Death penalty

Remove all ads!

@Faragon: Your distinction is IMHO wrong. All killings are murders, but there are exceptions like acts in self-defense. Actually, soldiers are murderers if they deliberatly kill someone. (There was a trial here some years ago. Since then, you are officialy allowed to say that soldiers are murderers. In Germany, that is.)

Killing a human being -and in the face of human rights, every baby after birth is a human being- is murder. And killing someone because he committed a murder is vengeance.

 

Soldiers don't murder. They kill. There is a difference. It's them or you in a combat situation. It's not premeditated like planning a scheme to murder someone, then carrying out. It's a heat of the moment/heat of battle situation.

And if you're ever in a war zone or battle situation, stopping to think about the morality of killing during wartime will get you one thing: Dead.

 

Here is one for you to chew on for a while.

Lets suppose that Johnny asks Jane out on a date, and Jane humiliates Johnny in front of all his friends. (Johnny is 25, Jane is 23 years old for the purposes of this) Johnny gets upset, really upset and starts stalking Jane. Jane calls the police, gets a restraining order, documents and pursues multiple infractions of the restraining order. Johnny gets tired of this and decides he wants to kill Jane. He brags to a buddy that she will be sorry someday. Next he goes to a sporting goods store and asks the clerk which handgun is the deadliest, and which ammo the most lethal and buys them. He writes down in his daily log "TODAY is the day I make that ***** pay! She is never going to do to another guy what she did to me!" He then goes out and waits for her outside of her work, and shoots her dead in front of multiple witnesses. The psychologists find that he does not suffer from any mental disorders.

Pretty much a cut and dry case. In death penalty jurisdictions he is going to be executed, and in others he is probably in jail for the rest of his life.

But lets say Johnny is a bad shot, and only hits Jane in the leg, and she lives and will have a full recovery. What would Johnny's punishment be then? He would not be guilty of 1st degree murder, so he is not going to get the same penalty he would if he had been a better shot, and yet his intent was the same.

Basically we just rewarded Johnny for being a failure. Lucky for Johnny, too bad for his next victim.

 

Joaqin, I'm not going to disagree that revenge is a part of capital punishment, but I have to disagree about that comment that it's the only one. Protection of society is also highly important, and as my statistic stated, a dead man cannot commit any more crimes. Paroles for good behaviour, overcrowding in jails that leads to release of violent criminals, escapes -- all of these have happened.

For every story I've heard about a guy who has been unjustly sentenced to death, I've heard a story of a killer freed to kill again. The best solution for violent criminals will horrify liberals out there, but I say we should harvest them for their organs -- my logic is simple. If a criminal (let's call him Buford) kills someone, then Buford has committed a crime that he can never, ever make restitution for. He can never bring back the person he has killed. However, by decapitating him and harvesting his heart, lungs, liver, corneas, kidneys, and various tissues, Buford can save or improve the lives of at least 5 people. It's the only restitution that comes close enough to paying the debt they owe to the socity for robbing that society of an innocent member.

 

It's between 40k and 50k in Pennsylvania. That comes directly from a news broadcast (tried to find an internet source, but couldn't). Of course, that's because the prisons here are a lot nicer than in other parts of the country (at least from what I'm reading here.) Ours are fully loaded, cable TV, basketball courts, weight rooms...

For how many years? Economically, it is nigh impossible for that number to be correct in more than a few case studies.

I've been seeing a number of you saying that the certainty of the jury's decision is often cast in doubt. With modern forensic science, the chance of an innocent man being put onto death row is less than 1 tenth of 1%. That doesn't seem like much. Think of it this way: If you were innocent of the murder crime, would you rather be killed or spend your life (or even 20 years) in prison? I'd take the former.

I ask you this, then, what is a high enough degree of certainty? 100% is unattainable, regardless of your level of science.

Perhaps that was a bit overstated. I was speaking of the amenities that the convicts have access to, not to the way they treat each other.

Consider this:

The deterrent effect alone makes little difference. If it doesn't deter, the murderers are still dead. If it does, then we've deterred murders.

 

Hey, BTA, I know it's impractical, but it's a nice dream.

Whatever the case, I'm firmly behind the removal of murderers. And the difference between murder and killing is clear -- that's why they're two different words. Murder implies completely unjusitifiable killing. Killing can be legally and morally justified if circumstances warrant.

Calling self-defense murder is unconscionable.

Calling soldiers murderers is also ridiculous -- if they step outside a war footing and slaughter innocents for fun, then they're murderers, but if they kill other soldiers to avoid being killed or to achieve military objectives, then they are simply soldiers.

 

He, he. I got a colleague who uses the detterrence effect argumentation as example, that argumentation is always leading to a dead end. That's why he has chosen to study economics. He loves statistics and their ambiguity.

The point is, it is not possible to make a 100 % certain correlation between penalties and crime rates. So argumentation stalemate. Some say, death-penalty in the last 30 years hasn't had a signifant effect on crime levels. Others say:"Imagine how they would have sky-rocked if we wouldn't have had any !!!"

Anyway, death-penalty has nothing to do with deterrence. At least on this side of the pond. Deterrence is primarly crimes solved, penalty isn't a big deal, if you can speculate on not getting caught.

 

I don't believe that deterrence happens regardless of how tough the penalty. Most criminals believe they will not be caught. The only use of any punishment is retribution and protection.

 

I did a more recent search for the cost of prison. The most recent study I found was a NC study that the cost was ~$23-24k a year to keep a prisoner. Another study by the Brookings Institute said the average cost of keeping a prisoner in a federal or state prison is really $16k a year but that people like to add some debatable externalitites that if considered bump the figure to a "commonly quoted figure of $25,000 a year." Pennsylvania is doing something screwy if their costs are almost double of everyone else -- either screwy in the way things are run or perhaps equally likely screwy in the way the numbers are calculated. Let's face it, being 'tough on crime' is a winning platform. Being able to rant about how much prisoners cost and blame it on others is something that benefits a lot of people, from administrators to politicians.

I think the absolute numbers make it clear we aren't certain enough -- most importantly, we aren't sure we are unbiased. Consider the following and then I'll try to make my point:

From an Illinois editorial:

From the BBC:

I used these quotes to try to show a few different things. One is how difficult it is to alter a prison sentence, even a death sentence. Even the much lauded DNA evidence is resisted for fear of embarassment once a conviction has already been obtained. It also illustrates another point: forensic evidence is not necessary for a conviction nor is it necessary for a sentence of death. So, pointing to forensic evidence as providing the necessary certainty ignores those cases where none is available yet there is a conviction and sentence anyways.

I also hoped to show just how uncertain we are that a just result is achieved often enough. Our system is based on the theory that we can best determine the truth by having an adversarial setting with two sides arguing the relevant facts thus enabling a determination of the truth based on full disclosure of all pertinent information. The 'level playing field' necessary to assure that this works fully does not exist in part because the state, the very body seeking the execution, can assure it doesn't exist. There is a natural conflict involved because the party seeking the penalty is the party distributing the funding. Attorneys for the poor are often appointed or are PD's. They are often overwhelmed by their case load (I'd suggest reading the book "There Are No Children Here" about the juvenile justice system if you want to see how overworked) and sadly, not always highly qualified. It's simple economics -- consider that in Alabama the amount paid by the state to an attorney working on a real estate deal greatly dwarfs the amount of money paid to an attorney in a death penalty case. You get what you pay for, and there isn't a strong interest in paying for a competent death penalty defense.

Like a St Petersburg article said recently:

At the same time people are hoping to 'speed up' the process, in the face of demonstrations of innocence after very long terms, there is a slashing in the funding available for the defense. Those charged really are being screwed from every angle here.

Add in the evidence of race playing a role in determining who gets the penalty (the implication being it is more acceptable to kill a black person) and I just don't see a system adequately just to apply the system.

Now, I've said my piece I think. I just want to make one more point: I used to be in favor of the death penalty. Like I said, I think that some crimes are so horrific that the only punishment that adequately addresses them is death.

However, I also believe in the importance to society of a just system - or at least as just a system as we can obtain. Without such a system everything we do and say regarding the rule of law is hypocrisy. We should strive for a system that is fair and impartial to all regardless of race, sex, or financial background. The evidence seems to indicate to me that race, sex, and financial background however are all important indicators of whether someone charged with a capital crime will receive the death penalty. That system is not just and until that situation is addressed the penalty should not be applied. Then you add in the evidence that we are not achieving correct results often enough and I just don't see it as a just system. We know that over 100 people were innocent and on death row. I hoped to show how difficult it is to get this admission from the state in the quotes above. How many more are on death row or have been executed while innocent of the crime for which they were convicted? If 100 are known to be innocent have hundreds more received the penalty or do they languish on death row as we speak?

What error rate is acceptable to you if it means innocent men die? The reason our founders instituted our justice standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than a standard like "convincing" evidence was the belief that it is better to let a guilty man go free than it is to imprision an innocent. The US was founded on the principle that there is no greater right than the right to life and liberty. Therefore, the State bears a heavy burden to take away these sacred rights. I believe these same sacred rights argue against the implementation of the death penalty. Better to sentence a guilty man to life in prison than to kill an innocent man.

I personally don't think the life of innocent men is worth killing guilty men rather than imprisioning them. I'll turn it around: the implication was it is unreasonable to expect certainty all the time and therefore the death penalty is acceptable.

My question for death penalty advocates is this: given the view that a guilty person's life is worth so little, how many innocent men are you willing to trade to get that guilty man? Are you willing to trade one innocent man for the death of 100 guilty men? The death of one innocent man for the death of 1000 guilty men?

How much is an innocent life worth to you? To me, it is worth more than the life of all the murderers in prison. The only tragedy worse than losing a loved one I can imagine is to lose a loved one wrongly accused.

 

In addition, Laches, while I respect your view on the sanctity and worth of human life, I reverse the equation -- how many people have to be killed by someone before we simply remove the chance he'll EVER kill again? Every time I see a guy get out after 10 years for child molsetation or something similarily vile, I say to myself "so, his right to freedom or whatever is worth more than my daughters right not to be raped?" Because they frequently re-offend, these types.

And you know, I know this is troubling in legal circles, but 100% innocent people are VERY rarely sentenced to death.

There's a famous case here in Canada, a fellow named David Milgaard. He was senetenced to life for a murder it turned out he didn't commit. However, he was a drug user and dealer, had several convictions for assault and a list of misdemeanors(sp) a mile long. He was (and is) a professional criminal and slimeball. I would have shed no tears for someone as worthless as him if he'd been killed. He may be innocent of the murder, but he's by no means innocent.

Am I vicious and over the top? You bet I am. The guy who hospitalized my wife -- nearly killed her -- 7 years ago is now living a life like a normal person in Edmonton. He's still a user and dealer, and as far as I'm concerned, the system put his rights far and away above my wife's.

I know that no one is 100% innocent -- I speed sometimes -- but come on! the difference between speeding and felonius assault, rape, murder and such crimes is about 14 orders of magnitude. We need to stop looking for excuses for the behaviour of these crooks and drop the hammer on them.

 

But Depaara, a wrong conviction means a murderer still on the loose.

 

Kinda misleading I think. It isn't as if the guy who would get the death penalty now would be released under a system without the penalty. He'd spend life in prison. So, the only way he gets a chance to kill again is if he 1) escapes, and how many convicted murderers escape and how is this concern really any different than someone escaping from death row? or 2) he kills while in prison. Given the general opinion expressed about criminals I'm not sure that 2) is really the concern (which could be alleviated by solitary if necessary) since people in prison aren't thought of too highly so the only way that guy commits another murder is escape -- highly unlikely.

Further, arguments about child molesters being allowed out of prison are, imo, irrelevant to the death penalty debate. Perhaps they should be sentenced differently, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed out, etc. but what does that have to do with the death penalty? They aren't eligible for the death penalty or life in prison anyways so looking at them doesn't tell us whehther we should have the death penalty or not. Now, if they were eligible for the death penalty but got life in prison instead but then escaped to harm others then it would be relevant - but that's not what happened.

 

Corporal punishment, not capital punishment. Castration would be just as effective as termination for a sex offender, and yet allow him a chance to redeem his societal value.

To BTA, just because I can't resist:

Last time I checked, if I caused an accident that killed somebody, I would be guilty of murder (involuntary manslaughter, but still murder).

 

I'm getting the impression that those who oppose the death penalty do not understand what "murder" means.

 

I dunno, I feel like I have a pretty good conception of what 'murder' is -- common law murder, murder as defined by the model penal code, and statutory murder of varying degrees as defined in a few different jurisdictions. Maybe if you could explain why you think I and others don't know what 'murder' is a little more clearly it could be addressed. As it is, you just seem dismissive.

 

I don't believe that death penalty is a solution to punish a criminal. Although i do agree that some criminals do deserve it.
But the death penalty is IMHO an easy way out for the criminal, because if he is alive and in prison with a very nasty attitude from the others jailers and the wardens i think he will be suffering a whole lot more than from a death penalty.