The death penalty: are you for or against?

Thing is with the Kuna Cell (where did you get that name?) we are causing more harm and being more evil than if we just kill them. At least that is how i see it.

 

'Kuna' cell, is from his JC handle, I think

I see the primary purpose of prison as being to protect the public, with the secondary purpose of rehabilitating the criminal. I don't see subjecting the prisoners to inhumane treatment advancing either of those goals.

 

Almost? Is that a hint that you MIGHT accept it?

Yes. I think I might be able to accept it, but I would have to think about it.

I am almost at the point of being willing to abolish the death penalty under 2 conditions.

1. Life in prison as a mandatory sentence for all crimes that are now possibly death penalty cases. No exceptions, ever. No releases, ever.

2. Prison would not be the (comparitively)nice place it is now. While I'm not sure if we should go to "Kuna cell" extremes, prison should be a serious deterrant. Cable TV, internet access, and weight rooms are not a serious deterrant.

The primary reason I advocate the DP is because of the deterrant effect. There are additional moral justifications for the DP, but I think if, and only if, we can duplicate the DP's well-documented deterrant effect, we could stop using the DP.

However, I doubt that even my 2-point plan could duplicate this deterrant effect. If if did, however, I would be willing to replace the DP.

 

If the Death Penalty acts as a deterrence to crimes, as some of you are claiming, then why is it that countries and states who have abolished the death penalty, don't consistently show a higher murder/rape rate per capita?

There is more to a murder rate than the deterant effect of the death penalty. Therefore, different countries with different conditions, will have different murder rates. To make an adequate judgement about the effect of the DP, a comparison must be made in the same place before and after the DP. The study that I quoted did just that.

 

phantom:
I am almost at the point of being willing to abolish the death penalty under 2 conditions.

1. Life in prison as a mandatory sentence for all crimes that are now possibly death penalty cases. No exceptions, ever. No releases, ever.

2. Prison would not be the (comparitively)nice place it is now. While I'm not sure if we should go to "Kuna cell" extremes, prison should be a serious deterrant. Cable TV, internet access, and weight rooms are not a serious deterrant.

The primary reason I advocate the DP is because of the deterrant effect. There are additional moral justifications for the DP, but I think if, and only if, we can duplicate the DP's well-documented deterrant effect, we could stop using the DP.

However, I doubt that even my 2-point plan could duplicate this deterrant effect. If if did, however, I would be willing to replace the DP.

Exactly! I totally agree! Maybe the Kuna cell was a little too extreme, but my point is that prisons are WAY too opulent. And that goes for all prisons, not just the maximum security ones.

There is more to a murder rate than the deterant effect of the death penalty. Therefore, different countries with different conditions, will have different murder rates. To make an adequate judgement about the effect of the DP, a comparison must be made in the same place before and after the DP.

I don't think DP deters as well as you think it does. Wasn't there a brief period of time when the DP was outlawed in the U.S.? Since the reinstatement of DP, crimes haven't gone down. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean the DP encourages crimes, but it also shows that DP is unnecessary.

 

Let's see if we can get this jump-started again...if anyone is interested (hopefully).

Do you feel the death penalty is really a deterent to crime, or is it just an "eye for and eye"? Do you believe the state ever has the right to take the life of one of its' citizens? If not...WHAT SHOULD be done with societies MOST dangerous offenders, especially if psychologist/experts say that some of them will NEVER be able to truly be re-intergrated into the public-at-large?

Hopefully, there will be some interesting discussions (and not arguements) on this topic, as I unfortunatly seemed to miss it the 1st time around. Hopefully, other's still have an interest in discussing this and the moral implications of this very serious issue.

 

Do you feel the death penalty is really a deterent to crime, or is it just an "eye for and eye"?

I believe it has potential to be a deterrent. On top of that, I believe that some crimes simply ask for the death penalty (in other words, the death penalty for me is not about revenge or primarily deterrence).

Do you believe the state ever has the right to take the life of one of its' citizens?

Yep, since the citizens essentially agree to it by living in a country with such a law.

 

OMG! I pretty much agree with everything in your post StarFire!

[kills self]


Kidding!

 

[face_shocked] [face_shocked]

OMG!!!1 TEH EDN IS NAER!!!~1

But wow. Someone agreeing with me in a death penalty thread. I should go back and make sure I posted right

 

Well, it's just that we never agree on the Iraq thread, or much of anything else in the Senate as far as I can remember! Like I've said before, I believe what I do...and don't just "buy" one "adgenda" (i.e. if you're anti-war in Iraq, then you MUST be AGAINST ALL war...NOT true in my case...if you're against war in Iraq then you MUST be against the death penalty...if you're anti death penalty...you MUST be pro-choice. That makes NO sense to me. I stand where I do on every issue because I have seriously thought about them each individually.)

Honestly, I DO believe in the death-penalty, more as a "just" measure than a deterant. If someone has committed a crime so terrible, been given a fair trial, ONE appeal, and still is found guilty, they should be deprived of this wonderful gift that life is, because they have "robbed" and INNOCENT person of theirs. The state should not have to feed, clothe, house, give CABLE TV to, allow phone calls to, and treat CONVICTED murderers, rapists and pedophiles like decent people for years at taxpayer's expense, while the VICTIM'S families have NO recourse and are left with nothing but pain and suffering.

If you take another person's life (while NOT in an act of war, or in self-defense) you have forefitted your own IMO. I also believe that once an appeal is denied, a convicted murderer on death-row should be taken out and SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD (a bullet is FAR cheaper than an electric chair...and MORE "humane" for those that believe this is "cruel and inhuman") THAT DAY! Our government wastes enough of our hard earned money as it is...there is no reason to house these immoral, amoral, and often unrehabitative menances to our own liberties. [gets off soapbox]

 

Against.

Living the rest of your life in prison is a lot worse than just getting it over with.

Executing someone is stooping to the level of the convicted. I think we can be more civilized than that.

 

Kill by evil (Not cuz of Revenge): For!!!!!
KILL by sorrow, like because of revenge: NOT For!!
Any lesser crime: Not for!

 

Do you feel the death penalty is really a deterent to crime, or is it just an "eye for and eye"?

From what I've seen, it is not a deterrent. I don't remember the statistical and psychological studies off the top of my head, but my understanding is that it doesn't work as a deterrent, and that psychologically, would-be murderers don't factor punishment into their decisions. I don't think it is just eye-for-an-eye, either. I think revenge and abuse of power are also factors.

Do you believe the state ever has the right to take the life of one of its' citizens?

I don't believe the state has any rights, period. I think each individual has the right to defend him/herself, to the death if necessary. I don't believe any group of people have the right to decide to kill an individual, for whatever reason.

If not...WHAT SHOULD be done with societies MOST dangerous offenders, especially if psychologist/experts say that some of them will NEVER be able to truly be re-intergrated into the public-at-large?

Very good question. (It would be interesting to see what fraction of executed people would be diagnosed this way.) Any solution would require a level of civic involvement which I don't think currently exists (at least where I live). That is, the willingness to actually address the issues of what the problems with these people are, where they come from, what responsibilities they can and cannot be trusted with. I think a likely option is isolation, something like exile.

 

Do you feel the death penalty is really a deterent to crime, or is it just an "eye for and eye"?

I think that from statistical data, it is clear that DP is NOT an effective deterrant.

Do you believe the state ever has the right to take the life of one of its' citizens?

Yes, I think it does, as long as it's within due process of law.

If not...WHAT SHOULD be done with societies MOST dangerous offenders, especially if psychologist/experts say that some of them will NEVER be able to truly be re-intergrated into the public-at-large?

I think that so-called "capital crimes", which are considered the worst and most serious crimes, should receive the worst and most serious punishments....And it is clear that DP does not fit that bill. Basically, capital offenders should, instead of receiving the DP, receive the worst thing possible (of course this punishment would not violate the Eighth Amendment). At the moment, it appears that life in a subpar prison would be that punishment.

Of course, that is also a matter of pure opinion. But who here thinks that DP is actually worse than life in a prison? (provided the prison is low on amenities and would have food, water, exercise, but no gyms, libraries, cable TV, etc.).

In a nutshell, I oppose DP, but only because it doesn't work and, apparently, is not cruel enough. I try not to let moral questions get in the way of judgment.

 

Since I haven't had the free time to catch up with all that has been posted here, I'll state my case and leave: against.
As I see it, the death penalty is the easy way out. We must punish these offenders such that they would prefer death... I am aware that this may sound sick, but IMO, it's the only way...

 

These things are complicated.

I mean, the objective of punishment is to teach the guy a lesson in the hope that he/she changes.

Death won't accomplish this aim.

But I wouldn't want to pay for the feeding and clothing of a thousand criminals.

 

I mean, the objective of punishment is to teach the guy a lesson in the hope that he/she changes.

That is one of the purposes of punishment. Another is to enforce the laws, to show others that they will also be punished if they choose not to obey the laws. Yet another, at least the way we exact punishment these days, is to remove individuals from society when they have demonstrated an inability to coexist peacefully with others in respect for our laws. (The D.C. sniper, for example, may prove to be incapable of being reformed, "learning a lesson" and being returned to society. What do we do with someone like this?)

 

The D.C. sniper, for example, may prove to be incapable of being reformed, "learning a lesson" and being returned to society. What do we do with someone like this?

There is no way to prove that someone is incapable of reformation. That is why, to me, the death penalty is no better than any other time when people have killed other people on the grounds that 'they are less of a human than me'. That's what it really comes down to ... some people believe that those who do evil have given up their humanity, and so they are no longer deserving of life. But that denies the fact that humanity can be reclaimed ... there is such a thing as redemption.

 

Kitt:
There is no way to prove that someone is incapable of reformation. That is why, to me, the death penalty is no better than any other time when people have killed other people on the grounds that 'they are less of a human than me'. That's what it really comes down to ... some people believe that those who do evil have given up their humanity, and so they are no longer deserving of life. But that denies the fact that humanity can be reclaimed ... there is such a thing as redemption.

But can you prove that people can be reformed? Can you really look at someone and say "He can be reformed" and look at someone else and say "He can't be reformed"? How do you make that distinction?

bluebereft:
I mean, the objective of punishment is to teach the guy a lesson in the hope that he/she changes.

I don't think what the criminal gets out of committing a crime is important. He shouldn't get anything out of it. Why should they benefit?

Remember, we're discussing CAPITAL criminals here.

But I wouldn't want to pay for the feeding and clothing of a thousand criminals.

Then why don't we simply deny the criminals food and clothing? Or maybe feed them leftovers and clothe them in old rags that no one wants.

That is one of the purposes of punishment. Another is to enforce the laws, to show others that they will also be punished if they choose not to obey the laws. Yet another, at least the way we exact punishment these days, is to remove individuals from society when they have demonstrated an inability to coexist peacefully with others in respect for our laws.

Yes, and you forgot one more: deterrance. It's a tough issue: We have to think up of a punishment that's so bad that prospective criminals would quiver in their boots thinking of it, but at the same time not be "cruel and unusual".

 

But can you prove that people can be reformed? Can you really look at someone and say "He can be reformed" and look at someone else and say "He can't be reformed"? How do you make that distinction?

Personally, I believe that everyone, no matter how disgustingly, repulsively evil, given enough time and the right treatment, can be reformed. Naively optimistic, I know.

On the subject of 'how do you know', that is exactly the reason why I don't believe in the death penalty. We don't know if someone can be reformed - we can't look into people's minds - but by killing them, you are denying them any chance of redemption.

 

Is the USA still the only developed nation with the death penalty? And how many of the 50 states actually have capital punishment?

E_S

 

The death penalty is really about "an eye for an eye." People fail to realize that revenge won't bring the dead back. Revenge is wrong, and counter-productive, as in most situations, it leads to more revenge. That's how blood feuds continue.

I've heard the argument, both about the death penalty and about denying people their Constitutional rights (Sniper thread), that I would feel differently if someone close to me was murdered/raped/etc. Aside from the fact that at this point, walking in Shadows as I do, I am not that close to anyone, this is possibly true, but irrelevant. Because of the feelings of loss and pain, I might feel angry, hateful enough to want the person to die, but I do not have the right to give into those feelings and allow them to override my ethical/moral judgment, and my better instincts as a human being. Remember that Yoda said "fear, anger, aggression, the Dark Side are they." Hatred is also often mentioned as part of the Dark Side. Personally, I'd rather not go down the dark path; you who use this argument can do what you like.

The death penalty also violates the person's 4th/5th/6th Amendment rights, as, in the event that new evidence is discovered exonerating an executionee, he/she will be beyond exoneration or reparation from the state.

I personally believe that the state does not have a right to decide that people deserve to die. No one does. We have only the right to decide, under grave circumstances, that one person must die (or be condemned to almost certain death) for the others to survive, i.e. lifeboats. And if, for example, a community had no way (theoretically) to restrain an individual who was a serial murderer, and it was likely that he would kill again, I would support killing that individual to stop him (there are other religious reasons but I won't get into them here).

In addition, executions cost more than incarcerating violent felons.

Many death-row inmates have and had defense lawyers (mostly public defenders) who are/were apathetic and negligent in defending them. Some (more than you think) slept through their client's trials (and still do now).

And finally, the death penalty is applied disparately to African-Americans and the poor. This statistic is several years old, but at that time, a Black man who killed a white woman, was six times more likely to get the death penalty, than a white woman who killed a Black man. Certainly, it is still true that disproportionate numbers of (mostly poor) African-Americans are on death row.

 

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Ghandi (1869-1948)

It seems that most of the civilised world has abolished the death penalty, so why is America lagging behind? Most other countries find it absurd that the leaders of the free world, the so-called pinnacle of modern civilisation, still kills off its criminals. The only excuse I can find for it is that it's democratic - the majority of the people in America (and even here in Britian, where it's outlawed) still want it practised. But is this a good enough excuse?

The United States has been one of the few countries that refused to join a UN moratorium on the execution of minors, which is still legal in the US - at the very least, in Texas. How is this acceptable? How can anybody claim to be patriotic while pregnant women and minors can still be executed in their country? How, when a disproprotionate number of blacks are executed and found innocent while on death row?

- TheScarletBanner.

 

I believe that everyone, no matter how disgustingly, repulsively evil, given enough time and the right treatment, can be reformed.

I believe that any prisoner, given enough time and the right treatment, can learn to act "reformed." It doesn't mean they've actually reformed, and it doesn't mean they won't commit another crime if released.

I think the basic question here is whether punishment can exist for the sheer purpose of punishment. Do we always have to be interested in "reforming" the criminal? When we pose a fine for an offense, does it necessarily serve to reform the person who committed it? When we do try to reform someone who has committed a crime, is it for the sole purpose of their own improvement, or is it to protect our society from the recurrence of their crime?

 

Is the USA still the only developed nation with the death penalty?

Do you consider Russia developed? I think it still in effect in Russia, at least it was in the early 90's (even after the fall of the USSR).

And how many of the 50 states actually have capital punishment?

Not many, mostly in the south. I'll look in my sourcebook, but I think only 14 of 50 states have the death penalty, if that. And the Supreme Court is beginning to check that. In another decade it will be either completly stopped in the US or a handful of states such as Texas will still have it.