Convince me to oppose death penalty

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your points were contradicting themselves in the first place.
Like I said, you have it all set in stone, so why bother...

Nice dismissal, without comprehension. As for the "contradiction" that would be in your mind, not what I actually wrote...

Oh well.

 

[Jumi]

It begins with a question - is death really the worst thing that can happen to a human? I answer that question with a resounding "not even remotely." Death is a release. Torture is not. We did, for better or worse, prohibit more overt forms of torture in the prison system. But prison life is certainly torturous for many even in the absence of that.

I agree. Getting locked up for a long period of time, even permanently removed from normal human contact and nature is worse than death.

 

[Augustus]

What if we stick to cases where there is no chance of misidentification that they are indeed the responsible ones? Say people like Anders Breivik who will probably do something again when set free, and already killed dozens of kids to make a political statement.

The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, you aren't supposed to be convicting people who you aren't sure are guilty in the first place.

How would you formulate a law that differentiates between 'we aren't certain they are guilty' and 'we are certain they are guilty'?

Even confessions are not completely reliable.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

One life is a belief. Maybe a true one, but there's no evidence that it's the only possibility.

Agreed-- but is there any evidence it is not accurate? Any at all?

No.

In case where someone's life or perhaps a whole group of peoples lives were ruined or taken away, who were the perpetrators to make that choice? And should they end their days in peace, safe with knowledge that at least their lives weren't taken away by someone else.

I am not dismissing that the deaths created by the murderer are not horrific and terrible things.

But.

Do two wrongs make a right?

How does killing the murderer fix... anything?

How can we spin killing the murderer into anything other than revenge?

Certainly the now-dead killer is not reformed.

And we can show statistically, that the death penalty is absolutely NOT any sort of preventative! Quite the opposite, in fact.... once a criminal realizes he's facing being killed? All Bets Are Off.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, you aren't supposed to be convicting people who you aren't sure are guilty in the first place.

How would you formulate a law that differentiates between 'we aren't certain they are guilty' and 'we are certain they are guilty'?

Even confessions are not completely reliable.

Indeed-- the very language OF our Legal System are left open-ended, room for adjustment at a later time, etc.

Except in the case of Death-- there isn't any such room, for afters-- another reason why I'm against granting that Power to Government.

 

[Jumi]

My arguments that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment are essentially those of Breyer in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross. See posts #1 and #2 here: Is the Death Penalty Constitutional?

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-the-death-penalty-constitutional.182759/#post-4552965
I leave this constitutional issue for our US residents to ponder.

Other than Breyer's arguments, and the facts and figures noted in those two posts, I would just note a couple of other factors that argue against (or might argue against) the death penalty. One is that redemption, rehabilitation, reformation, or whatever you wish to call it, does occur among prisoners and otherwise people who have committed heinous crimes. For instance, there is a case from the 1950s or 1960s where a man raped two high school girls, tormented a couple of other guys, and shot and killed 1 or 2 police officers, all within the span of a few hours. He was only identified and arrested some 40 years later. That was apparently his only crime; he had become an upstanding and well-respected member of his small community in another state, was a retired grandfather who did lots of volunteer work when he was arrested, tried and convicted.

Isn't that an argument for letting people go for any crime? They might change.

Convicted murderers occasionally turn out to be exemplary prisoners who do good works in prison--e.g., teach illiterate prisoners to read.

The death penalty prevents such redemption/rehabilitation/reformation.

It's true reform is possible.

Another factor that might argue against the death penalty is that it a good many of those given life sentences without possibility of parole would prefer to die rather than spend 60 years in prison. And there is indeed a high suicide rate among such prisoners.

I see the long prison sentences that the US has as more inhumane than the death penalties. It's no surprise they kill themselves.

 

[Jumi]

One smart German named Soering escaped the death penalty by claiming that the actual cruelty of it is not the death penalty by itself but the fact of being forced to wait on death row, sometimes for years.

Soering v United Kingdom - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom
Indeed, I see long death row as more inhumane than getting on with it.

A short but strinking (and short) anti-death penalty book is
On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria. Don't get scared by the age of the book (1764), it's very modern and reasonable.

I'm on a long holiday so I'll check to see if my libraries have it.

And a personal remark: Don't want to bash anyone but I always wondered how turning the other cheek gets along with demanding the death penalty, given that the founder of Christianity was executed at well.

Well that's a question for Christians who support the death penalty, I think...

 

[Jumi]

I kind of doubt it's about having the correct logical argument. It's about feelings and emotions. You feel it's the right punishment for such a heinous act.

You'd be wrong. I've been converted by logic before. Besides, I was against the death penalty before so the switch wouldn't cause me that much grief.

Me, I don't see the point in it. What values does it have? Revenge, vengeance? These things I've no desire for. Forgiveness provides closure for me. So you kill someone because it will make you feel better. Maybe it will allow you to feel justice has been served.

Forgiveness is fine. But how do you forgive someone who killed and injured kids, elderly and put you in a wheelchair who laughs at your plight in court and insults you and the victims? It's probably easier said then done.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Isn't that an argument for letting people go for any crime? They might change.

False Dichotomy logical fallacy. Who said anything about letting them go or get off without penalty?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You'd be wrong. I've been converted by logic before. Besides, I was against the death penalty before so the switch wouldn't cause me that much grief.


Forgiveness is fine. But how do you forgive someone who killed and injured kids, elderly and put you in a wheelchair who laughs at your plight in court and insults you and the victims? It's probably easier said then done.

Forgiveness isn't necessary. Obviously, such a sociopath should be removed from society.

However, keeping them locked away, can very well serve as an Example: Do Not Be This Way.

We had one such a figure, in the US, and he was locked away for the rest of his crazy life--- Charles Manson. I think keeping him locked up was superior in every way, than simply killing him would have been.

Oklahoma had a serious bomb attack a number of years back, and the rabid-eyed "REVENGE" types insisted on killing the perpetrator.

I think that was a mistake. I think keeping him around, to serve as a negative example, would have been much more effective.

 

[Jumi]

Agreed-- but is there any evidence it is not accurate? Any at all?

No.

It's not important to me and I'm not into making this a religious debate. I'm fine with your belief and live my life like it's the last one.

I am not dismissing that the deaths created by the murderer are not horrific and terrible things.

But.

Do two wrongs make a right?

How does killing the murderer fix... anything?

How can we spin killing the murderer into anything other than revenge?

Certainly the now-dead killer is not reformed.

Isn't locking up people also wrong? Or are we more right in doing the second wrong when death is not involved?

And we can show statistically, that the death penalty is absolutely NOT any sort of preventative! Quite the opposite, in fact.... once a criminal realizes he's facing being killed? All Bets Are Off.

Is there any actual evidence for that, though, that those facing death penalty will act worse?

The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, you aren't supposed to be convicting people who you aren't sure are guilty in the first place.

I'd expect there to be a possibility to have such penalties reserved for higher confidence. It's not like laws aren't man made, that they couldn't be further improved to differentiate between cases where there is for example a large group of surviving victims and witnesses, video evidence as well as catching the perp red handed.

 

[Estro Felino]

What about free will and all that - no mention of the determinist argument that the murderer couldn't have done anything else. Not that I believe this. Killing the innocent is the main reason why I would be opposed plus the savagery that this seems to suppose - we are no better than them? It's difficult to oppose though, given the horrendous crimes some commit, and often commit again when released from prison. No satisfactory answers really - but I am still opposed.

Exactly.... I think the European juridic sciences have definitively eliminated the principle of retaliation and promoted the principle of re-education and rehabilitation.

Even if I am curious to study American penal law...to understand its principles.

 

[Jumi]

False Dichotomy logical fallacy. Who said anything about letting them go or get off without penalty?

I didn't mean to say that was your argument. I said it sounds like an argument for letting them go. It worked for them and the community. After causing lifelong trauma to a couple of girls and killing a few police their life turned out fine, they were even pillars of community, so to speak.

 

[Jumi]

Exactly.... I think the European juridic sciences have definitively eliminated the principle of retaliation and promoted the principle of re-education and rehabilitation.

I'd say both systems, US and European have their flaws. In my country a man raped a 10 year old girl who he had just met, but it was not even ruled a rape because they argue, she didn't resist. I'd say they were thinking of the best for the perpetrator.

 

[Nous]

Isn't that an argument for letting people go for any crime? They might change.

I do not make any argument for "letting people go," but only argue against the death penalty. It was merely for purposes of illustrating the possibility of redemption/rehabilitation/reformation that I noted a case of someone who committed a horrific crime, wasn't caught for some-40 years and became an upstanding citizen in the interim.

 

[columbus]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

Here's how it works for me, on more than one level.
Fundamentally, I believe that morality is based on the recognition that we are all part of an interdependent web of life. We're all in this together, and ultimately nobody can choose suffering or death for others without degrading the whole human situation.
Self defense is different. Then the perp has already chosen the suffering/ death. You are just choosing who will die.

So I am basically opposed to Capital Punishment as a general thing, because I am pretty hardcore ProLife.

There are also many and various less abstract and more practical reasons. As it's done here in the first world it's not much of a deterrent. Harshness of punishment is less important than certainty of it. So investing the resources in bringing the guilty to justice, rather than the gigantic expense of a capital trial (with it's very expensive and necessary safeguards) is the practical thing to do.

That's kind of a broad and simplified version of my views on the subject.
There are too many exceptions and caveats to list though, as I don't see this as a simple thing. There are people I think remain threats even in prison. Drug lords, gang members, and terrorist leadership, those are all people who can continue to cause destruction through their organization. And I would freely grant a humane option of suicide for people who won't get out of prison for a long time or ever.
And frankly, I don't really care about this too much. I have almost no sympathy for the folks on death row, and I doubt that many truly innocent people are on it. The human race has far bigger problems and I am too busy caring about them to give murderers much thought.

Tom

 

[Nakosis]

You'd be wrong. I've been converted by logic before. Besides, I was against the death penalty before so the switch wouldn't cause me that much grief.

I was for it before. Feelings change. Can I change your feelings about it? I don't know. I don't see any logical true or false in this position. I suppose events happens which change your feelings about stuff. What do you see as the logical benefit of the death penalty?

Forgiveness is fine. But how do you forgive someone who killed and injured kids, elderly and put you in a wheelchair who laughs at your plight in court and insults you and the victims? It's probably easier said then done.

I do so for my sake. Anger, hatred take a lot from you. I really don't want the actions of someone else having that much control over my life.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's not important to me and I'm not into making this a religious debate. I'm fine with your belief and live my life like it's the last one.

That's what my original comment intended. We are on the same page, here.

Isn't locking up people also wrong? Or are we more right in doing the second wrong when death is not involved?

Well, yes-- but there are degrees of "wrongness", it's not a simple matter of 100% or 0%. Except in the case of state-sponsored killing, of course.

There are even degrees of being locked up: minimalist facilities that are more of a country club you are not permitted to leave, through various increasing unpleasantness up to the most brutal things humans have created (although not intentionally in the case of hard-core lockups).

It's not all or nothing.

Is there any actual evidence for that, though, that those facing death penalty will act worse?

Yes. I'll not insult your intelligence presuming you cannot find out for yourself, however.

I'd expect there to be a possibility to have such penalties reserved for higher confidence. It's not like laws aren't man made, that they couldn't be further improved to differentiate between cases where there is for example a large group of surviving victims and witnesses, video evidence as well as catching the perp red handed.

Well, yes-- hypothetically you would appear to have a valid point. Except: Have you seen the movie Avatar? Or perhaps any one of the latest Marvel movies?

Video "evidence" can be hacked, altered, edited, adjusted, manipulated in such a way to appear the exact opposite of what it is supposedly "evidence" for....

As for witnesses? They are the absolute worst of the worst, when it comes to evidence. No two people see the same thing, even if they were standing side-by-side as disinterested witnesses.....

My point is this: IF a system can become Corrupt, THEN it is possible to manufacture ANY evidence the system requires, to do What It Wants.

And we know from history, that ALL government is corrupt to some degree-- and since we do not have an actual participatory Democracy anywhere on the planet? (All are indirect, Representative, and all use a formal Judicial System for crime and punishment) It is safe to assume ALL are corrupt, at least a bit.

With Corruption, comes the most heinous crime of Punishing the Innocent for the Crime of Someone Else.

I find I cannot abide the thought of even ONE such example--ever.

In contrast to the U.S.S.R, wherein you really could walk down Moscow streets at 3 am with money hanging out of your pockets, and you'd be Okay-- so long as you did not run afoul of the Party (naturally).

Their motto was: "We may kill an unfortunate innocent or three, but by damn, NO criminal EVER gets away!" (parenthetic: unless they are Party-- then? Anything Goes)

 

[Jumi]

I do not make any argument for "letting people go," but only argue against the death penalty. It was merely for purposes of illustrating the possibility of redemption/rehabilitation/reformation that I noted a case of someone who committed a horrific crime, wasn't caught for some-40 years and became an upstanding citizen in the interim.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a possibility of reformation. But someone also might be model citizen most of the time, while engaging in a horrible crime now and then. Maybe they aren't caught for anything for a long time.

 

[Nous]

I'm not arguing that there isn't a possibility of reformation. But someone also might be model citizen most of the time, while engaging in a horrible crime now and then. Maybe they aren't caught for anything for a long time.

I definitely do not discount any such possibilities. Indeed, as far as I know, the instances of actual redemption/rehabilitation/reformation among those who perpetrate murder are fairly rare outside of prison, and not terribly common inside prison.