Death Penalty

[NewtonTrino]

Death penalty is uncomfortable for organized crime, or anyone who has a policy of sometimes hiring assassins. Total abolition of death penalty is most important for organized criminals such as mafia. My imagination explains that the double standard of accepting bloody military actions while not accepting death penalty of a proven guilty murderer has its origins in lobbying circles whom the absence of death penalty benefits and protects.

My answer is: there should be a death penalty, but it should only be used in cases where the proof is complete, without any known naturalistic theory that would explain away the guilt of the suspect. For example, shooting a person under video camera surveillance, the act being recorded on video, would produce such evidence.

I mostly agree with you here but I don't consider video evidence to be unfakable. It really depends on the situation.

 

[Beerina]

A theoretical practical reason for imposing the death penalty would be to save the taxpayers the money it costs to keep the scumbag alive for decades in prison. Of course, in the real world, death penalty cases actually cost the taxpayers more money, I believe.

I've always rejected this argument. Killing someone is done as punishment, example, vengeance, prophylactic against recidivism, a proper expression of society's extreme revulsion at certain acts.

But one wouldn't kill to save money, nor forego it to save money.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, and this is a revealing sentiment. The thing about arguing with supporters of the death penalty is that we can talk all we like about there being no deterrent effect, or faulty justice systems executing the wrong person, or the corrupting influence on society of officially killing people - but it all means nothing.

Death penalty supporters want criminals killed because it gives them a good feeling.

100% Accurate. Part of that good feeling is in knowing that the perp will no longer play row, row, row your boat to an island full of children and murder them all. Part of it is knowing that some retard with a truck full of fertilizer isn't going to blow up a federal building with kids in it.

I never implied that my feelings were anything more than just that.

 

[crimresearch]

I've always rejected this argument. Killing someone is done as punishment, example, vengeance, prophylactic against recidivism, a proper expression of society's extreme revulsion at certain acts.

But one wouldn't kill to save money, nor forego it to save money.

As long as we understand that the prophylactic has a failure rate.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Its just my opinion.

Everything posted here is someone's opinion.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

100% Accurate. Part of that good feeling is...

Hold that thought. In our society, each and every one of us are loved ones. That is, we survive society's losses. Someone dies, and society loses a brother, boyfriend, father, friend, neighbour and coworker. This also holds true whenever someone is given the death sentence. It creates grief and loss in whoever is forced to survive, say, their husband or chess partner. It leaves them with a grave to visit, nothing more. No phone calls, no visits to prison, no exchange of letters. No hope to cling to that he or she will one day be exonerated, or that he or she will be released and allowed to start over. Just a tombstone and a country full of people cheering his or her death.

Yes, there are the families of murder victims and rape survivors. There are also the families of those who receive the death sentence.

How do you death penalty-supporters know in which of these roles you will end up?

Since your reasoning is based on the appeal to emotion -- what if it was one of your siblings, or some other loved one? Would it still make you feel good to have him or her on death row?

None of Breivik's close friends or family members have reported that they saw 22/7 coming. Just sayin'.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I somebody that I care(ed) about murdered dozens of people, he would be dead to me, and I wouldn't care if the state actually made him dead.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

That, of course, wasn't my point either, so I couldn't care less.

 

[Antony]

100% Accurate.

That's what I thought. You feel satisfaction when you hear someone has been executed; I feel shame and sadness that purportedly civilised governments should behave in this way. It belongs in the Middle Ages.

Of course, I'm not expecting you to be impressed by my expression of shame and sadness; but it cuts both ways. Those who make it obvious that they get personal satisfaction from executions will never convince someone like me who finds judicial killings repugnant. The only way for you to win the argument is to show that the existence of the death penalty has a positive effect on law enforcement. I think your case is weak.

Part of that good feeling is in knowing that the perp will no longer play row, row, row your boat to an island full of children and murder them all. Part of it is knowing that some retard with a truck full of fertilizer isn't going to blow up a federal building with kids in it.

Obviously a reference to the Anders Breivik (sp?) case. The trouble with this is that you don't deal with the problems of violent crime or racial hatred, by killing individuals.

To execute Breivik (who in any case seems to have no more regard for his own life than for those of his victims) would simply create a martyr to be celebrated by people who think like him. In the gangland underclass in the US, killing a murderer simply sends the message: "the state does it, so it's OK for us to do it. Anyway, we won't get caught."

I never implied that my feelings were anything more than just that.

On the one hand, bravo for being up-front about it. Shame you spoiled it by trying to rationalise it with faulty reasoning.

 

[crimresearch]

That's what I thought. You feel satisfaction when you hear someone has been executed; I feel shame and sadness that purportedly civilised governments should behave in this way. It belongs in the Middle Ages.

Of course, I'm not expecting you to be impressed by my expression of shame and sadness; but it cuts both ways. Those who make it obvious that they get personal satisfaction from executions will never convince someone like me who finds judicial killings repugnant. The only way for you to win the argument is to show that the existence of the death penalty has a positive effect on law enforcement. I think your case is weak.


Obviously a reference to the Anders Breivik (sp?) case. The trouble with this is that you don't deal with the problems of violent crime or racial hatred, by killing individuals.

To execute Breivik (who in any case seems to have no more regard for his own life than for those of his victims) would simply create a martyr to be celebrated by people who think like him. In the gangland underclass in the US, killing a murderer simply sends the message: "the state does it, so it's OK for us to do it. Anyway, we won't get caught."


On the one hand, bravo for being up-front about it. Shame you spoiled it by trying to rationalise it with faulty reasoning.

Would you feel ashamed had the police gotten there in time to kill Brievik after the first dozen victims?

 

[Antony]

Would you feel ashamed had the police gotten there in time to kill Brievik after the first dozen victims?

That depends on whether disarming him was a possibility. But it's something of a moot point, because among numerous cases of a gunman running amok among unarmed victims, I can't think of a case where someone was in a position where shooting him dead in the act was a possibility. Can you?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the real versus the hypothetical

Would you feel ashamed had the police gotten there in time to kill Brievik after the first dozen victims?

crimeresearch,

No, but killing someone who is killing others is not that same as the death penalty. My own problem with this particular case is that I am not 100% convinced that Breivik is of sound mind (not that I have looked into it carefully). The idea of applying the death penalty to people who are mentally ill or mentally incompetent (possibly Rickey Ray Rector) is bothersome; even when you know for certain that someone is guilty, can you know for certain that they don't fall into one of these two categories?

In addition, I have two issues with the present thread. One is that the pro-death penalty advocates have not engaged the examples of people who were nearly wrongfully executed or who might have been wrongfully executed. Two is the use of hypotheticals such as a time machine. I recall a conversation I had with an advocate who asked me would I support the death penalty if it could be reversed. Possibly this is an interesting question for an all-night college bull session, but one that does not deal with the reality of the death penalty. Even if the death penalty could be reversed in cases where new evidence was uncovered, the authorities would resist any attempt to do so, based on what I have seen of the Todd Willingham case.

 

[Lowpro]

In addition, I have two issues with the present thread. One is that the pro-death penalty advocates have not engaged the examples of people who were nearly wrongfully executed or who might have been wrongfully executed. Two is the use of hypotheticals such as a time machine. I recall a conversation I had with an advocate who asked me would I support the death penalty if it could be reversed. Possibly this is an interesting question for an all-night college bull session, but one that does not deal with the reality of the death penalty. Even if the death penalty could be reversed in cases where new evidence was uncovered, the authorities would resist any attempt to do so, based on what I have seen of the Todd Willingham case.

The first part is a nonstarter argument against the death penalty. Do people get executed wrongfully? Yes, if history has anything to say. Is it a shame? yes, but not against the death penalty. It's a shame against the legal process. I'm all for the death penalty and wouldn't mind if 100% of the cases that mandate the death penalty put the convicted behind bars for life. Same outcome to me, let them live a life behind bars or shoot them in the face, no difference.

 

[JJM 777]

I don't consider video evidence to be unfakable.

Nothing is unfakable, but then those who are capable of feeding fake video surveillance camera evidence to a court, probably would be capable of clandestinely causing the suspect to die anyway, so I don´t think that accepting video surveillance videos as 100% evidence worsens our odds.

applying the death penalty to people who are mentally ill or mentally incompetent (...) is bothersome; even when you know for certain that someone is guilty

Speculations about the mental health or IQ of an otherwise proven murderer are not a burden for my conscience. I take the attitude that the whole process from crime to death penalty can be seen as an accident where the convict died, if you don´t want to think that the insane or low-IQ convict "deserved" to die. He killed, and will be killed.

I think that speculations about the mental health or IQ of a murderer are an unnecessary detour in criminal processes. My moral philosophy does not need such splitting of hairs, we swallow camels anyway so why sift out every smallest gnat.

Even if the death penalty could be reversed in cases where new evidence was uncovered, the authorities would resist any attempt to do so

Then we should get rid of the said authorities having any say in any criminal court case, no matetr what the crime and punishment is.

 

[crimresearch]

crimeresearch,

No, but killing someone who is killing others is not that same as the death penalty. My own problem with this particular case is that I am not 100% convinced that Breivik is of sound mind (not that I have looked into it carefully). The idea of applying the death penalty to people who are mentally ill or mentally incompetent (possibly Rickey Ray Rector) is bothersome; even when you know for certain that someone is guilty, can you know for certain that they don't fall into one of these two categories?

In addition, I have two issues with the present thread. One is that the pro-death penalty advocates have not engaged the examples of people who were nearly wrongfully executed or who might have been wrongfully executed. Two is the use of hypotheticals such as a time machine. I recall a conversation I had with an advocate who asked me would I support the death penalty if it could be reversed. Possibly this is an interesting question for an all-night college bull session, but one that does not deal with the reality of the death penalty. Even if the death penalty could be reversed in cases where new evidence was uncovered, the authorities would resist any attempt to do so, based on what I have seen of the Todd Willingham case.

You set up the dichotomy that governmental killing of murderers sent the message that it is OK for people to kill a murderer, which would include in self defense.

...killing a murderer simply sends the message: "the state does it, so it's OK for us to do it.

You choosing to parse it in elitist terminology of 'the underclass,' is a non sequitur. The message would be the same no matter what the social class of those who received it, and 'gangland' would would seem to be the last place where anyone would care about killing murderers.
And there is no rational connection between executing those who are caught, and your insertion of 'Anyway we won't get caught'.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

big difference

You set up the dichotomy that governmental killing of murderers sent the message that it is OK for people to kill a murderer, which would include in self defense.

I am not following you. I accept that killing in self-defense when that is the only reasonable course of action is justified. I accept that the police may need to kill someone if there is no other way to keep him or her from immediately killing someone else. As Antony did I note the provision that there is no way to subdue this individual. I see a considerable difference between those two closely related situations and the death penalty.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic science is improving

The first part is a nonstarter argument against the death penalty. Do people get executed wrongfully? Yes, if history has anything to say. Is it a shame? yes, but not against the death penalty. It's a shame against the legal process. I'm all for the death penalty and wouldn't mind if 100% of the cases that mandate the death penalty put the convicted behind bars for life. Same outcome to me, let them live a life behind bars or shoot them in the face, no difference.

If we abolish the death penalty but did not reform the criminal justice system in any other way, it might seem to be an almost infinitesimal improvement. Death versus life in prison is not much of a difference. However, if we also made improvements in our appeals system and started taking into account modern research into eyewitnesses and false confessions, it starts to look not so infinitesimal. It is also worth noting that forensic science (especially arson science) is continually improving, and that is a consideration. MOO.

 

[Lowpro]

If we abolish the death penalty but did not reform the criminal justice system in any other way, it might seem to be an almost infinitesimal improvement. Death versus life in prison is not much of a difference. However, if we also made improvements in our appeals system and started taking into account modern research into eyewitnesses and false confessions, it starts to look not so infinitesimal. It is also worth noting that forensic science (especially arson science) is continually improving, and that is a consideration. MOO.

It seems that abolishing the death penalty is moot here then. You could keep the death penalty, hell you could even abolish life imprisonment and ONLY have the death penalty and still make improvements to the judicial process.

I've said it before, these arguments are just not academic anymore. The only issue worth discussing is the death penalty versus other comparable sentences, such as life imprisonment or whatever. What are their comparisons and advantages. We use both for now but keep finding the death penalty losing favor. I wonder if there's a utilitarian reason versus a purely ethical one.

 

[Antony]

crimresearch, these were points that I raised, but you addressed your reply to halides1. We are not the same person!

You set up the dichotomy that governmental killing of murderers sent the message that it is OK for people to kill a murderer, which would include in self defense.

You missed the point I was making. The message is that it's OK for them to kill anyone they don't like.

You choosing to parse it in elitist terminology of 'the underclass,' is a non sequitur. The message would be the same no matter what the social class of those who received it, and 'gangland' would would seem to be the last place where anyone would care about killing murderers.
And there is no rational connection between executing those who are caught, and your insertion of 'Anyway we won't get caught'.

That's just in case anyone is nursing the illusion that violent types worry about getting executed themselves before committing their murders. I don't believe that they think they're going to get caught.

 

[crimresearch]

crimresearch, these were points that I raised, but you addressed your reply to halides1. We are not the same person!



You missed the point I was making. The message is that it's OK for them to kill anyone they don't like.


That's just in case anyone is nursing the illusion that violent types worry about getting executed themselves before committing their murders. I don't believe that they think they're going to get caught.

Ahh, my mistake, I thought the person repsonding to my comments on your post, was you.

In any case, the standard for the death penalty isn't merely 'anyone they don't like'.

The standard for using deadly force to stop a murder in progress is the same for the government, as it is for individuals... clear and imminent danger.

The trouble with the death penalty is that there is no imminent danger, and as the error rate shows, it isn't always clear.

But that doesn't mean that if people see the government executing criminals, that the citizenry will follow suit. First, such private killings are illegal, and second, the government does a lot of things without the populace being emboldened to do the same things. Print money, levy taxes, etc.
I see no evidence that the double standard of executions means that such a message is actually being sent, so that simply doesn't strike me as an effective argument against the DP, compared to others that have been raised.