it.

FT: The suggestion was that planning a crime is a crime unto itself.

But is that suggestion fair? I know of a teacher who used planning a bank robbery as a way to develop planning skills. Some students entered into a far more detailed plan than others, should they be arrested?

If I plan a way to evade capture or arrest from the police, should I be arrested if my plan is discovered. Perhaps I have a good reason to plan it? Perhaps I have an irrational fear of the police? Perhaps I believe my local police to be dishonest.

If the plan is sufficiently far along that the commission is all that's left, then the crime has still not been committed. If you are "only" locking up someone that has planned these crimes, then what could you possibly gain from executing someone that has committed the crime?

Again there could be seen to be an imbalance. Someone that has already commited a murder must be executed, not for retribution, but to keep society safe, to prevent him/(her) from re-offending. But we imprison someone else to prevent them from offending.

Stories of abused ex-wives are tragic, but the solution would be to tighten up the laws governing stalking, and repeated stalking.


Let's move away from murder but stick with pre-emptive arrest. If I buy a high performance car, should I be pre-emptively charged with speeding, or conspiracy to speed?

"Glad I'm not King, PM, or President, etc."

Although you're far more eloquent than many who are.

R: Journalists will unscrupulously highlight cases of perceived leniency to stir up the outrage of readers/viewers; but do the figures stand up?

Even if the figures stood up, how accurate would that be? 98% of people prosecuted in Japan for rape are found guilty. Human rights organisations are said to have concerns that innocent people are being found guilty.

However, well over 90% of reported cases are not prosecuted, and the decision to prosecute lies not with the victim, but a government official. Few know about the first figure, far fewer the second. Can anything ever be accurate? I digress.

We agree on something! We need more information about this specific case. If I have the opportunity, I will try to oblige.

Recumbentman, thanks for resting my mind about the number of virtual trees I'm killing!

I understand why you would not agree with my logic about taking additional risks. I suspect that this is because you are a rational being who realises that risks add up, not negate each other.

But, for the criminal, the mindset of balancing risks apparently takes hold. One can murder with a club, rope, or biro, yet many murderers choose to use illegal firearms. Why? I suppose it minimises their perceived risk of being overpowered or thwarted. The additional risk of carrying the illegal weapon seems not to phase them.

Many times a high-speed chase takes place, it is because the person behind the wheel knows that they're being sought for a more serious crime than speeding. The idea of a speeding ticket, to them, is laughable compared to the almost certain incarceration if they are caught at all. The still additional risk of running stops, endangering lives, and indeed their own safety, seems not to enter their minds at all.

Delicia, I agree. No entry should start by ridiculing another opinion (the whole windbag bit at the start of the entry).

Recumbentman: It's not a matter of whether the execution was an injustice. The entry is skewed against the death penalty and even more skewed against anyone that might have thoughts pro death penalties.

neongreencat, Thanks for the kudos, but [like it or leave it, 'tis now such] is not necessarily the last act of our little play. (Gee, that sounded pompous; even to me).
I've suggested to the Powers That Be that they consider looking the entry over with an eye to balance. Removing the ridicule at the beginning would at least be a start.

I have no problem with the entry describing the case as justice or lack of justice, but the tone needs balancing, It is too stridently anti freedom of opinion on the subject of any death penalty, for any reason.

mikerhike:
[is that suggestion fair?]
I believe so. The crime is called conspiracy, which carries its own charges. I would also have the teacher up on charges of contributing to the delinquency of minors (assuming that youthful students were involved). He could certainly come up with something better, even if in the same vein; perhaps a spy mission would hold the interest of the class and generate the same enthusiasm.

[If I plan a way to evade capture or arrest from the police, should I be arrested if my plan is discovered. Perhaps I have a good reason to plan it? Perhaps I have an irrational fear of the police? Perhaps I believe my local police to be dishonest.]
This is not the type of 'planning' to which I was referring, but we can certainly discuss it.

Planning to evade arrest assumes that arrest is forthcoming. You cannot really plan for all contingencies and possible avenues of the capture otherwise.

If you just have as your goal to shy away from the police, it is not related to either crime or a conspiracy to commit one. I presume that 'planning to evade' means on your way to commit a crime, away from the scene of your crime, or just staying free after committing one. If so, evading capture is a crime in many places. Take a hit and run accident; it doesn't matter whose fault it was, all parties are required to make themselves available to inquiry by staying at the scene. Leaving the scene, whether to evade or not, is a crime.

I was obviously not describing running pickpurses or speeding shoplifters. I outlined the heinous crimes that I felt might most naturally fall into that realm. Trying to trivialise the concept by talking of teachers and speeders, is all smoke and mirrors, obfuscation and misdirection.

[If the plan is sufficiently far along that the commission is all that's left, then the crime has still not been committed. If you are "only" locking up someone that has planned these crimes, then what could you possibly gain from executing someone that has committed the crime?]

Again, misdirection (I'm not claiming it is intentional. It's natural for emotions to misdirect us). Gain is not the point. I don't speak of gain, revenge, or even justice. I'm speaking of our right as a society to set certain ground rules for those who live within it. If set by the masses, it automatically can said to conform to 'norms' in the society. Those who insist on living differenty would be advised to just settle in or find a society more conducive to their natural tendencies for violence.

I once had an epiphany. Not a great on, mind you. I'm sure many have had deeper ones; but, for me, it was poignant. I wondered what kind of god would allow the more cruel aspects of humanity to continue without stepping in. 'Why', I wondered, 'did God not take all the cruel, heartless, evil people and move them to another planet where they could battle things out amongst themselves, and leave the peaceful and harmless alone'?

The chilling thought came to me that 'Perhaps that is what he did'?

[there could be seen to be an imbalance]
Yes there could.
[we imprison someone else to prevent them from offending.]
Yes, but this doesn't mean the it is the most effective deterrent, healthy for the imprisoned, or the best alternative for society. It might be, but it might not be.

[Stories of abused ex-wives are tragic, but the solution would be to tighten up the laws governing stalking, and repeated stalking.]
I have to assume you're wrong, because it has been tried. Irrational people (like stalkers) don't have rational fears of imprisonment. Many times they just never think that far ahead or assume they're too smart to get caught. They live for the moment, only thinking of themselves, their wants, their needs. Everything else pales to insignificance. It's why they can treat life so callously and we struggle with devising 'fair' ways of dealing with them.

I just heard of a man who tried to kill his wife multiple times. He was spending everything they'd accumulated trying to impress strippers and pay them to spend time whith him. He'd plan and execute his schemes, but was just to stupid to succeed. Yet, he was only captured after trying to enlist the aid of his son. How often can we expect criminals to fail like this?

Let's take what I might deem a 'perfect example'. A four-year-old finds he enjoys squashing insects. Soon he's pulling off wings and legs and burning them with a magnifying glass. By ten he's killing birds and squirrels with a slingshot, and by fourteen he's picking off the neighbor's pets with his pellet gun. Everyone wants to help him. Everyone tries.

Now he's sixteen and picking up mens' magazines. He begins depicting horrible mutilations on the pictures he finds inside; but, they're just magazines, aren't they? By eighteen, he's been arrested three times for beating up his girlfriends. At twenty, he puts one in the hospital, but she refuses to press charges.

Now he's 25. He soundproofs his basement and fits it out like an operating room. There is not anesthesia or pain medication, no bandages or anti-bacterial cleansers, no autoclave; just lots of restraints and 'tools', some of which he's designed himself.

He has covered one wall with stealthily taken photos, all of one girl who spurned him (including a couple of invasion of privacy type photos taken in a store changing room). He's got maps, with routes outlined, and timelines of her lifestyle. His phone bill is replete with calls to her number corresponding to 'prank calls' she has reported, threatening her and calling her all sorts of filthy names.

The police trace the calls. They find the OR and search all his premises and belongings. There is blood of at least three different individuals staining his OR, but no bodies or evidence of who it might belong to.

He is caught working at a window of her home, carrying a neat little satchel with rope, pepper spray, nylon tie-backs and handcuffs, an illegally large knife, ether and rags, a drawstring bag that would fit over most people's heads.

Who, presented with this background and evidence, would have any doubt as to what he intended and his danger to society. who would want this man tried for 'attempted' breaking and entering and prank calls, released within 24 hours on personal recognisance. What if the girl was your daughter, or he lived next door to you?

[Let's move away from murder but stick with pre-emptive arrest. If I buy a high performance car, should I be pre-emptively charged with speeding, or conspiracy to speed?]
We can't really move away, for this is not the kind of thing for which one could make a reasonable case for exercising a 'pre-emptive' arrest.

But, here we go. I'll try to fit it into the mold.
You have had a few minor speeding tickets; nothing much, no more than an indication of having a heavy foot.

Now, you draw up road maps of areas where driving at high speeds would be a thrill. You carefully mark out offshoots, blind alleys, hidden roads, with notations of how they can be used or avoided to help you evade capture. You take a lightweight bag containing toiletries, flashlight, radio and food that you might need if hiding out for a day or two.

You drive through the area a few times in your brand new, high performance, automobile; a fact not lost on local boys who drool everytime you pass by.

You fill up on high-octane and head for the area. A policeman stops you for a burned out tail light and and sees your maps on the front seat. He suspects something like a drug run and uses 'cause' to search your vehicle. He asks you a few questions about what you're up to, and is suspicious of your answers.

Nope. I can't do it. There would be no reasonable way to associate your car with a potential crime of speeding. Later, the policeman has gone and you wait a week. This time you're 'lucky' and get to speed flat out like a lizard. You misjudge a turn and take out a mini-bus of kids coming home from camp. Four dead, three injured, and you in the hospital.

It's almost a pity that no reasonable case could be made, but that was not even close to the the crimes I had previously listed.

The police trace the calls. They find the OR and search all his premises and belongings. There is blood of at least three different individuals staining his OR, but no bodies or evidence of who it might belong to.

And this would be the point at which he is detained.

Not for potential future crimes, but on suspicion of murder of the three whose blood has been found. If after the maximum period he can be held for no evidence can be found, then he would have to be let go.

Except: There are a number of criminal proceedings that could be brought against him at this time, not involving "conspiracy to".

I agree that this man is clearly, shall we say, not the type I'd want as a neighbour/member of society. I still wouldn't execute him or have him executed. Would you?


One man's misdirection is another's application. How can you draw lines? Who decides where to draw lines? How can you choose to arrest before some crimes, but not before others?

At what point does a death penalty become life imprisonment?


Society can set ground rules, but "society" can be misled by governments/media/people for their own ends.

Some societies believe there should be no form of sexual relations involving people under 16. Some societies accept it will happen,but legislate that it shouldn't. Some societies accept it, where both parties are under 16, and some don't mind too much either way. The thing is, the law, and the societal acceptance don't always match up. How would you accurately judge what a society feels?


(PS. The students were not minors, and by chance I believe he also used spy mission in a similar class.)

FT: I wish you and I were about two hours closer to each other in time zone or biology.

To continue in the mean time:

Planning to evade arrest assumes that arrest is forthcoming. You cannot really plan for all contingencies and possible avenues of the capture otherwise.


Hmm, can I both disagree and agree? I would say planning to evade arrest considers that arrest is between possible and probable, and desirable to avoid. Even though no crime had been or was to be committed. Planning involving devising escape routes, practising methods of flight, and preparation of "safe houses". Bearing in mind we may not be talking about a police force as organised and trained as an American or British one. If this was a written plan, that happened to find its way into the hands of a police officer, would they then have the right to arrest the person for conspiracy to avoid arrest? Yes this is a bizarre (though real-life) situation. If not, can we really allow pre-emptive arrest for some crimes and not others? Most logical people, such as yourself, would assume that the planner has a "good" i.e. criminal reason to flee.

Can we apply a style of law to some situations but not others? If we can execute someone who is likely to murder, can we castrate someone who is likely to rape? Arrest someone who is likely to flee from the police?

Hi there, MH:

My timeline was apparently not clear enough. They search his premises (ostensibly. and hopefully. with a warrant). Then, while looking for him for questioning, they catch him at the window.

Now that he has been caught (not red-handed, as he never got the chance to have his hands bloodied), what do you charge him with. That, I think, is the next question.

To continue the story, he doesn't try to explain the different blood 'donors'. He doesn't have to. It's up the the system to prove a crime. They cannot trace the blood without a sample, and can find no hint of bodies or other trace evidence. The three samples of blood become a moot point for now.

I'd bow to the laws of that society on whether he was charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, but I think he made his intent clear. He intended kidnapping and grievous bodily harm, including torture and probably murder. He has demonstrated an escalation of violence that is intrinsicly coupled with increased satisfaction, or a jaded tolerance for committing violence that demands escalation, like a drug addict who needs greater and greater quantities of drugs to reach the same euphoria.

I'd hardly trivialise his history by referring to him as 'misdirected'. Remember all those experts trying to help? It is an unfortunate fact that some few people are entirely and naturally a-social. They have absolutely no concern for or sympathy over the pain they cause others, but are often above average intelligence and capable of pushing all the emotional buttons, lying without affecting their lie-detector results, and smiling as they gut you. Thankfully, they are few and far between.

Hey, I'd rather send him to another planet, but he'd be dangerous to anyone else he was incarcerated with, and they my deserve a chance to live, too. They may only be the speeders and pickpurses.

I haven't wanted to imply that I'm fit to draw the lines; I have only personal opinions. I don't dictate to society. I'm willing to live within it, only working to vote for better and better controls to keep the innocent free and the victims to a minimum.

What society does, we all have to decide. If society wants these aberrants to live within its protections and among their families, who am I to say they can't be magnanimous? I'm just saying that I'd also side with society if it decided that they were too much danger to tolerate.

Stop trivializing what I called only the most heinous and grievous of offenders. I've never brought up speeders, misguided teachers, or adolescents experimenting sexually. Get off the minor stuff, because it does not apply to anything I said, suggested, or proposed. Your total argument gets weaker every time you add a weaker argument to it.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the horrible stuff I proposed. Why do you keep trying to play it down to all the little, menial, grey stuff? If you can't make a good argument at the higher level, you can't make one at all, which I would really regret. Perhaps you're just uncomfortable at that level of inhumanity. I can easily understand that if it is indeed the case.

The whole evade arrest thing is just another example of arguing by trying to reduce an argument to absurdity, even though evasion could be considered resisting by virtue of running away, resisting being a crime of course. It's a common, even standard, debate tactic. We see politicians using it all the time. So, I've tried to make it clear that it isn't working.

We COULD allow some things for some crimes and not for others. Don't we do that all the time? Hasn't the death penalty always been restricted to certain legally proscribed crimes? Aren't some offenses merely a ticketable offense instead of arrest and jail time? Aren't you allowed to do some things legally on your own property that would be a crime in public? Can some get away with mistreating people more easily than others? Don't the rich get tremendous latitude in the courts, especially if high-power legal counsel are involved?

Now why would you even bring up castration? Didn't we already discuss that cruel punishments amount to revenge, not justice?

Write again, please; but with discussing either the original topic (the entry), the death penalty in keeping with the arguments made rather than attempting to trivialise everything, or even on an entirely new topic germaine to the thread. Perhaps discuss your guidelines for a death penalty if you were to be outvoted on the concept but were given the chance to design the parameters.

I shan't want to keep running around the same ground over and over with different attempts at discussing absurdly unrelated examples. Sorry if that sounds terse, but it really is not fair to the conversation to keep asking, 'Gee, shouldn't we also execute tax evaders and crooked butchers who put their thumb on the scale?'

Later, I must be very tired.

Now why would you even bring up castration? Didn't we already discuss that cruel punishments amount to revenge, not justice?

It's a parallel. Death is a cruel punishment. I maintain that killing someone isn't justice.

Similarly, the way that the law is applied to one crime does have an effect on the way law is applied to others over time as cases are brought to trial. Couldn't the right kind of lawyer argue that our driver with the plans etc, had essentially planned to break a law, and endanger lives to the point that it could be classed as murder. With this level of planning he must have known the minibus would be there. Later on someone in a similar situation could be arrested for planning to murder people on the grounds that it was a forseeable outcome. This happens over time, but in creating a law now, we do have to consider the possible effect in the future. I'm not looking at trivial cases, I'm looking to the future to see the likely effects of arresting someone for being about to murder someone.

I'm also illustrating that the punishment must fit the crime. You can not kill someone for the crimes described in the case of your 25 year old. You didn't answer that question. Would you kill him?

Timeline: I had the impression that he was arrested at the window, at which point they searched his house.

Still, now we're on the same page: On his arrest he claims he has never been in his basement, there are no fingerprints on any implements, nor proof that he was the designer of the plans or the implements. Still, it's his basement. He's found guilty and executed. Two weeks later while his family are arriving at the house to arrange for it to be sold, they discover a neighbour sneaking away from the basement window, a search of his house reveals the digital camera used to take photographs of the intended victim. He argues that the 25 year old would have murdered someone at some point, he was doing society a favour by framing him. He'd seen the man arguing with the girl, had tracked her, and done the work on the room while the man was away.

oops. Still, the neighbour's probably right, he would have killed her at some point.

Unlikely? Yes. More unlikely than the first story?

Later claims that the neighbour also made the calls, having hacked into his phoneline are never proven either way.

Ah, Thank you mikerhike, much more in line!

I don't consider death to be especially cruel and, if properly handled, a darn sight more humane than the criminal was when carrying out their crime. Death is a natural end-state. We all die. No one gets out alive. The death penalty is simply the assertion that anyone who ends anothers' life, forfeits their right to keep their own. This is the eye-for-an-eye thing from the Old Testament which is the foundation for much of anglo-euro-newworldo law.

Since you do prefer simplified, dumbed-down analogies, if you take my pencil the least you should expect is to have to give it back. If you take it and break it, you should have to replace it. If I've switched schools, and I'm no longer available, you should at least have to forfeit your own. If this holds for pencils, why not for lives? Even though a multiple murderer can forfeit only one, it's a start.

Perhaps your trying to describe the 'slippery slope' concept. A bogus argument, in my opinion, almost every time it is used. I've read sci-fi stories where people get the death penalty for parking tickets because body parts for transplants are in such high demand. I don't buy it.

Is there a 'right kind of laywer'

They can argue all they want, but one of the requirements for murder is premeditation. That doesn't just mean that they plan to put themselves at risk for accidentally killing someone. It means they had to have the intent to do great bodily harm, like the two guys under discussion whose intent was made clear by the fact that they carried deadly weapons to the scene and then used them.

Currently, the 25-year-old could be put in a prison for the criminally insane, I suppose. You're right, he would not be in line for the death penalty. I am just saying that I would not object if society chose to create rigorous standards that did allow him to be so sentenced.

Timeline: Yes, that's what I thought you'd got from it. I meant to specify that they traced the calls, got a warrant, searched the premises and found the elaborate OR setup, and began to search for him. Perhaps they spotted his car first, but they caught him at the window trying to force entry.

Claims to have never been in his basement? Are you serious? Oh, well.

No, none of this holds for the simple reason that I already outlined what he'd done down there. I'm presuming, by stating his actions, that these facts were substantiated. For example: his credit card receipts for medical OR supplies found there. His tools creating the room (matching plier jaw marks and hammer's markings, etc.) His fingerprints on the tools, operating table, handcuffs, pictures, etc. I even placed some of the corroborating kidnapping evidence in the bag he carried. He is most definitely a predator, up to no good.

So, no. If the corroborating evidence was not found, his case would probably not meet the strict guidelines I would want instituted.

Sharp lawyers can nitpik some evidence away, but an intelligent team of talented forensics experts can put the pieces together and connect the dots creating a clear, vivid picture of what has transpired. If they cannot, then the case should fall flat. Too much would be at risk if they proceeded just because they want to believe they know his intent.

How would you feel if we had absolutely dead-accurate, mind-reading, truth detectors to employ? Would you allow their use?

>I don't consider death to be especially cruel . . . Death is a natural end-state. We all die. No one gets out alive.

You know who that makes you sound like? Harry Lime.

I'm all for finding ways round many instincts, but the urge to live is one I don't really expect to master. Nor do I expect anyone to take the above explanation as a reasonable one, if I ever go postal.

>Is there a 'right kind of lawyer'

Horses for courses. It depends what you want from them at that time.

Fordstowel: I'm just wondering exactly what circumstances you would allow the death penalty? Is it only where there is complete proof that a crime has been committed, or where there is complete proof that a crime will be committed?

If there are such strict guidelines, then would anyone actually be executed, and would there be any effect?
I have to say that I think in reality it's impossible to prove that someone will commit murder. So with our infallible absolutely dead-accurate, mind-reading, truth detectors, great use them. Still, there's no justification for execution. If "anyone that ends another's life forfeits the right to their own", then why do we need exceptions?

>The death penalty is simply the assertion that anyone who ends anothers' life, forfeits their right to keep their own.

Is this assertion really one to base a legal system on? Does it only apply to life? If you poke out my eye tomorrow do I have the right to poke out yours? Does the state have the right? What have I gained? I still lost my eye, I do not have it back.

If someone murders my daughter, and is then killed, do I have my daughter back?

In terms of the "slippery slope". I'm not talking about killing speeding drivers, but pre-emptively judging potential speeders, as you pre-emptively judge potential murderers.

Limits are always tested. This can be a good or a bad thing. In civil, rather than criminal law, 50 years ago women in divorces had difficulty in getting anything from their husbands. 20 years ago, they got a share of the assets. 10 years ago, half of the income made by the husband during the marriage. Now half of future income too, regardless of the means of the woman.*

I have used "husband and woman" in this example, as it is the most common, note that it could equally be "wife and man"

I can't think of a criminal example just now, but I'm sure I could find them. Do you think your laws and strict guidelines would be impervious to such pressures?

Just a thought but a case last year comes to mind.

A man in Scotland last year abused and murdered a small boy. The Police tracked down a suspect, found he had booby trapped his home, and committed suicide. Do the public feel justice was served? No. (And yet he has given up his pencil of life). Would they feel justice was served if he had been caught and then executed? Probably not. ( You could argue yes, it's a moot point, it can't be proved either way) As an aside, it was never proved that he was the murderer, just that given his past (and booby trapping his home) he was the prime suspect.

Now if he had been killed for his previous crime, he would not have committed the murder.. But, nor would he if he had been imprisoned for longer. Of course we don't know if his initial case would have met "the strict guidelines you would want instituted."

Well, R-man, although I'm not crazy about income taxes I cannot agree with ol' Harry's view on 'stopping the dots from moving'. Although I'm not terribly concerned about how long my life is, I do have some concern about how it is ended, by whom, and why.

I've never wanted to take a life, but I have developed a few philosophical guidelines for myself on the conditions under which I would find the action necessary. I assure you that they are much more stringent than those of the average criminal. I would much rather risk my own life, in most circumstances, than take one.

G'day again, MH:

Glad we're all keeping our sense of humour here.

[Fordstowel: I'm just wondering exactly what circumstances you would allow the death penalty? Is it only where there is complete proof that a crime has been committed, or where there is complete proof that a crime will be committed?]

I did outline such crimes in posting #41, but I can see that any guidelines I might offer here will be to briefly outlined to avoid having them picked apart for lack of completeness.

In the 'perfect scenario' I described (again, not detailed enough to stand scrutiny without all the niggly bits and pieces filled in), I'd be content to see the death penalty employed.

If a society truly wants to deter crime, one method that could be tried would be to let the populace know that any convicted criminals, guilty of what it deems to define as high crimes, would suffer - at a minimum - the level of pain and loss that their crimes inflicted, to the best ability of society to gauge and reproduce them; double would be better.

It may make the law-abiding populace feel more secure knowing that the criminals will 'get theirs' if caught, and may make criminals more aware of how far to the wrong they are heading.

Do we really need to try to make of this thread a private soapbox for me? 'Cause that's what it feels like. Am I on trial?

[If there are such strict guidelines, then would anyone actually be executed, ...]
Yes, there are plenty of truly stupid criminals out there. In one recent trial the two defendants were sitting in the court when their lawyer asked a witness 'Are the gentlemen that committed this act here in the courtroom?', at which the defendants stood up and said 'We're here your honor'. That kinda says it all.

[... and would there be any effect?]
The only effect that I'd ask of a death penalty is that it permanently remove any possibility of the same criminal committing further crimes. For the most part, that's how it has worked thus far. I'd ask nothing else of it.

[...there's no justification for execution]
I respect your right to this opinion; but that's all it is, opinion.
Some people feel it's justified, some do not. Society, as a whole, decides; and has a right to change its collective mind from time to time.

[>The death penalty is simply the assertion that anyone who ends anothers' life, forfeits their right to keep their own.

Is this assertion really one to base a legal system on?]
Like most of our laws, yes; it all boils down to a simple concept; but that's no reason to trivialise the truth involved. If the wronged are not attended to, if the predators are allowed to keep on preying, society fails itself and its responsibility to its members.

Civil law has a problem, all it can ever normally do is pass a judgement on losses incurred. It may try to 'make a person whole again', but this normally amounts to mere money damages. That rarely makes the victim whole or feel whole.

Criminal law has higher standards of guilt, and more flexibility in exacting justice as described by their system. This may, or may not, include a death penalty.

[If you poke out my eye tomorrow do I have the right to poke out yours? Does the state have the right? What have I gained? I still lost my eye, I do not have it back.]
Life is the most extreme example of justice including a 'payback'. In your scenario, perhaps I should be forced to donate my eye to replace yours. If the eye is likely to be rejected, perhaps it should be donated to a bank of donor eyes, gaining you one that will work for you. It would certainly make me more careful about trying to poke someone's eye out. I certainly would not want to do it twice!

[If someone murders my daughter, and is then killed, do I have my daughter back?]
Would you rather we make him dress up like your daughter and make him take her place?

[In terms of the "slippery slope". I'm not talking about killing speeding drivers, but pre-emptively judging potential speeders, as you pre-emptively judge potential murderers.]
Police already do this, believe it or not. They will get wind of a conspiracy, such as a woman looking for a hitman to kill her husband. They set up a decoy with a wire and record the whole plan and transaction. Then they arrest her. If that's not preemptive arrest, I do not know what is.

[I can't think of a criminal example just now, but I'm sure I could find them. Do you think your laws and strict guidelines would be impervious to such pressures?]
Laws for the kind of high crimes I outlined in 41 should be written with the most generic language possible, in my opinion.

[A man in Scotland...]
You may find this strange, given all we've discussed, but I'm really not concerned with whether the public feels justice is served when a case is over and the sentence carried out. I'm uncomfortable with running things based on 'feelings' and 'emotions'. I'd rather it be cool and calculated, a virtual machine in which one has placed themself as an expendable cog once they've commit a crime.

I do 'feel' tremendously for the family's loss, each and every time I hear such a story. I believe it is the very strength of those feelings that create my desire to make certain that such predators never cause such loss another time after they've already been convicted.
--------------------
Here then, is a question for you, MH. Go back to #41 and choose what is, in your opinion, the most noxious, objectionable, heinous of the crimes I listed, or substitute one that you feel is even worse. Now ...

A perpetrator has been convicted, but let loose on a technicality; fair enough. He commits the identical crime again and is convicted, but he escapes prison. He commits the identical crime again and is convicted.
While in prison he has nothing to lose, so he rapes, beats, and robs other prisoners, joins a prison gang and murders three prisoners and two guards. He's convicted of those crimes and his sentence extended.

He and the gang bust out, and in two months he's done it again. He's caught and convicted.

So, here's my question: How many of those crimes would you continue to allow, and how many more victims damaged beyond recovery, and how many more escapes and reconvictions for new crimes would he have to complete before you'd say, 'He's just not worth it, too dangerous, to lost. I'll pull the switch if I have to, just let's not give him the chance to do this again.'

Is there no level that would ever sicken you to your core enough that your indignation would rise to the level where enough is enough?

What, in short, is YOUR limit? Infinite?

This is the question we must all ask ourselves. I've probably just put a little more thought into my limit than most. Probably comes from spending years in the newspaper business, reading the same stories being reported month after month with only the names being changed.