Law U.S. executes Brandon Bernard

[nostradumbass]

yea reason why i think death penalty is good is they don't deserve to breath for the evil things they done, locked up for life can be worse punishment but lets say in 15 years things change so much they try to rehabilitate these kind of murders and let them free while watching them because a huge swing in laws and courts... they should never get that chance.

I mean if it was really "an eye for an eye", they'd be killed in the exact manor by which they killed their victims. They don't, they get a pretty civilized lethal injection. None of the people who argue against it would ever in a million years want these people to move into their neighborhood, they only ever claim they're trustworthy to move into your neighborhood.

 

[grimballer]

Completely subjective on the society and people you're dealing with.

Yeah, there’s some bad ppl out there, that doesn’t mean the state should have the right to use barbaric methods to punish them.

If a person is guilty of torture and rape should their punishment be torture and rape?

 

[Sisyphos]

Yeah, there’s some bad ppl out there, that doesn’t mean the state should have the right to use barbaric methods to punish them. If a person is guilty of torture and rape should their punishment be torture and rape?

Ofc I completely agree. Whether it's the state or an individual, one must not turn into the monster, so to speak.
Where I disagree is where you call an execution a barbaric method. There's a difference between a relatively painless and instantaneous guillotine, and beating a man with a stick until he dies.

An execution should be instantaneous and as painless as possible.
The objective is to rid society of garbage, not any kind of torture or sadism.

In the future, I'm sure we'll be able to insert a rod into a criminal's cerebral cortex and kill him near instantly, like cattle.

 

[fingercuffs]

The sooner the Kartrashians die, the better.

How ironic if it was by the hands of one of these no-bail, repeat violent offenders.

I can't stand them either, but isn't she some form of lawyer now?

 

[fingercuffs]

Fair enough. How many of the people of death row were abused as children or have low IQ's or learning disabilities. How many had untreated mental illness? Lots of the these people came up through the ass end of society.

How many people who have been given life sentences or death penalty later were proven innocent?

People who can afford good lawyers generally don't receive the death penalty either.

This is why I can't agree with it. Even if its 1%, it's terrible. This guy if he pleaded guilty, did it etc I'm not going to lose any sleep about him being executed but I do think about people who might be innocent.

 

[Deleted member 263856]

This is actually the proper method for resolution.

The responsibility for taking the life of the convict rests solely on the family of the deceased. Laws and direct oversight would prevent torture of course, but a member of the family deemed executor of the case, would need to decide on clemency or death. It would then be on the family to physically carry out the execution themselves (ie pressing button to administer lethal injection, shoot via firing squad, etc.). If they can not or choose not to, the convict is given clemency.

At its most basic level, the entire situation is simply society allowing victims families retribution if they see fit, without judgement of decision; for anybody in a situation where their five year old daughter was raped and murdered who speaks ill of the death penalty is simply mouthing hot air.

I used to be against the death penalty but then I saw a documentary about it that was looking things in a balanced way. Cost to the taxpayer, moral/ethical implications etc. But the thing that struck a cord with me a was a woman whose mother, father and brother were murdered and when they finally executed the killer the woman said it was the only time in years that she felt like she could breathe again knowing that he was gone. I think the primary responsibility in instances like these are to the deceased and their families. Whatever resolution gets them through the day and gives them some reprieve should be among the most important considerations.

 

[giusti825]

I am not really for the death penalty but ALL the people on federal death row are just as bad.

The death penalty is wrong. Murder is wrong, even if you're murdering a bad person.

The last power a state should have is the power to murder its own citizens, even if they're "bad people."

Whenever the people gift the state a power it must always be considered "what is the worst possible way this power can be abused or expanded?"

Our government can now murder US citizens without trial, a power it would be harder to justify if they weren't already given the power to murder "bad citizens."

FOR EXAMPLE:

There was recently a case against the federal government brought by a journalist who is an American citizen. He reports on matters in the middle east. During his time in Syria there were 5 drone strikes extremely close to him. He began to get the suspicion that he may have been erroneously put on the kill list (yes. we are a civilized society that actually has one of those. Its official name is the 'Disposition Matrix')

He sued trying to find out how he got on the kill list. The government made the case that he doesn't have the standing to bring the case, because he doesn't have any hard evidence he is on the kill list.

The government also said that the kill list is privileged under the "States Secrets" clause and that even if he were on the list, the government had no obligation to let him know that he was on the list or how he ended up on it.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/

In short, we've delegated the power to the government to kill "bad citizens." Now they have granted themselves the power to kill "bad citizens," with drone strikes, without a trial, nor do the citizens have the ability to remedy a situation in which they are targeted for state-sanctioned murder.

The states duty above all is to protect its citizenry. Giving it the power to kill its citizenry is immoral, impractical and counterintuitive to the duty of the state.

Don't confer powers to the state that when used the worst way possible can do massive harm. Whenever the state is given a power, it is only a matter of time before that power is abused.

 

[grimballer]

Ofc I completely agree. Whether it's the state or an individual, one must not turn into the monster, so to speak.
Where I disagree is where you call an execution a barbaric method. There's a difference between a relatively painless and instantaneous guillotine, and beating a man with a stick until he dies.

An execution should be instantaneous and as painless as possible.
The objective is to rid society of garbage, not any kind of torture or sadism.

In the future, I'm sure we'll be able to insert a rod into a criminal's cerebral cortex and kill him near instantly, like cattle.

and that’s where we disagree

I don’t think it should be states job to decide who’s “human garbage” and doesn’t deserve to live anymore.

anytime the punishment becomes physical, it crosses that line between civilized and barbaric imo.

 

[SanchoMF]

Death penalty is sometimes the only suitable punishment.

 

[Sisyphos]

and that’s where we disagree

I don’t think it should be states job to decide who’s “human garbage” and doesn’t deserve to live anymore.

Then who does?
Who better than an impartial judge chosen by society to judge criminals?

If some dude tortures and rapes little girls, you're just going to allow him to roam free?

anytime the punishment becomes physical, it crosses that line between civilized and barbaric imo.

So you prefer life in high-sec penitentiary?

 

[Natural Order]

Ofc I completely agree. Whether it's the state or an individual, one must not turn into the monster, so to speak.
Where I disagree is where you call an execution a barbaric method. There's a difference between a relatively painless and instantaneous guillotine, and beating a man with a stick until he dies.

An execution should be instantaneous and as painless as possible.
The objective is to rid society of garbage, not any kind of torture or sadism.

In the future, I'm sure we'll be able to insert a rod into a criminal's cerebral cortex and kill him near instantly, like cattle.

A lot of research indicated that severed heads were generally observant and possibly cognitive of what was happening for up to 30 seconds after beheading. I don't think guillotine is a good choice given the possibility. But I fully agree with you sentiments and intent.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Anyone notice that the Federal Government has been carrying out executions throughout the year?

And ALL OF A SUDDEN leftists starts to give a damn?

So... were all the other convicts executed white, and leftists are only giving a damn about black convicts executed?

Or.... did they not want to distract from the election?

 

[Fugazy]

The death penalty is wrong. Murder is wrong, even if you're murdering a bad person.

The last power a state should have is the power to murder its own citizens, even if they're "bad people."

Whenever the people gift the state a power it must always be considered "what is the worst possible way this power can be abused or expanded?"

Our government can now murder US citizens without trial, a power it would be harder to justify if they weren't already given the power to murder "bad citizens."

FOR EXAMPLE:

There was recently a case against the federal government brought by a journalist who is an American citizen. He reports on matters in the middle east. During his time in Syria there were 5 drone strikes extremely close to him. He began to get the suspicion that he may have been erroneously put on the kill list (yes. we are a civilized society that actually has one of those. Its official name is the 'Disposition Matrix')

He sued trying to find out how he got on the kill list. The government made the case that he doesn't have the standing to bring the case, because he doesn't have any hard evidence he is on the kill list.

The government also said that the kill list is privileged under the "States Secrets" clause and that even if he were on the list, the government had no obligation to let him know that he was on the list or how he ended up on it.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/

In short, we've delegated the power to the government to kill "bad citizens." Now they have granted themselves the power to kill "bad citizens," with drone strikes, without a trial, nor do the citizens have the ability to remedy a situation in which they are targeted for state-sanctioned murder.

The states duty above all is to protect its citizenry. Giving it the power to kill its citizenry is immoral, impractical and counterintuitive to the duty of the state.

Don't confer powers to the state that when used the worst way possible can do massive harm. Whenever the state is given a power, it is only a matter of time before that power is abused.

I’m on the fence about the death penalty, but I just want to say to you that this is a really strong post.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness.

 

[High Altitude]

They should have killed this guy sooner.

 

[jeremyemilio]

How come you get so into the nitty gritty details of these kinds of horrid acts? It's not good for your soul.

I'm against the death penalty. And I can even agree that at times the gruesome details of violent crime are exploited for dollars and titillation.

But I also think there's a a tendency to go the other way that is equally, if not more so, distasteful. These victims were human beings. What they went through at the end of their lives was horrific. To say that I am above looking at or thinking about what other human beings were actually forced to experience borders on a failure of empathy. I'm not sure it's "good for your soul" to just shut out the pain of a small, helpless, 2 year old girl, because it's easier to go about your life without such things entering your thoughts. I'm sure it would have been much easier for her to remain oblivious to such "horrid acts," too, but she didn't have that choice.

It's a little like asking animal rights activists why they get so into the "nitty gritty details" of factory farming, or asking war photographers and anti war activists why the get so into the "nitty grotty details" of front line combat, or asking the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Museum why they get so into the "nitty gritty details" of genocide... or asking the anti death penalty activists why they get so into the "nitty gritty details" of execution.

 

[grimballer]

Then who does?
Who better than an impartial judge chosen by society to judge criminals?

If some dude tortures and rapes little girls, you're just going to allow him to roam free?

it’s a false dilemma

the choice is not death penalty or roam free.

crimial is still held accountable for his actions.

Now Sure a state/judge can judge criminals, but I Don’t think state should decide who’s disposable and doesn’t deserve to live anymore.

there’s the difference.

So you prefer life in high-sec penitentiary?

that should be up to the convict.

if he wants to spend the rest of his life behind bars, it’s his choice

likewise if he doesn’t want to live the rest of his life behind bars, he/she should have an opinion to perform some type of supervised harakiri.

the state shouldn’t be the one making that decision for him

 

[grimballer]

I’m on the fence about the death penalty, but I just want to say to you that this is a really strong post.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness.

gotta agree....

very well articulated

 

[bobgeese]

Good, fuck em.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Fair enough. How many of the people of death row were abused as children or have low IQ's or learning disabilities. How many had untreated mental illness? Lots of the these people came up through the ass end of society.

How many people who have been given life sentences or death penalty later were proven innocent?

People who can afford good lawyers generally don't receive the death penalty either.

Again, you make good points, but again I have a quibble.

I'm confused about the stance of the left on IQ. It feels like IQ is a bullshit and even racist measurement... unless the guy who has an IQ is on death row. Then it's legit.

How does that square?

 

[jeremyemilio]

It's one thing for someone to take personal action but something entirely different for the state to do it IMHO.

Exactly.

(Just thought I should take time to confirm that on the primary issue at hand I really do agree with you.)