Micrówave wrote:
@ catqueenWhat's my problem with AI? This:"despite compelling evidence of his rehabilitation. He had been on death row for more than half of his life."This is where I have a problem. Where are both sides of the argument. I would be much happier if they would have said..."despite some people saying he's getting better, this sick son of a bitch who killed innocent victims has been on death row for more than half of his life because of the ability for US inmates to tie up their sentences in appeals and motions."They give this guy a voice (albiet it after he died). Why not give his victims the same voice? Because THAT doesn't stir emotions. Because people like Bob think the victim's family should have been given the opportunity to shake hands with the killer and say "I forgive you... praise Jesus."What if the death penalty had been used on that Jordan VanDerSloot character? Perhaps there wouldn't have been a 2nd victim. But, again, people like Bob think he should have been given the chance to rehabilitate, at our expense, over years and years and countless funding. Well, they let him go and look what happened. He killed again. It's our fault, not his... right Bob?
Murder victims are given a voice. There is a court process, suspects are prosecuted, if there is enough evidence, condemned and punished. The perpetrator is known to society, and is pretty much an outcast. There is usually a funeral or memorial service for the victim, and often media attention focused on how awful and wrong it was that they had to die that way (maybe not in big countries, but in my country, every murder is reported). There are supports in place for families of victims. The victims are called 'victims' for a reason -- they are seen as having been violated in the worst possible way, and nobody has the right to take the life of another human.
And again with the name calling -- balanced views in reporting don't generally call people SOBs. That's emotive language, aiming to get people on your side without having a rational basis for it. A two sided argument could be 'we recognise the extent of his crimes, and they are inexcusable; however, he has shown strong evidence of rehabilitation over a long period of time. Therefore, the need for his execution after such a long period may be questioned.' Anti-capital punishment people are not supporting, condoning or in any way excusing murder, or saying it doesn't matter, OR saying that the murderer is worth more then the victim. All we are saying is that EVERY human has intrinsic rights, and one of those is the right to live. We have the right to not be intentionally killed by another human being. Those rights are not conditional on our behaviour. And even if you are pro-capital punishment, surely you can see why it is better not to wait 20 years before finally killing someone. If you're going to do it, just do it and get it over with.
Also, what about the people who are innocent but are found guilty in trial. Is the risk of the death of those innocent people worth it? And it does happen that people are condemned and later it is found that they were innocent.
And yes, repeat murder is tragic. Obviously. But if the answer is to kill off anyone who might repeat offend, why don't we start killing off anyone who might murder their first victim? So people who show aggression or violence, heck, maybe we should kill off all the people who commit domestic violence as well, cos some of them murder their spouses.
Nobody is defending murder here -- all we are saying is that it must be recognised that the murderer is also a human, with intrinsic rights.
And for the record, my step-brother was stabbed in the heart 15 years ago and nearly died. It has had a profound effect on his life. He is alive and well, but please don't go telling me about how a victims family should feel.
