Capital punishment

[DreadNiK]

I think with the issue of deterrence you need to establish outside of whether a particular punishment acts a deterrent whether that punishment is morally acceptable.

There are probably a lot of ways to deter a lot of crimes, but I think everyone here agrees hacking off a limb or something similar is not a morally justifiable punishment for theft, no matter how well it might or might not work as a deterrent.

ETA: the nuclear deterrent vs capital punishment deterrent gave me pause for thought too. Good counter from Suddenly which makes it less troubling to my mind but I think it still applies to an extent. I would however argue that the death penalty should only (if it was) ever be used in clear cases of premeditated, cold blooded murder, which would suggest they at least have the opportunity to consider the consequences.

 

[welshdean]

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

Interesting, thanks for the link. While reading page 2 of your link I came across this:

The testing in Coleman's case marks only the second time nationwide that DNA tests have been performed after an execution. In 2000, tests ordered by a Georgia judge in the case of Ellis W. Felker, who was executed in 1996, were inconclusive.

Genetic tests exonerated Florida inmate Frank L. Smith in 2000, several months after he died of natural causes while awaiting execution.

And in my post that you quoted from I mentioned the case of Derek Bentley, did you miss that one or choose to ignore it?

 

[Soapy Sam]

..snip..
There are probably a lot of ways to deter a lot of crimes, but I think everyone here agrees hacking off a limb or something similar is not a morally justifiable punishment for theft, no matter how well it might or might not work as a deterrent.

Morality is a hard issue to pin down. I wonder how many of those who would agree witrh you here would do so as a vote against their understanding of Sharia Law, rather than because they actually find the idea indefensible in itself.

ETA: the nuclear deterrent vs capital punishment deterrent gave me pause for thought too. Good counter from Suddenly which makes it less troubling to my mind but I think it still applies to an extent. I would however argue that the death penalty should only (if it was) ever be used in clear cases of premeditated, cold blooded murder, which would suggest they at least have the opportunity to consider the consequences.

There's no reason moral solutions must be scalable. Hanging one person and nuking a city differ in many ways. One question in the MAD issue is -"Who is being deterred?" I doubt your average man in Teheran wastes thirty seconds a week on the issue of nuclear deterrence. He has kids to feed.

 

[Suddenly]

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?

A great many of criminals lack the ability to really understand the consequences of their action. I don't mean in a criminal insanity sense, they damn well know right from wrong. I mean more that the understanding of the consequences to them, what exactly it means to do life without parole or sweating out their last days on death row. It is too abstract, some research suggests the brain is not totally mature as to this until a person's early twenties. Some never get it.

If you fitted these guys with collars that would blow their heads off immediately (with 100% accuracy) upon committing a crime that would have a significant deterrent effect as it eliminates that abstraction. It is the same thing with dictators. If they know a course of action means loss of power and death, they won't do it. Sometimes they miscalculate, but again, if you fitted them with the collar they'd play nice.

 

[bynmdsue]

Maybe Bentley shouldn't have been executed and maybe he shouldn't have been involved in armed robberies.

and Frank Smith wasn't executed was he?

Herrara-there's a lot more that that paragraph doesn't mention.

 

[Ferguson]

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.

Which consequences are you referring to? Free room and board from the state?

 

[DreadNiK]

Morality is a hard issue to pin down. I wonder how many of those who would agree witrh you here would do so as a vote against their understanding of Sharia Law, rather than because they actually find the idea indefensible in itself.

Good point. I wonder if I would consider it acceptable as an alternative given to the criminal over a long hard jail term.

There's no reason moral solutions must be scalable. Hanging one person and nuking a city differ in many ways. One question in the MAD issue is -"Who is being deterred?" I doubt your average man in Teheran wastes thirty seconds a week on the issue of nuclear deterrence. He has kids to feed.

Hmm, I'm not sure it matters what the average man in Tehran thinks, since his finger isn't over the button. I'm more considering what KJI in N. Korea thinks as to other nations nukes being a deterrent to him ordering a nuclear strike (and the few people around him that are either fanatical or under threat of torture/death to ensure his orders are carried out)

 

[DreadNiK]

Which consequences are you referring to? Free room and board from the state?

while this does sound facetious and I was tempted to reply treating it as such - I guess there will be some people (homeless etc) who might see it actually as an incentive.

I know for a fact some drug addicts commit crimes to get treatment for their addiction (whether they really tried other non-violent/criminal options to achieve this is another question)

 

[Cainkane1]

while this does sound facetious and I was tempted to reply treating it as such - I guess there will be some people (homeless etc) who might see it actually as an incentive.

I know for a fact some drug addicts commit crimes to get treatment for their addiction (whether they really tried other non-violent/criminal options to achieve this is another question)

There actually are people who don't want to leave prison. They get along with other inmates, guards and when released deliberately commit crimes to get put back in.

My step father used to know a black man who had syphilis who had no money for treatment so he robbed a post office at gun point so that he could get treated for his illness and a sympathetic judge sentenced him to a couple of years in prison and he made sure the man was cured. This happened in the 40's just before Americas entry into WW2.

 

[quarky]

I had the dubious honor of a brief stay in a Federal prison. There were several murderers in there. My somewhat anecdotal observations went like this:

There is an I.Q. cut-off point wherein one is considered mentally incompetent, and they are generally immune to execution, except maybe in Texas.
The irony, or tragedy, is that lots of people fall into the "just plain not smart enough to make it" category.

Death row is populated with such folks.

 

[Drysdale]

If it's a slam dunk case i dont have a problem with it,ie... Dalmer,Duncan,Berkowitz etc.

However, if the evidence is flimsey err on the side of life.

 

[Drysdale]

I had the dubious honor of a brief stay in a Federal prison. There were several murderers in there. My somewhat anecdotal observations went like this:

There is an I.Q. cut-off point wherein one is considered mentally incompetent, and they are generally immune to execution, except maybe in Texas.
The irony, or tragedy, is that lots of people fall into the "just plain not smart enough to make it" category.

Death row is populated with such folks.

Do they know right from wrong though? If they know that killing is wrong then they are right where they should be.

 

[DreadNiK]

There actually are people who don't want to leave prison. They get along with other inmates, guards and when released deliberately commit crimes to get put back in.

My step father used to know a black man who had syphilis who had no money for treatment so he robbed a post office at gun point so that he could get treated for his illness and a sympathetic judge sentenced him to a couple of years in prison and he made sure the man was cured. This happened in the 40's just before Americas entry into WW2.

The not wanting to leave prison part I believe is more 'institutionalisation', slightly different to wanting to go to prison for bed and board and medical care, so slightly different.

But the example in your second paragraph is a good example of the criminal justice system providing an incentive to commit crime.

However, it isn't just the criminal justice system providing an incentive to commit crime in these cases, it is also the failing of the social service system net to prevent people from ending up in a position where prison is a step up from their current situation...

 

[Giz]

I understand the sentiment. Believe me, I do.

Still, the state should show better behavior than murderers, rapists, molesters, arsonists, kidnappers, etc.

By doing the exact same thing to them that they did to their victims, they are sinking to their level.

They are also showing they aren't better than them and are therefore not fit to judge and punish them in the first place. If you do the same thing to someone that they did to another, you are showing that you are no better and no worse than he is and therefore have no right to punish him in any way.

The state and society should have higher standards than that.

Really, to argue for the right to be as bad as a criminal is?

It's also rather childish and primitive. It's the logic of the brother who smacked his younger sister because "She STARTED it!" and "She did it FIRST!".

Killing a killer, after due process, because he killed someone is hardly on the same moral level as the original killing. In fact, I find it hard to beleive that anyone who thinks for more than the length of a snappy soundbite could think so.

What would you call the state locking up a kidnappper? Is that sinking to his level? Or would you draw a distiction between false imprisonment and judicial imprisonment? (In which case you should also allow the same distinction to be drawn regarding killing).

 

[kedo1981]

“My step father used to know a black man who had syphilis who had no money for treatment so he robbed a post office at gun point so that he could get treated for his illness and a sympathetic judge sentenced him to a couple of years in prison and he made sure the man was cured. This happened in the 40's just before Americas entry into WW2.”
And that man went on to invent rock and roll, you know him as Chuck Berry, now you know the rest of the story.