The reason for a death penalty

[bigred]

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).

 

[bigred]

If something that threatens worker health can be eliminated with improvement to society, then it should be eliminated.

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.

Regardless of one's moral position on the capital punishment, the death penalty has been shown to have no deterrent effect,

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

it costs more than lifetime incarceration,

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 it is riddled with racial and class bias in its application...

Sorry not buying that bit either.

Plus there is a marked difference between imprisoning someone as an occupation and killing someone as an occupation...

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

And this is not a discussion of if someone should be punished but how someone should be punished. Ergo, the effects on staff administering the punishment should be addressed in policy...

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.

I do research into this very area and correctional officer stress is one of the occupational hazards of the job.

Bingo. Exactly.

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.

It is one of the reasons why it is so hard to recruit and retain officers. Administering the death penalty is another occupational hazard that could easily be avoided...

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.

And research shows that this burden expresses itself in higher divorce rates, substance abuse, and other stress disorders amongst those that administer the death penalty. If you didn't notice, these are things hurt families, disrupt our neighborhoods, and threaten our larger society..

Still think it's a ridiculous reason?

To say the least.

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.

 

[D'rok]

I've been hesitant to bring up this point because I don't want to appear to be prejudiced against people in prison, but this case that Suddenly mentions is too exemplary to ignore.

There really aren't very many innocents on death row. There are some, possibly too many, who are innocent of the crimes they were convicted for, but there's a pretty good chance that they are not nice people. Now I am not saying that because a person is a head case and violent that he deserves to die. I am saying that calling these persons "innocents" is... well... generous to a fault. It is rare, even in Texas, to send a person to death row who has no priors or no history of violence.

Usually when someone is sent to death row, it is because the crime is against someone who, to use popular parlance, didn't deserve it. Killing rival gang members or killing in a bar fight, or even killing a spouse's lover is not the sort of case where prosecutors seek the death penalty most of the time. Usually it is in cases with the proverbial "senseless killing". While it occasionally happens that a "senseless killer" is a person with no criminal history, such cases are as rare as white crows.

Does a person whose prior life of crime deserve to die simply because he is a bad person, rather than because he committed the crime of which he is charged? No. He does not. Thanks to people like Suddenly, they rarely do. Occasionally, but rarely. But is this same person truly deserving of the label of "innocent"? Well, we are all innocent in some ways and worldly in others. I'd say these guys are more worldly than most.

If errors are made, I prefer them to be made in favor of those who more truly deserve the adjective "innocent". Suddenly's example above shows that even if innocent of the crime with which they are charged, the defendants in such cases are often far removed from anything that we could reasonably call innocent in the general sense.

This is inconsistent with your position that keeping murderers alive but imprisoned creates risk to others. Those others will generally be those same "bad people" incarcerated with the murderer. If they do not deserve much consideration, this risk should be tolerable to you.

 

[D'rok]

I have no problems with the death penalty per se, more the implication of ends justifying the means w/r/t potential victims is the dangerous game I refer to.

Here is an example. I'm handling an old murder case. Guy was convicted on circumstantial evidence and lots of it. He either killed these people or it is all a mind-boggling coincidence. Out of nowhere comes a confession from a serial killer on death row. The serial killer knows a bunch of detail about the crime, he was in the state at the time, and the murders fit his MO completely. Completely fits with all of it being a boggling coincidence.

Should be a new trial. The problem is the client scared the heck out of everyone. He is known to physically attack his attorneys, he threatens attorneys and others that "I know where you live and have friends on the outside that owe me favors", and when sentenced (life/no parole), he promised to kill pretty much everybody involved if he managed to get out. His prison record is spotty, spends a lot of time in solitary, which doesn't help.

So, we have a convicted murderer, good chance he is wrongfully convicted, but he's off his rocker and a total danger to various persons were he let on the street. No surprise, the judge bends over backwards to make legal finding denying a new trial. The judge wouldn't even let him in the courtroom for the hearing, insisted he be present only via videoconference.

Right and wrong is too big of a question for me in these kinds of cases. I just do my job.

It is a bit of a head-scratcher though. A very dangerous game.

Wow. Frankly, I'm appalled. This is a clear corruption of Justice. He has been shown innocent of the crime, but is still being punished for it - apparently with approval of whatever jurisdiction you practice in.

It is a criminal justice principle that the morally innocent not be punished. No one is truly morally innocent. The principle means the morally innocent of the crime charged. It matters not in the slightest that this person is evil. He is morally innocent before the law. Charge him and prosecute him for his other crimes if evidence exists.

This would be a blatant and unequivocal Charter violation in Canada. (Charter of Rights and Freedoms - i.e., the Canadian Constitution). In particular, several key legal rights in s. 7 of the Charter would have to be tossed right out the window for this treatment to be legal.

"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#juridiques

 

[Ian Osborne]

He has been shown innocent of the crime, but is still being punished for it - apparently with approval of whatever jurisdiction you practice in.

I see your point, but would you feel the same way if he was released and moved in next door to you?

 

[Tricky]

This is inconsistent with your position that keeping murderers alive but imprisoned creates risk to others. Those others will generally be those same "bad people" incarcerated with the murderer. If they do not deserve much consideration, this risk should be tolerable to you.

A bit, perhaps, but I am not cavalier about the deaths of bad-but-not-deserving-to-die prisoners. Still, you might expect convicted murderers to be somewhat more "bad" or shall we say "less innocent" than other inmates, like drug users. Also, non-prisoners, like guards, are at risk. My uncle notwithstanding, they don't deserve to die either.

But as I said when I started the post, I was hesitant to bring it up, because I expected just this sort of objection to be made. I know that my arguments may seem self contradictory at times because they consider many different and sometimes contradictory factors. The main point of logic is that sometime as a whole, there are reasons for execution. The "rule of absolutes" suggests that it likely to be so.

 

[Zarathustra]

...ie, justice. While not the same thing of course, revenge and justice are old dancing partners.

This is about a fitting punishment for a crime. Some feel there are cases when captial punishment fills the bill, while others don't, that's all.

Justice is to revenge, as is to haute cuisine is to alimentation.

 

[D'rok]

I see your point, but would you feel the same way if he was released and moved in next door to you?

Yes.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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

Oh goody, a 'you aren't allowed to draw relevant parallels' sidetrack.

Sorry but I don't believe that the disreputable moral climate engendered by the use of torture has nothing to do with the disreputable moral climate that calls for people to be murdered by the state.

If you don't want to discuss things fully can you please start up a thread that provides a list of areas you won't talk about.

Thanks.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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

B.S. It's about society satisfying its- and your - blood lust.

 

[Tricky]

"Blood lust" again? What is it with some anti-DP folks using this term to demonize those who disagree with them? I think they must have some subliminal love of the concept of "blood lust" since they keep bringing it up.

 

[Suddenly]

I'm cross posting this from a discussion at TOP as it seems somewhat relevant. I was asked to better explain what I mean when I say that DNA analysis is often subjective.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


What I get is a simple claim of a result, then a sort of secondary report where the raw data is translated into a digital form to make things clear. After that, and after a bunch of motions and wrangling do I get the real raw data.

This is a good example of what I mean:

However, other cases are not so clearcut. Consider the electropherogram in Figure 3, which shows the DNA test results that purportedly "matched" a defendant to a saliva sample taken from the breast of an alleged sexual assault victim. Although the laboratory report stated that the same alleles were found in both samples at these three loci, close examination of the electropherograms supports a significantly different conclusion. There are two additional "peaks" in the saliva sample that the laboratory failed to report — a peak labeled "12" (indicating allele 12) at locus D3S1358, and a peak labeled "OL Allele" (indicating a possible "off-ladder," or unclassified, allele) at locus FGA. The laboratory decided to ignore these two peaks and never mentioned them in its report. A defense lawyer who failed to examine the underlying test results would never have known about them. However, they clearly complicate the interpretation of the evidence — raising the possibility, for example, that the DNA on the breast swab is from a person with alleles 12 and 17 at locus D3S1358, rather than just allele 17, which would exclude the defendant as a possible contributor.

Figure one is the type of report that is often passed off as raw data

When you look at figure three, note how the baseline of the crime scene sample is rough while the baseline of the suspect sample is perfectly smooth. Obviously not all of these peaks and valleys are legitimate peaks. The first spike at 12/47 on the crime scene sample isn't all that much higher than the noise, and given the height of the other two spikes could be passed off as an artifact.

Looking closely at the suspect sample small artifacts can also be seen.

 

[bigred]

Sorry but I don't believe that the disreputable moral climate engendered by the use of torture has nothing to do with the disreputable moral climate that calls for people to be murdered by the state.

I disagree with this statement (including premises) in a variety of ways, but at least it relates to the topic. More than I can say for the orig referenced post, ie:

"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"

If you don't want to discuss things fully can you please start up a thread that provides a list of areas you won't talk about.

er if you were paying attention, you'd notice I and others ARE discussing the actual thread topic. Feel free to join. But if you want to GW bash, please start up a thread or join one of the many others already floating around. Thanks.

B.S. It's about society satisfying its- and your - blood lust.

lol. Thx for confirming what I already suspected, ie there's little point in paying attention to your posts in this thread. You're either a troll or simply incapable of discussing this rationally. I really don't care which it is.


Apologies to the rest of you. Back to the actual topic.

I've been hesitant to bring up this point because I don't want to appear to be prejudiced against people in prison, but this case that Suddenly mentions is too exemplary to ignore.

There really aren't very many innocents on death row. (snip)

A slippery slope to be sure, but a point well worth making, esp when people throw out the "innocent" label.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Blood lust" again? What is it with some anti-DP folks using this term to demonize those who disagree with them? I think they must have some subliminal love of the concept of "blood lust" since they keep bringing it up.

Why isn't killing people "blood lust"?

After you kill them - in whatever fashion that will satisfy you - you sure aren't punishing them. Are you?

Unless you believe in Hell, of course.

Why this desire to see them dead? What is it about death that tells you justice has been done?

 

[Suddenly]

Blood lust is killing for killings sake. For it to be bloodlust Tricky would be wanting someone to put themselves in a position to be executed so that person could be killed, thus allowing Tricky what scientists call "his jollies."

This is like saying someone who is pro-abortion wants to kill babies. Maybe there is some sicko that thinks that way, but most of us sane people would rather that the need for an abortion not arise, but if it does it should be safe and legal.

Likewise, the death penalty is an unfortunate remedy to a problem that hopefully never arises.

 

[CFLarsen]

Blood lust is killing for killings sake. For it to be bloodlust Tricky would be wanting someone to put themselves in a position to be executed so that person could be killed, thus allowing Tricky what scientists call "his jollies."

No. It is much, much worse that that.

Tricky doesn't need someone else to volunteer to be killed. Tricky just needs someone he can deem worthy of nothing else than death.

Whoever Tricky doesn't like, he will execute.

 

[D'rok]

No. It is much, much worse that that.

Tricky doesn't need someone else to volunteer to be killed. Tricky just needs someone he can deem worthy of nothing else than death.

Whoever Tricky doesn't like, he will execute.

Oh please. I completely disagree with Tricky's position and even I can see that you're full of it. These tactics are not helpful.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh please. I completely disagree with Tricky's position and even I can see that you're full of it. These tactics are not helpful.

Feel free to point out where I am wrong.

 

[D'rok]

Feel free to point out where I am wrong.

Right here:

Whoever Tricky doesn't like, he will execute.

 

[CFLarsen]

Right here:

That's just a reiteration of your claim.