Justice? Vengeance? Alabama executes 74 year-old man

[Asguard]

how does the death penelty help your sociaty?

why do i always seem to be fighting the redneck right *shakes head*

this guy didnt even REMBER why he was in prision and going to die, yet you kill him
WHY?

satisfaction?

to bring the victom back?

he was a danger to sociaty?

HOW?

i doubt he could even hold a KNIFE AND FORK let alone kill someone

so how was he a danger?

isnt that why you kill people there?, thats the justifacation used
or is it just the same circle of violance that perpetuates where ever stupid irational masses live?

In victoria we havent exequted anyone since Ryan (and he also died for political reasons and no other) and we arnt over-run by murders

you know something? we have a MUCH lower murder rate than places that HAVE the DP

why is that?, shows its a great deterant tho doesnt it

all i ever think when i read about the DP and the way people treat eachother and the genral state of the world is that we havent changed AT ALL since we climbed down from the trees. we were probably more peaceful THEN but at least there was a REASON we lived that way, with all the jails ect whats YOUR exscuse?

why do you bother tiassa?
no one will change there opinion, not for you, not for me not for the good of sociaty

i used to hope that the world was always improving, that each day is more fair and just than the next, that each day people could become more civilised and less the barbarians they are but in truth it will never happen

as terry prachette puts it (in his book, feet of clay) "people dont want justice or things to be better, people want to know that tomorow will be no different than yesterday"

i cant understand it myself but people make me sick

humans like blood and suffering
we opress for no reason than because thats how its always been
we kill because thats how its always been
we are greedy, and self-centred for no reason

im surprised that they arnt advocating banishment to australia still for stealing a loaf of bread, really nothing has changed and nothing ever will

 

[Asguard]

Execution is undeniably cheaper

PROVE IT

it is UNDENIABLY cheaper for a person to spend 50 years in jail than to kill them

and more practical

why?

and, in all honesty, the murderer's life is forfeit once he commits his crime

isnt sociaty surposed to lead by example, cant say life is sacrosint so we kill you, its a joke

He does not deserve his own

may who live, deserve death, and many who die deserve life
can you give it to them?
dont be so quick to deal out death in judgment, even the very wize can not see all ends

who could put it better than a man who lived in a time where death was a daily affair and not just the guilty were targeted

if the judge permits him to continue living, with the hope of rehabilitation, it is only through the mercies of society at large.

no its throught the belive that life is sacred and must be protected, this man was no thread so why did he die?

Furthermore, ideally, it is not society's obligation to feed, shelter, and isolate a person who has shown himself to be a danger, a malicious parasite, unreconciled to the law of the land, and the only other option (beside execution) is setting him free... that's just dumb.

have you never herd of life without the possability, still cheaper than death, maybe its you who is dumb

"Satisfaction" and "gain" are not the point. The point is justice.

how was this JUST?

The man was sentenced to execution by the state, a just end, and that's what he had to endure, whatever his health or age.

you know if the trial was when he died he COULDNT have been tried dont you? he had no was of understanding what was happerning and in a trial he would have been found unable to stand trial

 

[Tiassa]

While justice is, of course, arbitrary, it is by no means empty or worthless

Then why is justice served so ritualistically?

 

[milkweed]

Hubbard's execution came in response to the 1977 murder of Lillian Montgomery.

For this particular case, the DP was appropriate, imho.<P> As I see it, there are some criminals who have forfeited their right to life by their own actions. Because he had gotten old and sick in prison carrys no weight with me. He was sentenced to die long before these health issues became apparent and those side issues seem to be a red herring in this case. <P> Maybe a different case/circumstance I could agree that carrying out the DP was wrong, but this isnt the case for me.

 

[Asguard]

again do you realise he would have been unfit to stand trial but he could die?

makes sense *scratches head*

 

[Rappaccini]

... cheaper for a person to spend 50 years in jail than to kill them

I do not understand why exactly, but I would assume this is because of the hubbub that surrounds capital punishment cases. They are more important to many; so trials and appeals take much longer...
I did not realize the cost was as severe as I am finding it to be, and I am not so sure of my original thoughts.

However, the inmate population in the U.S. is now 2.1 million, a staggering total, which (when taken per capita) tops any other nation on earth. It is my opinion that both this phenomenon and the dramatic time and cost of death penalty cases are due to an increase in, as I called them, the "mercies" of society at large.

I'm not certain. I didn't think I supported the death penalty for emotional or moral reasons, but maybe I do.

Perhaps life without the possibility of parole is better... I just have a difficult time trusting the process. Death of the offender seems so much more reassuring.

isnt sociaty surposed to lead by example

Where is that written?
As far as I knew, the law existed to protect the citizenry, not to teach lessons.

no its throught the belive that life is sacred and must be protected

Yes, yet, this is because that is a belief which most of society holds.

Incarcerated felons, in 48 states and in the District of Columbia, are totally disenfranchised. They are threats to the social order and, thus, have no say in it. They are dependents, and they live in such a state because of legal mandate, forged by a merciful society... that values life... even low life.

this man was no thread so why did he die?

Murderers are threats. He was a murderer, wasn't he?

have you never herd of life without the possability, still cheaper than death, maybe its you who is dumb

Is this an invitation for me to start insulting you, Asguard?
If it is, I decline.

how was this JUST?

How was it not?
Justice is whatever society's arbitrary rules designate it is, and the current rules demanded that Hubbard be executed.

you know if the trial was when he died he COULDNT have been tried dont you? he had no was of understanding what was happerning and in a trial he would have been found unable to stand trial

Could you rephrase that?

Then why is justice served so ritualistically?

How else would it be served, Tiassa?

Do you believe it is meant to be cut-and-dry? I do.

 

[§outh§tar]

Tiassa

Do you then believe that the man, due to ailment or the gap between crime and present day, is any less guilty of transgression?

 

[Tiassa]

Do you then believe that the man, due to ailment or the gap between crime and present day, is any less guilty of transgression?

What in the world are you talking about, §outh§tar?

I'm referring to the idea that justice is invested entirely in a state's ability to commit homicide against a man who is already dying. I'm talking about the indignity of a society placing such ritual value on justice--that it is served in a murder that actually constitutes a mercy killing:

• Personally, I'm left to wonder why we threw Jack Kevorkian in prison. This execution was purely about vengeance, and perhaps paradoxically merciful.

• Actually, executing him seems rather pointless . . . . I mean, executing him, on this occasion, really does seem a mercy killing. It makes a mockery of capital punishment.

• I am wondering why people think this particular instance is about pity or mercy or whatever. This is more about the society doing the executing than it is about the killer. In order to enjoy the satisfaction of legalized homicide, Alabama has essentially given a killer mercy . . . . Not only does society get the satisfaction of his natural suffering, but it retains the dignity of not executing someone for the mere pleasure of taking an eye for an eye, a soul for a soul.

• I assert that all Alabama has done is gone through the motions of killing someone when it gains them nothing.

• If only justice were so ritualistic.

• . . . why is justice served so ritualistically?

I thought those parts were fairly clear, §outh§tar? Especially that third bullet-point, the one where I wrote, "This is more about the society doing the executing than it is about the killer."

There's an old joke from the 1980s, when Reagan bombed Libya, that we bombed them back to the Stone Age, which set them back all of three weeks. Similarly, how many days, or weeks, or months did Alabama actually take off this guy's life? And what is that quality of life? Quite technically, Alabama has gone through a ritual of vengeance-as-justice in order to carry out what is a mercy killing (see Kevorkian note above).

This isn't about Hubbard's guilt. Alabama just put a dying man to death in order to feel the justice of punishment. Yet in doing so, they gave Hubbard the easy way out.

Hubbard's execution makes a mockery of the death penalty as a measure of justice; it ridicules the dignity of satisfaction that arises from that measure of justice; it was, in the end, extraneous and merciful, and as such the lesser punishment became the standard of satisfaction because justice has been reduced to a ritual.

 

[§outh§tar]

If that is the case then I don't understand what you are complaining about since by your argument, we can only conclude that since all criminals are going to die eventually, punitive measures have become a "mockery" of justice.

That's what I was trying to get across in the other question.

At least that's how I understand the use of your phrase "mercy killing", as applied to someone who is going to die, which is understood to be an inevitability.

 

[Rappaccini]

I'm talking about the indignity of a society placing such ritual value on justice...

Man's justice is a ritual. What would you have it be, Themis?

Quite technically, Alabama has gone through a ritual of vengeance-as-justice in order to carry out what is a mercy killing.

Quite technically, the state, very ritualistically, executed a man deemed guilty of murder.

Whether or not it was a mercy killing is purely academic.

Alabama just put a dying man to death in order to feel the justice of punishment.

Alabama didn't do anything "in order to feel" anything. It did something because that's what the ritual required.

Yet in doing so, they gave Hubbard the easy way out.

Do you think this matters to the state?
Making Hubbard suffer or repent was never the goal of the system. Causing him to die was.

... because justice has been reduced to a ritual.

When was real-life justice not a ritual?

Unless justice is systematic, ritualized, and quantified, it is nothing but a subjectivity, a disputable abstraction, an opinion.

 

[Tiassa]

If that is the case then I don't understand what you are complaining about since by your argument, we can only conclude that since all criminals are going to die eventually, punitive measures have become a "mockery" of justice.

That's rather simplistic, don't you think, §outh§tar?

I mean, look at how broadly you're painting things in order to give people an excuse to commit homicide.

 

[Tiassa]

("He's simple, he's dumb, he's the pilot")

Do you think this matters to the state?
Making Hubbard suffer or repent was never the goal of the system. Causing him to die was.

That's absolutely sick, Rapp.

Justice ought to be the first concern of the state. Trivializing justice should not be the result of that concern.

When was real-life justice not a ritual?

Unless justice is systematic, ritualized, and quantified, it is nothing but a subjectivity, a disputable abstraction, an opinion.

Justice is not a mere ritual to those who have suffered injustice. I assure you that Johnny Montgomery, who wrote to his mother's killer to let him know that his crime was forgiven, has a higher value of justice than mere ritual.

Justice ritualized and systematic is not only Justice blind, but Justice utterly insensate.

 

[§outh§tar]

Like I said before:

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

----------

I don't think I'm watering it down that much, I do understand that there are certain things that statement over looks, but the principle of live and die by the sword holds.

For example, in the other thread that I posted, a police officer is under fire for not arresting a homeless man. Again, it really does come to these "broad" principles, Do to others as you would have them do to you.

I don't see why either of these principles (which are really the same) should be overlooked, do you?

I don't know of too many people who would respond that way if it was Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden in his shoes.

EDIT: I do not personally believe this, but I am just throwing this out as a different point of view. As we know, there is also the principle of 'turn the other cheek', which appears to be in contradiction of the other two.. I would rather we have a 'turn the other cheek' approach since no one on earth has any right to be the judge of another..

 

[Rappaccini]

Justice ought to be the first concern of the state.

It is, hopefully.

Trivializing justice should not be the result of that concern.

If you think that the organization, stratification, and ultimate ritualization of justice in the corpus of law is trivializing to the ideal itself... too bad.

Nobody here's a god, and that's just the way it is, "sick" or not.

I assure you that Johnny Montgomery, who wrote to his mother's killer to let him know that his crime was forgiven, has a higher value of justice than mere ritual.

Unfortunately for you, me, and every other schmuck on the planet, his "value of justice" is a subjectivity, a disputable abstraction, an opinion.

What's in the books, what's been authored and authoritatively established by years of legislation and precedent, is not such a thing. It is, within reason, absolute, not open for interpretation.

That's not to say it's infallible, but we all try our best, don't we?

Justice ritualized ... is... Justice utterly insensate.

What high, pure, and utterly impracticable ideas you have.

 

[Tiassa]

What high, pure, and utterly impracticable ideas you have.

Yes, yes. The transcension of bloodlust; oh, how impractical! A decent respect for human life; how utterly unworkable. A desire to see our society grow in positive ways; how purely unattainable and dysfunctional.

Why does killing someone make you feel better, Rappaccini?

 

[Rappaccini]

The execution of a much deserved sentence, the fulfillment of the law, makes me feel better.

What makes you feel better, Themis?
Your high-handed disdain for mankind's perfunctory but reliable justice system?
Your desire to characterize this essentially emotionless system as vengeful, mean-spirited, or petty?
Your fantasy that this single case, straightforward as it is, makes a mockery of capital punishment?

It's not bloodlust, Tiassa. It's law.
I, personally, may not agree with it. You, personally, may not agree with it.
Even so, a hell of a lot of people obviously do, and, of course, the justice system itself does.
For now, while we're all still composed of flesh and blood... not undiluted beams of moral energy and wisdom, as you'd have us... don't you think we should trust the system, however ritualized it may be?

 

[laughing weasel]

The death penalty served no purpose in this case. It did not serve as a deterrent. Who would want to live like that in prison? It does not serve vengeance because the man who murdered those people is not there any more. It is not necessary for the protection of society either. He was hardly a threat to any one except himself.

 

[Rappaccini]

So? Is he to be exempt or something? Christ...



There are plenty of tacks available for one denouncing capital punishment. Asguard, for example, has stumped me.

Despite this multiplicity of angles of attack, this particular case is insignificant and revealing of nothing about the death penalty. This case is not one of the aforementioned angles.

 

[Asguard]

Perhaps life without the possibility of parole is better... I just have a difficult time trusting the process. Death of the offender seems so much more reassuring.

one of my main PROBLEMS with the death penelty is that i dont trust the system, google a women called linsy chambelin (hope thats the right spelling) and read about how she was found guilty then inocent years latter when new tests came along, no system is perfect and its better to spare a 100 guilty than kill one inocent, just think if that one inocent was your child or partner or your loved one

Where is that written?
As far as I knew, the law existed to protect the citizenry, not to teach lessons.

if sociaty cant follow its own laws why should i?
rember that when you kill someone you dont bring the victom back you just make a whole NEW set of victoms, ie the OFFENDERS family. This is unaceptable, they didnt do anything wrong

Yes, yet, this is because that is a belief which most of society holds.

Incarcerated felons, in 48 states and in the District of Columbia, are totally disenfranchised. They are threats to the social order and, thus, have no say in it. They are dependents, and they live in such a state because of legal mandate, forged by a merciful society... that values life... even low life.

i dont get your point

Murderers are threats. He was a murderer, wasn't he?

your confusing the crime with the criminal, Think about this case for a min. Have you ever herd of a crime called "industrial manslaughter"? a horibal crime because the offender put profits before there workers LIVES. Now they effectivly killed the person but they arnt a threat to sociaty at all. If you take away there buiness there is NO POSSABLILITY of them commiting that crime again because they have no MEANS to comit it. if a murder is bedriden for life how can he possably be a threat? is he going to THINK someone dead? that is SURPOSED to be why sociaties kill instead of giving life without the possability beacause they are going to break out or something and kill someone. HOW???

Is this an invitation for me to start insulting you, Asguard?
If it is, I decline.

i just used your word, you seem to think because someone would opose it they are "dumb" (in your own words)

How was it not?
Justice is whatever society's arbitrary rules designate it is, and the current rules demanded that Hubbard be executed.

ever smoked weed?
ever thought the speed limit on a road was wrong?
ever thought a paticular law was wrong?

this argument is nothing more than an atemp to keep change at bay, "it doesnt have to be right just the same"

Could you rephrase that?

the man has dementia right?
someone like that would be considered mentally incapable of standing trial as they would think the judge was there best friend from the war or something
one of my relitives had altimers and i know for a FACT that the courts rule that people in that condition arnt legally responcable for themselves anymore, i know this because mum had to take over legal gardianship for Lorna
now if a court would have ruledthat someone is mentally incapable of standing trial (if the trial had been held on the day of exiquition) why are they mentally capable of being exiquited? he more than likly had no idea what was happerning so what was the point

ok lets start from scratch

a sentance is surposed to do 4 things

1 protect sociaty - he couldnt really halm anyone if he couldnt use a weapon or think about how to comit a crime

2 deter future offenders - if you want i can PROVE that the DP doesnt work for this at all, just look at the murder rates in countries that have it to countries that dont, Even state to state this is true (look up amisty internationals page on the DP if your interested, i have posted before and no one read it)

3 rehab - ?????

4 - punish the offener - a) this guy had to be remindered every day why he was there and b) he wouldnt have understood what was happerning so how was this punishing him?

seems to me it doesnt fit ANY of the uses for a sentance so WHY do it?
ritual?
bloodlust?



the dp is wrong
why is it wrong?
-because it makes sociaty no better than those we kill
-it actually TURNS people into killers
-because there is no turning back the clock when we realise we fucked up
-because there are better solutions
-because it costs more
-because we could make money off the offeneders?
-because we could use them to better sociaty (reasurch as to what went wrong ect)
-because we could rehabilate them

i dont know wether you were brought up religiouse but i was brought up catholic and i was tought that its NEVER to late to be forgiven, that there is no crime to terrable to make you a lost cause

i try to live by that even tho i dont belive in god, its very easy to scream for blood but just because its the easy road doesnt make it the right one. Just rember that no one is perfect and no one gets it right all the time, and that goes for juries and judges as much as criminals

Just out of interest, how would you feel if you sentanced a man to die to descover only hrs after hes dead that he was inocent?, or if you were the one to kill him how would you feel?


edit to add:
B\W thank you for the complimant

 

[robtex]

However, the inmate population in the U.S. is now 2.1 million, a staggering total, which (when taken per capita) tops any other nation on earth. reassuring.

Rappaccini

of those 2.1 mill very few are no death row. Unless you are advocating killing those whom are not on death row that stat is not relevant to our debate.

Also Asguard has asked over and over how you justify the death penalty and you keep saying cause they have killed (a victim).

We are all aware of how they recieved the death penatly because in the US outside of federal crimes killing is the only way one can recieve a capital sentence.

What we want to know...and just so we can get your prespective is why the killing is justified. Do you justify it under

1) revenge
2) eye-for-an-eye
3) vindication
4) murder deterint for rest of society ect ect.



I can't see a reason for executions either. If removing them from society takes away the threat what is the added purpose of killing them serving? The threat is removed by incarceration alone. No further killing is needed.

I further contend that many of those who advocate the death penatly saying it is "needed" are really saying it is desired and the motive is revenge. Revenge has no place in any legal system.