FL - Mark Schwab facing execution for the '91 murder of Junny Rios-Martinez

[GlitchWizard]

Apples and Oranges again.
I am not talking about someone on Death Row who is innocent... that is another topic all together ..

I am talking about someone who rapes and murders children and IS NOT Innocent.

GLitch don't you have some prison pen pals?

I have some prison pen pals, and have some prison friends as well. After 3 years with two pen pals, I know their families quite well and go through all their triumphs and pains with them as they go through mine with me.

I do not have a child killer pen pal, however. As against the death penalty as I am (for a thousand reasons) I do not wish to brighten the day of a child killer. Not something I could ever do. Their family has my sympathies, but the person who did it never does.

 

[Glow]

Actually I don't think the question is entirely applicable to the DP.



This question is very applicable to the tenet of:
"All life is sacred, I would never kill anyone for any reason."

However, in regards to the Death Penalty, I don't think it is valid.

The question posits a "battlefield" decision, a "heat of combat" response. It is no different than asking a cop if he would shoot an armed robber, or a self-defense scenario.

These scenarios are emotionally charged, life-or-death situations where fear, adrenaline, anger and nerve influence your decision.


These are "hot" scenarios.


The Death Penalty is very, very different.


In an execution, there is no imminent danger. The defendant is essentially helpless. The psychological factors are different but just as strong. The massive machine of justice, the state is focused on one person. That person is going to die, pitifully, possibly painfully. They are alone, strapped into some device, in a cold, harsh room.

Added to that, is our fear of Death. Everyone fears death to some extent. Deep down inside, everyone imagines themselves in that position and it is truly a horrible one. We are all going to die, sometime, somewhere, and no one wants to die alone and afraid.

The Death Penalty is a "cold" scenario.

It is one thing to kill a man in the heat of battle. There is no time to think. It's do or die.

It is an entirely different thing to calmly and calculatedly activate a device and end a man's life. Both the condemned and those involved with the execution have days, weeks or even months to think about it.
.
.
.
That being said, I'd like to reiterate my stance. I support the Death Penalty. I think it should be administered across the board, regardless of race, religion or social status.

The Death Penalty should apply for crimes from murder, (1st and 2nd degree) some types of rape and child molestation. Any crime comitted with a gun should be elligible for the death penalty. (The logic being that if you pull a gun, you mean to kill someone.)

Ideally I think the condemned should be executed no later than 1 year after being sentenced.

The preferred method of execution should be hanging. The British calculated exact tables involving weight, age, etc. When used properly the chance of a botched execution is fairly small.

"Cruel and Unusual Punishment" does not, in any way, imply or guarantee a pain-free execution.

Hang 'em high.

See what I mean about semantics?

My illustration was an attempt to remove all the feelings and choices that we enjoy in our society. I thought that by narrowing the focus we could identify the bulls eye so to speak.

In the scenario I proposed, if I answered yes - then I am saying that I would kill a man for what I "thought" he was attempting to do - not something he actually did.

What the death penalty does is execute the man for a deed actually commited - not what someone "thought" might happen.

Using that logic, the death penalty would then be more "noble" than the mother in the above scenario who executes minus the "deed" having actually happened.

 

[bigbuck]

Actually I don't think the question is entirely applicable to the DP.



This question is very applicable to the tenet of:
"All life is sacred, I would never kill anyone for any reason."

However, in regards to the Death Penalty, I don't think it is valid.

The question posits a "battlefield" decision, a "heat of combat" response. It is no different than asking a cop if he would shoot an armed robber, or a self-defense scenario.

These scenarios are emotionally charged, life-or-death situations where fear, adrenaline, anger and nerve influence your decision.


These are "hot" scenarios.


The Death Penalty is very, very different.


In an execution, there is no imminent danger. The defendant is essentially helpless. The psychological factors are different but just as strong. The massive machine of justice, the state is focused on one person. That person is going to die, pitifully, possibly painfully. They are alone, strapped into some device, in a cold, harsh room.

Added to that, is our fear of Death. Everyone fears death to some extent. Deep down inside, everyone imagines themselves in that position and it is truly a horrible one. We are all going to die, sometime, somewhere, and no one wants to die alone and afraid.

The Death Penalty is a "cold" scenario.

It is one thing to kill a man in the heat of battle. There is no time to think. It's do or die.

It is an entirely different thing to calmly and calculatedly activate a device and end a man's life. Both the condemned and those involved with the execution have days, weeks or even months to think about it.
.
.
.
That being said, I'd like to reiterate my stance. I support the Death Penalty. I think it should be administered across the board, regardless of race, religion or social status.

The Death Penalty should apply for crimes from murder, (1st and 2nd degree) some types of rape and child molestation. Any crime comitted with a gun should be elligible for the death penalty. (The logic being that if you pull a gun, you mean to kill someone.)

Ideally I think the condemned should be executed no later than 1 year after being sentenced.

The preferred method of execution should be hanging. The British calculated exact tables involving weight, age, etc. When used properly the chance of a botched execution is fairly small.

"Cruel and Unusual Punishment" does not, in any way, imply or guarantee a pain-free execution.

Hang 'em high.

What he said! :clap:

 

[GlitchWizard]

Going to sound very callous here, so be forewarned:

Today it seems as if there is a little bit more fresh air to breathe. It feels less polluted and much lighter upon entering my lungs.

Just expressing my opinion (without popcorn!)

Goodness, I hope so! Have you ever breathed in deeply WITH popcorn? That will make you cough up an entire lung! :crazy:

 

[southcitymom]

snipped by j2m

question- how is it possible you can be pro-choice, yet so adamment against the dp?

I'm more concerned with soul matters than physical matters when we look at these subjects. I don't think you can ever really kill someone because I think what we really are survives physical demise.

I'm not sure when a soul enters a body that has been conceived. There are many different thoughts on the subject but it remains a mystery to me. I do think conception is the first step towards a soul making entry. I do not know if abortion takes away a soul's free will because I do not know that a soul is there. The most I know is that it is "knocking on the door," so to speak.

By its very nature, a soul entering a body must have the cooperation of the body that will sustain the body it wishes to inhabit. It is, by definition, the choice of the sustaining body whether or not it will cooperate. It will always, by definition, be the mother's choice. I prefer not to criminalize that choice and to leave it freely where it lays.

But I do believe that every human walking around has a soul and free will.

 

[GlitchWizard]

...

But I do believe that every human walking around has a soul and free will.

Do people with a chemical imbalance or mental defect/disease (not as a defense in a criminal case, but just in general) have a free will?

 

[southcitymom]

Do people with a chemical imbalance or mental defect/disease (not as a defense in a criminal case, but just in general) have a free will?

Yes, I believe so.

 

[GlitchWizard]

Yes, I believe so.

That's hard for me. My daughter is bipolar and some of the things she said and did while on the different medications we were trying out to help her... I don't want to think she did those things on purpose.

 

[southcitymom]

See what I mean about semantics?

My illustration was an attempt to remove all the feelings and choices that we enjoy in our society. I thought that by narrowing the focus we could identify the bulls eye so to speak.

In the scenario I proposed, if I answered yes - then I am saying that I would kill a man for what I "thought" he was attempting to do - not something he actually did.

What the death penalty does is execute the man for a deed actually commited - not what someone "thought" might happen.

Using that logic, the death penalty would then be more "noble" than the mother in the above scenario who executes minus the man in spite of no "deed" having actually happened.

Ah - now I see where you were coming from with it. I did not "get" that when you originally laid out the scenario.

Stil - Il think most people would just try to keep their child in their home and not the arms of an intruding stranger - I do not think they would execute him for what they thought he was going to do. But maybe I am giving people too much credit!

 

[southcitymom]

That's hard for me. My daughter is bipolar and some of the things she said and did while on the different medications we were trying out to help her... I don't want to think she did those things on purpose.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "on purpose" or what negative judgment you might be attaching to that. The physical problems we may have with our bodies or minds (as through chemical imbalance or, in my case, doing lots of drugs) can definitely lead us to do things and/or reap consequences that do not measure up to our highest standards. Compassion is a must for all suffering.

I see free will in a much broader context than just the decision to do this or that. It is the decision to be here on Planet Earth, living and learning what we need to. Sometimes those lessons are complicated or confusing or painful, but I still think we signed up to be down here learning them.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Yes, I believe so.

With great respect, SCM, I completely disagree with you. A person who has an imbalance or mental illness does not have free will. They are driven to be/do what their mind and brain tell them to. It can be irrational, paranoid, and damaging. But, they do not have a choice since they do not "think" or feel as a "normal" person does. Medication can help is some cases, but it is not a normal feeling/thinking process.

They are a victim of themselves.

 

[southcitymom]

So would you say that the soul of a child murderer would have a chance to move forward to a new and better existence sooner if he was executed now vs. living out the rest of this current existence confined to a cell until his body naturally gives out? Would it be more compassionate to send that soul forth to possibly do good than to keep it chained up doing nothing?

I think karma is serviced either way. Someone who murders a child can move forward whenever he wants - in his prison cell or out of his current body. I don't think he "stops" or his process of growth stops because of execution. Personally, life in prison doing nothing would be more tortuous to me than execution. I would rather - as you say - get on with it!

If he wants to die and feels like that's the best course of action, then executing him is the most compassionate thing to do. I don't think we really care what he wants, though. We execute him because we have decided that it is time for him to die.

 

[southcitymom]

With great respect, SCM, I completely disagree with you. A person who has an imbalance or mental illness does not have free will. They are driven to be/do what their mind and brain tell them to. It can be irrational, paranoid, and damaging. But, they do not have a choice since they do not "think" or feel as a "normal" person does. Medication can help is some cases, but it is not a normal feeling/thinking process.

They are a victim of themselves.

I tried to explain myself better in my post above to GW. For me, free will is a big concept. It does not mean that some of us don't inhabit minds and bodies that make the process of living on Earth freely very very difficult.

 

[XcomSquaddie]

My illustration was an attempt to remove all the feelings and choices that we enjoy in our society. I thought that by narrowing the focus we could identify the bulls eye so to speak.

Yes, but as I stated in my last post, your scenario does not create an equivalent situation.

In the scenario I proposed, if I answered yes - then I am saying that I would kill a man for what I "thought" he was attempting to do - not something he actually did.

Wrong. You are killing someone because he is removing your child from your house, in the dead of night, without your permission. This by itself is justification for killing someone.


The death penalty is a tool. It is the only guaranteed method we have to remove certain criminals from our society.

Jail is not 100% certain. There are escapes, pardons, commutations, paroles and early releases. These examples are proven fact and illustrated on these boards. Criminals can get out of jail and re-offend.

Certain criminal types such as serial killers and pedophiles, have a very strong tendancy to re-offend. This is a proven fact.

The only way to protect society from these criminals is to execute them.

You cannot rehabilitate them.

You cannot incarcerate them.

You must eliminate them.

 

[Amraann]

Killing anyone is wrong, IMO. What possible good comes from taking another human life? How could one person feel good about him/herself if they took another life? How is your life bettered if you took another life?
If you're on the jury that recommends a death sentence for someone, could you go through your life and not think about how you recommended for a man to be sent to the death chamber to be executed? If you're the executioner, you pull the switch, could you go home and say that your life was in any way, shape, or form better off because a condemned man was dead when he could have spent the rest of his life in prison w/o parole, instead? IMO, LWOP would be a better deterrent. Also, IMO, no judge/jury, anybody, has the right to say to anybody, no matter their crime, that they should die. I don't believe people have the right to play God and condemn a man to death and say he has the right to live or die. As I said before, I believe that makes the ones who condemn him no better than he is. I feel sorry for the ones who condemn men & women to be executed and for the one who pulls the switch because I bet they will never ask for forgiveness, as they most likely feel they've done nothing wrong in taking another human life. While I do feel compassion for the victim and their families, I also feel compassion for anybody about to be put to death and the family they will behind as well. All life is precious and nobody has the right to take it away, IMO.

I'm sure some people here think I'm defending the man who was executed yesterday, and I assure you, that is NOT the case. I know he was guilty of his crimes and he should have been punished, but I don't believe paying with his life was an appropriate punishment. To be locked up and unable to walk the streets again for the rest of his life would have been a more appropriate punishment.

The possible good of never having such human scum be a part of society again? (Even a prison society)

To answer your question ... YES! I could be on a jury and go home and feel that I made the best and only choice possible. I could be the executioner too.
In either case I would feel like I had done my part to keep society safe and not think twice about it.
LWOP is not a better option IMO.. Prison has its own society.
Fear of death is IMO a far greater deterrent then simply offering a different type of life in a different type of society.
Prisoners can experience joy and holidays and other things that can provide them happiness. Those things should be taken away and the death penalty does that.
LWOP also opens the small crack of the possibility that the prisoner can escape.

AHH the GOD discussion... It is often believed by those who believe in God that he works through men.. Or believers often tell families who have lost a loved one that "it was Gods will" ..... If those statements are believed then why is the DP and the death of these sicko's anything less then God's will?

WHY is the life of a child rapist/murderer precious?
I am sorry but all life is not equal. The life of a innocent child is wholly precious and most adults vary to some degree or another.
One cannot say that a child killer should be valued as that of a child or functioning member of society who works hard to live a decent life.

Those that judge to administer the DP or those that must follow that judgment are not the same as a killer..
The killer killed an innocent child the others are following the law.

I feel no compassion for someone about to be put to death.. Possibly they should have thought of that before they killed a child?
Why should I feel compassion for such a person? They are not deserving of compassion or any energy it would take for me to even think about it.

 

[Glow]

Ah - now I see where you were coming from with it. I did not "get" that when you originally laid out the scenario.

Stil - Il think most people would just try to keep their child in their home and not the arms of an intruding stranger - I do not think they would execute him for what they thought he was going to do. But maybe I am giving people too much credit!

You are certainly giving me too much credit! :blowkiss:

 

[Glow]

Yes, but as I stated in my last post, your scenario does not create an equivalent situation.

Wrong. You are killing someone because he is removing your child from your house, in the dead of night, without your permission. This by itself is justification for killing someone.

No, you are killing him because of what you thinkwill happen after he removes the child. Lets take another tack, would you kill the man if he simply sat down in a rocking chair in your bedroom and began rocking the child?

Actually, I should just say that I think you and I are on the same side in this death penalty debate XcomSquaddie!

I enjoyed the rest of your post very much and I agree with you.

I think I need to go read Adnoids post where he said that he proposed the same scenario...

 

[Talisman]

Goodness, I hope so! Have you ever breathed in deeply WITH popcorn? That will make you cough up an entire lung! :crazy:

LOL! :footinmouth:


*funny how sometimes my words don't flow into printed word the same way they enter my mind. Maybe I type too fast for my brain to keep up*

 

[Glow]

Well, it's a few pages back in the currently open DP thread in the PL. I don't think I'll link to it as it could be construed as unkind or an attack on the poster, but it's easy enough to find.

I found it. I read it. I agreed with it.

I also thought what you had to say about the Jain Concept of Ahiṃsā and your comments on moral absoluteness were very thought provoking.

 

[XcomSquaddie]

No, you are killing him because of what you thinkwill happen after he removes the child.

No, let me stress this. He is taking my child. I don't care what his motivation is, that act of taking my child is enough justification for me to kill him.

Lets take another tack, would you kill the man if he simply sat down in a rocking chair in your bedroom and began rocking the child?

He would get one chance to put the child down. One chance only then game over.

Actually, I should just say that I think you and I are on the same side in this death penalty debate XcomSquaddie!

Lol. That's the problem with semantics, scenarios and what-ifs. Everything gets muddied.