On 11/3/2017 12:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/2/2017 11:41 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:


There is a different question of what to do with a mass
murderer who is
rational) or perhaps "rational enough"). I do not support
the death
penalty- oddly, perhaps, on conservative rather than
liberal grounds-
but these people are very, very dangerous and in at least
some cases
(perhaps most or even all) it is not safe to turn them
loose to likely
do it again. Indeed, turning them loose would just be
stupid in those
cases. Just as we do not "turn loose" those adjudicated
as mentally ill
and dangerous- they are under lifelong supervision and
court-ordered
psychiatric treatment.

I think part of the motivation for killing a heinous
criminal is the certainty that he will never commit such a
crime again. For example, I've seen pro death penalty
arguments describing how someone who served time and earned
parole killed again on release. And others fear successful
appeals, where a murderer (or worse) goes free on some legal
technicality.

So I wonder about a sort of "legal death" that involves life
sentence with no, absolutely no, right of appeal. It would
have to be reserved for cases so perfectly certain that the
death penalty would be justified.

On the other hand: I note that most other prosperous,
civilized countries seem to function quite well without the
death penalty, or (AFAIK) the sort of "legal death" that I'm
describing. Their murder rates and violence rates are
certainly far better than ours.



So you'll offer to host Brevik once he's out? Up for parole
in about 4 years...

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971