Executions Can Save Lives

Dale · Jul 16, 2019

Silmarien said:
I don't know. It is a considerably larger issue than just that: Criminal justice reform in the United States - Wikipedia

I would err on the side of execution being intrinsically wrong, but even if you want to say that it could be theoretically permissible, for practical purposes, the danger of being wrongly accused is too great. I also think what your story offers isn't an argument in favor of the death penalty, but rather against parole for those who commit certain types of violent crimes. Life in prison would have prevented further deaths in this case as well, so it's not specifically an execution that would have saved lives here.

You would need to focus on the sorts of problems that can occur inside prisons (murder, rape, terrorist indoctrination) if you wanted to try to build a case on practical considerations. I think there are still better options even there, but in some cases an argument could likely be made.

If you are going to cite a source on “criminal justice reform,” surely you can do better than a Wikipedia article.

The trouble with this article is that the author apparently thinks that any reduction in sentences is a step forward. Under Florida it says:

<< Florida
Florida reformed one of their sentencing policies in 2016. Aggravated assault is no longer a crime that sentences a 10 to 20 or 20 to Life mandatory minimum statue, under SB 228.[53] >>

Do you know what aggravated assault is? As someone once put it, the difference between aggravated assault and murder is often the distance to the nearest hospital. In short, if you had been the victim of an aggravated assault, I doubt that you would be trying to lessen the penalty.

Dale · Jul 16, 2019

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It's cases like that which convince me of the need for the death penalty. When it is absolutely clear and beyond doubt that someone has done crimes on the level or above, described by the OP it seems entirely justified to punish them with death. It is a just punishment, especially for the remorseless who have taken lives and acted so callously towards other individuals. It's not about setting examples or trying to deter people.

I think of here in New Zealand with the Christchurch shooter. There's no reason for him to be kept alive that outweighs the serious harm he has done to 47 or so people.

I know the feeling. I can remember when Timothy McVeigh came to the sentencing phase of his trial. McVeigh is acknowledged to have killed 168 people, some children, and injured hundreds more, in a brazen crime, when he blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. He wanted to make a political statement, so he killed people. When he came to the sentencing phase of his trial, I could only wonder, what is there to discuss? How many people to you have to kill before there is nothing for the judge to consider at sentencing?

McVeigh was executed, about ten years after the crime. His accomplice, Terry Nichols, got life in prison. The US couldn’t even manage to execute two men for a mere 168 terrorist murders.

Silmarien · Jul 16, 2019

Dale said:
If you are going to cite a source on “criminal justice reform,” surely you can do better than a Wikipedia article.

I wasn't citing a source. My aim was to provide a quick overview of what criminal justice reform entailed, and Wikipedia is perfectly suitable for that particular purpose. You'll find that the article in question has 82 references, so if you'd like more information, you're free to explore further.

Dale said:
The trouble with this article is that the author apparently thinks that any reduction in sentences is a step forward. Under Florida it says:

<< Florida
Florida reformed one of their sentencing policies in 2016. Aggravated assault is no longer a crime that sentences a 10 to 20 or 20 to Life mandatory minimum statue, under SB 228.[53] >>

Do you know what aggravated assault is? As someone once put it, the difference between aggravated assault and murder is often the distance to the nearest hospital. In short, if you had been the victim of an aggravated assault, I doubt that you would be trying to lessen the penalty.

I am an attorney, so yes, I know what aggravated assault is. I also know what criminal justice reform is, and I can assure you that it does encompass seeking shorter prison sentences or even alternatives to incarceration, amongst other things.

Criminal justice reform is a genuine and fairly organized area of activism--it isn't something that the author of the article invented. You're welcome to disagree with the logic behind proposed reforms, but they would still fit under the label of "criminal justice reform." I've noticed trends here that I'm critical of myself, such as the attempt in certain circles to do away with the concept of retributive justice entirely, but it is very clear that criminal justice reform as a movement exists.

Tom 1 · Jul 16, 2019

Dale said:
People who don’t believe that executions can stop further murders, and other crimes, should take a look at the criminal career of Paul Eugene Rowles (1948-2013). He first raped and killed Linda Fida, 20, in 1972, at an apartment complex in Miami. Her husband found her dead, naked body in the bathtub. Rowles got into her room while she was in the laundry room, waited, then brutally raped her before stabbing her to death. He was arrested in April 1972, shortly after the crime. He was convicted in 1976 and sentenced to life in prison.

Despite being sentenced to “life” for an outrageous attack, he was released on parole in December of 1985. He had served about 13 years from the time of his arrest to the date of his parole.

Although Rowles was not tied to the crimes for many years afterward, we now know that he raped and killed Elizabeth Foster, 21, in 1989, and Tiffany Sessions, 20, in 1992. Both were stabbed to death. Both crimes were committed in Gainesville, Florida, and both were students at the University of Florida.

In May of 1994, Rowles broke into an apartment in Clearwater, Florida, and held a 16 year old girl hostage for hours before she escaped, running stark naked from the scene. I don’t believe her name has been released. Had she not managed to escape, she too would almost certainly be another dead victim. Rowles was convicted and sentenced to 19 years for the Clearwater rape, and perhaps more important, his parole was revoked, sending him back to prison for life.

In 1999, an innocent man was extradited from Wisconsin, where he was serving time, indicted, and almost convicted of the murder of Elizabeth Foster. A judge realized that the case didn’t make sense and threw it out in a decision that was unpopular at the time.

DNA evidence linked Paul Rowles to the rape/murder of Elizabeth Foster 25 years after it happened. Rowles is also definitively linked to the rape/murder of Tiffany Sessions by notations in his private notebook. He died of natural causes in a prison hospital in 2013.

Paul Rowles is responsible for the rape/murder of three young college students who had bright futures ahead of them. He was convicted of the lengthy rape of a teenage girl. Some believe, or suspect, that the actual count is considerably higher. What we do know is that Paul Rowles should have been executed after the psychopathic murder of Linda Fida. That execution would have saved the lives of at least two young college students, and at least one girl from being held for hours by a rapist.

Florida does have the death penalty. Oddly enough, the trial judge isn’t necessarily to blame for Rowles not being executed after the murder of Linda Fida. Exceeding its powers, the US Supreme Court banned all executions shortly after the arrest of Paul Rowles. After the SC threw out capital punishment laws in all states that allowed it, it took years for legislatures to pass new laws. Florida law on life sentences hadn’t caught up with the new situation. Why isn’t the Supreme Court ever blamed for the consequences of its ill-considered actions?

Links
Paul Rowles | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

and

25 years later, cops name suspect in disappearance of Tiffany Sessions

The state has also killed a number of people who later evidence showed to be innocent. At least 10 people have been murdered by the state in this way, overall the most thorough study put the figure of wrongly convicted people executed at around 4% (mostly black men or boys) in the last century or so.

The Barbarian · Jul 17, 2019

So death penalty advocates in Florida thereby figure a 4% error rate, killing four innocent people in order to kill 96 guilty ones, is acceptable. Anyone here want to defend that position?

Yekcidmij · Jul 17, 2019

DanishLutheran said:
Oh, and the "How many innocents would you want to kill?" is easily answered with the classical: "When did you stop beating your wife?"-retort.

I didn't see it as a loaded question. I think the fact is that no criminal process is perfect simply because no human is perfect. Some guilty will be acquitted and some innocent will be convicted. So regarding the death sentence, what is an acceptable error rate? How many innocent people would it be acceptable to execute (albeit accidentally) in order to ensure we execute all of the guilty and deserving? Or would it be more acceptable for some of the actually guilty/deserving to live with lesser sentences (or acquittal at the extreme) in order to make sure that innocents aren't accidentally executed?

Francis Drake · Jul 17, 2019

Yarddog said:
Life in prison can save souls.

So can repentance at any time before execution.
"Therefore they have no excuse...…."

Francis Drake · Jul 17, 2019

Shiloh Raven said:
I don't want to put you on the spot, but I must say that your response is one of the very few I have seen that has a genuine Christian point of view and an actual morally consistent pro-life position.

"Life in prison can save souls", is not a Christian response. It's just a handwringing soft soap leftie response.

Show anywhere in scripture that we are instructed to let a murderer off with just prison.

Francis Drake · Jul 17, 2019

Yarddog said:
I am pro-life in all cases that I know. The death penalty, whether it is deserved or not, is not needed in most developed countries. It does end a person's ability to repent, though.

It no more ends a person's ability to repent than natural death does.
Romans1 makes it abundantly clear that man has no excuse for rejecting God.

Yarddog · Jul 17, 2019

Francis Drake said:
So can repentance at any time before execution.
"Therefore they have no excuse...…."

No one has an excuse, even the executioner.

Francis Drake · Jul 17, 2019

Yarddog said:
No one has an excuse, even the executioner.

Romans1v18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Men innately know the truth but suppress it.

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
God has made himself evident to all men.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
Despite their denial, the invisible things of God are clearly seen by all men.

being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Not only are these invisible things seen, but they are actually understood, but then rejected by free choice.

Yarddog · Jul 17, 2019

Francis Drake said:
It no more ends a person's ability to repent than natural death does.

You don't think that there is a difference between a natural death than an unnatural death?

Romans1 makes it abundantly clear that man has no excuse for rejecting God.

And? The executioner rejects God's call to mercy. "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast the stone... "

Yarddog · Jul 17, 2019

Francis Drake said:
Romans1v18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Men innately know the truth but suppress it.

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
God has made himself evident to all men.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
Despite their denial, the invisible things of God are clearly seen by all men.

being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Not only are these invisible things seen, but they are actually understood, but then rejected by free choice.

And God's call to have mercy is rejected by the executioner.

The Barbarian · Jul 17, 2019

We still don't have any death penalty advocate willing to tell us how many condemned innocent people would be acceptable, in order to kill murderers. I suspect they just don't want to think about it, feeling that if they don't think about it, it doesn't happen.

Yekcidmij · Jul 17, 2019

The Barbarian said:
We still don't have any death penalty advocate willing to tell us how many condemned innocent people would be acceptable, in order to kill murderers. I suspect they just don't want to think about it, feeling that if they don't think about it, it doesn't happen.

Maybe there should just be a sufficiently higher threshold to cross for the death penalty. The standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," but maybe the standard for the death penalty after a conviction should be something stronger like "beyond any doubt?" Maybe there should be different thresholds for convictions and sentences?

DanishLutheran · Jul 17, 2019

Yarddog said:
No one has an excuse, even the executioner.

The executioner doesn't need an excuse for doing his job.

Yarddog said:
And? The executioner rejects God's call to mercy. "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast the stone... "

Yarddog said:
And God's call to have mercy is rejected by the executioner.

That's so far beyond ridiculous that it isn't even funny. Then the same is true of "normal" prison guards, judges, police officers, etc, even when CP is not involved. Hey, why not simply do away with the concept of a justice system, and just forgive everyone for everything constantly?
The logic you use here does not have an answer to that.

Fortunately, a more reasonable approach does:
Because there are several fundamental differences between the workings of the government/state/justice and our personal lives and conduct.

The Barbarian said:
We still don't have any death penalty advocate willing to tell us how many condemned innocent people would be acceptable, in order to kill murderers.

You still haven't told us when you stopped beating your wife.

Yekcidmij said:
Maybe there should just be a sufficiently higher threshold to cross for the death penalty. The standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," but maybe the standard for the death penalty after a conviction should be something stronger like "beyond any doubt?" Maybe there should be different thresholds for convictions and sentences?

Now THIS is something I agree with 100%
The threshold for capital cases should definitely be much, much higher than "reasonable doubt"

Yarddog · Jul 17, 2019

DanishLutheran said:
The executioner doesn't need an excuse for doing his job.

Before God, he does.

DanishLutheran said:
That's so far beyond ridiculous that it isn't even funny.

Tell that to Jesus. If you think that killing for a crime is justified then remember that we all have sinned and are worthy of death. Jesus died for man, so why haven't we learned from his example?

DanishLutheran said:
Then the same is true of "normal" prison guards, judges, police officers, etc, even when CP is not involved. Hey, why not simply do away with the concept of a justice system, and just forgive everyone for everything constantly?
The logic you use here does not have an answer to that.

We have the ability to separate a dangerous criminal from society, so why is killing them a necessity? Churches work within our prisons to bring the Gospel to those who just may hear the message they didn't hear while in the public arena. There are hundreds of success stories where criminals have turned their lives around.

DanishLutheran · Jul 17, 2019

Yarddog said:
Before God, he does.

By your logic, so does anyone involved in a normal prison sentence.

Yarddog said:
Tell that to Jesus.

I don't need to. Jesus isn't the one who made a ridiculous and silly argument based on nothing at all except arbitrary "This is how it is because it's how I say it is!"

Yarddog said:
If you think that killing for a crime is justified

Apparently God thinks so. Or else He wouldn't have commanded CP's implementation. But of course, you know better than God! Because you say so ^_^

Yarddog said:
then remember that we all have sinned and are worthy of death. Jesus died for man, so why haven't we learned from his example?

Yet another sentence that makes no sense.
Again: Two kingdoms. One is governed by Caesar's laws (the world), the other by God's (the Church)

Yarddog said:
We have the ability to separate a dangerous criminal from society, so why is killing them a necessity?

Why is justice a necessity?
Ask God that question.
And you haven't answered the question.

Yarddog · Jul 17, 2019

DanishLutheran said:
By your logic, so does anyone involved in a normal prison sentence.

Also including you and I.

I don't need to. Jesus isn't the one who made a ridiculous and silly argument based on nothing at all except arbitrary "This is how it is because it's how I say it is!"

To paraphrase it, Jesus said "let whoever is without sin cast the first stone. " Are you or the executions without sin? If not, don't kill.

Apparently God thinks so. Or else He wouldn't have commanded CP's implementation. But of course, you know better than God! Because you say so

Are you Jewish or Christian? God's Law applies to those under the Law. Jesus took away "an eye for an eye". Maybe you should read Matthew 5.

Yet another sentence that makes no sense.
Again: Two kingdoms. One is governed by Caesar's laws (the world), the other by God's (the Church)[\quote]
Then live as Jesus called.

Why is justice a necessity?

Click to expand...

It should be to protect the innocent.

Ask God that question.
And you haven't answered the question.

Click to expand...

I have but you need ears to hear.

Francis Drake · Jul 17, 2019

Yarddog said:
You don't think that there is a difference between a natural death than an unnatural death?

In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, whether he had been executed or died naturally as scripture shows, the rich man would be in exactly the same place.

And? The executioner rejects God's call to mercy. "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast the stone... "

There is a difference between a judicial death sentence, and our personal sense of forgiveness.
The executioner doesn't kill the prisoner because he hates him, he does it because of a judicial decision of guilt.
And as far as repentance is concerned, if someone has a sentence of death over his head, the focusses the mind more than anything else possibly could. If that man doesn't make his peace with God before his due date, then that's his own choice!
A man on death row has more time for repentance than a man with a heart attack!

Executions Can Save Lives

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Existentialist

Optimistic sceptic

Crabby Old White Guy

Presbyterian, Polymath

Returning adventurer.

Returning adventurer.

Returning adventurer.

Senior Contributor

Returning adventurer.

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Crabby Old White Guy

Presbyterian, Polymath

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Returning adventurer.

Similar threads