The Death Penalty and Forgiveness

[Skeptic]

Here is one thing I don't understand. Many abolitionists claim, in the name of "humanity", that the death penalty should be abolished because we should learn to forgive crimes and not punish with "an eye for an eye", which is merely "revenge".

I don't get either aqrgument. They both seem to me to be obviously wrong.

First, who is the "we" which should forgive? Morally, a man is entitled to forgives wrongs that were done to HIM. If you steal $20 from me, I have the right to say, "never mind, I forgive you, let's not say a word about it any more". But who gives OTHER people the right to forgive in the wronged person name? What would you say if I released the person who stole $20 from you, because I forgave him in your name?

If the relatives of the victim wish to forgive the murderer, that's one thing. But the DP opponents claim that it is THEY (in the name of "humanity") that have the right to forgive, and not the relatives of the victim. If anything, the relatives of the victim are usually ignored, if not belittled, by these great "humanists of forgiveness". Who gave the DP opponents this right?

Second, the "eye for an eye" issue is NOT revenge. In context, it means two things: 1). ONLY an eye for an eye, e.g., punishment proportional to the crime--like punishing murder by death; 2). Only the eye of the CRIMINAL for an eye, e.g., not the eye of his son or other family members, as was then the current practice.

This is not "revenge". Revenge would be killing someone for pickpocketing so you could enjoy his suffering for doing you a minor wrong; revenge would be going out and killing a few of the criminal's relatives for the murder he committed so that he'll feel exactly what it's like to lose a relative. This is hardly the case here. If anything, the death penalty is a case of appropriate punishment limited to the perpetrator--in other words, of justice.

So why do we keep hearing these arguments?

[Gem]

So why do we keep hearing these arguments?

There's always someone who will never accept the DP, and there's someone who won't accept it because it doesn't work like it's suppose to.

I never heard the argument to "forgive" with the DP, so I can't answer that one.

But for the "an eye for an eye" philosophy, it's problematic. For example, if you steal from my garden $20 worth of lettuce, I can do the same. If you kill my brother, I can do the same. The problem with it is: where do we stop? We'll always feel injustice, and it'll overflow into revenge. Like Gandi said: "An eye for an eye will only make the world blind."

Then there's the problem of abuse, the Law has condemmed individuals who were innocent. How do we right that wrong?

I would keep DP for extreme crimes, like when there's more than one death, and that we're SURE he's guilty without a doubt. There are worse punishments than the DP, but they're unconstitutional.

Gem

[MoeFaux]

My view is that it's not about forgiveness; instead it's that the governement should not be killing people.
Lock 'em up for life, fine. But no government should kill someone.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Here is one thing I don't understand. Many abolitionists claim, in the name of "humanity", that the death penalty should be abolished because we should learn to forgive crimes and not punish with "an eye for an eye", which is merely "revenge".

I don't get either aqrgument. They both seem to me to be obviously wrong.

First, who is the "we" which should forgive? Morally, a man is entitled to forgives wrongs that were done to HIM. If you steal $20 from me, I have the right to say, "never mind, I forgive you, let's not say a word about it any more". But who gives OTHER people the right to forgive in the wronged person name? What would you say if I released the person who stole $20 from you, because I forgave him in your name?

If the relatives of the victim wish to forgive the murderer, that's one thing. But the DP opponents claim that it is THEY (in the name of "humanity") that have the right to forgive, and not the relatives of the victim. If anything, the relatives of the victim are usually ignored, if not belittled, by these great "humanists of forgiveness". Who gave the DP opponents this right?

Second, the "eye for an eye" issue is NOT revenge. In context, it means two things: 1). ONLY an eye for an eye, e.g., punishment proportional to the crime--like punishing murder by death; 2). Only the eye of the CRIMINAL for an eye, e.g., not the eye of his son or other family members, as was then the current practice.

This is not "revenge". Revenge would be killing someone for pickpocketing so you could enjoy his suffering for doing you a minor wrong; revenge would be going out and killing a few of the criminal's relatives for the murder he committed so that he'll feel exactly what it's like to lose a relative. This is hardly the case here. If anything, the death penalty is a case of appropriate punishment limited to the perpetrator--in other words, of justice.

So why do we keep hearing these arguments?

1) If you ask "who are we to forgive," do you not also have to ask "who are we to punish?" Criminal law is a question of state v. individual, not victim v. individual. The wrong being redressed in a criminal trial is that against the state, so yes, the state (as victim), even keeping in line with your analysis has the power to forgive.

2) I just simply disagree with your comments w/r/t "revenge" and "justice." I do not see how they are mutually exclusive, as you seem to include a fair bit of "revenge" in your concept of justice. The idea that someone "gets what they deserve" is completely consistant with what I would consider "revenge" to be.

Punishment classically, has six purposes.

A) Prevention: Prevent future crimes by the particular criminal by giving him/her an unpleasant experience he/she will not want to repeat. Also called "intimidation" or "particular deterrence." Similar (or exactly like, actually) negative conditioning.

B) Restraint: Physically keep criminal from preventing crimes.

C) Rehabilitation: Return criminal to society as someone who doesn't want to commit crime; the happy cousin of "A" above.

D) Deterrence: The suffering of the criminal as an example so that others will not commit crimes.

E) Education: Punishment educates public as to what is right and wrong. Usually applies to technical and morality type crimes and not serious crimes.

F) Retribution. Punishment is inflicted to obtain revenge, as "it is only fitting and just that one who has caused harm to others should himself suffer for it."

(source for above - Criminal Law, Second Edition by LaFave and Scott, West Publishing 1986 pp 22-26)

It seems you want to add another category called "justice." In the sense that justice is meant by "getting what is coming to you" I'd think it falls under retribution. As far as "what is right for all involved", I'd think it is the very thing the above six theories are trying to define.

The death penalty, aside from retribution, applies the theory of "restraint" pretty darn efficiently. It is also meant to apply the theory of "deterrence."

3) My final point is that some people do not recognize "retribution" to be a morally legitimate reason for punishment. They argue that life imprisonment satisfies the theories of "restraint" and "deterrence" as well as the death penalty and thus society should choose what they consider the less gruesome method of punishment. This isn't a question of foregiveness, rather a question of the selection and enforcement of values in order for a society to deliver "justice."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
My view is that it's not about forgiveness; instead it's that the governement should not be killing people.
Lock 'em up for life, fine. But no government should kill someone.

I somewhat agree. State murder is still murder. But we also need to realize that a forgiving society is far stronger than a condemning one.

Keep them in prison. Have them listen to the families of their victims. Let them listen to what lives they have destroyed. Each and every day for the rest of their lives. For what purpose? To let them - and others - realize that they destroyed not just single persons, but whole families.

Not guilt. But responsibility. To you, me, everyone. In a way, it's the ultimate insult to criminals: We treat them far better than they treat us.

The "cost" of keeping them incarcerated is too high? Why should we let murderers live, at the tax payers' expense? Why not? What is the bigger penalty, killing them and create a myth, or keeping them alive, letting them know each and every day that they have committed a crime? I suspect that most of these killers look forward to the prospect of becoming lore: They don't give a damn about being executed. Had they feared to be executed, they would not have committed the crime in the first place. On the contrary: They revel in the thought of becoming legend. So, let's not give them what they so desire.

Who remembers a convict, who has spent 30 years in the slammer, buried in oblivion? Who remembers Ted Bundy?

"Revenge" is not the issue here. "Justice" is. We have to create a society where crime is not tolerated. But if you treat a criminal like an animal, you will get an animal. What is gained from that?

What price on justice? No price is too high. Think of the victims, and their families. They need to know that the criminals are being punished, each and every day. Not just for one day.

[Zep]

I would simply add what I just added on another thread a minute ago:

The death penalty is NOT a punishment. It is actually a release from it.

And bearing in mind Suddenly's comments above, it is also a release from any of the reasons for punishment. It becomes a reason not to think about trying anything else.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Let me say first of that I do not believe in capitol punishment. With one proviso. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with "hard labor" as a sentence. I also do not believe that a person spared the death penalty has the right to co-opt the press or communicate with the outside world. Fine and good but I'd bet that the ACLU would take issue with that. If I could be assured that these guys would be locked away, never to be heard from again, I'd be unequivically against the DP.

I somewhat agree. State murder is still murder. But we also need to realize that a forgiving society is far stronger than a condemning one.

Ummmm .... Proof of this Claus?

Keep them in prison. Have them listen to the families of their victims. Let them listen to what lives they have destroyed. Each and every day for the rest of their lives. For what purpose? To let them - and others - realize that they destroyed not just single persons, but whole families.

Yup, we are as one on this

Not guilt. But responsibility. To you, me, everyone. In a way, it's the ultimate insult to criminals: We treat them far better than they treat us.

I'm not sure that a sociopath would really care.

The "cost" of keeping them incarcerated is too high? Why should we let murderers live, at the tax payers' expense? Why not? What is the bigger penalty, killing them and create a myth, or keeping them alive, letting them know each and every day that they have committed a crime? I suspect that most of these killers look forward to the prospect of becoming lore: They don't give a damn about being executed. Had they feared to be executed, they would not have committed the crime in the first place. On the contrary: They revel in the thought of becoming legend. So, let's not give them what they so desire.

Actually that is exactly what made me change my mind. I felt that we were giving McVeigh exactly what he wanted

Who remembers a convict, who has spent 30 years in the slammer, buried in oblivion? Who remembers Ted Bundy?

Well, you, for one

"Revenge" is not the issue here. "Justice" is. We have to create a society where crime is not tolerated. But if you treat a criminal like an animal, you will get an animal. What is gained from that?

We do treat criminals as animals, we lock them up. The only argument that I can buy for the DP is that it demonstrates society's loathing for the criminal, in effect saying "Get thee gone thou shalt not live with us"

What price on justice? No price is too high. Think of the victims, and their families. They need to know that the criminals are being punished, each and every day. Not just for one day.

Yes, see my proviso. [/QUOTE]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Let me say first of that I do not believe in capitol punishment.

I do. Being sentenced to serve at Capitol Hill is a punishment in itself...

Should I shut up now? :D

Originally posted by Ed
Ummmm .... Proof of this Claus?

It's an opinion. :)

Originally posted by Ed
Yup, we are as one on this

Oh, my...being as one with a god? Beatification be gone, I'm headin' straight for sanctity! :)

Originally posted by Ed
I'm not sure that a sociopath would really care.

Probably not. There is always the chance, though. What is lost?

Originally posted by Ed
Actually that is exactly what made me change my mind. I felt that we were giving McVeigh exactly what he wanted

Yup. He wanted to be a hero, executed by the state he so hated. Big mistake.

Originally posted by Ed
Well, you, for one

Har-de-f*cking-har. I saw the TV show and read the books. So? :)

Originally posted by Ed
We do treat criminals as animals, we lock them up. The only argument that I can buy for the DP is that it demonstrates society's loathing for the criminal, in effect saying "Get thee gone thou shalt not live with us"

Doesn't work. Life is not precious to them, as they so amply have proved.

Originally posted by Ed
Yes, see my proviso.

I'll see you and raise you 5 cents. :)

[Ed]

Philosopher

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5222

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
Let me say first of that I do not believe in capitol punishment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I do. Being sentenced to serve at Capitol Hill is a punishment in itself...
(nb. Your english is generally flawless so you might appreciate an idiom. It is "on" Capitol hill)

Should I shut up now?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
Ummmm .... Proof of this Claus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's an opinion.

Fair
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
Yup, we are as one on this
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh, my...being as one with a god? Beatification be gone, I'm headin' straight for sanctity!

Yup. Got done with Theresa early. She says she could use a Danish stud for company
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
I'm not sure that a sociopath would really care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Probably not. There is always the chance, though. What is lost?

Agree


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
Actually that is exactly what made me change my mind. I felt that we were giving McVeigh exactly what he wanted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yup. He wanted to be a hero, executed by the state he so hated. Big mistake.

Yes. We have not heard the last of him


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
Well, you, for one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Har-de-f*cking-har. I saw the TV show and read the books. So?

Gone but not forgotten is all


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
We do treat criminals as animals, we lock them up. The only argument that I can buy for the DP is that it demonstrates society's loathing for the criminal, in effect saying "Get thee gone thou shalt not live with us"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Doesn't work. Life is not precious to them, as they so amply have proved.

I didn't say it was perfect. It is more symbolic for the living. Like the old fashioened excommunications, candles snuffed out and all that


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
Yes, see my proviso.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'll see you and raise you 5 cents.

Call.


__________________
SkepticReport.com

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
My view is that it's not about forgiveness; instead it's that the governement should not be killing people.
Lock 'em up for life, fine. But no government should kill someone.

Kum-freaking-by-yah...

Our government has killed millions of human beings. Germans, Japanese, Italians, etc. Good thing, too.

Hey, I am pretty ambivalent about the death penalty, but let's keep our heads out of the clouds.

[The Fool]

Draw up two lists, one contains all the countries that execute people, the other list contains the countries that don't...ask yourself which list looks like a list of tinpot dictatorships, totalitarian basketcases, Patriarchal theocracies and banana republics. Also ask yourself which list your country would look better on.

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Fool
Draw up two lists, one contains all the countries that execute people, the other list contains the countries that don't...ask yourself which list looks like a list of tinpot dictatorships, totalitarian basketcases, Patriarchal theocracies and banana republics. Also ask yourself which list your country would look better on.

Japan, but they have strict gun laws.:D

Seriously, WTF should I care about other countries? I mean, are our policys dependent on the French, for example?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I somewhat agree. State murder is still murder. But we also need to realize that a forgiving society is far stronger than a condemning one.

I agree with Claus (alert Ted Koppel!!! :eek: ), but I also want to point out that if you're a victim, or in this case the victim's loved one, forgiving the criminal is not done for the criminal's sake, but for yours. Carrying the pain and the hate around with you the rest of your life is not healthy. At some point you have to let go.

People always scream out for the death penalty so that the families of the victim can have "closure," or "finally be able to put it behind them," or something like that, but all too often those loved ones find that the death of the perputrator has solved nothing. They have to look for peace and closure within themselves.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Skeptic
First, who is the "we" which should forgive? Morally, a man is entitled to forgives wrongs that were done to HIM. If you steal $20 from me, I have the right to say, "never mind, I forgive you, let's not say a word about it any more". But who gives OTHER people the right to forgive in the wronged person name? What would you say if I released the person who stole $20 from you, because I forgave him in your nameWhat would you say if someone who secrectly hated you wrongly accused you of stealing $20, managed to deceive a court into believing this was so and then was allowed to pass his own personal version of morality over you by deciding your sentence?


If the relatives of the victim wish to forgive the murderer, that's one thing. But the DP opponents claim that it is THEY (in the name of "humanity") that have the right to forgive, and not the relatives of the victim. If anything, the relatives of the victim are usually ignored, if not belittled, by these great "humanists of forgiveness". Who gave the DP opponents this right?What are you suggesting here? That the victim should decide a criminals fate? Relatives do have the option to forgive or not to forgive, that's a personal decision you hold in your heart isn't it? They just can't and shouldn't be involved in sentencing.

The whole idea is that the court is objective and detached and thus in a better position to make a rational decision. It would be a pretty messy and imbalanced system if we allowed victims to decide the penalties for criminal acts wouldn't it? For one thing it would place a huge burden on an individual, outcomes would be much more inconsistent and depend upon the emotional state of someone who is probably already too involved and distraught to think rationally.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I somewhat agree. State murder is still murder.

From Dictionary.com:
mur·der (mûrdr) n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

So the death penalty is not murder. And the state is not committing murder.

But we also need to realize that a forgiving society is far stronger than a condemning one.

I agree with this up to a point.

Keep them in prison. Have them listen to the families of their victims. Let them listen to what lives they have destroyed. Each and every day for the rest of their lives. For what purpose? To let them - and others - realize that they destroyed not just single persons, but whole families.

Sounds more like a sentence assigned to the families than the killer.

Not guilt. But responsibility. To you, me, everyone. In a way, it's the ultimate insult to criminals: We treat them far better than they treat us.

Sure, that will really hurt their precious feelings. After all, we all know how sensitive murderers are. And we'll fart in their faces and say ugly things about their mothers.


The "cost" of keeping them incarcerated is too high? Why should we let murderers live, at the tax payers' expense? Why not?

I hear most death penalty abolitionists say that it actually costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. Regardless, it is a stupid argument. It is even cheaper to just let them go. Boy! Wouldn't that insult a murderer. We tell him, "You are free to go!"



Who remembers Ted Bundy?

Who doesn't?


But if you treat a criminal like an animal, you will get an animal. What is gained from that?

How does executing someone turn them into an animal?

What price on justice? No price is too high. Think of the victims, and their families. They need to know that the criminals are being punished, each and every day. Not just for one day.

Punishment for one day? If it is such a small thing, why does almost every man/woman on death row fight tooth and nail to avoid being executed?

[Jessica Blue]

People always scream out for the death penalty so that the families of the victim can have "closure," or "finally be able to put it behind them," or something like that, but all too often those loved ones find that the death of the perputrator has solved nothing. They have to look for peace and closure within themselves.

[surprised to be in total agreement with shanek on something]

It makes poor sense to me that the victim of a violent act could ultimately feel comforted by another violent act. I'd be better comforted knowing that while their is violence and horror in the world, there is also compassion and humanity. But even if it did make some people "feel better" that's not a good enough reason for the state to impose the DP.

[Cain]

Republicans, self-proclaimed defenders of individual rights, (largely) believe the state has the power to execute its own citizens. I love it.

May I suggest the case against the death penalty rests on one point, and one point alone: the belief that the state does not have the right to kill people who do not pose an immediate danger to others.

All other arguments are, by comparison, uncompelling. We often hear a person say, "Oh, I believe in death penalty *in theory*." Ah, so you see nothing wrong -- *in theory* -- with premeditated, government approved killings. How nice.

Or what about the humanists who invoke a coldly calculating cost-benefit analysis to oppose the death "penalty"? Are they suggesting that if court room costs decreased and imprisonment costs increased, we should reconsider killing people?

The burden of proof rests with persons or institutions that want to interfere in the lives of others in an authoritarian manner. In the case of the death penalty (premediated killing) that burden is, I think, unimaginably high. The notion that we need to execute individuals who no longer pose a threat to society for "closure" or "retribution" or "punishment" is, in my opinion, sickly sadistic and morally appalling. Worse, this unfounded nonsense masquerades itself as "Justice" in the public consciousness.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed
Seriously, WTF should I care about other countries? I mean, are our policys dependent on the French, for example?
No worries Ed, I thought you may like a list of all your brother nations....and a fine list of Nations they are.....

Firstly "The big 4", responsible for 90% of executions worldwide.

China, Saudi Arabia, the USA (in 3d place) and Iran.

You're in fine company there... although I'm surprised you settle for the bronze.....

The rest of the crew are amateurs in comparison and they are.


Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo (Democratic Republic), Congo (Republic), Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgystan, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Rwanda, Samoa, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Taiwan, Tajikstan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Now, on the whole, thats a fine looking list of free progressive nations isn't it......The cream of the crop. I bet there are a lot of nations who would kill to get on that list....:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I agree with Claus (alert Ted Koppel!!! :eek: ),

http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/engel1.gifhttp://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/engel2.gif

OK, OK....don't let it happen again...! ;)

Originally posted by Luke T.
So the death penalty is not murder. And the state is not committing murder.

Does that mean that the Nürnberg Laws were OK?

Originally posted by Luke T.
Sounds more like a sentence assigned to the families than the killer.

Closure. They get to look the killer in the eyes. They have a chance to understand what happened.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Sure, that will really hurt their precious feelings. After all, we all know how sensitive murderers are. And we'll fart in their faces and say ugly things about their mothers.

Well, "your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries" is a pretty strong insult! ;)

It's not about hurting their feelings. It's about showing them that whatever they do to us, they won't make us as bad as them.

Turn the other cheek, Luke.

Originally posted by Luke T.
I hear most death penalty abolitionists say that it actually costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. Regardless, it is a stupid argument. It is even cheaper to just let them go. Boy! Wouldn't that insult a murderer. We tell him, "You are free to go!"

First, I would like to see those calculations. Second, setting someone free is a very stupid argument.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Who doesn't?

My point exactly.

Originally posted by Luke T.
How does executing someone turn them into an animal?

Sorry, should have been more clear: The harsher the sentences, the more brutal a penal system you have, the more brutal people you get out of it.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Punishment for one day? If it is such a small thing, why does almost every man/woman on death row fight tooth and nail to avoid being executed?

If it is such a big thing, why isn't crime way lower in the US than in, say, Denmark? Can you prove that capital punishment has any effect on crime levels? Do you think that a criminal, just before pulling the trigger, thinks "Oh, wait...I'll be executed for this. Hm. Better not."?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Fool
...Turkey...

A country that will have to abolish capital punishment, if they really want to be a part of EU.

No country within the EU can have capital punishment.

[Boo]

When it come to family and the people I love, I am not progressive and I really do not care if my country is. In just thinking about someone killing someone I love or care about I find that I probably would have an infinite capacity to hate.

Want forgiveness for your crimes then talk to your god, not me.

Will the death of the individual responsible for my loved ones death bring them back, obviously not. I don't care, I'll volunteer to push the syringe.

I am in favor of capital punishment for crimes that kill. I believe sex offenders should be one strike your out (life without parole).


JMHO.


Boo

[Mendor]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I hear most death penalty abolitionists say that it actually costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. Regardless, it is a stupid argument. It is even cheaper to just let them go.Don't be ridiculous. We don't want the cheapest option, we want the cheapest out of the two methods there are of taking someone out of circulation in society for ever - incarceration, or execution. Of those two, incarceration is cheaper. It's also reversible should the verdict be wrong, and it doesn't throw up the moral quandaries that the death penalty does.

So what's the problem with life in prison?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CF Larsen:
Keep them in prison. Have them listen to the families of their victims. Let them listen to what lives they have destroyed. Each and every day for the rest of their lives. For what purpose? To let them - and others - realize that they destroyed not just single persons, but whole families.

What if they don't care?

Who remembers a convict, who has spent 30 years in the slammer, buried in oblivion? Who remembers Ted Bundy?

Notoreity is dependant on the crime, rather than the sentence. Look at Charles Manson, or Myra Hindley in the UK.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
What if they don't care?

Then, they don't care. There are no guarantees, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Notoreity is dependant on the crime, rather than the sentence. Look at Charles Manson, or Myra Hindley in the UK.

Not necessarily. Remember Juan Corona? No? An American serial killer who murdered more than Ted Bundy?

Notoriety is also very much dependent on the media coverage.

[Tmy]

There are soem scumbags out there who deserve death, at the very least it gets them out of our face. I cant stand seeing the likes of Charlie Manson on TV every time he has a damn parole hearing.

People always talk about the pain of the victims familes. What about the murderers families? They are just as innocent. Why should they have to suffer the death/murder of their loveoned?
Wheres their closure.



If your parent,sibling,child , spouce killed someone would you stop caring about them. You may be dissapointed in them, but could you watch them die?

[Mr Manifesto]

So, Tmy, are you saying that Manson should be executed because the media have to glorify his parole hearings all the time? Because Bugliosi has to release a book about him every other week? Manson is small potatoes on the mass-murder scale. There are probably thousands in the US who have killed more than him. Why does he get all the attention? Because he killed some rich folk, and a 2nd rate b-actress.

People don't deserve to be killed just because the media make a big deal out of them all the time. These people wouldn't have any notoriety if there wasn't such a demand for the shock/horror that people get out of serial killers and mass murderers.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tmy
There are soem scumbags out there who deserve death, at the very least it gets them out of our face. I cant stand seeing the likes of Charlie Manson on TV every time he has a damn parole hearing.

I want you to pick up your remote. There should be a small button with "ON/OFF". Try pressing it, the next time you see something on TV you don't want to see.

Shouldn't you be angry at the media instead of Manson?

[corplinx]

See, if you made soylent green out of the bodies then it wouldn't be revenge, it would be redemption.


Support Soylent Green! Feed the Homeless!

[Tmy]

With or without TV coverage the waste of space is still breathing.

Our DP system is screwy. It baffles me how a bizzatch like Susan Smith avoids death, when so many others end up on death row for less disgusting behavior.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Mendor
Don't be ridiculous. We don't want the cheapest option, we want the cheapest out of the two methods there are of taking someone out of circulation in society for ever - incarceration, or execution. Of those two, incarceration is cheaper. It's also reversible should the verdict be wrong, and it doesn't throw up the moral quandaries that the death penalty does.

So what's the problem with life in prison?

Actually, the "the death sentence costs more" point is usually a rebuttal to the seemingly obvious (but incorrect) notion that just killing a criminal is cheaper. It is weak as an argument in itself, but when someone pipes up with something like "How come these scumbags get to live all fat and happy on my tax dollars? Lets just kill the bastards!" It becomes quite relevent to mention that today the death penalty is actually more expensive.

Which brings me to the last sentence, "What is the problem with life in prison."

I have a weird perspective on this issue considering I have dealt mant times with people who are doing life without, or sentences that are the practical equal to such a sentence.

When the state decides to kill someone it takes it very seriously. There are mandatory appeals, mandatory habeas proceedings, a heightened scrutiny w/r/t the effectiveness of defense counsel, federal review and so forth. This is where the cost lies.

In comparison, when someone is put in jail for life without benefit of parole nobody really gives two sh*ts about the above. In West Virginia, a person can be convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to life without parole, without ever having an appeal heard on the merits, as our only appelllate court has discretion in choosing cases.

So, a person can be convicted due to a brutal error by the trial court and never have that error even addressed, much less reversed by a higher court. That hapless person can file a petition for habeas corpus, but by custom that will be heard by .... you guessed it .... the same judge that tried the case and made the error in the first place. A denial of the petition can be appealed if the supreme court will hear it, but they didn't want to the first time around, so....

I just don't see enough of a difference between a death sentence and a life without to justify that kind of difference. Both have the same outcome, the defendant dying in prison, it is just that the life sentence takes longer.

But the death sentence is final and cant be reversed, right? Does that mean someone who does 15 years waiting to get an obvious error reversed gets those 15 years spent in prison erased from memory and emerges from capticity 15 years younger? Or has a large portion of their life been taken away, without any hope of recapture?

I wonder when I see the argument that "we don't want to execute any innocent people, so I don't like the death penalty." Does this mean it is some how more acceptable to simply brand the innocent as guilty and lock them in a cage away from their families and loved ones until they die? Why would this be better, because we take the life away slowly rather than in a dramatic action?

[Tmy]

I dont buy the whole "it costs more to kill them argument". Isnt most of that cost tied up in legal fees or court time. Most of which are sunk costs anyway.

I think there should be an extremely high standard of guilt in order to enact a death penalty.

[Mr Manifesto]

Tsk, tsk, Suddenly. False dichotomy. Why not abolish the death penalty and use the money you save to a better appeals system? The problem you have at the moment seems to be that you can't afford both. You could still have a better appeals system after the death penalty and save money.

[Luke T.]

Claus, et al who are opposed to the death penalty, I want to clarify that I am undecided on the issue.

The way I see it, on the pro-death penalty side it boils down to pure vengeance. Everything else is window dressing with the exception of the "deterrent" factor. But as it stands right now, I think the death penalty has a neglible deterring influence on crime. To increase the deterring influence, we must greatly increase the number of executions.

On the anti-death penalty side, it boils down to killing someone being a "sin." Whether the killing is committed by a murderer or by the government. And whether you like it or not, secular humanists don't have much space for lecturing about moral issues. They have watered morality down to a weak "values" mish-mash in too many venues to be taken seriously on the death penalty. The only anti-death penalty lobby that has great moral force is the Catholic Church. And even the intervention of the Pope himself in several U.S. executions has resulted in no effect as far as I know.

I agree 100% with Skeptic that death row abolitionists have no place "forgiving" people on death row. Especially if the person they are forgiving isn't even seeking forgiveness and continues to claim innocence when they are clearly guilty. This is not a penitence worth forgiving, and only makes the anti-death penalty people look like suckers at best and immoral at worst.

Aside from there not being enough executions to be a deterrent, we have the added problem of innocent people being jailed more frequently than is commonly known. Thank goodness for DNA analysis.

It is the fact that DNA has freed a few innocent people that makes me believe we should place a moratorium on executions. If there are non-death row prisoners who have been proven innocent, then we must consider the possibility there are death row prisoners who may be innocent.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Tsk, tsk, Suddenly. False dichotomy. Why not abolish the death penalty and use the money you save to a better appeals system? The problem you have at the moment seems to be that you can't afford both. You could still have a better appeals system after the death penalty and save money.

Why not? You are reading in more than I am saying. That is exactly what I would suggest if it were a question of money. It isn't.

What bothers me is the attitude that life without parole is somehow a greatly lesser penalty than a death sentence. Given how long it takes a death sentence to be carried out in comparison with expected life span of a lifer, the difference is mainly that is makes people squeamish to kill people quick because someone might be innocent, but to do it slowly to that same innocent is somehow just fine. Curious.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Why not? You are reading in more than I am saying. That is exactly what I would suggest if it were a question of money. It isn't.

What bothers me is the attitude that life without parole is somehow a greatly lesser penalty than a death sentence. Given how long it takes a death sentence to be carried out in comparison with expected life span of a lifer, the difference is mainly that is makes people squeamish to kill people quick because someone might be innocent, but to do it slowly to that same innocent is somehow just fine. Curious.

You're making it sound like that when you get a life sentence, you never talk to another human being or do anything besides sit in a cell and wait for the meals to arrive. I'll admit that I don't know what US prisons are like, but they aren't like that in Australia. Prisoners do have some sort of life, just nothing like what they had on the outside.

Those who choose to, can also redeem themselves somewhat. Perhaps by writing a book. In some cases by caring for native animals. Becoming a religious practitioner is also popular. I think all of the above is preferable to walking the last mile.

And finally, if the prisoner finds a life sentence to intolerable to bear, that prisoner at least has the option to end their own life. There is no option with the death penalty.

[shanek]

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends." —Gandalf

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CF Larsen:
Not necessarily. Remember Juan Corona? No? An American serial killer who murdered more than Ted Bundy?


No I don't, as it happens.


Originally posted by Suddenly:
Actually, the "the death sentence costs more" point is usually a rebuttal to the seemingly obvious (but incorrect) notion that just killing a criminal is cheaper. It is weak as an argument in itself, but when someone pipes up with something like "How come these scumbags get to live all fat and happy on my tax dollars? Lets just kill the bastards!" It becomes quite relevent to mention that today the death penalty is actually more expensive.

How much of the cost of executing someone comes from the legal process and myriad of appeals? IIRC in Britain (and I presume Irlenad) when capital punishment was in force there was an interval of about a month between sentencing and execution of the condemned person.

Originally posted by LukeT:
The only anti-death penalty lobby that has great moral force is the Catholic Church. And even the intervention of the Pope himself in several U.S. executions has resulted in no effect as far as I know.

This is only a very recent development within the Catholic Church as well. AFAIK the present pope was the first one ever to take a definite anti-capital punishment line. Holy Catholic Ireland was executing people (without trial in some cases) until 1954, and sentencing people to death as recently as the 1980s.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

How much of the cost of executing someone comes from the legal process and myriad of appeals? IIRC in Britain (and I presume Irlenad) when capital punishment was in force there was an interval of about a month between sentencing and execution of the condemned person.


The problem is, though, if you don't have the legal process and the appeals, you run a greater risk of killing someone who is innocent. Many poorer countries don't have this due process, but the attitude appears to be 'well, we killed them for something they did which we didn't know about'. Nice.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends." —Gandalf

Is there anything wise Gandalf didn't say? Besides, "Maybe I should bring a lot of firewood on this trip in case it gets cold. Might keep us out of Moira: you never know!"

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You're making it sound like that when you get a life sentence, you never talk to another human being or do anything besides sit in a cell and wait for the meals to arrive. I'll admit that I don't know what US prisons are like, but they aren't like that in Australia. Prisoners do have some sort of life, just nothing like what they had on the outside. Or, they are beat up and raped repeatedly. Absent actual conditions is the sense of lack of hope or purpose, the profound sadness of the situation. A few prisioners manage to live in the moment. The rest are more or less tortured to madness by the creeping awfulness of the whole thing.

Remember I'm talking about those doing life with no parole. It is a different kettle of fish w/r/t those that hope to get out someday.

Those who choose to, can also redeem themselves somewhat. Perhaps by writing a book. In some cases by caring for native animals. Becoming a religious practitioner is also popular. I think all of the above is preferable to walking the last mile. Remember my whole point is w/r/t why it is OK for an innocent to get life without but not to execute in certain situations. The innocent cannot redeem themselves.

And finally, if the prisoner finds a life sentence to intolerable to bear, that prisoner at least has the option to end their own life. There is no option with the death penalty.

Gee, now I feel much better that I could much more easily wind up doing life without than be sentenced to death. I can always just kill myself, except that security measures in prisons would make this a dicey act at best.


Again, I think you are missing my point. I am not saying they are the same, just that the difference between life without and death, all things told does not justify the different treatment, that a death penalty defendant gets review upon review, where a lifer can wind up sitting in a cage based on the mistake, innocent or not, of a single trial judge.

[Skeptic]

I somewhat agree. State murder is still murder.

It isn't murder. Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of an INNOCENT life. This doesn't apply to executions any more than it applies to self-defense.

But we also need to realize that a forgiving society is far stronger than a condemning one.

Up to a point, yet! But suppose you take this argument to its logical conclusion, and simply abolish all criminal laws, under the philosophy that a society that forgives the most would surely be the strongest. It is not hard to imagine that the result would be anarchy.

In the US, leniency IS extended to the vast majority of murderers. It is rare to get the death penalty. That is usually reserved to extremely cruel and vindictive criminals. To forgive them as well would not be making society stronger, but merely encourages anarchy.

The reason is, as C. S. Lewis said in "reflections on the pslams", that when people begin to suspect that the law is too forgiving and is more concerned with the rights of the criminal than with those of the victims, they tend to take it into their own hands--and you can hardly blame them, too.

Keep them in prison. Have them listen to the families of their victims. Let them listen to what lives they have destroyed. Each and every day for the rest of their lives. For what purpose? To let them - and others - realize that they destroyed not just single persons, but whole families.

Yeah, I'm sure psychopathic serial killers are SO moved by the pleas of the victim's families, and that the victims families really want nothing more than to associate with them all the time for the next fifty years. One of the reason to execute them is precisely so that the relatives of their victims will NOT have to spend another minute dealing and thinking about them.

And what's this "make them realize" nonsense, anyway? What are they--schoolchildren who "didn't realize" they are hurting people? What the killer "realizes" or not is of no importance. Punishing him appropriately for his crime is.

Not guilt. But responsibility. To you, me, everyone.

Why "not guilt, but responsibility"? They're guilty, aren't they?

"Responsibility" is something you have when you need to hand in a school paper or a work project on time. You "betray your responsibility to society" when you cheat on your taxes. When you viciously murder innocent people, you are not "betraying your responsibility to you, me, everyone". You're guilty of murder of your victims.

In a way, it's the ultimate insult to criminals: We treat them far better than they treat us.

I'm sure they're all squirming in shame from this awful insult. Again, think this one through: if treating the criminal better than he treated us is the "real" punishment for the crime, why put them in jail at all? Why not give every killer a million dollars? That would REALLY be treating him better than he treated us, and, therefore, would be a worse punishment, would it not?

The "cost" of keeping them incarcerated is too high? Why should we let murderers live, at the tax payers' expense? Why not? What is the bigger penalty, killing them and create a myth, or keeping them alive, letting them know each and every day that they have committed a crime?

I'd say "killing them" is a bigger penalty, mostly because the vast majority of those on death row couldn't care less about the crime they committed, and never would. 99.99% of convicted killers sentenced to death who appeal their sentence endlessly seem to agree with me.

I suspect that most of these killers look forward to the prospect of becoming lore

They don't become "lore". The vast majority of them are quickly, and deservedly, forgotten by virtually everybody. There have been almost 600 executions in the US since 1977--can you name five of them without checking?

It is, in fact, one of the most common statements of the victims' relatives that now that the killer is dead, they can STOP thinking about him all the time.

They don't give a damn about being executed.

So why do they all--or at least the vast, vast majority of them--appeal their sentences to the last possible minute? This doesn't seem to me like "not giving a damn about being executed"...

Had they feared to be executed, they would not have committed the crime in the first place.

People commit crimes for all kinds of reasons, and the vast majority of them, when they commit it, are sure they won't be caught, let alone executed. Since only a tiny minority of murderers are executed anyway, and that after years and years of appeal, possible execution is a minor concern to would-be killers.

You want them to fear execution? Make it the case that the vast majority of murderers are quickly executed. If you do not believe this should be the case (and I DON'T think it should be), and you think that only especially henious crimes should be so punished (as I do) and only after extensive judicial review (as I do), you cannot then complain that it "doesn't detter". That's wanting to have it both ways.

OF COURSE such rare, ten-years-down-the-road executions do not deter criminals by much; that's not the point. The criminal is executed because he deserves to be executed, not as a deterrant to others. If deterrance was the point, one could just as well execute innocent people as guilty ones--a point totalitarian countries learned long ago.

Who remembers someone buried in oblivion for thirty years?

The relatives of his victims, knowing that their loved one is dead while the killer is being fed, clothed, and watches TV on their tax money; fearing that he might escape, be paroled, or otherwise return to cause more mischief.

Who remembersTed Bundy?

That's one out of 600. Name another four without looking them up. But, again, whether WE remember or not is not the point. What matters is what the FAMILIES OF HIS VICTIMS remember. And, to repeat, executing the criminal--including Bundy--means to most of the victims a reprieve, an ability to finally sleep well at night without fearing of hearing that he escaped again.

"Revenge" is not the issue here. "Justice" is.

Precisely. And justice IS executing Ted Bundy. No lesser punishment, in his case, could be more than an open mockery of his numerous victims. Bundy killed probably 100 victims or so. If he had gotten life, years, that would mean six months per murder--far less than you'd get for drunken driving or writing bad checks.

We have to create a society where crime is not tolerated. But if you treat a criminal like an animal, you will get an animal.

Not much of a loss, in the case of most death row inmates. They were animals (and far worse than animals) when they committed the crime. I fail to see why saving their previous "humanity" by letting them live is going to improve things.

Consider Ted Bundy again. Was sentencing him to die what made him an "animal"... or his mass murder, long before he was "treated like an animal" by anybody?

What is gained from that?

Justice, by punishing the criminal as he deserves.

What price on justice? No price is too high. Think of the victims, and their families. They need to know that the criminals are being punished, each and every day. Not just for one day.

That's funny; in that case, how come the vast majority of the families of the victims who had the killer sentenced to death are strongly FOR the killers' execution? Are they all being irrational, for wanting the killer punished "only one day" and not "each and every day"? Would you care to explain to one such family why they're being "irrational" and don't know what they "really" want?

Hey, scratch that; if it's REALLY so much worse punishment, why are there so many people who oppose executions and claim to be friends, or at least stmpathetic, to the criminal? Why was sister Helen Prejean, for example, who wrote "Dead Man Walking", fighting AGAINST Patrick Sonnier's execution and not FOR it, if life without parole is so much worse than death? Did she hate him and want him to suffer more by staying in prison?

No, the reason is that this "he is punished every day instead of only one day" is merely a cute phrase. It means "I think life in prison is worse than the death penalty". But that's just not true, as is rather obvious to everybody, since most people consider virtually any life better than death--including the 99% of death row inmates who appeal their sentence, the 99% of victim's families who oppose the appeal, and the 100% of death penalty opponents who fight to "save" an inmate. Do you really think that they are doing it solely because they think life in prison is WORSE than the death penalty? Or are they doing it because they know very well it is precisely the opposite?

Your entire argument, in fact, rests on this obviously fallacious premise, that somehow life in prison and treating the criminal better than he treated his victim is a worse punishment than the death penalty. It isn't; so your entire argument falls to the ground.

[Tmy]

Revenge or justice, its the same thing.

Its about punishment anyway. If I got all drunk and raped a women. I have to answer forthat crime. Even if i blacked out hand have no memory, even if I went to rehab and cleaned up out of disgust formy actions, even if the victim understood and forgave me. I still would have to face a rape conviction and go to jail even though Ive been rehabbed and the victim is OK with me.


As for keeping these guys for life. I watched this show on super max prisoners. These guys were scum. Uncontrolable evil. The amount of guard time and effort wasted on these guys is incredable. THere in for life and have nothing to lose. They cant even be allowed into a prison popluation cause they are too dangerous. And the crimes they committed were horrible.

Why keep them around. Wed all be better off with them dead.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I wonder when I see the argument that "we don't want to execute any innocent people, so I don't like the death penalty." Does this mean it is some how more acceptable to simply brand the innocent as guilty and lock them in a cage away from their families and loved ones until they die? Why would this be better, because we take the life away slowly rather than in a dramatic action?Yes, it is more acceptable, because of the finality of death. With death there is just no longer any possibility of vindication and regaining a life outside. If you find yourself innocent and in goal you can at least have hope, you can have people working for your release on the outside. You can write, study, contemplate your agony...even have a life of sorts. For the innocent neither option is just, but one is utterly hopeless and the other at least has possibilities. And if you are innocent you have some justification for your hope.

Who is to say death is equal to slow punishment in prison so better the wrongly accused die than suffer imprisonment? Would most choose that option for themselves? I doubt it. If you applied your logic here to a wider scenario, well there are probably hoards of people with unjust, hellish lives on the outside...they might as well line up and die too.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Yes, it is more acceptable, because of the finality of death. With death there is just no longer any possibility of vindication and regaining a life outside. If you find yourself innocent and in goal you can at least have hope, you can have people working for your release on the outside. You can write, study, contemplate your agony...even have a life of sorts. For the innocent neither option is just, but one is utterly hopeless and the other at least has possibilities. And if you are innocent you have some justification for your hope.

Who is to say death is equal to slow punishment in prison so better the wrongly accused die than suffer imprisonment? Would most choose that option for themselves? I doubt it. If you applied your logic here to a wider scenario, well there are probably hoards of people with unjust, hellish lives on the outside...they might as well line up and die too.

First of all, I never said they were equal. For some reason this keeps being brought up. What I said was that the difference in reality between a death sentence and a life sentence is not so much that the life sentence should recieve so little scrutiny compared to the death sentence.

Quite frankly, that was my point. Not that the death sentence is a good thing, rather that I find it distressing that people get stuck in prison for life with little or no meaningful appeal compared to that applied to a death sentence.

Arguing the two are not equal is a strawman. I recognized the two are not equal. My point mainly addresses the difference in scrutiny and available appeals. There is the fact that I think people put a rosy picture on the idea of being imprisoned for life with no further appeal. The chance of an inmate getting a meaningful review of the facts of his case post trial is very slim; after conviction everything changes, the only real remaining question is whether the trial was fair, questions of innocence are largely irrelevant.

There is the famous Scalia quotation:

There is no basis in text, tradition, or even contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.

So if you are convicted, and new evidence found establishing your innocence, our Chief Justice says no dice.

Even past that, the available appeals and motions for a lifer to try to get an obvious error overturned are few. It is a complex issue, but the scenerio I mentioned above where only one judge ever considers the merits of a case is not far fetched; I recently had to write a letter to a person doing life without to tell him his habeas appeal was refused by the appeals court, just like his direct appeal was refused after the trial for which he was convicted.

The kicker? His co-defendant for whom the evidence was identical has his conviction reversed by the appeals court, as some of the evidence was unlawfully seized. He is on the street as we speak, while this guy whose trial had identical error never recieved even an expaination why his case somehow does not merit the same treatment. The court has elected to simply silently reject his last appeal.

Since the error is based in state law, he has no federal remedy. He is stuck unless he were to be pardoned, and since the allegations are quite violent and cold blooded, this is unlikely. So what if he never got a fair trial, the jury convicted him, right?

This is not uncommon.

Sure, a death sentence should get higher scrutiny than a life sentence, but that life sentence should get greater scrutiny than a 1-3 sentence for a 3rd DUI, but it doesn't. That is what bothers me. Ripping someone from their family and home and depriving them of freedom for the remainder of their life is a drastic act. If they get a death sentence they generally get full scrutiny and if found wanting they die after about 14 years or so. If they get a life sentence they get less scrutiny and wind up living maybe another 20 years or so longer (I couldn't find statistics on the life expectancy of lifers - I can say from my experience it isn't a pretty picture).

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Suddenly
My point mainly addresses the difference in scrutiny and available appeals. There is the fact that I think people put a rosy picture on the idea of being imprisoned for life with no further appeal. The chance of an inmate getting a meaningful review of the facts of his case post trial is very slim; after conviction everything changes, the only real remaining question is whether the trial was fair, questions of innocence are largely irrelevant.I've got a clearer picture now...so in practical terms a death penalty may be *fairer* and afford more opportunities to the wrongly accused than a life sentence. This seems like a very unreasonable twist to the legal system and only makes the DP more ironic as an ultimate punishment.

If they get a death sentence they generally get full scrutiny and if found wanting they die after about 14 years or so.

I didn't realise death row inmates had such a long wait for their demise. We haven't had the death penalty here for a long time.

Sure, a death sentence should get higher scrutiny than a life sentence, but that life sentence should get greater scrutiny than a 1-3 sentence for a 3rd DUI, but it doesn't. That is what bothers me. Ripping someone from their family and home and depriving them of freedom for the remainder of their life is a drastic act.

I agree with you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Claus, et al who are opposed to the death penalty, I want to clarify that I am undecided on the issue.

mmm...k.

Originally posted by Luke T.
The way I see it, on the pro-death penalty side it boils down to pure vengeance. Everything else is window dressing with the exception of the "deterrent" factor. But as it stands right now, I think the death penalty has a neglible deterring influence on crime. To increase the deterring influence, we must greatly increase the number of executions.

The number of people put on death row far exceeds the possible number of executions. There are currently between 3,000 and 4,000 people on death row in the US, and with "only" about 500 people being executed since 1977. See the problem?

Originally posted by Luke T.
On the anti-death penalty side, it boils down to killing someone being a "sin." Whether the killing is committed by a murderer or by the government. And whether you like it or not, secular humanists don't have much space for lecturing about moral issues. They have watered morality down to a weak "values" mish-mash in too many venues to be taken seriously on the death penalty. The only anti-death penalty lobby that has great moral force is the Catholic Church. And even the intervention of the Pope himself in several U.S. executions has resulted in no effect as far as I know.

I object strongly to your claim that secular humanists are weak on morality. Is a religious belief a necessity for being a moral person? If that is the case, the prisons should be overflowing with atheists, right? Can you show me any data that proves this?

That would also make skeptics (most skeptics are non-believers) morally dodgy, wouldn't it? Hmmm...you like to hang out with us bad guys, Luke? :)

Originally posted by Luke T.
I agree 100% with Skeptic that death row abolitionists have no place "forgiving" people on death row. Especially if the person they are forgiving isn't even seeking forgiveness and continues to claim innocence when they are clearly guilty. This is not a penitence worth forgiving, and only makes the anti-death penalty people look like suckers at best and immoral at worst.

I don't think it is merely a question of "forgiving", but "you did a crime, you serve the penalty, you have paid your debt to society".

Originally posted by Luke T.
Aside from there not being enough executions to be a deterrent, we have the added problem of innocent people being jailed more frequently than is commonly known. Thank goodness for DNA analysis.

Indeed. But why have executions if they don't serve as a deterrent? Going to jail is actually a pretty strong deterrent for most people: It not only takes away your freedom, it wrecks the lives of your family as well.

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is the fact that DNA has freed a few innocent people that makes me believe we should place a moratorium on executions. If there are non-death row prisoners who have been proven innocent, then we must consider the possibility there are death row prisoners who may be innocent.

Not a "few". Remarkably many in a very short time:

The Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/)

"The Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992, is a non-profit legal clinic. This Project only handles cases where postconviction DNA testing of evidence can yield conclusive proof of innocence."

Today, 138 people have been freed. Here are their sentences (extracted from their database):

Sentence:
Sentence:
Sentence: 10 - 15 years
Sentence: 10 - 20 years
Sentence: 10 - 20 years
Sentence: 10-20 years
Sentence: 10.5 years
Sentence: 100 years
Sentence: 11 years to life
Sentence: 115 years
Sentence: 118 years
Sentence: 119 years
Sentence: 12 - 18 years
Sentence: 12 - 24 years
Sentence: 12 years
Sentence: 12 years
Sentence: 12 years
Sentence: 12-24 years
Sentence: 12.5 - 20 years
Sentence: 14 - 35 years
Sentence: 15 - 25 years
Sentence: 15 - Life
Sentence: 15 years
Sentence: 15 years to Life
Sentence: 18-42 years
Sentence: 2 Life
Sentence: 2 Life, plus 203-335 years
Sentence: 20 - 50 years
Sentence: 20 - Life
Sentence: 20 years
Sentence: 20.5 - 41 years
Sentence: 210 years
Sentence: 25 - 50 years
Sentence: 25 years
Sentence: 25 years
Sentence: 25-50 years
Sentence: 25-50 years
Sentence: 26 - 45 years
Sentence: 27 years
Sentence: 298
Sentence: 3 Life +
Sentence: 3,200 years
Sentence: 3.5 - 7 years
Sentence: 30
Sentence: 30 - 60 years
Sentence: 30 years
Sentence: 30 years
Sentence: 30 years
Sentence: 30 years
Sentence: 30 years
Sentence: 30 years
Sentence: 32 years
Sentence: 35 years
Sentence: 35 years
Sentence: 36 years
Sentence: 39 years
Sentence: 40 years
Sentence: 40 years
Sentence: 40 years +
Sentence: 40-60 years
Sentence: 400 years
Sentence: 400 years
Sentence: 45 years
Sentence: 45 years
Sentence: 45 years
Sentence: 45 years
Sentence: 47 years
Sentence: 48 years
Sentence: 5 years
Sentence: 5-10 years
Sentence: 5-10 years
Sentence: 5-10 years
Sentence: 5-10 years
Sentence: 5-15 years
Sentence: 50 years
Sentence: 55 years
Sentence: 55 years
Sentence: 60 Plus
Sentence: 60 years
Sentence: 60 years
Sentence: 60 years
Sentence: 65 years
Sentence: 70 years
Sentence: 70 years
Sentence: 72-80 years
Sentence: 75 years
Sentence: 78 - 190 years
Sentence: 8 years
Sentence: 80 years
Sentence: 9 - 25 years
Sentence: 9 - 25 years
Sentence: 9 years
Sentence: 99 years
Sentence: 99 years
Sentence: 99 years
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death
Sentence: Death (Murder) 60 years (Rape); 60 years (Dev. Sex. Assault); 30 years (Agg. Kidnap); 15 years (Agg. Kidnap); 30 years (Agg. Indecent Liberties with Child); 15 years (Residential Burglary); 15 years (Agg. Crim. Sex. Abuse); 60 years (Crim. Sex. Abuse)
Sentence: Death (plus 21 years)
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life
Sentence: Life +
Sentence: Life +
Sentence: Life +
Sentence: Life +
Sentence: Life +
Sentence: Life plus
Sentence: Life plus 54 years
Sentence: Life w/o parole
Sentence: Life x2
Sentence: Not Sentenced
Sentence: Various

We are not talking small-time crooks here: 12 people on death row have been exonerated. 32 with a life sentence. Quite a few with sentences so long that it is in fact a life sentence. (How on earth can you sentence someone to 3,200 years?? Do they keep his rotting body in the cell or something?)

Over a third of those exonerated, Luke.

It is not a possibility that there are death row prisoners who may be innocent. 12 have already been found.

What, you thought I wouldn't check? ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It isn't murder. Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of an INNOCENT life. This doesn't apply to executions any more than it applies to self-defense.

Really? Do you consider the Nürnberg Laws OK, then? If a state decides to get rid of all jews, that's OK?

Originally posted by Skeptic
Up to a point, yet! But suppose you take this argument to its logical conclusion, and simply abolish all criminal laws, under the philosophy that a society that forgives the most would surely be the strongest. It is not hard to imagine that the result would be anarchy.

"Slippery slope" and "excluded middle". You could also turn that about and say that everything was forbidden, ergo no crime would be committed.

Originally posted by Skeptic
In the US, leniency IS extended to the vast majority of murderers. It is rare to get the death penalty. That is usually reserved to extremely cruel and vindictive criminals. To forgive them as well would not be making society stronger, but merely encourages anarchy.

Really? Then why don't we see this "anarchy" in societies with no death penalty? Is there more anarchy in the US states with no death penalty?

Originally posted by Skeptic
The reason is, as C. S. Lewis said in "reflections on the pslams", that when people begin to suspect that the law is too forgiving and is more concerned with the rights of the criminal than with those of the victims, they tend to take it into their own hands--and you can hardly blame them, too.

Can I see some data on this, please?

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yeah, I'm sure psychopathic serial killers are SO moved by the pleas of the victim's families, and that the victims families really want nothing more than to associate with them all the time for the next fifty years. One of the reason to execute them is precisely so that the relatives of their victims will NOT have to spend another minute dealing and thinking about them.

It isn't just psychopathic serial killers who are on death row. Far from it.

I think you are forgetting why the victims are not the ones passing judgment: It is not just to have justice for them, but for society, too.

Originally posted by Skeptic
And what's this "make them realize" nonsense, anyway? What are they--schoolchildren who "didn't realize" they are hurting people? What the killer "realizes" or not is of no importance. Punishing him appropriately for his crime is.

So, you place no value on the concept of redemption? A crime of passion should always be punished "appropriately"? Are you aware that many of the people on death row are mentally retarded? Your stance raises more problems than it solves.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why "not guilt, but responsibility"? They're guilty, aren't they?

Justice is one thing in one state, and another in another. You are not pointing towards justice in a universal sense, are you?

Originally posted by Skeptic
"Responsibility" is something you have when you need to hand in a school paper or a work project on time. You "betray your responsibility to society" when you cheat on your taxes. When you viciously murder innocent people, you are not "betraying your responsibility to you, me, everyone". You're guilty of murder of your victims.

Why not? What's the difference? You overstep boundaries in each case. A killer like you describes definitely betrays his responsibility towards me, you, everyone: Not to kill.

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm sure they're all squirming in shame from this awful insult. Again, think this one through: if treating the criminal better than he treated us is the "real" punishment for the crime, why put them in jail at all? Why not give every killer a million dollars? That would REALLY be treating him better than he treated us, and, therefore, would be a worse punishment, would it not?

Because society also has to protect itself from criminals.

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'd say "killing them" is a bigger penalty, mostly because the vast majority of those on death row couldn't care less about the crime they committed, and never would. 99.99% of convicted killers sentenced to death who appeal their sentence endlessly seem to agree with me.

Please point to the data you base your number on.

Originally posted by Skeptic
They don't become "lore". The vast majority of them are quickly, and deservedly, forgotten by virtually everybody. There have been almost 600 executions in the US since 1977--can you name five of them without checking?

Ah, you couldn't check if I had checked! :) Whether they become lore is not merely up to themselves, it is also a question of media, and sometimes politics.

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is, in fact, one of the most common statements of the victims' relatives that now that the killer is dead, they can STOP thinking about him all the time.

Please point to the surveys that show this.

Originally posted by Skeptic
So why do they all--or at least the vast, vast majority of them--appeal their sentences to the last possible minute? This doesn't seem to me like "not giving a damn about being executed"...
...snip...
People commit crimes for all kinds of reasons, and the vast majority of them, when they commit it, are sure they won't be caught, let alone executed. Since only a tiny minority of murderers are executed anyway, and that after years and years of appeal, possible execution is a minor concern to would-be killers.

Are you saying that people don't fear the law? That would mean anarchy, right? Do you see this anarchy?

Originally posted by Skeptic
You want them to fear execution? Make it the case that the vast majority of murderers are quickly executed. If you do not believe this should be the case (and I DON'T think it should be), and you think that only especially henious crimes should be so punished (as I do) and only after extensive judicial review (as I do), you cannot then complain that it "doesn't detter". That's wanting to have it both ways.

But I am not wanting it both ways: I don't want them to fear execution, because I don't want to have people executed at all.

Originally posted by Skeptic
OF COURSE such rare, ten-years-down-the-road executions do not deter criminals by much; that's not the point. The criminal is executed because he deserves to be executed, not as a deterrant to others. If deterrance was the point, one could just as well execute innocent people as guilty ones--a point totalitarian countries learned long ago.

I have to admit that I am baffled by your assertion that the prospect of being put in jail is not a deterrent.

Originally posted by Skeptic
The relatives of his victims, knowing that their loved one is dead while the killer is being fed, clothed, and watches TV on their tax money; fearing that he might escape, be paroled, or otherwise return to cause more mischief.

But what if he is innocent? As I showed Luke, there are in fact people on death row who were proved innocent.

Originally posted by Skeptic
That's one out of 600. Name another four without looking them up. But, again, whether WE remember or not is not the point. What matters is what the FAMILIES OF HIS VICTIMS remember. And, to repeat, executing the criminal--including Bundy--means to most of the victims a reprieve, an ability to finally sleep well at night without fearing of hearing that he escaped again.

Not fair: I have read a lot about serial killers. :)

Are you saying that society is unimportant in justice? That a criminal should only be punished according to what the victims need to make them sleep again at night? Should they not fear a rapist, so let's execute him too?

Originally posted by Skeptic
Precisely. And justice IS executing Ted Bundy. No lesser punishment, in his case, could be more than an open mockery of his numerous victims. Bundy killed probably 100 victims or so. If he had gotten life, years, that would mean six months per murder--far less than you'd get for drunken driving or writing bad checks.

As far as I am informed, you are only guilty of the crimes you are convicted for, even in the US. Your calculation is based on speculation, and therefore makes your point invalid.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Not much of a loss, in the case of most death row inmates. They were animals (and far worse than animals) when they committed the crime. I fail to see why saving their previous "humanity" by letting them live is going to improve things.

Because we can? Or at least try? Which people do you consider "animals", so we can kill them? Just murderers?

Originally posted by Skeptic
Consider Ted Bundy again. Was sentencing him to die what made him an "animal"... or his mass murder, long before he was "treated like an animal" by anybody?

We have to understand why he did it. We might just be able to prevent it from happening again.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Justice, by punishing the criminal as he deserves.

Again, you must realize that the concept of justice is (somewhat) arbitrary. It varies from place to place. That raises the problem of what justice is.

Originally posted by Skeptic
That's funny; in that case, how come the vast majority of the families of the victims who had the killer sentenced to death are strongly FOR the killers' execution? Are they all being irrational, for wanting the killer punished "only one day" and not "each and every day"? Would you care to explain to one such family why they're being "irrational" and don't know what they "really" want?

Why? Because they are (understandably) pissed off? Do you think they act rationally? Far from it - that's why we need a judicial system to take care of it. Or do you advocate that the victims should decide and carry out the sentences?

Originally posted by Skeptic
Hey, scratch that; if it's REALLY so much worse punishment, why are there so many people who oppose executions and claim to be friends, or at least stmpathetic, to the criminal? Why was sister Helen Prejean, for example, who wrote "Dead Man Walking", fighting AGAINST Patrick Sonnier's execution and not FOR it, if life without parole is so much worse than death? Did she hate him and want him to suffer more by staying in prison?

I don't know, I haven't read her book. Could it be that she believed he could be saved?

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, the reason is that this "he is punished every day instead of only one day" is merely a cute phrase. It means "I think life in prison is worse than the death penalty". But that's just not true, as is rather obvious to everybody, since most people consider virtually any life better than death--including the 99% of death row inmates who appeal their sentence, the 99% of victim's families who oppose the appeal, and the 100% of death penalty opponents who fight to "save" an inmate. Do you really think that they are doing it solely because they think life in prison is WORSE than the death penalty? Or are they doing it because they know very well it is precisely the opposite?

Please point to your data. You keep rattling on about numbers, but you never show your data to back it up. If you want to talk numbers, let's talk numbers. I already presented some for Luke. Now, let's see yours.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Your entire argument, in fact, rests on this obviously fallacious premise, that somehow life in prison and treating the criminal better than he treated his victim is a worse punishment than the death penalty. It isn't; so your entire argument falls to the ground.

As far as I see it, you have failed miserably in your argumentation: You point to data, but never show it. You use logical fallacies en masse.