america is plagued by vengeance, this is how these situations happen here in the first place

The question is: would YOU take her in and let her stay with YOUR kids?

That is decidedly not the question actually.

While being a stupid kid herself. She is not the same person anymore and I believe she deserves to be set free

she still tortured and killed a teenage girl

Yes, and she's served her time.

She didn't just take a life, she deliberately and cruelly took a life; it was planned and she wanted to make it hurt.

But you can't automatically assume that she's beyond rehabilitation.

This isn't someone you want to let back on the streets.

Is that your knee-jerk opinion or that of trained professionals?

would YOU take her in and let her stay with YOUR kids?

Of course not. Do you let random strangers into your home and around your kids?

I think most people would not.

Well you'd hope so. But as long as it could be proven she didn't pose a risk to the general public I'd be fine with her being released.

Ctx for people who haven't read the article: she was 18 when she tortured and killed a 19yo girl with her boyfriend. They were legally adults (in most jurisdictions) and she was a similar age to the victim. Saying she "killed and tortured a teenager" is intentionally loaded language.

I choose to believe that rehabilitation is possible for every person, no matter the original circumstances. Ideally, everyone should be given the chance to live as freely as possible. Obviously, there has to be a process, there has to be some accountability and safety; but I don't think precluding that as an option categorically at the moment of sentencing is right or just.

I can't speak to her state of mind or risk to society specifically, but that's the position I hold in general.

However, with what I know of the American "justice" system and how capitalist societies are structured and how they treat people with criminal records: I doubt that is the case for many long-term inmates... The situation is regrettable, but the existing 'correctional' institutions in America appear to create more problems than they solve. But ideally, yes; if she had been rehabiliated, she should be slowly reintroduced into society.

However however, with all that said... The argument that "she was sentenced to be executed and the execution was botched, therefore she should be let go" is a bad argument.

The governor should commute her sentence to life in prison.

Probably the most likely outcome.

please prove me wrong and show this is enough to break through the MAGA cult.

Ideally there would be a debate about capital punishment or more humane/effective methods of execution. Unlikely to happen though, MAGA morality will probably lead to the default being death by firing squad. Live and televised.

Somewhere a dystopian sci-fi describes a justice system where you can receive multiple life sentences and actually serve them all. Upon a natural death, you are revived and renewed to the age you were at sentencing to serve the next life sentence. Only after completing them all are you free to die and remain that way.

The rich and powerful use their sway to prolong the sentences of those that have wronged them. Died early from an aggressive cancer? Well upon renewal they bribed the system to cure you of that. Or they implant a disease that won't kill you sooner but makes your time even worse.

Well, I believe there was a case in England where a woman was sentenced to death by hanging for killing her child. She was hanged and appeared dead, but when they cut her down after some time she came back to life. In her case it was considered she had endured her punishment and she was released. Public called her half hanged Mary(?). Not sure about her name anymore. But I'm sure long common law history is only employed when convenient.

Okay, no no no.

I'm going to illustrate something here, and I hope it makes sense. Please humor me:

Hypothetically, imagine a father, and he has a beautiful daughter. Now, as difficult as it is, just imagine that she's kidnapped and brutally murdered, and he KNOWS who did it. The only ones in the whole world who knew it were the child's father and the police. But for some reason, the (hypothetical) police didn't do anything. The killer would remain free.

No matter what we think about such a situation, I think most people could sympathize with the father, and if the father decided to get revenge, people would at least understand it, maybe even find the father not guilty if he were ever put on trial. A father's love for his child, and what had been done would justify his feelings. Understandable.

But in this hypothetical scenario, it wouldn't mean that just anyone would be justified for wanting to kill the murderer, if they didn't know the killer was a murderer. If someone just happened to kill the child's murderer for no reason and had no idea that the child's murderer had killed her, no one would say that this second killer had standing to justify killing that person.

To come back to the Christa Pike case, the death penalty can be debated, and there are honestly reasonable arguments on both sides of that case.

But failed executions are unacceptable. In any context. There should NEVER be a situation where the government takes an action to kill someone and fails to do it. The result of such a thing is INHERENTLY cruel and unusual punishment. It maims people, tortures them, et cetera. The fact that this could happen to someone who is a killer means it could happen to other people. And we know for a fact that innocent people have been put to death before, so a government that would have a failed execution and would still want to kill the person is a government that has announced that a failed execution is an option for that government. That it has the ability to commit that kind of cruel and unusual punishment against someone and then to do it again.

Government justifies its continued existence through the ethics of its actions. When someone has committed murder, it's at least understandable that a given government would want to end the life of the murderer. Whether you or I or anyone else like the death penalty, it at least makes sense to want that.

The problem is that when that government fails to execute someone, the government itself is failing its first test. The test which justifies the government getting to continue to be government. At the point that a government is committing cruel and unusual punishment, for some reason, I lose interest in the question of whether a single convicted murderer deserves to die(and personally, I believe that answer is yes), but I become a whole lot more interested in why a government which has announced its intentions to have cruel and unusual punishment is now the one to ask questions about whether others should be punished in this way.

I have trouble focusing on whether a government should kill a given criminal when the government asking the question has the power to kill that person but itself lacks the ethical justification to be the one asking to do so.

You can compare this with a couple instances where felons serving life sentences had to be resuscitated and then went on to appeal that since they had temporarily died they had fulfilled the terms of their 'life' sentence.

Ahh. Didn't realise there was presidence.

if the defendant has served their life sentence, then they must be deceased, and the deceased are unable to file appeal

I can see the logic there. It is the 'death penalty' after all.

That kind of thing only works if you're a billionaire

Yep. Effectiveness of representation is determined by how much you're willing/able to spend.

fallback is electric chair

For real? Prisons still have them?

I’m honestly surprised they didn’t do something awful without a court order stopping them.

I love how you went on a rant and completely missed the bit where I said release her if she's not a threat to society.

In most western countries - even in the case of murder - once someone's sentence is up they are released. The caveat being that if that person is deamed to be a threat then alternative arrangements are made. And, threat is measured by professionals (psychiatrists, social workers, etc).

If Christa was still considered a threat then obviously, I wouldn't support her release.

Is capital punishment a fitting sentence? No.

I'd argue its a rubbish sentence because there's no room for the perpetrator to reflect on their crimes and allow themselves to be rehabilitated.

If death is the outcome then they might as well carry on being a terrible person until the executioner flips the switch.

I think

Stop.

You already admitted that you're not sure on your premise. You shouldn't have continued writing your comment. I didn't even read the rest of it, because it's already started on shaky ground

She has never experienced the death penalty because she never died.

Anyone wanna join Pikeism?

That wasn't where I was going with this. I'm not saying release her because she's the messiah - I meant can the sentence be considered "served".

I don’t think you would have that opinion if you read the linked Wikipedia article. What she did was beyond horrific. She should remain separated from society for life for what she did to that girl.