(Ed) Capital punishment - for or against?

[El Greco]

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.

We do ? Including the Americans ?

 

[Francesca R]

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.

Hmm, . . . also what checks and balances to ensure that captive labour is not being used not just to "earn its keep" but to turn a profit? It could start to look quite a lot like slavery.

But as for it undercutting minimum-wage work and generating unemployment—I think that is an economics problem no different from the same caused by globalisation or the advent of technology. In other words, the displacement issue is not IMO by itself a reason not to do that.

 

[marksman]

Against.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I think the rest of us are all taking that as read.

yay!

 

[Francesca R]

It wasn't stated explicitly, but it's pretty obvious that's what he meant! Let's not split hairs, now...

My hair is a mess because of the splitting it's been subjected to here

 

[Ian Osborne]

Hmm, . . . also what checks and balances to ensure that captive labour is being used not just to "earn its keep" but to turn a profit? It could start to look quite a lot like slavery.

I'm not sure I'd have a fundemental objection to a prison turning a profit, and if funds raised were ploughed back into educational programmes, that could only be a good thing anyway.

But as for it undercutting minimum-wage work and generating unemployment—I think that is an economics problem no different from the same caused by globalisation or the advent of technology. In other words, the displacement issue is not IMO by itself a reason not to do that.

It might not be any different to other displacement problems, but that's no reason to add another one.

 

[Modified]

To me, prison is a deterrent. The death penalty is an ever bigger deterrent.

It might be a useful deterrent for people who are already locked up for life. For me personally it would be no more deterrent than no punishment at all. In deciding whether or not to murder someone, the consequences if caught would not be a factor. I suppose it would be different for a career criminal though.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm not sure I'd have a fundemental objection to a prison turning a profit, and if funds raised were ploughed back into educational programmes, that could only be a good thing anyway.

The profit would not be generated from voluntary exchange but extracted by force. No argument has been advanced that it improves effective deterrence or correction—just that it makes dealing with criminals cheaper. But the price for making it cheaper could be state abuse and tyranny of individuals beyond what is the objective of their punishment. After all—if profits come via force it's a whole lot easier to ramp up productivity than via capitalism.

I would need to be convinced such a system was not prone to abuse. If I was, I think the idea probably has merit.

 

[sackett]

Here in Michigan, we haven't had capital punishment since 1854 (Michigan was the first English-speaking polity to abolish execution), and damn but it feels good.

I'm against capital punishment for the usual reasons, and also because I fear its effect on the people who permit it. Killing is a coarsening business; it can't make you a better person.

Some argue that capital punishment isn't cruel enough. Forty some odd years in a maximum security pen, now there's punishment to fit the worst crimes.

Back in the day, Jackson Prison here in Michigan was not a place to spend time. I wonder if that's changed?

 

[timhau]

"more to do with [. . .] than" suggests that the severity of punishment has something (non zero) to do with deterrence though—even in your words

Naturally it has something to do with it. If the penalty for murder was a verbal reprimand by a police officer, even a 100% catch rate would do little. However, there is a threshold after which an increase in the severity of punishment does either little or nothing to deter crime. You hit that threshold way before you get to life without parole or the death penalty. (I've read a review article which went over several studies that seemed to indicate this. Naturally, I can provide neither a reference nor a link -- what did you expect from an internet discussion board?)

Do you think that the economic cost of life imprisonment is higher than the cost of execution, inclusive of all state expenditure?

When I google "costs of death penalty", the first page that comes up is this:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

That's what they claim.

 

[timhau]

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.

This would be a good argument in favor of the death penalty if we had a perfect justice system. However, the argument is void (or may even swing the other way) if a convict can spend a decade or two on death row before execution.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm against capital punishment for the same reason I'm against suicide - it punishes, severely, the loved ones of the departed.

When you punish someone, ideally you'd punish only that person. However, if a buddy of mine goes off and gets arrested with a pound of heroin at the airport in Taipei and gets sentenced to death by shooting...

We, his or her friends and family, have to go through the shock, worry and anxiety.
We have to go through the trauma of having a friend killed.
We have to attend her funeral.
We have to bear the grief and longing for however long it lasts.

You keep talking about the loved ones of murder victims, and how their lives are shattered by the loss of their loved ones, but losing a friend or relative to the death sentence has to be rather significant, too. In Norway, at least, the average person has 20 close loved ones on average. What on Earth did we do?

Now, I realize that you may say the same thing for loved ones of people in prisons, and it's true that any punishment, no matter how mild, runs the risk of hurting loved ones. It can't be fun to be a fourteen years old and have it leak out that daddy is in jail. But even though I've experienced neither, I'd rather having my best buddy or girlfriend or cousin or father in prison than in the cometary. Any day.

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.

The loved ones of the convict's victims are often overlooked (and if you think that's a problem in the States, don't visit Norway). Being a friend of people who have been abused (read: everything from beaten up to raped to attempted killed), and having met people who have made themselves guilty of abuse and attempted homicide, I know for sure that there's lots of sick people out there, and that the longer they're locked up, the better.

But really, as much as I'd like certain people to be dead... it's just not the way to do things in 2008. Two wrongs don't make a right.

This would be a good argument in favor of the death penalty if we had a perfect justice system. However, the argument is void (or may even swing the other way) if a convict can spend a decade or two on death row before execution.

And if the person is found to be innocent and wrongly executed, the feeling that a person is dead on your behalf can't be a good one to live with either. Heck, knowing that a person, guilty or not, was dead on my behalf, or on the behalf of one of my loved ones, wouldn't be a good feeling to me no matter what.

Not that it matters any - if you support death sentence because it's what the loved ones of, say, murder victims wish... then we're talking cold-blooded revenge, not modern justice.

 

[ravdin]

Against. My reasoning is as follows: it's unacceptable state sanctioned murder if even one innocent person is wrongly executed. This happens a lot in the USA unfortunately- many Death Row inmates have been released because of DNA evidence that was not available at the time of their trials. These aren't isolated incidents and it's enough to convince me that the system is broken. I don't trust the government to carry out executions in a competent, fair manner that will ensure that only those guilty of the most heinous crimes will be executed.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I liked the "I don't want to give the State the ability to kill me" argument. Well stated.

 

[BenBurch]

I'd be for Capital Punishment in some instances IF and ONLY IF there were a 100% certainty that the person convicted was actually guilty of the crime.

But there is no such certainty to be had in general, so I think it is better to have life in prison without possibility of parole, a sentence that can be at least corrected to a degree if an error is later discovered.

Plus the cost of the appeals in a death case is such that they are simply a bad bargain for the state; Life incarceration is cheaper.

 

[The Atheist]

Which countries without the death penalty actually incarcerate murderers for the rest of their life?

 

[Rasmus]

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?

No.

The money that is spend to keep the prisoner behind bars is in effect money spend for me. It is spend to keep me save from the prisoner.

Then I'm sure there's money that needs to be spend on the prisoner because of is incarceration - I can go jogging in the park or check out books in the local library. The prisoner can't and needs substitutes for these possibilities.

Now, it might well be that when these and other factors are taken into account that the mother still gets less than the prisoner - but I don't know what that's so.

 

[Rasmus]

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
Gandalf (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Always liked that one ...


I find the arguments for capital punishment entirely unconvincing:


They won't do it again.
Well, no, but that comes at a cost that needs to be justified. A cost not only in innocent human lifes but also a cost in guilty human lifes of people who wouldn't have killed again even if they had been allowed to live.


Only few people will be imprisoned for life.
Well, so? What if somebody is released eventually? Have they not been punished? How great a danger to society would they still pose, especially compared to you and me?


The loved ones of the victim will feel better.
Well, excuse me! How many people do I need to find that would feel better if you were put to death in order to make it okay? What if I murder someone that nobody likes? Should I be allowed to go free or sentenced less severly? Or do we live in a society where the law is (should, at least) applied equally regardless of how nice people might think you? Never mind the bit about revenge being horribly outdated and useless. There isn't much that distinguishes that from family fuedes, vendetas and honour killings - the former is just more formalized to our eyes.

Also, why would this be a good argument? It should be easier for me to deal with the death of my parents, say, if there was someone to blame for and if that person got severely punished? That should somehow make it all better? If so, then why assume that this is a good thing rather than an indicator that something is seriously wrong with me?

Money
Shouldn't be an issue, at all. Of course, we could be like China, kill petty criminals and charge the family for the bullet ... yes, a but of a slippery slope - but if you make the argument about money you should at least explain why it's a factor here and not somewhere else?


They don't deserve to live
I know that Gandalf's comment above is even less well argued than my little rant here. But I don't think that "deserves to live" is a good measure to go by. It's easy to point your finger and divide the world into the deserving and the undeserving - yet I never see anyone coming up with the definite list of factors that can be used to make such a descision. I want a checklist to go by. Do I deserve to live? Do you?

 

[0m3g4]

One more vote against. Although there are quite a few people I'd like to see dead, the legal system should stand above revenge.

 

[Francesca R]

Hmm, . . . my views unchanged from almost 2 years ago. Thanks for the bump.