A Fascinating and Disturbing Movie

[Ad Orientem]

Youtube periodically has some good stuff uploaded and this movie was one of the most engrossing and disturbing I have seen in a while.

Pierpoint...
http://youtu.be/J1lqYoBS5kQ

Try to resist the temptation to read the film description before watching. Why would anyone would want that job??? OMG I am so creeped out.

[RuralEngineer]

I don't have a problem with capital punishment, and wouldn't have a problem being an executioner assuming the pay was good enough.  My issues are with our crap justice system.  I think there is a difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond ALL doubt" that any reasonably intelligent adult can determine.  Make sure all I'm getting is people like the Fort Hood or Denver Theater shooters, and I'm good to go.

[Ad Orientem]

I am opposed to capital punishment for more or less the reasons you cite. We have too many innocent or questionable cases landing on death row. It also serves no real purpose other than retributive justice and that's a damned expensive luxury when you add up all the costs.

Morally I am not absolutely opposed to it and if we had captured Bin Laden alive I would have been happy to call up Mr. Pierpoint and offer him one more "job." But I think it takes a very cold man to look another human being in the eye as you put a rope around his neck and then open the trap door. I don't think I could do that.

[MediumTex]

The problem I would have with it would be that by the time the guy got to me it might have been 20-25 years since he committed his crimes.

I would be faced by a 44 year old guy who had killed a person or people when he was 19.  If I asked him about the crime, he would almost certainly say that he didn't even remember it very well, since these things often happen when the killer is high/drunk/etc.

I don't remember things that I did when I was 19 in much detail.

In other words, it would feel like a pretty cold-blooded act to kill this middle aged guy for something that happened when he was just an immature kid.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't potentially be some justice in killing him, I just wouldn't want to be the one to do it, especially if he struck me as someone who truly regretted what he had done and had matured a lot while in prison.

[AdamA]

Youtube periodically has some good stuff uploaded and this movie was one of the most engrossing and disturbing I have seen in a while.

Pierpoint...
http://youtu.be/J1lqYoBS5kQ

Try to resist the temptation to read the film description before watching. Why would anyone would want that job??? OMG I am so creeped out.

It kind of reminds me of this movie:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/215177
2:43

[RuralEngineer]

The problem I would have with it would be that by the time the guy got to me it might have been 20-25 years since he committed his crimes.

I would be faced by a 44 year old guy who had killed a person or people when he was 19.  If I asked him about the crime, he would almost certainly say that he didn't even remember it very well, since these things often happen when the killer is high/drunk/etc.

I don't remember things that I did when I was 19 in much detail.

In other words, it would feel like a pretty cold-blooded act to kill this middle aged guy for something that happened when he was just an immature kid.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't potentially be some justice in killing him, I just wouldn't want to be the one to do it, especially if he struck me as someone who truly regretted what he had done and had matured a lot while in prison.

The fact that it takes 20 or 30 years to execute an obviously guilty monster is a flaw of our "justice" system.  We have "men" (they fail my standards for classification as human beings) in prison that have raped and mutilated multiple small children before murdering them and have admitted to backed by substantial physical evidence.  We have animals like the Fort Hood shooter that are mass murderers who were captured in the act where there is no question of their guilt.  There is no reason it should take decades to execute these individuals.

Again, the issue we have is that capital punishment is applied too broadly.  If it were used only in cases where we had an extraordinarily high amount of evidence, such that we had moved from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "beyond all doubt," then I think we could make a case for expediting such executions while moving other cases to a simple life imprisonment.  There are quite a few death penalty cases that don't have sufficient evidence to warrant capital punishment, which is a travesty of justice, and there are quite a few cases with such overwhelming evidence that the near endless appeals represent a needless delay of justice.  Both can be resolved.

[Gumby]

Again, the issue we have is that capital punishment is applied too broadly.

Isn't the issue that the only countries that continue to execute their citizens are barbaric countries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_cap ... by_country

In 2011, there were 21 countries that were known to have executions carried out. Those countries were...

Rank Country Number executed in 2011
1 People's Republic of China Officially not released. In the thousands, may be up to 4,000.
2 Iran 360+
3 Saudi Arabia 82+
4 Iraq 68+
5 United States 43
6 Yemen 41+
7 North Korea 30+
8 Somalia 10
9 Sudan 7+
10 Bangladesh 5+
11 Vietnam 5+
12 South Sudan 5
13 Republic of China (Taiwan) 5
14 Singapore 4
15 Palestinian Authority 3
16 Afghanistan 2
17 Belarus 2
18 Egypt 1+
19 United Arab Emirates 1
20 Malaysia +
21 Syria

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

Not sure those are countries we want to be associated with for any reason.

The US even has a provision to kill its citizens for drug-related crimes!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3591

[Pointedstick]

While I agree with gumby, let me say that I think there's something darkly ironic for any government to abolish the death penalty but continue to engage in war. The tendency of the government is always to kill, and pulling back in one area only highlights the true nature of the beast by exposing the jarring contradictions that remain.

If we're willing to express such a lack of confidence in a government's ability to discriminate between citizens whose lives need ending and those who don't, oughtn't we express a similar level of confidence in its ability to discriminate between foreigners whose lives need ending and those who don't?

[Ad Orientem]

While I agree with gumby, let me say that I think there's something darkly ironic for any government to abolish the death penalty but continue to engage in war. The tendency of the government is always to kill, and pulling back in one area only highlights the true nature of the beast by exposing the jarring contradictions that remain.

If we're willing to express such a lack of confidence in a government's ability to discriminate between citizens whose lives need ending and those who don't, oughtn't we express a similar level of confidence in its ability to discriminate between foreigners whose lives need ending and those who don't?

In a world where everyone got along and treated everyone else with respect I would strongly agree. Sadly we live in a world inhabited not just by enlightened anarcho-libertarians, but also dangerous animals. And some of them move on two feet and operate in packs.

[Pointedstick]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against defensive violence. I'm just saying that a government we can't trust to kill the right citizens may also be a government we can't trust to kill the right foreigners.

[Ad Orientem]

No one should be given a blank check to kill anyone. But the fact remains that there are people in the world who need killing. The state may be a deeply flawed agent for making those kinds of decisions, but I am not aware of a better alternative. And the more I reflect on things the more I am convinced that if we ever reach the point where we repudiate long term incarceration, we may again find ourselves in need of an Albert Pierpoint.

[RuralEngineer]

Not a convincing argument Gumby.  The more unfortunate characteristic those countries share is an unfair justice system.  Ours is somewhat better than most of those, but still flawed.  Rather than shedding tears about the poor murderers having their necks stretched, I spend my what energy I have for this topic worrying about how to fix the system so we don't inadvertently send innocent people to their deaths.  One way to do that would be to ban capital punishment, but I believe that would be a miscarriage of justice because the monsters who are actually guilty of these crimes do deserve to die.  The ACLU and courts won't let us make prison terrible enough for it to truly be a punishment comparable with death and if it were, it would violate cruel and unusual punishment.  So instead they get color TV and a free gym membership.

The other alternative is what I laid out previously, which is to keep capital punishment, but to use it properly while being mindful of our flawed justice system.  It's not perfect, but it would at least ensure that the worst and most blatantly guilty would get the most just punishment and we would do the best we could with everyone else. 

My opinions on this differ from yours in large part I'm sure, due to the fact that I no longer consider the people that commit these types of heinous crimes to be human beings any more (Fort Hood, Denver Theater shooters, child murderers, etc.).  I have more respect for the sheep I raise to slaughter for meat and care more for their welfare.

[Gumby]

Not a convincing argument Gumby...My opinions on this differ from yours in large part I'm sure, due to the fact that I no longer consider the people that commit these types of heinous crimes to be human beings any more (Fort Hood, Denver Theater shooters, child murderers, etc.).  I have more respect for the sheep I raise to slaughter for meat and care more for their welfare.

I know it wasn't a convincing argument. I was just pointing out that it's a little weird that we are the only "civilized" country that executes our own citizens. We really aren't in good company there, and it gives me pause.

I mean, do you really think that people should be executed for drug trafficking??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... rafficking

That's like executing someone for smuggling alcohol during prohibition! It's totally insane.

[Ad Orientem]

I mean, do you really think that people should be executed for drug trafficking??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... rafficking

That's like executing someone for smuggling alcohol during prohibition! It's totally insane.

Hi Gumby
I think he has made it pretty clear that he does not support that at all. He has stated, repeatedly, that he believes capital punishment should be reserved for the worst of mass murderers where there is zero doubt of guilt.

[Gumby]

I mean, do you really think that people should be executed for drug trafficking??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... rafficking

That's like executing someone for smuggling alcohol during prohibition! It's totally insane.

Hi Gumby
I think he has made it pretty clear that he does not support that at all. He has stated, repeatedly, that he believes capital punishment should be reserved for the worst of mass murderers where there is zero doubt of guilt.

Hmm... To be honest, he wasn't really that clear as to what he wouldn't execute for. For instance, he never said he was against executing drug traffickers (at least not in this thread). He just said he didn't want to accidentally execute "innocent" people — who weren't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — and he was happy to execute "heinous" murderers.

[Pointedstick]

Well, wouldn't you say there a huge moral difference between someone who ends the lives of innocents, and someone who sells products made illegal by government to consenting purchasers?

[Gumby]

Well, wouldn't you say there a huge moral difference between someone who ends the lives of innocents, and someone who sells products made illegal by government to consenting purchasers?

Of course, I would. But, as I read RuralEngineer's comments (and I could be wrong), it appeared that he was only focussing on whether someone was just found guilty of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" — and not on whether or not that crime was heinous enough to be worthy of capital punishment. It could be just how I read his comments — I probably just misread them.

I just find it bonkers that we live in a country that executes smugglers. We should be outraged at that.

[Pointedstick]

I just find it bonkers that we live in a country that executes smugglers. We should be outraged at that.

I am, very much so. And once RE returns to confirm it, I think he'll reveal that he is too.

[Gumby]

Could someone explain [or surmise] why the US has so many criminals per capita, capital or otherwise, compared to other 'civilized' countries? Are they just not enforcing their laws as strictly, or do we just have more 'evil' people, or something else?

The overwhelming majority are "non-violent" offenders. A large portion of the prison population are drug offenders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcerat ... ted_States

Critics have lambasted the United States for incarcerating a large number of non-violent and victimless offenders; half of all persons incarcerated under state jurisdiction are for non-violent offenses, and 20% are incarcerated for drug offenses (in state prisons, federal prison percentages are higher). "Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole." The population of inmates housed in prisons and jails in the United States exceeds 2 million, with the per capita incarceration population higher than that officially reported by any other country.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcerat ... ted_States

Basically, the so-called "War on Drugs" is responsible for a good deal of the incarceration in America. Violent crime has decreased dramatically since 1980 and our prison population has skyrocketed since then.

In 2008 approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole). In 2008 the breakdown for adults under correctional control was as follows: one out of 18 men, one in 89 women, one in 11 African-Americans (9.2 percent), one in 27 Latinos (3.7 percent), and one in 45 Caucasians (2.2 percent). Crime rates have declined by about 25 percent from 1988-2008. In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandatory sentencing that came about during the "war on drugs." Violent crime and property crime have declined since the early 1990s

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcerat ... ted_States

[RuralEngineer]

I'm pro legalization. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support capital punishment for drug traffickers when I think the laws banning the product are foolish. However, many of the people engaged in this activity are also violent murderers, deserving of death.  The simple mules should receive a light sentence until legalization.

In general I support capital punishment for violent crimes and sexual crimes against children.

[moda0306]

I'm pro legalization. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support capital punishment for drug traffickers when I think the laws banning the product are foolish. However, many of the people engaged in this activity are also violent murderers, deserving of death.  The simple mules should receive a light sentence until legalization.

In general I support capital punishment for violent crimes and sexual crimes against children.

What violent crimes short of murder do you support capital punishment for?

[doodle]

I'm pro legalization. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support capital punishment for drug traffickers when I think the laws banning the product are foolish. However, many of the people engaged in this activity are also violent murderers, deserving of death.  The simple mules should receive a light sentence until legalization.

In general I support capital punishment for violent crimes and sexual crimes against children.

Does it matter the circumstances that led to the murder? Let's say the person had a tumor growing on their brain that caused them to have violent outbreaks. Are they still guilty in that circumstance, or are they a victim of this tumorous growth? Its a little complicated I think. I'm more prone to look at murderers and rapists as sick individuals, not evil people. I do not condone their actions, but I can't condemn them as individuals either as I see them as circumstantial victims in their own right.

I really like listening to Carl Jungs opinions on these topics. Here are some quotes worth pondering:

It all depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves.

It is a fact that cannot be denied: the wickedness of others becomes our own wickedness because it kindles something evil in our own hearts.

Understanding does not cure evil, but it is a definite help, inasmuch as one can cope with a comprehensible darkness.

People tend to believe evil is something external to them – yet it is a projection of the shadow onto others. As one who projects the principle for absolute and unresolvable evil onto others – it is to the degree that one condemns others and finds evil in others, that one is unconscious of the same thing within oneself, or the potential of that within oneself. It is a projection of one’s own shadow.

The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.

[Ad Orientem]

I'm pro legalization. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support capital punishment for drug traffickers when I think the laws banning the product are foolish. However, many of the people engaged in this activity are also violent murderers, deserving of death.  The simple mules should receive a light sentence until legalization.

In general I support capital punishment for violent crimes and sexual crimes against children.

Does it matter the circumstances that led to the murder? Let's say the person had a tumor growing on their brain that caused them to have violent outbreaks. Are they still guilty in that circumstance, or are they a victim of this tumorous growth? Its a little complicated I think. I'm more prone to look at murderers and rapists as sick individuals, not evil people. I do not condone their actions, but I can't condemn them as individuals either as I see them as circumstantial victims in their own right.

I really like listening to Carl Jungs opinions on these topics. Here are some quotes worth pondering:

It all depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves.

It is a fact that cannot be denied: the wickedness of others becomes our own wickedness because it kindles something evil in our own hearts.

Understanding does not cure evil, but it is a definite help, inasmuch as one can cope with a comprehensible darkness.

People tend to believe evil is something external to them – yet it is a projection of the shadow onto others. As one who projects the principle for absolute and unresolvable evil onto others – it is to the degree that one condemns others and finds evil in others, that one is unconscious of the same thing within oneself, or the potential of that within oneself. It is a projection of one’s own shadow.

The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.

Liberal psycho-babel passing for a moral code. My opposition to capital punishment is purely pragmatic.

* It has no deterrent value.
* It is vastly more expensive than life in prison.
* There is strong evidence of racial and economic bias in its implementation. Those with the capital almost never get the punishment.
* Most persons sentenced to death had poor or lousy legal representation. The states that execute criminals with any regularity generally have few or no standards for competent defense attorneys,
* There is irrefutable evidence of wrongful convictions and extremely strong evidence of wrongful executions within the last several decades. (Rural's suggestions go a long ways towards meeting this objection.)

That said, the moral argument doesn't cut any ice with me. Most of the people on death row are eminently deserving of their sentences. And I would agree that on a purely moral basis that child rapists, especially if it's a second offense, should get the long drop.

When you impose a sentence on a murderer you are assigning a value to the life taken and the lives destroyed. Recently the European Court for Human Rights prohibited natural life prison sentences on the grounds that jailing someone with no hope of release is cruel. When you can parole the families of murder victims from their life sentences, I will think about it for the killers. Until then let them rot in jail, or hang them (IF IF IF we know with absolute certainty that they are guilty and they had a fair trial with competent legal council).

[doodle]

I'm pro legalization. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support capital punishment for drug traffickers when I think the laws banning the product are foolish. However, many of the people engaged in this activity are also violent murderers, deserving of death.  The simple mules should receive a light sentence until legalization.

In general I support capital punishment for violent crimes and sexual crimes against children.

Does it matter the circumstances that led to the murder? Let's say the person had a tumor growing on their brain that caused them to have violent outbreaks. Are they still guilty in that circumstance, or are they a victim of this tumorous growth? Its a little complicated I think. I'm more prone to look at murderers and rapists as sick individuals, not evil people. I do not condone their actions, but I can't condemn them as individuals either as I see them as circumstantial victims in their own right.

I really like listening to Carl Jungs opinions on these topics. Here are some quotes worth pondering:

It all depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves.

It is a fact that cannot be denied: the wickedness of others becomes our own wickedness because it kindles something evil in our own hearts.

Understanding does not cure evil, but it is a definite help, inasmuch as one can cope with a comprehensible darkness.

People tend to believe evil is something external to them – yet it is a projection of the shadow onto others. As one who projects the principle for absolute and unresolvable evil onto others – it is to the degree that one condemns others and finds evil in others, that one is unconscious of the same thing within oneself, or the potential of that within oneself. It is a projection of one’s own shadow.

The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.

Liberal psycho-babel passing for a moral code. My opposition to capital punishment is purely pragmatic.

* It has no deterrent value.
* It is vastly more expensive than life in prison.
* There is strong evidence of racial and economic bias in its implementation. Those with the capital almost never get the punishment.
* Most persons sentenced to death had poor or lousy legal representation. The states that execute criminals with any regularity generally have few or no standards for competent defense attorneys,
* There is irrefutable evidence of wrongful convictions and extremely strong evidence of wrongful executions within the last several decades. (Rural's suggestions go a long ways towards meeting this objection.)

That said, the moral argument doesn't cut any ice with me. Most of the people on death row are eminently deserving of their sentences. And I would agree that on a purely moral basis that child rapists, especially if it's a second offense, should get the long drop.

When you impose a sentence on a murderer you are assigning a value to the life taken and the lives destroyed. Recently the European Court for Human Rights prohibited natural life prison sentences on the grounds that jailing someone with no hope of release is cruel. When you can parole the families of murder victims from their life sentences, I will think about it for the killers. Until then let them rot in jail, or hang them (IF IF IF we know with absolute certainty that they are guilty and they had a fair trial with competent legal council).

At the the liberal psycho babble is pushing towards a deeper understanding of what causes humans to behave in a certain fashion. That seems like a beneficial exercise to me rather than simply attributing their behavior to Satan.

[MediumTex]

Earlier this year I watched some of the Jodi Arias murder trial in Arizona and noted how forcefully the prosecutor argued that the State of Arizona should execute her for what she did, which was apparently kill someone she didn't like in a particularly shocking way.

In other words, what the prosecutor was saying was that he wanted to be the bureaucrat who was able to set in motion the chain of events that would lead to Jodi Arias being killed by the State of Arizona.

In other words, the prosecutor was saying that because he didn't like what she had done, he was going to set in motion the chain of events that would lead to her being killed.

In other words, the thing that he was accusing her of (i.e., killing someone she didn't like) is precisely what he was trying to do as well (i.e., kill someone he didn't like).

The prosecutor would, of course, say that he was justified in seeking to kill Jodi Arias, but Jodi Arias would probably say that she was justified in killing the person she killed as well.  I would say that what they both did was really bad.  She shouldn't have killed her boyfriend, and the prosecutor shouldn't be trying to kill her in what was presented as a very civilized judicial proceeding.

I would just say that I'm against killing.  I'm against people killing each other individually, I'm against groups of people killing each other as part of government sponsored events called "wars", and I'm certainly against the government killing individual members of society, no matter how heinous the crimes they commit.  Locking someone up for life in a U.S. prison is plenty punishment for any imaginable offense.  It's simply not necessary to adopt the same cold blooded practices as part of our criminal justice bureaucracy that the worst criminals use and try to justify it as some kind of primitive form of justice.

The government has demonstrated its incompetence in too many other spheres of life for me to be willing to turn over the responsibility for deciding who lives and who dies when it comes to dealing with people who are believed to have committed serious crimes.