Capital Punishment

[gwnn]

If this thread is inappropriate, you can execute me.

[hrothgar]

As most of you can guess, I strongly oppose capital punishment

 

1. I've seen no evidence that Capital Punishment has any deterrent effect

 

2. If you execute someone by mistake there aren't any "take backs"

 

3. Its abundantly clear that the US applies Capital Punishment in a discriminatory manner

 

4. This is just my gut feeling, but I think that a lot of the Capital Punishment proponents are much more interested in posturing than costs and benefits

 

I understand that the family of victims want an "Eye for and Eye". However, I like to think that we've out grown that sort of thing...

[helene_t]

Agree with all Richard's points. Especially the note about "an eye for an eye".

 

I'll add that a criminal facing capital punishment could be extra dangerous since he has nothing to lose. Also I have heard some rumors that studies have shown that juries become less rational when dealing with capital punishment cases, presumably because they refuse to consider the possibility that they have killed someone wrongfully. This is just lose memory, might be nonsense.

 

I have no moral problems with capital punishment (in some cases it may be more humane than life imprisonment), I just don't think it's practical.

[Al_U_Card]

Eyes and teeth are one thing....what about ol' numero uno...Thou shalt not kill?

[Gerben42]

I do not think it should be ruled out completely, but much more care should be taken with this verdict than otherwise. It would not be something that I would leave just to a jury.

 

I'm thinking about cases where it is bleedingly obvious that you have the right person, combined with a statement that this person could NEVER function again in society. It should be an option for at least serial child abuse, serial killers and serial rape cases.

 

A very select group of people are just wired in some way that if they ever get out, the rest of us will not be safe because they WILL strike again.

 

A great majority of those on US death row would not qualify for this.

[jdonn]

I used to be in favor, and over time have turned very very strongly against. Humans have no business killing each other, nor judging which other humans are bad enough to kill and which ones aren't. I would be against it even ignoring the fact that it's applied extremely unfairly and often inaccurately in this country.

 

I fear the government doing the executing about a million times more than I fear the person being executed.

[whereagles]

If this thread is inappropriate, you can execute me.

*chop*

 

*done*

[pclayton]

Not in favor.

 

For me it isn't a matter of a politics, or deterrence, or executing an innocent person, or whatever. I simply believe in the sanctity of life.

 

This is why I'm against abortions (not on a legal level, but on a personal level). I know nearly all of you find this repugnant, but that's tough *****.

[sceptic]

In england we just had a man batter to death an 1 year old baby after weeks of abuse........ You want to imprison him? get real the bastard deserves to die

 

or more to the point we have a duty to protect and if the only answer you have to protect is to imprison afterwards, then I feel you are missing a fundemental point in life. death penalty is a deterant and maybe a few deaths will prevent more deaths

 

or another view someone like that does not deserve to live, you can argue who has the right to make a judgement that he deserves to die and who has the right to take his life. but I bet the woudl be no shortage of people willing to make the decision or carry out the task.

 

How can you outgrow a desire for vengance if someone has raped and mutilated your baby...

 

Romans 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.

 

shall we leave it all to GOD? BS

[Gerben42]

In england we just had a man batter to death an 1 year old baby after weeks of abuse........ You want to imprison him? get real the bastard deserves to die

 

or more to the point we have a duty to protect and if the only answer you have to protect is to imprison afterwards, then I feel you are missing a fundemental point in life. death penalty is a deterant and maybe a few deaths will prevent more deaths

 

or another view someone like that does not deserve to live, you can argue who has the right to make a judgement that he deserves to die and who has the right to take his life. but I bet the woudl be no shortage of people willing to make the decision or carry out the task.

 

How can you outgrow a desire for vengance if someone has raped and mutilated your baby...

 

Not to mention that the mother will live in fear that as long as this person lives, he might escape. And that while the guy is doing time, about €1,000,000 of tax money is spent on his security in prison whereas the victims might get only €1,000 worth of psychological help.

[kenrexford]

Just for the sake of argument, I'll propose a scenario.

 

A person is convicted of murder. He gets life.

 

Suppose that the law provided that a person given life in prison for a murder can also be classified as a person who is subject to execution upon further misconduct of a specified type, like a further murder. However, he is not executed for that offense.

 

Then, he later commits a qualifying offense, such as killing an institutional guard. No additional meaningful penalty is available, but he has been placed on notice that this qualifying event can yeild the death penalty.

 

Any difference here? Or, do we honor the dead guard by simply restricting library rights for this guy?

[jdonn]

Not to mention that the mother will live in fear that as long as this person lives, he might escape. And that while the guy is doing time, about €1,000,000 of tax money is spent on his security in prison whereas the victims might get only €1,000 worth of psychological help.

If there is one person not thinking clearly in all of this, it's the mother.

 

How much is spent on 20 years of appeals? And I don't want to hear we don't need it, even with that we still don't get close to 100% accuracy! And how about the thousands of court cases that are delayed months and years because of all those appeals, do those people not also deserve justice?

 

In england we just had a man batter to death an 1 year old baby after weeks of abuse........ You want to imprison him?  get real the bastard deserves to die

So if it was a 20 year old he battered then he wouldn't deserve to die? And if it was only 2 days of abuse? And more importantly, who is judging these things! I hope it's not you.

 

death penalty is a deterant and maybe a few deaths will prevent more deaths

Maybe? Now we kill people because of maybes? Show me proof that it works. Don't you think that people who kills babies are not considering the consequences of their actions, and are not planning on being caught? The US has the death penalty and there is no shortage of murders here.

 

or another view someone like that does not deserve to live, you can argue who has the right to make a judgement  that he deserves to die and who has the right to take his life. but I bet the woudl be no shortage of people willing to make the decision or carry out the task.

Who cares who is willing? You admit there is a point about who has the right to make those decisions (answer = no one) and then just answer a different question instead. Because there is no answer.

 

How can you outgrow a desire for vengance if someone has raped and mutilated your baby...

Who cares about vengeance? Fueling more negativity won't bring any babies back.

 

Romans 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.

 

shall we leave it all to GOD?  BS

Now you are just presenting an argument against yourself, that according to the bible the lord will take care of the revenge and he says that we shouldn't, and calling it BS. Well done.

[sceptic]

So if it was a 20 year old he battered then he wouldn't deserve to die? And if it was only 2 days of abuse? And more importantly, who is judging these things! I hope it's not you.

 

 

That is not what I am saying and you well know it

[sceptic]

no much of an arguement for not killing people jdonn why should someone not have the right ?

[sceptic]

And I don't want to hear we don't need it

 

 

well that is what I call openminded discussion

[han]

Not in favor.

 

For me it isn't a matter of a politics, or deterrence, or executing an innocent person, or whatever. I simply believe in the sanctity of life.

 

This is why I'm against abortions (not on a legal level, but on a personal level). I know nearly all of you find this repugnant, but that's tough *****.

No Phil, I don't find anything repugnant in your post.

[Foxx]

I would not be strongly opposed to this country (the USA) bringing back noon hangings in the town square.

[kenberg]

I don't favor killing people. On the other hand, my life is such that the issue doesn't really arise and I think maybe I should at least try to look honestly at situations where it is more of an issue. Ken Rexford alludes to one that I have often thought of in this context. I'll phrase it my way.

 

A guy commits a series of heinous crimes and pretty much everyone agrees that he is never again to be free. He is put in prison, a life sentence without parole. How, exactly, is he to be controlled in prison? Solitary confinement for the rest of his life, given food by robotic means? This is somehow morally superior to killing him? Obviously the guards, and for that matter I would say the other prisoners who may be there for somewhat lesser crimes, need to be protected. How?

 

Moving on.

 

On this business of justice for the victims: Without getting specific, let us suppose that a crime has been committed against my family and of a magnitude that I, personally, would be happy to see the culprit torn to pieces by wolves. Maybe some of you cannot imagine such a feeling, but I can. I do not expect society to offer me that option. I expect society to effective employ the punishment we decided upon in calmer times. It seems to me that this is often the real tragedy of capitol punishment trials. If capitol punishment is an option, then I as an aggrieved family member could well want it. If only life imprisonment is on the table, then I want that. What I don't want is a five year debate over whether he gets the needle or life imprisonment. This, unfortunately, is what often happens.

 

All in all, I guess I go with taking the death penalty off the table. If the culprit gets life, and that is the maximum punishment society offers, I think the family can accept that just as they can accept the unavailability of dismemberment by wolves. But I do worry about how these cons are going to be controlled in prison.

 

My direct experience with this is fortunately non-existent.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, we can always just kill all of the violent people...

 

 

or

 

 

we could become humane and spend the same time and money on determining why they do these things and figuring out how to avoid these tragic eventualities. I realize that in our society, we are more interested in quick fixes and ignoring deeper issues but when they determine that having curly hair or espousing a religious philosophy is also punishable by death.....what happens?

 

Rising above is not at all about getting down in the muck and filth.....if we continue to do wrong we are doomed to be wrong-doers.....

[TimG]

we could become humane and spend the same time and money on determining why they do these things and figuring out how to avoid these tragic eventualities.

Is it clear that they can all be avoided?

 

I agree that society could go along ways toward creating an environment that is not so conducive to such tragic eventualities. But, I don't think it is realistic to think that they can be eliminated.

[finally17]

I'm 100% against, for a variety of reasons.

 

1) I apparently stand with Phil on the sanctity of life, right down to the personally but not legally against abortion.

 

2) As long as they're alive, I don't believe anyone is beyond redemption (regardless of your stance on what redemption means). It's only when they're dead that they are irredeemable.

 

3) In the US anyway, our prisons are (supposedly) for: correction, prevention & public safety, deterrence, and punishment I think there's a fundamental conflict between the first two and the last. I know of nothing that demonstrates the the death penalty is effective for the third.

i. When punishment is the goal, we end up valuing some lives over others (both among the victims and the perpetrators). That's unacceptable to me.

ii. Argue that it's preventative all you want, I think you'd be wrong. We're very effective at locking up the most violent in a manner that prevents them from hurting their peers. The death penalty is purely punishment.

[mikeh]

Any meaningful discussion of capital punishment would take up far more space than even all of the posts on the topic combined. However, there are a few points that seem to me to be relevant to the discussion.

 

1. It is a mistake, according to people who know far more than do I, to think that we can 'solve' the conditions that give rise to people who kill. Pinker's The Blank Slate is a useful starting point. Not only are the social conditions unlikely to ever change in a manner that will eliminate triggers for murder, but, more importantly, it seems impossible to conclude that murder is simply a response to social conditions.

 

2. Most criminals, and this includes most murderers, are either mentally/emotionally disturbed at the time of the crime or are sociopaths. The former includes individuals with drug/alcohol induced deficits, whether because they were high/drunk at the time of the crime or were the victims of fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. Others were brutalized as children. Some may have brain injury from a variety of sources, leading to poor impulse control. People in these categories are physically incapable of the reasoning that allows deterrence to operate at the time of the crime.

 

3. There is, at the current time, an unavoidable risk, in many cases, of a wrongful conviction. There would appear to be many cases, however, in which the guilt of the individual has been demonstrated beyond the rational (not just the reasonable) possibility of error. I might, just might, support a capital punishment regime for the latter, if someone could assure me that we would always, infallibly, be able to draw the line between the categories... but I doubt that that could really be done.

 

4. The desire for revenge, expressed by family and friends of the victim, is not a rational reason for killing the killer. Some family and friends profess a forgiveness of the killer... not an approval or a desire to see him/her go free... but a willingness to forgo the age-old eye for an eye. It seems irrational to me that the fate of the killer would depend, not on the state's interests in prosecuting the crime, but the randomness of the attitude of the survivers. And, what if, say, the mother of the victim said 'don't execute' while the father or spouse said 'hang the bastard'?

 

5. With respect to people who have been abused as kids, or are children of drug-addicted or alcoholic mothers, or who have developed mental or physical problems that deprive them of the ability to conform to societal norms, can it be morally 'right' to kill them for actions beyond their ability to control? If not, where do we draw the line on the continuum between conscious, rational actions by a criminal (say a hitman) and someone who has had a complete psychotic break? Yes, we have 'rules' that allow a defence of insanity, but it is not exactly perfect. And the line has to be drawn somewhere: there will be killers who escape punishment because they are just over the line in one direction and others who face a stiff sanction who, to most of us, would seem to be indistinguishable, but their jury or judge found them just over the line in the opposite direction. I suppose this element of chance is unavoidable in any reasonably-implementable method, but should it really mean the difference between life and death or, as is now sometimes the case, only a difference between being in prison or being in a mental institution?

 

6. To me, if we can overcome the horrific problems of wrongful conviction and the moral issues of whether our killer has or had free will, the strongest argument in favour of capital punishment is economic. Of course, the US has enormous problems with the appeal process and the high cost of maintaining a death row inmate, but China demonstrates that capital punishment can be carried out very efficiently :(

 

7. As against that, as others have posted, the risk of death upon conviction may give some criminals a sense of nothing to lose. In the US, kidnapping used to be and may still be punishable by death.... which always struck me as silly. If I were kidnapped, I'd surely want my captors to have a reason to keep me alive after the ransom was paid. If I were a policeman trying to capture an armed killer, who already knows that if he surrenders, he dies, I might like to be able to hold out to the suspect the prospect of living. Now, in reality, I doubt that these factors apply with any real force to any criminal. Given the choice of killing the cop and maybe escaping or surrendering and facing life in prison, I suspect most killers would shoot. But it might be a factor once in a while. And the point about controlling prisoners already serving life is valid. Of course, most western countries don't usually mean 'life' when sentencing most criminals, including murderers, to 'life'. The US practice of imprisoning individuals for hundreds or even thousands of years (6 consecutive life terms, or 399 years are not unheard of, as examples) is silly. If the state preserved the possibility of release for all but the most deranged, then the state would preserve a carrot to dangle over prisoners in addition to whatever disciplinary sticks it may have.

 

All told, I am against the death penalty but would reconsider my position if my concerns could be met... which I don't think is within our power now or over my lifetime.

[finally17]

6. To me, if we can overcome the horrific problems of wrongful conviction and the moral issues of whether our killer has or had free will, the strongest argument in favour of capital punishment is economic. Of course, the US has enormous problems with the appeal process and the high cost of maintaining a death row inmate, but China demonstrates that capital punishment can be carried out very efficiently :(

Or the weakest. I guess it's all just a matter of perspective.

 

And you know, I always hold the Chinese government up as the gold standard.

[kenberg]

I think there are people who are monsters. They will not change. If you give them the opportunity, they will do enormous harm to other people. What shall we do?

 

1. Deny that such people exist. OK, but refusing to accept reality carries a price tag.

2. Kill them. OK, but deciding, and being certain, which person belongs to this category is often not so simple. Although sometimes it's clear. But it's hard to write laws that take this certainty/uncertainty into account.

3. Put them in prison for life. I'm not so sure this is as simple as it sounds.

 

As I said, all in all I go with 3, but it is not because I have any real reluctance to kill monsters. With some of these criminals I could easily push in the needle and I wouldn't lose any sleep at all. Or so I think. If I get the job... Well, I'll get back to you on that.

[luke warm]

if i took the job (king of the world), which i wouldn't for this and other reasons, i'd have to take it seriously enough to know that my own personal beliefs might sometimes have to take a back seat to what i perceive or have been convinced is good for my subjects...

 

i don't believe in capital punishment for reasons others have stated, but as king i'd have to use it... the difference would be, if a person is found guilty of a capital offense he has an automatic appeal (unless he decides he doesn't want it)... the appeal is 1 month from the day of conviction... if found guilty again, he is shot