To clarify, the second link is a relative of the victim writing about the death penalty, which he is opposed to.

While I sympathise with Steven's loss, it's been 15 years since Ray murderered his brother. As a philosopher, Ray's message is worthwhile and insightful. And I know that most of us are vastly different people than we were 15 years ago. I think that what the death penalty says - that some are beyond redemption - is horribly pessimistic. And as Ray points out, it goes against the Christian ethic.

This thread will no doubt degenerate into someone baying for blood, as it did on gawker. But his principle message of empathy and understanding is one that will be remembered. I think his letter will be remembered like the letters of Thoreau or the speech of Eugene Debbs. On the 19th March, I hope you will spare a thought for this man who will be put to death.

it would be really interesting if someone on this forum who is pro-death penalty would lay out some reasons for that, because i never really got the concept.

what would be more interesting would be for someone on this forum who is anti-death penalty but pro life in prison without the chance of parole to explain their views

We don't have the death penalty in Australia (although many of our culture heroes were caught and hung), but elevating this to philosophy? I'm not sure I can agree with you there. Social commentary perhaps, but not philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1cWO821sR4

The justification for capital punishment is merely revenge. "I want to know that when I am killed, someone will avenge me", says the pro-deather. But it is, reprehensibly murder. If you were to come back to life, and go to your murderers house and kill him with a syringe of cyanide, you would be a murderer. But do it through the state and it is "justice".

People always talk about the rights of the victim. There is no right for a victim to premeditate and execute the murder of their killer. The victim has a right not to be murdered, they argue. But this is already guaranteed by the fact that murder is illegal. You can't have a right that can't be upheld - you can be murdered, and there's nothing that the state can do to prevent it. Killing the people who do it does not solve anything. Just my 2 cents.

Ray doesn't get it. Many of those of us in favour of the death penalty are not so because we lack empathy. We stand by the principle of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We put ourselves in the shoes of the other and know that if we had done something so horrific and repulsive that we could never live with ourselves. If I had slit the throat of a fellow human for profit I would not deserve to live. If I fully rehabilitated in prison I would not wish to live.

I disagree SY. While I don't believe a single act that is the murder of one or more people warrants the death penalty, I do believe that, in protecting itself, society has every right to put to death someone who has shown a complete disregard by leaving a trail of bodies in their wake is a clear and present danger even if locked up.

If we lock them up for life, society has to pay a price for these animals (and make no mistake, a person who wantonly takes life wherever he finds it is not actually a person, but an animal) and paying for their every need in prison is an undo burden on society for someone who has proven to not belong in society.

So we put them down like rabid animals because, let's face it, they are animals. If they get paroled they will kill again, and if they escape they will kill again. So putting them down like one would a rabid dog, is more efficient. The needs of the many out weigh the supposed right (I would argue they renounced that right when they started their killing spree) of the mass murderer.

Now, I do *not* agree with killing a person who committed one act, even premeditated, as it is a single incident.

In short, Ray Jasper should *not* be executed, but executing Jeffrey Dahmer was for the good of society and not murder. Ray Jasper would most likely not kill again if he ever did get paroled. If Dahmer had gotten paroled or escaped, he would resume his murderous acts and there was no reason to pay for him to continue living. So either we put him down, or we throw him in a cell with no food or water and he dies of starvation/dehydration as he had not earned his place in a civilized society.

"We stand by the principle of do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I don't get it either. How can you condemn someone for murder and then murder them? If you follow the jurisprudence that the law is supposed to protect the right to life, then the law against murder is undermined by the fact that the death penalty sanctions murder. It's hypocritical at the most fundamental level. You can't declare rights and then tie them into responsibilities, or declare that rights only apply to law-abiding citizens. Universal, natural, human rights. The world really has gone to hell when intelligent people like Octavious can take a step backwards from the establishment of those rights several centuries ago.

"We have to pay for those individuals."

Boo fucking hoo. Are you saying there's a price to life? What is it? $5000 a month too much for you? How about $100?

The economic argument never had a place with the capital punishment debate. Killing people to save money - please revise your point Draugnar, because that's awful.

Ray Jasper's letter wasn't exactly remorseful was it. It's actually quite sickening how lacking in remorse it was. He planned the murder, he delivered the first blow slicing the poor victim's throat, and then held the victim down while his accomplice finished him off. He says that means he's not really a murderer. Shocking.

"If you follow the jurisprudence that the law is supposed to protect the right to life"...

They have voluntarily been stripped of that right to life through their action of taking another's life willfully with malice aforethought. You presume that the right cannot be stripped. You presume incorrectly. A person who willfully kills another no longer has that right. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are only to those who do not deny them to others. The moment you deny another their right to life, you give up that right yourself.

And again, Sy, these aren't people, but animals. Pleas read everything I worte. Just as I wouldn't pay to keep a rabid dog in a cage until it finally died, risking it's keepers lives and health in the process, I wouldn't pay to keep a murderous animal who just happens to share a chromosomal count with me in a cage for life. I'd put that animal down as well.

"Sy, these aren't people, but animals"

What can I say. You are subhuman for this opinion, not for murdering someone. Ray is more humane and reasonable than you. This is my honest opinion based on what you have both said. You are a fucking Auswitz guard for what you've just sai

You will accuse me of adhoc, but it's your argument that appalls me not your person. I feel as bad reading your statement as watching someone get killed. I really, really, don't know what to say.

How do you feel about abortion and euthanasia Synapse?
What about war? Is it okay to kill in defence of your country?
What about killing in all defence? Is that okay?
Are the ever circumstances where it is okay to take a life?

To above... What about killing in *self defence?

Why would I support a criminal who murders as a hobby so they can get 3 squares a day, gym time, HBO, and conjugal visits? There are a lot of people in this country who don't even get 3 squares a day, much less anything else.

@Synapse

Rights are something given to people by society. We are born with rights purely because it is the will of the people for that to happen. If the people choose to take rights away they cease to exist. Do I believe society works better when we are born with rights that in exceptional circumstances we may forfeit, rather than rights that are always with us regardless? Yes, I do. That is not hypocrisy, it is an alternative way of doing things.

The death penalty costs more money than life in prison. That's well established.

Will read past that post later.

i've read the same nonsense about calculating trial time (etc) into the cost of the death penalty, but people who say that forget to mention that life imprisonment trials are charged as well.

Unless those people believe that life imprisonment is all pro bono....right...

No, bo, it doesn't. Execution is cheap. The cost is in all the appeals that are mandatory before we can execute a prisoner. If you eliminate the mandatory appeals and just give them the same appeals as any other prisoner, it becomes significantly cheaper.

@Favio - a death row inmate is required to have a certain number of appeals. Not just allowed to, but required to. A murderer who just gets a life sentence, on the other hand, is allowed so many appeals, but only if he can provide new evidence to a judge and convince said judge he deserves the appeal. So even a life sentence is likely cheaper in the courts as they don't usually get the appeal without some really compelling evidence of misconduct or damn near proof of innocence.

That said, we do away with the mandatory appeals and make death row inmates have to meet the same burden of compelling evidence a lifer has to meet and suddenly the cost of execution goes way down.

Why would you eliminate the mandatory appeals? That's a terrible idea. It's good that if they are going to kill someone they are 100% sure the person is guilty (though we all know it doesn't always work that way).

I'm saying that they are the *only* reason executing someone is more expensive. I think whether the person is going away for life or getting the death sentence, they should have the exact same appeals process. So if it is mandatory for the death sentence, make it mandatory for a life sentence.

If a state is going to have the death penalty, then it better be damn sure its not executing an innocent man, whatever the process.

That wouldn't bother me, but as it stands, they don't.

2WL, DNA has exonerated tons of people on death row. There's no telling what kind of information we could get with improvements in forensic technology that all of these appeals 20 years ago couldn't have provided.

I don't have a problem with people appealing the process, but I agree with Draug on not making it mandatory. If we went back to firing squads as being the primary source of execution, or hanging, costs would go down significantly more.

@2WL, the whole "innocent man" routine is a bit old, especially these days. If a person is found to be at the scene of a crime, there is usually some sort of logical evidence that proves they are involved or not involved. The punishment will match the level of involvement, up to and including the death penalty. The likelihood that they will proven innocent after being proven guilty is slim to none (and I say that very objectively with absolutely no emotion at all).

All in all guys, let me ask you this: If you were living in a situation where you were lucky to get your rent paid, the light bill paid, food on the table for 3 kids....would you really want to continue to pay for criminals to eat more than you?