Competence required to be executed in Indiana

irishproduce

It does cut out the rot. Just more rot comes after. It is an ongoing exercise.
Like weeding out the garden.
It is a very very tough sentence and I'm personally torn on it, however there's no denying that it is an ongoing exercise to remove the "rot" as you say. Call it good housekeeping.
Needs to be performed regularly.

GreeBo

seamus wrote: »

Since execution has been in use for virtually all of human history and has failed to "cut out the rot", at what point do you accept that it doesn't actually work?

Not one single person who was executed ever went on to commit another crime...

Nermal

GreeBo wrote: »

There are two victims in this case.

'Everyone's a victim'.

Not a philosophy sane societies are constructed on.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Since execution has been in use for virtually all of human history and has failed to "cut out the rot", at what point do you accept that it doesn't actually work?

Of all the penal punishment and rehabilitation measures, it has the lowest recidivism rates.
I might be wrong, but I think it approaches 0%

Lumen

Nermal wrote: »

'Everyone's a victim'.

Not a philosophy sane societies are constructed on.

Another strawman. Nobody says that everyone is a victim.

Pauliedragon

ELM327 wrote: »

It's a punishment. It costs less than life without parole (the sentence one step down), and I do think it is a deterrent.


I don't subscribe to the belief that prison is for reform. It's not. It's to pay the cost for what you have done. A punishment. And the harshest punishment is death.

It's actually more expensive to go through a death penalty trial in American than it is to imprison someone for 30 years. The 2 main arguments for the death penalty are it's cheaper to execute someone and it's a detterant yet they have the highest murder rate in the developed world.

...Ghost...

Lumen wrote: »

You could start with this 184 page report linked from the article:

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20429811-jan-vogelsang-social-history

I'm about halfway through it. Lots of accounts from people so far, but still nothing concrete and no sign of action taken. I'm at the section where she was referred to hospital with a 13 degree turn in her spine.

GreeBo wrote: »

So being mentally ill isn't a reason?

If you beat a dog every day of its life you cant then put it down because it bites someone.

That's not true. Biting dogs get put down all the time, especially when they've been mistreated. I almost had my 2 dogs put down when one of them bit my daughters face when she was a little more than a toddler. I won't get into that here, but suffice to say they were rehomed with inlaws which was safer.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think (hope!) his point was that it seems like those who failed this women are getting away with it.

Yes, that was partly my point. I do believe she had a horrible life, but I have yet to see recorded proof of where the state or medical profession were aware of the abuse and failed to act. Still some reading to be done though.

Call me an extremist but I think killing people to prove that killing people is wrong is one of the most hypocritical beliefs a person can have.

As for the deterrent aspect of the death penalty I would point to what Saudi Arabia does to drug smugglers. They regularly impose death sentences on drug crimes but guess what, they have to do it regularly because it isn't much of a deterrent. The only provable deterrent to crime of any kind is the likelihood of being caught.

GreeBo

...Ghost... wrote: »

That's not true. Biting dogs get put down all the time, especially when they've been mistreated.

Sorry, my point was that we dont just go "bad dog, you die now", we also punish the owner and we accept that the dog is acting the way it was trained and will try to rehabilitate the dog if possible.

GreeBo

Nermal wrote: »

'Everyone's a victim'.

Not a philosophy sane societies are constructed on.

Did someone argue that everyone is a victim? I must have missed it.

Ronaldinho

Lumen wrote: »

Another strawman. Nobody says that everyone is a victim.

That's precisely what GreenBo said when they mentioned "2 victims", presumably referring to the convicted killer and the person they killed.

Lumen

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's precisely what GreenBo said when they mentioned "2 victims", presumably referring to the convicted killer and the person they killed.

There are more than 2 people in the world.

...Ghost...

Well, that was some report alright. I skim read some of it and couldn't see any hard evidence, but I may have missed it. The accounts of people were disturbing and it wasn't easy at all to read the astonishingly dysfunctional and criminal way she was raised. Her mother sounds like a vindictive, manipulative and evil b!tch.

Although the murder was pre-meditated, it certainly seems she was not of sound mind and never really was. Awful stuff.

mynamejeff

seamus wrote: »

Since execution has been in use for virtually all of human history and has failed to "cut out the rot", at what point do you accept that it doesn't actually work?

o I don't know about that ,

people who have been executed have a zero re offending rate

Gael23

The world is a safer place without this woman

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

o I don't know about that ,

people who have been executed have a zero re offending rate

Its a bit like arguing there's always been robbery no matter what the punishment, so what ever the deterrent, its mot working

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Call me an extremist but I think killing people to prove that killing people is wrong is one of the most hypocritical beliefs a person can have.

Hold on a second there, Socrates! By this logic, fining people who steal money is also 'hypocritical', isn't it?

ohnonotgmail

GreeBo wrote: »

Not one single person who was executed ever went on to commit another crime...

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Of all the penal punishment and rehabilitation measures, it has the lowest recidivism rates.
I might be wrong, but I think it approaches 0%

mynamejeff wrote: »

o I don't know about that ,

people who have been executed have a zero re offending rate

you must have all thought you were fierce clever posting that.

Mules

The abuse she experienced as a child was horrific but I dont see how it would be related to her murdering a stranger as an adult. Maybe I'm not seeing it but why would it be a mitigating factor?

end of the road

mynamejeff wrote: »

o I don't know about that ,

people who have been executed have a zero re offending rate

so do people locked up in prison for the rest of their lives at a fraction of the cost.
it's clear the death penalty fails on all of it's reasoning.

spurious

Killing is wrong. You can't then say it is ok if the government/State does it.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you must have all thought you were fierce clever posting that.

Clever and factually correct!

Its a real sweet spot

ohnonotgmail

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Clever and factually correct!

Its a real sweet spot

keeping her in prison for the rest of her life would achieve the same aim at less cost.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

keeping her in prison for the rest of her life would achieve the same aim at less cost.

Yea, i dont necessarily disagree she shouldn't have been executed. but thats a different point.

The recidivism rate for those punished by death penalty is still zero as pointed out, incurring your admonishment, whereas those serving life are still capable of killing again.

biko

spurious wrote: »

Killing is wrong. You can't then say it is ok if the government/State does it.

I dunno, reading about what some of those men did to Lisa Montgomery and her half-sister makes me think if those men were condemned to death I'd flip the switch on the chair myself.

Kraftwerk

spurious wrote: »

Killing is wrong. You can't then say it is ok if the government/State does it.

All killing? Was the Garda who shot that guy in blanch wrong? Fact is the state already allows legal killings when deemed absolutely necessary.

It's nothing to do with you can't say it's wrong and then do it. Otherwise imprisonment itself would be abolished as that's wrong for an individual to do but a necessary part of the system.

My name is URL

It's always seemed funny to me that those most in favor of the death penalty (from a US perspective) are also those who claim to want less interference in their lives by the state.

'don't tread on me' types who at the same time want to hand the ultimate power to the state, to decide who dies at their hands

AllForIt

It's a tricky one.

Personally I don't see the point of keeping a person in prison for the rest of their natural life. What would be the point of such an existence? Wouldn't you just go mad if you weren't already. I can't think of anything worse than being confined in a building you know you can never get out off. I'd rather do myself in.

I also feel sorry for relatives of the victims. Where you see the state taking a 'rehabilitative' approach to the offender. I think if a personal of mine were a victim of such a crime I'd be very angry and I don't think that's either a bad or unnatural feeling.

...Ghost...

Mules wrote: »

The abuse she experienced as a child was horrific but I dont see how it would be related to her murdering a stranger as an adult. Maybe I'm not seeing it but why would it be a mitigating factor?

Upbringing is very much a factor of how one views the world. There's also the brain damage thing she suffered.

That said, of all the abuse she experienced, it pales in comparison to what the victims family must have experienced to learn their loved one was murdered and the unborn child was cut from her womb and stolen.

Mules

...Ghost... wrote: »

Upbringing is very much a factor of how one views the world. There's also the brain damage thing she suffered.

That said, of all the abuse she experienced, it pales in comparison to what the victims family must have experienced to learn their loved one was murdered and the unborn child was cut from her womb and stolen.

I could see that, if the brain damage interfered with her ability to make decisions or tell right from wrong but I dont know if there was proof of this? That usually results from damage to the amydala. If that was where the brain injury was shown to be, I could see the reasoning for the defense. Anyway, it's only academic now.