Are societies who execute first degree completely sane murderers as bad as the killer

[Cainkane1]

I've been told that if a society executes a person say like Dennis Rader then the society that executes the murderer is as bad as the murderer. I say no. What do you guys say?

 

[GreyICE]

Let me check.

Me: "God, are we as bad as Dennis Rader?"

God: "Hell no! Y'all are much worse. Also, why are you asking me? I'm a figment of your imagination."

Well that seems conclusive to me.

 

[paximperium]

No.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I'm against the death penalty in practically all circumstances, regardless of circumstances.

Many of the criminalsmay deserve to be killed, yes, but we have no right to kill them. What's curious is that the death penalty seems to be the only time when society sees fit to imitate and repeat the very criminal behavior they condemn- and actually gets a feeling of moral superiority out of it!

How can you punish someone for being a killer by killing them? Do we sentence rapists to several prison rapes a year? Do we burn down the homes of arsonists? Do we order child abusers to being regularly assaulted by prison guards?

 

[jj]

I've been told that if a society executes a person say like Dennis Rader then the society that executes the murderer is as bad as the murderer. I say no. What do you guys say?

Depends.

If you think that society has either a right or an obligation to defend its members, then no.

If you're an anarchist,perhaps.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm against the death penalty in practically all circumstances, regardless of circumstances.

Many of the criminalsmay deserve to be killed, yes, but we have no right to kill them. What's curious is that the death penalty seems to be the only time when society sees fit to imitate and repeat the very criminal behavior they condemn- and actually gets a feeling of moral superiority out of it!

How can you punish someone for being a killer by killing them? Do we sentence rapists to several prison rapes a year? Do we burn down the homes of arsonists? Do we order child abusers to being regularly assaulted by prison guards?

Well, for what it's worth, here is my view:
Someone who kills purposely for personal reasons like financial gain, romantic entanglement, etc. has forfeited his right to live. Society has the right, if it collectively chooses to exercise it, to tale that person’s life in return. Society may make that choice on the basis of the emotional needs of the victim’s survivors, the financial burden of life imprisonment, etc.
My rational for this view is that the killer has decided that his personal needs were more important than the victim’s life. In return, therefore, society can decide that its needs are more important than the perpetrator’s life.

 

[Morrigan]

Of course not. Killing a human being is not intrinsically wrong. It can be justified. Of course people are going to disagree on the justification, but we can all agree that killing in self-defense is not as bad as killing for the sadistic pleasure of it, just as killing to remove a dangerous threat to society the same as killing for the sadistic pleasure of it.

 

[Aoidoi]

How can you punish someone for being a killer by killing them? Do we sentence rapists to several prison rapes a year? Do we burn down the homes of arsonists? Do we order child abusers to being regularly assaulted by prison guards?

Do we abduct kidnappers and lock them in small rooms where they can't escape?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe
How can you punish someone for being a killer by killing them? Do we sentence rapists to several prison rapes a year? Do we burn down the homes of arsonists? Do we order child abusers to being regularly assaulted by prison guards?

These are very poor analogies. Taking someone’s life for personal gain is the ultimate crime. The victim has been deprived of everything; he has been sent to oblivion! There is no turning back, no way to compensate. The perpetrator should be subject to the same fate!

 

[uk_dave]

These are very poor analogies. Taking someone’s life for personal gain is the ultimate crime. The victim has been deprived of everything; he has been sent to oblivion! There is no turning back, no way to compensate. The perpetrator should be subject to the same fate!

Emphasis added.

So if the state wrongfully kills an innocent person through a miscarriage of justice, is there really no level of compensation for the victims family which could be seen as going some way to expressing society's regret at the death?

Would $10billion be enough compensation? And if it were, how willing would courts then be to hand down a death penalty?

ETA: Or perhaps take it another stage and say that any jury members who vote for the death penalty (or a judge if the decision is theirs to make) should also face the death penalty if a miscarriage of justice has occured and they had ordered the death of an innocent person.

 

[Architect]

Wrongful convictions are the most compelling argument against the death penalty.

 

[lionking]

Wrongful convictions are the most compelling argument against the death penalty.

Absolutely. We haven't had an execution in Australia for decades, but just recently an intellectually disabled man who was executed in the 1940's (I think, I will look it up) has been pardoned.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't object to the death penalty in principle. However, I would like to limit its use to those who really are undoubtably guilty of extremely cruel crimes. I think maybe there should be a procedure to double-check convictions for death penalty cases to make sure they never execute the wrong person.

 

[lionking]

The problem with this argument is that every murder conviction in most western countries are "beyond reasonable doubt", so therefore by definition "undoubtably". Mistakes are still made. Just today on the local news a man was released from custody after being charged by a cold case unit for murder. Mix up with the DNA.

 

[Fiona]

Is anything absolutely certain? The legal test is not that: there is a good reason why it is not, so far as I can see. Apparently it is quite difficult to get juries to convict and the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt" has often to be explained. I find that a curiously comforting thought but I think it is likely that any reluctance of that sort would be stronger if the death penalty were re-introduced. I have sometimes wondered if any increase in convictions for murder since it was abolished can be partly explained this way: if so then the death penalty would reduce the likelihood of bringing the worst criminals to justice. Even in the terms of those in favour of capital punishment that would be an indication we should not do it. I have no proof of this, since jury deliberations are private. But I think it is plausible. I hope it is true

 

[richardm]

So if the state wrongfully kills an innocent person through a miscarriage of justice, is there really no level of compensation for the victims family which could be seen as going some way to expressing society's regret at the death?

Would $10billion be enough compensation? And if it were, how willing would courts then be to hand down a death penalty?

Well, $10 billion would probably be enough to satisfy the family. In cases like Derek Bentley, the family would settle for something as inexpensive as an apology and a pardon.

None of these are much consolation for the poor sod who's been killed, though.

Edited to answer the question: I don't think it makes society as bad as the murderer. At the same time, I don't think it's something that society should be doing.

 

[Puppycow]

Right. So even though I don't object to the death penalty "on principle" I do as a practical matter given the empirical evidence of too many wrongful convictions. But I imagine that the system might be improved enough to increase the certainty of verdicts in the future. At some point, a number like 99.9999% is close enough to 100%, but 98% or even 99.5% probably is not. And actual wrongful conviction rates might be even worse than that.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Once a killer has been removed from society, what is your motive for killing him?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Wrongful convictions are the most compelling argument against the death penalty.

I'm behind you on this one, Arch.

I remember reading an article, back when DNA testing was new, about a governor in a western state, a state that had the death penalty, deciding to perform DNA tests on the soon-to-be-executed prisoners.

The rate at which DNA evidence showed that the condemned was not perpetrator caused him to halt executions until DNA tests could be run on all of the condemned!

I'd rather see... and pay for... long-term imprisonments than execute one innocent person.

On the other hand, you have a case like Ted Bundy, with incontrovertible evidence, his own brag that he'd raped, killed and made a run at devouring hundreds of young women (not always in the order, mind you), and the fact that every time he got loose (and he did get loose - one time he starved himself and hoarded the pats of butter from his uneaten meals so that he could get skinny enough and slippery enough to get through a ventilator), he'd make a bee-line for a girl's school or a sorority to add to his tally...

Society sometimes has a choice: The current Ted-Bundy-equivalent dies, or lots more college-age brunet women die.

In a case like that, there's only one place you can put the guy from which he can not escape, and I'd tend to call it a society's obligation to defend its members.

So, while I strongly disapprove of the death penalty, I can be persuaded otherwise.

 

[Cainkane1]

Once a killer has been removed from society, what is your motive for killing him?

I've often thought that if a person is put in prison for life it would be just as bad or worse than being executed. Dennis Rader has been sentenced to life with no parole. He sits alone in a tiny room for his own protection. He has magazines, TV and a radio. The families of the victims objected to this but this is how Rader is going to spend the rest of his days.

Perhaps this measure of justice will be enough but not for the families.