The death penalty.

[LukeB]

Yes. The convicted is dead and therefore can't murder anyone else. It is 100% guaranteed that someone who is dead can't kill again.

I was asking for numbers, not speculation and assumptions on what you think any given convict may do in the future.

 

[dirtywick]

I was asking for numbers, not speculation and assumptions on what you think any given convict may do in the future.

There are too few executions and too many other variables to come up with an answer.

 

[Alt+F4]

I was asking for numbers, not speculation and assumptions on what you think any given convict may do in the future.

So are you asking about how many murders are committed in prison by those facing those the death penalty? Or how many people on death row are murdered?

 

[LukeB]

There are too few executions and too many other variables to come up with an answer.

Very true, still I think it's a pertinent question with regards to Cains point that without the death penalty people serving life in prison have nothing to lose, increasing the danger to fellow inmates and guards. The comparative murder rate amoung the prison population in states with and without the death penalty is relevant, if there's no way to come up with an answer then Cains argument is just speculation.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: irony of death penalty applied to murders...

Not any more ironic than the penalty for kidnapping/hostage taking is to arrest someone and keep them confined to a prison (which is pretty much what kidnapping was to begin with, isn't it?) And not any more ironic than taking a person or company that has stolen and making them pay a fine.

Well yes those things are also ironic I suppose, but as I have said I'm not against capital punishment because it is ironic.

My apologies... It sounded like you were using the common argument used by many anti-death penalty advocates: "Its wrong for the people to kill so its wrong for the state to kill".

I oppose executions as there is the option of life imprisonment (Which covers the protection aspect).

But why should the fact that there are options automatically invalidate the need for the death penalty? Just because there are options doesn't mean that those options are any "better".

(And others have indicated that the "protection" afforded to society by using imprisonment rather than the death penalty is lacking, since deaths can be caused by convicted felons either in jail, or after escape.)

The argument for capital punishment as a deterrent does not seem to always gel with the statistics;
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-pen...ath-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085

Not sure if that's really proof either. After all, there are substantial differences in the culture and demographics of many of the states, which can probably have more of an impact than the existence of the death penalty. For example, according to your reference, Louisiana has a higher murder rate than any non-death penalty state, but it also has infrastructure problems related to the flooding.

I think the only thing that can be said is "There's no proof either way".

Personally, I have no problem with the concept of the death penalty... even if its not a deterrent, I feel that there are some individuals who's crimes are so heinous they have forfeited their right to live. The only issue is whether we can guarantee that no innocent people get executed, and that's something that will take a significant amount of evidence.

 

[Alt+F4]

Very true, still I think it's a pertinent question with regards to Cains point that without the death penalty people serving life in prison have nothing to lose, increasing the danger to fellow inmates and guards. The comparative murder rate amoung the prison population in states with and without the death penalty is relevant, if there's no way to come up with an answer then Cains argument is just speculation.

It's my understanding that in most states those on death row are not part of the general prison population and therefore are less likely to murder another inmate. Therefore, a death penalty sentence reduces prison murder.

 

[stilicho]

At what point do you think murder by the state is justifiable?

How about preventing a prisoner from escaping custody by using deadly force?

 

[LukeB]

It's my understanding that in most states those on death row are not part of the general prison population and therefore are less likely to murder another inmate. Therefore, a death penalty sentence reduces prison murder.

My understanding of Cains argument is that people sentanced to life imprisonment in states with capitol punishment are less likely to commit murder in prison lest they face the death penalty. Those already on death row are irrelevant.

"There have been many murders done to fellow inmates and guards and other staff in prison. If someone is in prison for life with no other punishment then why should they worry about killing someone else?"

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

No nation that executes its citizens can truly call itself civilized.

Why not?

By killing them, we fail them, and we fail ourselves.

I'm not sure that this even means anything.

 

[I Ratant]

Why not?



I'm not sure that this even means anything.

It comes from the "Flower Child" era, where "every man's death diminishes me" made the stoners feel so much love.
There's so many men alive today who shouldn't see tomorrow!

 

[dirtywick]

Very true, still I think it's a pertinent question with regards to Cains point that without the death penalty people serving life in prison have nothing to lose, increasing the danger to fellow inmates and guards. The comparative murder rate amoung the prison population in states with and without the death penalty is relevant, if there's no way to come up with an answer then Cains argument is just speculation.

I think Cain's point is poor.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-row-prisoners-old#list

Here's a list I found of 59 federal death row inmates; 8 for murders in prison, 2 of them for murder/attempted murder of staff. The majority are for particularly brutal or heinous crimes outside of prison. That alone indicates the safety of inmates and staff can be a motivator, but usually is not.

Regardless, most states with the death penalty have a single prison with death row so state to state is going to be difficult (even if you can control for gang, racial, drugs, and security differences among prison populations), and even among those some have varying sized populations of minimum to supermax security wings.

Either way I think Cain's point is poor and a rationalization for the death penalty. People believe that for some crimes the best justice is death. I don't even think that needs rationalization, it's all philosophy after that point but it's a valid position.

 

[Halfcentaur]

The death penalty is nothing but an emotionally driven response. It's primitive and has no place in a system that values impartial justice. It is state sanctioned revenge.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Ultimately, I think this topic boils down to two things(*to me). One is the notion that anything in the universe actually deserves something. The concept of "deserve" is a human illusion, justice to me has nothing to do with getting what you deserve. There is no process that takes place or progress made at the moment something get's what it deserves to get.

This leaves the death penalty as a way to get rid of a problem, a problem which is not necessary to have if you get rid of it. The question becomes then that it costs resources to keep these people alive, when they no longer deserve to be kept alive. Even if you want to divorce the idea from deserving, it comes down to cold logical question of depleting unnecessary resources. This opens a can of worms in my mind. What makes us decide what is necessary to keep alive and what to not keep alive, if something is not kept alive or dead based on what it deserves? Why keep anyone alive if they've failed to keep from violating the rules of society? Why keep someone alive for ten years, or twenty, or one?

I am not sure myself, but I don't think the death penalty should even be an option in light of the questions this creates.

 

[Corsair 115]

But why? To what end?

Because being executed is the punishment which best fits the heinous nature of his crimes. It really is that simple.

Punishment for offences range in accordance with the seriousness of the offence. For minor crimes, a fine, probation, or time served is judged sufficient. For other crimes, some degree of jail time is deemed appropriate. For yet more serious crimes, spending much, most, or even all of the remainder of one's life in prison is regarded as fitting punishment.

I would simply add onto that range the idea that forfeiture of one's own life is proper punishment for certain kinds of crimes.

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

Because being executed is the punishment which best fits the heinous nature of his crimes. It really is that simple.

Something of a reduction fallacy don't you think, people have already stated several other possible justifications, and you saying "It really is that simple" does not make it so.

Punishment for offences range in accordance with the seriousness of the offence. For minor crimes, a fine, probation, or time served is judged sufficient. For other crimes, some degree of jail time is deemed appropriate. For yet more serious crimes, spending much, most, or even all of the remainder of one's life in prison is regarded as fitting punishment.

I would simply add onto that range the idea that forfeiture of one's own life is proper punishment for certain kinds of crimes.

It seems that we have a fundamental disagreement, you seem to be implying that prison in primarily for punishment, I think prison's main function is to protect the rest of society.

 

[Cain]

It makes sense Republicans favor the death penalty, which is consistent with principles of efficient and limited government. Universal health-care -- healing people -- involves a take over of the economy. It's wrong. Instead the government should have the power to execute its own citizens, and I trust the state to find the right man, woman or child.

 

[brenn]

Yes I agree. I don't have a problem with removing the trash, in fact I would advocate the death penalty for all first degree murderers (amoung other crimes), if not for the fact that inocent people would also get executed.

Our society has eliminated the chance of wrongful conviction as much as possible and more than anywhere else on earth, ever - Europe definitely included. Nothing is 100%, but we have reduced it to a risk that is acceptable, in my opinion. Given the few, if any, real cases of modern execution of innocents, even the anti's have a hard time supporting this one with evidence. I'd guess that the chance of a random American being executed for a crime he did not commit is on par with being struck by lightning while collecting your powerball prize.


(For those who would like to respond to my last comment in standard JREF fashion, by taking the phrase "struck by lightning while collecting your powerball prize" literally - grow up.)

 

[brenn]

It makes sense Republicans favor the death penalty, which is consistent with principles of efficient and limited government. Universal health-care -- healing people -- involves a take over of the economy. It's wrong. Instead the government should have the power to execute its own citizens, and I trust the state to find the right man, woman or child.

In spite of your left-wing sarcasm, I do agree, literally, with that comment.

 

[Fishstick]

Our society has eliminated the chance of wrongful conviction as much as possible and more than anywhere else on earth, ever - Europe definitely included. Nothing is 100%, but we have reduced it to a risk that is acceptable, in my opinion. Given the few, if any, real cases of modern execution of innocents, even the anti's have a hard time supporting this one with evidence. I'd guess that the chance of a random American being executed for a crime he did not commit is on par with being struck by lightning while collecting your powerball prize.

Yet so far over 120 people have been completely exonerated from deathrow based on new evidence, over 15 of those from DNA-evidence. Between being convicted to death and exoneration is an average span of 9 years of living in uncertainty. And for what? Not having MY TAX DOLLARS going to keep someone alive for a life sentence? Well it's actually cheaper:

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

 

[Cain]

In spite of your left-wing sarcasm, I do agree, literally, with that comment.

We all like conviction.