Capital Punishment: Always an Error, or only Sometimes?

[arthwollipot]

Why don't you go to an Iraqi Shi'ite forum and ask that question.

I asked it here.

 

[jimbob]

One* could argue that when Saddam Hussein was alive but in prison he was a focus for his loyalists, so the security situation would be worsened by his continuing existence.


*I have an open mind, and although I am against the death penalty in general, don't worry too much about those who are clearly guilty of crimes against humanity.

 

[LashL]

I like your thinking.

I don't. In fact, I think it is entirely backwards, and quite barbaric.

When someone is convicted of mischief, for instance, for trashing someone else's car, a civilized society does not trash their car as punishment.

When someone is convicted of break, enter and theft, a civilized society does not break into their house and steal from them as punishment.

When someone is convicted of assault, a civilized society does not beat them up as punishment.

When someone is convicted of rape, a civilized society does not rape them as punishment.

Similarly, when someone is convicted of murder, a civilized society should not kill them as punishment. Never mind the suggestion of Dessi's that you appear to be lauding, that is, to kill murderers in the same manner in which they killed; that is - by far - even more barbaric than the death penalty by lethal injection.

I also wonder about the sorts of individuals who could be recruited on behalf of the U.S. government to engage in the sort of barbarism being promoted above in order to carry out such death penalty fantasies. I mean, what kind of sick and twisted person would one have to be to do that?

 

[theprestige]

The poll is an elaborate false dichotomy fallacy.

In what way?

I tried to ensure the choices were comprehensive in scope. My reasoning was this:

Capital punishment applied to an innocent person is an error.

Capital punishment applied to a guilty person may be an error if you believe that capital punishment is always wrong. It may also be an error if you believe capital punishment is not wrong in principle, but the risk of applying it to an innocent person is too great to apply it at all.

At the very least, that's a trichotomy. I think I covered all the important options, but I'm open to the idea that I missed one or more.

What's your take? What options did I miss? What is your position on capital punishment? Did you reply only to the thread title, without taking time to read the poll options or the OP?

 

[theprestige]

What was the "legitimate purpose" in killing Saddam Hussein?

The same legitimate purpose that is embodied in any enforcement of the implicit social contract: It is justice to take from those who take unjustly. From those who unjustly take much, it is just to take much. From those who unjustly take all, it is just to take all. Saddam unjustly took human lives. Therefore it serves the legitimate purpose of justice to take his life. I also think that the pragmatic purpose of not letting horrible tyrants survive their overthrown regimes is legitimate per se, and also morally legitimate.

That's the heart of the matter, anyway. The rest is just arguing about definitions and criteria.

 

[Fudbucker]

I like your thinking. I always thought a great system would be where we gave the prisoners that are in jail for life, one chance at freedom. All they have to do is sink a 3-point shot (basketball). If they make it they are free, if not... the moment they miss the shot a snipers bullet instantly ends their life. You could set it up like a reality show... where every week a new prisoner gets trained by some of the best 3-point shooters in the world (Reggie Miller for example) and over the course of the show we get to know the prisoner, what they did and whether they feel remorse. Sometimes we hate them and cheer as their ball clanks off the rim, then watch as their 3-point follow through falls into a heap on the ground. Other times we would feel sorry for the prisoner.... maybe they proclaim their innocence and we believe them, or forgive their drug fueled youthful indiscretions. But we cheer for them and we are on the edge of our seats, some crying as his shaky hand hurls the ball in the air. The show would be huge and not only would money be saved, not having appeals or housing prisoners for the rest of their life, but the money made through advertising can fund prisoner rehabilitation and education.

I mean... that's a good idea right?

It's a good idea to start, but you need to draw out the suspense. Stick with the three-pointer, but each time they miss, they have to spin a metal wheel:
-bullet to the head
-amputation (this could also inject some comedy, watching them try to make a one-armed three pointer while hopping on one leg)
-acquittal
-Auntie's choice
And so on.

 

[Fudbucker]

I'm quite aware of the definition.

The problem is, any type of sentencing (especially for a serious crime) is going to lead to suffering and anguish. Even something as mild as house arrest. So, if you wanted to totally prevent inhumane handling of prisoners, you wouldn't have any sort of sentencing handed out.

Actually I did. You just avoided it.

While I don't expect aliens to be visiting any time, your argument that the "death penalty is undignified/causes suffering" applies to pretty much any penalty. (I used the "alien" because it would have been a foreign culture who would provide an external view about what "humane" was.)


Ummm... yes it does.

Life in prison with no parole (i.e. type of sentence that would be handed to someone like Ted Bundy) means that the individual would never get out of jail. Hence they would never be functioning within society, paying taxes, etc.

The only way your argument makes sense is if you favor the release of people like Ted Bundy. That would be the only way he'd ever be "productive" again.


Well, your exact statement was: it's not about punishment or revenge. No qualifications there.... nothing about "its only PARTLY about punishment". Or "Punishment is only a small part". Sounded pretty black-and-white... "Not about punishment".


Well, as I said, you didn't attach importances to anything earlier... you made a rather blunt statement "its not about punishment".

And how often do executed murders repeat their actions?

So? I even admitted in my earlier posting that the risk of that was small, but it does exist.

You never set an explicit threshold... you simply said its "about making society safer". You never stated whether it had to prevent 1 death in 100, or 1 death in 1 billion.


You're right... I didn't address the issue of executing innocents...

Except for in post 22, where I stated: I don't necessarily support the death penalty... good in theory, sucks in practice.

Or post 36 where I stated: I'm not for the death penalty... I'm against it because of potential errors in the sentencing process.

Or post 54, where I responded to someone who mentioned killing innocents: Its a convincing enough argument on its own..

So yeah, I never bothered to mention the probability of killing innocents. Except for those 3 times.

As for killing people for 'minor' crimes, I think I've made it clear that if we ever were to have the death penalty (and it could be applied without error... which I recognize is an impossible standard), it would be reserved for only extreme cases... serial killers, those who's crimes involved other serious felonies such as sexual assault, etc. (See post 43)

Not true. Prisoners can still contribute to society.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/51037/11-products-you-might-not-realize-were-made-prisoners

 

[luchog]

I don't. In fact, I think it is entirely backwards, and quite barbaric.
(...)
I also wonder about the sorts of individuals who could be recruited on behalf of the U.S. government to engage in the sort of barbarism being promoted above in order to carry out such death penalty fantasies. I mean, what kind of sick and twisted person would one have to be to do that?

Quite right.

If we do not hold ourselves to higher standards than the anti-social criminals, then how are we any different? We do the same things the do, we're just better at it, and have the mob on our side instead of going it alone.

The most appropriate penalty for a crime is restitution and rehabilitation, when possible. For those who demonstrate that they are not amenable to rehabilitation; then segregation is the only truly civilized answer.

Otherwise, there's no true justice; and society becomes nothing but one big gang beating up the smaller gangs and outliers.

 

[arthwollipot]

The same legitimate purpose that is embodied in any enforcement of the implicit social contract: It is justice to take from those who take unjustly. From those who unjustly take much, it is just to take much. From those who unjustly take all, it is just to take all. Saddam unjustly took human lives. Therefore it serves the legitimate purpose of justice to take his life. I also think that the pragmatic purpose of not letting horrible tyrants survive their overthrown regimes is legitimate per se, and also morally legitimate.

That's the heart of the matter, anyway. The rest is just arguing about definitions and criteria.

Do you honestly think that what happened to Saddam was justice? As opposed to, say, a lynching?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Justice is irrelevant .. it's just a naive concept. Question is, what it best for the society. But that is really hard to compare. But also I think we can say that death penalty itself does not seem to correlate with low crime. It's more like civilized countries with low crime tends to step away from death penalty.
Well .. death penalty for sure is cheaper, and it prevents the criminal from repeating the crime. So I guess statistically it simply must be better then absence of it.

 

[luchog]

Do you honestly think that what happened to Saddam was justice? As opposed to, say, a lynching?

What happened to Saddam was an act of war; and the rules of war are different than the rules of peace. Legitimacy of the war aside, it may not have been an ideal outcome; but like the killing of bin Laden, it was, under the circumstances, a necessity.

 

[theprestige]

mispost

 

[theprestige]

Do you honestly think that what happened to Saddam was justice? As opposed to, say, a lynching?

What happened to Saddam? You mean when he was tried in a criminal court, found to be guilty of certain crimes, and then executed for those crimes? Yeah, I honestly believe that was justice.

Do you have a case to make for it being a lynching? Or--getting back to the topic of the thread--do you simply consider any application of the death penalty to be a lynching?

 

[LashL]

If we do not hold ourselves to higher standards than the anti-social criminals, then how are we any different? We do the same things the do, we're just better at it, and have the mob on our side instead of going it alone.

The most appropriate penalty for a crime is restitution and rehabilitation, when possible. For those who demonstrate that they are not amenable to rehabilitation; then segregation is the only truly civilized answer.

I agree with this mostly, although I would expand upon it a bit to add that deterrence (both specific and general) is also a legitimate goal of sentencing, and one that can be addressed by incarceration (in addition to restitution and rehabilitation).

Justice is irrelevant .. it's just a naive concept. Question is, what it best for the society. But that is really hard to compare. But also I think we can say that death penalty itself does not seem to correlate with low crime. It's more like civilized countries with low crime tends to step away from death penalty.
Well .. death penalty for sure is cheaper, and it prevents the criminal from repeating the crime. So I guess statistically it simply must be better then absence of it.

No.

 

[arthwollipot]

What happened to Saddam? You mean when he was tried in a criminal court, found to be guilty of certain crimes, and then executed for those crimes? Yeah, I honestly believe that was justice.

Do you have a case to make for it being a lynching? Or--getting back to the topic of the thread--do you simply consider any application of the death penalty to be a lynching?

A trumped-up kangaroo court, a predetermined outcome and a botched hanging is the very definition of a lynching.

If it were justice, he would have had to have a fair trial, with adequate (or even existent) legal defence. He didn't get a fair trial. He was never going to get a fair trial. It would have been more humane just to summarily execute him on the field.

 

[jenspen]

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.

Not always. Some forgive. It's not so much that we did, but that the random, opportunistic attacker himself wasn't important to us (that's not quite the right word...but as compared to the victim anyway) and I didn't hear the death penalty being mentioned in the family (though I was young). It wouldn't have been an option anyway, having abolished here in 1929.

I would definitely support the death penalty for psychopathic offenders in a primitive society that couldn't protect itself against them by imprisoning them.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Okay, my biggest problem with the death penalty is that there is a really, really thin line between justice and vengeance. We want justice, but having a justice system based on vengeance and retribution is a big backward step in the civilisation stakes.

Despite being square against the death penalty given the real world, I don't think it's necessarily to do with vengeance. Some criminals should simply never be allowed to be free again. In a case like that, I think locking them up for their entire life is far more cruel than taking their life.

 

[Dcdrac]

The trial of Saddam Hussein was a political show trial the outcome was never in doubt.

 

[Beth]

I took the second option, although I think it's acceptable to execute the guilty when their guilt is 100% certain. That's rare, but there are cases where guilt is not an issue. The Boston bomber guy for a recent example.

 

[Beth]

I have a question.

Was the killing of Osama Bin Laden an execution?

I think so. Be an interesting polling question though.

Unreasonable doubt would be something like: 'Invisible Elvis did it'.

No. My one experience on the jury led me to assign a prob. of defendant being not-guilty at 1 in 6. Not enough for me to convict, but everyone else on the jury was ready to. I felt I needed a probability of less than 10% to meet the burden of reasonable doubt. That's substantially higher than the probability that invisible Elvis did it.

Do you honestly think that what happened to Saddam was justice? As opposed to, say, a lynching?

A trumped-up kangaroo court, a predetermined outcome and a botched hanging is the very definition of a lynching.

If it were justice, he would have had to have a fair trial, with adequate (or even existent) legal defence. He didn't get a fair trial. He was never going to get a fair trial. It would have been more humane just to summarily execute him on the field.

The trial of Saddam Hussein was a political show trial the outcome was never in doubt.

Interesting. I agree that the trial wasn't especially good at the pretense of fairness that we are used to in trials. On the other hand, it did seem to me to be justice for the Iraqi people.

I also agree it would have been more humane to summarily execute him on the field. But I don't see any reason to spare him the humiliation of being placed on trial, confronted with the survivors of his inhumane deeds and executed by his former subjugated people.