DD Social Thread (v1)

**keyboard** · 09-28-2012, 07:16 AM

I'd just like to add that in my opinion the death penalty is wrong.
As most murders are crimes of passion (normally not pre-planned), the death-penalty does not stop people from comitting homicde.
The whole principal is an eye for an eye... if someone broke into your house, does that give you the right to break into their's?
America is one of the only countries with the death penalty and still has one of the highest murder rates.

**bernie1227** · 09-28-2012, 07:17 AM

That brought to mind a simpsons episode in which Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are replaced by aliens, and when the people find out, the following ensues:
aliens: 'It's a two party system you have to vote for one of us!'
some guy: 'what if I vote for a third party?'
aliens: 'and throw your vote away? I don't think so.'
people (murmuring): 'he's right!'

**djr33** · 09-28-2012, 07:18 AM

Keyboard, that all makes sense to me. There are certainly some logical issues with it.
One point you're missing, though, is that a lot of death penalty sentences are for repeated offenses such as for serial killers. Not crimes of passion. Perhaps there should be a distinction.

**bernie1227** · 09-28-2012, 07:24 AM

that could work, what would be the cutoff though? 'If you've killed more than three people, please step into the death penalty line!'
but seriously, that's why the life sentence is there, when it comes to crimes of passion.
As Daniel said however, mass murder should result in the death penalty.

**djr33** · 09-28-2012, 07:31 AM

In reality, it's all very hard to deal with. If that means the death penalty is impractical, I don't mind not having it. But in principle, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
As for serial killers, it's all fairly straightforward. If someone has a pattern of killing people, that counts (I'm not intending any psychological/legal definition here, just mine). If someone happens to be involved in two crimes of passion, perhaps it really is just chance; if it's more than that (sure, let's say three), surely they could be aware enough to stop themselves. I'd even say that if someone drinks and drives three times, killing people each time, that could count-- at some point it's actually their fault for being in the situation. (But I'm not entirely committed to the details here, just the idea.)

(The other side of this is that serial killers have different psychological profiles than others; does that mean they're insane? Should they be treated? Considered normal enough to be evil? That's a complicated one, something left for someone else to figure out. I'm not convinced that all serial killers are necessarily socio/psychopathic. Instead, I think some people just kill. Others certainly may be crazy, though.)

**keyboard** · 09-28-2012, 07:31 AM

Actually, I should point out that U.S law already works like that (at least I think).
If the murder was pre-planned, they recieve the death penalty
If it wasn't, something else happens, but I'm a bit sketchy...

**bernie1227** · 09-28-2012, 07:34 AM

well the problem that comes from that is that any murderer with a half-decent lawyer will plead insanity

**djr33** · 09-28-2012, 07:39 AM

I believe John mentioned that-- money = avoid death penalty. That is indeed a problem.
The law is complicated. Premeditated murder is worse than other kinds; but the determination of what counts as what is very fuzzy and up to the jury often. So does purchasing a gun count as planning a murder (a year before? a week before? a day before?)? Or does killing your spouse the second time you see them cheating count as "passion"?
In theory, it's all fine in my opinion. In practice, it's a mess.
The biggest mess is that it costs more money to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. That's ridiculous. In fact, I'd see a good argument for the death penalty in that it could keep costs down. But then legal fees, dealing with protestors, waiting 10 years, and all of that adds up-- and it's actually more expensive.