Capital Punishment: Always an Error, or only Sometimes?

[Belz...]

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?

Aren't both of those things wrong ?

 

[Segnosaur]

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

You mean its not?

I guess I owe that old lady on the bus an apology.

 

[Segnosaur]

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?

Aren't both of those things wrong ?

Vengeance is an understandable desire, although it shouldn't be the basis of a legal system. Its just in this case it would simply be a byproduct, not the central goal of the death penalty.

As for it being an 'adequate punishment'... that is strictly a value judgement. If you think (for example) that Ted Bundy's crimes were not serious enough to forfeit his life, then you are welcome to that opinion. And keep in mind that I'm not suggesting an "eye for an eye". If we did have the death penalty, I would have it reserved for only those who engage in the most serious of crimes (multiple murders, murder combined with sexual assault or kidnapping, etc.)

 

[I Am The Scum]

Vengeance is an understandable desire, although it shouldn't be the basis of a legal system. Its just in this case it would simply be a byproduct, not the central goal of the death penalty.

This is a really important point. Thinking of it another way, we can ask: Should the state take on the role of killing an individual for the sake of another's pleasure? I'm gonna say no.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Not quite. Zero defects is an absurd standard for human endeavour. Justice is a human endeavour.

And we almost never can be.

I don't find that assertion valid, when you take every person sentenced to death into account, and then consider the number still not executed, and those pardoned, and those overturned on appeal. Then take into account the number who before their execution who ask forgiveness, or express regret. Your 'Never' doesn't sell, and it doesn't fit reality.

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.

No surprise. See the point about human endeavour.

You have now embarked upon counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

 

[Segnosaur]

Vengeance is an understandable desire, although it shouldn't be the basis of a legal system. Its just in this case it would simply be a byproduct, not the central goal of the death penalty.

This is a really important point. Thinking of it another way, we can ask: Should the state take on the role of killing an individual for the sake of another's pleasure? I'm gonna say no.

I agree with that, if the purpose of the state's killing was only for the sake of another's pleasure (i.e. vengeance).

But that's a different question from "Is it OK for the state to take on the roll of killing someone if another gets pleasure in it, if the reason for the killing is punishment consistent with the severity of the crime".

It seems like some are arguing that the pleasure/vengeance factor totally precludes the "justice" factor, and once anyone gets personal satisfaction when a murderer gets executed means that precludes it from being "justice".

 

[Dessi]

But aren't we better than they are?

I hold that people should be treated with the same dignity, compassion, and respect that they hold for others. And applied to people who torture and murder... in all seriousness, I'm just vocalizing some very callous revenge fantasy.

I would feel indifferent if my country ended all executions under our Eighth Amendment constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Its not an important political issue for me. But doing so would probably be a step toward fixing the myriads of cruelty that US permits in prisons everyday.

 

[Belz...]

Vengeance is an understandable desire, although it shouldn't be the basis of a legal system.

Yes, that's my entire point.

Its just in this case it would simply be a byproduct, not the central goal of the death penalty.

Are you sure about that ?

As for it being an 'adequate punishment'... that is strictly a value judgement.

Yes, but a collective one: it depends on what our collective goals are. I say that humane and productivity considerations outweigh feelings, in this case.

If you think (for example) that Ted Bundy's crimes were not serious enough to forfeit his life, then you are welcome to that opinion.

See, the thing is that I don't view the question of capital punishment as having anything to do with what the convict has done in the past, because it's not about punishment or revenge. It's about making society safer in the future, and individuals happier and, consequently, more productive. If the argument can be made the society is somehow safer with Bundy dead than in isolation for the rest of his life, fine.

 

[Belz...]

I hold that people should be treated with the same dignity, compassion, and respect that they hold for others.

I hold that people should be treated with the same dignity, compassion, and respect, period.

 

[Dr. Keith]

With the death penalty I try to take a pragmatic approach: is it worth it?

The costs are very high (mandatory appeals, other legal costs, costs of a killing facility and staff, costs of a death penalty holding facility, a real number of innocents being killed, moral murkiness of the government being in the killing business, diplomatic costs of being one of the few death penalty countries among western democracies, etc.) against the benefits (a few fewer years of that person living in prison).

No one believes there is a deterrent effect, every financial study has shown that it is more expensive and there are now stories of the lives of the executors being tarnished from ever being involved with it. The negative impacts seem huge while the positive impacts are very hard to find, even for those in favor of it.

I just don't see that it is worth it. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

 

[Segnosaur]

Its just in this case it would simply be a byproduct, not the central goal of the death penalty.

Are you sure about that ?

About as sure as you are that locking people in prisons isn't also due to a desire for "vengeance".

As for it being an 'adequate punishment'... that is strictly a value judgement.

Yes, but a collective one: it depends on what our collective goals are. I say that humane and productivity considerations outweigh feelings, in this case.

Define "humane". Keeping someone in prison is less humane than house arrest... What if (for example) some alien came down and said "You put your prisoners in cages? How inhumane!!!"

And what are your concerns about productivity? I've pointed out that the death penalty (if it did exist) would only be applicable to the worst of the worst... individuals who would never ever get out of prison. They would never be "productive" members of society.

See, the thing is that I don't view the question of capital punishment as having anything to do with what the convict has done in the past, because it's not about punishment or revenge.

Why exactly is punishment wrong? It shouldn't be the only goal of the justice system (for example, rehabilitation should be a key component), but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be ignored.

It's about making society safer in the future, and individuals happier and, consequently, more productive. If the argument can be made the society is somehow safer with Bundy dead than in isolation for the rest of his life, fine.

Well, technically you can make that argument.

After all, prisoners DO escape. Or they can kill people when in prison. An executed person isn't likely to do either of those. Granted, the risk of either of those happening is pretty tiny, but its not zero. So technically the world IS safer if he were executed.

More importantly, the issue is does it make society LESS safe if we had the death penalty. I've pointed out that the issue of whether its "humane" or whether its appropriate punishment is just a matter of personal opinion. If its determined that the individual would never be "productive" to society and their crimes are significant, then would society be any LESS safe with them eliminated?

 

[RockNroll]

Not quite. Zero defects is an absurd standard for human endeavour. Justice is a human endeavour.

Fortunately, we can avoid human endeavours that are utterly pointless, such as the death penalty, thereby eliminating the utterly pointless risks that come with them.

 

[RockNroll]

Although to be fair, some people may consider "but but but but but but MY FEELINGS!!!!" to be "a point".

 

[Segnosaur]

With the death penalty I try to take a pragmatic approach: is it worth it?

The costs are very high (mandatory appeals, other legal costs, costs of a killing facility and staff, costs of a death penalty holding facility...

Keep in mind that many of the people who would be most eligible for the death penalty probably would already need specialized holding facilities.

For example, Paul Bernardo (A Canadian serial killer who was involved in the deaths of several teenage girls, including his sister) is in isolation, since he might end up being a target if he were in the general population.

...a real number of innocents being killed...

You know that's all the argument you ever need. And if opponents of the death penalty stopped there, I'd be happy. Its a convincing enough argument on its own.

...moral murkiness of the government being in the killing business...

If that's your argument you must be against putting anyone in jail, since arresting and incarcerating them is similar in practice to kidnapping.

...against the benefits (a few fewer years of that person living in prison).

Keep in mind that many of the years a person will be serving a "life sentence" for will involve rather expensive medical care when the person becomes a senior.

...every financial study has shown that it is more expensive...

Remember, I've already brought up that issue... while I have read articles pointing out the costs, I figure that at least some of the higher costs are because capital cases are probably going to be complex based on the nature of the crime. (Another poster claims that the studies have taken that into account, which is quite possible, but I haven't seen it yet.)

 

[Zax63]

Fortunately, we can avoid human endeavours that are utterly pointless, such as the death penalty, thereby eliminating the utterly pointless risks that come with them.

So we'll be doing away with sports then?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Keep in mind that many of the people who would be most eligible for the death penalty probably would already need specialized holding facilities.

For example, Paul Bernardo (A Canadian serial killer who was involved in the deaths of several teenage girls, including his sister) is in isolation, since he might end up being a target if he were in the general population.

Is there a cost difference between a death penalty facility and keeping a person in isolation?

You know that's all the argument you ever need. And if opponents of the death penalty stopped there, I'd be happy. Its a convincing enough argument on its own.

If it is sufficient then the added arguments can not diminish it, even if they are only illusory by your counting.

Others don't see it as sufficient, some are willing to accept an imperfect system that metes out death to the innocent from time to time, but would be swayed by the financial considerations.

Each argument has an audience, and you may not be the audience for each argument.

If that's your argument you must be against putting anyone in jail, since arresting and incarcerating them is similar in practice to kidnapping.

There is a qualitative difference between killing some one and holding them against their will. If that escapes you, fall back on the death of innocents, you seem to grasp that one pretty well.

Keep in mind that many of the years a person will be serving a "life sentence" for will involve rather expensive medical care when the person becomes a senior.

A sad aspect of our corporate prison system is that they are actually very unlikely to make it to senior status and if they do we are very unlikely to spend much money on their medical care. Yes, you will find an odd example of someone living to an old age and the state spending exorbitant fees on their health, but I'd say it is not the norm and easily less than the total cost of defending the death penalty in court.

Remember, I've already brought up that issue... while I have read articles pointing out the costs, I figure that at least some of the higher costs are because capital cases are probably going to be complex based on the nature of the crime. (Another poster claims that the studies have taken that into account, which is quite possible, but I haven't seen it yet.)

A capital case triggers automatic appeals that are not in place if the prosecutor does not seek the death penalty. Those appeals alone trigger hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses because the state pays both sides in many cases. As a tax payer it always pisses me off when I am paying two sets of attorneys to argue against each other, so there better be a very compelling reason to spend my money in that manner.

Can you provide that compelling reason?

 

[newyorkguy]

Sorry but I couldn't resist. Does Sarah Palin support the death penalty? You betcha! Why? Jesus!

Just last week she explained her views on a FOX News segment:

he told [Fox and Friends hosts Steve Doocy and Elisabeth Hasselbeck], "The truth is Jesus fought for the death penalty until the day he died." Link

Okay, sure.

 

[Belz...]

About as sure as you are that locking people in prisons isn't also due to a desire for "vengeance".

That's funny, I wasn't aware you had mind-reading powers.

Define "humane".

I wasn't aware there were more than one definitions. To me, humane is actions that prevent suffering and anguish; and preserve one's humanity and dignity.

Keeping someone in prison is less humane than house arrest...

Indeed.

What if (for example) some alien came down and said "You put your prisoners in cages? How inhumane!!!"

I'd be delighted to have a conversation with it about that topic. Did you think you had some convincing argument, there ?

And what are your concerns about productivity?

Seems pretty self-evident to me. Dead people aren't very productive.

I've pointed out that the death penalty (if it did exist) would only be applicable to the worst of the worst... individuals who would never ever get out of prison. They would never be "productive" members of society.

The last sentence does not follow from the others.

Why exactly is punishment wrong?

Did I say that ?

I mean that the action being "punished" isn't as important as one's likelihood of repeating that action.

After all, prisoners DO escape.

Rarely.

So technically the world IS safer if he were executed.

You are failing to see the other possibilities, such as executing innocents or having death penalties for minor crimes, etc.

 

[Belz...]

So we'll be doing away with sports then?

Sports aren't pointless, since they provide valuable entertainment and business.

 

[ddt]

Sorry but I couldn't resist. Does Sarah Palin support the death penalty? You betcha! Why? Jesus!

Just last week she explained her views on a FOX News segment:


Okay, sure.

Please tell me this is a Poe. I was especially boggled by this one:

In ancient Jerusalem crime was rampant. The Romans and their pagan morality wouldn't allow the proper punishment wrongdoers deserve. So Jesus lobbied for capital punishment in order to protect the Christians and the Jews from the Palestinians and other Muslims who were killing people left and right.

Does she realize when Muhammed lived? Does she know what happened with Spartacus and his followers, roughly one century before Christ? Or with the followers of Judas the Galilean?