Death Penalty

Oh yes, this is definitely a deterrent for a thief!! Wow!!

Hmmm - as much as I usually enjoy playing the devil's advocate (as some of my earlier posts in this little forum of happiness will show you!) I am going to have to come clean: There are those criminals who can be rehabilitated, and there are those who cannot - our prison system is not perfect, but it does work for many of the criminals incarcerated.

The death penalty is essentially a legalized form of good, old-fashioned, lynch-mob vigilante justice - completely inappropriate in a "civilized" national or world community. It has never stopped criminals from being criminals before (except in extreme conditions) and it probably never will.

For those of us living in "Christian" nations (that question is still up in the air for those of us in the US!) the debate over the death penalty should not even be an existant question. For those nations that do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian justice ideals, well, let them deal with it in their own way. God will sort it all out in the end, anyways.

(If you believe that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, then add your own semi-apocalyptic proverb here - thank you and have a nice day!)

[ November 12, 2002, 01:00: Message edited by: Falstaff ]

 

I agree with Sprite, if we tell them not to do something, and they do, why let them benefit? If they kill someone, why put them in the slammer for a few years, and then let them bask in the goodness of our society!

 

I prefer to approach the death penalty argument in a different manner. Arguing over whether it can be ethical to put someone to death, whether it is civilized, whether an eye for an eye is justice etc. tends to deginerate. It's kind of like abortion that way, usually one side says:"yes it is" and the other retorts:"no it's not." Then, to counter the other says "yes it is" etc.

You can still argue against the death penalty even if you wish to concede for the sake of argument that it isn't necessarily unethical (just like Judith Jarvis Thompson concedes a fetus has a right to life and then provides an argument for abortion rights.)

In order for a system of justice to be just, it must be just. In order for it to be just, there must be equal application of the laws. The empirical evidence certainly implies in my opinion that there is racial inequality with the application of the death penalty. Until we can rectify the racial problems in the U.S. so that we can have a much greater degree of certainty that racism does not play a factor in determining who is sentenced to death, to continue using the death penalty is unjust. Note, the death penalty isn't inherently unjust with this argument, but its application here is.

A similar argument can be made regarding men and women. Studies have shown a man who commits the same crime as a woman is far more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman (haven't heard NOW complaining about this particular sort of paternalism.) This seems to indicate to me that sexism may play a role in deciding who is sentenced to death, thus, the application of the death penalty in the U.S. is unjust.

The death penalty is the most severe penalty in the U.S. Thus, it should demand the greatest degree of certainty. The empirical evidence above shows that at least 100 men have been vindicated while on death row. Want to know the only thing worse than having a loved one murdered? How about having a loved one convicted of a crime he didn't commit and sentenced to death and dealing not only with his loss but the stigma attached? In my opinion, and with all due respect, you are naive to believe that if 100 men have been proven innocent with enough certainty to be released (very difficult)that there are no other innocent men on death row. It is naive to believe with what history has shown that we won't screw up again, it happens. Sometimes bad breaks happen and it looks like someone has done something they haven't. I think give our history of failure the continued application of the death penalty is unjust.

From a simple, brutal, utilitarian standpoint: it's cheaper to imprison someone for life.

And I've repeated myself again. Sorry. Nowhere there did I say the penalty is inherently unjust. I do think that to advocate the death penalty with good conscious though you need to explain how it is that we now have a sufficient degree of certainty to apply the penalty (remember, you can receive the death penalty based only on circumstantial evidence.) I also think you have to explain how you are now certain that race no longer plays a factor in the death penalty. Now I'll shut up.

 

Ah, I love it when the forums just keep going around and around and around...

 

Wouldn't there be the silly little bit that even a jury isn't free of prejudice, that lawyers are brillinatly manipulating them and that their decisions are not as rational and neutral as they should be. IIRC psychological studies have shown that black juries have soaked up white prejudices about black criminals: To distinguish themselves from that black criminal (who, of course, has been in jail before) they, law abiding as they are, were more willing to plede for guilty. The same applied to the other races too iirc. Interesting aspect of the glorious, yet a little obsolete, jury system. Once invented to control the justice of the king it no longer really serves a function. It is easier for a lawyer or a prosecutor to fool a jury than a judge.

Another silly aspect is the instrumentation of death penalty for political reasons, to to gain a staright and hard crimefighter profile - warmly welcomed for the next elections ...

Additionally, the lower income criminals often suffer the gruesome fate of beeing dumb/ having an incompetent attorney - a safe way to death row.

The deaths of hundrets of innocent in death row and in recent and less recent dictatorships (as well "legal killings" - according to local law) should have teached that restriction makes sense here:
It is hard to assume a right of the country to deny people their ultimate and most fundamental human right - the right to live. You can take away personal freedom, property, equality - but once you lost your life the game is over - death penalty is irreversible.

The right to live is the only right that only the individual himself can give up. It is not up to the country to do that.

That shall signify that death penalty has a totally different "quality" of rights restriction compared to jail. Too many innocent died on that basis to still see death penalty as a legitime punishment - and therefor: Never relesase them again. Fortunately most european countries share this point of view.
The deciding factor, considering the not too infrequent mishaps, is the risk of frying an innocent - and that is a price a country mustn't be willing to pay for *justice* or *retribution* - and still insist in calling itself civilized.

[ November 12, 2002, 08:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Do any of you actually think either prison *or* the death penalty is an effective deterrent? If that were true, countries with the death penalty would have a lower crime rate and that sure isn't the case. And I fail to see how prison is a deterrent: you can get a university education at public expense, you can watch tv, or you can work out in the gym, or pretty much do all kinds of things the working poor don't have time to do. That's not just a matter of personal opinion either- the fact that the same people do things that send them back to prison, time and time again, instead of saying "whoa, THAT was a bad experience, I'll avoid that in the future!" says it all.

Sure, withdrawing the hundreds of thousands of dollars the government spends on an individual in his or her life and putting social workers on their tails to make sure they're earning and declaring their living honestly isn't much of a deterrent either. But at least, in some small way, they're less of a problem for society than they were before, which is NOT true for people in prison- or jail. And anyway, they'll have the full attention of the tax man once per year, possibly for the first time in their lives, which as far as I'm concerned is the ultimate punishment.

 

As far as race and the death penalty are concerned, the real interesting statistic is the race of the victims. Over half of all murder victims are from minority groups. See the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm

Yet, when a death sentence is handed down 81% of the time the victim was white. These numbers are through Jan 2002. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dpicrace.html#inmaterace

But, I think I'm about discussed out here. BTA, while I disagree with you I enjoyed a debate where the arguments were reasoned as opposed to name calling. You murdering neanderthal.

[ November 12, 2002, 18:34: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Yeah, I'm going to agree.

If you're emptying the clip into a herd of Gazelle, the chances you'll hit one of the 20 Llama interspersed is small.

Probability sucks. So do statistics, if you only compare them to one other statistic.

 

as opposed to getting a life sentence for a crime you didn't commit? Want to bet that more innocents have served life sentences than been executed? Does this mean we should abandon life sentences? No.

To everyone who proclaims that execution is uncivilized/revenge/vengeance/viigilantism:why is it that locking someone in a steel cage for 50-70 years is NOT considered all those things? Any opinions? I'd say that the only thing seperating revenge and justice is legal sanction--and execution has that.

[ November 13, 2002, 07:41: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

Has anyone ever thought how much it costs to keep a person in prison?

In New Zealand it costs the tax payer $50000 per year, which is a little over $100,000 US dollars. And we pay for it.

We don't have the death penalty here in NZ, but if we did I'd back it.

I'm pretty certain that an execution is cheaper than keeping a murderous b****** alive in prison (unless I added up wrong?).

I have had the fortune? of working in a prison as part of being in the military. And from what I saw, they get more luxuries than you or I.

I must reiterate - death penalty only if guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Castration (spelling?) for rapists should also be a certainty - no exceptions.

 

As for the cost-argument:
As I said before and above, criminals and antisocials in jail do indeed cost the tax payer money - for heating, food, clothing and health care. However, you use this argument inconsequently: The same could be said about insitutionalized lunatics and old people in public senior residences ... they sit around all day, do nothing and society pays for them ... ...

Eventually you overlook the most important thing: Processual rights, as well as human rights once in jail, are not there because we all are liberal softies. It's more to ensure that, just in case we find an innocent guilty, he survives and can defend himself or - if sentenced - get some compensation and rehabilitation after jail. Once killed rehabilitation will not help him much.

And as for killing only when there is no reasonable doubt: **** happens, you cannot eliminate the risk to kill an innocent when introducing death penalty - face it.

The final question you have to ask yourself when promoting death penalty is if you are willing to pay for your satisfaction to kill a criminal with the possibility to kill an innocent.

 

Interesting post this one, probably the most debated issue as of late.

I for one am still in between yes and no,

For one, why should anyone who takes a life as if he were god, have any right to live anymore.
But then on the other hand, who will play god when he takes the life of the prisoner.

I am leaning more to the first one though, but still I am glad I don't have to take that call.

On the subject innocent or guilty I have this to say: I read earlier in the thread that forensics is getting better and better, and I must agree although I should say that all we see on TV are the victories of the forensics appartment and probably not the cases where they are wrong or they don't solve, but still technology is getting better.

Money shouldn't be an issue in the case of putting a man/woman to death, In my view it is again simple: how much could it cost to kill a man?
Why does deathrow take that long?
I mean if the offendant is guilty (and they should be a 100% sure of that otherwise just put him in prison until it has been proven he is not) and he is sentenced to death, why wait months if you could do it the next morning. Sounds hard?, but did the mass murderers and rapist gave any mercy to their victems, think not!

American law system? IMO if a lawyer can talk good and convince the jury the killer/rapist is innocent he goes free. And don't get me started about a jury (bribes say anything to you)

I'm not saying anywhere else it is better, for example in my country holland, killers and the like go to prison for a max of 20 years (wich is highly exceptionel) and go free doing it again.

Solution?
Probably none! although I came up with a few.

one: the romans had a fairly good way although with huge flaws --> Put the killers/rapists in one big arena with enough weapons to kill each other off. In this way no one has to kill them except for them selves. Oh and no audiance like in the arena (or the running man movie with aaahnold)

two: psychological prison: a small room, one chair, walls covered with non sharp spikes or triangular objects, and like one of those clicking devices (you know with the metal balls ticking together.
Just put them in there for like a month and all they need is a chair, rope and something to hang the rope one.
Again no one kills them but themselves.

Seems brutal? it is, but again and I can't say this enough, did they show mercy to their victems.

BTW all these things should also be done with 100% certainty. (which probably can't be done)

That's it I guess except for this

I want them to say this line before they kill themselves (psychological prison only):

GET ME OUT OF THIS HELLHOLE (bg1 reference)

 

Splendid suggestion. Im medieval Cologne we had a prison tower named "Wegschnapp". It was a room with a hole in the ground where they put the convict and didn't give him any food for a week - then they hanged a fresh white bread under the roof - over the hole - just out of reach. In the attempt to get the food the convict unavoidably fell down deep and the Rhine did the rest. Doh. A little cruel? But wasn't he criminal?

You're making a serious logical, hypocritical error when you think that driving people into suicide is not killing them. You overlook that that suicide is not at all a free decision. Is a man who drives his wife to suicide innocent of murder? Of course not! Indeed, she killed herself then - but why? But the murderer instrumantalized his victim in an exceptionally cruel, perfide way.

If you want to torture the criminals so that they will eventually prefer suicide to agony, you're in good company. Join the club of Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, Bokassa, Pol Pot and others. How about employing a couple of crack vietnamese (your POW's still curse their skill - and what's good enough for *our boys* is good enough for criminals anyway ... ) / iraqi (good ol' no frills cruelty, yay!) / CIA (from the bad old days) / chilean/ KGB/ PLO/ Mossad torturers - or maybe some classic SS concentration camp crews? That would be a punishment! Why not turn prisons into concentration camps? - the criminals have a life way too nice there! And I'm sure, some patriotic and law abiding company will supply the thumbscrews needed - even produce an ingeniously improved all-american model within a years time. Or how about public executions like in china - in football stadiums - all inclusive with popcorn, donuts and hot dogs?

That way you become an inhuman monster yourself ...

[ November 13, 2002, 21:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

i think that we would do like they do in china... shoot that ******* and send the wage for the bullet to his family... but that would make my family have a bill over 1000$ due to i wont die in the first time... everyone comes back, remember, its a toast, not a promise...

See Ya

 

Just out of curiosity: What has the family to do with the crime of a descendant of it? I doubt they are responsible for the deed of the criminal ... so why bill them?