Capital punishment

[Soapy Sam]

Darat- I claim responsibility for that ETA. I proclaim my ETAs with pride. I sneak them not, forsooth!

Yes, from your POV , there would be no difference between the examples you give.
From my POV - and that of society at large, there would be major differences.
You would be just as dead in either case.
I of course, would have a car to wash and a whole bunch of stupid questions to answer if I ran you over, whereas if I did the ninja thing, I'd be home for dinner. (I wouldn't put the knife in your guts, by the way, takes ages, very messy and you might have time to post here consigning me to AAH. )

Seriously- yes there are differences, but they are differences of degree. If you fell under my car, I may still be responsible for your death. I may be speeding, or too near the kerb. There is a whole spectrum of situations wherein my responsibility increases, up to the point where I'm driving down the pavement, stoned out of my mind.

If your point is that it's still easier to get away with murder when you use a car rather than a knife, you're right.

 

[DreadNiK]

Belarus.

Another reason capital punishment probably should not be around: it is the only- ONLY- instance in which society demands an "eye for an eye" in punishment. This is the only time we make "the punishment fit the crime".

When a rapist is caught and sentenced to prison, does the judge and jury sentence him to be raped? If he is a serial rapist, is he condemned to 5 rapes a year? If he's raped by the guards or other prisoners, it's not cause it was ordered by society.

Is a wife beater, child abuser or a thug who lost control at the local bar sentenced to an assault in jail because he/she committed an assault? If they did it serially, are they sentenced to getting beaten every day or every week? Again, if the guards or other prisoners do it, it isn't because society made them.

Do we burn down arsonists' homes?

Does the law and government come to a thief's home and steal his stuff? Does it get distributed between the cops and the judge? Are shoplifters allowed to come into his house and take whatever they want?

When we catch a trespasser, do we then let other people crash in his garage and invade his privacy?

When someone gropes a woman, do we order people to sexually harass him?

When we catch a pimp or madam, do we make him/her prostitute himself/herself in prison to strange men and women for 5 bucks a pop?

When we catch a kidnapper, do we make the police grab him off the streets and hold him in a dark and smelly basement for a week?

Do we make drunk drivers ride sober in the backseat with a drunken driver at the wheel?

No, because this would be bizarre and serve no purpose. We put them in jail. Or give them parole, house arrest, fines, community service, serious legal restrictions, etc. That's what we do for punishment.

Edit: Before anyone says this, yes, it is true that some other countries do things like this for punishment. Rapists are caned with the stick in Singapore, yes. Muslim nations cut off a thief's hands. And so on. Yes, some nations do "eye for an eye", at least for certain crimes. They are at least more consistent than the US in this regard, where "eye for an eye" is only used in murder cases.

You're twisting it a bit to fit your argument - eye for an eye on virtually every other crime except murder would not prevent someone from committing the same crime again immediately after their punishment.

I think it wouldn't be morally wrong to have eye for an eye style punishments for a great many crimes, however it wouldn't be practical in terms of what you are trying to achieve with the punishment.

Also, we imprison people for kidnapping/false imprisonment so to say it is the ONLY instance is wrong, and partly based on the above misunderstanding.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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?

We have been. But even so, talking about the United States as one unit when there are more than fifty criminal justice systems each which their own rules and procedure with respect to capital punishment is just as unreasonable a simplification as talking about Europe as one unit.
In fact, there are many political legal situations where Europe and the United States are parallel, and if you want to get nuanced you should break up each into its constituant sovereign states -- Arkansas, Texas, California, Spain, Germany, France, etc.
As the E.U. gains more control over its member states, the parallels become even more striking.

 

[Darat]

We have been. But even so, talking about the United States as one unit when there are more than fifty criminal justice systems each which their own rules and procedure with respect to capital punishment is just as unreasonable a simplification as talking about Europe as one unit.
...snip...

Perhaps in some circumstances but not in this one, the USA is a single country, Europe/Europeans does not refer to the same thing at all, it is an apple and pears comparison.

 

[DC]

We have been. But even so, talking about the United States as one unit when there are more than fifty criminal justice systems each which their own rules and procedure with respect to capital punishment is just as unreasonable a simplification as talking about Europe as one unit.
In fact, there are many political legal situations where Europe and the United States are parallel, and if you want to get nuanced you should break up each into its constituant sovereign states -- Arkansas, Texas, California, Spain, Germany, France, etc.
As the E.U. gains more control over its member states, the parallels become even more striking.

dunno about Spain, but in Germany there are also some differences in laws in the different German states (Bundesländer).

 

[AvalonXQ]

Perhaps in some circumstances but not in this one,

No, specifically in this one, because while the U.S. Constitution sets some outer limits for the application of capital punishment, criminal justice including capital punishment is still a product of state law.
Federalism as practiced in the U.S. means that Kentucky, for example, is a Sovereign State with its own Constitution and laws which are not beholden to any other state or the States as a whole except as outlined in the U.S. Constution. And, specifically, Kentucky administers its own criminal law and its own death penalty. So talking about the U.S. as if Kentucky and, say, Florida have the same death penalty is quite inaccurate.

 

[Darat]

No, specifically in this one, because while the U.S. Constitution sets some outer limits for the application of capital punishment, criminal justice including capital punishment is still a product of state law.
...snip...

Wish you'd make your mind up, you agree we are talking about countries and then want to say we can't talk about the USA as a country in regards to the death penalty. Easy way to solve this one:

Does the country known as the United States of America have the death penalty?

 

[DC]

Does the country known as the United States of America have the death penalty?

No

ETA: uuups, didnt even know the USA has a death penalty on federal level :s

thanks AvalonXQ for correcting me.

so yes the USA has a death penatly

 

[AvalonXQ]

Wish you'd make your mind up, you agree we are talking about countries and then want to say we can't talk about the USA as a country in regards to the death penalty. Easy way to solve this one:

Does the country known as the United States of America have the death penalty?

So we're just talking about the death penalty under federal law, then?
Because I guarantee you that the rare federal death penalty cases are NOT what most people are concerned about when it comes to executions in the U.S.
For instance, according to this, there have been 1,218 executions in the United States since 1976, of which the federal government accounts for three.

 

[Darat]

Someone should tell the USA government that!

 

[AvalonXQ]

Does the country known as the United States of America have the death penalty?

No

Actually, the answer is technically yes -- but American death penalty dialogues aren't particularly concerned about this, since federal capital punishment is very rare. Individual state capital punishment is what matters.

 

[Darat]

So we're just talking about the death penalty under federal law, then?
...snip...

No as you stated earlier we are talking about countries that have the death penalty, the USA is one of those, there is no country called "Europe".

ETA: For the life of me I can't see what the value or relevance to the topic this section of the discussion is, I wanted to know which country someone was referring to when they said "Europes justice" and for some reason you want to side track the discussion into the composition of the USA. Seems to be a pretty irrelevant detour to me given what I was asking.

 

[DC]

Actually, the answer is technically yes -- but American death penalty dialogues aren't particularly concerned about this, since federal capital punishment is very rare. Individual state capital punishment is what matters.

no both matter.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Someone should tell the USA government that!

Again, the U.S. government handles only a very, very small percentage of criminal prosecutions, because crime is almost entirely left to State law. It's the use of the death penalty by state governments that is the crux of capital punishment discussions, and some states have now banned its use altogether.
Really, talking about how "The United States has the death penalty and Europe doesn't" is reasonable; both are generalities and not correct in all circumstances, and both gloss over the fact that you're dealing with many different jurisdictions with their own laws.

 

[AvalonXQ]

No as you stated earlier we are talking about countries that have the death penalty, the USA is one of those, there is no country called "Europe".

And what we should be talking about is different criminal laws that allow and don't allow death penalties. Talking about the U.S. as a monolithic entity in this regard is as ignorant as talking about Europe as one.

 

[quarky]

"An eye for an eye" went out with the Old Testament.
The upgrade was "Turn the other cheek".

Being non-religious myself, I see this as life in prison vs/ death by the State.

The later approach leaves some lee-way to accommodate errors.

 

[Darat]

And what we should be talking about is different criminal laws that allow and don't allow death penalties. Talking about the U.S. as a monolithic entity in this regard is as ignorant as talking about Europe as one.

And when someone does that feel free to point out their error and ask them to clarify what they mean, in the meantime back to the what's been posted in this thread.


Cainkane1 - Which "Europes Justice" system are you talking about? There are over 45 "European" countries, each with at least one unique justice system.

 

[Suddenly]

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

No, you need murderers with the sense of appreciating the consequences of their actions that if they had it would probably make them not murderers.

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?

Different. It would be like a murderer knowing he will be shot as soon as he pulls the trigger. Only the profoundly insane lack the ability to connect action and consequence in those circumstances.

 

[bynmdsue]

Here a few examples of possible mistakes that have not been investigated further:

except when they have been as in the case of Roger Coleman where it turns out the rapist and murderer is also a liar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.html

 

[Soapy Sam]

No, you need murderers with the sense of appreciating the consequences of their actions that if they had it would probably make them not murderers.

Hmmm- I doubt murderers are a uniform class , mentally. The married couple who lure teenagers to stay with them, then torture, rape and murder them are pretty different people from the repeatedly hammered woman who takes a frying pan to her sleeping husband. Not sure who would be more deterred though.

Different. It would be like a murderer knowing he will be shot as soon as he pulls the trigger. Only the profoundly insane lack the ability to connect action and consequence in those circumstances.

This is interesting. Though not anti CP, I am generally anti nuke. I find the deterrent argument unconvincing in both cases. To me, the weapons are unusable, expensive and may as well be ditched. (Though there's a case for pretending to keep them).
I'm curious as to how others rate the deterrence argument in either context. If it's the same mechanism and it's valid in one case, why not the other? If invalid in both, why not ditch Trident? (To avoid the Federal / Euro/USA thing, I'm thinking of the UK here).
ETA- There may also be historical variance in deterrence. No criminal in the last thirty years has had to seriously face the likelihood of being hanged. It's possible that reintroducing hanging would have a deterrent effect for a time, till criminals got used to the idea again.