Man Bragged to Idaho Girl About Killings

[Kasey Chang]

I'm just trying to point out that stoning him to death, torturing him whatever to "get even" doesn't do society any good. If anything it just lowers us. Its astonishing ever time somethign like this happens the number of people out there saying, he should be tortured, or lethal injection is too good for him etc. Talk about blood-lust. What good does that kind of thing do to society?

That's why there's this thing called the government... It must do things no individual citizens will.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Should the government have the power to put him to death? Absolutely not.

Why?

Why not? If people don't want their government to be able to do that, then so be it.

[farley2k]

I'm just trying to point out that stoning him to death, torturing him whatever to "get even" doesn't do society any good. If anything it just lowers us. Its astonishing ever time somethign like this happens the number of people out there saying, he should be tortured, or lethal injection is too good for him etc. Talk about blood-lust. What good does that kind of thing do to society?

That's why there's this thing called the government... It must do things no individual citizens will.

Yeah things like build public roads, put in infastructure for electricity to rural areas when it is not profitable for a company to do so.

I don't know that it means torturing people, flaying them, etc.

[The Mad Hatter]

Should the government have the power to put him to death? Absolutely not.

Why?

A libertarian is asking me why government shouldn't have the right to execute people?

[The Preacher]

Should the government have the power to put him to death? Absolutely not.

Why?

A libertarian is asking me why government shouldn't have the right to execute people?

The libertarian line of thinking has no particular stance one way or another on the death penalty.

[Fretmute]

A libertarian is asking me why government shouldn't have the right to execute people?

The libertarian line of thinking has no particular stance one way or another on the death penalty.

I believe he was thinking of the death penalty as the ultimate encroachment on one's rights, which is something a libertarian is ostensibly against.

[farley2k]

A libertarian is asking me why government shouldn't have the right to execute people?

The libertarian line of thinking has no particular stance one way or another on the death penalty.

I believe he was thinking of the death penalty as the ultimate encroachment on one's rights, which is something a libertarian is ostensibly against.

That was my thought as well.

[The Preacher]

A libertarian is asking me why government shouldn't have the right to execute people?

The libertarian line of thinking has no particular stance one way or another on the death penalty.

I believe he was thinking of the death penalty as the ultimate encroachment on one's rights, which is something a libertarian is ostensibly against.

If that was his thought, it would be a misstaken view of libertarianism. It may, however, be the correct view of anarchy.

[farley2k]

If that was his thought, it would be a misstaken view of libertarianism. It may, however, be the correct view of anarchy.

Or maybe your just wrong.

[Fretmute]

If that was his thought, it would be a misstaken view of libertarianism. It may, however, be the correct view of anarchy.

Or maybe your just wrong.

That depends on which part of this Wiki entry you choose to believe.

[farley2k]

If that was his thought, it would be a misstaken view of libertarianism. It may, however, be the correct view of anarchy.

Or maybe your just wrong.

That depends on which part of this Wiki entry you choose to believe.

Wait a minute you mean this isn't an absolute?

Next you will say the some Catholics believe in birth control!!

These groups need stronger standards!

[Mr. Sparkle]

I'm just guessing here, but I think that Tareeq is trying to point out the brutality inherent in the State as an argument against the State; not explicitly for the death penalty.

[Tareeq]

I'm simply pointing out the weirdness of a person who believes the government should have the power to regulate every aspect of people's lives (through the economy) saying the government should never, under any circumstances, have the power to end those lives.

I am not aware of any convincing, non-religious arguments as to why a vicious animal like this should not be humanely destroyed. I can think of many good reasons for doing it, including helping the man to accept personal responsibility for his mistakes.

The Mad Hatter certainly dodged the question.

[The Preacher]

If that was his thought, it would be a misstaken view of libertarianism. It may, however, be the correct view of anarchy.

Or maybe your just wrong.

I could be, but given that the rather extreme Libertarian Party considers it a debatable issue I find it highly unlikely that it is a foregone conclusion.

The fundamental freedoms that are the core tenet of libertarianism has no certain extension to the punishments when someone has been proven to have infringed on another's liberties. If anything, there is one view within libertarian circles that you give people the most freedom possible, such as no DUI laws, but if and when someone has been proven to infringe on another's liberties, you punish with utmost severity (e.g. a DUI accident with a death is punishable by near-murder standards).

So why do you think libertarianism only lends itself solely to opposition to the death penalty?

[Mr. Sparkle]

I am not aware of any convincing, non-religious arguments as to why a vicious animal like this should not be humanely destroyed.

It worked pretty well for Ghandi and the Civil Rights Movement. The moral high ground is a pretty nice place to be.

[Tareeq]

Libertarians are not anarchists by any means. To amplify on what the Preacher said above, they (we) recognize the need for government, but believe that government's legitimate function is to preserve social order and to enforce contracts through the courts.

Punishing murder obviously preserves social order. The method by which it is done is just details.

You don't have to be a limp-wristed, soft-on-crime, bleeding heart creampuff to be a libertarian at all.

So, why shouldn't this man be killed? (Non-religious answer please, I'll stipulate that executing people makes Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, and Xenu cry.)

[Tareeq]

It worked pretty well for Ghandi and the Civil Rights Movement. The moral high ground is a pretty nice place to be.

Gandhi and the Civil Rights movement were not governments charged with enforcing the laws. They were in fact criminals engaged in civil disobedience to laws they considered unjust. So what does your analogy have to do with anything?

You don't believe in God. Why therefore do you believe that human life, even a life as wretched and degraded as this one, is sacred?

[Enough]

I'm simply pointing out the weirdness of a person who believes the government should have the power to regulate every aspect of people's lives (through the economy) saying the government should never, under any circumstances, have the power to end those lives.

I am not aware of any convincing, non-religious arguments as to why a vicious animal like this should not be humanely destroyed. The Mad Hatter certainly dodged that question.

I won't. Not that I buy into all of these arguments, but as you already know there are plenty of convincing arguments against the death penalty out there not based on religion.

1. Morality isn't always based upon religion. Some folks that are not religious still find it's ethically wrong to kill whether the state executes a criminal or a murderer kills a victim. One need not turn to the Bible or Koran to make moral platitudes. And what's wrong with religious arguments against the death penalty anyways?

2. Some psychologists have argued for years that the state creates a dangerous double message by executing criminals.

3. It costs more to execute than to imprison for life, why should taxpayers shoulder the burden for your idea of what's most humane treatment for a ruthless murderer.

4. I would bet given the comments in this thread that quite a few would prefer life in prison for him so he really has to suffer at the hands of other prisoners.

5. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

6. Etc.

[Mr. Fed]

Those are all arguments against the DP. But what makes them arguments that a libertarian must perforce accept?

[Enough]

Those are all arguments against the DP. But what makes them arguments that a libertarian must perforce accept?

I wasn't crafting those arguments to be a necessity for a libertarian to accept if they wish to remain consistent with their views. Although some of the arguments against the DP could be accepted by a libertarian without contradiction in their ideology.

But by his last post it wasn't clear Tareeq was asking for such a thing from TMH anyways. He was "pointing out the weirdness of a person who believes the government should have the power to regulate every aspect of people's lives (through the economy) saying the government should never, under any circumstances, have the power to end those lives." He says he doesn't know any non-religious arguments as to why a vicious killer shouldn't be executed. I offered plenty.

[Tareeq]

I won't. Not that I buy into all of these arguments, but as you already know there are plenty of convincing arguments against the death penalty out there not based on religion.

For clarity's sake, which ones don't you buy?

1. Morality isn't always based upon religion. Some folks that are not religious still find it's ethically wrong to kill whether the state executes a criminal or a murderer kills a victim. One need not turn to the Bible or Koran to make moral platitudes. And what's wrong with religious arguments against the death penalty anyways?

They are not subject to rational debate, since the authority which promulgates the argument is not available for consultation, and its legitimacy is in question, at least round these parts.

2. Some psychologists have argued for years that the state creates a dangerous double message by executing criminals.

Some psychologists claim that snoring is a mental illness (See DSM-IV). Are you aware of any scientific studies showing that the absence of the death penalty reduces the murder rate?

3. It costs more to execute than to imprison for life, why should taxpayers shoulder the burden for your idea of what's most humane treatment for a ruthless murderer.

A softpoint bullet costs less than a dollar. It's the appellate process that costs so much, and that can be streamlined. It is entirely a creature of our laws.

4. I would bet given the comments in this thread that quite a few would prefer life in prison for him so he really has to suffer at the hands of other prisoners.

Personally I believe that the state of our prisons is a disgrace. Are you actually arguing in favor of prison beatings and rapes? If you support extra-judicial punishment, why not let the victims' families do it, rather than delegating to inmates?

5. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

You mistake the government for a private actor. It is not. It is the entity we have created to enforce our laws, so that we don't have to take the law into our own hands.

The Buck Stops Here.

6. Etc.

And so on.

[Tareeq]

But by his last post it wasn't clear Tareeq was asking for such a thing from TMH anyways.

Why?

He refused to answer the original question. Instead he dodged it with a snide, and ultimately unavailing, reference to my beliefs. Not everyone has your courage, Enough.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Gandhi and the Civil Rights movement were not governments charged with enforcing the laws. They were in fact criminals engaged in civil disobedience to laws they considered unjust. So what does your analogy have to do with anything?

I don't make a distinction, I suppose. Changing the government is still governance.

You don't believe in God. Why therefore do you believe that human life, even a life as wretched and degraded as this one, is sacred?

I actually do believe in God thank-you-very-much. I'm agnostic. Probably closest in beliefs to a heretical Gnostic for the curious.

But regardless, being an atheist doesn't prevent you from having morals. And being rational does not make you a utilitarian. I'm not a relativist; I'm perfectly comfortable making value judgements.

[godhugh]

EDIT: Already been said, nevermind.

[Kasey Chang]

That's why there's this thing called the government... It must do things no individual citizens will.

Yeah things like build public roads, put in infastructure for electricity to rural areas when it is not profitable for a company to do so. I don't know that it means torturing people, flaying them, etc.

Oh, certainly not in a US court where we have outlawed "cruel and unusual punishment", but think about it. Torture and such would be perfectly legal under a legal system were it NOT outlawed by the justices (or Congress)!

My point is that the government COULD have such powers, and DID have such powers until we decided they shouldn't. Sometimes we wonder if we're so smart.

[godhugh]

That's why there's this thing called the government... It must do things no individual citizens will.

Yeah things like build public roads, put in infastructure for electricity to rural areas when it is not profitable for a company to do so. I don't know that it means torturing people, flaying them, etc.

Oh, certainly not in a US court where we have outlawed "cruel and unusual punishment", but think about it. Torture and such would be perfectly legal under a legal system were it NOT outlawed by the justices (or Congress)!

My point is that the government COULD have such powers, and DID have such powers until we decided they shouldn't. Sometimes we wonder if we're so smart.

Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't have outlawed "cruel and unusual punishment"?

[Enough]

I won't. Not that I buy into all of these arguments, but as you already know there are plenty of convincing arguments against the death penalty out there not based on religion.

For clarity's sake, which ones don't you buy?

This post wasn't intended to be Enough's treatise against the DP, it was to make the obvious point that there are oodles of non-religious arguments against the DP that many folks find convincing. It's immaterial what I think.

1. Morality isn't always based upon religion. Some folks that are not religious still find it's ethically wrong to kill whether the state executes a criminal or a murderer kills a victim. One need not turn to the Bible or Koran to make moral platitudes. And what's wrong with religious arguments against the death penalty anyways?

They are not subject to rational debate, since the authority which promulgates the argument is not available for consultation, and its legitimacy is in question, at least round these parts.

Of course arguments based on morality are difficult to subject to rational debate. But you asked for convincing arguments, not rational ones my friend. And a few ethics professors would likely strongly disagree with you on that. On a purely biological/scientific level there's nothing really wrong with murder is there? Survival of the fittest, etc.

2. Some psychologists have argued for years that the state creates a dangerous double message by executing criminals.

Some psychologists claim that snoring is a mental illness (See DSM-IV). Are you aware of any scientific studies showing that the absence of the death penalty reduces the murder rate?

Non-responsive, lacking any direct clash to the point I made. The psychologists I believe argue it desensitizes people to murder and violence because, by executing people, the state sends the message that violence is an acceptable means of resolving conflicts. This results in a mass psychosis that makes it a self-replicating cycle.

3. It costs more to execute than to imprison for life, why should taxpayers shoulder the burden for your idea of what's most humane treatment for a ruthless murderer.

A softpoint bullet costs less than a dollar. It's the appellate process that costs so much, and that can be streamlined. It is entirely a creature of our laws.

Or a creature of our society's insistence that due process be guaranteed, esp. when correcting a mistaken DP is impossible?

4. I would bet given the comments in this thread that quite a few would prefer life in prison for him so he really has to suffer at the hands of other prisoners.

Personally I believe that the state of our prisons is a disgrace. Are you actually arguing in favor of prison beatings and rapes? If you support extra-judicial punishment, why not let the victims' families do it, rather than delegating to inmates?

You already know the answer if you've been reading my posts in RP for long, of course I don't subscribe to this horrid argument. Again my point is not to make my case against the DP but to simply counter your point to TMH that there are no convincing non-religious arguments out there. This one obviously convinces a lot of folks. And I would think many families that feel this way have no interest in doing the raping and are all too happy to let a scary prisoner do it instead.

5. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

You mistake the government for a private actor. It is not. It is the entity we have created to enforce our laws, so that we don't have to take the law into our own hands.

Those words apply to the government for many people as well.

Edit I am against the DP, perhaps I can get into the reasons why at a later time. It's for a mix of moral reasons, fear of mistakes that cannot be corrected, judicial bias and whatnot. But in all honesty I never shed a tear when a guy like being discussed here gets executed.

[The Mad Hatter]

But by his last post it wasn't clear Tareeq was asking for such a thing from TMH anyways.

Why?

He refused to answer the original question. Instead he dodged it with a snide, and ultimately unavailing, reference to my beliefs. Not everyone has your courage, Enough.

Hey, I was off watching Buffy. Anyway...to me, libertarianism extends beyond economic regulation and is an ideology of individual freedom. Giving the government the right to execute citizens even through the process of law is the ultimate encroachment on individual rights. I can turn the argument you made back on you - if you believe the government can be trusted with the power of life and death over its citizens, why can't it be trusted to regulate their economic activities as well?

As for practical reasons, there's zero evidence capital punishment functions as a deterrent to other murderers. Obviously it deters the person concerned, but so does life in prison. Is there an abstract principle of justice behind executing those judged sufficiently vile by the due process of law? Possibly, but that runs into the abstract principle I mentioned above regarding the power of the state. The need to limit state power overrides any justice concerns behind executing those who deserve it. Life in prison is sufficient.

BTW, it's important to note that we're judging this guy and others like him based on media reports. None of us know the real details behind any of it. He certainly sounds like he's beyond the pale of humanity - but we ultimately don't know what the truth is here.

[The Preacher]

Anyway...to me, libertarianism extends beyond economic regulation and is an ideology of individual freedom.

It is.

Giving the government the right to execute citizens even through the process of law is the ultimate encroachment on individual rights.

Why? Is imprisonment encroachment on an individual right? Is fining people an encroachment on individual right?

Libertarianism doesn't disallow laws and punishments. Once you accept that, the death penalty is no different than life imprisonment from a libertarian philosophy point of view. And it most certainly isn't an automatic preclusion!

The philosophy you are suggesting is much closer to anarchy.

I can turn the argument you made back on you - if you believe the government can be trusted with the power of life and death over its citizens, why can't it be trusted to regulate their economic activities as well?

The government is "trusted" with punishment because someone has to be the arbiter when one infringes upon another's freedoms. If the economic activities you are conceiving clearly infringe on another's freedom then they would be allowed to act upon it.

[Tareeq]

5. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

You mistake the government for a private actor. It is not. It is the entity we have created to enforce our laws, so that we don't have to take the law into our own hands.

Those words apply to the government for many people as well.

What does this mean?

And since you're about candor today, I'll admit that I have no fixed position on the death penalty. My practical side wants very much to skin people like this man alive, while my process-oriented side worries about erroneous convictions, which ultimately I think are the best argument (other than to faith) against employing the punishment at all.

That argument is undercut in cases of clear, clear guilt. The problem is defining clear, clear guilt in a fair manner without resorting to silliness like Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it."

Example: I forget the style of the case, a California appellate decision I read in law school.

D, who has been charged with molesting stepdaughter, refuses to let mom into the trailer he shares with mom and stepdaughter. Mom calls the police. A siege ensues, and after some hours D is forced out by tear gas. Inside the trailer, stepdaughter's body is found stabbed over twenty times, with bloody footprints indicating stepdaughter had run a considerable distance around and through the trailer after the first stab, presumably while receiving successive stab wounds. Stepdaughter's body is covered with a pile of clothes, presumably in an amateurish attempt to hide it. D is found covered with her blood, and a load of bloody laundry is found in a washing machine.

This is the sort of case for which I'd reserve the penalty, but it's hard to draft statutory language reserving it for really mean sonsofbitches who are guilty unless we're all victims of a deception on Cartesian levels.

Actual result from the California Supreme Court: Insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill, negating the death penalty.

When I read it, the decision made me want to hang Rose Byrd.

[Fretmute]

D, who has been charged with molesting stepdaughter, refuses to let mom into the trailer he shares with mom and stepdaughter. Mom calls the police. A siege ensues, and after some hours D is forced out by tear gas. Inside the trailer, stepdaughter's body is found stabbed over twenty times, with bloody footprints indicating stepdaughter had run a considerable distance around and through the trailer after the first stab, presumably while receiving successive stab wounds. Stepdaughter's body is covered with a pile of clothes, presumably in an amateurish attempt to hide it. D is found covered with her blood, and a load of bloody laundry is found in a washing machine.

This is the sort of case for which I'd reserve my "we're sorry sir, but you were found 'overwhelmingly guilty' and therefore don't get any appeals" doctrine.

[YellowKing]

Yes, lets help promote more prison rape in our culture.

I'm not promoting rape. I'm promoting that they murder his sorry ass. (Though a good raping beforehand would be icing on the cake.)

[Mr. Sparkle]

5. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

You mistake the government for a private actor. It is not. It is the entity we have created to enforce our laws, so that we don't have to take the law into our own hands.

Those words apply to the government for many people as well.

What does this mean?

That there is Law above government? You don't have to be religious to believe that... of course it's old skool and totally out of fashion, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[Tareeq]

That there is Law above government? You don't have to be religious to believe that... of course it's old skool and totally out of fashion, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Careful, this way lies Confucianism.

[Mr. Sparkle]

That there is Law above government? You don't have to be religious to believe that... of course it's old skool and totally out of fashion, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Careful, this way lies Confucianism.

I was thinking Locke or Plato.

If there are human universals that government exists to protect, and government is created by man, then those universals are above government.

[Tareeq]

If there are human universals that government exists to protect, and government is created by man, then those universals are above government.

And those universals are known among men as the will of Heaven. The Son of Heaven enforces the will of Heaven on earth until such time as Heaven shall withdraw its favor.

When Heaven withdraws its favor barbarians from outside the Middle Kingdom invade, and the people starve, until such time as a hero arises to make the barbarians gnash their teeth, a hero of such morality as to recapture the favor of Heaven.

That hero shall become the new emperor of the Middle Kingdom, and so the Heavenly cycle continues.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Whether you believe those universals are abitrarily defined by man is irrelevant. Government was still created to protect them... they are more important than government. (Locke) This is not a should but an is. A value judgement (abitrary or not) by the populace that killing of the State's citizens is not to be tolerated under any circumstances is all that is required. Luckily in a democracy no revolution is required for enforcement.

[Tareeq]

Whether you believe those universals are abitrarily defined by man is irrelevant. Government was still created to protect them... they are more important than government. (Locke)

If we believe that government was created for that purpose. Since the first people to create governments were preliterate, and since history is written by the victors, is it not equally likely that government was created to enable the strong the oppress the weak in a systematic yet controlled fashion that does not overly oppress the weak, causing them to revolt or killing them off?

As a rancher governs his cattle.

This is not a should but an is.

But is it?

A value judgement (abitrary or not) by the populace that killing of the State's citizens is not to be tolerated under any circumstances is all that is required.

Does it not follow that a value judgment (arbitrary or not) by the populace that executing savage murderers is to be applauded as justice makes capital punishment legitimate?

Luckily in a democracy no revolution is required for enforcement.

Until such time as that democracy loses the favor of Heaven.

[The Mad Hatter]

Anyway...to me, libertarianism extends beyond economic regulation and is an ideology of individual freedom.

It is.

Giving the government the right to execute citizens even through the process of law is the ultimate encroachment on individual rights.

Why? Is imprisonment encroachment on an individual right? Is fining people an encroachment on individual right?

Libertarianism doesn't disallow laws and punishments. Once you accept that, the death penalty is no different than life imprisonment from a libertarian philosophy point of view. And it most certainly isn't an automatic preclusion!

Punishments by due process of law, but I think a true libertarian system would exclude the death penalty because it's too much power for the state. Life sentences can be abrogated if found to be false or the product of state corruption - not so for capital punishment. If government is unable to regulate our economic wellbeing, I'd think it'd be unable to impartially decide life or death for its citizens as well.

The philosophy you are suggesting is much closer to anarchy.

Well, there's a variant on libertarianism guys like Chomsky talk about. It's pretty much the antithesis of what you and Tareeq seem to believe, but they call it libertarian socialism.

I can turn the argument you made back on you - if you believe the government can be trusted with the power of life and death over its citizens, why can't it be trusted to regulate their economic activities as well?

The government is "trusted" with punishment because someone has to be the arbiter when one infringes upon another's freedoms. If the economic activities you are conceiving clearly infringe on another's freedom then they would be allowed to act upon it.

Certainly the government can be the arbiter and dole out punishment where necessary. I don't question that. I'm still not seeing where life in prison wouldn't be as fitting a punishment, without giving the state the power of killing its citizens.

[Kasey Chang]

Whether you believe those universals are abitrarily defined by man is irrelevant. Government was still created to protect them...

"them" being the universals?

Nope. Government is created by the people, therefore it must serve the people, who were willing to be governed by it. They give up part of their rights and whatever else to gain the government's benefits. With no people, there would be no law.

they [Universals?] are more important than government. (Locke) This is not a should but an is.

Sounds like an opinion either way, not a fact.

A value judgement (abitrary or not) by the populace that killing of the State's citizens is not to be tolerated under any circumstances is all that is required. Luckily in a democracy no revolution is required for enforcement.

Unless that citizen's so dangerous, s/he threatens the citizens and/or the state? Then in order to preserve the citizens and the state, that specific citizen must be dealt with?

In the old days there used to be "banishment". Too bad there really isn't much of that any more.