The state of Missouri executed Joseph Franklin last night. Was there a compelling case to keep him alive?

Yeah, he wasn’t a paedophile ~

I’m sure he had tons of appeals and cost the State a lot of money. Could have been cheaper to keep him in prison for life.

The fact that the government doesn’t have the right to commit premeditated murder?

I guess… if the arguments against capital punishment by themselves aren’t enough reason, then there’s no reason at all. No particular reason to keep the rest of us hanging around, either, I suppose. And that thought will certainly occur to someone in power – in this country – before too much longer, I suppose.

@Seek_Kolinahr – it’s pretty obvious that the state DOES have the right. You may not like it, but it’s legal.

@elbanditoroso You kind of take the whole discussion of the table when you don’t want to discuss the death penalty.

In and of himself, the only compelling case for keeping Franklin alive was that he is a human being. You may or may not feel that is compelling; I do.

Moral right, not legal right.

We had the legal right to own chattel slaves in this country once, too.

George Bush is still alive.

I am not familiar with his case, so I can’t speak to the convictions, but my main argument against capital punishment is the number of proven mistaken convictions that we know of. If we can’t trust our judicial system, then we shouldn’t be executing people.

You seem to be asking if we know of any specifics in this case that would suggest life imprisonment rather than execution. Since none of us (I assume) have studied it, how could we have a valid opinion? Once you’ve removed the discussion of the validity of capital punishment from the question, there’s not much meat here to chew on.

No, except for those against the death penalty, and those that sympathize with the fact that he was abused as a child in Alabama where he was from.

The south tends to disburse of these monsters with more ease than other areas of the US.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

I haven’t heard a public outcry here about it at all.

Absolutely not.

I am against the death penalty to the extent that the corrupt and fallible Political State should not be permitted to make an irreversible error.

In Franklin’s case, he confessed multiple times and his confessions were credible. No mistake possible there. His fate is totally justifiable. No reason that I can think of to have kept him alive.

There isn’t a compelling case to keep anyone alive. We all just sort of happened and some day we will all unhappen. That doesn’t give us the right to kill anyone though.

You and I and everyone we love are alive so far because someone has not yet chosen to kill us or let us die when they might have prevented that outcome. The right to live is no longer fundamental in so many countries.

Like abortion, I have mixed emotions about the death penalty. In the case of Franklin, it took so long to play out that life without parole would have made more sense.
Had they executed him him about fifteen or twenty years ago, it would have made better sense to me. He was an unrepentant, shameless assassin at that time.

I tend to look at like putting down a rabid dog, but all life is precious so it’s hard. He obviuosly took lives easily.

The only people the state has moral authority to kill are its own corrupt agents.

Of course…

Now we killed him. His being a monster has now taken away from our humanity as well by turning us into killers.

So yes… not because of what his death does to him, but more because what it makes us…

@whitenoise
That’s a slogan and you are equivocating somewhat on the word killer, which is used most often to describe a criminal murderer, or a non human predator.

To a reasoning, mortal creature that universally lives in a social context (example, human beings) killing is occasionally justified, and morally acceptable. In Franklin’s case, it would have been immoral to let him live in our midst.

He wasn’t in our midst. He was safely separated from society and posed no danger to anyone.

This question is as old as time, and a lot of areas of the south and west were used to taking justice the simple way, death for guilt and life for the innocent. It’s not always a question of moral justification, and it’s debateable whether it should be. So-called civilized people do some very uncivilized thing’s every single day.

@whitenoise It’s not on any of us, HE made the decision to kill multiple times. How many of us have had crappy childhood’s and don’t kill people? I see at least 2–3 in this Q alone that have reason to be angry and emotionally bankrupt, but as far as I know we aren’t juggalos singing Mr. Happy. No, I won’t take any emotional responsiblity for this or any other monster.

Because he was human being. Because murder is still murder, regardless of whether it’s collectively sanctioned by a state. Because his death certificate lists “Homicide” as his cause of death – the act of one or more humans killing another human.

@SadieMartinPaul – all humans have equal value?

@elbanditoroso I admire your complete trust in the infallibility of governments. You apparently believe that court systems can determine, without uncertainty and never erring, which lives have value and which people don’t deserve to live.

@elbanditoroso Exactly. We non-murderers can hold ourselves to a higher moral standard that all life is precious, but some people would kill and eat you with no problem whatsoever.

Long-term imprisonment is not fun, and from what I’ve read, a lot of people prefer to die. Not sure in this case though.

@SadieMartinPaul
1) that’s not what I said
2) you didn’t answer my question

@Seek_Kolinahr
If you are paying to sustain his worthless and dangerous existence, he is in your midst.

Logical fallacy.

It costs way more to execute a prisoner than it does to keep him in prison for life.

@josie
I don’t think that’s nice.

I gave my opinion which is very truly the way I think about it. You cannot dismiss that by saying ‘it’s a slogan’. That is being intellectually lazy as well, by not even addressing the content of what I said.

@whitenoise Go tell the mama of one of one or two or three of the victims they’re no better than murderers, see what they have to say.

truth hurts, does it not

@KNOWITALL

I don’t intend to deliver your strawman, at all. Sorry.

I didn’t say what you imply I said, so I don’t know how to respond to your remark…

@whitenoise “Now we killed him. His being a monster has now taken away from our humanity as well by turning us into killers.”

A lot of people don’t agree with many thing’s in our legal system, and some even work to change them. I just take issue with you saying ‘we’ killed him and ‘our’ humanity, and ‘us’ into killers. Speak for yourself if you want to take on the guilt of a serial killer.

@KNOWITALL

I didn’t want to take on the guilt of a serial killer. I am saying we are now reponsible for killing that killer.

The state killed him in our name.
(Actually in your name, since I am from a more advanced country that doesn’t kill its convicts.)

@whitenoise I sleep pretty good at night, but thanks for your ‘advanced’ concern…lol

Perhaps none of are beyond redemption but some few may need to face their Redeemer a bit sooner due to their predilection for slaughtering their fellow pilgrims with malice and premeditation. I do believe Joseph Paul Franklin met those qualifications.