Convince me to oppose death penalty

[BSM1]

My challenge still stands. If -- for whatever reason -- you believe the state is justified in take an innocent life, then have the courage of your convictions and volunteer to stand in for a condemned man or woman on the chance they're innocent. If that's not ok with you, then why is it ok with you to allow some other innocent person's life to be taken, but not your own?

Well let's extend this out to every crime ever committed because we may incarcerate an innocent person. Hell, let's just open the prisons and let everybody go...just in case, you know.

 

[Altfish]

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.

Inability of law enforcement agencies to convict the right person...I give you...

Timothy Evans
Stefan Kizsho
Sally Clarke
Derek Bentley
Stephen Downing
Guildford Four
Birmingham Six
Maquire Seven

Those are all UK prosecutions, some led to state murder, some would have done if the UK hadn't matured and repealed the death penalty.

 

[metis]

I wouldn't give anyone that took a life further choices. We shouldn't give choices to criminals.

They know the punishment for their actions. If any choice is to be given, it's the choice of not murdering to begin with. They forfeit their freedom once they commit the crime.

But you're making the assumption that all whom have been found guilty of murder are the actual ones whom committed it, and yet the dna evidence has shown that this simply is not the case.

Secondly, people can change over time, and many do.

Thirdly, why execute people if there are other ways of making sure they don't commit crimes again?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Well...seeing how it's that simple.

I see that reading comprehension is not your strongest suit. So let me spell it out for you. I called the argument I use to oppose the death penalty 'simple', not the mechanics of the application of the argument.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

The only reason I oppose the death penalty is because the justice system is imperfect and errors are made all the time. If life in prison without parole is the sentence, it can at least be terminated if a mistake has been shown to have occurred. Once you kill somebody, that cannot be undone. So now, you have a judge and 12 jurors that have conspired to commit a murder....the very crime they accused the person they put to death of committing. So it gets to be a sticky situation.

It can be argued as well that killing someone does little to punish them, as once they are dead, they cease to exist, and therefore can receive no further punishment. Or if you are of certain Christian beliefs, the person can ask for forgiveness at the last moment and be forgiven and you are merely sending them off to enjoy Heaven, so quite the opposite of punishment. (I do not subscribe so such notions)

There are those instances where it is beyond question that the person is guilty of killing someone, sure. But often, the evidence is less certain.

Further, killing someone because they killed someone sounds more like vengeance that justice.

All that said, if there were a way to absolutely be certain that no one was ever put to death who did not commit a murder, or was mentally incapable of discerning what he was doing, I would probably have little to say about the matter.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Except that it doesn't ever work that way. Having (or not) the death penalty does nothing with respect to crime vs less crime.

There’s still no evidence that executions deter criminals

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

It's not 100% or 0%, is it? There are degrees of incarceration; some are minimalist (such as a typical county "drunk tank". There are numerous that are more than that, but less than a Super Max (about the hardest degree of lock up).

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.

1. See above. Google "does the death penalty prevent crime" countless papers, studies and such, showing it has no real world effect. The Death Penalty is mostly a Political thing-- it's Useful for the Hard Liners to get more Votes. It really doesn't help overall crime statistics.

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.

Video is not evidence-- it's quite possible to create "real" videos that are entirely fake.

As for your "rifle" example? You mean just like the black kid who had picked up a toy rifle in a Wal-Mart, and was shot dead by frightened cops? (True Story-- more than one example, in fact....)

Or the black man who had a garage door opener and was shot dead by cops?

It's too easy to make mistakes-- even with "video" or "witnesses".... !

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

You have the cart before the horse: Corruption Exist-- and will always exist. Because of Corruption, we should never-ever stoop to an irreversible action.

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.

Life is tough, sometimes. I hate the fact that super rich people who inherited that wealth, are absolutely useless parasites, having done not one thing (apart from an accident of birth) to earn it.

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.

Having grown up during the Cold War? It actually was-- so long as you never ran afoul of the Party? Moscow had far less violent crime than any comparable US city.

Of course-- if you were not a Party Member? Just breathing meant you ran afoul of something or other.

However, Tourists in Moscow would do just Fine-- so long as you didn't break any of the Party Rules of course.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Similar case in Oklahoma, only the guilty party was seen to be guilty. (The Oklahoma City Bombing).

It wasn't remotely about Justice-with-a-J. It was strictly political, and about Revenge-with-an-R.

The main character was killed before even all the investigation was complete-- investigators were still looking into his accomplices, and trying to see how widespread the situation had been.

But noooo..... Political Pressures turned it into a Cartoon Circus-- there never was any Justice carried out, here. We still don't know the complete extent of everyone involved, and likely, some folk are still running around loose, who contributed in some ways to the bombing.

It is a very rare bird, for a terrorist to be a solitary figure-- the Unibomber being an extreme exception.

If McVey was still alive? He could be pumped for more information. He would still be serving as an example of DO NOT DO THIS. As it is now, he's fading from the public eye.

And the many mistakes committed that enabled him to do what he did? Get repeated...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

See, I have a problem with letting police shoot suspects willy-nilly too!

How many young black boys have to die by cop, in a Wal-Mart, for the "crime" of pickup up a toy rifle, before we change this attitude?

In England, police haven't typically carried lethal firearms for decades; and what'ya know? Death By Cop is rare over there...

I do think that we need to push more non-lethal mechanism into our police force, and only bring out the guns in the case of Danger! Danger! Danger-Will-Robinson! events....

"but but but criminals have teh gunnzzez!"

Well, yes.... they know the cops as often as not shoot first, and ask questions (maybe) for afters....!

Right here in Oklahoma, we had recent multiple examples of cops shooting and killing unarmed people at traffic stops....!

This has to Change.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

False. I can and do objectively make such a claim.

Death is Final-- there is no going back from Death. You cannot rewind, or "load save file" here.

All the information contained in the dead person's brain is lost.

That is a Unique Set of Knowledge. How can we humans have the Hubris, of removing it?

But there's more: Since it is demonstratively Impossible to remove Corruption from the System?

No conviction can be 100% certain. Ever. That is an Impossible Task. The Law itself recognizes this Fact: "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".

Except Death is far beyond even that--- it's 100%.

So, yeah-- there IS an Objective difference between Locking Up For Life, and Death.

One is open-ended, and reversible. The knowledge contained within the criminal's head remains accessible.

The other is Finis. Done. End. Nothing More--Ever.

The two are not remotely similar. ..

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Escape From Penal Island.

In all seriousness, it's a logical result. Robert Heinlein discussed this exact thing, in the pair of novellas, If This Goes On... and Coventry.

I almost wish I could assign Reading to this Discussion.

Wiki - If This Goes On....

Wiki - Coventry

 

[Dash Balderson]

See, I have a problem with letting police shoot suspects willy-nilly too!

How many young black boys have to die by cop, in a Wal-Mart, for the "crime" of pickup up a toy rifle, before we change this attitude?

In England, police haven't typically carried lethal firearms for decades; and what'ya know? Death By Cop is rare over there...

I do think that we need to push more non-lethal mechanism into our police force, and only bring out the guns in the case of Danger! Danger! Danger-Will-Robinson! events....

"but but but criminals have teh gunnzzez!"

Well, yes.... they know the cops as often as not shoot first, and ask questions (maybe) for afters....!

Right here in Oklahoma, we had recent multiple examples of cops shooting and killing unarmed people at traffic stops....!

This has to Change.

These are fair points, and something does need to change on that front as well. I do agree that police officers have had too many infractions of justice of late, and it is causing them grief with additional scrutiny and general public distrust.

I like the idea of non-lethal weaponry, and I think there could be a lot more research and development of some good tech that takes the bad guys down without being lethal. Though there would probably always be edge-cases... like someone being somehow "allergic" to the non-lethal attack and still dying. Or someone having a heart-attack over the stresses of the situation... but the cases of death would obviously go down.

It's interesting to think on, because I could see it going a couple of ways:

1. If the method(s) is/are truly nonlethal, the cops might end up abusing them because it is "easier" to simply shoot first and ask questions later.
2. If the method(s) is/are nonlethal, but hurt or cause some form of torment. I could see litigation being an even bigger problem than it is now because nearly EVERYBODY who was innocent (and therefore attacked unnecessarily) would survive to have a beef with the cops. To the point that the police might hesitate to use it, even in cases that warrant/necessitate it.

Always has to be some kind of problem, doesn't there?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

I actually have no problems at all with that--- in fact, I sometimes think Suicide Prevention on Death Row to be the height of Hypocrisy.

Pure Politics: <insert image of grinning jack-booted guard>
"We ain't gonna let you DIE, 'cause we is gonna KILL YOU INSTEAD".

Uggg. Pure barbarism.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

These are fair points, and something does need to change on that front as well. I do agree that police officers have had too many infractions of justice of late, and it is causing them grief with additional scrutiny and general public distrust.

I like the idea of non-lethal weaponry, and I think there could be a lot more research and development of some good tech that takes the bad guys down without being lethal. Though there would probably always be edge-cases... like someone being somehow "allergic" to the non-lethal attack and still dying. Or someone having a heart-attack over the stresses of the situation... but the cases of death would obviously go down.

It's interesting to think on, because I could see it going a couple of ways:

1. If the method(s) is/are truly nonlethal, the cops might end up abusing them because it is "easier" to simply shoot first and ask questions later.
2. If the method(s) is/are nonlethal, but hurt or cause some form of torment. I could see litigation being an even bigger problem than it is now because nearly EVERYBODY who was innocent (and therefore attacked unnecessarily) would survive to have a beef with the cops. To the point that the police might hesitate to use it, even in cases that warrant/necessitate it.

Always has to be some kind of problem, doesn't there?

Agreed--- it's always Something.

I think the few cases where non-lethal takedowns do cause death, can be tolerated to a degree.

Under most Legal Systems, the intent is recognized as Paramount Supreme.

In that we separate Involuntary Manslaughter from Premeditated Murder.

In the case of the police, the intent was to not kill the suspect-- even though that happened anyway.

And sadly, this would open the doors to the Litigious Lawyers.

Hmmmmmm...... I just answered the question:

"Under What Circumstances would Bob be Accepting of a Death Penalty?"

Answer: If the perp in question was..... a Lawyer.....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Hear! Hear!

Under the old U.S.S.R, they actually bragged about that very thing:

"Oh yes, we do kill an innocent person now and again, but you can bet no criminal ever goes unpunished. Besides, who really is all that innocent anyway?"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Look at the Politics surrounding the Oklahoma City Bombing, and the ultimate death of the supposed "lone perpetrator", Timothy McVey.

It was literally a Public Lynching. Pure Politics, and had zip-all to do with Justice.

Even if McVey was guilty? (... and It appears he was)... there was no Justice Done, here.

What's worse to me? The investigation was Closed and Done-- without really digging into those persons who aided and assisted McVey in his act of Domestic Terrorism. Now, we'll never know.

 

[Dash Balderson]

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.

I have to agree this seems the best option. You pay for nothing but the maintenance on the boats, pay the crew(s) their salaries, and for the supplies for those crews and the minimal supplies you offer the prisoners. They still have basic liberty, they are free to form their own governing system, take on roles and responsibilities... or not. Could even be that they'd have an even better shot at rehabilitation in the trying.

The only cons would be that they'd have access to whatever resources they wanted on the island, and so could try to mount some sort of offensive, or use their combined brain power to come up with some other means of escape... when you have a whole island and a bunch of potential workers with nothing better to do and all the time in the world on their hands, that sort of thing probably wouldn't be uncommon.

 

[Jumi]

It's not 100% or 0%, is it? There are degrees of incarceration; some are minimalist (such as a typical county "drunk tank". There are numerous that are more than that, but less than a Super Max (about the hardest degree of lock up).

One of the killers I've been watching enjoy his life indeed put out some music albums and wrote several racial books during his jailtime.

So indeed there is a difference, especially between countries.is not evidence-- it's quite possible to create "real" videos that are entirely fake.

So you're arguing that surveillance cameras shouldn't qualify as evidence.

As for your "rifle" example? You mean just like the black kid who had picked up a toy rifle in a Wal-Mart, and was shot dead by frightened cops? (True Story-- more than one example, in fact....)

Well us "Europeans"(citizens of the EU) often think your police is trigger happy in the extreme. In my country cops shot a terrorist in the leg who was trying to kill or take an elderly woman hostage during his attack.

I'm not that familiar with many US cases, only ones I hear about on here or my own news, forgive me. Were they holding hostages or did it seem like they were and were there people dead already?

You have the cart before the horse: Corruption Exist-- and will always exist. Because of Corruption, we should never-ever stoop to an irreversible action.

Taking decades off of someone's life is also irreversible.

Having grown up during the Cold War? It actually was-- so long as you never ran afoul of the Party? Moscow had far less violent crime than any comparable US city.

Yes, I remember those days. I live next to Russia and know people who lived there during Soviet era.

 

[dfnj]

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.

"Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing the Innocent. The danger that innocent people will be executed because of errors in the criminal justice system is getting worse. A total of 69 people have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence of their innocence emerged."

Life in prison is better for two reasons. One, innocent people will not be murdered by the government. And second, I'd rather have criminals suffer being in prison as long as possible. Just before they die, they may ask for genuine forgiveness from God and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and therefore, be allowed to enter the gates of heaven. By NOT killing them, they get to suffer for their crimes as long as possible.

 

[Jumi]

Well, yes.... they know the cops as often as not shoot first, and ask questions (maybe) for afters....!

Right here in Oklahoma, we had recent multiple examples of cops shooting and killing unarmed people at traffic stops....!

This has to Change.

That is a different problem from death penalty and I think it has to do with how police are trained and what kind of guidelines they are trained to follow. For example in my country policeman is 4 year college degree...

 

[Jumi]

Life in prison is better for two reasons. One, innocent people will not be murdered by the government. And second, I'd rather have criminals suffer being in prison as long as possible. Just before they die, they may ask for genuine forgiveness from God and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and therefore, be allowed to enter the gates of heaven.

I'm not Christian so take this as you will: I don't see it as making a difference and in fact that kind of reasoning is why I was reluctant to ever consider myself one.

By NOT killing them, they get to suffer for their crimes as long as possible.

Isn't that rather cruel in itself? I don't agree with them needing to suffer.