Capital punishment

[GlennB]

<derail>
No, it's government that doesn't trust us to run a bath;

This week, John Prescott was accused of "nanny state interference" after it was announced that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering regulating the maximum temperature of domestic baths. As part of the plans, which could be implemented next year, thermostatic mixing valves may be fitted in all new homes. </derail>

Double derail ...

A few years back I was working at a residential school for, er, 'difficult' teenagers.

One agency visited our residence and told us the water was dangerously hot. We turned it down.

Another agency then visited and said it was dangerously cool (legionnaires' disease, or something)

D'oh.

[/derail]

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Think that more or less sums it up though I'd go further and say I don't trust the state (or society in general) with the power to execute anyone.

The kind of state/society that elects David Cameron, spends millions voting on X-Factor and Whateverthehellcrapgrahamnortonisdoingnow on TV, thinks that the most important story in the world is some tramp-stamped pop tart getting malaria and gets their daily opinions fed to them by the Daily Mail/Sun/Sky News really shouldn't be deciding who lives and dies.

Erhm...even that is problematic. I see what you are saying and agree with you to a large extent but even that raises issues.

So if you fellas over in England/UK had elected the other bloke, spent millions going to the opera every year, read real newspapers and listened to real music then the DP would be okay?

Agreed, stupid and shallow people don't get to decide if other people live or die- but smart people don't, either.

You have no right to decide if another human being has "forfeited" his/her life or not and make completely arbitrary choices about what is forfeiting and what isn't (so killing and raping a 7-year-old girl or boy gets the DP because that is so universally agreed to be so horrible and outrageous and just about the worst crime that can be committed- but a regular average every day murder doesn't? That gets life in prison or 30 years or so? So when the 7-year-old grows up to be a 49-year-old average shooting victim her/his murder is no longer a punishable-by-death killing? How does this make any sense?). His/her life does NOT belong to you. He/she has no kind of weird obligation towards you personally or society at large that only comes into play when they've committed a murder.

Society's collective intelligence and sophistication ain't got nothing to do with it.

 

[quarky]

And the wrong convictions overwhelmingly pin the crime on minorities; hence, my claim of racist.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The death penalty has a good record on recidivism.

The principal arguments against seem to be:-

1. "It's just morally wrong , because I say so".

This is a matter of opinion . Opinions are divided on this issue; an excellent reason for a public vote on the issue. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

2. "It's not a deterrent".

This should not, after so long, be a mattter of opinion. We should have hard data. But if it the possibility of personal death is not a deterrent against aggression, are nuclear weapons a detterent against aggression? If the reasoning is flawed, let's get rid of Trident. One or the other.

3. "We might get the wrong man".

We WOULD get the wrong man, sometimes; there's no " might" about it. If we require 100% perfection of every other government administered scheme, we better shut down the NHS and the DWP tonight, because they kill the wrong people sometimes , too.

4. "It's inhumane".

Again, a matter of opinion. For me, keeping someone incarcerated in pretty unpleasant conditions for life is rather worse. Not everyone will agree, but I wonder how many of those have spent time inside?

5. "If we realise we executed the wrong man we can do nothing. If we jailed the wrong man, we can give him his life back".

No. We can't. His life is screwed. Sure, he's alive. It's the only one of these arguments which holds water IMO. Better to get it right in the first place. If airline pilots- or mechanics- got it wrong as often as lawyers and judges, would there be an airline industry? What actually happens to those who miscarry justice? Jail? Fines? Knighthoods?

I find myself wondering- why this ultra cautious, moralistic attitude in this single area of society?
We build roads, knowing people will die on them.
We send soldiers to war, knowing someone might get killed.
We give policemen guns and tasers, knowing someone might get shot.

Let me suggest a possibly less morally upstanding reason for government's- and the legal profession's - reluctance to execute anyone.

Incompetence- possibly allied to cowardice.

Is the legal system competent to make life and death decisions? The kind of decisions airline pilots, bus drivers and surgeons make every day?
I really don't think it is.

I think it needs a major shake up.
I also think it - and we- need to face our responsibility.
We send young men to Afghanistan to shoot people and to risk their lives, in pursuit of some nebulous goal. Do we actually know anything about who they kill? Do we know they got "the right man"?
When faced with the Harold Shipmans, Bradys and Hindleys produced by the very society those soldiers are killing strangers to uphold, should we not be willing to take the same responsibility for our judgement that we demand of a nineteen year old soldier?

 

[DC]

1. "It's not morally wrong , because I say so".

4. "It's inhumane".

Again, a matter of opinion. For me, keeping someone incarcerated in pretty unpleasant conditions for life is rather worse. Not everyone will agree, but I wonder how many of those have spent time inside?

how many times have you been killed? was that better than jail?

5. "If we realise we executed the wrong man we can do nothing. If we jailed the wrong man, we can give him his life back".

so we should be happy we killed the guy instead of him heaving a not so good life?

 

[Soapy Sam]

DC-We've had dozens of threads here about morality. They are uniformly inconclusive, generally bogging in a morass between absolutism and relativity. I don't know the answer. I don't know if there IS an answer. I therefore label argument 1 as a matter of opinion, easily settled in a democracy by a vote.

I have not been killed yet- the close calls were kinda fun (in retrospect). Jail me for life and I will kill myself. I'm in no real doubt about that.

Happy, no. We should accept we screwed up and somebody died. And we should try harder in future.

But- am I supposed to view the life of some Afghan teenager who sees British troops as invaders as being less important than that of someone proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to have lured two pre-teen girls into his home and murdered them?

Sorry, I find that impossible.

If killing one is acceptable to British society, I can think of no reason, except sheer moral cowardice, why executing the other should not be.

 

[Cainkane1]

Some people may say that Americas justice system is too harsh but I believe Europes Justice is a bad too easy. I can understand not believeing in capital punishment because I believe life incarceration is in many ways worse.

There was a discussion among the Brits here concerning the possible release of a man who had killed 13 prostitutes on the grounds that he had psychiatric problems. I say a person like this should never be released. Some years ago a Musician in either Switzerland or Sweden stabbed another musician in the head and killed him. He received only 13 years which was cionsidered harsh by european standards.

Perhaps I'm being to hard on the Europeans as in South America you can be released from prison after 30 years even if you are a prolific serial killer.

If Randy Dobbs were released after he had served only thirty years he would be only 45 years old and there is no doubt in my mind that he would kill again.

 

[quarky]

Capitol punishment has an unsavory history. Its gotten less unsavory. We don't kill witches anymore. That's nice. And Popes don't kill Cathars.

Seems logical to divest from these last echoes.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Cainkane1-
The harsh / soft dichotomy will always be a matter of opinion.
This is where, it seems to me, the simple solution is to put it to a public vote. No one pretends the result is universally "right". It's just the majority view.

Likewise, some people will "prefer" or at least "detest less" being jailed for life to being humanely executed. I would not. I don't say that does , or should apply to anyone else, here or in jail; it's just my personal attitude and I expect it's not unique.
I judge it far more cruel and unusual to lock someone away for life than to execute him.
That doesn't mean I think execution (or life imprisonment) should be automatic sentences for every murder. In the case you mention, I can see nothing to be gained by returning this person to society and no reason to keep him alive for thirty or forty years in a cell.
Some will agree with my conclusion, yet will argue it is wrong to kill him. In my opinion that's where majority vote comes in.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Quarky-
We never did kill witches. There were none.
There are, however, rapists, murderers and some much less likable people than either of those.

That killing old women who did no harm was wrong is one argument.

I fail to see how it is logically relevant to the execution of someone who manifestly has done great harm.

 

[Darat]

The death penalty has a good record on recidivism.

The principal arguments against seem to be:-

...snip...

Several of us have given a different principled argument...

 

[Darat]

Some people may say that Americas justice system is too harsh but I believe Europes Justice is a bad too easy. ...snip....

Which "Europes Justice" system are you talking about? There are over 45 "European" countries, each with at least one unique justice system.

ETA: And to help you there is at least one European country that still has the death penalty and uses it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Which "Europes Justice" system are you talking about? There are over 45 "European" countries, each with at least one unique justice system.

And, since we're on the subject, each of the United States has its own criminal justice system, as well, with different defined crimes and penalties for each one. Not all States even have capital punishment, much less applying under the same circumstances.

 

[Suddenly]

2. "It's not a deterrent".

This should not, after so long, be a mattter of opinion. We should have hard data. But if it the possibility of personal death is not a deterrent against aggression, are nuclear weapons a detterent against aggression? If the reasoning is flawed, let's get rid of Trident. One or the other.

There is no way to measure events that didn't happen, and too many variables to really draw conclusions from statistical changes in murder rates.

That said, people who commit violent felonies aren't generally known for their cost-benefit analysis. There might be some person who decides that while life with no parole is an acceptable cost of killing that the death penalty isn't, but that would be a really weird state of affairs. It wouldn't matter to most people who kill, younger adults without a full sense of the consequences of their actions, hard core sociopaths, panicky robbers, enraged jilted lovers, etc.

 

[bynmdsue]

Why is deterrance even thown in? People still speed so let's do away with tickest.They obviously don't deter.

It's hard to study murders that didn't happen.

 

[Darat]

And, since we're on the subject, each of the United States has its own criminal justice system, as well, with different defined crimes and penalties for each one. Not all States even have capital punishment, much less applying under the same circumstances.

I thought we were talking about countries?

 

[Soapy Sam]

There is no way to measure events that didn't happen, and too many variables to really draw conclusions from statistical changes in murder rates.

That said, people who commit violent felonies aren't generally known for their cost-benefit analysis. There might be some person who decides that while life with no parole is an acceptable cost of killing that the death penalty isn't, but that would be a really weird state of affairs. It wouldn't matter to most people who kill, younger adults without a full sense of the consequences of their actions, hard core sociopaths, panicky robbers, enraged jilted lovers, etc.

So if we want a deterrent, we need something nastier? Boiling in oil? Community service?


How about the "nuclear deterrent" comparison? If individual death does not deter the sort of people who commit capital crimes, do you think large scale incineration deters dictators? Or would you say there's no valid comparison?

 

[DreadNiK]

surely there is a certain level of evidence beyond which it is as good as 100% certain that someone is guilty. I'm not sure if it has ever happened in reality, but for example video evidence of sufficient quality in certain situations where to suggest the doubt is that the video might have been faked is basically the same as suggesting 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm not against the death penalty on moral principles but I am on practical application.

 

[DreadNiK]

That said, people who commit violent felonies aren't generally known for their cost-benefit analysis. There might be some person who decides that while life with no parole is an acceptable cost of killing that the death penalty isn't, but that would be a really weird state of affairs. It wouldn't matter to most people who kill, younger adults without a full sense of the consequences of their actions, hard core sociopaths, panicky robbers, enraged jilted lovers, etc.

True, but I think maybe (no evidence ) that the more that the legal system was generally seen as unforgiving to those who break the social contract with violence etc the general atmosphere of the society will be one that carries more respect (and yes, maybe fear too, but is that so bad? God-fearing used to be a compliment...)

 

[Soapy Sam]

Several of us have given a different principled argument...

I've read back, but can't find one, unless it's the argument that you don't trust either your own government or your legal system . (I don't count that as a principled argument. I take it as an axiom).

I don't know if your reason for mistrust is something other than observed incompetence on their part. As we have not been moved to CT, I doubt it's more sinister.
I'm fully in favour of radical overhaul of the legal system, particularly in the area of accountability. Evidence standards should be tightened greatly. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is inadequate. If we can't prove you did it convincingly to your mum, then we have failed to prove it. Far from jailing everyone, I suspect I'd let far more criminals get off with it- though I'd expand the "Not Proven" verdict and link it to ongoing observation / reporting for a year or two.
If the justice system performs as badly as almost all anti-CP advocates say, I'm surprised there has not been a mass uprising. Why is nobody protesting the mass failure of the system now?

I just don't think killing the wrong person in the courts is much worse than doing it in a hospital, but nobody suggests closing the NHS because it kills people.

As for the question - "Would you still advocate the death penalty if you found yourself framed for (fill in here)" Yes, I would, if the alternative was life imprisonment.