(Ed) Capital punishment - for or against?

Admiral said:
One vote against.

There's a variety of reasons. One of them is that it hasn't adequately been shown to be a deterrent. The most important reason, though, is that there have been mistakes in the past. People have been released from death row after DNA evidence showed their innocence. What if they hadn't discovered that evidence? What if they had discovered it a year or two after they were executed? We would all be complicit in the cold blooded murder of an innocent person.

My opinion is, well, we have to err on the side of "not killing innocent people."
Click to expand...

One vote against. For all the above.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were a murderer I would want the death penalty. Life in prison is far worse, in my opinion.
 
timhau said:
In principle, I have no objections to the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes. In practice, I don't have enough trust in any justice system to give it the power over life and death. To have such power, it should not only be 100% unerring but also totally blind to things like skin color, socioeconomic status, gender, etc.
Click to expand...

This is where I stand too. No moral objections, and I have no problem with the death penalty being an act of vengeance either. This could be said about any sentence, and there are certainly people whose crimes are so heinous they don't deserve the right to draw breath.

However, I'm against capital punishment on practical grounds. Stefan Kiszko, The Chamberlains, Darryl Hunt - with the stakes this high, we need a perfect legal system. Which is something we will never enjoy.
 
The Painter said:
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were a murderer I would want the death penalty. Life in prison is far worse, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yup, if the choices are life without parole or quick, painless death (which execution always isn't, but that's another matter), I'd take death. If I know I'm guilty, that is; if I'm not, I'd choose life as long as I have some hope of being released and vindicated.

I might think differently if I was actually in that position at some point, but lifetime in prison with *NO* way out just sounds unbelievably grim and hopeless.

However, I don't think this is relevant to the discussion on death penalty.
 
Architect said:
Evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent?
Click to expand...

I thought that the evidence showed that it wasn't in fact a deterrent:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176
...snip...

Janet Reno’s statement correctly describes the results of studies that compare homicide trends in states and countries that practice capital punishment with those that do not. These studies consistently show that capital punishment has no effect on homicide rates.

...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Why use logic? Why not use evidence?
Click to expand...
I don't have any. My proposition is that the death penalty should deter crime relative to no penalty. Hardly controversial. Would you disagree with it? Your evidence is—I believe—comparing the death penalty to incarceration, which is different
 
To me, prison is a deterrent. The death penalty is an ever bigger deterrent. However people continue to comit crimes and it is therefore clear that the deterrence value must vary from individual to individual.

Rather than relying upon our own insincts and opinions, we would need to find a way of an accurate and objective determining whether there was any such effect. But how would we do it? It's a statistical nightmare, given the sheer number of variables.

For example comparisons between the US and Europe are not helpful, as I think we all recognise that the US is a more violent society. There are questions over poverty, availability of weapons, and so on.

One option would be to take countries which had abolished the death penalty and note whether there is a difference in capital crime rates.

Suggestions, anyone?
 
I'm against capital punishment, for the simple reason that there is always the possibility, however remote, that you will end up executing an innocent person. I also have personal moral objections to it, but tend to avoid debate in that realm, as there are strong moral arguments for both sides of the debate.

The only possible benefit that I can see resulting from capital punishment is saving money (ie. we don't have to spend money to house/feed a prisoner). Capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent. The U.S., which practices capital punishment, actually has higher crime rates than many countries that don't; and numerous studies have shown no correlation between capital punishment and decreased crime.

The only other argument to justify capital punishment is that of punishment, inflicting a punishment on the offender that is 'equal' to the crime they committed.

I have severe moral objections to any argument that seeks to justify killing other humans simply to save money. And while I agree wholeheartedly with the concept of punishing criminals, I do not think that killing them is the best way, in light of my initial note that it is possible that we will end up killing an innocent person.

Now, don't slap me with the label of "bleed heart liberal" here. I am a very staunch proponent of strict sentencing for criminals. I would have no objection whatsoever to putting murderers, rapists, etc., into prison for the rest of their lives. While the principle of "reforming" them is a great one in principle, there are too many of these offenders who released into the public, only to commit the same offenses again. And while I do sympathize with arguments for a prisoner's right to reform themselves and regain their freedom, I sympathize even more with the rights of a regular citizen to be protected from the risk presented by such people.

Regarding the cost issue, I do agree with concerns about the costs to house these prisoners. The amount of money spent annually to support a convicted felon is far higher than the amount of money spent annually to help a jobless single mother with two children. Is that not a basic injustice in and of itself?

So I'd personally support a prison system in which all prisoners did get very basic 'rights' (that is, the state provides enough food, clothing, etc., for them to live on), but that for anything else, they must work and make money for themselves. And I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of using prison labor to produce commercial products; while it can lead to abuse, with suitable laws and monitoring in place, prison factories need be no different than any other factory.

To summarize: A person is convicted of first degree murder, or rape. Put them in prison for the rest of their lives, without hope for parole or early release. Make them work, and provide money both for themselves, and to support the prison system, so that more taxpayers' money may be directed in other directions.
 
acuity said:
I don't have any. My proposition is that the death penalty should deter crime relative to no penalty. Hardly controversial. Would you disagree with it? Your evidence is—I believe—comparing the death penalty to incarceration, which is different
Click to expand...

Of course the death penalty is a deterent - no one would ever argue otherwise. The key question is still whether it's a greater deterent than incarceration. Setting up a comparison where the only options are to execute the criminal or let him go is to create a false dichotomy.
 
Ian Osborne said:
I have no problem with the death penalty being an act of vengeance either. This could be said about any sentence
Click to expand...
The intention of revenge is emotional or transactional. Revenge does not seek to deter or to correct—it is not transformational.

Punishment might satisfy people's desire for vengeance sometimes but it isn't (or should not be IMO) in any way the intention of the state to exact revenge on people's behalf. If the state is killing somebody "to get even" then why not allow state punishment such as beatings, stoning, removal of body parts, extreme deprivation and so on . . . all administered by dispassionate state employees of course (or by machinery)?

Wolfman said:
The only other argument to justify capital punishment is that of punishment, inflicting a punishment on the offender that is 'equal' to the crime they committed.
Click to expand...
As above, that's a transactional justification.
 
Ian Osborne said:
Of course the death penalty is a deterent - no one would ever argue otherwise.

...snip...
Click to expand...

It's not part of my reasons why I don't support the ideal of the death penalty so I'm quite agnostic about it but the evidence would seem to be that it does not act as deterrent. See the article I linked to above.
 
Ian Osborne said:
Of course the death penalty is a deterent - no one would ever argue otherwise. The key question is still whether it's a greater deterent than incarceration. Setting up a comparison where the only options are to execute the criminal or let him go is to create a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...
I think it was a valid response to the claim made that "it's no deterrent". You probably assumed that the poster meant ". . . relative to prison" and you're possibly correct but that was not what was posted.

Not my "false dichotomy"
 
Architect said:
...snip..


One option would be to take countries which had abolished the death penalty and note whether there is a difference in capital crime rates.

Suggestions, anyone?
Click to expand...

From the article I linked to above: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176

Archer and Gartner (1984) examined fourteen countries that abolished the death penalty and found that abolition did not cause an increase in homicide rates.

That is referring to: Archer, Dane, and Rosemary Gartner. 1984. Homicide and the death penalty: A cross-national test of a deterrence hypothesis. In Archer and Gartner, Violence and Crime in Cross-National Perspective, New Haven: Yale University Press.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
The only possible benefit that I can see resulting from capital punishment is saving money (ie. we don't have to spend money to house/feed a prisoner). Capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent. The U.S., which practices capital punishment, actually has higher crime rates than many countries that don't; and numerous studies have shown no correlation between capital punishment and decreased crime.
Click to expand...

For me, the strongest argument for capital punishment is the closure it gives to the family and friends of the victim. It is much easier for them to finish grieving and get on with their lives if they know the person who killed their loved one is dead and buried. However, this doesn't trump the very real possibility that we might execute an innocent person, which is why I'm against the death penalty.

Interesting idea about making prisoners earn their keep, though. What checks and balances would you introduce to ensure that captive labour isn't putting decent people out of work by undercutting already low-paid manual work? The last thing we want to do is make life more difficult for the most economically vulnerable members of society.
 
Darat said:
From the article I linked to above: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176

Archer and Gartner (1984) examined fourteen countries that abolished the death penalty and found that abolition did not cause an increase in homicide rates.

That tis referring to: Archer, Dane, and Rosemary Gartner. 1984. Homicide and the death penalty: A cross-national test of a deterrence hypothesis. In Archer and Gartner, Violence and Crime in Cross-National Perspective, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Click to expand...

Aha, but never rely on just one source. They may have aparticular viewpoint - for example the linked site appears to be anti-capital punishment, and although I am "on side" I would still argue from an academic perspective that we need corroboration.
 
Darat said:
the evidence would seem to be that it does not act as deterrent.
Click to expand...

Not a greater deterent than punishment other than a death sentence, no. But acuity seemed to be arguing it's a deterent when balanced against no alternative sentence at all, which is a no-brainer.

acuity said:
I think it was a valid response to the claim made that "it's no deterrent". You probably assumed that the poster meant ". . . relative to prison" and you're possibly correct but that was not what was posted.
Click to expand...

It wasn't stated explicitly, but it's pretty obvious that's what he meant! Let's not split hairs, now... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom