The death penalty.

[Cainkane1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40071693/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

I'm normally against the death penalty but I do have my exceptions. This man and Dennis Rader are two of them.

[Pardalis]

They also said Hayes was remorseful and actually wanted a death sentence.

Hard to argue against that.

[I Ratant]

The finality of the penalty should be foremost in the minds of the prosecutors.
Too often, these guys will use faulty to imaginary evidence to get a conviction for political purposes.
That is and will be a problem.
But there's way too many people who just need killing!
Were we able to be certain of their guilt...
CA is agonizing right now about the use of lethal injection.
Their drugs are out of date.
Rope doesn't have a 'use by' date. :)

[commandlinegamer]

It's a farce. Years, possibly decades, in prison before execution. In the UK, it was generally carried out within a few weeks of passing sentence. And IIRC, more recently in China, in two separate cases involving school massacres, those found guilty were put to death within a month.

[Rolfe]

There are always going to be people who aren't exactly the poster-children for the anti-death-penalty movement, shall we say. That doesn't mean that the case against the death penalty is weakened.

Rolfe.

[Thunder]

Death penalty costs more than life in prison.

We also frequently convict the wrong guy.

This is why I am against the death penalty.

[Two Toed Sloth]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40071693/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

I'm normally against the death penalty but I do have my exceptions. This man and Dennis rader are tow of them.

At what point do you think murder by the state is justifiable?

Does it not strike you as ironic that the punishment for killing someone may be for someone else to kill you?

Is it only okay as a form of vengeance? Or do you think there are pragmatic justifications?

[Cainkane1]

It's a farce. Years, possibly decades, in prison before execution. In the UK, it was generally carried out within a few weeks of passing sentence. And IIRC, more recently in China, in two separate cases involving school massacres, those found guilty were put to death within a month.
By the looks of this jerk if they wait say as long as 10 years to execute him he'll die of natural causes.

[Two Toed Sloth]

By the looks of this jerk if they wait say as long as 10 years to execute him he'll die of natural causes.

Do you have a problem with that?

If he dies either way he would no longer be a threat to the rest of society.

Would you rather he be put to death and if so why?

[I Ratant]

At what point do you think murder by the state is justifiable?

Does it not strike you as ironic that the punishment for killing someone may be for someone else to kill you?

Is it only okay as a form of vengeance? Or do you think there are pragmatic justifications?
.
There isn't any way to regress to just before the crime, and prevent it.
What's done is done.
Sociopaths need to be restrained.
The worst ones get the ultimate restraint.
Too many really bad ones do their time, and then do the crime again.
Restraint methods need work too.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm glad someone finally started a thread on this topic. :)

[Emet]

At what point do you think murder by the state is justifiable?

Does it not strike you as ironic that the punishment for killing someone may be for someone else to kill you?

Is it only okay as a form of vengeance? Or do you think there are pragmatic justifications?

Ahh, flashback to the 60's: Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing is wrong? :cool:

I continue to oppose the death penalty. In the US, I believe it is a minority opinion.

[Cainkane1]

Do you have a problem with that?

If he dies either way he would no longer be a threat to the rest of society.

Would you rather he be put to death and if so why?
I want his fellow inmates to do it. Going under the needle is too easy. I mean he burned children alive after they were sexually assaulted.

[TragicMonkey]

Ahh, flashback to the 60's: Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing is wrong? :cool:

I continue to oppose the death penalty. In the US, I believe it is a minority opinion.

Depends on your state. Not all of them have the death penalty, which seems to indicate the majority in those places doesn't favor it.

[Two Toed Sloth]

I want his fellow inmates to do it. Going under the needle is too easy. I mean he burned children alive after they were sexually assaulted.

Why? What do you think that would do, the victims are dead, what's done is done, he has displayed that he is unable to live in a civilised society and should be kept separate from it for the protection of others.

He should not be killed just to satisfy your cathartic needs.

[Mark6]

Is it only okay as a form of vengeance? Or do you think there are pragmatic justifications?
I do. Some people are simply too dangerous to keep alive, even in prison.

[Sledge]

I do. Some people are simply too dangerous to keep alive, even in prison.

How so?

[Cainkane1]

Why? What do you think that would do, the victims are dead, what's done is done, he has displayed that he is unable to live in a civilised society and should be kept separate from it for the protection of others.

He should not be killed just to satisfy your cathartic needs.
An eye for an eye I say. Not really but it wouldn't bother me if I heard he had been shived in the back.

[Mark6]

The finality of the penalty should be foremost in the minds of the prosecutors.
Too often, these guys will use faulty to imaginary evidence to get a conviction for political purposes.
And it's not limited to capital cases. See "Duke Lacrosse team".

I find the fundamental problem that in US a prosecutor is an elected position. It creates a conflict of interest -- between serving justice and winning re-election.

[Cainkane1]

At what point do you think murder by the state is justifiable?

Does it not strike you as ironic that the punishment for killing someone may be for someone else to kill you?

Is it only okay as a form of vengeance? Or do you think there are pragmatic justifications?
Murder under aggravating circumstances when the victim is a child and the victim was tortured.

[Mark6]

How so?
How many murders are committed in prison? Particularly by convicts who are already serving life without parole (and thus have nothing to lose)?

[I Ratant]

An eye for an eye I say. Not really but it wouldn't bother me if I heard he had been shived in the back.
.
Considering what inmates have been known to do to each during riots, only a shiv would be a blessing!

[Two Toed Sloth]

I do. Some people are simply too dangerous to keep alive, even in prison.

Evidence?

Are you talking about people breaking out of prison, or being a danger to other inmates or something I've missed.

If it is people breaking out then I would say we need more secure prisons.

If it is the danger they pose to other inmates then what about solitary confinement. Or just lock them in a cell, throw in some food and water daily and don't let them out.

[brenn]

Death penalty costs more than life in prison.

We also frequently convict the wrong guy.

This is why I am against the death penalty.

The "death penalty" costs very little - even with employee overtime and travel for execution team members, it wouldn't cost as much as a month in prison. This is a myth generated by anti-execution activists.

The cost is in anti-death penalty litigation and that is because the government is paying both sides of the tab AND, more importantly, allowing government funds and appointed attorneys for purposes that are not constitutionally required. An inmate sentenced to death is entitled to no more appeals than any other, but for some reason we voluntarily allow government funded attorneys to spend millions of dollars on a standardized list of delaying actions that often go on for 20+ years - apparently every inmate on our death row has (a) been represented by the most incompetent attorney in history (b) just discovered he was mentally retarded and/or mentally ill at the time of the crime (c) just realized that some evidence disposed of in 1980 might have had DNA on it, etc., etc.

Frequently convict the wrong guy? Got a statistic on what you'd call frequent? here, even the few inmates we've released aftert the "innocnece project" took up their case have included some that were "probably" not guilty (far from clearly innocent) and at least one who definitely did it, but his lengthy, post conviction, hand-written confession was not admissible.

[Mark6]

Murder under aggravating circumstances when the victim is a child and the victim was tortured.
As the matter of fact, I do not believe that viciousness of murder, or age of victim, should have any bearing on deciding death penalty. Only likelyhood of murderer killing again. If anything, a child-only killer is not a candidate for death penalty, IMO. It's not like he will find any children in prison to kill.

[brenn]

At what point do you think murder by the state is justifiable?

Does it not strike you as ironic that the punishment for killing someone may be for someone else to kill you?

Is it only okay as a form of vengeance? Or do you think there are pragmatic justifications?

No, it does not strike me as ironic.

We kill people for the same reasons we send thieves or spouse abusers to prison to (a) prevent them from committing the same crime again (prevention) (b) show potential criminals what will happen if they do it (deterrence) (c) basic fairness for victims - you should not be able to kill and get away with it (retribution).

An argument that we should not kill as punishment applies equally to every type of punishment.

[Mark6]

Evidence?

Are you talking about people breaking out of prison, or being a danger to other inmates

Mostly the latter.

If it is the danger they pose to other inmates then what about solitary confinement. Or just lock them in a cell, throw in some food and water daily and don't let them out.
I am actually okay with that. But the rare cases where US actually does that, it is controversial as cruel and unusual punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax)

[Two Toed Sloth]

No, it does not strike me as ironic.

We kill people for the same reasons we send thieves or spouse abusers to prison to (a) prevent them from committing the same crime again (prevention) (b) show potential criminals what will happen if they do it (deterrence) (c) basic fairness for victims - you should not be able to kill and get away with it (retribution).

An argument that we should not kill as punishment applies equally to every type of punishment.

This seems misleading.
I wasn't saying it was bad because it is ironic (and I still think it is and can't understand how you stretch the meaning of irony to no longer encompass this ).
Why not just prevention, I do not think human life should be used as a deterrent and retribution is utterly pointless.

[Alt+F4]

We also frequently convict the wrong guy.

In this case, it's not the wrong guy.

[Alt+F4]

Would you rather he be put to death and if so why?

Research the details of this particular case, particulary brutal.

[Two Toed Sloth]

Research the details of this particular case, particulary brutal.

I have already read the article that was linked to, do you suggest further research?

I also am not basing my argument on the severity of the crime so it seems irrelevant.

[Alt+F4]

I have already read the article that was linked to, do you suggest further research?

I also am not basing my argument on the severity of the crime so it seems irrelevant.

The Hartford Courant has done an excellent job covering this case in detail from the begining. Despite the death penalty sentence, it's more likely Hayes will die in prison instead.

http://www.courant.com/

[Emet]

Depends on your state. Not all of them have the death penalty, which seems to indicate the majority in those places doesn't favor it.

Yes, I know. But while I may be wrong, I believe national polls show a majority favor the death penalty.

[autumn1971]

The USA is the only "civilized" country (in quotes because the inclusion of the US weakens the arguments for differentiating between civilized and uncivilized countries,) which still uses the death penalty. The US is also the country with the worst violent crime rate, by far, of all civilized nations. The death penalty, and the incredibly harsh treatment of criminals in the US Justice system, is evidence that these methods have failed to provide any deterrent at all. The only logical conclusion is that the opposite is true; given the vicious treatment of anyone deemed a criminal in the US, there isn't much difference between minor assaults and murder, and the deterrent effect is weakened.

[Alt+F4]

...given the vicious treatment of anyone deemed a criminal in the US, there isn't much difference between minor assaults and murder...

Oh really? How about some evidence to back up this statement.

[Sledge]

How many murders are committed in prison? Particularly by convicts who are already serving life without parole (and thus have nothing to lose)?

I'm not sure why you're asking me.

[Two Toed Sloth]

The Hartford Courant has done an excellent job covering this case in detail from the begining. Despite the death penalty sentence, it's more likely Hayes will die in prison instead.

http://www.courant.com/

Yes they did a good job, nothing there that changes my mind though.
If it we set the standard that it is wrong to kill someone they we should abide by that standard ourselves, especially when there is the prison system already in place to protect the public.
You must be killed for the good of others is not a good enough reason.

[Segnosaur]

The USA is the only "civilized" country ... which still uses the death penalty. The US is also the country with the worst violent crime rate, by far, of all civilized nations. The death penalty, and the incredibly harsh treatment of criminals in the US Justice system, is evidence that these methods have failed to provide any deterrent at all.
Ummm... I don't think you can use the U.S. as an example of the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Not all states have the death penalty, and the states that do will often take years if not decades to actually execute someone.

Not that I think that the death penalty actually is a deterrent (I don't see convincing evidence either way), just that your argument is flawed.

[Segnosaur]

At what point do you think murder by the state is justifiable?
A little context here might be valuable...

Usually when a murderer takes a life, it is done for his own benefit with little or no forethought. When a person is executed, it is (in theory) done with certain legal mechanisms in place to prevent wrongful executions.

Not that I'm saying I'm for or against capital punishment, but labeling it 'murder' is no more accurate than calling a soldier involved in a war a 'murderer' if they kill people operating under valid orders.

Does it not strike you as ironic that the punishment for killing someone may be for someone else to kill you?[/quote]
Not any more ironic than the penalty for kidnapping/hostage taking is to arrest someone and keep them confined to a prison (which is pretty much what kidnapping was to begin with, isn't it?)

And not any more ironic than taking a person or company that has stolen and making them pay a fine.

[Rolfe]

It's not about whether this guy was definitely guilty or not, or how ghastly the crime was. It's about allowing the thin edge of the wedge that inevitably leads to the not-so-definitely-guilty being executed because they were stitched up.

And that's even if you don't subscribe to the position that it brutalises the state to stoop to kill any of its citizens, and it brutalises those tasked with carrying out the sentence.

Rolfe.

[Alt+F4]

Not that I'm saying I'm for or against capital punishment, but labeling it 'murder' is no more accurate than calling a soldier involved in a war a 'murderer' if they kill people operating under valid orders.

You're right, capital punishment is not murder, it's homocide (the killing of one person by another). Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. One may not agree with the law, but if there is a capital punishment law in the jurisdiction, it's not murder.

[Two Toed Sloth]

A little context here might be valuable...

Usually when a murderer takes a life, it is done for his own benefit with little or no forethought. When a person is executed, it is (in theory) done with certain legal mechanisms in place to prevent wrongful executions.

Not that I'm saying I'm for or against capital punishment, but labeling it 'murder' is no more accurate than calling a soldier involved in a war a 'murderer' if they kill people operating under valid orders.


Damn good point, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as murder.



Not any more ironic than the penalty for kidnapping/hostage taking is to arrest someone and keep them confined to a prison (which is pretty much what kidnapping was to begin with, isn't it?)

And not any more ironic than taking a person or company that has stolen and making them pay a fine.

Well yes those things are also ironic I suppose, but as I have said I'm not against capital punishment because it is ironic. I oppose executions as there is the option of life imprisonment (Which covers the protection aspect).

The argument for capital punishment as a deterrent does not seem to always gel with the statistics;
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085

Wouldn't a better deterrent be to show footage of criminals being tortured?

[dtugg]

While there are good arguments against the death penalty, the argument that the state shouldn't stoop to the level of the murderer is an absolutely ridiculous one. I think that we all agree that citizens shouldn't imprison each other. Yet the penalty for doing that is imprisoning the imprisoner for years maybe decades. Does that mean that the state is stooping to the level of the kidnapper and thus it shouldn't do it?

[Cainkane1]

While there are good arguments against the death penalty, the argument that the state shouldn't stoop to the level of the murderer is an absolutely ridiculous one. I think that we all agree that citizens shouldn't imprison each other. Yet the penalty for doing that is imprisoning the imprisoner for years maybe decades. Does that mean that the state is stooping to the level of the kidnapper and thus it shouldn't do it?
Good point. I'm not a fan of the death penalty but the murderers in this case are poster boys for said death penalty. Murder under circumstances as aggravating as in this case is about as close to justifying the death penalty as a criminal can get. Dennis Rader is in the same category.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

There's a big difference between the overall "systematic" question of the death penalty, and individual cases. As always, anecdotes don't make for great arguments for or against a broader issue. I definitely agree in this case... I won't shed a tear if this guy (and his partner once he's tried) is put down, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any question about whether they are guilty.

[dtugg]

Yes I agree. I don't have a problem with removing the trash, in fact I would advocate the death penalty for all first degree murderers (amoung other crimes), if not for the fact that inocent people would also get executed. With this case though, I think it is too bad that there probably is no hell and that the US Constitution prevents making a hell on Earth for these monsters. We, unfortunately, will have to settle with making them not exist anymore.

[Rufo]

Based on Hayes' attitude and reaction, I'd consider this a case of euthanasia, if anything. He has already tried to take his own life, and would likely have tried again if he was not promised that it would be done for him; perhaps he'll do it again anyway, given the time that may pass until his execution.

I oppose the death penalty, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Even without all the general arguments against executing people, it appears that this man wants to die, and while it might seem callous, I see no reason to arrange that for him.

As for the other person mentioned in the OP, Dennis Rader, I believe he is in solitary confinement and will likely remain so for the rest of his life. I find it unlikely he will harm anyone again.

[Cainkane1]

Based on Hayes' attitude and reaction, I'd consider this a case of euthanasia, if anything. He has already tried to take his own life, and would likely have tried again if he was not promised that it would be done for him; perhaps he'll do it again anyway, given the time that may pass until his execution.

I oppose the death penalty, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Even without all the general arguments against executing people, it appears that this man wants to die, and while it might seem callous, I see no reason to arrange that for him.

As for the other person mentioned in the OP, Dennis Rader, I believe he is in solitary confinement and will likely remain so for the rest of his life. I find it unlikely he will harm anyone again.
Being segragated in a small cell sounds horrible but the bad guy is safe and with a TV, a radio, and books and magazines it isn't as horrible as it could be. I'd rather be dead myself but thats just me.

[Worm]

No nation that executes its citizens can truly call itself civilized.

By killing them, we fail them, and we fail ourselves.

[Rolfe]

What he said.

Rolfe.

[I Ratant]

No nation that executes its citizens can truly call itself civilized.

By killing them, we fail them, and we fail ourselves.
.
What can be done to eliminate the situations that lead to the situations that have traditionally resulted in the death penalty?
Deterrence is a well-documented failure.

[Rolfe]

People used to be sentenced to death for stealing a sheep. Is that what you're talking about?

Rolfe.

[Corsair 115]

Show me a Ted Bundy and you've shown me someone who very much deserves to be put to death for his crimes.

I don't object to the death penalty per se, but to my mind it should be a rarely applied punishment, reserved for only the worst of crimes and only in those cases where guilt is demonstrated beyond almost any doubt.

[Two Toed Sloth]

Show me a Ted Bundy and you've shown me someone who very much deserves to be put to death for his crimes.

I don't object to the death penalty per se, but to my mind it should be a rarely applied punishment, reserved for only the worst of crimes and only in those cases where guilt is demonstrated beyond almost any doubt.

But why? To what end?

Prison is protection to the rest of society

It seems not to work as a deterrent.

Revenge is pointless.

[Pardalis]

Show me a Ted Bundy and you've shown me someone who very much deserves to be put to death for his crimes.

Speaking of Bundy, IIRC, he committed some of his crimes in states that had the death penalty with the deliberate intention to get executed if caught.

[Cainkane1]

But why? To what end?

Prison is protection to the rest of society

It seems not to work as a deterrent.

Revenge is pointless.
There have been many murders done to fellow inmates and guards and other staff in prison. If someone is in prison for life with no other punishment then why should they worry about killing someone else? These in prison murdetrs have happened even in maximum security prisons.

Also its not revenge it the proper punishment for a heineous crime.

[Alt+F4]

Prison is protection to the rest of society.

Tell that to the families of Lisa Levy, Margaret Bowman and Kimberly Leach. They are the women (actually Leach was a child) that Ted Bundy murdered after escaping from jail.

[LukeB]

There have been many murders done to fellow inmates and guards and other staff in prison. If someone is in prison for life with no other punishment then why should they worry about killing someone else? These in prison murdetrs have happened even in maximum security prisons.
Is there any evidence that the death penalty lowers the murder rate within prisons?

[Alt+F4]

Is there any evidence that the death penalty lowers the murder rate within prisons?

Yes. The convicted is dead and therefore can't murder anyone else. It is 100% guaranteed that someone who is dead can't kill again.

[Mirrorglass]

Also its not revenge it the proper punishment for a heineous crime.

Says who? That is the question. Where does this propriety come from?

[LukeB]

Yes. The convicted is dead and therefore can't murder anyone else. It is 100% guaranteed that someone who is dead can't kill again.
I was asking for numbers, not speculation and assumptions on what you think any given convict may do in the future.

[dirtywick]

I was asking for numbers, not speculation and assumptions on what you think any given convict may do in the future.

There are too few executions and too many other variables to come up with an answer.

[Alt+F4]

I was asking for numbers, not speculation and assumptions on what you think any given convict may do in the future.

So are you asking about how many murders are committed in prison by those facing those the death penalty? Or how many people on death row are murdered?

[LukeB]

There are too few executions and too many other variables to come up with an answer.

Very true, still I think it's a pertinent question with regards to Cains point that without the death penalty people serving life in prison have nothing to lose, increasing the danger to fellow inmates and guards. The comparative murder rate amoung the prison population in states with and without the death penalty is relevant, if there's no way to come up with an answer then Cains argument is just speculation.

[Segnosaur]

Re: irony of death penalty applied to murders...
Not any more ironic than the penalty for kidnapping/hostage taking is to arrest someone and keep them confined to a prison (which is pretty much what kidnapping was to begin with, isn't it?) And not any more ironic than taking a person or company that has stolen and making them pay a fine.
Well yes those things are also ironic I suppose, but as I have said I'm not against capital punishment because it is ironic.
My apologies... It sounded like you were using the common argument used by many anti-death penalty advocates: "Its wrong for the people to kill so its wrong for the state to kill".

I oppose executions as there is the option of life imprisonment (Which covers the protection aspect).
But why should the fact that there are options automatically invalidate the need for the death penalty? Just because there are options doesn't mean that those options are any "better".

(And others have indicated that the "protection" afforded to society by using imprisonment rather than the death penalty is lacking, since deaths can be caused by convicted felons either in jail, or after escape.)
The argument for capital punishment as a deterrent does not seem to always gel with the statistics;
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085
Not sure if that's really proof either. After all, there are substantial differences in the culture and demographics of many of the states, which can probably have more of an impact than the existence of the death penalty. For example, according to your reference, Louisiana has a higher murder rate than any non-death penalty state, but it also has infrastructure problems related to the flooding.

I think the only thing that can be said is "There's no proof either way".

Personally, I have no problem with the concept of the death penalty... even if its not a deterrent, I feel that there are some individuals who's crimes are so heinous they have forfeited their right to live. The only issue is whether we can guarantee that no innocent people get executed, and that's something that will take a significant amount of evidence.

[Alt+F4]

Very true, still I think it's a pertinent question with regards to Cains point that without the death penalty people serving life in prison have nothing to lose, increasing the danger to fellow inmates and guards. The comparative murder rate amoung the prison population in states with and without the death penalty is relevant, if there's no way to come up with an answer then Cains argument is just speculation.

It's my understanding that in most states those on death row are not part of the general prison population and therefore are less likely to murder another inmate. Therefore, a death penalty sentence reduces prison murder.

[stilicho]

At what point do you think murder by the state is justifiable?

How about preventing a prisoner from escaping custody by using deadly force?

[LukeB]

It's my understanding that in most states those on death row are not part of the general prison population and therefore are less likely to murder another inmate. Therefore, a death penalty sentence reduces prison murder.

My understanding of Cains argument is that people sentanced to life imprisonment in states with capitol punishment are less likely to commit murder in prison lest they face the death penalty. Those already on death row are irrelevant.

"There have been many murders done to fellow inmates and guards and other staff in prison. If someone is in prison for life with no other punishment then why should they worry about killing someone else?"

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

No nation that executes its citizens can truly call itself civilized.

Why not?


By killing them, we fail them, and we fail ourselves.

I'm not sure that this even means anything.

[I Ratant]

Why not?



I'm not sure that this even means anything.

It comes from the "Flower Child" era, where "every man's death diminishes me" made the stoners feel so much love.
There's so many men alive today who shouldn't see tomorrow!

[dirtywick]

Very true, still I think it's a pertinent question with regards to Cains point that without the death penalty people serving life in prison have nothing to lose, increasing the danger to fellow inmates and guards. The comparative murder rate amoung the prison population in states with and without the death penalty is relevant, if there's no way to come up with an answer then Cains argument is just speculation.

I think Cain's point is poor.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-row-prisoners-old#list

Here's a list I found of 59 federal death row inmates; 8 for murders in prison, 2 of them for murder/attempted murder of staff. The majority are for particularly brutal or heinous crimes outside of prison. That alone indicates the safety of inmates and staff can be a motivator, but usually is not.

Regardless, most states with the death penalty have a single prison with death row so state to state is going to be difficult (even if you can control for gang, racial, drugs, and security differences among prison populations), and even among those some have varying sized populations of minimum to supermax security wings.

Either way I think Cain's point is poor and a rationalization for the death penalty. People believe that for some crimes the best justice is death. I don't even think that needs rationalization, it's all philosophy after that point but it's a valid position.

[Halfcentaur]

The death penalty is nothing but an emotionally driven response. It's primitive and has no place in a system that values impartial justice. It is state sanctioned revenge.

[Halfcentaur]

Ultimately, I think this topic boils down to two things(*to me). One is the notion that anything in the universe actually deserves something. The concept of "deserve" is a human illusion, justice to me has nothing to do with getting what you deserve. There is no process that takes place or progress made at the moment something get's what it deserves to get.

This leaves the death penalty as a way to get rid of a problem, a problem which is not necessary to have if you get rid of it. The question becomes then that it costs resources to keep these people alive, when they no longer deserve to be kept alive. Even if you want to divorce the idea from deserving, it comes down to cold logical question of depleting unnecessary resources. This opens a can of worms in my mind. What makes us decide what is necessary to keep alive and what to not keep alive, if something is not kept alive or dead based on what it deserves? Why keep anyone alive if they've failed to keep from violating the rules of society? Why keep someone alive for ten years, or twenty, or one?

I am not sure myself, but I don't think the death penalty should even be an option in light of the questions this creates.

[Corsair 115]

But why? To what end?


Because being executed is the punishment which best fits the heinous nature of his crimes. It really is that simple.

Punishment for offences range in accordance with the seriousness of the offence. For minor crimes, a fine, probation, or time served is judged sufficient. For other crimes, some degree of jail time is deemed appropriate. For yet more serious crimes, spending much, most, or even all of the remainder of one's life in prison is regarded as fitting punishment.

I would simply add onto that range the idea that forfeiture of one's own life is proper punishment for certain kinds of crimes.

[Two Toed Sloth]

Because being executed is the punishment which best fits the heinous nature of his crimes. It really is that simple.

Something of a reduction fallacy don't you think, people have already stated several other possible justifications, and you saying "It really is that simple" does not make it so.


Punishment for offences range in accordance with the seriousness of the offence. For minor crimes, a fine, probation, or time served is judged sufficient. For other crimes, some degree of jail time is deemed appropriate. For yet more serious crimes, spending much, most, or even all of the remainder of one's life in prison is regarded as fitting punishment.

I would simply add onto that range the idea that forfeiture of one's own life is proper punishment for certain kinds of crimes.

It seems that we have a fundamental disagreement, you seem to be implying that prison in primarily for punishment, I think prison's main function is to protect the rest of society.

[Cain]

It makes sense Republicans favor the death penalty, which is consistent with principles of efficient and limited government. Universal health-care -- healing people -- involves a take over of the economy. It's wrong. Instead the government should have the power to execute its own citizens, and I trust the state to find the right man, woman or child.

[brenn]

Yes I agree. I don't have a problem with removing the trash, in fact I would advocate the death penalty for all first degree murderers (amoung other crimes), if not for the fact that inocent people would also get executed.

Our society has eliminated the chance of wrongful conviction as much as possible and more than anywhere else on earth, ever - Europe definitely included. Nothing is 100%, but we have reduced it to a risk that is acceptable, in my opinion. Given the few, if any, real cases of modern execution of innocents, even the anti's have a hard time supporting this one with evidence. I'd guess that the chance of a random American being executed for a crime he did not commit is on par with being struck by lightning while collecting your powerball prize.


(For those who would like to respond to my last comment in standard JREF fashion, by taking the phrase "struck by lightning while collecting your powerball prize" literally - grow up.)

[brenn]

It makes sense Republicans favor the death penalty, which is consistent with principles of efficient and limited government. Universal health-care -- healing people -- involves a take over of the economy. It's wrong. Instead the government should have the power to execute its own citizens, and I trust the state to find the right man, woman or child.

In spite of your left-wing sarcasm, I do agree, literally, with that comment.

[Fishstick]

Our society has eliminated the chance of wrongful conviction as much as possible and more than anywhere else on earth, ever - Europe definitely included. Nothing is 100%, but we have reduced it to a risk that is acceptable, in my opinion. Given the few, if any, real cases of modern execution of innocents, even the anti's have a hard time supporting this one with evidence. I'd guess that the chance of a random American being executed for a crime he did not commit is on par with being struck by lightning while collecting your powerball prize.


Yet so far over 120 people have been completely exonerated from deathrow based on new evidence, over 15 of those from DNA-evidence. Between being convicted to death and exoneration is an average span of 9 years of living in uncertainty. And for what? Not having MY TAX DOLLARS going to keep someone alive for a life sentence? Well it's actually cheaper:

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

[Cain]

In spite of your left-wing sarcasm, I do agree, literally, with that comment.

We all like conviction.

[Rolfe]

Our society has eliminated the chance of wrongful conviction as much as possible and more than anywhere else on earth, ever - Europe definitely included.


:nope:

I thought when I started to read that, that this was a sarcastic post. I see it's not. Oh dear. (I've just been reading up on some infamous US miscarriages of justice, and if anything it seems even worse than in Britain, and I have to say that's some target to beat.)

Rolfe.

[brenn]

:nope:

I thought when I started to read that, that this was a sarcastic post. I see it's not. Oh dear. (I've just been reading up on some infamous US miscarriages of justice, and if anything it seems even worse than in Britain, and I have to say that's some target to beat.)

Rolfe.

You clearly don't work in the British legal system if you think it has protections for defendants on par with the U.S. Maybe some other northern Europena countries are arguable, but not the UK.

You also aren't much of a skeptic if you can't figure out why you read more stories about wrongful convictions in the U.S. and see that those stories probably say more about how much better defendants rights are protected here (not to mention a failr recent popularity of tho9se issues with the press).

[Ryokan]

I want his fellow inmates to do it. Going under the needle is too easy. I mean he burned children alive after they were sexually assaulted.

And they say sharia law would never catch on in the west.. :)

[Segnosaur]

Because being executed is the punishment which best fits the heinous nature of his crimes. It really is that simple.
Something of a reduction fallacy don't you think, people have already stated several other possible justifications, and you saying "It really is that simple" does not make it so.
The fact that some people give justifications that may or may not be valid doesn't necessarily mean that Corsair must answer to those justifications.

Put it this way... someone who is against the death penalty for the "simple" reason that its possible to execute the wrong person does not necessarily have to agree with people who claim the death penalty is wrong because its "wrong to take a life" if that's not the reason they have taken their position.

It seems that we have a fundamental disagreement, you seem to be implying that prison in primarily for punishment, I think prison's main function is to protect the rest of society.
Ummm.... why can't prisons serve more than one purpose? Why can't they be used for both "protecting society" and for punishment?

[I Ratant]

...
Ummm.... why can't prisons serve more than one purpose? Why can't they be used for both "protecting society" and for punishment?
.
Mostly they do.
While the felon is in there, we're safe.
But too frequently someone who really really needs to be there for the rest of their lives get released, and repeats the crime, or escalates it.
How to identify these hazards?
Preferrably -before- they become a hazard?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Our society has eliminated the chance of wrongful conviction as much as possible and more than anywhere else on earth, ever - Europe definitely included. Nothing is 100%, but we have reduced it to a risk that is acceptable, in my opinion. Given the few, if any, real cases of modern execution of innocents, even the anti's have a hard time supporting this one with evidence. I'd guess that the chance of a random American being executed for a crime he did not commit is on par with being struck by lightning while collecting your powerball prize.


(For those who would like to respond to my last comment in standard JREF fashion, by taking the phrase "struck by lightning while collecting your powerball prize" literally - grow up.)

I guess that's where we disagree. You think that when it comes to the justice system, the rights of the individual, the greatest right in fact, the right to life, is superceded by what you perceive to be "the greater good," so the fact that innocent people are killed by the state is "acceptable." Now obviously people are innocently jailed as well, but the difference is that they have a chance for exoneration and release, while an executed person does not.

I disagree, and find your argument strangely communistic in nature considering how vocally right wing you claim to be.

The other thing with the death penalty that bothers me is the way in which it is implemented. Minorities are executed disproportionately compared to whites. Men are executed far FAR more often than women are. Crimes against white people and women receive the death penalty more often than crimes against minorities and men. Whether or not someone gets the death penalty seems to be much more subjected to social opinions people hold (in which the lives of whites and especially women are valued above the lives of minorities and men) as opposed to actually judging the crime based on the crime itself, without taking race and gender of either the perp or the victim into account.

[Vic Vega]

Nothing is 100%, but we have reduced it to a risk that is acceptable, in my opinion.


That's easy for YOU to say. Ask some of these people what they think.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/?gclid=CKiWuPDVlqUCFeYD5Qod2nYx6Q

[Rolfe]

You clearly don't work in the British legal system if you think it has protections for defendants on par with the U.S. Maybe some other northern Europena countries are arguable, but not the UK.


You could try reading for comprehension.

I didn't say anything about the relative merits of protection for defendants in Britain vis a vis the USA. And as an aside, there's no such thing as "the British legal system". The degree of protection for defendants in both England and Scotland is diabolical, and it has just this week got a whole lot worse in Scotland.

You also aren't much of a skeptic if you can't figure out why you read more stories about wrongful convictions in the U.S. and see that those stories probably say more about how much better defendants rights are protected here (not to mention a failr recent popularity of tho9se issues with the press).


I also didn't say I read more stories about wrongful convictions in the USA. I said I'd recently been reading about some US cases. And in fact in these cases the obviously wrongfully convicted parties are still in jail - or in at least one case, executed. While at least the British cases I'm aware of have almost all been resolved.

I was making an observation that the circumstances of the wrongful US convictions I'd been reading about seemed even worse than those of the British (well, English) cases I'm aware of. This is a subjective opinion but supported by the length of time the accused have spent in custody.

Rolfe.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

While there are good arguments against the death penalty, the argument that the state shouldn't stoop to the level of the murderer is an absolutely ridiculous one. I think that we all agree that citizens shouldn't imprison each other. Yet the penalty for doing that is imprisoning the imprisoner for years maybe decades. Does that mean that the state is stooping to the level of the kidnapper and thus it shouldn't do it?

You know I'd never thought of it like that before, but that is a fair point.

[Cainkane1]

My basic feeling is this. He was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. He was convicted of capital murder under aggravating circumstances so if anyone ever deserved to be executed its these two murderers.

Ok so maybe the right thing to do would be to give him life under maximun security. I'm ok with that because its got to be a horrible fate to just sit there year after year.

However.

If he got shived in prison I would not be unhappy.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The "death penalty" costs very little - even with employee overtime and travel for execution team members, it wouldn't cost as much as a month in prison. This is a myth generated by anti-execution activists.
The cost is in anti-death penalty litigation and that is because the government is paying both sides of the tab AND, more importantly, allowing government funds and appointed attorneys for purposes that are not constitutionally required. An inmate sentenced to death is entitled to no more appeals than any other, but for some reason we voluntarily allow government funded attorneys to spend millions of dollars on a standardized list of delaying actions that often go on for 20+ years - apparently every inmate on our death row has (a) been represented by the most incompetent attorney in history (b) just discovered he was mentally retarded and/or mentally ill at the time of the crime (c) just realized that some evidence disposed of in 1980 might have had DNA on it, etc., etc.

Frequently convict the wrong guy? Got a statistic on what you'd call frequent? here, even the few inmates we've released aftert the "innocnece project" took up their case have included some that were "probably" not guilty (far from clearly innocent) and at least one who definitely did it, but his lengthy, post conviction, hand-written confession was not admissible.

Why do you say this is a myth? I've heard that it was more expensive many times, but I knew this was due to litigation, not the actual cost of the execution. Any time I saw anti death penalty literature talking about the cost of execution in detail expressly stated the cost was due to litigation. I have never heard it claimed, ever (and this is a subject I have read a lot about) that the actual EXECUTION cost more money, only that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison due to the cost of litigation.

Can you provide evidence to the contrary? Can you provide any documentation distributed by anti death penalty advocates which lies and states that the cost lies in the actual execution rather than the legal process involved, or rather than just saying in general that it is more costly for the state to have someone executed than to keep them in prison (which is true)?

[Corsair 115]

It seems that we have a fundamental disagreement, you seem to be implying that prison in primarily for punishment, I think prison's main function is to protect the rest of society.


And how it does achieve that protection? By giving those guilty of a crime a punishment which takes away their freedom.

[I Am The Scum]

Our society has eliminated the chance of wrongful conviction as much as possible and more than anywhere else on earth, ever - Europe definitely included. Nothing is 100%, but we have reduced it to a risk that is acceptable, in my opinion.

Well this is awfully misleading, isn't it? I would agree that there is no practical method of completely eliminating wrongful convictions.

However, isn't there a method of completely eliminating wrongful executions? I can think of one. It's simple, practical, and requires literally no work whatsoever.

Don't execute people.

[jharyn]

Well this is awfully misleading, isn't it? I would agree that there is no practical method of completely eliminating wrongful convictions.

However, isn't there a method of completely eliminating wrongful executions? I can think of one. It's simple, practical, and requires literally no work whatsoever.

Don't execute people.

Ask the parents of a dead child. I hope that the legislators stop listening to the bleeding heart garbage so as to make the criminals more comfortable. I love the line "lethal injection is inhumane!" that these idiots came up with.

Ever seen a murdered child's body at the scene of the crime?
Ever seen a women who had been brutally raped, tortured and murdered?

Only to find out that the person(s) who are responsible have done this before and were released?


Anyone?


Anyone at all?


They deserve sympathy why?

The number of wrongly convicted people in the USA compared to those rightfully convicted are not enough to even bother thinking about. Yes it happens. But not near enough to justify using the numbers in an argument.

Look up the Sharon Tate crime scene photos and tell me why anyone involved in that brutal murder deserves to live. Because that is what this debate is all about.

[I Am The Scum]

In the absence of any intellectual argument in the above post, I am inclined to believe it contains nothing but emotional rhetoric.

Jharyn, these are people's lives we're talking about. You can do better.

[Cainkane1]

Ask the parents of a dead child. I hope that the legislators stop listening to the bleeding heart garbage so as to make the criminals more comfortable. I love the line "lethal injection is inhumane!" that these idiots came up with.

Ever seen a murdered child's body at the scene of the crime?
Ever seen a women who had been brutally raped, tortured and murdered?

Only to find out that the person(s) who are responsible have done this before and were released?


Anyone?


Anyone at all?


They deserve sympathy why?

The number of wrongly convicted people in the USA compared to those rightfully convicted are not enough to even bother thinking about. Yes it happens. But not near enough to justify using the numbers in an argument.

Look up the Sharon Tate crime scene photos and tell me why anyone involved in that brutal murder deserves to live. Because that is what this debate is all about.
I agree with you.

[jharyn]

In the absence of any intellectual argument in the above post, I am inclined to believe it contains nothing but emotional rhetoric.

Jharyn, these are people's lives we're talking about. You can do better.


Yes. Sharon Tate and her unborn child's life.

It is an emotional issue. However, I feel no sympathy for the convicted. They are not worth a second thought.

Have you ever met one? Ever been to death row and spoken to someone there? Have you ever witnessed a complete lack of remorse for the multiple murders that put them there?

I'm talking emotional rhetoric? Where would you say your side of the argument comes from?

[Two Toed Sloth]

I'm talking emotional rhetoric? Where would you say your side of the argument comes from?

It comes from being of the opinion that an eye for an eye is wasteful, base and above all pointless.

If you have more that emotional rhetoric please present it.

[Halfcentaur]

Yes. Sharon Tate and her unborn child's life.

It is an emotional issue. However, I feel no sympathy for the convicted. They are not worth a second thought.

Have you ever met one? Ever been to death row and spoken to someone there? Have you ever witnessed a complete lack of remorse for the multiple murders that put them there?

I'm talking emotional rhetoric? Where would you say your side of the argument comes from?

Being against the death penalty is not really about feeling sympathetic or emotional for these poor little murderers. It's about rising above this pathetic primitive emotional cage our primate minds are trapped inside and ending emotional decisions that are not founded in logic but arise from irrational passion. People want to lash out and hurt those who hurt them because it's what creatures do when they are unable to resist primitive urges. Just like the criminals we are punishing were unable to resist.

[Cainkane1]

It comes from being of the opinion that an eye for an eye is wasteful, base and above all pointless.

If you have more that emotional rhetoric please present it.
Maybe I can help him. Murders happen in prison all the time even in maximum security lockups. Why not eliminate that threat to the staff and inmates serving sentences for lesser crimes?

[LukeB]

Maybe I can help him. Murders happen in prison all the time even in maximum security lockups. Why not eliminate that threat to the staff and inmates serving sentences for lesser crimes?
You still haven't provided any evidence that the death penalty effects the murder rate within prison.

[jharyn]

It's costs less to carry out the sentence than to incarcerate for how ever many years.

Permanently removes the worst criminals from society. Prisons are a part of society.

Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there. For details of these go to wwwDOTcjlfDOTorg/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

I don't know if I can paste links yet. If it doesn't work I will provide it as soon as I can.

Singapore.
Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down, so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the sub-consciousness of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?
In 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes.

[Two Toed Sloth]

It's costs less to carry out the sentence than to incarcerate for how ever many years.

As mentioned in previous posts it is the litigation which is costly, no one is saying needles are expensive.


Permanently removes the worst criminals from society. Prisons are a part of society.

Depends what you mean by part of society, care to give a clearer definition.
If you are giving a very broad definition of society then I would say that people in prison are unable to interact with society (thus in my book removing them from society, but hey that's just semantics).


Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there. For details of these go to wwwDOTcjlfDOTorg/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm


and I have posted statistics saying that it isn't a deterrent, however when I posted mine I'm pretty sure I said something to make it clear that I was aware that only some statistics show this.


Singapore.
Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down, so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the sub-consciousness of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?
In 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes.

Well gotta say that that sounds like just a lovely old place to live, a few hangings ought to be more effective then an ASBO. How about a public burning, or maybe crucifixion, now that would be a good deterrent.

[dirtywick]

Being against the death penalty is not really about feeling sympathetic or emotional for these poor little murderers. It's about rising above this pathetic primitive emotional cage our primate minds are trapped inside and ending emotional decisions that are not founded in logic but arise from irrational passion. People want to lash out and hurt those who hurt them because it's what creatures do when they are unable to resist primitive urges. Just like the criminals we are punishing were unable to resist.

Emotions aren't necessarily irrational. It's not irrational for me to be angry when something bad happens to me; it'd be irrational to be happy or sexually aroused. Likewise I don't think it's irrational to want justice or even revenge to person who caused that bad thing to happen. Emotions are a part of humans and it's rational to take measures to alleviate unpleasant emotions.

Besides which, the people who are most effected by the crimes of someone put to death aren't involved in the process of conviction or execution. Ideally unbiased and factually based convictions of comparatively horrid crimes receive worse punishments. Theft is theft, there are degrees between types, other crimes are no different. The only difference is some people feel that life imprisonment isn't the absolute worst punishment a moral society can bestow and still be moral. It's all philosophy after that point.

After all, when someone murders someone else, neither of us disagrees that the offender should be punished. It's the degree of punishment. I don't think any different emotions are involved when deciding if a punishment is appropriate or not, the same emotions are still there.

That said, you can't have it both ways in saying that it's primitive emotions that drive a person's want of the death penalty but it's coldly logical not to want it; sympathy and empathy are emotions too and as logical as any other.

[I Am The Scum]

There is nothing irrational about emotions. To look at another person and desire their death is not inherently bad. You can't control the way you feel.

Action, however, is different. Whereas a desire for revenge is not irrational, it is another matter entirely to act solely upon those desires, all the while pretending that you are not killing another human being so that you might derive pleasure from death.

[Alt+F4]

People want to lash out and hurt those who hurt them because it's what creatures do when they are unable to resist primitive urges. Just like the criminals we are punishing were unable to resist.

What "primitive urge" was Steven Hayes engaging in when he drove Jennifer Hawke-Petit to her bank to withdraw $10,000 so she could try to save her life and the lives of her daughters?

What "primitive urge" was Steven Hayes engaging in when he drove to a gas station, bought gas and poured around the house, murdering three when they never even resisted?

[Rolfe]

The number of wrongly convicted people in the USA compared to those rightfully convicted are not enough to even bother thinking about. Yes it happens. But not near enough to justify using the numbers in an argument.


Remind me not to bother petitioning on your behalf if you ever find yourself one of these people.

Rolfe.

[dirtywick]

There is nothing irrational about emotions. To look at another person and desire their death is not inherently bad. You can't control the way you feel.

Action, however, is different. Whereas a desire for revenge is not irrational, it is another matter entirely to act solely upon those desires, all the while pretending that you are not killing another human being so that you might derive pleasure from death.

I don't think you've articulated any reasoning as to where the action on a rational desire becomes an irrational action.

I think it's fine that some people feel sympathy or empathy or some sense of higher moral ground being gained are more important rational actions, but that doesn't make the opposite irrational simply because they disagree on importance.

[brenn]

Being against the death penalty is not really about feeling sympathetic or emotional for these poor little murderers. It's about rising above this pathetic primitive emotional cage our primate minds are trapped inside and ending emotional decisions that are not founded in logic but arise from irrational passion. People want to lash out and hurt those who hurt them because it's what creatures do when they are unable to resist primitive urges. Just like the criminals we are punishing were unable to resist.

Ypou CONCLUDE that it's irrational to want to kill these people, but you forgot to say why. Seems pretty logical to me, so I'd have to see your argument to udnerstand the post.

[brenn]

I don't think you've articulated any reasoning as to where the action on a rational desire becomes an irrational action.

I think it's fine that some people feel sympathy or empathy or some sense of higher moral ground being gained are more important rational actions, but that doesn't make the opposite irrational simply because they disagree on importance.

I agree - if anything, the "higher moral ground" is, as usual, more open to attack on grounds of irrationality.

[brenn]

Why do you say this is a myth? I've heard that it was more expensive many times, but I knew this was due to litigation, not the actual cost of the execution. Any time I saw anti death penalty literature talking about the cost of execution in detail expressly stated the cost was due to litigation. I have never heard it claimed, ever (and this is a subject I have read a lot about) that the actual EXECUTION cost more money, only that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison due to the cost of litigation.

Can you provide evidence to the contrary? Can you provide any documentation distributed by anti death penalty advocates which lies and states that the cost lies in the actual execution rather than the legal process involved, or rather than just saying in general that it is more costly for the state to have someone executed than to keep them in prison (which is true)?

So, using the standard JREF method, you object to the word "myth," since I probably should have called it "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification" or something more like that. Well done.

Whatever we call it, the costs are not legally required and are intentionally and voluntarily generated in order to advance opposition to executions, specifically and generally. Since the part actually connected with the legal requirements of execution (a trial and 1 appeal) are no higher than any other case and much lower than a major organized crime drug case, I call BS on the argument that all of these collateral expenses are either necessary or fairly considered as part of the cost of execution. They are a cost of a system that refuses to curtail them.

If I voluntarily get an MRI every time I slip and fall, that doesn't, IMO, give me or my doctor a legitimate basis to argue that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accident.

[Soapy Sam]

I would still appreciate an explanation of why it's immoral to painlessly execute a Brit convicted of murder and rape, but apparently just dandy to bomb Afghan villages.

I'm sure there is a good reason why this isn't racist hypocrisy.
I just can't think of one at the moment.

[Segnosaur]

Well this is awfully misleading, isn't it? I would agree that there is no practical method of completely eliminating wrongful convictions.

Well, in theory you could restrict the death penalty to only certain cases where there is no chance of mistakes being made. I'm thinking of cases (rare as they may be) where an individual is caught in the act and detained immediately by police, or where both DNA and fingerprint evidence eliminate any doubt of guilt. (Well, unless someone says "alien mind control rays made me do it".)

[dirtywick]

I would still appreciate an explanation of why it's immoral to painlessly execute a Brit convicted of murder and rape, but apparently just dandy to bomb Afghan villages.

I'm sure there is a good reason why this isn't racist hypocrisy.
I just can't think of one at the moment.

War needs it's own set of morals.

[Segnosaur]

Being against the death penalty is not really about feeling sympathetic or emotional for these poor little murderers. It's about rising above this pathetic primitive emotional cage our primate minds are trapped inside and ending emotional decisions that are not founded in logic but arise from irrational passion.

Ummm... why exactly are you assuming that those who support the death penalty are necessarily basing their opinions on "irrational passion"?

I've stated before that I'm not necessarily for the death penalty (because of the chance of wrongful conviction); however, I'm not against the concept of the death penalty. There is no "master book" that indicates what a logical punishment should be for any crime. So somewhere along the line we have to form our own opinions about what a proper punishment is for the worst possible crimes.

I find it a little ironic that you would complain about accusations that anti-death penalty advocates are motivated by "sympathy for murderers", yet you'll turn around and paint all pro-death penalty people with a brush just as wide by saying they're driven by "irrational passion".

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Ask the parents of a dead child. I hope that the legislators stop listening to the bleeding heart garbage so as to make the criminals more comfortable. I love the line "lethal injection is inhumane!" that these idiots came up with.

Ever seen a murdered child's body at the scene of the crime?
Ever seen a women who had been brutally raped, tortured and murdered?

Only to find out that the person(s) who are responsible have done this before and were released?


Anyone?


Anyone at all?


They deserve sympathy why?

The number of wrongly convicted people in the USA compared to those rightfully convicted are not enough to even bother thinking about. Yes it happens. But not near enough to justify using the numbers in an argument.

Look up the Sharon Tate crime scene photos and tell me why anyone involved in that brutal murder deserves to live. Because that is what this debate is all about.


Do you honestly not see the ridiculousness of a post which in one breath begs us to consider of the life of a murdered person, while in the next breath saying that the wrongly executed are not even worth thinking about?

This goes back to my earlier post about how feelings about the death penalty are so wrapped up in people regarding the lives of men being intrinsictly worth less than the lives of women and children, which from your post seems like what you are doing here, though I may be wrong on that one. You bemoan (as you well should) the lives of dead women and children, but a wrongly executed person (the vast majority of whom are men) are not even worthy of your consideration or sympathy.

I personally don't think turning 18 or having a Y chromosome makes someone's life less worthy of consideration.

[I Am The Scum]

Ummm... why exactly are you assuming that those who support the death penalty are necessarily basing their opinions on "irrational passion"?

Can you point out a post in this thread that elaborates on the rational basis for the action of executing a human being?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

So, using the standard JREF method, you object to the word "myth," since I probably should have called it "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification" or something more like that. Well done.

Whatever we call it, the costs are not legally required and are intentionally and voluntarily generated in order to advance opposition to executions, specifically and generally. Since the part actually connected with the legal requirements of execution (a trial and 1 appeal) are no higher than any other case and much lower than a major organized crime drug case, I call BS on the argument that all of these collateral expenses are either necessary or fairly considered as part of the cost of execution. They are a cost of a system that refuses to curtail them.

If I voluntarily get an MRI every time I slip and fall, that doesn't, IMO, give me or my doctor a legitimate basis to argue that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accident.

Well first off, even if you had an MRI every time you slipped and fell, a whole body MRI at my hospital costs around 7K, which is far less than the average cost of many other kinds of accidents. But I know what you're trying to say. So let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that WITH an MRI included, slipping and falling is the most expensive kind of accident. If ONLY YOU get an MRI every time you slip and fall, no, a doctor would not have a legitimate argument that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accidents. However, if EVERYONE, or NEARLY everyone who slipped and fell received an MRI when they slipped and fell, then a doctor WOULD have a legitimate basis to argue that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accident. Just as is the case of the death penalty.


Again, I don't see where you get "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification" considering I have not seen an anti death penalty book, web site, etc which did not explain that the cost was due to litigation. I have never seen it claimed that this was due to trial costs or execution costs alone. I have never seen it claimed that this cost was due to anything other than litigation, for which the state must incurr a great deal of cost. So, again, the fact that "it costs the state more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life" is still true. And the reason why this is true has always been well presented to me in anti death penalty literature I have read as being due to litigation.

But I'm sure you're having great fun at slandering people who disagree with you. So please, don't let me stop you from continuing with your fabricated conspiracy theories.


Edit- also, I work in finance at a major hospital. One part of my job is coming up with price estimates for the cost of a patient's care plan. There are MANY services which are not actually required for a patient's treatment, for instance, diagnostic testing, but which a patient elects to receive because it improves their quality of life, because they are being extra vigilant in their preventative care, etc. When I come up with cost estimates, I do not just include the REQUIRED elements of their treatment plan, I add in all of the non required stuff too because that's what it cost. It costs the patient and/or their insurance that money whether it's a required service or not. Just like it still costs the state the money in litigation whether it's required or not to actually perform the execution.

Quick Brenn, call the AMA! Let them know that every health care provider in the country is guilty of "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification!"

[Corsair 115]

Can you point out a post in this thread that elaborates on the rational basis for the action of executing a human being?


Is it irrational to take the position that the just penalty for a serial killer is the forfeiture of his own life? Because I cannot see at all how such a position is irrational.

[I Am The Scum]

Is it irrational to take the position that the just penalty for a serial killer is the forfeiture of his own life? Because I cannot see at all how such a position is irrational.

What is the basis for your judgment that those who kill others must in-turn be killed? You have not shown why this is true, despite your many repetitions of the claim.

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.

[Soapy Sam]

War needs it's own set of morals.

Well, that's all right then.

Let's declare war on crime. And the causes of crime.

[Soapy Sam]

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.


Why does 1 + 1 = 2?

[Two Toed Sloth]

Why does 1 + 1 = 2?

Are you suggesting that allowing the death penalty is axiomatic ???

[dirtywick]

What is the basis for your judgment that those who kill others must in-turn be killed? You have not shown why this is true, despite your many repetitions of the claim.

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.

Not "must".

Both sides agree they should be punished. Death is a form of punishment, therefore death is an option for punishment.

Well, that's all right then.

Let's declare war on crime. And the causes of crime.

I'm not sure taking "war" out of your own context is the best way to make a point.

[Two Toed Sloth]

A fair bit is being made of this 'both side want to see the criminal punished' thing. The thing is with prison the punishment is incidental, the main concern is protection to the rest of society.
The death penalty on the other hand seems largely touted as a method of retribution.

It is not that I don't want the criminal to be punished, it is that it serves no purpose.

[Soapy Sam]

dirtywick-
I'm not making a point. I'm seeking an explanation.
Why is it acceptable to kill total strangers in a country few of us ever visited, but not acceptable to kill a person who has broken numerous laws repeatedly, but happens to be British?

You have offered a response, for which, thanks- but it merely opens the whole can of worms about defining morality. Let's forget morality for a minute. I want to know why people find one acceptable, but not the other. Is it that they don't think it likely they will be bombed by the RAF, but possible they will find themselves in the dock for murder?
Is it just that Afghans don't count as human?
Is it just that most people never consider the matter at all?
Or what?

[dirtywick]

the main concern is protection to the rest of society.

Might be incidental to some more concerned with punishment. To me it's both, society needs to be protected and crimes need to be punished.

[dirtywick]

dirtywick-
I'm not making a point. I'm seeking an explanation.
Why is it acceptable to kill total strangers in a country few of us ever visited, but not acceptable to kill a person who has broken numerous laws repeatedly, but happens to be British?

You have offered a response, for which, thanks- but it merely opens the whole can of worms about defining morality. Let's forget morality for a minute. I want to know why people find one acceptable, but not the other. Is it that they don't think it likely they will be bombed by the RAF, but possible they will find themselves in the dock for murder?
Is it just that Afghans don't count as human?
Is it just that most people never consider the matter at all?
Or what?

To me they're both acceptable, though I think the death penalty isn't the best option for reasons unrelated to morality.

Anyway, war is necessary. Wars can't be fought at all if service members are expected to conduct themselves in the same way a citizen would. It's all circumstance.

[Soapy Sam]

See what I mean?
Anyway, war is necessary. Wars can't be fought at all if service members are expected to conduct themselves in the same way a citizen would.Well, we certainly wouldn't want that, would we? If wars couldn't be fought at all, lots of defence jobs would be lost...

Forgive my sarcasm. My point here is that you beautifully illustrate the assumption of the double standard I refer to. You take it for granted that war is necessary, that killing in war is acceptable and that therefore any rule or argument that militates against execution of convicts does not apply in the war context.

How do you feel about the execution of prisoners of war? Would that be less / more acceptable than execution of civilian convicts, even if the POWs had not been tried and convicted of anything?

[Halfcentaur]

What "primitive urge" was Steven Hayes engaging in when he drove Jennifer Hawke-Petit to her bank to withdraw $10,000 so she could try to save her life and the lives of her daughters?

What "primitive urge" was Steven Hayes engaging in when he drove to a gas station, bought gas and poured around the house, murdering three when they never even resisted?

What are you saying it is, the force of evil? Yes, it is biological urges that drive these people to do these things. Animals are sadistic, at times, apes especially so. We only place a value on it because we have developed culture and morals. But in a way these are an illusion, though an illusion I give much credence towards. These people doing these things are acting on the systems of nature. We pretend to be separate to live in large groups successfully and attempt to limit the amount of stress and pain we go through and keep others from experiencing what we would not want to experience.

There is nothing irrational about emotions. To look at another person and desire their death is not inherently bad. You can't control the way you feel.

Action, however, is different. Whereas a desire for revenge is not irrational, it is another matter entirely to act solely upon those desires, all the while pretending that you are not killing another human being so that you might derive pleasure from death.



In this sense, yes, entropy and violence are rational processes, but acting on them in light of the world of order and safety our culture desires is when it's irrational. When I say emotional responses like revenge and "deserving" something are irrational, I am saying they have no place in the idealized moral system of culture and ethics, and rational discourse. The more we learn to reason and use logic and maintain a level head, the farther we divorce ourselves from desiring to tear the jawbone off of a rival male of our own species. Yes, you can argue that it's rational for a male animal to tear the jaw off a fellow male, but not in the context I was alluding towards.

I find the concept of revenge a relic of behavior with a foundation in reactionary behavior void of rational discourse.

As for capitol punishment as a detterent, the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent is laughable once a person gets to the point of being capable of murder and is filled with the desire. It only acts as a deterrent in the system we all agree to live in on a day to day basis, but the system we are agreeing to abide by already carries that rule, the severity of the punishment I would argue is no more or less a deter ant than the concept of shame and empathy. Shame and empathy are enough to deter homicidal behavior, once someone is beyond violating those concepts with no heed for the taboo of the act, nothing else is going to deter them barring intervention of some sort.

I forget what documentary it was that I was watching, but I recall hearing that it seems we are developing more and more synaptic connections with the emotional regions of our brains, giving us more and more control in resisting these impulses. It is this desire to resist these basic impulses that I am perhaps in error of calling rational behavior. I would still say it's what we pride ourselves upon separating us from the apes. An ape cannot control it's rage, I can.

[Soapy Sam]

Shame and empathy are enough to deter homicidal behavior, once someone is beyond violating those concepts with no heed for the taboo of the act, nothing else is going to deter them barring intervention of some sort.

All the more reason to intervene early and hard. If first offenders were severely treated, might recidivism be reduced? Some people kill because they are driven to it through years of torment.

Others do it for a giggle.

The ones we need to control are those in whom "shame and empathy" are weakest.

The need for execution should not be a baseline in any system of justice. It is the final necessity after all social regulation and justice has failed. If our social systems worked, it might never be needed.
They do not work that well.


ETA -Permit me a pedantic niggle.
. It's capitAl punishment-from the Latin for "head" and implying beheading. CapitOl punishment is what we should reserve for senior politicians. Something far worse than death, would be my preference.

[Halfcentaur]

Then you are agreeing with me? The death penalty deters nobody? Or are you saying those who are weakest in regard to shame and empathy will respond to the threat of being killed if they are not careful with their regard for others because the taboo and shame of the act is not a factor in their choice?

I don't see a need for it, especially with the questions it creates. Apparently much of the world we Americans consider our equals agree, and I only hope we come to that point as well some day.

[Halfcentaur]

Perhaps it is petty of me, but whenever I hear this topic brought up in the real world environment of work and school, I can never imagine those speaking in favor of capitol punishment capable of doing it with their own hand. I think they may change their mind if it came down to more than pushing a button and having it dealt with by something else. I know I couldn't do it.

Now, if someone dear to me was a victim of something like this, I regret to say that I would probably be overwhelmed with homicidal rage. I have issues with anger, I black out and see red and strangle things without realizing it, on the very rare occasions in my life when I am threatened and cornered. Perhaps it is my self shame that creates in me this disgust and trepidation in seeing similar acts sanctioned by the state. I want my system of justice to be above this, and better than we are, as much as we can make it with our limitations and emotional pitfalls.

[Halfcentaur]

I also grew up witness to my mother being struck in the mouth and nose with the butt of a shotgun by my father, and other delightful acts like this regularly over the first 7 years or so of my life. I am acutely disgusted and have a strong aversion to conflict and violence when I see it in other people. Even a strong disagreement at times in other people spurs me into attempting to mediate and make it stop. It can make me vomit or have panic attacks. Perhaps it is my experience with violence and my subsequent issues with it that inspires a bias within me I am not seeing, but I feel nobility as well in the act of opposing this sort of thing. Of course this is not something a victim or family member of murder and torture would want to hear or understand, but it is a privileged frame of reference I feel to be able to divorce myself from that and remain impartial.

[dirtywick]

See what I mean?
Well, we certainly wouldn't want that, would we? If wars couldn't be fought at all, lots of defence jobs would be lost...

Forgive my sarcasm. My point here is that you beautifully illustrate the assumption of the double standard I refer to. You take it for granted that war is necessary, that killing in war is acceptable and that therefore any rule or argument that militates against execution of convicts does not apply in the war context.

How do you feel about the execution of prisoners of war? Would that be less / more acceptable than execution of civilian convicts, even if the POWs had not been tried and convicted of anything?

What double standard? World peace isn't here and you can't fight a war without killing people under normal circumstances. That's unavoidable reality. Being a citizen doesn't necessitate killing under normal circumstances. I don't see what's confusing there.

Execution of prisoners of war should be avoided if possible. Being the enemy isn't a crime.

[jharyn]

Remind me not to bother petitioning on your behalf if you ever find yourself one of these people.

Rolfe.

If I was one of these people, I wouldn't deserve it.

[jharyn]

Then you are agreeing with me? The death penalty deters nobody? Or are you saying those who are weakest in regard to shame and empathy will respond to the threat of being killed if they are not careful with their regard for others because the taboo and shame of the act is not a factor in their choice?

I don't see a need for it, especially with the questions it creates. Apparently much of the world we Americans consider our equals agree, and I only hope we come to that point as well some day.


Where is the poll you took to back this up? The ones I've seen disagree with you.

I consider everyone our equals. What are you implying here? We aren't special.

[jharyn]

I also grew up witness to my mother being struck in the mouth and nose with the butt of a shotgun by my father, and other delightful acts like this regularly over the first 7 years or so of my life. I am acutely disgusted and have a strong aversion to conflict and violence when I see it in other people. Even a strong disagreement at times in other people spurs me into attempting to mediate and make it stop. It can make me vomit or have panic attacks. Perhaps it is my experience with violence and my subsequent issues with it that inspires a bias within me I am not seeing, but I feel nobility as well in the act of opposing this sort of thing. Of course this is not something a victim or family member of murder and torture would want to hear or understand, but it is a privileged frame of reference I feel to be able to divorce myself from that and remain impartial.

Privileged frame of reference? Whatever.

I am not afraid to speak my mind and stand up for what I believe in. You go ahead and remain impartial on this one. I will not.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Deleted duplicate post

[Schrodinger's Cat]

If I was one of these people, I wouldn't deserve it.


He meant if you were an innocent person wrongly sentenced to death, which he wrote in response to you posting about how you aren't at all concerned for such people.

[Halfcentaur]

Where is the poll you took to back this up? The ones I've seen disagree with you.

I consider everyone our equals. What are you implying here? We aren't special.

There are actually polls one can cite in favor of both views, funny enough. Where does that leave us?

Of course America is not special, but you're being belligerent if you don't admit that a great many people do consider western civilization morally and politically superior to the East and Middle East. I am sarcastically alluding to those who consider these countries barbaric while still maintain their sense of superiority for being American, I am not a proponent of their view that we are inherently superior people. As for that western democracy thing I was alluding to,... meanwhile we're basically the only western democracy that's still taking the lives of people based on what they supposedly "deserve". Which was my point, to be clear.

Privileged frame of reference? Whatever.

I am not afraid to speak my mind and stand up for what I believe in. You go ahead and remain impartial on this one. I will not.

Privileged frame of reference as in not having your point of view clouded by the fact someone just murdered your loved one, not as in privileged for being superior. You're free of course to say "whatever" though, disregard for others opinions can really help you to keep yourself focused on your own points I suppose. I don't see why you're talking about not being afraid or not.

I digress, let's not get distracted. I apologize if I have switched subjects too much in my previous posts on this topic.

Basically, you feel people deserve punishment. Please explain to me the mechanism for what deserving something really means and why it's actually important. What happens when someone get's what they deserve, exactly?

I am impartial because I find the idea of people deserving anything at all nothing but a human construct rooted in the behavior of our ape like past that we need to do away with. Something hurt your hand and it stings and you feel angry so you want to make that thing that stung you feel this stinging too. It solves nothing at all, it makes no progress at all, it is nothing more than self indulgent masturbation. Masturbation is all well and good, but not when people are being killed by a system meant to avoid the pitfalls of such self indulgent motivation.

Execution should be nothing more than a removal of a danger from society, not a solution to what someone deserves. I don't feel it's a necessary length to go to in order to remove that danger however, there should be alternatives and there can be. It would take a shift from our current penal system's methods, however.

[Corsair 115]

What is the basis for your judgment that those who kill others must in-turn be killed? You have not shown why this is true, despite your many repetitions of the claim.

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.


Nor have you demonstrated the opposite, that executing a serial killer is unjustified, in spite of your many repetitions of the claim.

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.

[tkmikkelsen]

Death penalty costs more than life in prison.

Doesn't have to be so, take guy outback of the courthouse. Put guy in guillotine and pull the lever. Throw body in nearby incinerator. Total pay 2, maybe 3, minimum wage guys for an hour and your are done.

Life in prison, much more expensive.


We also frequently convict the wrong guy.

This is why I am against the death penalty.

And I am with you on that. I am against death penalty, but have no problem with locking up people and forgetting the combination to their cell.

[Halfcentaur]

Actually, I don't think I am correct at all in this post, apologies. I misread exactly what was being said. I am incorrect I think in paraphrasing what they were saying, please disregard.


Nor have you demonstrated the opposite, that executing a serial killer is unjustified, in spite of your many repetitions of the claim.

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.

As their contention you are questioning above seems only to be that deserving something makes no sense, and not the question of capitol punishment's justification through it's supposed ability as a deterrent, I would say because the idea of deserving something as I said above is nothing but a purely psychological construct and is an exercise in self indulgence that has nothing to do with achieving progress outside of satisfying the desire for retribution.

What happens when someone get's what they deserve? What progress is made beyond simply removing a possible threat? I want to know what happens when someone deserves something and why it's important.

[Corsair 115]

The death penalty deters nobody?


Since crime of various types (including murder) still happen in spite of prison sentences for the perpetrators, it would seem jail time isn't much of a deterrent either.


I don't see a need for it, especially with the questions it creates. Apparently much of the world we Americans consider our equals agree, and I only hope we come to that point as well some day.


I will simply note that one can be in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for certain kinds of crime while being against the way the death penalty has been applied in law up to this point. It seems to me that some are conflating these two separate matters.

[Corsair 115]

As their contention you are questioning above seems only to be that deserving something makes no sense, and not the question of capitol punishment's justification through it's supposed ability as a deterrent, I would say because the idea of deserving something as I said above is nothing but a purely psychological construct and is an exercise in self indulgence that has nothing to do with achieving progress outside of satisfying the desire for retribution.

What happens when someone get's what they deserve? What progress is made beyond simply removing a possible threat? I want to know what happens when someone deserves something and why it's important.


You realize that all of those exact same questions can be applied to prison sentences for crimes, yes? Or, indeed, to any punishment meted out by the justice system for a given crime. Does a twenty-five year sentence for murder mean the perpetrator is "getting what they deserved"? Is a twenty-five year sentence "purely psychological construct and is an exercise in self indulgence that has nothing to do with achieving progress outside of satisfying the desire for retribution"?

How exactly is the death penalty "retribution" while a sentence of life in prison is not? It seems to me both punishments are retribution, an assessment by society and its legal system of what the perpetrator must pay for his/her crime. The only practical difference in this "retribution" is the amount of the payment.

You want that payment to never include the forfeiture of the life of the perpetrator under any circumstances; I take the position that, in rare and unusual cases, the perpetrator forfeiting his/her life can be proper payment.

[Rolfe]

If I was one of these people, I wouldn't deserve it.


So, if you were one of "these people", that is people wrongly sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit, then you wouldn't deserve any support or help to get you out of your predicament?

Are you seriously asserting that only "bad" people, who deserve death on some higher level, are ever wrongly convicted and condemned? So that's OK then, it doesn't matter?

I've heard some ridiculous justifications for capital punishment, but this takes the biscuit.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

Then you are agreeing with me? The death penalty deters nobody? Or are you saying those who are weakest in regard to shame and empathy will respond to the threat of being killed if they are not careful with their regard for others because the taboo and shame of the act is not a factor in their choice?

I don't see a need for it, especially with the questions it creates. Apparently much of the world we Americans consider our equals agree, and I only hope we come to that point as well some day.

Apologies for the delay in reply. Time zones. All the interesting threads take off in the middle of my night.

I think the death penalty works as a deterrent on some people, in the same way fear of any retribution deters some people. It deters the timid more than the bold and the bold more than the desperate. People in extreme situations take a lot of stopping and may be acting so impulsively that only main force will stop them.

I don't really see execution as punishment. I see it as a solution to a problem. A distasteful solution, but sometimes the fairest solution. "Least bad" , perhaps.

Death is in no sense unusual, nor need it be cruel . A vet is not cruel to a dog she must "put down" and and execution can and should be a humane procedure.

My view is that there exist people whose demonstrated disregard for the laws of society and for the rights of others is so thorough and habitual that they must be removed permanently from society.
This can be done in two ways, neither of which is pleasant- execution or life incarceration. To my mind, the latter achieves nothing beyond ongoing punishment, at cost to society.
Execution is a far faster and to my mind more humane solution which has several advantages- cost, long term safety of prison staff and other prisoners, avoidance of ongoing crime-outside the gaol- carried out in direct connection with the prisoner, and removal of any possibility of blackmail or threat to families of those dealing with the prisoner.
Another potential advantage is the use of organs and tissue removed from the deceased for use in life saving surgery. This makes possible some degree of repayment of a debt to society. This is disturbing to some, but perhaps less so to those on transplant waiting lists.

Jailing someone for life, on the other hand, is merely an expensive, unending form of societal sadism, which I'm surprised to find supported by many people who show no other signs of sadism.

Their justification is generally two-pronged:-
1. The system is imperfect. We might execute the wrong person.
or
2. Execution is barbaric under all circumstances.

I am convinced by neither argument.

1.Everyone makes decisions a dozen times a day, as a result of which innocent people may benefit or suffer and even die. Drivers make mistakes. Soldiers make mistakes. So do doctors, butchers, electricians, car mechanics, gas fitters, oil rig managers. So do we all.
Why are only the victims of Lawyers' mistakes to be so protected? Is the legal system so prone to error? If so, should we not fix it?

and

2. This is an assumption. An assumption we conveniently forget when it comes to foreign villagers who wear funny hats and may have a cousin who knows somebody in al qaeda. It's an assumption I happen not to share.

These are matters of opinion. No more , no less.

[I Am The Scum]

Nor have you demonstrated the opposite, that executing a serial killer is unjustified, in spite of your many repetitions of the claim.

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.

I don't have to. You're arguing from ignorance.

Are you honestly trying to argue that one is justified in any action they take that has not been demonstrated to be irrational? Killing another human being is alright so far as we have not been shown why it's bad?

[dafydd]

What double standard? World peace isn't here and you can't fight a war without killing people under normal circumstances. That's unavoidable reality. Being a citizen doesn't necessitate killing under normal circumstances. I don't see what's confusing there.

Execution of prisoners of war should be avoided if possible. Being the enemy isn't a crime.

You have never been a civilian on the receiving end during a war.It's not a computer game.

[dafydd]

So, if you were one of "these people", that is people wrongly sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit, then you wouldn't deserve any support or help to get you out of your predicament?

Are you seriously asserting that only "bad" people, who deserve death on some higher level, are ever wrongly convicted and condemned? So that's OK then, it doesn't matter?

I've heard some ridiculous justifications for capital punishment, but this takes the biscuit.

Rolfe.

I wonder how the proponents of the death penalty would feel if they were wrongly accused and convicted of murder,they wouldn't be so gung-ho then.

[dirtywick]

You have never been a civilian on the receiving end during a war.It's not a computer game.

I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with anything we're talking about.

But it's true.

[Worm]

It comes from the "Flower Child" era, where "every man's death diminishes me" made the stoners feel so much love.
There's so many men alive today who shouldn't see tomorrow!

I'm afraid it comes from no such place. Not that it wasn't very much a vogue at the time, but I'm far from old enough or socially aware enough to have picked it up from there.

It comes from my heart. It's something I've always felt in a vague way, and then I spent a very moving and emotionally draining afternoon listening to one of the parents of the Dunblane massacre speak very strongly about his feelings towards the killer. He spoke with dignity and clarity and made it very clear that to condemn such people as 'evil' is entirely missing the failings within our own society.

Would he want the death penalty? I'm not sure, and that's probably why it's a good idea that those affected by such situations are not involved in the decision making. There is no place in statutory measures for revenge.

[I Ratant]

Since crime of various types (including murder) still happen in spite of prison sentences for the perpetrators, it would seem jail time isn't much of a deterrent either.





I will simply note that one can be in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for certain kinds of crime while being against the way the death penalty has been applied in law up to this point. It seems to me that some are conflating these two separate matters.
.
The recent cop-killing out here by a many times arrested, jailed, released sumbitch...
Too frequent.
Jail is merely 3 squares and a place to rest between crime sprees for too many.

[I Ratant]

I'm afraid it comes from no such place. Not that it wasn't very much a vogue at the time, but I'm far from old enough or socially aware enough to have picked it up from there.

It comes from my heart. It's something I've always felt in a vague way, and then I spent a very moving and emotionally draining afternoon listening to one of the parents of the Dunblane massacre speak very strongly about his feelings towards the killer. He spoke with dignity and clarity and made it very clear that to condemn such people as 'evil' is entirely missing the failings within our own society.

Would he want the death penalty? I'm not sure, and that's probably why it's a good idea that those affected by such situations are not involved in the decision making. There is no place in statutory measures for revenge.
.
It most definitely IS the failings in our societies that lead to death penalties.
Even prison sentences.
What is there in the human psyche that has so many deviants from "good" behavior?
Can that source be found and a "work around" other than jail or death be formulated?
Until that miracle occurs, jail and termination with extreme prejudice have to be in place to protect normal people living quiet lives not harming (to any major extent) their neighbor.

[Corsair 115]

I don't have to. You're arguing from ignorance.


So, I must prove my point, but you do not have to prove yours.


Are you honestly trying to argue that one is justified in any action they take that has not been demonstrated to be irrational?


I fail to see why your position must be accorded automatic status as the only rational position to take when you have failed to demonstrate it is so. You take great exception to my position, call it irrational, demand proof, yet you do not appear to have put your own position through an equal level of examination.


Killing another human being is alright so far as we have not been shown why it's bad?


Now where did I even suggest such a thing? A person is not sentenced to death or time in jail or any other punishment without due process in the legal system (I presume we limiting our discussion to stable representative democracies with long-established legal systems that have the appropriate checks and balances).

Once more: the degree of punishment depends on the nature of the crime and any mitigating circumstances. For some crimes, a fine, probation, or time served is deemed sufficient penalty. For other crimes, some amount of time in prison is deemed the proper punishment. For yet other crimes, having most or all of person's remaining years of life be spent in prison is judged to be the correct payment for the crime.

Now, for you, that's where your scale of justice stops.

For me, I am prepared, in rare and exceptional cases, to continue that scale so that it includes forfeiture of the perpetrator's life as proper payment, as fitting punishment, for his/her crime. But only in rare and exceptional cases. Is that limitation arbitrary? Yes, to some extent it is. But all of justice is similarly arbitrary. Is there any unequivocal, objective, rational evidence that says offence A is only ever worth three years in prison while offence B is only ever worth five? Of course there isn't.

The system is shades of grey. There is room to debate what punishment best fits what crime. You are not prepared to accept forfeiture of the life of the perpetrator, under any circumstances, as possible punishment, and that's fine. I disagree, and am prepared to accept such foreiture as a possible punishment in very limited circumstances. I do not look down upon or discount your position; I merely disagree with it.

[I Am The Scum]

I've posted this before in other threads, so I'll just repeat it here. This is my argument in opposition to the death penalty.

1. If a human's life is to be willfully ended, substantial reason must be provided.
2. In the case of the death penalty, substantial reason has not been provided.
3. Therefore, we should not engage in willfully ending human lives in such a manner.

It's a simple modus tollens argument.

I don't think anyone has ever argued against the first premise.

So it must be the second premise you disagree with, meaning there is substantial reason. And so you say this:

For me, I am prepared, in rare and exceptional cases, to continue that scale so that it includes forfeiture of the perpetrator's life as proper payment, as fitting punishment, for his/her crime.

Why? I'm begging you to illustrate to me how this is true. Is it just your opinion, based on nothing but feeling? Have you thought of some argument that demonstrates this to be true? There has to be something more than this endless repetition of "it just is."

[3point14]

I think the death penalty should be reserved exclusively for those, for whom it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, who have lied to the electorate while holding public office.

[Skeptic]

You have never been a civilian on the receiving end during a war.

Well, living in Israel, I was just that, on three different occasions, and might well be again. And yet I think that sometimes war is, alas, unavoidable, and that to do anything just to avoid war is often a very serious mistake, one that leads, in the words of Churchill, of choosing dishonor to avoid war and then getting both.

[Skeptic]

I think the death penalty should be reserved exclusively for those, for whom it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, who have lied to the electorate while holding public office.

"It is shocking to think how few politicians are hanged" -- G. K. Chesterton.

He was (not 100% seriously of course) for abolition of the death penalty in all cases except for a lynch mob, since that way there is a chance some people who truly deserve it would get it.

[GlennB]

I've posted this before in other threads, so I'll just repeat it here. This is my argument in opposition to the death penalty.

1. If a human's life is to be willfully ended, substantial reason must be provided.
2. In the case of the death penalty, substantial reason has not been provided.
3. Therefore, we should not engage in willfully ending human lives in such a manner.

It's a simple modus tollens argument.

I don't think anyone has ever argued against the first premise.

So it must be the second premise you disagree with, meaning there is substantial reason. And so you say this:

Why? I'm begging you to illustrate to me how this is true. Is it just your opinion, based on nothing but feeling? Have you thought of some argument that demonstrates this to be true? There has to be something more than this endless repetition of "it just is."

You deserve a reasoned answer, but I suspect you won't get one.

[Tricky]

I'm against it except in the most extreme of cases. Like this guy (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/10/utah.elizabeth.smart.case/index.html). Brian David Mitchell. Kidnapped a 14-year Elizabeth Smart. Tied her to a tree and raped her countless times. Kidnapped other young girls and tried to get Elizabeth to "teach them the ropes". Doesn't even deny it. Gets kicked out of court each day for loudly singing hymns.

Is he insane? Maybe so. In my mind that's an even better reason not to waste time trying to rehabilitate him.

[brenn]

Can you point out a post in this thread that elaborates on the rational basis for the action of executing a human being?

I stated the rational reasons in post #26. I'm sure there are others.

[brenn]

Well first off, even if you had an MRI every time you slipped and fell, a whole body MRI at my hospital costs around 7K, which is far less than the average cost of many other kinds of accidents. But I know what you're trying to say. So let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that WITH an MRI included, slipping and falling is the most expensive kind of accident. If ONLY YOU get an MRI every time you slip and fall, no, a doctor would not have a legitimate argument that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accidents. However, if EVERYONE, or NEARLY everyone who slipped and fell received an MRI when they slipped and fell, then a doctor WOULD have a legitimate basis to argue that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accident. Just as is the case of the death penalty.


Again, I don't see where you get "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification" considering I have not seen an anti death penalty book, web site, etc which did not explain that the cost was due to litigation. I have never seen it claimed that this was due to trial costs or execution costs alone. I have never seen it claimed that this cost was due to anything other than litigation, for which the state must incurr a great deal of cost. So, again, the fact that "it costs the state more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life" is still true. And the reason why this is true has always been well presented to me in anti death penalty literature I have read as being due to litigation.

But I'm sure you're having great fun at slandering people who disagree with you. So please, don't let me stop you from continuing with your fabricated conspiracy theories.


Edit- also, I work in finance at a major hospital. One part of my job is coming up with price estimates for the cost of a patient's care plan. There are MANY services which are not actually required for a patient's treatment, for instance, diagnostic testing, but which a patient elects to receive because it improves their quality of life, because they are being extra vigilant in their preventative care, etc. When I come up with cost estimates, I do not just include the REQUIRED elements of their treatment plan, I add in all of the non required stuff too because that's what it cost. It costs the patient and/or their insurance that money whether it's a required service or not. Just like it still costs the state the money in litigation whether it's required or not to actually perform the execution.

Quick Brenn, call the AMA! Let them know that every health care provider in the country is guilty of "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification!"


You may be the MASTER of what I referred to as the standard JREF argument technique. Congratulations...I guess.:covereyes

[Halfcentaur]

I don't think the death penalty deters any more or less than life in prison deters. I don't think the power of this deterrence would change. I would like to know if the countries where the death penalty was reduced witnessed a rise in the murder rate.

[Halfcentaur]

You realize that all of those exact same questions can be applied to prison sentences for crimes, yes? Or, indeed, to any punishment meted out by the justice system for a given crime. Does a twenty-five year sentence for murder mean the perpetrator is "getting what they deserved"? Is a twenty-five year sentence "purely psychological construct and is an exercise in self indulgence that has nothing to do with achieving progress outside of satisfying the desire for retribution"?

How exactly is the death penalty "retribution" while a sentence of life in prison is not? It seems to me both punishments are retribution, an assessment by society and its legal system of what the perpetrator must pay for his/her crime. The only practical difference in this "retribution" is the amount of the payment.

You want that payment to never include the forfeiture of the life of the perpetrator under any circumstances; I take the position that, in rare and unusual cases, the perpetrator forfeiting his/her life can be proper payment.

Oh, I agree with you. I don't think it's correct to punish someone based on what they deserve. It opens a whole can of worms for how we deal with anyone who breaks the law and why we punish them. I think it's all in need of major reformation and a different way of looking at it. We are left with what worked best and seemed to work to the people of the past, and this isn't an easy issue to find an answer to.

Still, when it comes to people losing their life in lieu of these questions, I think that one thing should be stopped immediately. We need time as a species to refine our morals and ethics, and it will take a lot of time to really examine and change these sort of thing, but in the meantime, I wish we would stop taking lives using the power we've all agreed to support.

[Halfcentaur]

This idea of who deserves what is an illusion created from an emotional view of the world. People that murder people, or steal, or break the law at all often would never have expected them self to have ever been capable of it until the moment and situation arises when it does indeed happen. After they make that choice, they are not magically changed and turned into bad people. Many people feel remorse immediately. But this is a very sticky issue. There are indeed many people who would kill and steal constantly, the problem is we cannot afford the time and resources and the chance they won't do it again to do anything at the moment but create this massive impartial system that turns everyone into a number. How does one sort out these people? I am not proposing an answer by any means at this point to what we should be doing instead, but I will recognize the need for a change.

I don't think anyone will agree we have a perfect system, we have a system we hope will work though, and seems to be doing a job. But as long as this system is only good enough, I don't think it should ever have the chance to end a life permanently. That's one of my biggest problems with the death penalty.

[Corsair 115]

I've posted this before in other threads, so I'll just repeat it here. This is my argument in opposition to the death penalty.

1. If a human's life is to be willfully ended, substantial reason must be provided...


Substantial reason: the person deliberately murdered thirty (perhaps more) human beings in cold blood (i.e. a serial killer).


2. In the case of the death penalty, substantial reason has not been provided.


See prior reply.


Why? I'm begging you to illustrate to me how this is true. Is it just your opinion, based on nothing but feeling? Have you thought of some argument that demonstrates this to be true? There has to be something more than this endless repetition of "it just is."


Once again, the very same thing can be said of your position, and you have yet to offer anything equalling the demands you've made of me. You appear content that you are right no matter what and will not countenance any questioning or examination of your own position.

I have stated my position in a way I thought rather clear. I will restate them once more: the punishment for a crime generally scales in accordance with the severity of that crime. For the most heinous of crimes I believe that the scale of punishment should allow for the perpetrator to forfeit his/her own life as payment for their crimes. You do not share that view and think the scale of punishment should stop short of that.

We could just as easily argue about the merits of any sentence for any crime as to whether it is justified or not. There is no single objective standard to which everyone can look that says, "This punishment is acceptable for this crime but that punishment is too severe." People will vary in their judgement as to where the lines should be drawn.

You appear to consider the death penalty and prison sentences as two entirely separate categories of punishment. I do not. I consider them both as falling under the singular heading of punishment, and are part of the continuum which that heading provides.

So I end where I began: show me Ted Bundy and I say you've shown me someone for whom the death penalty is an entirely fitting punishment given the enormity of his crimes. To me that scale is completely just and appropriate.

[Halfcentaur]

Corsair, I think his question would be why killing people in cold blood is a reason to willfully end their life. I think you need to explore why that is your reason, and not let it stand on it's own as why. You've already addressed why in some ways with me. Why do you think people deserve things, and why is killing them the only way to remove the problem from society?

[Halfcentaur]

It makes me wonder, if a person who committed a crime would not do the same thing if given the same chance( or the chance to do it over again), and if they refused out of empathetic regret for their harming another and not out of regret for losing their own freedom, do they still deserve a punishment?

[Corsair 115]

I don't think the death penalty deters any more or less than life in prison deters.


Which is precisely why I personally do not cite deterrence as a reason for allowing the death penalty in certain circumstances.


I don't think anyone will agree we have a perfect system, we have a system we hope will work though, and seems to be doing a job. But as long as this system is only good enough, I don't think it should ever have the chance to end a life permanently. That's one of my biggest problems with the death penalty.


Which is why I made the comment earlier about distinguishing between the concept of the death penalty as a possible punishment and the actual application of the death penalty to date. To my mind, in many instances a sentence of death was applied in cases where it had no business being applied—the crime either did not meet the level of severity I would attach as being necessary for the death penalty, or the level of proof demonstrating the accused's guilt was insufficient. (Personally, while "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is sufficient for conviction, I would say to apply death as the sentence the standard should be, "guilty beyond almost any doubt," a much higher burden of proof and one likely only to be met in a very small number of cases.)

[Corsair 115]

Corsair, I think his question would be why killing people in cold blood is a reason to willfully end their life.


One could just as easily ask why killing people in cold blood is a reason to sentence someone to fifteen years in prison or thirty years in prison or the rest of their life in prison. We're arguing degrees of punishment. You just happen to draw your line in a different place than I draw mine.


Why do you think people deserve things, and why is killing them the only way to remove the problem from society?


It is only 'deserve' in the sense that it is an answer to the questionWhat sentence is the proper punishment for a given crime? As to the second part of your question, of course it isn't the only way of 'removing the problem from society.' But I don't think of it in that manner; I think of a sentence, any sentence, as being the answer to the question I stated.


It makes me wonder, if a person who committed a crime would not do the same thing if given the same chance (or the chance to do it over again), and if they refused out of empathetic regret for their harming another and not out of regret for losing their own freedom, do they still deserve a punishment?


The person is still guilty of the original crime, their remorse or regret nothwithstanding. So in that regard there is a price to be paid. But what that price will be typically takes into account any remorse or regret offered, along with other existing mitigating circumstances.

[I Am The Scum]

I stated the rational reasons in post #26. I'm sure there are others.

In this post, you cite 3 reasons.

1. Prevention. I agree that capital punishment prevents a person from committing crimes again. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure life in prison does just the same.

2. Deterrence. As has been asked many times, I will need to see evidence that this is true.

3. Retribution. This is a case of killing for pleasure. I don't find pleasure to be an adequate reason for ending one's life.

Substantial reason: the person deliberately murdered thirty (perhaps more) human beings in cold blood (i.e. a serial killer).

This is not an argument.

Let's imagine that I was about to execute someone. You ask me why. I say, "Well, he's a litterbug. Nobody wants to pick up his garbage. We've gotta get rid of him." You would probably say that this is not a very good reason, and you'd be right.

"So-and-so is a litterbug, therefore they have forfeit their life" is not an argument. And it doesn't work when you substitute littering with murder.

[dirtywick]

3. Retribution. This is a case of killing for pleasure. I don't find pleasure to be an adequate reason for ending one's life.


I wouldn't define this as pleasure anymore than taking an asprin when you have a headache gives you pleasure. It makes you feel better, but not necessarily good. It's relief.

[Two Toed Sloth]

I wouldn't define this as pleasure anymore than taking an asprin when you have a headache gives you pleasure. It makes you feel better, but not necessarily good. It's relief.

Like a bowel movement?
I'm so full of rage today, I'm just busting for a hanging!

[Halfcentaur]

One could just as easily ask why killing people in cold blood is a reason to sentence someone to fifteen years in prison or thirty years in prison or the rest of their life in prison. We're arguing degrees of punishment. You just happen to draw your line in a different place than I draw mine. You're answering me here and not him. You and I just discussed this exact thing in the last reply I posted to your position. I was pointing out that it was clearly not the answer his first rule for killing someone was requesting. He said:

1. If a human's life is to be willfully ended, substantial reason must be provided...

You say that the substantial reason is that the person deliberately murdered thirty (perhaps more) human beings in cold blood (i.e. a serial killer). I think it's clear that's not the answer he was looking for, but rather why killing people in cold blood is a substantial reason to do it. He clearly did not think murder was substantial motivation for execution. I was only trying to suggest you answer have more emphasis on exactly why you feel that reason warrants this punishment. I actually enjoy your answers and in no way am I trying to suggest you were incapable of answering the question adequately. I was truly just trying to be helpful.





The person is still guilty of the original crime, their remorse or regret nothwithstanding. So in that regard there is a price to be paid. But what that price will be typically takes into account any remorse or regret offered, along with other existing mitigating circumstances.
I don't feel there is necessarily a price to be paid. What happened, happened. Many times any of us are just a single choice away from making terrible mistakes, and placed in certain situations many people who would never consider themselves capable of murder would suddenly murder. The price to be paid is only a part of indulging emotional satisfaction. I find that aspect of justice archaic and on par with legal dueling. This is difficult for me to say, as we are emotional animals and I would not be able to "practice what I preach" if I was the victim of one of these crimes most likely myself with out a great bit of mental anguish and thought on the matter. But I am not, and this gives me the ability to divorce my reason from my emotion for the time being. As I find it difficult to look at things this way, I fully understand why it is such a difficult thing for other people to do as well.



I wouldn't define this as pleasure anymore than taking an asprin when you have a headache gives you pleasure. It makes you feel better, but not necessarily good. It's relief.
I think that's just playing around with words, the meaning is still the same. Nothing is achieved but indulging emotions.

[dirtywick]

Like a bowel movement?
I'm so full of rage today, I'm just busting for a hanging!

I guess if your bowel movements rape, murder, and eat children, then describe the act to the parents through a letter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish), then sure let's hang your poop.

I think that's just playing around with words, the meaning is still the same. Nothing is achieved but indulging emotions.

I don't think that at all. I think words have specific meanings and we should use the words we want to best describe our thoughts. Relief is not the same thing as pleasure.

[I Ratant]

Corsair, I think his question would be why killing people in cold blood is a reason to willfully end their life. I think you need to explore why that is your reason, and not let it stand on it's own as why. You've already addressed why in some ways with me. Why do you think people deserve things, and why is killing them the only way to remove the problem from society?
.
The legal process, not cold blood, when "substantial reason" has been proved.
Bundy, McVeigh,... some guys like Speck got off.

[I Ratant]

It makes me wonder, if a person who committed a crime would not do the same thing if given the same chance( or the chance to do it over again), and if they refused out of empathetic regret for their harming another and not out of regret for losing their own freedom, do they still deserve a punishment?
.
Some released killers kill again.
How many lives is one persons allowed to take, before "ENOUGH" is invoked?
One is too many.
Didn't Norman Mailer bleed all over the injustice some murderer had received, and the guy was released due to the publicity, and almost before he'd changed from the prison jump suit killed again?

[I Ratant]

I guess if your bowel movements rape, murder, and eat children, then describe the act to the parents through a letter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish), then sure let's hang your poop.
...

.
.
Ever tried to put a string around poop?
About all you could do is put it in a paper bag and set it on your neighbor's doorstep, light the bag, ring the bell, and wait in the bushes. :)

[jharyn]

ETA wrong thread.

[Two Toed Sloth]

I guess if your bowel movements rape, murder, and eat children, then describe the act to the parents through a letter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish), then sure let's hang your poop..

You misunderstand me sir (and I'm sure it is not on purpose). Why do you think your relief enters into the justification of taking another's life?

[dirtywick]

You misunderstand me sir (and I'm sure it is not on purpose). Why do you think your relief enters into the justification of taking another's life?

It was as deliberate as comparing relief from the grief for effected families seeing justice and the general public on ridding itself of a dangerous criminal to feeling better after a bowel movement.

It's the same justification for relief by penalty of imprisonment. It's the justification for a lot of crimes, invoking justice on behalf of a harmed party.

.
Ever tried to put a string around poop?
About all you could do is put it in a paper bag and set it on your neighbor's doorstep, light the bag, ring the bell, and wait in the bushes.

Poop is funny.

[Babbylonian]

It was as deliberate as comparing relief from the grief for effected families seeing justice and the general public on ridding itself of a dangerous criminal to feeling better after a bowel movement.
If grieving families need relief, that's what psychiatrists are for. Indulging the desire for revenge, AFAIK, isn't a recognized medical technique.
It's the same justification for relief by penalty of imprisonment. It's the justification for a lot of crimes, invoking justice on behalf of a harmed party.Prisons are supposed to be for the protection of the public and [hopefully] the rehabilitation/correction of criminal behavior, not the happy good feelings of crime victims.

The bottom line for me is that the finality of the death penalty as a punishment outweighs the standards for conviction in our legal system. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as determined in a courtroom is good enough to put someone in prison but I don't think it's nearly good enough to kill, and I don't care if they're being convicted of killing one 80-year-old or forty 2-year-olds.

[dirtywick]

Prisons are supposed to be for the protection of the public and [hopefully] the rehabilitation/correction of criminal behavior, not the happy good feelings of crime victims.

I think they are intended to serve all three purposes. Justice does.


The bottom line for me is that the finality of the death penalty as a punishment outweighs the standards for conviction in our legal system. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as determined in a courtroom is good enough to put someone in prison but I don't think it's nearly good enough to kill, and I don't care if they're being convicted of killing one 80-year-old or forty 2-year-olds.

Like I said, it's all philosophy at that point. Your opinion on the punishment is no more valid than anyone else's.

[Babbylonian]

Like I said, it's all philosophy at that point. Your opinion on the punishment is no more valid than anyone else's.
Maybe.

I do wonder, though, if all those who go all weak in the knees over the pain of murder victims' families ever consider the pain of capital punishment victims' families -- especially the wrongly convicted victims.

[dirtywick]

Maybe.

I do wonder, though, if all those who go all weak in the knees over the pain of murder victims' families ever consider the pain of capital punishment victims' families -- especially the wrongly convicted victims.

It must be considered, amongst many other things. The wrongly convicted especially, and not only the harm done to their families but the inevitability of it happening.

[Two Toed Sloth]

It was as deliberate as comparing relief from the grief for effected families seeing justice and the general public on ridding itself of a dangerous criminal to feeling better after a bowel movement.

It's the same justification for relief by penalty of imprisonment. It's the justification for a lot of crimes, invoking justice on behalf of a harmed party.


As I have said already, and will no doubt say again, sending people to prison is not to satisfy the family's need for vengeance, it is so that these people who have proven themselves to be dangerous can be stopped from posing a threat.

What then is the justification for killing them? Does it really just boil down to some ones need to gain relief?

[dirtywick]

As I have said already, and will no doubt say again, sending people to prison is not to satisfy the family's need for vengeance, it is so that these people who have proven themselves to be dangerous can be stopped from posing a threat.

I don't think that's the only reason as I've said already, and I don't think we need to keep going in circles over it.

What then is the justification for killing them? Does it really just boil down to some ones need to gain relief?

Not at all. Justice. Threat prevention. Punishment. Restitution.

[Corsair 115]

Let's imagine that I was about to execute someone. You ask me why. I say, "Well, he's a litterbug. Nobody wants to pick up his garbage. We've gotta get rid of him." You would probably say that this is not a very good reason, and you'd be right.


No, I would say, "That sentence appears entirely disproportionate to the severity of the crime."

Let's try an experiment. Replace the words "execute someone" in your comment with the words "send someone to prison for ten years." We then get the following:

Let's imagine that I was about to send someone to prison for ten years. You ask me why. I say, "Well, he's a litterbug. Nobody wants to pick up his garbage. We've gotta get rid of him [for ten years]." You would probably say that this is not a very good reason, and you'd be right.


Does the above substitution change in any meaningful way the thrust of your statement?

[Corsair 115]

I was only trying to suggest you answer have more emphasis on exactly why you feel that reason warrants this punishment.


It's not something that can be arrived at in a mathematical manner. It's a personal judgement about what constitutes reasonable and proportionate punishment for a given type of crime. There are no right answers to that question because it is a subjective one.

A person is convicted of assaulting someone else and breaking their arm. What sentence is appropriate for the offence of assulting someone and breaking their arm? Is probation a suitable penalty? What about a week in jail? What about two weeks in jail? How about a month? A year? Two years? Five years? Ten years? Which of these penalties is proportionate to the crime and which are not?

I suspect we might have some agreement on which penalties are too severe and which are too lenient, but I'd wager we'd disagree on some too, thus demonstrating the rather subjective nature of determining what constitutes a proportionate punishment for a crime.


I don't feel there is necessarily a price to be paid.


It would depend entirely on the nature and severity of the offence, it seems to me. If it is something small, then perhaps justice is best served by a minor punishment or none at all. But if the offence is something more serious, then the severity of the offence ought to take priority. To put it another way, some mistakes are excusable, but other mistakes—ones which carry a significant impact—are not.