iaink

You would execute someone for being mentally ill and off their meds. Great. Whose next?

Really, what is the benefit?

Shard

No it's still a case of guilty or not guilty, but depending on the severity of the crime the punishment has a second tier (CP) and a second test (beyond all doubt).

I am not talking about confessions or possible confusions of justice. Why is that red herring so dear to you?

iaink

So as suggested earlier a 2 tier justice system.

Your weight of evidence requirement would mean no one ever qualified, so why go to the effort

Im still waiting to hear what possible benefit you think the introduction of this madness would bring to justify the taking of a human life in my name.

Shard

Well I wouldn't execute anyone, the court would decide as it does now. If the person was off their meds and killed a classroom full of children, I would hope the court would dispatch him too. But I wouldn't insist on it in the way I would someone who premeditated it. The point is that there should be an avenue to decide this.

The benefit is at very least eliminating a risk, although other benefits arise depending on the situation.

Why extend it by saying "who's next"? The category is defined, just as it is for such crimes now.

Shard

It's not your name I am concerned with, it's society in general. It's for the handful of sick who will benefit from some extra years of life because resources are not wasted on keeping the worst humans in prison for no purpose whatsoever.

The weight of evidence requirement would mean that very few cases would be tried in this way, and that is right. It is simply an extreme avenue for extreme crime.

Hertha

The problem is that particularly heinous crimes that appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt can raise a sort of blood lust among the populace. The case of Stefan Kiszko was enough to put me off ever advocating the death penalty. He was convicted of a particularly awful crime, and had admitted his guilt. Had the death penalty been available, there is little doubt that it would have been administered, and that it would have been a very popular decision. Years later, however, Kiszko was found not to have been capable of the crime and was released from prison. Someone else is now serving time for the crime.

This and others, like the Birmingham Six, should surely mean that we will never return to the death penalty.

iaink

Why should there be an avenue to determine this? You are glibly talking about taking some mothers sons life, perhaps some innocent kids parent, so you had better have a damned good reason for doing it.

You dont think that someone who premeditates a school killing spree for example might not be mentally ill? Its certainly not normal thought processes in action thats for sure.

You have to answer how you think society will benefit from the one or two potential executions that might came to pass at this hypothetical extreme level of certainty, not that it seems likely that you can prove guilt to this 100% standard anyway.

Shard

Yes "beyond reasonable doubt" is too weak a test if considering CP.

jwtimmon

[QUOTE=Shard;11178477] Again I refer you to the Guilford 4 where there was no doubt in the prosecutions mind that the people being tried were guilty. None.

How do you guard against that?

Shard

I have answered it. Not a penny should be spent looking after that person because of the gravity of what he has done. It may be a sadness for his family (your emotional argument) but it pales into significance against the grief caused.

jwtimmon

Yeah but when you see some of the scumbags police have to deal with it's very hard not to think or treat them as subhumans. act like an animal, prepare to be treated like one.

iaink

Right, you keep arguing that some money will magically become available, but the death sentance, with due legal process, is demonstrably extremely expensive. You are proposing its use where only 100% absolutley guilty cross my heart and hope to die levels of guilt are proven, but it doesnt occur to you that that is going to be even more expensive to prove and even more likely to be appealed to the rafters before a sentance is carried out.

There are places where judicial executions do occur with commendable speed and economy. China, Saudi Arabia, Japan to some extent come to mind, but in all those places there are very serious human rights concerns that you dont seem to be thinking apply. Maybe you should do some research and learn some facts. Start with the Amnesty International site is my advice.

jwtimmon

At what point does all the time spent on death row waiting to die constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

iaink

But millions would be spent to get to the point of not paying anything. For how many cases? Its economic nonsense.

Your argument seems to be based on the flawed idea that the US currently sends people to death row and beyond without trying to establish guilt to a very high standard?

And still they get it wrong, and not just once in a long while. And it costs far more than incarceration.

Shard

[QUOTE=jwtimmon;11178565] Remind me of the evidence they used to conclude their was "no doubt / none" ?

I don't know the detail of the case but it is likely that there was some element of doubt in the case, and that it was simply proved beyond reasonable doubt.