Is common sense starting to prevail in America regarding the death penalty?

[Orogun01]

Interesting point you raise. Almost worthy of a thread by itself - certainly it splits this argument into at least two parts. 1) Should we allow the death penalty for heinous crimes we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? or 2) Should we adhere to the universal declaration of human rights without exception.

 

I hold to the latter view.

Human rights are considered the God given rights to every human, not a legal right. Still someone who kills certainly doesn't believe on the right to live and shouldn't be judged as such, we may try to consider ourselves above passing such judgement and opt for more "human" ways. Yet the problem remains these people should be handled, because they continue to exist and make existing worse for everyone surrounding them.

[pmp10]

Why not bring in torture for certain crimes too, then?

Yes, logically there is little reason as to why torture should not be applied.

The same could be said of collective punishment.

After all you can always find it necessary to sentence a terminally-ill masochist.

 

But perhaps reason and logic have little to do with functioning of justice systems or human societies?

The basic ideas of humanism and retribution are in themselves non-rational and based upon strong emotions.

Pretending that one side is more right by calling upon logic will do nothing to advance the discussion.

[Walsingham]

Because I do you the courtesy of recognising that your own standpoint is based just as much on an emotional reaction to wrongful execution.

 

You've recognised nothing, you've just made an assumption.

 

I was doing so quite deliberately. Krez? You care to back me up?

[Nepenthe]

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

 

This is a logical fallacy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

This.

 

I've seen some pretty horrific things in the course of my employment history, including the autopsy pictures of a brutally murdered teenage girl (stabbed over a hundred times) and yet I believe nothing justifies the death penalty. Lifetime imprisonment is a suitable penalty for even the most heinous deeds. The aspect of revenge and vendetta are strongly related to family/clan based justice and should not form a part of a government monopoly on violence (which is what the police/justice system implies).

 

My opinions on people who are found to be "insane" and thus unable to stand trial are, on the other, very different, but not on topic (as I don't think that they should be fried/gassed).

[Walsingham]

I've seen some pretty horrific things in the course of my employment history, including the autopsy pictures of a brutally murdered teenage girl (stabbed over a hundred times) and yet I believe nothing justifies the death penalty. Lifetime imprisonment is a suitable penalty for even the most heinous deeds.

 

Fair play. I wasn't saying it automatically made you support the death penalty i jsut happen to know it very often changes people's minds.

 

~~

Does anyone have figures on how often life terms are proved inappropriate? I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast. While you're looking also find out how long life terms run for.

[Nepenthe]

I've seen some pretty horrific things in the course of my employment history, including the autopsy pictures of a brutally murdered teenage girl (stabbed over a hundred times) and yet I believe nothing justifies the death penalty. Lifetime imprisonment is a suitable penalty for even the most heinous deeds.

 

Fair play. I wasn't saying it automatically made you support the death penalty i jsut happen to know it very often changes people's minds.

 

Yeah, and I'm saying that looking at "worst case scenarios" and deciding what the appropriate penalty should be never leads to a good result.

 

I won't go into a lot of detail, but let's just say that my stance on appropriate punishment for criminals is multifaceted. I'm dead set against "kissing up to the masses" with a seemingly harsh criminal justice system, but I also believe that society should not just give up on habitual/professional criminals, which pretty much seems to be the case in nordic countries (and by "Not giving up", I don't mean starting a project to make them feel better about themselves, but to make sure that progressively harsher sanctions either convince them that crime does not, in fact, pay, or failing a reception of this message removes these people from the society.)

[Amentep]

Just going to go on record here and say that I'm not a fan of the death penalty for multiple reasons.

 

That said, the question to ask/answer would be "is it better to force society to subsidize the life of person who can't live within the rules of society than to permanently remove the person from society?"

 

While the questions about emotive content are all very interesting, its looking at things in the micro* level. The question shouldn't be about a single person's emotive reaction to the scale or scope of a crime but instead all judicial/jury actions should come from a standpoint of society - criminal offenses are between the accused and the state, after all.

 

If you convict a guilty person and they are sentences to life with no chance of parole for a crime then you obligate the society to then provide a part of their livelihood (through taxes that support the state and federal prison systems) to maintain the life of a person who has rejected the society now forced to support him for the rest of his life. In the US, a person on death penalty may take 20 years to exhaust their appeals but that is still 30-40 years less than the average lifespan of an adult, obligating society to provide for one who rejects it for far less time.

 

That said - as I understand it for the US - the costs of appeals tends to so far outweigh the cost of keeping the prisoner for life in prison that, from a benefits to society standpoint the cost society pays to deal with those who reject society ends up being less without the death penalty**.

 

*individual vs the criminal

 

**this of course doesn't take into account potential to escape or to commit crimes while incarcerated, which could be a mitigating factor on this cost

Edited December 10, 2010 by Amentep

[Meshugger]

You guys are asking the wrong questions. Instead it should be

 

- What does society benefit from the death penalty?

- What makes it just?

- Why should the state be lawfully obliged to kill you?

1-Less passion crimes, less criminals on the streets.

 

2-Justice, retribution, seeing someone who wronged you greatly pay the price.

 

3-Because the state handles all judicial matters so it's their responsibility to execute sentences.

 

Thank you for your answer. Now, allow me to refute:

 

1. That's not a strong argument. The death penalty isn't detergent against violent crimes, passion crimes and or anything, so it will not lessen crime. We have prisons, correction facilities and rehabilitations programs for that.

 

2. The justice system is not and should not be about retribution. It is about being just.

 

3. I wasn't talking about the legal techicality of the state acting as an executioner. As was talking about the morality of it. Why the state should be allowed to kill you in order to proove that killing is wrong.

[Orogun01]

[

 

Thank you for your answer. Now, allow me to refute:

 

1. That's not a strong argument. The death penalty isn't detergent against violent crimes, passion crimes and or anything, so it will not lessen crime. We have prisons, correction facilities and rehabilitations programs for that.

 

2. The justice system is not and should not be about retribution. It is about being just.

 

3. I wasn't talking about the legal techicality of the state acting as an executioner. As was talking about the morality of it. Why the state should be allowed to kill you in order to proove that killing is wrong.

1. The correctional system fails in a lot of cases and the stigma of a prison record assures that many "reformed" criminals become repeat offenders. Moreover those still in the system also corrupt those who come into contact with, prison is the criminal school that transform minor offenders into hardcore criminals.

 

2. Retribution sometimes is justice, it's giving back a sense of morality and belief on life to those who are aggrieved by the crimes. Someone takes a family member from you, it's a hard to thing to live with. People need some closure, they need to see justice done and close a bad chapter of their lives.

 

3.The state should take upon them because they are an impartial party able to determine the right from the wrong. If you hold life as sacred then the only possible payment for taking life is life it'self whether it be by imprisonment or capital punishment. Imprisonment however allows them some measure of life.

[Nepenthe]

1. The correctional system fails in a lot of cases and the stigma of a prison record assures that many "reformed" criminals become repeat offenders. Moreover those still in the system also corrupt those who come into contact with, prison is the criminal school that transform minor offenders into hardcore criminals.

Neither of those necessarily means that imprisonment is bad in itself, the problem is more in the way the sentences are carried out in practice and how the society handles people who've served their sentences. Since you reasonably can't execute all criminals (unless that's what you are calling for), these problems would need to be solved both with or without death penalty. Unless the idea is to push criminals further and further from society until they commit a capital offense and can thus be justifiably executed.

[Orogun01]

1. The correctional system fails in a lot of cases and the stigma of a prison record assures that many "reformed" criminals become repeat offenders. Moreover those still in the system also corrupt those who come into contact with, prison is the criminal school that transform minor offenders into hardcore criminals.

Neither of those necessarily means that imprisonment is bad in itself, the problem is more in the way the sentences are carried out in practice and how the society handles people who've served their sentences. Since you reasonably can't execute all criminals (unless that's what you are calling for), these problems would need to be solved both with or without death penalty. Unless the idea is to push criminals further and further from society until they commit a capital offense and can thus be justifiably executed.

What i'm talking about it's the prison mentality; the alternative to capital punishment is life imprisonment which basically gives a con a reason not to care what he does to other inmates. They are the hitmen, rapists, and drug dealers on the inside and because they are still in contact with other inmates they spread their corruption further.

[Nepenthe]

What i'm talking about it's the prison mentality; the alternative to capital punishment is life imprisonment which basically gives a con a reason not to care what he does to other inmates. They are the hitmen, rapists, and drug dealers on the inside and because they are still in contact with other inmates they spread their corruption further.

Well, I'd say that depends on the general prison regime and what the "alternative" for "unsocial" types is. If there's a basic prison regime where you can feel relatively safe in your incarceration (which I believe is mostly available in minsec federal prisons in the US), a medium regime where you are forced to spend time with nasty people (but only if you misbehave) and Marion USP style "small black hole with an hour of limited sunlight per day" regime, you should generally be ok.

 

Reward good behaviour, punish bad. Not necessary to fry people to make that (further) point.

[Orogun01]

What i'm talking about it's the prison mentality; the alternative to capital punishment is life imprisonment which basically gives a con a reason not to care what he does to other inmates. They are the hitmen, rapists, and drug dealers on the inside and because they are still in contact with other inmates they spread their corruption further.

Well, I'd say that depends on the general prison regime and what the "alternative" for "unsocial" types is. If there's a basic prison regime where you can feel relatively safe in your incarceration (which I believe is mostly available in minsec federal prisons in the US), a medium regime where you are forced to spend time with nasty people (but only if you misbehave) and Marion USP style "small black hole with an hour of limited sunlight per day" regime, you should generally be ok.

 

Reward good behaviour, punish bad. Not necessary to fry people to make that (further) point.

You still make no mention of the fact that they are still alive and active criminal within the system. Drug peddling, killing, a week in the hole means nothing to a guy that has to stay in prison for the rest of his life. He's gonna make his bones, find a place within the existing structure and that means doing favors, the one most often asked is the killing since a guy in a life sentence has no qualms about it. Basically life imprisonment screws the whole concept of rehabilitation for both the sentenced and the others around him.

[Hurlshort]

When did this thread turn into an episode of HBO's Oz?

[Nepenthe]

What i'm talking about it's the prison mentality; the alternative to capital punishment is life imprisonment which basically gives a con a reason not to care what he does to other inmates. They are the hitmen, rapists, and drug dealers on the inside and because they are still in contact with other inmates they spread their corruption further.

Well, I'd say that depends on the general prison regime and what the "alternative" for "unsocial" types is. If there's a basic prison regime where you can feel relatively safe in your incarceration (which I believe is mostly available in minsec federal prisons in the US), a medium regime where you are forced to spend time with nasty people (but only if you misbehave) and Marion USP style "small black hole with an hour of limited sunlight per day" regime, you should generally be ok.

 

Reward good behaviour, punish bad. Not necessary to fry people to make that (further) point.

You still make no mention of the fact that they are still alive and active criminal within the system. Drug peddling, killing, a week in the hole means nothing to a guy that has to stay in prison for the rest of his life. He's gonna make his bones, find a place within the existing structure and that means doing favors, the one most often asked is the killing since a guy in a life sentence has no qualms about it. Basically life imprisonment screws the whole concept of rehabilitation for both the sentenced and the others around him.

Not sure how the situation would be different to somebody on death row.

[Orogun01]

What i'm talking about it's the prison mentality; the alternative to capital punishment is life imprisonment which basically gives a con a reason not to care what he does to other inmates. They are the hitmen, rapists, and drug dealers on the inside and because they are still in contact with other inmates they spread their corruption further.

Well, I'd say that depends on the general prison regime and what the "alternative" for "unsocial" types is. If there's a basic prison regime where you can feel relatively safe in your incarceration (which I believe is mostly available in minsec federal prisons in the US), a medium regime where you are forced to spend time with nasty people (but only if you misbehave) and Marion USP style "small black hole with an hour of limited sunlight per day" regime, you should generally be ok.

 

Reward good behaviour, punish bad. Not necessary to fry people to make that (further) point.

You still make no mention of the fact that they are still alive and active criminal within the system. Drug peddling, killing, a week in the hole means nothing to a guy that has to stay in prison for the rest of his life. He's gonna make his bones, find a place within the existing structure and that means doing favors, the one most often asked is the killing since a guy in a life sentence has no qualms about it. Basically life imprisonment screws the whole concept of rehabilitation for both the sentenced and the others around him.

Not sure how the situation would be different to somebody on death row.

Doesn't last as long I guess

They could basically be confined to their cells the whole time.

[Hurlshort]

People spend years on Death Row, it isn't a fast system.

[Thorton_AP]

Life imprisonment DOES take them out of the gene pool. And it does it at a cheaper cost than the death penalty.

 

If the USA manages to make a length of rope, or a bullet or a syringe more expensive than the admin then that's their business but not particularly efficient.

 

Incidentally, my post wasn't aimed at all of you. Mainly Krezzie, bless him, whose adolescent liberalism always seems to grip my turd.

 

Capital Punishment is a lot more than simply killing someone.

[Orogun01]

People spend years on Death Row, it isn't a fast system.

People on life imprisonment spend their life on prison. More time, still best that they are confined.

[Thorton_AP]

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

 

This is a logical fallacy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

It's a human fallacy, not all of us are made of pure logic.

 

Which is a strong argument against the death penalty, IMO.

[Hurlshort]

People spend years on Death Row, it isn't a fast system.

People on life imprisonment spend their life on prison. More time, still best that they are confined.

 

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. What do you mean by confined anyways?

[Orogun01]

People spend years on Death Row, it isn't a fast system.

People on life imprisonment spend their life on prison. More time, still best that they are confined.

 

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. What do you mean by confined anyways?

Stuck in a cell with little interaction with other inmates.

[Hurlshort]

People spend years on Death Row, it isn't a fast system.

People on life imprisonment spend their life on prison. More time, still best that they are confined.

 

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. What do you mean by confined anyways?

Stuck in a cell with little interaction with other inmates.

 

Do you understand how difficult it is to do that in today's prison system?

 

[Orogun01]

People spend years on Death Row, it isn't a fast system.

People on life imprisonment spend their life on prison. More time, still best that they are confined.

 

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. What do you mean by confined anyways?

Stuck in a cell with little interaction with other inmates.

 

Do you understand how difficult it is to do that in today's prison system?

 

Small cells. BTW that's a horrible prison setting, anyone can cut someone else throat with impunity because he sharing the room with 20 other guys. Do they really do that in today's prisons?

[Hurlshort]

Small cells. BTW that's a horrible prison setting, anyone can cut someone else throat with impunity because he sharing the room with 20 other guys. Do they really do that in today's prisons?

 

Yes. They just don't have the room for cells for everyone. They have converted gyms and other large spaces into dorms.

 

As was mentioned earlier, the entire system needs an overhaul, the death penalty is a super small problem overall, in terms of how many prisoners are put to death each year. Not that I'm making light of it, I just think that any proper overhaul will naturally render the death penalty obsolete.