The Death Penalty

[monta]

I agree that the act of capital punishment (or any punishment for that matter) may in fact be rooted in our primal desires for revenge, but at the same time we can't ignore the benefit of punishment in maintaining social order.

You can't expect to rehabilitate someone while simultaneosly punishing them, you can't expect someone to accept help or advice in a hostile environment. Relying on punishment to deal with 'social order' issues is tantamount to giving up on a person and is the first step to creating a criminal class.

 

[Enoch07]

Then you've missed my point completely. How angry a person gets (which is completely understandable) is not what determines good vs. bad. Of course my heart goes out to those people, but that doesn't make them automaticly wise or authorities on ethics. In fact if anything, it would most likely create a great bias in them.

No, I got your point. I was just making sure you understood how the victims felt.

There are many problems with keeping criminals locked up for life. In case you were not aware. Prisons are already at max populations. Some prisons are above max populations, and have had to resort to extreme measures to house these criminals. The cost of keeping prisoners alive for a lifetime is going to drag this country into poverty, rehabilitation only works on a small % on those who actually want to change. With death penalty not being enforced these cost will only continue to create a snowball effect until we can no longer afford prisons at all. We simply cannot afford it, either financially or morally.

 

[monta]

To everyone, ourselves included.

I still don't get what you mean by this, what message ? Not killing is wrong obviously , not human life is sacred, not violence is never acceptable, so what is this message we are supposed to get by participating in a killing?

Do you see a difference between locking someone in your basement for 20 years and sending them to prison?

I don't see the difference between locking someone in the basement and having someone else lock them in the basement ,no.

 

[MSizer]

I do see a distinction: an incarcerated innocent convict can better themselves, work towards a degree, file appeals to exonerate themselves, etc. Death is final.

That brings up an interesting point. Do you remember Karla Homolka? She assisted her former husband Paul Bernardo in torturing and killing several teen girls (one of them was her own younger sister). (it makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it - it happened not far from where I live). Today she is a free woman, and she was educated on gov't money while in prison. That's wrong. How can the gov't defend spending money on educating her when there are young people who won't go to college simply because they don't have the money. While I disagree with killing criminals and I am fully in favour of trying to "cure" them, giving them tax paid education and then sending them back out into the world is not even close to what I consider "curing" them, and it's terrible IMO.

 

[Nepenthe]

No, I got your point. I was just making sure you understood how the victims felt.

There are many problems with keeping criminals locked up for life. In case you were not aware. Prisons are already at max populations. Some prisons are above max populations, and have had to resort to extreme measures to house these criminals.

We already went over this: legalize non-violent drug crimes and the problem is more than solved. The U.S. ranks number 1 in the world for its citizens in prison, mainly for the stringent drug laws. About 2 million of the 7 million in prison are for drug offenses.

The cost of keeping prisoners alive for a lifetime is going to drag this country into poverty,

Do you have numbers for that?

rehabilitation only works on a small % on those who want to change.

I don't know the percentage but even if it's small I'd oppose the death penalty on principle alone.

With death penalty not being enforced these cost will only continue to create a snowball effect until we can no longer afford prisons at all. We simply cannot afford it, either financially or morally.

This just isn't true. I know it's an internet forum where more smoke than light is generated, but I did address this several times already. I may be wrong- I'm just waiting for some numbers or studies to counter my previous examples and show where my arguments are flawed.

 

[Gentoo]

The death penalty is something that I've been securely on the fence about for a long time. I read every thread and post on RF about it in hopes of finally getting off of this fence. I'm often agreeing with the opposing arguments at the same time.

But I also find myself leaning towards being against it when I start to think about it in personal terms. If someone were to premeditatively kill GC (gods forbid), of course I would be upset and torn to shreds inside and yes, I'd be calling for swift justice. But to go so far as killing the culprit? I don't see what good it would do me (yes, I'm thinking very selfishly), it wouldn't bring my lover back, and I don't think it would help me sleep better at night...

On the other hand, this is all speculative, and there's no way of knowing how I'd react if I were ever in that situation (again, gods forbid)...

 

[Storm]

Oh I'm no expert either, not even an "internet expert" (), but my concern would be that speeding up an admittedly expensive and prolonged appeals process would open the doors to false convictions and other miscarriages of justice.

Fair enough. I just don't know enough about the appeals process to even see room for improvement.

My basic opposition to capital punishment is that I think it's immoral and a violation of basic human rights. Government should be responsible for feeding, housing, health care, defense, etc.- besides the obvious national defense I think defense against crime is a given as well, but the death penalty is a punishment, not a defense. The execution of a convicted murderer oversteps the boundaries of what I expect my government to be capable of deciding; when it comes to such an irreversible decision I think it's best to err in favor of life in prison.

Thank you for explaining your perspective.

The thing is, I don't think those rights are unconditional. I believe they can be forfeited.

I probably answered in the response above, but I think it's profoundly immoral to kill someone outside of self defense, etc. Killing a criminal who has been apprehended is immoral imo. I'm not going to cry any tears over a scumbag like, say, Richard Allen Davis if he's ever executed, but I can't morally justify the decision to execute.

A bit tangential, but do you believe there's such a thing as a just war? Assuming you do, what's the difference?

I do see a distinction: an incarcerated innocent convict can better themselves, work towards a degree, file appeals to exonerate themselves, etc. Death is final.

It's so minute as to be irrelevant, but I just see that as a pragmatic distinction, not a moral one. Which probably has more to do with my aforementioned thoughts on death than anything else.

You can't expect to rehabilitate someone while simultaneosly punishing them, you can't expect someone to accept help or advice in a hostile environment. Relying on punishment to deal with 'social order' issues is tantamount to giving up on a person and is the first step to creating a criminal class.

Incarceration is punishment, too. What do you suggest we replace it with?

Also, you never answered my question about how you define justice, especially as opposed to revenge.

 

[Storm]

I still don't get what you mean by this, what message ? Not killing is wrong obviously , not human life is sacred, not violence is never acceptable, so what is this message we are supposed to get by participating in a killing?

That some things simply will not be tolerated, and if you do them, you will pay the price.

I don't see the difference between locking someone in the basement and having someone else lock them in the basement ,no.

Then we're so far apart on this issue that I don't even know how to talk to you about it.

I have to wonder what you think we should do?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Unless he didn't know about the death penalty before he started killing people, the death penalty as a detterant failed miserably.If it worked then every state with the death penalty would have lower murder rates.

Not when there's basically no chance of even getting the death penalty, even in those states.

In general, the death penalty exists in name only. 1174 people have been executed in the past 33 years.... which means of all the death penalty states, most of them have many years in the past 33 during which they haven't executed anyone at all... so you can't really say that having the death penalty has had an effect on the murder rates there one way or the other.


You can only tell the effect when a significant number of executions happen in a given state in a given year.


Example. Kansas is a death penalty state. Kansas has not executed anyone in the past 33 years.

Kansas has lower murder rates than Michigan, Alaska, New Jersey, and New York.... all four non-death penalty states.

You know what other states has a lower murder rate than Michigan and Alaska? Texas, California, Virginia, Oklahoma, Ohio... states most likely to execute people in any given year.

Another state more likely to execute people... Florida. And from 96 to 07, Florida has constantly had a lower murder rate than Michigan, a non death penalty state.



Heck... Utah was the first to start executing people in 1977... by a rather violent method no less.... firing squad. you'd figure they'd have a tremendously high murder rate, if the death penalty has the opposite effect of a deterrent... but no... Utah has the 11th lowest murder rate in the nation. There are 8 non-death penalty states with higher murder rates than Utah.


Before you start telling people whether or not it works, it needs to be given a chance to work. Let every state that has the death penalty execute more than 50% of those convicted of a capital offense every year.... and then come back and tell me whether it's a deterrent or not.

 

[MSizer]

You can't expect to rehabilitate someone while simultaneosly punishing them, you can't expect someone to accept help or advice in a hostile environment. Relying on punishment to deal with 'social order' issues is tantamount to giving up on a person and is the first step to creating a criminal class.

I disagree. We simply havn't figured out how to help them yet, so we have no other option for now other than incarceration (or death, with which I don't agree). Killing them is giving up, locking them up is saying "I wish I could do better, but for now, I'm not prepared to let you do what you do to more victims, and I hope we have a better way to deal with it in the future".

 

[MSizer]

No, I got your point. I was just making sure you understood how the victims felt.

There are many problems with keeping criminals locked up for life. In case you were not aware. Prisons are already at max populations. Some prisons are above max populations, and have had to resort to extreme measures to house these criminals. The cost of keeping prisoners alive for a lifetime is going to drag this country into poverty, rehabilitation only works on a small % on those who actually want to change. With death penalty not being enforced these cost will only continue to create a snowball effect until we can no longer afford prisons at all. We simply cannot afford it, either financially or morally.

No, you're simply wrong. You're right about the penal system being maxed out, and that's IMO only all the more reason to pursue more preventive measures than strictly focusing on penalty. The penalty system we currently use has very big drawbacks (aside from the fact that it's immoral IMO, yet necessary for now). And again, the death penalty has never been shown to deter criminals, so it's just as unethical as murder.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The death penalty is something that I've been securely on the fence about for a long time. I read every thread and post on RF about it in hopes of finally getting off of this fence. I'm often agreeing with the opposing arguments at the same time.

But I also find myself leaning towards being against it when I start to think about it in personal terms. If someone were to premeditatively kill GC (gods forbid), of course I would be upset and torn to shreds inside and yes, I'd be calling for swift justice. But to go so far as killing the culprit? I don't see what good it would do me (yes, I'm thinking very selfishly), it wouldn't bring my lover back, and I don't think it would help me sleep better at night...

Ever notice that criminal trials aren't "defendant vs the victim's family", but are instead "defendant vs the state"?


The death penalty isn't for emotional purposes. Well, allowing the victim's family to be present at an execution might be... though nothing says they have to be there for it....

Society has laws. And there are penalties for breaking those laws. The more serious the violation, the more serious the penalty.... and there's no crime more serious than murder... and there's no penalty more serious than death.

I'd rather pay more to have a murderer put to death than to know that he'll be spending the next few decades eating, receiving medical care, watching TV, having conjugal visits, and playing basketball on my dime.

Because once he's dead, the system can't do something stupid like release him on parole, or release him to ease the strain of prison overpopulation.

 

[Poisonshady313]

And again, the death penalty has never been shown to deter criminals,

And again, the death penalty has never been inflicted enough to have an effect one way or the other.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I disagree. We simply havn't figured out how to help them yet, so we have no other option for now other than incarceration (or death, with which I don't agree). Killing them is giving up, locking them up is saying "I wish I could do better, but for now, I'm not prepared to let you do what you do to more victims, and I hope we have a better way to deal with it in the future".

Rehab is for druggies and small time crooks.

Murderers are unfit for this world. We don't give up on them... they give up on themselves.

 

[Nepenthe]

The thing is, I don't think those rights are unconditional. I believe they can be forfeited.

That looks like the major distinction between you and I on this issue. For myself, I do see human life as unconditional. I would agree to the unconditional when it comes to freedoms though and that's why I'd support life in prison depending on the severity of the crime(s) even if the convicted bettered their lives or made a 180 degree turnaround n their contributions to society.

A bit tangential, but do you believe there's such a thing as a just war? Assuming you do, what's the difference?

It's difficult for me to point to a clear cut example of a just war when even the obvious examples like WWII leave me wondering what other possible decisions, if any, could have been made. But I'm also not so naive that I assume my philosophical stance has any bearing whatesoever on how the world's geo-political struggles operate.
I think the major difference is that the criminal is under complete control by the state and it's different in that they're incapable of perpetuating their crimes at that point (yes, there are exceptions when it comes to fellow inmates and/or guards; but I think that employees know the risks, and violent criminals should be kept apart).

It's so minute as to be irrelevant, but I just see that as a pragmatic distinction, not a moral one. Which probably has more to do with my aforementioned thoughts on death than anything else.

Yep.

 

[MSizer]

No, I got your point. I was just making sure you understood how the victims felt.

There are many problems with keeping criminals locked up for life. In case you were not aware. Prisons are already at max populations. Some prisons are above max populations, and have had to resort to extreme measures to house these criminals. The cost of keeping prisoners alive for a lifetime is going to drag this country into poverty, rehabilitation only works on a small % on those who actually want to change. With death penalty not being enforced these cost will only continue to create a snowball effect until we can no longer afford prisons at all. We simply cannot afford it, either financially or morally.

Also, children with frontal brain injuries are known to never develop morality the way most "normal" people do. These children almost always end up in and out of jail and have trouble fitting in socially because they don't have the know-how to behave appropriately in general. So, that means if you had a child that was injured in a car accident, s/he might never develop a conventional sense of right and wrong. Therefore, your child will amost surely commit crime in his/her life. Don't you think an exception should be made for your child in the grounds that s/he has an injury that is known to cause criminal behaviour? By your argument no. In fact, by your argument, we might as well save you and everybody else a lot of money and just kill him/her right after the injury, since we don't know yet how to heal it.

 

[Storm]

OK, Nepenthe. I don't really have a response, but I wanted to let you know I read yours.

 

[Enoch07]

We already went over this: legalize non-violent drug crimes and the problem is more than solved. The U.S. ranks number 1 in the world for its citizens in prison, mainly for the stringent drug laws. About 2 million of the 7 million in prison are for drug offenses.

I agree to some extent, but non-violent drug crimes are a catalyst for other crimes. If you stop punishing drug dealers/users, you will have a rise in drug dealers and users, resulting in a surge of drug influenced crimes. DUI manslaughter is the biggest concern there I think.

Do you have numbers for that?

I can only give numbers that are current. Avg cost per inmate range from $25,000 per year per inmate to $50,000 per year per inmate, depending on state to state. With 41,000 people serving life sentences in 2008. That means for an avg. of a 50 year sentence (sounds about right?) in jail it will cost us $51,250,000,000-$102,500,000,000. This is minimum numbers as the number of life sentences rises dramatically each year, and the cost per inmate goes up each year.

 

[Storm]

Also, children with frontal brain injuries are known to never develop morality the way most "normal" people do. These children almost always end up in and out of jail and have trouble fitting in socially because they don't have the know-how to behave appropriately in general. So, that means if you had a child that was injured in a car accident, s/he might never develop a conventional sense of right and wrong. Therefore, your child will amost surely commit crime in his/her life. Don't you think an exception should be made for your child in the grounds that s/he has an injury that is known to cause criminal behaviour? By your argument no. In fact, by your argument, we might as well save you and everybody else a lot of money and just kill him/her right after the injury, since we don't know yet how to heal it.

I know this wasnt' addressed to me, but I'll answer anyway.

I think victims of such injuries should be given the same treatment as the criminally insane. Treat them with as much compassion as possible, but prevent them from harming society at the same time. It's not their fault, and that needs to be taken into consideration, but they need to be controlled, too.

 

[monta]

I believe it damages a person to kill someone, whether it is in anger, war or to adminster justice. When I hear about the death penalty I have the same reaction as when I hear about honor killings or people being stoned to death for adultery.

I would suggest it is a cultural thing, except it seems people of the cultures that have the death penalty often feel the same way.