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

[luchog]

I cannot see how someone faced with life imprisonment is a threat to society, let alone a dangerous threat.

Because there is still the chance that he may, eventually, through some quirk of politics, be released. Charles Manson still comes up for parole every few years; and his application for parole must be formally refused each time. There's also the risk of escape. Squeaky Fromme escaped briefly in 1987. They are also often threats to other inmates, and numerous mass murderers have been known to kill or assault other inmates. There simply aren't sufficient resources currently to keep them warehoused individually (although there probably would be if the government would stop locking up non-violent drug offenders).

And there's the issue that personality-cult leaders like Manson could still provide inspiration and guidance while imprisoned; or prove to be the focus of terrorist activities (like some Irish liberation group leaders were). Yes, there is the risk of making martyrs; but for personality cults, martyrs are far less dangerous than live leaders. Without the influence of a suitably charismatic leader, such cults typically disintigrate due to internal conflicts.

That said, I do not support Capital Punishment in practice, although I do support it in principle. The statistical likelihood of convicting and executing an innocent man are still unacceptably high. Unfortunately, the alternative isn't substantially better.

 

[Alex Libman]

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty. On one hand, allowing it gives the government more power to silence someone who might be politically significant. On the other hand, not having the government death penalty would bring us one step closer to not being able to use deadly force in self-defense, which would be an even bigger blow for personal liberty...

 

[uk_dave]

... not having the government death penalty would bring us one step closer to not being able to use deadly force in self-defense...

How so?

What's wrong with using 'reasonable force' instead? Is a jury of your peers really going to convict you if you had no alternative but to kill your attacker or be killed yourself?

Or perhaps you're more worried about the right to kill someone for the crime of trespass, even if that crime in a court of law wouldnt attract the death penalty?

 

[Jon_Stripe]

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?

Karma's a b*tch, aint it?


But seriously now, if we do not kill them for their own murders, then what is justice?

 

[Fiona]

Do people think that Nelson Mandela should have been executed? He was charged with a capital crime and admitted his guilt.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Is the death penalty really revenge or is it justice? Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

For you that's equal response?

I'm sorry, I simply cannot accpt that the state has any right to murder it's own citizens.

I don't think that it means that the state is on the same level per se, in the same way that a housewife who is beaten black and blue every day then snaps with a poker in hand is the same as, to pick a random example, Harold Shipman.
However I do think it's a similar thing, in many ways. The chance of wrongful conviction is always going to be far too high, and I would rather a handful of the guilty walked free than any innocent people were put to death.

On the other hand, I think that life in prison really SHOULD mean life (and over here, it doesn't).

 

[mrshadyvale]

The Facts

I am amazed at the replies I see in this thread. Until today, I have to admit I had yet to see a discussion on this issue that approached a level of respect I am seeing here. Cheers to all of you.

As far as I see it, the only way to make decisions on public policy is to remove emotional entanglement and personal beliefs and purely weigh the pros and cons against one and other. If we look at this from a scientific perspective we have to look at the facts as we know them to be true.

1. There is no current system in place that can guarantee that an innocent man or woman is not put to death.

I think we can stop right there. I am against the death penalty for that one reason alone. Being a skeptic, I am more than willing to change my position if I am presented with additional facts that support the action of capital punishment.

We have to ask the simple question: Is it EVER okay to end the life of an innocent person?

I would like to think that even as a "heathen godless monster" I can firmly say that under no conceivable circumstance is it morally okay to end the life of someone that does not deserve it.

The burden of proof is in coming up with positive consequnces of the death penalty that nullify the above fact. I have a hard time imagining any massive list of positive effects that could make the act of killing an innocent human being okay.

Until then, I think we are morally obligated to do everything as a society to punish, prevent, and maintain order, as long as innocent lives are protected.

 

[richardm]

On the other hand, I think that life in prison really SHOULD mean life (and over here, it doesn't).

It can do, though, and it has done for many notorious murderers.

Perhaps if the rules for Life Inprisonment were better known - people would be happier.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It can do, though, and it has done for many notorious murderers.

Perhaps if the rules for Life Inprisonment were better known - people would be happier.

Yes....I think that's probably correct.

 

[Beerina]

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

And there's also uneven application of the law based on race, gender, wealth, etc. of victim and perp., all other things being equal (e.g. exacty nature of crime, violence, reason, etc.)

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Karma's a b*tch, aint it?


But seriously now, if we do not kill them for their own murders, then what is justice?

You don't see the hypocrisy in it? It's not justice or protection for the rest of society, it's revenge.

Another problem I have with the death penalty is that not all killers kill in cold blood, out of calculation and with full knowledge of what they were doing. Alot kill out of panic, stupidity or desperation and most likely would never do it again in their lives.

I might feel ok executing, say, a multiple murderer who killed out of greed and planned the crime months ahead of time but a robber who only shot a police officer because he was trying to get away?

 

[Billdave2]

You don't see the hypocrisy in it? It's not justice or protection for the rest of society, it's revenge.

Another problem I have with the death penalty is that not all killers kill in cold blood, out of calculation and with full knowledge of what they were doing. Alot kill out of panic, stupidity or desperation and most likely would never do it again in their lives.

I might feel ok executing, say, a multiple murderer who killed out of greed and planned the crime months ahead of time but a robber who only shot a police officer because he was trying to get away?

Is your argument then that these type murders (panic, stupidity and desparation) are not premeditated? How do you determine if they were really done for these reason? Shouldn't there be increased consequences to (hopefully) prevent fleeing and/or dumb criminals from commiting more crimes? I think if a criminal thinks "Hmm, there is s cop chasing me and if he catches me I am going to jail, but if I kill him I go free. Even if I don't kill him it is OK since I didn't plan to kill him ahead of time". I am exagerating for effect here, but I think making excuses like "oh he was scared so he shot the cop chasing him is a little riduculous. People killed for these reasons are just as dead, and there killer is just as likely to kill again in the same exact circumstance.

 

[drkitten]

There has to be some way to keep the rest of us safe from murders. They are still a threat when in prison, to fellow prisoners (who might not deserve death) and to those who guard them.

You've obviously never seen or read about the Florence Supermax.

The risk that the prisoner poses to his captors and fellow prisoners can be made substantially lower than the risk of misconviction, if recent headlines about DNA evidence can be believed.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Is your argument then that these type murders (panic, stupidity and desparation) are not premeditated? How do you determine if they were really done for these reason? Shouldn't there be increased consequences to (hopefully) prevent fleeing and/or dumb criminals from commiting more crimes? I think if a criminal thinks "Hmm, there is s cop chasing me and if he catches me I am going to jail, but if I kill him I go free. Even if I don't kill him it is OK since I didn't plan to kill him ahead of time". I am exagerating for effect here, but I think making excuses like "oh he was scared so he shot the cop chasing him" is a little ridiculous. People killed for these reasons are just as dead, and there killer is just as likely to kill again in the same exact circumstance.

The law certainly recognizes the difference and draws a distinction- that's why there is first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter.

Even though the person is just as dead and the family is just as devastated, there are crimes that are worse than others. (I'd never argue that there are "better crimes"- there are terrible ones, there are despicable crimes and there are the most despicable crimes imaginable).

The motive and the circumstances should be taken into account when dealing out punishment. Which isn't to say they should be excused, of course. Giving someone 15, 20, 25 years in prison or life isn't doing them a favor.

 

[bigred]

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?

I say that's laughably weak logic. That person doesn't sound like the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[kedo1981]

If you could prove that a criminal was truly guilty of a “violent felony”, and were reasonably sure that, that behavior would continue on release, committing acts that will cause suffering to others multiple times before being caught and convicted again; how do you justify NOT executing that person?

 

[Mark Felt]

If you could prove that a criminal was truly guilty of a “violent felony”, and were reasonably sure that, that behavior would continue on release, committing acts that will cause suffering to others multiple times before being caught and convicted again; how do you justify NOT executing that person?

Answer is the inverse of the bolded.

 

[drkitten]

If you could prove that a criminal was truly guilty of a “violent felony”, and were reasonably sure that, that behavior would continue on release, committing acts that will cause suffering to others multiple times before being caught and convicted again; how do you justify NOT executing that person?

You've answered it yourself. Imprison him and do not release him.

 

[kedo1981]

Last I looked at the news, violent thugs are released everyday.
Am I not making myself clear, I’m not just talking about killers, but all those who commit violent crimes.

 

[drkitten]

Last I looked at the news, violent thugs are released everyday.

Hmmm. So you're dissatisfied with the status quo. I suggest, then, that we change it.

I suggest it be changed so that violent thugs are no longer released every day.

What's the problem with that?