Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[balrog666]

[snip]
I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that those who would avoid killing because they know there is a death sentence waiting (maybe), as opposed to life in prison, are so few as to be reasonably compared to my possible "deterent" as described above.

Hummm, I have yet to see any pro-death-penalty posters mention deterrence. I wonder why that is?

If that is the case the only choice remaining is whether "we" want to kill because it makes us feel better, or not kill because that makes us feel better.

Take your pick.

Really? The ONLY choice? Well, I didn't know that was my motivation ... I guess I will have to explore and exploit that side of my personality! What fun awaits!

 

[Matteo Martini]

How many wrongful incarcerations do you accept?

Quite a few.
From a wrongful incarceration, you can hope of the review of a process ( and, you can still live ).
From the grave, you can not.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Says who?

It depends on your relative point of view. Moral or immoral to whom?

Can I go out, kill a man, and claim that my actions were moral ( and hope not to get arrested? )

Moral to whom? It is immoral to society. It is in the interest of society to to see vigilante justice as immoral. It is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual.

I see that " vigilante justice " is immoral to the society.
So, you should not go out and kill a man who has done harm to you, and hope to claim that your actions were " moral ", at least to you, because that man had done bad things to you in the past.

Morality is not in any way an absolute.

Innocence is a legal concept. If I see my father murder my mother and he is found "not guilty" I don't have to pretend that it didn't happen. Nor to I have to pretend that it is moral or just that my father got away with killing my mother.

Still, killing your husband would be " immoral ", would not it?
At personal, national, etc. level.

You are looking for an absolute standard that does not and cannot exist.

Immoral to whom?

You are trying to reconcile two different view points. They cannot be reconciled.

Please, read this carefully.
I can not say that one action perfmromed by another guy is " immoral ", and then, if I am in the same situation, perform the same action and claim that I acted morally.
I think you were saying that the actions of the husband were " immoral " at society level, but moral at personal level.
Let` s suppose you are in the jury that has to decide on the husband case.
As a member of the jury ( and, of the society ), you will use the society point of view, and see the husband actions as " immoral ", and, therefore, declare him guilty.
Let` s suppose that, the day after, the same tragedy that happened to the husband, happens to you.
That is, a burglar gets into your house, kills your wife and daughter, you see him, recognize him, but, he manages to escape from being arrested.
Same thing that happened to that husband.
Now, if you do the same things that that husband did ( that is, wait ten years, and kill the man ), how can you claim that, at personal level, you acted " morally "?
When you were in the jury that condemned the ( other ) husband, quite some years before, exactly for the same behaviour ( that is, kill the burglar )?

 

[Matteo Martini]

I've never found this argument ultimately compelling. It seems persuasive on the outset but are we not also above incarceration? What do we do with kidnappers?

There is quite a difference.
Taking an human life is a crime much worse than to kndnap another human being.

 

[jsfisher]

Can I go out, kill a man, and claim that my actions were moral ( and hope not to get arrested? )

Moral and legal are two disjoint topics. Some of us would even argue that morality was a religious construct.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that those who would avoid killing because they know there is a death sentence waiting (maybe), as opposed to life in prison, are so few as to be reasonably compared to my possible "deterent" as described above.

You can prove it.
Murders in the US are much more ( per 100000 inhabitants ) than murders in the vast majority ( all? ) of Western European countries ( per 100000 inhabitants ), where you have no death penalty.
That seems to prove the point that, death penalty, as deterrent, just does not work, quite the opposite, indeed.

Crime Statistics > Statistics > Murders (per capita) (Latest available) by country

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

BTW.
I have canceled my trip to Colombia..

If that is the case the only choice remaining is whether "we" want to kill because it makes us feel better, or not kill because that makes us feel better.

Basically, I have the opinion that pro-death penalty people are driven, in their opinion, by a false feeling of gratification.
He took a life, but, thanks God, his life was taken too.
Which makes us not so much nobler than the killer.
Disclaimer
What stated above is just my own personal opinion, and I may be wrong.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Moral and legal are two disjoint topics.

Yes.
But, I have never spoken about the legality or illegality of a killing, so far..

 

[Elind]

Ok, but this doesn't answer my question. Nothing in your post does.

What question? Kidnappers? I didn't think that was serious. How many kidnappers are on death row, if death didn't result? I don't know, but I can't recall any. Life is good enough for me there too.

This is all well and good but is it grounded in emperical studies? If not then I really have no use for it.

There are empirical studies that try to prove that murders in states with death penalties are lower than others. I think the numbers are created to prove the position, and we all know what one can do with statistics that have results near the significance levels, which those do as I recall.

I reject this false dichotomy. Let me reiterate. I'm currently against the death penalty. It is a position I took a long time to change based on years of discussion and debate. I did not come by my position lightly.

Ok, first off, it's impossible to divorce feelings from what humans do. Meaning itself is grounded in emotion. That said, we must take care that we are not simply motivated by emotion.

"Feel better"? How about a sense of justice and proportionality? Is that a rational sense? I think it is. I don't find incarceration to be proportional or just for folks like Dennis Rader. I accept that it is all that we will do to Rader and I accept that some time in the future there will be forever an end to a proportionality and a measure of justice for folks like Dennis Rader and it will be because of rational decisions that have nothing to do with your dichotomy.

Personally I think the death penalty is an easy way out for someone who otherwise would be locked up in maximum security for the rest of his/her life. There is the issue of making irreversible mistakes of course, but I don't need to include that in my equation to make a decision.

What you call justice and proportionality sounds to me like code words for revenge, and emotion. Eye for an eye and all that. Make no mistake, I am not a turn the other cheek proponent.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, and there is a chance that a murderer will escape and kill another innocent person. It has happened BTW.

It may have ahppened, but that is quite unlikely, with modern prisons.
There is another point.
It had happened that killers, close to being caught, have killed other people as they knew that, being caught, they would have been sent to death.
So, using the thought, killing or not killing, I will be sent to death anyway, they may be willing to try everything they can to escape, even if this involves killing other 5-10 people..
No, the same does not exactly work this way for life in prison, as spending the life in prison is very bad, but, thinking that you will be killed by the state, has a higher emotional impact ( IMHO )

 

[Elind]

Hummm, I have yet to see any pro-death-penalty posters mention deterrence. I wonder why that is?

OK, you are in the revenge category. Good for you. I don't know about posters, which tend to be simplistic by nature, (edit: I realized after posting that you probably meant posters, not posters. I'm sure you'll figure that out eventually) I'm not analyzing what everyone here has said, just expressing my opinion, but there have been very serious attempts to prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. Seems the are plenty of Pro people around who genuinely think it saves lives, unlike you who wants "justice". I disagree, but I'm all in favor of hard hard labor 24/7.

Really? The ONLY choice? Well, I didn't know that was my motivation ... I guess I will have to explore and exploit that side of my personality! What fun awaits!

Sarcasm is pointless. I haven't a clue about you, except for what this post reveals, and it makes me less and less interested in your opinion as I finish this sentence.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I understand, but it is also possible that that escaped felon could save someone's life. i do not see how we can make policy based upon secondary events.

Sorry, but I partially disagree with you.
You are willing to think that a person who has killed in the past, may be much more prone to kill again ( and, not to save human lifes ) that a person who has not killed anyone, so far..

 

[jsfisher]

You can prove it.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you cannot prove it in the manner you tried. There are far too many other factors that will likely influence the murder rate. For example, economics, crime rates, religion(s), population density, education, health, climate. Even comparing murder statistics within the United States, among the states with and without the death penalty, is complicated.

Personally, I suspect capital punishment has at best only a very minor deterrent effect, and likely none, but suspicion is not proof.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes.
But, I have never spoken about the legality or illegality of a killing, so far..

Sure you did. Right here, in fact:

Can I go out, kill a man, and claim that my actions were moral ( and hope not to get arrested? )

 

[Matteo Martini]

"Feel better"? How about a sense of justice and proportionality? Is that a rational sense? I think it is. I don't find incarceration to be proportional or just for folks like Dennis Rader.

There can be no " sense of proportionality " in killings, IMHO.
If a person has killed 10 ( innocent ) persons, and you send him to die,
do you have reached anything good?
Instead of ten person murdered, you will have eleven.
Not a big moral result, IMHO.
If you want to avoid him killing again, send him to prison for the rest of his life.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Sure you did. Right here, in fact:
quoted by Matteo Martini:
" Can I go out, kill a man, and claim that my actions were moral ( and hope not to get arrested? ) "

I wrote:
" Can I go out, kill a man, and claim that my actions were moral ( and hope not to get arrested? ) "

I wrote " moral ", not " legal ".

 

[Elind]

You can prove it.
Murders in the US are much more ( per 100000 inhabitants ) than murders in the vast majority ( all? ) of Western European countries ( per 100000 inhabitants ), where you have no death penalty.
That seems to prove the point that, death penalty, as deterrent, just does not work, quite the opposite, indeed.

It certainly suggests it doesn't work, but to be fair there are other factors that affect crime, and murder in particular, in the USA compared to others. Deterrence in the best of circumstances could only be expected to affect a small percentage of the total numbers, and I think even most Pro people would agree with that.

Basically, I have the opinion that pro-death penalty people are driven, in their opinion, by a false feeling of gratification.
He took a life, but, thanks God, his life was taken too.
Which makes us not so much nobler than the killer.

I wouldn't be that harsh, although many give a biblical justification for it. I have no sympathy for murderers and you won't find me lighting candles as someone is executed. "We" can claim to be nobler regardless, but I agree that the sentiment is tempered by doing something that we don't have to do.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you cannot prove it in the manner you tried. There are far too many other factors that will likely influence the murder rate. For example, economics, crime rates, religion(s), population density, education, health, climate.

Climate influences murder rate?
You mean, people living in hot weather countries, are more prone to kill than people living in cold weather countries?
Or the other way around?
Please, I am waiting for your explanation..

 

[jsfisher]

I wrote:
" Can I go out, kill a man, and claim that my actions were moral ( and hope not to get arrested? ) "

I wrote " moral ", not " legal ".

You also wrote "arrested." One is only concerned about getting arrested for doing illegal things. Your statement speaks of morality and legality.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It certainly suggests it doesn't work, but to be fair there are other factors that affect crime, and murder in particular, in the USA compared to others.

Yes.
It does not " prove " it does not work, but it is a trong suggestion that it does not work.
I am not sure how many other factors can be important.
Education in the US is similar to Europe, climate ( ? ), too.
Immigration, we have a lot of immigration in Europe too.
What else?

Deterrence in the best of circumstances could only expected to affect a small percentage of the total numbers, and I think even most Pro people would agree with that.

I am not sure how many pro- people would agree with that..

I wouldn't be that harsh, although many give a biblical justification for it. I have no sympathy for murderers and you won't find me lighting candles as someone is executed. "We" can claim to be nobler regardless, but I agree that the sentiment is tempered by doing something that we don't have to do.

Yes, I have been harsh.
But, if I were in the US. I would go there to light some candle..

 

[Matteo Martini]

You also wrote "arrested." One is only concerned about getting arrested for doing illegal things. Your statement speaks of morality and legality.

Not really.
I wrote:
" Can I go out, kill a man, and claim that my actions were moral ( and hope not to get arrested? ) "
That is, hope not to get arrested because my actions were moral ( not legal ).
But, I agree that my sentence could be a little bit misleading.

About the morality and legality, I can not see so much difference, as I see legality just as public morality coded into laws.
I can not see, at society level, as something could be immoral but legal, and the other way around.