why I can't quite nix the death penalty entirely

[civvver]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mom-pleads-guilty-killing-kids-found-home-freezer-32100361

This is a local story for me, living in suburban Detroit. This article doesn't even have all the details, but in the front page of the paper today was another one detailing what she did to those kids and it includes starving them, beating them, burning them with scalding water, covering their heads with bags and choking them with belts. The son died of burns and blunt force trauma.

I can't comprehend how someone can be this evil. She has shown no remorse throughout the entire process, and even is accepting her punishment, it's all very strange and sadistic. Says she would do it again and would take the death penalty if it was offered. Like no remorse, just give me the punishment. I would be all for giving her her wish and just putting a bullet in her head. Why waste taxpayer money for life imprisonment here?

I'm opposed to the death penalty out of more practical reasons (cost primarily and possibility of condemning innocents) but I can't think of any practical reasons not to use it here, although of course Michigan does not have it. Oh well.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Capital punishment is never about just one case. So even if you cast aside the possibility that this particular woman was railroaded, coerced into a confession, falsely identified by an "eyewitness" or a forensics lab run by lazy, corrupt buffoons... How many innocent people are you willing to see killed by our criminal justice system in exchange?

 

[Antilogic]

For people who cannot be rehabilitated or show no inclination to do so, for people who commit crimes so heinous and cruel they must be separated from society to protect everyone else, the sentence of life in prison without parole accomplishes this with no further barbarism.

 

[Perfection]

A word of advice, when your view of what the just thing to do in a situation corresponds with that of a vindictive child murderer it may be prudent to reanalyze it.

 

[bhavv]

I say let her go, and allow her to adopt as many kids as she likes and let her work in an orphanage!

 

[LucyDuke]

She has shown no remorse throughout the entire process, and even is accepting her punishment, it's all very strange and sadistic. Says she would do it again and would take the death penalty if it was offered. Like no remorse, just give me the punishment. I would be all for giving her her wish and just putting a bullet in her head. Why waste taxpayer money for life imprisonment here?

I'm opposed to the death penalty out of more practical reasons (cost primarily and possibility of condemning innocents) but I can't think of any practical reasons not to use it here, although of course Michigan does not have it. Oh well.

Doesn't a punishment have to be something someone doesn't want to happen?

The practical reasons you mention are okay reasons. Why don't they apply here?

 

[bhavv]

Tbh lifelong imprisonment is much more punishing than a death penalty. Spend the rest of your life begins bars vs a humane death and nothing to suffer after.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The state has no more right to kill under such circumstances than the perpetrator does.

It can also lead to even rationalizing torture when Republicans are in control of the presidency.

"If we are entitled to kill people, we must be entitled to injure them." John Yoo

 

[Triewd]

I would have no problem with killing someone like this.

And no capital punishment does not equal torture (or it should not)

 

[bhavv]

Why give her the easy way out?

 

[warpus]

If you allow the death penalty to be a thing due to crazy cases like these, then you open up the door to innocent people dying as a result of it as well. And to me that is just not acceptable.

 

[classical_hero]

If you murder someone then by the state's hand that person should be put to death. It means they will not ever kill again. Considering how rigorous the system is, innocent people dying is a very remote possibility. But then if you are worried about innocent people being convicted, then we should simply not bother jailing anyone lest in case someone spends time in jail they shouldn't have done.

 

[Antilogic]

The difference is you can release someone who was falsely imprisoned, but you can't unkill a person.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Considering how rigorous the system is, innocent people dying is a very remote possibility

Really? I got the complete opposite impression.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Numerous people who have been on death row were found to have been innocent. I hardly think the record for catching the "mistakes" ahead of time is perfect, but that's not going to stop the death penalty advocates for insisting it must have been.

"Did you realize most right-to-lifers are in favor of the death penalty? And they support the South American death squads? And they are against gun control? And they are against nuclear weapons control? When they say "right to life" they mean their right to decide which people should live or die." George Carlin

 

[Zkribbler]

I'm opposed to the death penalty out of more practical reasons (cost primarily and possibility of condemning innocents) but I can't think of any practical reasons not to use it here...

IMHO, the woman is clinically insane. I'm against killing people because they have a disease. Most murders, IMHO, are at least temporarily insane, e.g. wives who kill their husbands, friends who kill friends, jealous husbands.

The only exception I would allow to my no-death-penalty rule are people like Timothy McVeigh, totally rational, cold-blooded killers.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not sure why McVeigh is an exception. After all, he was also a survivalist.

 

[civvver]

Why give her the easy way out?

Because it *could* cost less than jailing her for life. It currently doesn't because of all the appeals processes, high cost of death row imprisonment, etc. Which is one of the main reasons I'm against it. I do not think it's morally wrong or unjustified, just too costly because of all the necessary safeguards. But with a case like this, why do you need safeguards? She very clearly did it and has no remorse.

A word of advice, when your view of what the just thing to do in a situation corresponds with that of a vindictive child murderer it may be prudent to reanalyze it.

I don't understand, do you mean I'm taking the eye-for-an-eye approach and we shouldn't kill those who kills because it's wrong?

Killing her humanely doesn't correspond to what she did at all. She tortured her children, seriously abused them before they died. Her life is over, whether it's life in prison or death. So what's the difference? My argument against death penalties has always been they are too expensive and you need safeguards, but in this case I'd be willing to forgo both.

IMHO, the woman is clinically insane. I'm against killing people because they have a disease. Most murders, IMHO, are at least temporarily insane, e.g. wives who kill their husbands, friends who kill friends, jealous husbands.

The only exception I would allow to my no-death-penalty rule are people like Timothy McVeigh, totally rational, cold-blooded killers.

She was found competent to stand trial. She might be a sociopath or something, but she's not crazy.

 

[Cutlass]

Some people do deserve to die. That said, executing them is not a power that we should allow the state to have.

 

[LucyDuke]

Vigilantes?