Death penalty

Remove all ads!

A. I guess a lot of people know what murder means in any case, just like general knowledge.

B. A connection between death-penalty and murder is not necessarily given. A lot of countries have, a lot more had, death penalties for other crimes then murder, like treason, adultery, theft. So opposing the death penalty may have nothing to do with murder, when it's for theft. It depends about which country you're talking.

C. Murder -> 100% logical that death penalty has to applied -> If someone doesn't make that conclusion he does either not think logical or he does not know what death penalty is or he does not know what murder is.
Fallacy.

 

I'm a little late in replying here, but anyhow, I thought my concept on child molesters was clear -- they SHOULD be eligible for the death penalty, though I know they're not.

To put my point another way, I just figure we are far too soft on violent criminals.

 

Laches, the cases you cite, did you notice that all the convictions occurred more than a decade ago? That was before forensics became an integral part of criminal trials. Now, it is.

Which effectively means that the punishment for murder is death.

 

I'm sorry to see Jack Funk has left this thread alone. He had some very intelligent and compassionate insights into this subject.

It's very tempting on an emotional level to say, "that person is so evil that he deserves to die". And it's possibly even right in many cases - I do think that some people deserve to die. I can never help thinking of those teenagers in England who tortured a baby to death when I hear about the death penalty; it is so hard not to give in to the temptation to say, "they should never have been allowed to reach adulthood." But just because they deserve to die, does not give me the right to kill them, and being a judge, politician or prison doctor does not grant me that right.

I oppose the death penalty because I believe deliberately killing or physically injuring any human being at a time when the threat they might pose has already been neutralised by their capture, is evil. As a taxpayer, I do not wish to be an accessory to that evil by funding the people who perform it. Lock them up forever and throw away the key - but don't kill or maim them, either directly or by starvation and unhygienic living conditions.

There are a lot of reasons why the death penalty is a bad idea, even if you do not share my belief that human life is sacred:
- Conviction rates drop when capital punishment is a possible outcome: Jury members would often rather let a killer walk than live with the idea that they have themselves become killers. I know I would.
- Societies with the death penalty are in general societies that have higher crime rates and less respect for the sanctity of life. The causality is not clear here - at least to me - but I don't know how you can teach your children that killing other than in self-defence is wrong, and then turn around and say, "unless you work for the government, and your victim is a bad person. Then it's fine." I believe that the high crime rate in death-penalty countries is caused in part by the moral message that tolerating killings by the State sends.
- There is not a government in the world that I trust with the power of life and death over its citizens. Maybe the current President or Queen is a good person and would not abuse the right. The next one may decide that Judaism, homosexuality, labour union leadership, or drinking alcohol are death-penalty crimes. People who don't believe it could happen are not paying attention to history. Germany is one of the most civilised countries in the world (and was before the National Socialists came to power); if it could happen in Germany, it could happen anywhere. A constitution that categorically forbids state killings, regardless of circumstance, is the only possible protection from such a regime.
- Someone has to kill or castrate the bad guy. Maybe you would be willing to be that person. If so, stay away from me, I don't ever want to meet you. I've read the accounts of people who have been forced to kill for the state (including the torturers who were forced to serve the Taliban by severing hands from thieves etc, and some Canadian soldiers required to execute fellow soldiers for military crimes) and very few of them make it to old age without hating themselves and living daily with the crippling guilt.

I do agree with Depaara that we are far too soft on violent criminals. The fact that Karla Homolka is getting a university degree from prison chokes me with anger - surely we could better spend taxpayer's money putting a low-income student through university than a convicted child molester/murderess. And that she will be released from prison while still a young woman? Outrageous! I don't think anyone who deliberately killed or maimed another should ever be released from prison. But killing or maiming the perpetrators (how do you castrate a female rapist anyway?) is not, in my opinion, a morally acceptable or socially beneficial solution.

 

A couple of things:

My uncle is a DA and he tried the first murder case using DNA evidence in his state in 1981. DNA evidence began to be used earlier in other jurisdictions. I think DNA testing has been around longer than maybe you think. Further, like I mentioned earlier, it is in no way, shape, or form necessary for a murder conviction even a capital murder conviction.

In 96 iirc Ray Fratta was sentenced on capital murder without any physical evidence, and that is just off the top of my head. Also, later the Alaksan Supreme Court again confirmed that physical evidence is not necessary for a murder conviction. I promise you, it just isn't needed.

I think the perception that forensic evidence is necessary for a conviction seems to be widespread. Here is a typical way a conviction with NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE would occur: someone is caught for a crime and he points the finger at another, usually under pressure -- authorities suggest who should be fingered. Combine that with a little old lady saying she saw two men and then says, yes, the defendant is the man she saw. That is enough to convict - of this I'm certain.

I hope you see the problem. Not only is forensic evidence not necessary the type of evidence capable of being used is subject to abuse and mistake. Consider the quote above regarding the practice in Illinois of pressuring a defendant to finger someone else, the defendant will comply many times regardless of truth to save his own skin. Here is an example of how it works, from the other thread:

Take the case of Anthony Graves who was executed on the basis of the testimony of Robert Carter. Carter testified that it was Graves who set fire to a house killing one woman and four children. Initially Carter had pointed the finger at Graves knowing that he'd lost out on a promotion recently and hoping the police would blame him instead of Carter for the crime (Carter was found guilty as well.) In exchange for his testimony, the prosecution agreed not to charge Carter's wife with the crime. After trial, Carter recanted 7 times saying he'd lied about Graves. Graves was executed. There was no forensic evidence linking Graves to the murders. Carter was executed as well, here are his final written words:

That's by the way another death sentence without physical evidence too. Add in the fact though that eye witness testimony is highly suspect and things can get worse. There have been a number of studies demonstrating that it can be unreliable but maybe an example is better:

Now, imo, nothing was done wrong by anyone in the above quote - unless there is some further evidence that they should have known the man was bipolar and kept an eye on him of which I'm not aware. It is a poignant example though of how an eyewitness can be wrong. It's a traumatic experience, the poor woman was probably sure that she had identified the correct man. You can't blame her for being incorrect, identification is difficult under even the best of circumstances. Yet, had DNA evidence not been available and had there been one other eyewitness or a snitch the man could easily have been convicted. I suspect the woman would have been firm in her conviction that she recognized the man and that conviction would have been heartfelt... but it clearly would have been wrong.

So, my main point is we convict and sentence to death without physical evidence. This continues today.

A question still stands, and I thought it was an interesting one: what type of error rate are you willing to accept? How many 'mistakes' are acceptable to be able to kill guilty men? How many guilty deaths are worth the life of one innocent?

EDIT --

@ Sprite

The death penalty in the US is the sentence in over 80% of all cases where it is sought. Conviction and sentence to life without parole or death is still a high 90% occurrence in a capital crime. A jury isn't left with the option of death or let him go - indeed, in many jurisdictions the jury doesn't choose the punishment. What happens is the jury convicts of a capital crime. Then, the jury makes a recommendation. It is the judge though who makes the decision of the punishment and not the jury. He writes an opinion weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors and usually by statute certain aggravating factors must be present. By statute certain mitigating factors must be considered but any mitigating factor may be considered. So, it isn't usually up to the jury, in the US, and they aren't left with an all or nothing choice. If a jury member felt like you do she would likely (certainly) be removed during voir dire barring an outright lie by the juror or a stupendously unheard of mistake by the prosecutor - failure to ask: does anyone here think they would have difficulty applying the death penalty if the facts warrant it?

 

@ BTA: I think the question wether death penalty is right or not is a philosophical one, not a question of law. IMHO in most laws, killing someone in self-defence is still murder, but you are pardonned because you prevented someone to harm you or others. And you have to prove this.

@ Belisarius: If killing someone in war is not murder (->ambushes: killing with malicious intent) then it is manslaughter, and it remains the same: wrong. Although I am not religious, the most prominent comandment gave us a very final order: Thou shalt not kill! And there are no exceptions from that or possible interpretations.

And how can a society expect that people respect the stated fact (in law) that killing is wrong, if the society itself kills people?
Its a moral dilemma, and it IMHO cannot solved.

 

Faragon.

What is the true purpose of Australia?

 

Laches, if that kind of thing really goes on, perhaps we should reevaluate the way our court system works. There obviously must have been some evidence beyond only the eyewitness accounts of one person that caused the jury to convict.

Anyone that is claiming that the death penalty is wrong because a mistake can be made has yet to answer this question.

 

This has been a great discussion, and I'm going to leave while it still is! My final comment will be a recap of what I said earlier -- in the interests of public safety, I believe that crimes of a truly heinous nature merit the death penalty. With modern forensics, the odds of a normal joe being sentenced to death are dropping, and if a mistake is made with some lowlife drug dealer, pimp or other career criminal, I won't lose any sleep at night over it.

 

Ahm, I think that hasn't necessarily to be this way. B wants to stab A with a knife. A shoots B in self-defence. Police comes, finds gun and knive. Doesn't buy A's story of self-defence and arrests A because of murder.. The prosecutor just has to prove, that A killed B. Which is true.

A's lawyer has to argue, that it was in self-defence.

 

I have said it before and Sprite said too. It is just plain morally wrong for a state or society to kill its citizens, no matter how you twist and turn. I too would like to rip the throat out of many people as payment for their crimes but that is me on a personal and emotional level. A society or a state does not have the luxury to take things personal or be emotional. It is wrong to kill, we all agree on that. Then it can never be rigth to kill, no matter the vile crimes a person has commited. Society and the state must always have the moral high ground and the coolness to be as untarnished as possible. Killing its citizens isnt.

Everything the pro-death penalty people have said here, again and again and in different words comes down to this, revenge. No matter how you twist and turn it is revenge you want. Heck I want revenge too, but that is me, the private citizen. Society is not out to get revenge. Or atleast it shouldnt. It should work for as safe a community as it can and to be better than the people that are a danger for the rest of the citizens. The most efficient way to do that seems to be to supply care for the mentally ill, fight poverty, and lock away the ones that are too vile to be helped. But I think that the ones that arent totally insane, which most really bad murderers are will not do something again if you make them realise what they have done and supply them with the means of doing right for themselves. No one is served by killing them, wont bring back the victims.

I would also like to stress what Sprite said about the death penalty diminishing the value of human life and socities with it tending to be alot harsher and rougher than hte ones without. Lowering society to the level of the criminials does not make for a safe and free society.

 

2 things.

B wants to stab A with a knife. A shoots B in self-defence. Police comes, finds gun and knive. Doesn't buy A's story of self-defence and arrests A because of murder.. The prosecutor just has to prove, that A killed B. Which is true. Then A claims it was self-defence. The Prosecutor ask the police officers:" Any evidence for self-defence ?" Police officers :"no, no evidence of self-defence was found.". What will the jury think ? My guess, proven murder beyond any doubt.

And the pope is always right ! Is that an excerpt from some famous song or a phrase one has to learn in school to repeat it everytime, there is a chance for it ? Ok, this may sound offending, but in Switzerland, you are presumed innocent until you are proved guilty. The same is in the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Luxembourg. And even in Sweden and Finland, if I am not mistaken. Italy ? Spain ? Portugal ? Greece ? Poland ?

 

To me, it would, but I gather nearly all my knowledge about the Jury-System in America from American movies. Usually, they seem not to be into reasonable doubt in the movies.

Sorry, I knew that would come over as offensive. But I couldn't resist, because it seems to my like an excerpt of some song-lyrics, which get repeated over and over again. No, I didn't want to implicate, that you should have knowledge of other countries law-systems. But in those systems, they same rule goes without saying .

 

I am serious with this statement. I've never been into an American court nor did I study American law (or better, one of the states-law). So, the only knowledge source I have are movies, media and newspapers. And to be frank, the reputation of the efficency of the American bureaucracy and especially the court-system is very well summed up by Laches quotes some posts above. You can read there, what he thinks necessary to get a murder-conviction. That matches the reputation of the court-system.

The reputation-part wasn't meant as offensive. It's just a statement about the reputation it's got over here.