Deserving Of Death Penalty?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 November 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1258740909' post='2006264']
Steering clear of that aspect of it, if you had to defend the first man in court who executed his son, how would you do it, and what do you think your chances would be of being successful?
[/quote]
First I'd have him take a psych test to determine why he flipped out. That kind of thing makes me wonder if the dad had sexual abuse issues in his past. Second if he immediately did this, then there is the temporary insanity thing. I think at the least the death penalty would be off the table, and possibly down to manslaughter.

[KnightofChrist]

Capital Punishment should not be ruled out. Capital Punishment is firstly about punishment, and justice. Secondly for the safety of society. It is after all Capital [u]Punishment[/u].

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 November 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1258740909' post='2006264']
Steering clear of that aspect of it, if you had to defend the first man in court who executed his son, how would you do it, and what do you think your chances would be of being successful?
[/quote]

Aside from the insanity stuff...

I don't think you'd be successful in getting him off completely, but you could try arguing that he was taking the law into his own hands and took it too far. Might try arguing that the son was really a terrible person and a threat to little kids, something like that. Might shave a few years off.

But yea, sounds like there is an eyewitness (mother) standing there during the whole thing.

BTW - do they have the death penalty in MI? And secondly, he was charged with first degree murder, not capital murder - maybe this crime doesn't fit death penalty crimes.

[Apotheoun]

In California first degree murder is a capital offense. As far as Michigan is concerned, I do not believe that it has the death penalty.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' date='20 November 2009 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1258752753' post='2006411']
Aside from the insanity stuff...

I don't think you'd be successful in getting him off completely, but you could try arguing that he was taking the law into his own hands and took it too far. Might try arguing that the son was really a terrible person and a threat to little kids, something like that. Might shave a few years off.

But yea, sounds like there is an eyewitness (mother) standing there during the whole thing.

BTW - do they have the death penalty in MI? And secondly, he was charged with first degree murder, not capital murder - maybe this crime doesn't fit death penalty crimes.
[/quote]
Like I mentioned above, I also wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that this man's got domestic charges, evidence of alcoholism, etc. already in his record, which might very well shoot down any temporary insanity defense.

[zunshynn]

Anyone else suspicious that the father had molested the son and killed him before he would be found out?

[CatherineM]

My first thought was that the father himself had been abused as a child, and freaked when he thought his son was going to be an abuser. It is also possible that he was molesting his son, which would also explain why the son acted out in the manner, and was afraid that his actions would be found out. Of course, he could just be a drunken jerk.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. How does it help the victim? How does it protect others from a dangerous person anymore than imprisonment? It's mere vengeance.

In the first case, I don't see how the father's any less guilty because of what he says his son did. This was a pure summary execution on his part. This individual did not have presumption of innocence, access to an attorney, a trial by jury, the ability to face his accuser, the ability to appeal, etc. We don't even know if he's guilty. We just know the hearsay that he's a child molester. Maybe it was all a mistake, and he didn't molest anybody.

Edited November 21, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='21 November 2009 - 10:48 AM' timestamp='1258818490' post='2006855']
I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. How does it help the victim? How does it protect others from a dangerous person anymore than imprisonment? It's mere vengeance.
[/quote]

The death penalty is for the safety of society. Inmates are part of society. Of course you can then argue for life in prison without parole in solitary confinement, but then how can that be any better than the death penalty in your eyes?

[MIKolbe]

I am not understanding the solidary confinement caveat, though I am not versed in the DOC.

Can one be in prison for life, and not be in solitary for life?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='21 November 2009 - 11:04 AM' timestamp='1258819452' post='2006858']
I am not understand the solidary confinement caveat, though I am not versed in the DOC.

Can one be in prison for life, and not be in solitary for life?
[/quote]

Yes, absolutely.

The death penalty is preferred to life in prison/no parole [b]if[/b] the individual is an extreme danger to society. Society includes those who are inside the prison (guards, prisoners, other staff) as well as outside. Therefore, life in prison/no parole is not the best resort in [b]some[/b] cases. There are arguments, from those who are strictly against the death penalty, that if life in prison/no parole is not considered sufficient or safe the sentence should include "in solitary confinement." This brings up a whole lot of issues though because there are arguments that that would be inhumane.

Edited November 21, 2009 by HisChildForever

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='21 November 2009 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1258818926' post='2006856']
The death penalty is for the safety of society. Inmates are part of society. Of course you can then argue for life in prison without parole in solitary confinement, but then how can that be any better than the death penalty in your eyes?
[/quote]

I can see how people who seriously present a danger to those around them should be confined for as long as they present a danger; I don't see why it would have to be solitary confinement. Compare this to an dangerously insane person. You don't need to lock that person in a dark cage; such people are usually kept in hospitals. Even many of the most dangerous people can still be productive and interact; they just have to be carefully watched somehow.

Edited November 21, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='21 November 2009 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1258820123' post='2006867']
I can see how people who seriously present a danger to those around them should be confined for as long as they present a danger; I don't see why it would have to be solitary confinement. Compare this to an dangerously insane person. You don't need to lock that person in a dark cage; such people are usually kept in hospitals. Even many of the most dangerous people can still be productive and interact; they just have to be carefully watched somehow.
[/quote]

The point is that other people would be in their presence, and this puts the other people at risk for being harmed or killed. Therefore the only way to keep society at large truly safe from the individual would be 1) solitary confinement 2) death penalty.

[Norseman82]

I definitely fear a 15 year old who thinks killing is a hobby and kills a 9 year old. That is a truly dangerous individual.

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='21 November 2009 - 10:48 AM' timestamp='1258818490' post='2006855']
I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. How does it help the victim? How does it protect others from a dangerous person anymore than imprisonment? It's mere vengeance.
[/quote]

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, since I have seen here in Illinois that the criminal justice system is not about finding the truth but more about legalese games (do a search on Rolando Cruz).

However, if it has been proven beyond a shaow of a doubt that th edangerous person is indeed the guilty party, what happens if the prisoner escapes? What about Charles Manson who has a parole hearing every 2 years? There are some incompetent judges and rulings out there, and it only takes one to release a killer back into society.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Norseman82

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='21 November 2009 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1258820795' post='2006872']
The point is that other people would be in their presence, and this puts the other people at risk for being harmed or killed. Therefore the only way to keep society at large truly safe from the individual would be 1) solitary confinement 2) death penalty.
[/quote]

You're talking about people who would be unarmed in the presence of armed guards and surveillance. I think you're being too fearful. Under your standards we would have far more prisoners in solitary confinement or on death row then we do now.