"In any case even with an existing death penalty none of the episodes featured killers who qualified."
What are you talking about? Nearly all of the murders were not only highly premeditated, but they also involved an elaborate coverup, in some cases a coverup designed to frame someone else for the murder. This is known as first-degree or aggravated murder:
Murder with specified aggravating circumstances is often punished more harshly. Depending on the jurisdiction, such circumstances may include:
• Premeditation
• Poisoning
• Lying in wait
• Murder of a child
• Murder committed during sexual assault
• Murder committed during kidnapping[58]
• Multiple murders committed within one criminal transaction or in different transactions as part of one broader scheme
• Murder of a police officer,[59][60] judge, firefighter or witness to a crime[61]
• Murder of a pregnant woman[62]
• Crime committed for pay or other reward, such as contract killing[63]
• Exceptional brutality or cruelty, torture murder
• Murder committed by an offender previously convicted of murder
• Methods which are dangerous to the public[64] e.g. explosion, arson, shooting in a crowd etc.[65]
• Murder for a political cause[59][66]
• Murder committed in order to conceal another crime or facilitate its commission.[67]
• Murder committed in order to obtain material gain, for example to obtain an inheritance[68]
• Hate crimes, which occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their perceived membership in a certain social group.
• Treachery (e.g. Heimtücke in German law)
In the United States and Canada, these murders are referred to as first-degree or aggravated murders.
In the United States, capital punishment [...] is usually applied for only the most serious crimes, such as aggravated murder.
Nearly all of the homicides on the show were murders with premeditation as an aggravating factor, and were therefore cases of aggravated murder. Some of them had other aggravating factors as well, such as "murder committed in order to obtain material gain, for example to obtain an inheritance" and "lying in wait".
Take a look at the murderer from "Suitable for Framing" for example. He murdered two people, both of them premeditated, with the first having material gain as an additional aggravating factor and the second one having "conceal another crime" as an additional aggravating factor. He absolutely qualified for the death penalty, as did nearly all of the other killers on the show.
"They were all rich celebrities who killed for various reasons"
No, they weren't. Relatively few of them were celebrities; not that it matters, since being a celebrity doesn't make one exempt from the death penalty.
"And if anyone's interested I oppose the death penalty in general, because it doesn't make sense to kill people to show that killing people is wrong."
But it does make sense to kill people to show that murdering people is wrong. All murders are killings but not all killings are murder. Killing in self-defense is logically and legally justified for example, and the death penalty is societal self defense. A murderer has proven himself to be a mortal threat to human life, and the only way to completely eliminate that threat is to dust him.
On top of that, the death penalty is an application of the Golden Rule, an
enforced version of the Golden Rule, that is. By intentionally depriving someone else of their right to life, he has inherently forfeited his own right to life in the process. If the murderer objects to being killed in return, he's guilty of a logical fallacy known as "special pleading," also known as a "double standard" or "rules for thee, but not for me."
reply
share
Adam60z (3766)
3 months ago
The flaw in your argument is it's not neccessary. Life in prison without parole if he or she is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt completely eliminates the threat. But as I said I agree some exceptions are warrented: vile rottenlouse for mass murder in Kenosha, bush and cheney for mass murder in Iraq, putin for mass murder, etc.
"being a celebrity doesn't make one exempt from the death penalty." So let me know all the examples of celebrites who have received it.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4597)
3 months ago
"The flaw in your argument is it's not neccessary. Life in prison without parole if he or she is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt completely eliminates the threat."
No, it doesn't. The murderer could escape and then kill again, or simply kill someone in prison, either a fellow inmate or a guard / staff member. Killing the murderer is the only way to completely eliminate the proven threat.
""being a celebrity doesn't make one exempt from the death penalty." So let me know all the examples of celebrites who have received it."
First, your tacit concession that you were wrong about all of the murderers on Columbo being celebrities, is noted. Second, it's an absurd question. For example, no one I've ever known has received the death penalty. Does that mean that people I know are exempt from the death penalty? Obviously not; it just means they've never been convicted of anything that warrants the death penalty. How about you name some celebrities who were convicted of something that warrants the death penalty but they got a lighter sentence?
reply
share
Adam60z (3766)
3 months ago
Well there was discussion about OJ getting it, but he was found not guilty. Which is a whole other can of worms. In our messed up justice system often the guilty go free and the innocent are imprisoned or executed. So many prisoners have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Are you willing to risk executing someone who's innocent because of our flawed justice system?
Any attorney will tell you a jury trial is always a crap shoot. They'll also say they don't care if the client is guilty or not; a prosecutor's job is to convict regardless; and defense is to acquit regardless.
And of course it's usually the poor who can't afford a good defense and don't know their rights who get convicted regardless of guilt. They don't have a dream team. Sad.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4597)
3 months ago
"Well there was discussion about OJ getting it, but he was found not guilty."
In other words, you have no examples of celebrities who were convicted of something that warrants the death penalty but they got a lighter sentence.
"So many prisoners have been exonerated by DNA evidence."
What makes you think that the DNA evidence that exonerated them was any better than the evidence that convicted them to begin with? DNA evidence, like other things that people accept as gospel due to TV shows and movies (e.g., fingerprint analysis, handwriting analysis, ballistics analysis, voice analysis, polygraph), isn't anywhere near as conclusive as you've been led to believe:
Judges, juries, and prosecutors are comfortable with the idea that a DNA “match” means the defendant did it, and a mismatch means the defendant did not. They are comfortable with the idea that a DNA “match” means that man is the father, while a mismatch can mean a broken family. With the advancement of genetic testing procedures, our understanding of a person’s DNA composition is expanding, raising serious questions about the weight DNA evidence should carry in both criminal and civil matters. We are gradually discovering that DNA can raise more questions than answers about who a person is. With the possibility of conditions such as chimerism and mosaicism—where multiple genetic codes can be found in a single person—false understandings about DNA inheritance; and other scientific revelations muddying the waters, DNA evidence may end up being more prejudicial than probative since not even the most experienced DNA technician can tell you what it all means.
https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=cflj
Of course the criminal justice system is flawed and corrupt, far more so than you realize (since you seem to trust "DNA evidence"), but what alternative is there? Eliminate criminal penalties altogether? A flawless and corruption-free criminal justice system isn't even possible.
reply
share