Capital punishment

[lionking]

OK lets say we implement this approach, we know there will be some people who will be wrongly executed because they were wrongly convicted. (We know this because we know justice systems are not perfect because we have plenty of evidence to show they aren't.)

Are you willing to take your chances of not being one of those wrongly executed?

And is there a sort of cut-off line at which you would no longer consider your execution policy workable? For instance if it was say 1 out of ten that was wrongfully executed or 1 out of 5 or any other figure?

The other point, of course, is that the violent felon would have absolutely no disincentive to kill the victim if he or she was going to be executed in any case.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

while that is indeed a factor i didnt think of, i doubt that is enough to come even with the cost if the same guy would sit in jail for the rest of his live. am i misstaken here?

I've always been lead to believe that its more costly to execute someone than to imprison them if you look at all the costs involved. Of course some people can and do use that as an argument against long convoluted legal appeals processes.

(And some people have already pointed this out. Oops..should read first then post )

 

[Her Dark Star]

Some people should never be released from prison. The Larry Singleton case is a good example. He cut a hitchhikers arms off after he raped her and then after he was released from prison eight years later he stabbed a woman to death. Why was he released?

I have no idea. The justice system frequently fails in many regards. Regardless of my opinion on the death penalty I agree that someone who commits such a horrendous act is unlikely to ever be fit to rejoin the rest of society. Unfortunately many such people are released every year and yes, reoffending is very common.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Some people should never be released from prison. The Larry Singleton case is a good example. He cut a hitchhikers arms off after he raped her and then after he was released from prison eight years later he stabbed a woman to death. Why was he released?

Presumably because he had served his sentence and nobody had any good reason not to release him?

I'm not sure I agree with a logic of locking people up in case they might commit a crime in the future - even if they have already commited one in the past.

 

[Cainkane1]

Well DC and Eeney I have feeling you’re gone a love my opine.
All VIOLENT felons
Let me make this clear
ALL (murders, rapists, child molesters, violent assaulters, so on)
VIOLENT
FELONS
Should be put to death!

Now now calm down, let your heart bleed a little bit, hug a tree, sniff a flower.

The worst thing about the death penalty as it is now it does not protect society, there are to many half-wits that care more about looking humane than they do about protecting people from the invariably bad individuals that will always crop up.

And don’t give me the “weeeell just keep them in prison for life” BS, a lot of “lifers” get out because of the sympathetic attitudes of those who hearts bleed.

The guy that sucker punches a grandma to steal her social security check is at least as big a danger to society as the clown that kills his wife in a drunken rage.
Do a web search on child murders, a large fraction of those could have been prevented if those perpetrators were permanently dealt with the first time they molest.

Its hard to disagree with you but I feel I must. Society must protect a potential innocent person from being executed. I posted a question here a year or so ago about a man who spent three years in prison for molesting his stepdaughter. It turned out that she was mad at him because he made her do her homework. He never improperly touched her. There have been many cases where a person convicted of murder turned out to be innocent. It doesn't break my heart when a murderer is put to death when his or her guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt but there have been mistakes.

Life with no parole would prrotect society as well as the death penalty would.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Well DC and Eeney I have feeling you’re gone a love my opine.
All VIOLENT felons
Let me make this clear
ALL (murders, rapists, child molesters, violent assaulters, so on)
VIOLENT
FELONS
Should be put to death!

Now now calm down, let your heart bleed a little bit, hug a tree, sniff a flower.

The worst thing about the death penalty as it is now it does not protect society, there are to many half-wits that care more about looking humane than they do about protecting people from the invariably bad individuals that will always crop up.

And don’t give me the “weeeell just keep them in prison for life” BS, a lot of “lifers” get out because of the sympathetic attitudes of those who hearts bleed.

The guy that sucker punches a grandma to steal her social security check is at least as big a danger to society as the clown that kills his wife in a drunken rage.
Do a web search on child murders, a large fraction of those could have been prevented if those perpetrators were permanently dealt with the first time they molest.

So many reactions to this, but the immediate one is probably 'why'? Why do you have such a violent response to the violence of others? What exactly is going to be achieved?

Do you really want to live in a society where someone gets drunk down the pub, gets in a fight, goes a bit too far and ends up being executed by the state?

Or worse still where someone's Mrs is in a messy divorce and decides to accuse the husband of sexual assault and the husband gets put to death for something he may or may not have done?

 

[ZirconBlue]

The argument against is that you shouldn't kill people. Really. Ever.

Not even in self-defense, or in times of war?


I have no problem with the concept of the death penalty, but in the real world, where we can't be 100% certain of someone's guilt, I can't support it.

 

[Rasmus]

the best argument for capital punishment for me, is the fact that the taxpayers will have to pay for the rest of the life of a criminal when he gets life long instead death penalty.

that is not even a lousy argument, it is not an argument at all - one should hope.

Should I start listing all the people who cost society money and where it would be cheaper if they were dead?

No, it is not an argument at all - you are ignoring the previous step where you have to argue that their life no longer has any value because they did kill someone. IOW, you are begging the question.

But i think we as a society have the moral obligation to do it. they should however earn money as far possible to cover the costs they create for society. (but not taking away jobs from free people, licke ticket sales etc)

How is that supposed to work?

If they provide a valuable service that can earn them money, then a free person could always provide the same service and also earn the same amount of money. Possibly more, but I'd rather not discuss the finer economical details that might get involved here. Short version: They will always be taking away jobs - often simply because prisons are subsidised.

and when i say life long prison, i mean life long like in the USA. Not the European stile a few years = life long.

What good does it do to lock someone away forever?

I don't know about all European countries - in Germany, you get actual life long sentences, but you do have a chance to get parole. We don'tthink is is justified to lock someone away just for the fun of it.

 

[dtugg]

t
What good does it do to lock someone away forever?

I don't know about all European countries - in Germany, you get actual life long sentences, but you do have a chance to get parole. We don'tthink is is justified to lock someone away just for the fun of it.

People locked up forever (or dead people) can't go around killing or raping people.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

People locked up forever (or dead people) can't go around killing or raping people.

and yet generally in countries where people get locked up forever or executed there is just as much if not more killing or raping going on. Strange that, isn't it?

 

[Cainkane1]

People locked up forever (or dead people) can't go around killing or raping people.

I agree with you. A person who deliberately kills another person under aggravating circumstances has forfeited their right to walk the earth a free man or woman ever again.

 

[dtugg]

and yet generally in countries where people get locked up forever or executed there is just as much if not more killing or raping going on. Strange that, isn't it?

Doesn't prove anything.

In fact, I don't think that life without parole is applied nearly enough in the US. If I were in charge I would make it the mandatory minimum for first degree murder and forcible rape among others.

 

[Her Dark Star]

What good does it do to look someone away for ever?
Well its unlikely to do that individual any good, but it does protect other people from them by limiting the offenders opportunity to commit further offences. You can indeed ask though whether jailing someone for any length of time does any good? It appears to only deter those people who generally wouldn't break the rules anyway
Perhaps there should be a new thread for whether jail is actually useful or what other alternatives there are?

Back to the OP. The death penalty has been repeatedly proved to be an ineffective deterrent, seems to be just as costly or even more costly than locking them up and is ethically dubious even if you had a flawless justice system. I sympathise with those people who react to a terrible crime with cries of 'kill them' but the practicality seems to be that capital punishment isn't useful. The problem is coming up with a useful alternative.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Doesn't prove anything.

In fact, I don't think that life without parole is applied nearly enough in the US. If I were in charge I would make it the mandatory minimum for first degree murder and forcible rape among others.

Doesn't prove anything but its something to consider. You know, stop and think about whether what you are saying actually makes sense.

In a country with the death penalty and 'life means life' sentences a proportion of murderers and rapists at any one time will be either dead or in jail forever. And yet it doesn't result in fewer murders or rapes. Which must mean that either murderers and rapists in these countries are more highly active (more murders/rapes per murderer/rapist) or there are more murderers/rapists in these countries.

So you either have worse criminals or more criminals than countries without the death penalty/long sentences. Now is that just correlation or is there some link between harsh penalties/executions and higher levels of violent crime?

And your answer is even harsher sentences?

 

[Rasmus]

People locked up forever (or dead people) can't go around killing or raping people.

Yes.

but that apples to both you and me as well. Personally, i think it is a lousy reason to have me locked up for the rest of my life or killed.

 

[Stellafane]

I believe some people deserve to die, but putting someone to death is too big a decision for society to make. Thus on the whole, I am against the death penalty.

On the other hand, if a father catches someone in the act of raping his daughter, I have little problem if the father administers the death penalty on the spot.

 

[dtugg]

Yes.

but that apples to both you and me as well. Personally, i think it is a lousy reason to have me locked up for the rest of my life or killed.

Presumably you haven't already raped or killed anybody yet. I haven't.

 

[3point14]

Think that more or less sums it up though I'd go further and say I don't trust the state (or society in general) with the power to execute anyone.

The kind of state/society that elects David Cameron, spends millions voting on X-Factor and Whateverthehellcrapgrahamnortonisdoingnow on TV, thinks that the most important story in the world is some tramp-stamped pop tart getting malaria and gets their daily opinions fed to them by the Daily Mail/Sun/Sky News really shouldn't be deciding who lives and dies.

Well said. Bravo.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

but it does protect other people from them by limiting the offenders opportunity to commit further offences.

But it doesn't even seem to do that because other people are just as likely or more likely to be a victim of crime as they would be elsewhere.

My question, and I haven't done the research, is whether the kind of society which promotes executions and harsh sentences (lets broad brush it and call it a violent society) actually just leads to more violent criminals so you are continually chasing your tail with harsher and harsher punishments.

 

[dtugg]

Doesn't prove anything but its something to consider. You know, stop and think about whether what you are saying actually makes sense.

In a country with the death penalty and 'life means life' sentences a proportion of murderers and rapists at any one time will be either dead or in jail forever. And yet it doesn't result in fewer murders or rapes. Which must mean that either murderers and rapists in these countries are more highly active (more murders/rapes per murderer/rapist) or there are more murderers/rapists in these countries.

So you either have worse criminals or more criminals than countries without the death penalty/long sentences. Now is that just correlation or is there some link between harsh penalties/executions and higher levels of violent crime?

And your answer is even harsher sentences?

Maybe it doesn't lead to less murders than in countries that are soft on criminals. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't lead to less criminals than if we were soft on criminals.

Once a person has proved they are willing to murder or rape, I see no reason to ever give him an opportunity to do it again. Why do you?