Capital Punishment: Always an Error, or only Sometimes?

[squealpiggy]

It has to be, otherwise we wouldn't keep coming up with and enjoying fiction in which the hero spares the villain's life.

Take Batman, for example. He's arguably the least goodly hero, yet one of the most popular heroes in the DC universe. He's constantly letting these terrible villains live. Hell, they come back and wreak havoc again and again, but he rarely just kills them if he can help it.

This theme exists throughout our culture.

It could be argued that he consistently delivers such catastrophic injuries to the henchmen of villains that it is inconceivable that none of them have ever died. But he tends not to kill any of the main villains.

That's right, I just said that Batman has messed up priorities.

 

[Segnosaur]

We have a guy here in Colorado (Nathan Dunlap) who has been on death row since '96, for killing 4 people in an angry fit of revenge. He could have been sentenced to life, with or without option of parole. His appeals have cost the state an enormous amount of time and money that could have been better used for other cases. Had he been given life with option, he'd be 18 years in now and probably looking at getting out in a few years.

There are 2 things to consider here...

First of all, do you think getting "life with parole" (and thus getting out in a few years) is an appropriate sentence for four murders? I would think that in such an extreme case (i.e. someone sentenced for execution for multiple murders) that they would probably be sentenced to life without parole.

Secondly, I'm wondering if it truly is less expensive to give a life sentence rather than execution. There are plenty of studies that show the average cost of capital cases (along with subsequent appeals) is more expensive than simply imprisoning them. However, it should be noted that capital cases may be more complex simply because of the nature of the crimes (e.g. more victims, or involving secondary crimes, etc.) rather than the nature of the sentence. (Plus, there is no guarantee that a person sentenced to life in prison won't launch an expensive appeal program anyways.)

Another issue is palliative care for elderly inmates. Even if it does cost less to sentence someone to life in prison, eventually that individual will grow old, and palliative care for elderly prisoners might end up being quite expensive.

Note that I don't necessarily support the death penalty... I voted for the "good in theory, sucks in practice" option. Just that the particular argument that "its too expensive" might not necessarily fit.

 

[Kid Eager]

Why ? Other than making you feel smug and satisfied by subjecting the badguy to the same sort of thing he or she inflicted upon others, it can't possibly serve any purpose, since you're killing them anyway. During the execution, they will be too busy panicking to care about the irony, and any irony that sinks in before the execution will be for naught since you're, again, killing them anyway.

That's why I keep saying that capital punishment is mostly revenge and feel-good reactionary policy rather than actual justice and social benefit.

Yabbut that's because they keep putting it in a "punishment" wrapper rather than regarding it as an enforced Darwin Award.

If I wanted to apply a punishment, life incarceration would be the go. Removing the person from society permanently and preventing any chances of cross-infection? That's what the death penalty should be about. *When* to apply the death penalty needs a bit of work though...

 

[Arcade22]

When they're innocent maybe?

Failure to commit a crime sounds like a perfectly justified reason for getting executed.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't shed any tears over murderers being executed, but I sort of wish executions employed more poetic justice:

Murderer kills by strangling, then execution by strangling.
Murderer tortures victims for weeks on end before killing them, execution by torture for weeks on end.
Murderer buries victims alive, then execution by live burial.
Murderer gives victims their choice of last meal and a painless injection of sedatives and barbiturates, then execution by that method.

Its only a shame we can't bring them back and kill them once more for every victim.

But aren't we better than they are?

 

[Pulvinar]

But aren't we better than they are?

We certainly are. If a kidnapper takes someone and locks them up for a while, we… oh, wait a second…

 

[whatsthedreamnow]

Like many things, it's pretty easy to have a moral stance against the death penalty when it doesn't affect you. For the vast majority that voted option 1, I wonder the (hopefully) unanswerable: what if it were your parent, sibling, spouse or child?

 

[arthwollipot]

Like many things, it's pretty easy to have a moral stance against the death penalty when it doesn't affect you. For the vast majority that voted option 1, I wonder the (hopefully) unanswerable: what if it were your parent, sibling, spouse or child?

It may be of some surprise to you that yes, I have considered this. Wow, who'd have thought?

If it were someone close to me then the line between justice and vengeance would be even thinner, or nonexistent. In short, a close relative to a victim is the worst possible person to ask whether execution is acceptable, because they will always be on the vengeance side of the line.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Capital punishment is awful on so many counts... unsafe convictions, the finality of the sentence (what does this say about the human capacity to repent and reform?), the lack of deterrent effect that this supposed 'punishment' has, the use of violence on the violent, the focus on vengeance rather than forgiveness. Most OECD countries have ceased this form of killing.

On a lighter note, I've always favored an 'Escape from New York' approach. Just need to find a suitable island....

 

[Kid Eager]

Like many things, it's pretty easy to have a moral stance against the death penalty when it doesn't affect you. For the vast majority that voted option 1, I wonder the (hopefully) unanswerable: what if it were your parent, sibling, spouse or child?

From the wording of your question, are you anticipating that a rational response would be to seek an exception based on relationship?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

On a lighter note, I've always favored an 'Escape from New York' approach. Just need to find a suitable island....

A friend's father has, more than once in my presence, suggested we arm the entire U.S. prison population, dump them in a foreign country (like Mexico, as one example I remember; Ukraine might have been another), and tell them, "If you can take it, you can have it."

And he's supposedly a believer in a benevolent and loving God. It amazes me how utterly oblivious he seems to be about just how "evil" that suggestion is...

 

[The Don]

Like many things, it's pretty easy to have a moral stance against the death penalty when it doesn't affect you. For the vast majority that voted option 1, I wonder the (hopefully) unanswerable: what if it were your parent, sibling, spouse or child?

I don't know, there's a chance that I'd be frothing at the mouth for vengeance, but then under the circumstances I wouldn't be thinking straight.

I've also heard recent victims of a house break in (while they were out of the house) calling for the death of the perpetrators, that isn't thinking straight either.

This is why a blanket prohibition is IMO the best approach.

 

[catsmate]

It would only be acceptable to execute anybody if you could be 100% certain that they did the crime.

And we almost never can be.

In fact we have shown that there were people on Death Row here in Illinois who should never have been convicted as somebody else did the crime.

Exactly. Now if, as a thought experiment, we postulate a method of reading the contents of the human brain and showing it to others we could be sure. But that's quite a ways off.

 

[The Don]

Exactly. Now if, as a thought experiment, we postulate a method of reading the contents of the human brain and showing it to others we could be sure. But that's quite a ways off.

Even then there are, I'm sure, some people who could be so much in denial that they would be flagged as not guilty and some people who are so sure that they are responsible (but aren't) that you might get a false positive.


I guess it comes down to the purpose of the death penalty:

• Its effect as a deterent needs to be demonstrated. AFAIK it hasn't been demonstrated effectively in part because some criminals don't think they will be caught and others don't think or care about the consequences of being caught
• It could conceivably be cheaper than keeping people in gaol for life but only if the appeals process can be significantly curtailed. The hypothetical mindreading device could help with this to an exetent but there's still be arguments about whether Person A deserves the death penalty when Person B didn't
• Which leaves justice, retribution or vengeance (however you want to paint it)

Personally I'm uncomfortable with killing someone else, no matter how repulsive they are, to make me feel better, YMMV.

 

[BardKesnit]

A felony convictions that become life sentences after release (as felons struggle to find to find employment, housing, and they are disqualified from government assistance programs such as WIC and TANF), resulting in huge recidivism rates.

It isn't just felonies. There is a movement to revise or eliminate sex offender registries. The offenses that can get a person on the registry include misdemeanors, and affect the person for the rest of their life.

I recently defended someone who had been convicted in 1994 of an offense that required him to register in another state. The state where he had the conviction no longer required him to register, but the state where I work did.

There are 2 things to consider here...

First of all, do you think getting "life with parole" (and thus getting out in a few years) is an appropriate sentence for four murders?

You are assuming release would be automatic. He'd still have to go in front of a parole board, and may be denied.

However, it should be noted that capital cases may be more complex simply because of the nature of the crimes (e.g. more victims, or involving secondary crimes, etc.) rather than the nature of the sentence.

IIRC, the studies took things like that into account.

(Plus, there is no guarantee that a person sentenced to life in prison won't launch an expensive appeal program anyways.)

Inmates sentenced to death are automatically granted appeals. Inmates who are not on death row do not automatically get the appeals. So while the inmate can ask, if there is no real appealable issue, the appeal goes nowhere.

 

[Segnosaur]

Okay, my biggest problem with the death penalty is that there is a really, really thin line between justice and vengeance.

Just out of curiosity, why exactly does there need to be a "thin line" at all?

Isn't it possible that the death penalty may serve both purposes... as an adequate punishment for someone who's done crimes so detestable that they forfeit their right to life, and as a form of vengeance to those who have actually been wronged by the criminals?

And if your argument is that we can't execute criminals because "vengeance is wrong", what about me? I've been the victim of a couple of crimes... I strongly hope that the criminals get thrown in jail for a long time. You might say I want vengeance for the wrongs they've done to me. Does that mean its now wrong to have them thrown in jail?

(Again, want to stress that I'm not for the death penalty... I'm against it because of potential errors in the sentencing process... I just don't quite agree with the reasons you stated.)

 

[Aridas]

I don't view the death penalty as punishment, but rather a fairly blunt instrument of societal risk management.

As such, none of the options provided are suitable.

I agree with Kid Eager, here. As far as I'm concerned, the death penalty is situationally appropriate, regardless, with the note that the current state of the United States might not lend itself to the death penalty being the best option, as a general matter.

IIRC, the studies took things like that into account.

What else did they also take into account? The cost of imprisonment for whatever the average rest of an inmate's life is in prison and the associated costs surrounding that, for example?

 

[Segnosaur]

here are 2 things to consider here...

First of all, do you think getting "life with parole" (and thus getting out in a few years) is an appropriate sentence for four murders?

You are assuming release would be automatic. He'd still have to go in front of a parole board, and may be denied.

A few things I could point out
- for some, even the chance of release might be a bit too much.
- Although they may not be as expensive as court cases, parole hearings probably cost the government money.
- What about any emotional stress that might be caused by the relatives of victims seeing criminals up for parole hearings (even if such hearings are likely to be denied)?

owever, it should be noted that capital cases may be more complex simply because of the nature of the crimes (e.g. more victims, or involving secondary crimes, etc.) rather than the nature of the sentence.

IIRC, the studies took things like that into account.

Maybe there are studies that take those into account. The ones I've seen didn't.

Inmates sentenced to death are automatically granted appeals. Inmates who are not on death row do not automatically get the appeals. So while the inmate can ask, if there is no real appealable issue, the appeal goes nowhere.

While appeals may be automatic in death penalty cases, they certainly aren't unheard of in non-capital cases. (There's also the possibility that those granted life in prison will then be granted the same rights to appeal that capital cases currently have.)

And I do have to wonder... what that say about the justice system if its that easy to "lock someone up forever"?

 

[RockNroll]

Like many things, it's pretty easy to have a moral stance against the death penalty when it doesn't affect you. For the vast majority that voted option 1, I wonder the (hopefully) unanswerable: what if it were your parent, sibling, spouse or child?

If laws were based on my pwecious widdle emotions, it would be legal for me to punch everyone who looks at me funny.

 

[Belz...]

Like many things, it's pretty easy to have a moral stance against the death penalty when it doesn't affect you. For the vast majority that voted option 1, I wonder the (hopefully) unanswerable: what if it were your parent, sibling, spouse or child?

But that's the thing: we shouldn't think, as a society, like an angry individual/mob. We should be able to be impartial, no matter what one person or some people feel like.