The reason for a death penalty

[Lonewulf]

It is both.

Which takes more precedent? How they are treated, or that they are left alive?

In short, which is more important: The treatment (or the "Cure", I guess you could call it), or the punishment (the "preventative measure" for society, you could call it)?

Which would you support first: Better trials, better prisons, and a better system to ensure as few innocents as possible don't suffer... or instituting the Death Penalty in as many states as possible?

I hesitate to bring animals into it because the instant I do, sombody will shout "Humans aren't animals!" (in spite of the fact that they are).

Humans are vastly different than almost any other kind of animal in cognitive ability. I hesitate to call us "superior", but I do not hesitate to call us "radically different."

Most people that say that we cannot be compared to animals probably do accept that we are Homo Sapiens, a species of animals, but they probably focus a lot on the "Sapiens" part. Either way, if you acting like an animal is justifiable, so is my humping your leg...

But since you bring it up[...]

Actually, you brought it up originally. You compared humans with being in cells to animals being put in a small cage for the rest of their lives.

[...]let me remark that we put down dangerous animals, do we not? It is considered humane, is it not?

Depends on the animal and it's condition. I don't think that we execute every animal that kills another animal, even if the animal killed is of it's own species.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The reason for a death penalty.

NSFW - : profanity and crudity

http://pysih.com/2007/12/03/christopher-ryan-richardson/

MaGZ,
I am one of the people who is directly affected by murder. My father was stabbed to death when I was only 8 years old, by a gang on the street.

The boy who did this is likely to be released next year.

If I wanted him dead, why should I have the state do it for me, by people I have never met, to satisfy their own political ends? If I wanted him dead, I'd want to do it myself, and I hope the state would make me live with the consequences of my immoral actions.

 

[Lonewulf]

MaGZ,
I am one of the people who is directly affected by murder. My father was stabbed to death when I was only 8 years old, by a gang on the street.

I'm really sorry to hear that, Walrus.

I'm really hoping that we find a way to get rid of the gang problems in the United States... I think that the less of a drug trade that they have, the less crime there will be...

One of the primary reasons prohibition was ended was because it caused a huge criminal element in the U.S. Now it's moved from alcohol to the "hard" drugs and even Marijuana (which isn't even debatably a "hard" drug).

Sigh. I dunno, though. The whole thing depresses me to no end.

 

[HarryKeogh]

MaGZ,
If I wanted him dead, I'd want to do it myself, and I hope the state would make me live with the consequences of my immoral actions.

I'm sorry to hear that about your dad. That's horrible.

I know that action would be wrong (having the luxury of heavy emotional detachment from the case) and if a person did do that they should go to jail I just don't know if I could send that person to jail.

 

[Tricky]

Which takes more precedent? How they are treated, or that they are left alive?

In short, which is more important: The treatment (or the "Cure", I guess you could call it), or the punishment (the "preventative measure" for society, you could call it)?

Fixing the prison system is something that should be undertaken regardless of what we choose about the death penalty, so I guess you'd have to say that is a higher priority. And again, I don't call the death penalty "punishment" because punishment has the goal of rehabilitation.

Which would you support first: Better trials, better prisons, and a better system to ensure as few innocents as possible don't suffer... or instituting the Death Penalty in as many states as possible?

I believe this is a straw man. I have never stated that I wish to see the death penalty instituted in as many states as possible. I have stated a limited philosophical support for the death penalty. It might even be better if such cases were referred to a federal authority.

Humans are vastly different than almost any other kind of animal in cognitive ability. I hesitate to call us "superior", but I do not hesitate to call us "radically different."

Most animals are "radically different" from each other, but the line is not a clear cut one. There are some animals that are nicer than some humans. There are some animals that are smarter than some humans. I'm not sure you can draw a solid, uncrossable line between our treatment of animals vis a vis our treatment of humans.

Most people that say that we cannot be compared to animals probably do accept that we are Homo Sapiens, a species of animals, but they probably focus a lot on the "Sapiens" part. Either way, if you acting like an animal is justifiable, so is my humping your leg...

First of all, I am assuming you are not suggesting that I am acting like an animal. My positions are based on careful consideration. To suggest that they are based on a beastial desire to kill would be to join the "blood lust" crowd, something I am sure you do not wish to do.

I would venture to say that there are people who carry Homo sapiens DNA who do not behave in any way that I would call "human". Including some that will hump absolutely anything. I am not talking about our treatment of most humans, only the fringe members, the statistical tails, the ones that are the exception to normal human rules. I would not expect you to hump my leg. I have an uncle though...

Actually, you brought it up originally. You compared humans with being in cells to animals being put in a small cage for the rest of their lives.

Except that I carefully and specifically did not mention animals. I'm not saying that comparison cannot and should not be made, but I did not want to be the first to do so. Once you have entered that territory, it's okay for me to follow, right?

Depends on the animal and it's condition. I don't think that we execute every animal that kills another animal, even if the animal killed is of it's own species.

Nor am I suggesting execution is the correct choice for every human murderer, only a vanishingly small percentage. But there are some... well... take the case where they bust a dogfighting ring. There is no great outcry when we put down animals which will always be dangerous because they are, to the core of their being, killers. I believe there are a few (thankfully, only a few) humans like this.

 

[digithead]

IMO justice was invented to replace revenge.

Justice should serve to protect society and its members, not necessarily to make them feel good.

Sorry, no on both counts.

JUSTICE
–noun. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Justice is not about protecting society (although I agree it can and should be at least an indirect outcome to one degree or other).

It's also defined as "administration of law," "the quality of being just and fair," and "a judge."

Criminal justice, which is what the death penalty falls under, is the way a society performs social control via some type of law enforcement. Police, courts, and corrections are the law enforcement institutions we use to administer criminal justice.

In case you were wondering, social control is society's customs, rules, norms, and habits that it maintains in order to prevent chaos.

Sorry, justice is about protecting society...

 

[digithead]

Of course. But allowing someone who would and should otherwise be put to death to "escape" that penalty because it's upsetting to the executioner is hardly an improvement to society.

That's a normative argument on your part.

And now for a normative one on my part: I think that any society that outlaws the death penalty becomes a better society.

Assuming that's true, again: it's not about deterrant effect. It's about the punishment fitting the crime.

Again, another normative argument. Deterrence is one of the main justifications for the death penalty and it has been shown time and again that it does not deter future crime. See anything by Hood, Bohm, Gillespie, or Zimring on the subject as all these authors have been quite prolific on the subject of the death penalty.

And while we probably have the same opinion on what actions should be punished; we definitely differ on how someone should be punished.

BS. Killing someone is quite cheap, and one helluva lot cheaper than paying to keep them in jail year after year. It's how the death penalty is handled now that makes it pricey.

And how should the death penalty be handled now? If the sentence is imposed immediately, then the risk of an innocent person being put to death skyrockets. At least the way it's done now minimizes some of that risk.

And most studies show (see authors I listed above) that it costs more to put someone to death within our current justice system than it does to incarcerate them for life.

Sorry not buying that bit either.

I assume that this is from my assertion that the application of the death penalty is riddled with racial and class bias. Let's see, more than 50% of executions since its return were minority. More than 50% of death row inmates are minority. Almost all persons who face the death penalty have a public defender because they can't afford their own lawyer. Tell me again how it's not riddled with bias? And spare me the assertion that the minority and poor commit more crime as that has been shown to be spurious once you factor in all deviance and crime - drugs and white collar crime (e.g., embezzlement, tax evasion, etc.).

...which is meaningless since the death penalty is so rare it is hardly an "occupation."

There are 37 states [strike that, 36, NJ just voted to get rid of it] that maintain a death row. These states also maintain lawyers, correctional officers, and other staff devoted to its implementation. Additionally, there are more than 3,300 offenders on death row throughout these 36 states.

ergo, this is still an exceedingly weak reason for not implementing the death penalty. Someone taking this job knows (or should know, and/or should certainly be told) there is at least a chance they will be asked to do this. If it's too upsetting, find another job.

Would it not be cheaper to implement life imprisonment rather than the death penalty? Then you wouldn't have to pay all the other exigent costs (e.g. courts, lawyers, etc.) plus you could reduce the likelihood of having to provide counseling, medical care, etc. You'd save money all around!

PS and oh btw almost all of that stress is NOT related to "flipping the switch." I can safely say that because the death penalty is already so rare.

You and I have a different opinion on what constitutes "rare."

Yes something is upsetting so let's not do it, regardless of justification.

Gawd. This sounds like the parents who refuse to discipline their kids because it's too upsetting.

I don't know if you're deliberately obfuscating but you are once again mixing if someone should be punished with how someone should be punished. They are two different things. Please stick to the how, which is what I'm addressing.

Once more: can't handle it? Get another job. Hard time recruiting? Pay more. Offer better bennies. Free head shrinks. Free zoloft. Whatever. You'll find people willing to take the job.

Once more, you won't have to pay for lawyers, shrinks, etc. if you don't use the death penalty at all.

 

[Lonewulf]

Fixing the prison system is something that should be undertaken regardless of what we choose about the death penalty, so I guess you'd have to say that is a higher priority. And again, I don't call the death penalty "punishment" because punishment has the goal of rehabilitation.

If so, punishment does a really poor job, what with a high percentage of criminals that recommit crimes.

Sometimes it seems to me that punishment is more a way to "get back at" prisoners than rehabilitate them. A childish way to strike back at the criminal. I can't think of any other reason why we would treat them like **** and act like it works even when it doesn't.

I believe this is a straw man. I have never stated that I wish to see the death penalty instituted in as many states as possible.

Well, I was just thinking, if the death penalty is a positive effect on society, shouldn't it be spread to other states?

If it's a positive effect, why keep it only set in a few states?

I have stated a limited philosophical support for the death penalty. It might even be better if such cases were referred to a federal authority.

Maybe... but the DEA is a federal authority, and I don't tend to trust them very much, especially over their "research" on Marijuana.

Still, maybe you got a point.

Most animals are "radically different" from each other, but the line is not a clear cut one. There are some animals that are nicer than some humans.

I'll agree with that.

But I have yet to see an animal that has been definitively shown to discuss things such as mathematics, philosophy, or have the capability to use advanced tools. Until they do, I still hold my position that humans are radically different from all animals, and should not be treated the same as animals.

There are some animals that are smarter than some humans.

I've heard this claim, but I've never really seen it definitively shown.

I'm not sure you can draw a solid, uncrossable line between our treatment of animals vis a vis our treatment of humans.

Well, I wouldn't eat a human. I doubt you would, either.

Part of the reason why is because cannibalism leads to health defects.

First of all, I am assuming you are not suggesting that I am acting like an animal.

No, but I'm pointing out one of the flaws of naturalist fallacies.

My positions are based on careful consideration. To suggest that they are based on a beastial desire to kill would be to join the "blood lust" crowd, something I am sure you do not wish to do.

I'm pretty sure that this is a strawman.

However, there does seem to be some instinctual desire to kill going on here, and I don't think you're the only one guilty of it. However, if you ask people whether or not they would want to kill certain people that they hate, I think that you will find the majority instinctually would say "Yes". It would take thought, reason, philosophy, and/or education for them to think before following that instinctual response. That's my perception, at least.

However, reasoning can lead you to justify your instinctual response, and not necessarily illogically. I admit that.

Like I said, I was only pointing out the problem with the animal comparisons.

I would venture to say that there are people who carry Homo sapiens DNA who do not behave in any way that I would call "human". Including some that will hump absolutely anything. I am not talking about our treatment of most humans, only the fringe members, the statistical tails, the ones that are the exception to normal human rules. I would not expect you to hump my leg. I have an uncle though...

I would call any human "human", no matter how they behave. However, some of them behave "abnormally", I would say. But that's a matter of semantics more than anything.

Some humans do tend to emulate animal behavior when you take their higher reasoning capabilities... and some will emulate animal behavior even in spite of having higher reasoning capabilities.

Except that I carefully and specifically did not mention animals.

Huh.

I coulda sworn you did. That's the impression I got. Maybe I accidentally "read between the lines" a little too much.

My apologies.

I'm not saying that comparison cannot and should not be made, but I did not want to be the first to do so. Once you have entered that territory, it's okay for me to follow, right?

Perhaps. But it doesn't necessarily make the argument logical.

Nor am I suggesting execution is the correct choice for every human murderer, only a vanishingly small percentage. But there are some... well... take the case where they bust a dogfighting ring. There is no great outcry when we put down animals which will always be dangerous because they are, to the core of their being, killers. I believe there are a few (thankfully, only a few) humans like this.

Once again, though, we treat dogs differently than we do humans. When a dog is sick, we're far more likely to put them down, especially when they're too expensive to keep alive. I can't think of many cases where we do the same for humans. When humans are sick, we instead simply put them in debt for the rest of their lives... so we already show favoritism to humans.

For dogs, if we had the capability of making them not so harmful to society, we probably would still kill them. Because the alternative would be too costly... and there are far far far too many dogs and cats out there that are aggressive. It's a population control issue as well as a behavioral issue. Of course, I'm willing to be proven wrong on this issue.

Either way, I cannot see the same perception about humans applying. We just don't tend to think in terms of "population control" and the like when it comes to human beings.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I never saw any sense in "life imprisonment". If there is no hope that a criminal may ever be released, then killing him seems a more humane option. As for the method- simple anaesthesia, followed by removal of organs for transplant surgery. In this way, at least part of the debt to society is repaid.

Will the wrong people ever be executed? Yes.
If we want 100% assurance that innocent people will never be hurt, we would do well to ban cars and alcohol today- as a start. Perfectly permissable and legal activities cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people daily.

I agree with Darat that giving government the power to kill people makes me edgy - but they already have that power. Periodically they even order people to join the army and be killed en masse.

Claus asked "Is it civilised to kill people. Yes, it is. It is precisely a requirement of humans living in permanent, high population density settlements- cities. The days when the band could simply walk away from an antisocial member ended sometime around 6000BC. There is nowhere on Earth now "outside" human society. We can no longer transport offenders to the colonies.

Many people on this forum - and in society in general - either supported, or did not oppose NATO bombing in the Balkans and US/UK bombing in Iraq. Yet I suspect many of the same people would oppose the death penalty. Why is this? Could it be to do with the fact that execution is personal and individual? Or perhaps the worry that we ourselves might be the victim of a mistaken verdict of a court in our own country?

Execution is as personal as anything gets. Targeted execution (assassination) of half a dozen individuals might have helped avoid mass slaughter at many points in the past.
And yet, we shy away from it, not only in the case of convicted murderers, but (glaringly obviously) in the case of dictators destroying the lives of thousands.
(Would Zimbabwe be a better place if someone put one bullet in Mugabe?)

I suspect the reason for this at any rate in the political arena, is cowardice, rather than high morality; A fear of tit for tat. Look at the Litvinenko situation- An entire genre of fiction and film, enjoyed by millions, involves the killing of Soviet spies. We love James Bond movies. Yet one ex-KGB man is actually assassinated and the British Government pees its collective pants.

Maybe I'm wrong to see parallels here, but I think I do.
As for the OP. Let me put it this way. If the man is guilty as charged, I seriously doubt I would have any problems pulling the lever.

 

[Lonewulf]

Will the wrong people ever be executed? Yes.
If we want 100% assurance that innocent people will never be hurt, we would do well to ban cars and alcohol today- as a start. Perfectly permissable and legal activities cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people daily.

I don't quite get your logic here.

Permitting people to partake in activities necessary for society's survival (and banning alcohol does tend to have a detrimental effect on society, as prohibition showed), is immediately equivalent to willingly killing someone?

Should someone being hit by a car be counted as directly equivalent to someone shooting another person?

For that matter, there are restrictions on alcohol. For instance, you can't drink and drive without breaking the law.

Let me put it this way. If the man is guilty as charged, I seriously doubt I would have any problems pulling the lever.

I would, personally.

I guess this is more proof that this is more emotion-controlled than anything...

 

[Soapy Sam]

Emotion is undoubtedly involved.

I'm pro-abortion . Many people would see that as making me a baby murderer and as bad as the man in the OP. The line is arbitrary, but there has to be a line.

I try to be as unemotional as I can on issues like this- but maybe that's wrong too. Perhaps emotion is required. (Maybe I should have doubts as I pull the lever. I've never actually had to do it. The only times I ever deliberately injured people, they were trying to injure me first).

Re government permitting dangerous activity. Again, there's an arbitrary line. Government permits us to purchase cars capable of three times the speed limit. This is because there's a demand for performance cars - among government ministers as much as anywhere else. Instead of us paying millions for radar controlled cameras, one line of legislation could set a mandatory upper limit for vehicle power to weight ratio, removing- at the stroke of a pen- many of the deaths on our roads. Not choosing to do this looks remarkably like aiding and abetting to me. Or pure cowardice.
Or maybe they just never thought of it?

 

[Darat]

I see two major arguments for having a death penalty coming up time and time again. The first is the deterrent factor but this hasn't (as far as I am aware) ever been shown to be the case. The second is "they can never do X again" and that is hard one to counter since it is obviously true. But a strong counter argument can be made by having (as we do in the UK) a life imprisonment system which means they are never released (and having adequate security in our prisons).

I am still for the "life imprisonment" option, and indeed more so than I was a decade ago based on the fact that in the past decade we have had too many high profile murder (and other serious crimes) convictions which have been overturned for me to be convinced we would be executing the "right" people. (I don't expect no mistakes to be made - it's just that there seems to be too many for me to be comfortable with.)

 

[Ian Osborne]

Agreed, Darat, but there's one more death penalty argument you haven't covered - the closure it brings for the friends and family of the victims. It's the only pro-execution argument I can live with, but on the balance, I'd go for life with no parole being the better option.

 

[Lonewulf]

Agreed, Darat, but there's one more death penalty argument you haven't covered - the closure it brings for the friends and family of the victims. It's the only pro-execution argument I can live with, but on the balance, I'd go for life with no parole being the better option.

Closure is the weakest of all arguments IMO.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Closure is the weakest of all arguments IMO.

Why?

 

[Lonewulf]

Why?

Closure < Human Life.

Any questions?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Yes. Don't you think that equation would be moot if the murdering scumbag on death row valued human life a little more?

Victim's life > murderer's life

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes. Don't you think that equation would be moot if the murdering scumbag on death row valued human life a little more?

Victim's life > murderer's life

The victim's already dead. All you're talking about is protecting the "feelings" of the family by murdering another person.

Sorry, but I don't find that convincing. Perhaps you can come up with an objective way for it to?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Knowing their loved one's killer is in turn dead would be a great comfort to the victim's family, and I would only very reluctantly deny them that comfort. I've no problems with the death penalty in principle (and don't you think you're going off the rails a bit calling it 'murder'?), but there are practical objections which, for me, outbalance the closure argument. I make no apologies for putting the victim before the villain, though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Knowing their loved one's killer is in turn dead would be a great comfort to the victim's family, and I would only very reluctantly deny them that comfort.

So comfort is greater than a person's life. Glad you think that.

I've no problems with the death penalty in principle (and don't you think you're going off the rails a bit calling it 'murder'?)[...]

No.

State-sanctioned killing work better with you?

but there are practical objections which, for me, outbalance the closure argument. I make no apologies for putting the victim before the villain, though.

And you still feel that a person's "comfort" is greater than a person's life, and call it "putting the victim before the villain".

Can't agree, nope.