Nathan Dunlap: Will Colorado Execute Him?

Looks like Hickenlooper is the only thing standing in the way. KOA reported today that the Governor met with victims' families last week but the prisoner doesn't want to die.

Think the race of Dunlap will have a role in the decision to take him off death row?

the prisoner is a convict - and although I do not agree with the death penalty (in its current state),
I see no reason for the governor to grant him dispensation and a free ride for life.

I don't really imagine the Governor wants a "soft on crime" image, either.

Politically, I'd expect the execution to move forward.

FredHayek wrote: Looks like Hickenlooper is the only thing standing in the way. KOA reported today that the Governor met with victims' families last week but the prisoner doesn't want to die.

Think the race of Dunlap will have a role in the decision to take him off death row?

Really? He doesn't want to die? I don't think the people he killed wanted to die either. Time for this dirtbag to go...., although I disagree with BB...I think Hick has lost his way, and is being a puppet to the eastern politicians, and will give him clemency.

Personally I find it hard to read the Hick, but if I had to bet on it, I think Dunlap will be executed in August. The governor likes his moderate image.

I'm betting Hickenlooper commutes the sentence myself. Not saying that I think he should, just that I think he will.

FredHayek wrote: Personally I find it hard to read the Hick, but if I had to bet on it, I think Dunlap will be executed in August. The governor likes his moderate image.

He totally blew his "moderate image" with the gun laws he just signed. Dunlap has lived off of the taxpayers long enough. The last thing I want to see coming out of the taxpayer pocket is the cost of the drugs to execute him.

I'm not about to argue "bbbb....b....but he's black......" I don't really care what color he is.
Nor am I about to argue "b...b..b..... but he's a victim of circumstance....." (I don't buy that for a second).

In principle, I can be persuaded to agree with capital punishment.

In its current form, I do not feel that capital punishment (in the US, in general) has much deterrence. When it does take place, it's largely symbolic. Additionally, its implementation is arbitrary, at best.

We're talking about a guy that committed his crime 20+ years ago .

How much deterrence do you think capital punishment has ---- when someone gets to live on the state tab - free room, board, and education - for 20 years? I don't think it deters much, at all. Since it doesn't deter, I question its usefulness.

It's mostly a symbolic execution (if it takes place). I don't really like the idea of killing people for the sake of symbolism.
(I do support executing people for particularly heinous crimes - but picking between Dunlap and some other heinous clown is really arbitrary - and
I do not support killing people arbitrarily).

(Incidentally, I suspect the governor needs to make a symbolic gesture to the crime hawks --- and this would be where he does so - which is part of why I object).

The legal system takes way too much time. Prosecution and conviction should have taken place within 2 years, max. (it took 3 years to convict Dunlap).
Convicts should be given a year to appeal at each conceivable level. (Dunlap has enjoyed about 3 years for each level of appeal)

That said, even with my warmest, most fuzzy thoughts ---- I can't see any self-respecting politician granting this guy clemency for a second.

If the Governor grants clemency - he's a much nicer guy than me.

That's a fallacy that continues to rear its head - that laws and punishments are deterrents rather than in place to address in a consistent manner the harm that some choose to do to others. The purpose of capital punishment is not to deter one from murdering. That has never been its purpose nor can it ever serve that purpose. The purpose of capital punishment is retribution by the society for the grievous harm done when one of its members chooses to murder another, or as in this case several, of its members.

That is the only reason for capital punishment - to punish the gravest of all crimes with the most severe punishment that the society can impose.

Honestly - you're better off saying it's deterrence.

Let's agree - it's punishment

---

It's still symbolic and arbitrary punishment - and you end up with politicians
making symbolic "tough on crime" moves to an arbitrarily chosen convict.

My moral qualms have more to do with the symbolic and arbitrary nature of the punishment than the fact that it simply does not deter.

Then you have the federal Supreme Court to thank for that arbitrary quotient in the equation. After all, they are the ones who said that a single punishment of death for a certain crime was not allowed under the 8th Amendments prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.