Death Penalty

[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?

[Gorgon]

Well it has already been posited that systemic errors are inevitable, and that the death penalty logically is irreversible. Also there are the aforementioned extra legal motivations to affect the system, whether those effects are subtle or just serve as a brutal reminder of what happens if you attempt to rebel against the established order.

 

Fine, so, the death penalty is not always wrong, but the system which governs it isn't perfect either. That being the case the final verdict of whether to have such as system or not has to be a resounding 'no'.

[Walsingham]

OK, Gorgon. I accept your point. As I understand it, you are saying that the cases I've shown are the outliers not caught by less than lethal punishment, which do not invalidate the system? In the same way that I'd accept innocents being executed. Fair enough.

 

Solely addressing you, then. Do you _feel_ (no logical case yet) that there might be some standard of assessing the relative merits of the two approaches? I'm thining something like assessing the number of persons executed incorrectly versus the number of recidivist murders.

[213374U]

I am making the case that the death penalty isn't always wrong.

Yeah that's the easy way to go about it - it's also the wrong way. Once you introduce the provision for the death penalty in the system, you introduce the possibility that it will be abused. And so you have, in all but letter, legalised murder.

 

 

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?

You can always pull that man out of the cell.

 

Further, it's my opinion that simply executing some people is letting them off too easy. I'm not jumping in the "humane" wagon here.

 

 

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?

You can produce any number of atrocities that would support your case for the death penalty. It only takes one instance where it was applied unjustly and the whole argument crumbles. It's a kind of fundamental disagreement over what's acceptable and what isn't - appeals to emotion are accessory and distracting.

[ramza]

I still cannot understand how you say that the death penalty is an acceptable practice (as long as it isn't abused). What's in for you? What do you have to gain from the death of some random criminal? As you may have noticed, the victims do not feel better in any case... If it's about the dissuasive effect, crimes keep happening...

 

So, nope, I find it appalling when someone supports the death penalty. Who are we to decide whether one shall live or not? All we can decide upon is the manner in which we can "neutralize" an individual. The most usual solution is to send them to a prison. However, in the old times, criminals were banned from the city they live in and they were never allowed to return...

 

Seriously, if we either beat the hell out of criminals or sent them on some remote island (without handcuffs or prisons), you would see drastic changes in society without having to kill anybody. Some people just require some serious beating in order to understand that what they did was wrong and to no act in the same way again... In some cases, suffering (within limits) is an excellent way to learn some things about life...

[213374U]

Seriously, if we either beat the hell out of criminals or sent them on some remote island (without handcuffs or prisons), you would see drastic changes in society without having to kill anybody. Some people just require some serious beating in order to understand that what they did was wrong and to no act in the same way again... In some cases, suffering (within limits) is an excellent way to learn some things about life...

Only now we know that psychopaths and other criminals simply cannot be rehabilitated... beatings or not.

[Kelverin]

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.

Sorry but this comes off as paranoid. There are many processes to prevent this from happening, and "everyone would have to be in on it" They are given chances to appeal the verdicts too many chances most likely.

@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.

My argument is strictly for the taking of the human life, whats funny is you think you have more respect for Human life than someone like me who supports the death penalty, but that is just not true. The worst thing someone can do is take another life unjustly and those that do deserve the ultimate penalty. Not to send a message or another reason you might think I have for wanting it. You kill someone you die. Simple.

Northwestern Law School analyzed 86 wrongful conviction death row cases

Out of how many trials? 100, 1000, 10,000? More?

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.

How long does it take them to until they run out of appeals and are put to death? Edited June 7, 2009 by Kelverin

[ramza]

One more thing, some of you claim that killing criminals will save us from some tax money. So, is that it? Is that all the respect you have for human life? Yes, they killed and this is a despicable act. Killing them is another despicable act as well. There is no difference in the value of human life, no matter who is the bearer of that life (criminal or not). If you value human life as a whole, you should stop the hypocrisy and admit that it is wrong to take a life no matter the circumstance.

 

Moreover, are you saying that some tax money you pay (which is surely a negligible amount, given the population of the US) has more value over a single life? You should consider more carefully how your taxes are being spent (billions given to greedy banks and corporations and billions spend on two senseless wars)... Would you rather get someone killed and keep the money for yourself (even though it would probably have ended in the pockets of those banks and corporations I have been talking about)?

 

Wow, just wow... That is respect for human life... And they use the victim's death as an excuse for that...

[theslug]

One more thing, some of you claim that killing criminals will save us from some tax money. So, is that it? Is that all the respect you have for human life? Yes, they killed and this is a despicable act. Killing them is another despicable act as well. There is no difference in the value of human life, no matter who is the bearer of that life (criminal or not). If you value human life as a whole, you should stop the hypocrisy and admit that it is wrong to take a life no matter the circumstance.

 

Moreover, are you saying that some tax money you pay (which is surely a negligible amount, given the population of the US) has more value over a single life? You should consider more carefully how your taxes are being spent (billions given to greedy banks and corporations and billions spend on two senseless wars)... Would you rather get someone killed and keep the money for yourself (even though it would probably have ended in the pockets of those banks and corporations I have been talking about)?

 

Wow, just wow... That is respect for human life... And they use the victim's death as an excuse for that...

For someone who touts humanity you sure lack any concept of it. Dying is a natural and humane process and I'm going to go so far as to say killing is as well. We do it to animals and have done so for millennia, mainly for protection and out of necessity to eat. We execute criminals to protect society and it's a necessary as well as just sentence in many cases. Explain to me exactly how letting a man rot in a concrete box for the rest of his days is humane? Or for that matter your beating the hell out of prisoners or stranding them on an island. You're the hypocrite.

 

I like how you talk about the value of human life and that we're all equal. You're completely blind to reality. There are people in this world who are worth more than others, whether it's physically or mentally or w/e. And what exactly would you know about the value of human life anyways? Unless you've experienced birth as well as killed men I'd say you have no idea. And yes, I've done both so my previous statement stands. People aren't equal. Only an idealist, blockhead, or someone trying to be pc would say that. Take your pick.

[Gorgon]

OK, Gorgon. I accept your point. As I understand it, you are saying that the cases I've shown are the outliers not caught by less than lethal punishment, which do not invalidate the system? In the same way that I'd accept innocents being executed. Fair enough.

 

Solely addressing you, then. Do you _feel_ (no logical case yet) that there might be some standard of assessing the relative merits of the two approaches? I'm thining something like assessing the number of persons executed incorrectly versus the number of recidivist murders.

I have a hard time imagining such a study would not be meandering around in conjecture. How do you accurately assess how many innocent people have been executed. What would be the balance, people who were at one time convicted of a capital offense but were released only to kill again.

 

 

Philosophically speaking I think justice, when we are talking about deciding the life or death of someone, should aspire to something more than 'good enough' and not be prepared to accept any margin of error as the cost of doing business. I am also more offended by an innocent man executed than a repeat murderer.

[ramza]

One more thing, some of you claim that killing criminals will save us from some tax money. So, is that it? Is that all the respect you have for human life? Yes, they killed and this is a despicable act. Killing them is another despicable act as well. There is no difference in the value of human life, no matter who is the bearer of that life (criminal or not). If you value human life as a whole, you should stop the hypocrisy and admit that it is wrong to take a life no matter the circumstance.

 

Moreover, are you saying that some tax money you pay (which is surely a negligible amount, given the population of the US) has more value over a single life? You should consider more carefully how your taxes are being spent (billions given to greedy banks and corporations and billions spend on two senseless wars)... Would you rather get someone killed and keep the money for yourself (even though it would probably have ended in the pockets of those banks and corporations I have been talking about)?

 

Wow, just wow... That is respect for human life... And they use the victim's death as an excuse for that...

For someone who touts humanity you sure lack any concept of it. Dying is a natural and humane process and I'm going to go so far as to say killing is as well. We do it to animals and have done so for millennia, mainly for protection and out of necessity to eat. We execute criminals to protect society and it's a necessary as well as just sentence in many cases. Explain to me exactly how letting a man rot in a concrete box for the rest of his days is humane? Or for that matter your beating the hell out of prisoners or stranding them on an island. You're the hypocrite.

 

I like how you talk about the value of human life and that we're all equal. You're completely blind to reality. There are people in this world who are worth more than others, whether it's physically or mentally or w/e. And what exactly would you know about the value of human life anyways? Unless you've experienced birth as well as killed men I'd say you have no idea. And yes, I've done both so my previous statement stands. People aren't equal. Only an idealist, blockhead, or someone trying to be pc would say that. Take your pick.

 

1) Yes, dying is a natural and humane process, but it isn't when death is caused by someone else, it is just plain wrong no matter if it happens everyday in this sick world. Violence is only justified in case of self-defence. Killing someone who is no longer posing a threat (because he has been arrested) is no longer self-defence. As I have already said, there are plenty of ways (different from what I have suggested) to neutralize a dangerous individual. I dislike the killing of animals when it is only seen as a sport and not as a mean of survival. I disagree with your vision of prisons. Do you know that some criminals commit a small crime on purpose just to get in prison? They have shelter and food and don't have to live a miserable life. You should take into account the psychological aspect of crimes: some are made by idiots, some are made because the criminal has been treated poorly all his life and maybe didn't have any other choice than steal to get some food for example. Moreover, some criminals are purely insane and need medical treatment. You can't decide to kill them just because it suits you to do so. Who are you to decide anyway?

 

2) I agree that people are not equal on many things (cleverness, social status, etc) but we all have one thing in common: we all have the right to live. If someone gets murdered, we have to punish the criminal for taking a life. But, it IS hypocritical to kill that same criminal out of respect for the human life he has taken, because if we did respect human life, we would never resort to killing him, no matter the cause. Besides, who are you (or anyone in the same manner) to judge whether someone is worthy or not to be living? Having experienced the birth and the death of men doesn't confirm your statement as I do not see any connection with your claim that people are not equal... Again, you are being very subjective in your assessment and this alone proves the irrationality of the capital punishment. It's a bunch of people that apply their own moral compass (and what is considered to be just for them, is considered to be wrong somewhere else) and their subjective reasonning to judge whether some guy should be allowed to live or not.

 

By the way, introducing the death penalty in the US has failed to decrease the criminality rate. So, it is just a useless measure...

 

I am just glad I live in Europe where human rights do get a real protection and where human life is truly valued. I guess we will never agree on this issue, so this will be my last post...

 

PS: I am not sure I have understood correctly your last post. Have you killed men? How so? Iraq?

[theslug]

I was lying and trying to be awesome but I guess I wasn't.

 

"Besides, who are you (or anyone in the same manner) to judge whether someone is worthy or not to be living?"

 

I think this is a good ending point for both of us. Who am I to say a man should die and who are you to say he should live?

[Meshugger]

The next question should be, considering the whole 'what is humane'-whoopla: Should prisons serve as deterrents for those that have committed crimes? In the sense of prison being such a horrible experience that it is fear that keeps the prisoner from commmitting any form of illegal act in the future.

 

Or should it a rehabilitive experience? For example, it is the prisons responsibility (and to a certain degree, society's) to make sure that the prisoner is fit to be a member of society after serving his sentence?

[Walsingham]

I have no option but to thank those of you who've said clearly that you prefer to accept innocent victims of criminals before innocent victims of justice. That is a value statement, and not entirely debateable. But it is useful to know. I would suggest, however, that making that statement attacks the absolute foundations of state administered justice. We surrender our ability to protect ourselves to the state as part of the overall social contract. I would argue that it is the most fundamental part of that social contract, because it deals with our physical existence. If the state fails to protect us from those who withdraw from the contract then the contract is void and the state collapses.

 

The case I'm trying to make is that in the incidences above:

 

- For the purposes of this argument, guilt is not in question

- We should expect to be protected from these individuals

- There is no hope that the individuals will be any less dangerous after incarceration

- Given the choice between permanent incarceration and the death penalty the death penalty should be more efficient* and produce a superior net humanitarian benefit

- Given the appaling nature of the crimes there is no reason for an emotional merciful reaction

 

Ramza, I hope it is obvious I am emotionally drawn to your statement that we all have the right to live. I trust I generally respect others. But it seems pointless and futile to condemn theslug for exercising choice over who lives and who dies when in these cases it is the criminal who has exercised a similar judgement. They have exerted control over life and death upon weaker people purely because they can. Surely it is the case that either we judge a person by their own moral code, in which case we have a perfect right to kill them because they would do the same; or we kill them because there is such a thing as superior morality in which case we can define it through democratic process.

 

* I don't see any grounds for an appeal in either case, even in the US. Maybe Enoch can give us his opinion.

[213374U]

We surrender our ability to protect ourselves to the state as part of the overall social contract. I would argue that it is the most fundamental part of that social contract, because it deals with our physical existence. If the state fails to protect us from those who withdraw from the contract then the contract is void and the state collapses.

Yes, that's my opinion as well. I couldn't have worded it better.

 

That said, these cases are, fortunately, rare in proportion to the amount of total crimes committed - which allows the state to maintain social order and peace without a just and effective way of dealing with this kind of criminals. So the state isn't really failing... I don't think anyone could promise a state in which 100% security is guaranteed. Efficiency could be improved, that's for damn sure.

 

 

The case I'm trying to make is that in the incidences above:

 

- For the purposes of this argument, guilt is not in question

- We should expect to be protected from these individuals

- There is no hope that the individuals will be any less dangerous after incarceration

- Given the choice between permanent incarceration and the death penalty the death penalty should be more efficient* and produce a superior net humanitarian benefit

- Given the appaling nature of the crimes there is no reason for an emotional merciful reaction

No. A case-by-case approach isn't valid here. You are proposing that we invest the state with the power to terminate the lives of its subjects, regardless of the circumstances. Given that legislation is never watertight and fail-proof, errors will be made and what's worse, it will be exploited. So the root of the question is: should the state be allowed to execute innocents so it doesn't have to bear the economic burden of prisoner upkeep?

 

And also there's the other side of the coin: criminals deserving of the death penalty that for whatever reasons will get more lenient sentences. Pretty picture, isn't it? I think that in a justice system that's far from perfect, imposing the absolute, ultimate sentence is simply absurd.

 

 

or we kill them because there is such a thing as superior morality in which case we can define it through democratic process.

That amounts to little more than lynching. "Democratic" justice is an aberration. Especially in OUR configuration of democracy.

[Killian Kalthorne]

A truly dangerous individual is never completely neutralized until they are six feet under. To think otherwise is pure naivity.

[Llyranor]

I think Hades should get the death penalty, imo.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I think Hades should get the death penalty, imo.

I think Llyranor should get stuck for all eternity in the Space Mountain ride in Disney Land and have "It's a Small World" playing in a constant loop, with his eyes pryed open "Clockwork Orange" style so he is forced to see Nell Carter naked.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[alanschu]

I have no option but to thank those of you who've said clearly that you prefer to accept innocent victims of criminals before innocent victims of justice. That is a value statement, and not entirely debateable. But it is useful to know. I would suggest, however, that making that statement attacks the absolute foundations of state administered justice. We surrender our ability to protect ourselves to the state as part of the overall social contract. I would argue that it is the most fundamental part of that social contract, because it deals with our physical existence. If the state fails to protect us from those who withdraw from the contract then the contract is void and the state collapses.

 

 

Executing people doesn't protect us from those who withdraw from the social contract though.

[Guard Dog]

I have a theory about why the death penalty has such high public support here in the US. Our justice system is weak, lenient, and indulgent to convicted felons. The prisons are too cushy, sentences too short and parole is too easy. Once they are on parole, too little is done to keep track of them and if they violate they are often as not, not returned to prison. I truly believe we should eliminate parole for violent offenders (stats show that violent offenders have the highest recidivism) and adopt truth in sentencing laws. In other words if you draw a 25 year sentence you will do 25 years. If you draw a life sentence you will leave prison in a body bag. Do that and I think support for capital punishment will fade. Prison sentences as they are now are not really a deterrent. We need to make them one.

 

Just my $.02.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Agreed.

[Walsingham]

I have no option but to thank those of you who've said clearly that you prefer to accept innocent victims of criminals before innocent victims of justice. That is a value statement, and not entirely debateable. But it is useful to know. I would suggest, however, that making that statement attacks the absolute foundations of state administered justice. We surrender our ability to protect ourselves to the state as part of the overall social contract. I would argue that it is the most fundamental part of that social contract, because it deals with our physical existence. If the state fails to protect us from those who withdraw from the contract then the contract is void and the state collapses.

 

 

Executing people doesn't protect us from those who withdraw from the social contract though.

 

How can you fail to be protected from someone who is dead? I'd say being dead put a spanner in most criminal enterprises. Except possibly necrophilia.

 

GD, I don't know anything directly about US jails. But I sure as hell wouldn't call them soft from everything I've ever heard about them. I'd rather be dead than do a ten year stretch in a US jail.

 

I'm not saying jail doesn't deter normal people from committing crime. But I don't believe it stops career criminals. On the other hand I'm not advocating death for career criminals. I'm talking about sadists and sociopaths.

 

I don't think you fellows understand what you're talking about when I say sadists. have a chat to any cop about the worst cases they've heard of.

[Calax]

How can you fail to be protected from someone who is dead? I'd say being dead put a spanner in most criminal enterprises. Except possibly necrophilia.

 

GD, I don't know anything directly about US jails. But I sure as hell wouldn't call them soft from everything I've ever heard about them. I'd rather be dead than do a ten year stretch in a US jail.

 

I'm not saying jail doesn't deter normal people from committing crime. But I don't believe it stops career criminals. On the other hand I'm not advocating death for career criminals. I'm talking about sadists and sociopaths.

 

I don't think you fellows understand what you're talking about when I say sadists. have a chat to any cop about the worst cases they've heard of.

people percieve US jails as soft because we hear tales about how they get 3 square meals, TV's, privacy, etc and it gets to sound more like we're running a hotel of sorts for those who commit crimes rather than an actual prison. Is it really like that? Partially, I'd prefer to be in prison than homeless, but I wouldn't prefer it to what I've got now.

 

probably the only place people are liking right now is a prison in Arizona where the prison system official uses old surplus army tents to increase capacity, and took away things like cigs and coffee, and the guys only eat balogna sandwiches etc. Oh and they've gotta ware pink underwear, they brought back the chain gang and prison stripes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Tent_City

 

read most of that about his way of working the prison system.

[213374U]

How can you fail to be protected from someone who is dead? I'd say being dead put a spanner in most criminal enterprises. Except possibly necrophilia.

 

GD, I don't know anything directly about US jails. But I sure as hell wouldn't call them soft from everything I've ever heard about them. I'd rather be dead than do a ten year stretch in a US jail.

 

I'm not saying jail doesn't deter normal people from committing crime. But I don't believe it stops career criminals. On the other hand I'm not advocating death for career criminals. I'm talking about sadists and sociopaths.

 

I don't think you fellows understand what you're talking about when I say sadists. have a chat to any cop about the worst cases they've heard of.

Oh, yeah. Dead people can't hurt anyone. So why don't we just wait until they die of old (in jail)? Considering that the death penalty offers no added deterrence value, what's the point? Is there any, other than cost-effectiveness?

 

I find it odd that you ask that we talk to cops to convince us about how horrible some crimes are, when you said that there's no room for an "emotional merciful reaction" in those cases. But there is for one that calls for blood? Or is talking to cops going to somehow make facts different from when they are simply read about?

 

Between this and your defense of a "democratically established" superior moral standard... I don't know what to make of this anymore man.

[Meshugger]

The next question should be, considering the whole 'what is humane'-whoopla: Should prisons serve as deterrents for those that have committed crimes? In the sense of prison being such a horrible experience that it is fear that keeps the prisoner from commmitting any form of illegal act in the future.

 

Or should it a rehabilitive experience? For example, it is the prisons responsibility (and to a certain degree, society's) to make sure that the prisoner is fit to be a member of society after serving his sentence?

 

I think that prison should be a rehabilitive experience for the prisoner. Those who are deemed as sociopathic are of course put to seperate high-security mental institution.