Death Penalty

[Hell Kitty]

There is a difference between believing the world would be better off if certain people were dead, and supporting the death penalty. This and similar stories might be evidence of the former, but they do nothing to change the problems already mentioned with the use of the death penalty.

[Gorth]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ex-profile.html

Well, with family like that

 

Sad that two men had to die because of a system failure. They didn't bring him in after his first post-release offense, which is where the alarm bells should have gone off.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Some pieces of human garbage simply can't be allowed to go on living. It's a matter of principle.

[Walsingham]

There is a difference between believing the world would be better off if certain people were dead, and supporting the death penalty. This and similar stories might be evidence of the former, but they do nothing to change the problems already mentioned with the use of the death penalty.

 

I freely and fully accept that the use of the death penalty should be restricted to only the most extreme cases. however, I do think it is fair and sensible to advocate it where an individual would be expensive to incarcerate, and when they have no possibility of reform, combined with prolonged sadism evident in their crimes. I say this out of compassion for those who might better benefit from the same resources, and who richly deserve them. Not least of whom are their victims. It costs 50-100k a year to hold someone in high security. That could change a lot of lives. Instead what do we get?

[Hell Kitty]

So you're saying money should play a part in the punishment given?

Edited June 5, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Walsingham]

So you're saying money should play a part in the punishment given?

 

You may be interested in the philosophy, but wake up to the real world. People are incarcerated all the time based on whether we have the money to keep them. It may be argued that government has a duty to human rights, but it must have a primary duty to the rights of its quiescent citizens. Or the entire notion of the state goes kablooie, and we have no logical recourse but lynch law.

[Killian Kalthorne]

It costs too much money for the death penalty when you figure in all the court costs and such. Walsh is right on this. SOmetimes the best course is the pragmatic one.

[Kelverin]

It costs too much money for the death penalty.

Maybe the way it's run now. I'm all for a bullet to the head. Bam, that's very cheap.

[Killian Kalthorne]

If we streamline the system, sure, but I rather not.

[Hell Kitty]

It costs too much money for the death penalty when you figure in all the court costs and such. Walsh is right on this.

 

Except he's arguing that the death penalty is cheaper.

 

So you're saying money should play a part in the punishment given?

 

You may be interested in the philosophy, but wake up to the real world.

 

The real world? First you argue that the existence of criminals who commit terrible crimes supports the death penalty given there is little doubt of their guilt, which doesn't make sense given the law finds you guilty, rather than probably guilty or definitely guilty. Now you're arguing that it's cheaper to kill rather than imprison, but that's only true if the "take 'em round the back and put a bullet in their brain right after being declared guilty" method is used. Not to mention the rather naive view that money saved by executions would instead go to victims and/or their families and others who "richly deserve them".

 

None of this changes that problem with the death penalty that others have already mentioned, that sometimes innocent people will slip through the cracks and be executed for crimes they didn't commit. I take it you think these people are acceptable loses?

[Kelverin]

I take it you think these people are acceptable loses?

Not sure if he is but I am. Just how many "innocent" people have been executed anyway? Again it's how much "faith" you have in the legal system and if you think it works or it doesn't. I believe it does so I am all for it.

[Walsingham]

1) Frankly I do accept that innocent people will be killed by a policy of the death penalty. However, given that I accept innocent people get killed in military action, doing otherwise would be grossly hypocritical. in turn I would point out that ANY architecture has unintended losses. This is true of medical procedure, as well as military and social procedures. If your intention is to make me feel bad, do YOU feel bad about such people being freed to murder again? Of course you don't, and I'm not certain you should.

 

2) I think a critical point to establish is whether you would be comfortable with permanent incarceration for certain offenders. Are you?

[213374U]

1) Frankly I do accept that innocent people will be killed by a policy of the death penalty. However, given that I accept innocent people get killed in military action, doing otherwise would be grossly hypocritical. in turn I would point out that ANY architecture has unintended losses. This is true of medical procedure, as well as military and social procedures. If your intention is to make me feel bad, do YOU feel bad about such people being freed to murder again? Of course you don't, and I'm not certain you should.

Military action is seldom enacted against the populace of the state carrying out said action (civil war), which makes it an unfair comparison. Further, when military force is used, the purpose is not to remove elements that are not cost-effective for the state to maintain (which is the main argument you are using to explore the legitimacy of the death penalty), but to force surrender of an enemy by destroying their ability or will to keep on fighting. Ideally, this would be accomplished with a minimum of loss of life. And that's assuming a war of aggression.

 

As for the unavoidable deaths due to medical error or malpractice, the alternative would be not to have any medical practice, yes? You aren't seriously trying to put disadvantages of not having any medical practice and not having any executions on the same level, are you?

 

Forced labor. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

[Hell Kitty]

If your intention is to make me feel bad, do YOU feel bad about such people being freed to murder again? Of course you don't, and I'm not certain you should.

 

I think a critical point to establish is whether you would be comfortable with permanent incarceration for certain offenders. Are you?

 

Why on earth do you think I'm trying to make you feel bad? I just wanted an answer to something you hadn't yet addressed.

 

I'm fine with life in prison.

 

You've posted two articles you claim support the death penalty. If you believe the death penalty is barbaric, or you feel that any innocents that fall victim to it are unacceptable loses, then individual cases like this aren't going to suddenly change your mind. As such, the only thing these stories do is justify the death penalty in the minds of those that already believe in it.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Killian Kalthorne]

Okay, I misread.

 

I for one am for the death penalty, but even one innocent killed in the course of justice makes a mockery of the whole system. ALso the death penalty is expensive after you include all the costs of lawyers, judges, and the like, both in time and money. I like GUard Dog's sentiment. Those who have life imprisonment without possibility of parole get sent to a super max prison and kept in a 7.5 by 7.5 foot stone cell where they never see the light of day again.

[Lare Kikkeli]

I believe that how we treat our prisoners is a measure of our civilization. Kill em outright? Might as well live in the middle ages. I don't think any of you who say that all murderers should be shot behind the sauna really enjoyed living with such laws. How many of you would like to move to Taleban-era Afghanistan? They really knew how to be cost effective with their sentencing.

[213374U]

I believe that how we treat our prisoners is a measure of our civilization.

If only that were true. Instead, it's just a measure of our mastery of mass (self-)deceit and double standards. It's also a measure of the investigative skills of journalists.

 

 

How many of you would like to move to Taleban-era Afghanistan? They really knew how to be cost effective with their sentencing.

This is fallacious. I wouldn't like to live in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, but not necessarily because of sharia. I wouldn't have a problem with living in, for instance, Heinlein's SST society.

 

Now, look me in the eye and tell me you wouldn't want to kick some bug ass in one of those sexy power armours.

[alanschu]

EDIT:

 

I'm coming to this way late...

Edited June 6, 2009 by alanschu

[Calax]

*shrugs* I'm somewhat in support of the death penalty but understand why there are moral objections.

 

But what I don't like is the fact that some people seem to want our society to be blinded.

[alanschu]

I believe guys like this deserve to die. I don't think, however, that there should be a death penalty because I don't think ours or any government, court, or jury is perfect or even adequate enough to handle the responsibility of using it properly. Someone will be and probably has been executed wrongfully because of a mistaken cop, a mistaken judge, or a mistaken jury. There's just too much room for error for a such an ultimate solution.

 

There's probably no mistaking anything about this guy, and I'd be happy to hear of him dying, but you can't make exceptions like that in law, especially not because of emotions.

 

Hell, all we know is what this small web article says, some scrap of information we found on an internet forum, and we're ready to get a rope. It's too easy to be misinformed or plain wrong.

 

That pretty much settles it.

Not really

 

"It's too easy to be misinformed or plain wrong."

Is it? I think you give criminals too much credit

 

 

It's not even that it's too easy to be misinformed or plain wrong. I think you give the law makers, judges, and police officers too much credit. Death Penalty cases are high profile cases that do, in fact, catapult careers (especially of district attorneys).

 

It's not just about the mistaken judge, mistaken cop, or mistaken jury. It's also about the ambitious judge, the corrupt cop, and the prejudiced jury (You can mix and match those adjectives if you like).

 

 

Given that you're going to take someone's life, you better damn well make sure they are given due process to appeal for the sake of their life. As a result, the death penalty becomes substantially more expensive than life in prison.

 

 

 

the "deterrence argument" is the argument that the death penalty deters others from committing capital crimes. it does not, or at least, there has never been any data suggesting that it does. people think it does, and thus believe it to be true, but nobody can ever pin down why other than "it just seems logical" (forgetting, of course, that the argument involves an emotional response - fear of being executed, which is contrary to logic anyway).

 

This in addition to the investigations as to whether or not the death penalty removes hesitation for committing further acts of violence. I've been meaning to look into whether or not the "nothing to lose" situation has any merit but have been rather busy lately.

 

 

 

@Kelverin

You're not talking about Deterrence, you're talking about eliminating recidivism (the chances that an offender will repeat his crime). The problem with your argument though, is that this applies to anything. That person robbed a store. We should kill them, because there's a 100% chance that he won't rob another store (or commit any other crime for that matter). Penalties to reduce recidivism are ridiculous IMO, because the only one that really has any success is, in fact, the death penalty. And I do not support the death penalty.

 

 

Not sure if he is but I am. Just how many "innocent" people have been executed anyway? Again it's how much "faith" you have in the legal system and if you think it works or it doesn't. I believe it does so I am all for it.

 

I don't. Systemic and institutional racism still very much exist.

 

 

Northwestern Law School analyzed 86 wrongful conviction death row cases and found the such reasons as:

 

eyewitness error - from confusion or faulty memory.

government misconduct - by both the police and the prosecution

junk science - mishandled evidence or use of unqualified "experts"

snitch testimony - often given in exchange for a reduction in sentence

false confessions - resulting from mental illness or retardation, as well as from police torture

other - hearsay, questionable circumstantial evidence, etc.

 

 

A host of interesting innocence related investigations can be found here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions

In fact, go to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org in general to find some interesting reading about the death penalty altogether.

 

 

Another interesting thing is that it takes on average 9.8 years for a person to be convicted of a capital crime to be later exonerated of it. So you can't really expedite the process of shooting people in the head in order to save money, lest your list of innocent victims goes up even faster.

 

 

 

There are corrupt people everywhere. I wouldn't want an ambitious police officer looking to do anything to make a name for himself (or with a strong, emotional and personal belief that I commited a crime I did not) to be handling my investigation for a capital crime.

 

 

EDIT: As for deterrence:

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence...teswithvwithout

Edited June 6, 2009 by alanschu

[ramza]

Yawwwwn... The death penalty debate again... I can't understand those people that support it. What makes you think that you have the right to take the life of someone? Yes, they have killed but that's their problem. Killing is a crime no matter the reason and you are making the circle of violence endure even longer. Saying "an eye for an eye" is just plain stupid. If it's all about retribution, I can think of a thousand ways to make a criminal regret his actions without having to kill him. Killing someone because he killed someone else is pointless. There's no lesson to be learned and you can't make an example out of him... It is also preferable to know that the criminal is suffering for his actions. I doubt his death will soothe the victim's feelings...

 

Here are some examples:

1) Drop him on a desert island with barely any trees for him to make a wooden raft.

2) Even better, drop all criminals on a desert island and let them live together (they might kill each other but that's their problem).

 

I guess we, Europeans, have more sensibilities when it comes to the protection and the value of human life. This probably explains why we have a different position than the US on the topic of death penalty.

[alanschu]

I guess we, Europeans, have more sensibilities when it comes to the protection and the value of human life. This probably explains why we have a different position than the US on the topic of death penalty.

 

 

Yes, that's exactly it.

 

It's a European who brought up whether this was a situation where the Death Penalty may be appropriate in this sense.

 

 

And I'm a Canadian.

 

Cheers

[213374U]

I guess we, Europeans, have more sensibilities when it comes to the protection and the value of human life.

No. Just a greater inclination to pontificate, apply double standards and hypocrisy in general.

[Gorgon]

Well lets not sell ourselves too short, we are certainly better than the barbarians who still kill their own citizens.

 

The death penalty is at the most scary when used to send a political or popular message and is no longer only about individual cases.

 

In China for instance it underpins a one party dictatorship, in the US it's more of a vote magnet to reign in the right wing reactionaries. The governor of such and such had this many executions during his term, what a man, tough on crime.

[Walsingham]

1) I'm getting good at saying this with all the practice. I am making the case that the death penalty isn't always wrong.

 

2) Saying 'how we treat our prisoners is the mark of our civilisation' is an asinine soundbite. What about how we treat our pensioners, or our children, or our sick, or disabled?

 

3) How in the name of all that's good and holy is locking a man in a cell where he goes mad with loneliness and despair any better than death?

 

~~~

 

But returning to point one, how do either of the two cases above strike you as unjust use of the death penalty? Doubt over guilt (as far as we can tell from the news), or are the crimes not bad enough?