The reason for a death penalty

[bigred]

Instead, steal from burglars. Rape rapists. Extort extortionists. Slander slanderers. Hack into computer hackers' computers.

An obvious oversimplification, as are many of your other comments, but generally speaking and principle-wise, works for me.

 

[bigred]

Darat, I agree with this, and I do not think the death penalty should be used UNLESS there are ZERO doubts that an individual is guilty.

ie almost never. So essentially you are against the death penalty. (not saying that's right or wrong per se, just IMO)

 

[bigred]

The first is implementation. For every Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy there is a Tommy Thompson or Joseph Amrine. While there have been no cases since the re-implementation of the Death penalty in the US where a man has been executed, only to have it proved he was innocent, there have been a bunch of cases where I look at the evidence after the fact and say, “Wait a minute…”

Not being perfect is IMO a weak reason for not implementing the death penalty. I'm sure you disagree strongly and that's fine, just IMO.

Other issue is necessity. I really don’t see anything that an execution accomplishes that shoving someone into an 8x8 cell doesn’t.

Really? I see it as accomplishing the following:

- punishes someone in a way more just than allowing them to live
- saves a lot of taxpayer money

PS for those who think my 2d reason above is so terrible, I propose this: the gov't come up with some form or whatever that all citizens must fill out; if you say you're against the death penalty, you have to pay the extra taxes to pay for the cost of keeping prisoners alive who would've otherwise been put to death. The rest of us don't.

I think it would be real interesting to see who would change their mind about the death penalty and who wouldn't, esp if the tax diff was significant....

 

[bigred]

If an individual walks into a mall and starts shooting and killing people, and then gets taken down by police, but not killed, do you think we could be fairly certain that it was that individual which killed the innocent shoppers?

But you didn't say "fairly certain." You said "no doubts."

And what percentage of all potential death penalty cases do you think the above case represents? I'm thinking extremely small.....

 

[bigred]

Of course, in general, we cannot satisfy the interests of people who go on killing sprees or who molest newborn babies without dissatisfying far more people. But that doesn't mean we should just kill them off the moment we have a chance. They still have interests, and those should be weighed accordingly by the legal system.

"They have interests?"

I'm sorry, but you are one scary scary person, in a Va Tech kinda way. :shiver:

 

[bigred]

Should Colin Ferguson have been executed? Numerous witnesses stated that he shot and killed 6 people and wounded another 19 on a Long Island commuter train. He was tackled by other passengers while reloading and held down while the police arrived.

He nevertheless claimed he was innocent, that he was sleeping when someone else took the gun from him and started firing, that there was a conspiracy against him, and that a computer chip had been implanted in his brain.

Now, by any rational stretch of the imagination, he is guilty of murdering 6 people, and any prosecutor could prove it conclusively in a court of law. But I for one cannot see how executing him is appropriate, when it is obvious what he really needs is a rubber room and a couple of CCs of Thorazine.

I cannot see how you cannot see this. Sorry but the "he's crazy" excuse is not only played up quite often by people who aren't crazy but IMO is not a get-outta-jail-free card regardless; being "crazy" does not excuse the crimes in ANY way. No leniency for that IMO.

 

[bigred]

I have to disagree here. Where and, perhaps more important, how are you going to draw the line between subjects where judging rationally applies or doesn't apply?

Personally I think emotion has a place in judging the severity of crimes, but not instead of rationality.

Very astute and refreshing - thx

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Not being perfect is IMO a weak reason for not implementing the death penalty. I'm sure you disagree strongly and that's fine, just IMO.

Don't you think that executing an innocent person is unacceptable?

Really? I see it as accomplishing the following:

- punishes someone in a way more just than allowing them to live
- saves a lot of taxpayer money

PS for those who think my 2d reason above is so terrible, I propose this: the gov't come up with some form or whatever that all citizens must fill out; if you say you're against the death penalty, you have to pay the extra taxes to pay for the cost of keeping prisoners alive who would've otherwise been put to death. The rest of us don't.

Actually, your second reason is incorrect, if you take a look at one of my previous posts, you'll see where executions cost much more than life imprisonment.

I would much rather sock the person in a jail cell from strictly a cost perspective.

I think it would be real interesting to see who would change their mind about the death penalty and who wouldn't, esp if the tax diff was significant....[/quote]

 

[Corsair 115]

Just a very few of them that, by the best examination we can give, are not rehabilitatible and the courts should have the ability to make that decision and act in the way that they think best addresses it.

How about a hypothetical case? Just make up an instance of any kind where a criminal would be "unrehabilitable", thus allowing for a death sentence.

I can think of one kind of criminal which would easily fit the criteria: serial killers.

Ted Bundy, to cite one real-world example of that type of criminal.

 

[Tricky]

Ah, now herein lies the rub. I know how you are you going to respond, but I am going to ask it anyway. What exactly IS no effect? How much progress is too little. Couldn't an intelligent prisoner use the idea of a little progress here, a little progress there, just to keep himself alive? Would an abuse like this be even more straining on a system that can ill afford additional expenses?

You probably do know, as you have no doubt figured out my pattern by now. My answer to your first question is "I don't know". I'm not really qualified to answer that question, but I am assuming that there are those who are. And yes, an intelligent prisoner could beat the system. I'm thinking Alex in A Clockwork Orange. But though the expense may be higher, I still feel that the goal of punishment should be to rehabilitate, not just to incarcerate.

On a slight tangent, one of the things that concerns me are the hidden costs to society of having so many prisons with so many people. I say this because I have an uncle (on my wife's side) who is a prison guard, and a more hateful, racist, sadistic, sociopath ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊* you will seldom meet on the wrong side of the prison bars. His brother, my father-in-law was a very decent man who was fairly open-minded. I have to wonder if his brother James became that way from having to keep these "insects" (as he calls them) in cages all day every day. Is euthanasia really more of a sign of our declining civilization than permanent incarceration? I find a hard time believing that. I cannot escape the image of the mean little kid who likes to put a lot of stinging insects in a jar, then shake the jar. Uncle Jimmy likes shaking the jar.

The bean counters won't see these kinds of costs on the bottom line.

Would this also apply to some with Alzheimer's? What if an older man killed someone because he was having a memory flashback? He certainly would be insane, and a potential danger to society. He would not be able to be rehabilitated, do you execute him?

Sounds cruel, but yes. I cannot think of anyone more dangerous than someone who kills because of an incurably malfunctioning brain. The alternative is to effectively strap them down for the rest of their lives. I don't consider that more humane.

Having dealt with a grandmother who died with the disease, I can say that there really was almost no trace of the person who had been my grandmother in the ruins of that brain. Had they slipped the needle into her arm one late night, I would have understood completely.

I am not a mental health expert, however, I would venture to guess there are many such psychological disorders or diseases that may cause a person to act in such a way that would result in murder. If modern medicine cannot cure them, then society should kill them? What if a treatment is developed a year later, 5 years later, 10 years later? Now you have executed "criminals" who may have been curable and able to rejoin society as a productive member.

And what do you do with them while you are waiting? Strap them down? Should we go the Ted Williams route and freeze the brain so that maybe science will someday find a way to revive it and fix it? How far can you go to preserve the life of a criminal?

No, I think it is unrealistic to think that science will not only find a cure for these diseases, but make those cures so widespread that even prisoners can receive them. I also seriously doubt that taxpayers would want to fund expensive treatments for murderers.

Some might be fascinated by such as case, so long as security precautions are always in place. The point is, much like a terminally ill patient may further studies about his own condition, so might a psychopath as you described.

They might be. Perhaps you could find a few "Dr. Jekylls" who would ask the prisons to let them have a few lost souls to experiment on. Or again, maybe like Burgess's creation, Alex, they would volunteer for the treatment, hoping to find a way to escape. I cannot envision that it would be a very large operation.

I would not be in favor of actually executing them, however, the general concept of "harvesting" useful organs from dead prisoners sounds like an idea with merit.

There actually is some action toward this now. In some places, prisoners get credits (or whatever they use in prison) for signing organ donor cards. I'd be in favor of making it mandatory. It would be part of the price of "repaying your debt to society".

While I seldom get involved, I truly enjoy the hot-button issues and only tend to be sarcastic when I get it first, USUALLY.

I'm kind of that way too. I try to respond in kind to what I receive. I will be a nice guy as long as you're nice, but if somebody wants to flame, then fetch me my acetylene, Gunga.

 

[UserGoogol]

"They have interests?"

I'm sorry, but you are one scary scary person, in a Va Tech kinda way. :shiver:

I merely mean it in the utilitarian sense. Something is good to the degree that it maximizes the overall happiness. Crazy baby murderers have just as much capacity for happiness as normal people, and therefore their happiness counts towards the total just as much as anyone else. It's just that the happiness of crazy baby murderers will frequently come into conflict with the happiness of any sane individual, and we should perhaps err on the side of sane individuals. But ultimately, happiness is happiness.

 

[Leftus]

How much cheaper? Be specific.

I put the smiley in there just for you so you know it was a joke and here you go and miss that too. If you need the joke explained to you I can do that as well.

It most certainly helps to solve the problem with wrongful incarcerations. Just look at how DNA evidence helps free - and jail - people.

How does paying off someone for time spent in jail, or to their families if they die in jail, help with DNA evidence? Be specific.

Nonsense. Life in prison is life in prison, period.

Just because you aren't actively trying to kill someone doesn't mean that you aren't involved in their death. Life imprison is a death penalty just extracted out over time. Your goal is to have them dead and in prison. So is mine. I'm just willing to do what it rather than pretend that I'm not.

Less, then. How?

I'll go with what I said the first time:

Most of the appeals for death penalty cases are required by law. They are forced appeals. This doesn't happen in life cases. Since the capital crimes require more due process by act of law they also require the taxpayers to foot that bill. Again, this is not the case in life cases. Lifers can get to the point that their inability to pay stops due process and they reach that point earlier in the process than death row inmates. Which is why death penalty cases costs more. While not a perfect metric of due process, money is a good one and far more money is spent on due process of death row inmates than on lifers.

 

[Beerina]

Yes, as a proper expression of society's revulsion to certain acts.

Having said that, I can understand many Europeans' opposition to it, having had political executions in living memory.

First, you can't extrapolate what happened in individual European countries to the whole of Europe.

Granted.

Second, that's not why Europeans (EU member states) are against the death penalty. It is simply recognizing and protecting humans rights. Read more here and here.

You want to talk about the Rosenbergs?

Neither of those have a suggestion as to why the death penalty is forbidden, other than simply asserting it should be so as part of a package of "rights".

My observation is that, in the US, opposition is along the lines of squeamishness and potential injustice. Europeans would feel that, of course, but also the additional cultural injustice factor of it having been used, officially, by governments (perhaps not the democratic ones) within the past century, to say nothing of thousands of years of history under dictatorships, all of which formed culture all along.

 

[Leftus]

Wrong.
I consider killing for self-defense as killing another human being when in immediate threat of death.
This does not apply to a jury that sends a person to die nor to a victim that kills a criminal seeking revenge/justice

So "... killing for self-defense as killing another human being when in immediate threat of death." isn't a circumstance?

Self defense is a denial of due process. The standards are actually lower. You can kill someone in "self defense" for crimes that would never warrent the death penalty. You can kill in "self defense" for things that aren't even crimes. Numerous people have been killed mistakenly in cases where self defense applies. Even in their own homes. Yet, somehow, the process that grants the most due process, the one we makes sure we get right better than anything else, is the one you dislike the most.

 

[bigred]

In the immortal words of William Munny:
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

In the mortal words of me: "wtf? Deserve's got EVERYTHING to do with it."

The following is fallacious and is not meant as an argument to support my viewpoint. But still...I don't understand how America can blithely assert the moral superiority of capital punishment given the company it keeps on this issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

This country could use a little dose of middle east mentality regarding punishment of criminals. (Repeat a little....eg not suggesting whacking off people's hands for stealing or whatever)

Don't you think that executing an innocent person is unacceptable?

I think disregarding a solution because it isn't perfect is unacceptable, even in this case.

Actually, your second reason is incorrect, if you take a look at one of my previous posts, you'll see where executions cost much more than life imprisonment.

I question that, but even if so, it's because of how we "implement" the death penalty, not because of the thing itself.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

If it's civilised to kill innocent people as part of the cull of 'bad' people what isn't civilised?

Obviously to this US administration torture is civilised and like the Chinese government, and Bush in Texas you have to kill a few innocent people to in order keep the masses under control - right!

 

[bigred]

Oh goody a Bush bashing sidetrack What no token Christian bashing too? How novel.

If you wish to discuss the horrors of GW/his administration, pls start up a thread or visit one of the numerous others - thx

 

[CFLarsen]

Granted.



Neither of those have a suggestion as to why the death penalty is forbidden, other than simply asserting it should be so as part of a package of "rights".

My observation is that, in the US, opposition is along the lines of squeamishness and potential injustice. Europeans would feel that, of course, but also the additional cultural injustice factor of it having been used, officially, by governments (perhaps not the democratic ones) within the past century, to say nothing of thousands of years of history under dictatorships, all of which formed culture all along.

Give time, and the US will catch up.

 

[D'rok]

In the mortal words of me: "wtf? Deserve's got EVERYTHING to do with it."

Let me try some more pop culture pith:

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
Mithrandir

This country could use a little dose of middle east mentality regarding punishment of criminals. (Repeat a little....eg not suggesting whacking off people's hands for stealing or whatever)

Yikes. Sometimes I wonder how we manage to stay sane living so close to you guys.

 

[Tricky]

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
Mithrandir

Yeah, that works out just wonderfully in epic fairy tales. And in Harry Potter, Harry's mercy eventually saves him from Wormtail (though Harry does eventually have to execute Voldemort). And of course in Die Hard, all the bad guys get what they deserve without any damn courts to get in the way. Why can't real life be like that?

Anyway, few here arguing in favor of the limited use of the death penalty are "eager" to deal out death. AS for myself, I would only be in favor of it when the benefits of doing so, as far as I could reasonably and fairly determine, outweigh the benefits of not doing so.