|
Termyn8or -> The death penalty (5/2/2009 10:52:50 AM)
|
This came up in another thread and I am sick of hijacking.
Now how would I justify the death penalty in light of the myriad of circumstances that could be extant in any case ? While I IN NO WAY expect everone to agree with me, I shall attempt to explain. We have three degrees of murder genrerally in this country - premeditated murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The proper application of these degrees is of paramount importance, and I have little faith in government to do it properly, but I will try to explain my point of view absent that particular aspect for now.
Murder is premeditated, when one kills for revenge it is wrong. There are exceptions, if the victim actually murdered someone close to the perpetrator. Defense is of course a valid defense. But what of other scenarios ? What if it doesn't really fit the definition of murder ?
Let's use the most common deadly weapon on the planet as a point, the automobile. Tort law notwithstanding at the moment, we are talking about a life here.
Voluntary manslaughter. Grevous disregard for the safety of others. Drive a car with bad brakes, too fast on the ice, too intoxicated, whatever and cause the death of another. The perp did not do it on purpose. However his disregard was great, he knew that driving without brakes or in a reckless manner, or intoxicated which boils down to the same thing - it was wrong because it endangers others. It's like firing a gun into a crowd, or driving a car into a crowd. I would consider that a capital offense under certain circumstances.
This is one of those gray areas which needs to be taken on a case by case basis, by a jury preferably. Take the case of a friend of mine. I actually threw him out because of the situation, but I didn't say not to come back. He had this old rusty truck and the right tie rod had failed and he had it put back together with a coat hanger, and he had stopped by to see if I could supply him with a coat hanger to replace the old one because it had given out.
Now he is a mechanic and knows full well what happens, it gives out and the vehicle pulls to the right, and like most people when he sees a 25MPH speed limit sign he sees it as 40 MPH. However he was fully aware of the condition of his vehicle and what really got my goat was that he had the new tie rod under the seat. Now if it had given out and his vehicle would have veered up onto the sidewalk and killed someone, fair is fair, that law must apply to all equally. If the facts became known about the condition of his vehicle, and that he knew about it, I would probably not do so well standing in his defense, friend or no friend. It would be a different story the first time it broke, as he would not have been likely to be aware of the problem. But he was, so what can I say ?
However the automobile is a mechanical contrivance with moving parts and should be inspected from time to time. That's where the third level comes in. If there are no indications like loose steering or the uneven wear on the front tires, perhaps it somply was not time for an inspection. When it comes to cars, there are many other things that can go wrong as well. Brakes can fail ONE TIME and one time only because one little ball in a check valve in the master cylinder did not fall into place, one time. It can be a quite different situation than say, knowing you have bad tires and driving 80 MPH.
Now I believe that 99% of the time accidents are caused, but if the cause is found not to be the fault of the operator, there should of course be no charge brought. For example if you just bought a brand new car and the brakes failed, you had no reason to ever suspect it would happen. Sure there is some culpability somewhere, but it is not your's. Any death should be investigated thoroughly, and considered carefully. In this, which is the only way I believe intent should be bought to the table is in proving premeditation, or callous disregard. In no case should insanity or stupidity ever enter the equation. It sounds harsh, but tell the people with the dead family member about all the problem the guy was going through when he killed their loved one. Moreover convince them that their loved one's life was worth less than another's because the perp was stupid or insane. You might as well try to cinvince them that their loved one is somehow less dead than if they fell off a bridge or something.
Which brings us to involuntary manslaughter. Of course the person is just as dead, but careful consideration needs to be given to the facts of the case like any other. This is truly a gray area here, even though the victim is just as dead. There are so many possibilities it can boggle the manid. If you leave a firearm where a child can get to it easily, or for that matter a big knife or even your car keys, there is some level of malfeasance involved, no doubt. However the specifics can vary in a multitude of ways. I fully admit that, take it on a cae by case basis.
However if you are proven to have killed someone on the process of raping or robbing them, your ass should be gone. Period. That is unquestionable in my mind. No amount of insanity or stupidity is an excuse for such acts. Really, if they are sick, cure them with death. They won't be sick anymore.
It sounds barbaric to some, but I don't find it so. To let human predators walk around stalking their prey is as bad as allowing humgry lions and tigers to roam in your backyard, eating your guests and family members, just because "that's what they do". Balderdash. They must be excised like any other proven threat. The lion or tiger who ate your buddy's Wife did not act out of malice, the dead are still dead.
Don't try to engage me about the difference between the actions of a human and an animal. If I can make a comparison, the difference is not very valid is it ? And don't even think about starting up about it not being a deterrent, it is 100% effective at deterring a second offense by the same perp.
T
|
|
|
|
