Convince me to oppose death penalty

[Nakosis]

Compassion for murderers is not a component of any argument I made or that Justice Breyer made (I strongly encourage you to read those two posts).

In fact, the last factor I noted in #11 on this thread, in my next-to-last sentence in #11, suggests just the opposite of compassion: torment these murderers in prison for 60 years rather than giving them what they want--a pleasant, painless death.

I would much prefer death over spending my remaining days in jail. It also prevents any rehabilitation and any possibility of redemption.

 

[Nous]

To briefly summarize what I consider the strongest and most important arguments of Justice of Breyer

What? "Justice of Breyer"? My typos are getting really weird!

 

[Jumi]

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).

Why is death penalty a case exception? I grant you that I'm not a big fan of giving governments right over people in most cases, but for controlling murder, terrorism, organized crime I think there needs to be an organized response.

So what is your option, a minimalist lock up or?

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

Treat it like you are insulting my intelligence and tell me. I did start a thread asking others to convince me, so I'm already prepared to act the fool.

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.....

Well, having the guy caught with a rifle or knife in hand holding hostages... what do you think? As to your question on the movies, I haven't watched them.

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.

So you believe it's a safeguard against corruption not to have the death penalty as an option.

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

I also can't abide the thought of some people enjoying their time after they did all they could to murder as many people as possible and even insult their victims later, showing no remorse.

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)

Soviet Union wasn't actually as safe as that, it was just a front displayed to promote their politics. Russia sure has changed in that, condemning other countries of their use of the death penalty.

 

[Nous]

I would much prefer death over spending my remaining days in jail.

I think I would too.

 

[Jumi]

What? "Justice of Breyer"? My typos are getting really weird!

Don't worry about it. I think everyone knew what you meant there.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

Argument against. In addition to the observable fact that, under the death penalty, innocent people are frequently enough murdered by the state -- and often without any remorse on the part of the prosecutors, etc -- the death penalty provides the state with a legal means of terrorizing political opponents into submission. That is precisely what was done in this country at one time. See for instance, "Haymarket Square bombing". Innocent radicals were sentenced to death in order to silence other radicals.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My reasons are mostly utilitarian. I.e. there's never been any evidence that the death penalty functions as a deterrence for crime, it costs more than a life prison sentence to do right (and even then we still sometimes make mistakes and an innocent person ends up killed by the state), and the desire for it coming from an emotional desire for vengence can actually impede healing for victims.

 

[David1967]

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.

For ; Some criminals, for example serial killers, deserve to die.

Against ; There is the risk that an innocent individual will be put to death. I've seen this happen. There was a man from my home town spent 18 years on death row until DNA evidence cleared him. And I know this case is not unique.

 

[David1967]

Don't worry about it. I think everyone knew what you meant there.

Not me. I just got new glasses. I thought he wrote "Justin of the Bieber". I gotta take these glasses back.

 

[Sunstone]

Another reason to abolish the death penalty is the ugly heinous fact that it is sometimes served out, not because someone is guilty of the crime they have been charged with, but because the public demands that they be killed. This has happened in Texas more than once within memory. A man has been found guilty and sentenced to death. Evidence is found showing he's innocent. The District Attorney, an elected position, does everything within his power to suppress the evidence or make it inadmissible in court due to the fact the DA is up for re-election and the blood thirsty Texas public demands the innocent man be murdered by the state in the name of law and order.

 

[Dash Balderson]

What about when the police are mid-abduction attempt and have to shoot the person who is resisting arrest and threatening lives in order to do so? What are the moral implications of a police-officer "putting down" a dangerous criminal? Is this also something that any death-sentence opposers have a problem with? If not, why not? This takes the "possibly innocent" part out of the equation, but only that part. All other talk of possible rehabilitation, killing taking us "down to their level" etc. still stands.

If you are sure of the guilt, pushing the death sentence to a later time than at abduction is merely that... postponing more of the same. If it would have been fine to have to kill the person at the moment of abduction, how does it become impossibly difficult to see that person killed later? The fact that they were endangering others at abduction? They already did that before that point, and took it full tilt, in many, many cases.

I can't help but feel this is somewhat a case of "out of sight out of mind" - meaning that we can't see their previous crimes played out - and only because we do see their behavior if they resist arrest and get themselves killed do we accept the killing.

 

[Augustus]

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.

I think it would be problematic to formulate a specific law that made a miscarriage of justice impossible. What would be your criteria?

 

[suncowiam]

Most of the laws do not carry the finality of death. And indeed-- laws that are unethical are often challenged in court, and eventually, they are removed.

The most notable example being marriage equality; first it was illegal, then it wasn't. Prohibition against gays marrying never was moral, and never should have had any place in the legal system.

Technically, we are not discussing legality. We are discussing punishment.

There is no doubt that murderer has committed a crime and then he should be punished. The doubt comes into question as to how murderers should then be punished.

I opine that its acceptable to punish by death for those that are deliberate and heinousness. Others opine that its better to punish by life of imprisonment. As Jumi noted, "living in a box for the rest of your life," is really just still punishment. That's just being subjective as to how one should be punished. One suggests that there's a chance for rehabilitation. One could also suggest there's a chance for the person to commit the same crimes again. It's all arbitrary. I support both forms of punishment as long as it fixes the problem.

Don't fool yourself though to suggest one can objectively state that one method is better than the other.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to this study, 4.1% of all death row inmates since 1973 in the US were not guilty.

The death penalty in America is definitely a bad idea given the racism, the nearly institutionalized condoning and cover-ups of the lying and planting of evidence by police by their superiors, high levels of fear and resentment in general among the population from which juries are selected, and an apparent disregard among jurors for the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as evidenced by the Innocence Project findings following the advent of DNA sequencing that put the quality of the process to the test.

Of course, this doesn't address the OP, which is not limited to America, and seems to more about the moral status of executing the guilty rather than practical matters such as not executing the innocent.

My answer to @Jumi would be the same as @columbus and @Bob the Unbeliever I find the death penalty repugnant.

Instead, I like the idea of island penal colonies patrolled by boats offshore and fitted with the means to survive such as seed, shovels, plows, livestock, means to fish any lakes or rivers, and the like. Nobody gets off the island once sentenced to it, and nobody that isn't a prisoner ever need go on. If they can cooperate and form a community, great. If they want to kill one another, that's their business.

They can build their shelters, make their clothes, cut their firewood, etc.. No telephones, electric power, Internet, etc., and really no modern technology at all, although others might grant them some medical supplies, radio contact with the mainland, but I'm good with a pre-industrial life for them similar to the early American colonists.

It's pretty fair, inexpensive, and humane, and solves the problem of these people existing without killing them or even caging them.

 

[metis]

Living in a box for the rest of your life... who are we to condemn others to that?

If you truly feel that way, then why not propose giving them the choice?

 

[Jumi]

Argument against. In addition to the observable fact that, under the death penalty, innocent people are frequently enough murdered by the state -- and often without any remorse on the part of the prosecutors, etc -- the death penalty provides the state with a legal means of terrorizing political opponents into submission. That is precisely what was done in this country at one time. See for instance, "Haymarket Square bombing". Innocent radicals were sentenced to death in order to silence other radicals.

Legitimate concern and that is pretty bad, but it's also the fault of the legal system of the time allowing sentencing people without evidence. Of course governments that don't have the death penalty haven't always been better, it just takes one tool out of the box of corrupt judges.

What about when the police are mid-abduction attempt and have to shoot the person who is resisting arrest and threatening lives in order to do so? What are the moral implications of a police-officer "putting down" a dangerous criminal? Is this also something that any death-sentence opposers have a problem with? If not, why not? This takes the "possibly innocent" part out of the equation, but only that part. All other talk of possible rehabilitation, killing taking us "down to their level" etc. still stands.

Right. I think this is the reason why French police have killed people engaging in terrorist attacks, because they don't have the death penalty.

I think it would be problematic to formulate a specific law that made a miscarriage of justice impossible. What would be your criteria?

Caught in the act sounds like good criteria.

If you truly feel that way, then why not propose giving them the choice?

Locked away for good with the option of getting death when they want it? Sounds like many would opt for it, you know how depressing it can be.

Another reason to abolish the death penalty is the ugly heinous fact that it is sometimes served out, not because someone is guilty of the crime they have been charged with, but because the public demands that they be killed. This has happened in Texas more than once within memory. A man has been found guilty and sentenced to death. Evidence is found showing he's innocent. The District Attorney, an elected position, does everything within his power to suppress the evidence or make it inadmissible in court due to the fact the DA is up for re-election and the blood thirsty Texas public demands the innocent man be murdered by the state in the name of law and order.

That sounds more like a public lynching, how is that possible? The US legal system is always full of surprises to me... if we're honest I feel lucky not living there solely on that basis alone.

 

[Jumi]

The death penalty in America is definitely a bad idea given the racism, the nearly institutionalized condoning and cover-ups of the lying and planting of evidence by police by their superiors, high levels of fear and resentment in general among the population from which juries are selected, and an apparent disregard among jurors for the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as evidenced by the Innocence Project findings following the advent of DNA sequencing that put the quality of the process to the test.

For the US I think you have a good point. The juror system doesn't sound good to me even on paper.

Of course, this doesn't address the OP, which is not limited to America, and seems to more about the moral status of executing the guilty rather than practical matters such as not executing the innocent.

My answer to @Jumi would be the same as @columbus and @Bob the Unbeliever I find the death penalty repugnant.

Instead, I like the idea of island penal colonies patrolled by boats offshore and fitted with the means to survive such as seed, shovels, plows, livestock, means to fish any lakes or rivers, and the like. Nobody gets off the island once sentenced to it, and nobody that isn't a prisoner ever need go on. If they can cooperate and form a community, great. If they want to kill one another, that's their business.

They can build their shelters, make their clothes, cut their firewood, etc.. No telephones, electric power, Internet, etc., and really no modern technology at all, although others might grant them some medical supplies, radio contact with the mainland, but I'm good with a pre-industrial life for them similar to the early American colonists.

It's pretty fair, inexpensive, and humane, and solves the problem of these people existing without killing them or even caging them.

It would end up with someone declaring themselves king on the island and dominating it with violence. Looking at examples from less governed prisons like Pollsmoor, it would probably end up being even more brutal than we can imagine. Of course they could also escape or receive contraband. Keeping that out would be a large undertaking.

 

[Augustus]

Caught in the act sounds like good criteria.

By who? How many? What constitutes caught in the act?

Also consider eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

 

[Jumi]

By who? How many? What constitutes caught in the act?

Say police arrive, you're still killing people.

Also consider eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Yes.

 

[Sunstone]

I have no sympathy for the argument that it is permissible for the state to take a few innocent lives because their loss is morally out weighed by the "justice" in ending a greater number of guilty lives. I know no one here is making that calculation, but I have seen it made in other places. I simply think anyone who makes it is morally entailed to volunteer to be one of those innocent lives the state takes. If they really believe it's fair for the state to take them, let them prove they believe it's fair. Let them substitute themselves for someone condemned to death on the chance that the condemned is innocent. See what courage and wisdom backs up their view.