PDA

View Full Version : Death Sentence - Best/Worst Alternative?


TriggerGod
07-23-2008, 09:48 PM
also Derived from my Cannibalism thread, is the Death Sentence the Best, or Worst, alternative?
A scenario(s) might help.
Scenario 1: A man Rapes a woman, then goes on to rape the child.
Scenario 2: Someone robs a store, gets a 5 year sentence. After sentence is over, goes on to commit a murder of a (semi-)famous person.
Anymore Scenarios are welcomed.

Litofsky
07-23-2008, 10:12 PM
I feel a bit torn on this issue. I'll provide both sides of my feelings, and then, hopefully, I'll get somewhere.

Pro-Death Penalty

- It could deter would-be criminals. The possibility of death might be powerful enough to do that.
-- If, by not executing the criminal, you allow (him) the opportunity to kill again.

Anti-Death Penalty
- It violates your right to life. Why should the government be allowed to take life away from you?
-- By maintaining a "no death to prisoners" pact, we make ourselves/the legal system, better than the criminals that do kill.

That's what I've got right now (if you couldn't tell, it's kind of late here :p). I think that I, personally, would opt for the 'Anti-Death Penalty' stance. Though, if it were proven to save more lives than it takes, I might be convinced otherwise...

Totenkopf
07-23-2008, 10:23 PM
I'd say that the death penalty cuts recidivism to 0 %. I find no problem with the idea of a death penalty. The flaws are always in the execution (pun partially intended ;) ) of such a policy. It's irrelevant to me whether application of the death penalty deters one person (the perp) or many from committing any future crimes. The big problem is ever a question of did the accused receive a fair and untainted trial. If it can be fairly concluded that such was the case......c'est le vie.

Litofsky
07-23-2008, 10:27 PM
I'd say that the death penalty cuts recidivism to 0 %. I find no problem with the idea of a death penalty. The flaws are always in the execution (pun partially intended ;) ) of such a policy. It's irrelevant to me whether application of the death penalty deters one person (the perp) or many from committing any future crimes. The big problem is ever a question of did the accused receive a fair and untainted trial. If it can be fairly concluded that such was the case......c'est le vie.

But what happens when the system fails, and the wrong person is sentenced to death?

Totenkopf
07-23-2008, 10:37 PM
That's why I said that the problem is in the execution (that and c'est le vie) ;).

Darth_Yuthura
07-23-2008, 11:08 PM
I think executions should be abolished unless the one in custody would be considered a threat to others. Although Law and Order is fictional, there is one episode that emphasized that a murderer escaped the death penalty and escaped prison only to kill again. Odds are that there are people who have little or no hope of being innocent. Criminals should only be executed if they are considered too great a threat and have no hope of parole. It should not be punishment, but a means of neutralizing a threat to humanity.

ForeverNight
07-25-2008, 02:55 PM
By maintaining a "no death to prisoners" pact, we make ourselves/the legal system, better than the criminals that do kill.

I've always hated the "That makes us no better than X" argument. The difference between the two is that the Criminal who killed did it, and, more than likely, enjoyed it. Also, said Criminal got something out of it, whether it be pleasure, money or some other gain, whilst the person who delievers the execution has law and order on their side, they are doing it because it is right, not because they get Y out of it.

I wish I was speaking this, I'm always better at that than typing... Oh well.

@Darth_Yuthura

I have to agree with the point that you brought up with the person in custody being a threat to others. However, having just said that, I have to bring up the bit I've been told -so, it's pure hearsay, not hard fact- that prisons are fill with more repeat criminals than first-time criminals.

So, to me that's saying that the system's too easy on people. I know I've heard stories (From a friend who heard from a friend who heard from TV... You get the idea, basically this is hearsay yet again) that special interest groups are ticked off because prisoners aren't getting Luxury Item Z.

I dunno, I almost wish we could go to the justice systems of the late 18th Century. Look at what crime was like then!

---

I guess that my view of the Death Penalty is that it shouldn't be used on a fellow human being, however there are points at which you are no longer human. E.G. Scenario 1 that TriggerGod provided.

Darn it! I wish I could talk instead of type!

Q
07-25-2008, 04:41 PM
I not only believe that capital punishment is necessary as both a method of disposal and as a deterrent, but that it should also be used on repeat offender rapists and (especially) pedophiles.

Burnseyy
07-25-2008, 05:26 PM
you can't have a death penalty, because what if it turns out the police are mistaken?
if it wasn't for possibility of being mistaken, I'd be all for death penalty... but not for petty crimes like stealing. Only serious ones, like murder.
if they think killing someone is fine, then they shouldn't have a problem with it.

Q
07-25-2008, 07:25 PM
Well, at least this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gilmore) didn't.

Ctrl Alt Del
07-25-2008, 09:45 PM
I think executions should be abolished unless the one in custody would be considered a threat to others.
Well, that person is arrested. He/she is already considered a threat to others. Whether he/she is fitting to be place on the category of "to-be relapsing" is simply subjective.

I've always hated the "That makes us no better than X" argument. The difference between the two is that the Criminal who killed did it, and, more than likely, enjoyed it. Also, said Criminal got something out of it, whether it be pleasure, money or some other gain, whilst the person who delievers the execution has law and order on their side, they are doing it because it is right, not because they get Y out of it.
That makes taking someone else's life different, doesn't it?

Achilles
07-25-2008, 10:16 PM
- It could deter would-be criminals. The possibility of death might be powerful enough to do that.I don't know that punishments are much of a deterrent for any crime. I'm sure I could be easily persuaded with some reputable statistics though.

My 2 cents is that the only people that will be persuaded not to kill are those that probably wouldn't kill anyway.

- If, by not executing the criminal, you allow (him) the opportunity to kill again. Quite right. Even if you could reform a cold-blooded killer, would you be doing him or her any favors by doing so?

"Congratulations, we've successfully restored your mental and emotional health. Oh by the way, you now get to live the rest of your life knowing that you brutalized innocent people."

I think the death penalty is the kindest choice for everyone involved, but that's only my opinion.

- It violates your right to life. Why should the government be allowed to take life away from you? The government is representative, no? We allow them to make laws and enforce them already. Isn't this the same thing?

- By maintaining a "no death to prisoners" pact, we make ourselves/the legal system, better than the criminals that do kill. I'm not sure I have a counter-argument for this one.

you can't have a death penalty, because what if it turns out the police are mistaken?I agree that this is a serious consideration. My instinctual reaction is to point out that every case of wrongful conviction I've ever heard of (yes, I am qualifying that) usually involved some sort of bias on the part of the legal system (racist judge, crooked attorney, etc). So my question becomes: should we not pursue justice because we're afraid of making a mistake? I don't know that I have an answer to that question.

if it wasn't for possibility of being mistaken, I'd be all for death penalty... but not for petty crimes like stealing. Only serious ones, like murder.I agree wholeheartedly. I'll go one further and say that prison should be reserved for violent crimes only.

Ctrl Alt Del
07-25-2008, 10:23 PM
I'm actually a bit scared that none of the people who posted here excluding myself have shown despise to death penalty. How's it so easy to get rid of human beings? Even if it's human garbage?

May I never be found guilty of killing any of your relatives.

Corinthian
07-25-2008, 10:36 PM
Oh, don't worry. If you murdered one of my family, the legality of the Death Penalty will go out the window in favor of what I like to call 'The Batman Alternative'. Hauling two hundred fifty pounds of criminal up Gotham Towers is hard work, but the scream alone is worth it.

The Death Penalty is an effective means of disposing with human trash, much like dumping waste uranium into space. Not only do I feel it should be used in cases of Second Degree Murder and above, but I also think that rape, particularly of children, should be punishable with this as well. Of course, I also advocate severing the right hand of thieves, so I don't think there's really any doubt about my viciousness in this regard.

Ctrl Alt Del
07-25-2008, 10:38 PM
Oh, don't worry. If you murdered one of my family, the legality of the Death Penalty will go out the window in favor of what I like to call 'The Batman Alternative'. Hauling two hundred fifty pounds of criminal up Gotham Towers is hard work, but the scream alone is worth it.

Unless the said relative was an example of human garbage, right?

jonathan7
07-25-2008, 10:47 PM
I'm actually a bit scared that none of the people who posted here excluding myself have shown despise to death penalty. How's it so easy to get rid of human beings? Even if it's human garbage?

May I never be found guilty of killing any of your relatives.

I've refrained from posting merely because my view on the subject should be known to all ;) and I'm somewhat on holiday (apparently I need to chill out from all the thinking I do according to friends) hence my diminished activities here...

I am against the death penalty as;

a) Miscarriage of Justice is the biggest concern; as what if you make a mistake, even if only 1 in a 1000 mistake are made on the death penalty, should that one not be given the benefit of the doubt?

b) As far as we know we are the only 'intelligent' life in the universe, should we dispose of said life, even if it has done vulgar things?

c) Does the government not loose the 'moral' high-ground by executing those guilty of murder?

d) I don't trust our governments with the "privileged".

e) Is redemption possible? There is a fascinating case in Australia (I'll see if I can dig you out a link) of a Serial Killer with multiple personality disorder; and only one of those personalities is the serial killer - with medication that personality has disapeared.

I could think of more, but I'll stop :xp:

I agree wholeheartedly. I'll go one further and say that prison should be reserved for violent crimes only.

Agreed; though on a case by case basis.

Achilles
07-25-2008, 11:02 PM
a) Miscarriage of Justice is the biggest concern; as what if you make a mistake, even if only 1 in a 1000 mistake are made on the death penalty, should that one not be given the benefit of the doubt? I would say no. Everyone gets the same appeals system. And no system is perfect.

b) As far as we know we are the only 'intelligent' life in the universe, should we dispose of said life, even if it has done vulgar things? Yes. Is there some deeper context to your argument that I may be missing?

Hint: our "intelligent" life dies anyway. If the argument is life vs death (which seems to be the context), then I'm wondering where the repercussions of this line of thinking would end.

c) Does the government not loose the 'moral' high-ground by executing those guilty of murder? Does the government have some moral high ground to begin with? My answer to both questions is "no".

d) I don't trust our governments with the "privileged". I'm not sure what this means.

e) Is redemption possible? There is a fascinating case in Australia (I'll see if I can dig you out a link) of a Serial Killer with multiple personality disorder; and only one of those personalities is the serial killer - with medication that personality has disapeared. I hope that I adequately addressed this argument in my earlier post.

Agreed; though on a case by case basis.:lol: Then you don't agree at all :)

jonathan7
07-25-2008, 11:07 PM
I hope that I adequately addressed this argument in my earlier post.

The dude in question wants to live; IIRC though he doesn't remember much about that particular personality at all.

:lol: Then you don't agree at all :)

No I do, however I like having things at the discretion of a judge - you can get some quite unique cases.

Achilles
07-25-2008, 11:11 PM
The dude in question wants to live; IIRC though he doesn't remember much about that particular personality at all.I guess I would need to know more about the case to comment further. Suffice it to say that this all sounds highly suspect to me.

No I do, however I like having things at the discretion of a judge - you can get some quite unique cases.I'm sorry, my friend, no prison for non-violent cases sounds pretty cut and dry to me. "Case by case basis" is an open invitation to discrepancies in the administration of justice.

mimartin
07-25-2008, 11:15 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. I'll go one further and say that prison should be reserved for violent crimes only.So people that steals someone life savings should not go to prison because it is a white collar crime? Iíd agree we are locking up way to many people that are not a risk to anyone but their own self, but Iím unwilling to go this far due to the fact violent crimes are not the only crimes that can destroy innocent people. Do you really believe the people behind the Enron scandal did not deserve prison sentences?

jonathan7
07-25-2008, 11:19 PM
I guess I would need to know more about the case to comment further. Suffice it to say that this all sounds highly suspect to me.

Its so long ago since I read about him; and Australia has so many serial killers I have thus far failed to track you down a link (sorry).

I'm sorry, my friend, no prison for non-violent cases sounds pretty cut and dry to me. "Case by case basis" is an open invitation to discrepancies in the administration of justice.

Meh :xp: What I mean is, I'm always uncomfortable with a set rule; guidelines sure, but what happens if you get a non-violent fraudster who continually steals millions of £ and causes great damage to many peoples lives? (Say by brining a bank down?).

Darth333
07-25-2008, 11:21 PM
Quite right. Even if you could reform a cold-blooded killer, would you be doing him or her any favors by doing so?

"Congratulations, we've successfully restored your mental and emotional health. Oh by the way, you now get to live the rest of your life knowing that you brutalized innocent people."

I think the death penalty is the kindest choice for everyone involved, but that's only my opinion. Have you ever met one? I can't give much details for professional reasons but I did and yes, some (note that I didn't say everyone) people can be "recovered". It does not erase the past but some I know are know fully devoted to community voluntary work and/or who try to use what remains of their lives positively and pose no danger to the public.

I agree that this is a serious consideration. My instinctual reaction is to point out that every case of wrongful conviction I've ever heard of (yes, I am qualifying that) usually involved some sort of bias on the part of the legal system (racist judge, crooked attorney, etc). So my question becomes: should we not pursue justice because we're afraid of making a mistake? I don't know that I have an answer to that question.Sometimes it's the witnesses too and other times, new techniques that can prove innocence become available with time (can't remember the names of the cases but I'll try to look for a few of them...just not tonight...enough for the legal research today...). Still, errors can happen even when everyone acts in good faith. Note that the onus of proof in criminal cases is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond any doubt" (at least in Canada and the US).

Achilles
07-25-2008, 11:22 PM
So people that steals someone life savings should not go to prison because it is a white collar crime? I’d agree we are locking up way to many people that are not a risk to anyone but their own self, but I’m unwilling to go this far due to the fact violent crimes are not the only crimes that can destroy innocent people. Do you really believe the people behind the Enron scandal did not deserve prison sentences? Yes, that's what I am saying. That isn't to say that they should not have to face any sort of punishment at all.

Have you ever met one? No, I absolutely have not and I hope that I didn't say anything to suggest that I have.

I can't give much details for professional reasons but I did and yes, some (note that I didn't say everyone) people can be "recovered". It does not erase the past but some I know are know fully devoted to community voluntary work and/or who try to use what remains of their lives positively and pose no danger to the public.I was pretty sure that there would be cases such as these when I posted earlier. My point simply was "wouldn't we be doing them a favor by killing them?". I'm sure that view point could be argued both ways (and I'm not committed to either side).

Sometimes its the witnesses too and other times, new techniques that can prove innocence become available with time (can't remember the names of the cases but I'll try to look for a few of them...just not tonight...enough for the legal research today...). Still errors can happen even when everyone acts in good faith. Note that the proof onus in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" and not "beyond any doubt".That is true. Thank you for pointing out that witnesses are a factor also. And I am sure that people are falsely convicted even when everyone is acting in good faith, however as I pointed out every case I've heard of (which I'm sure pales in comparison to every case you've heard of) involved some part of the system not acting in good faith. Again, I am not firmly on either side of the argument.

Thanks for your post.

mimartin
07-25-2008, 11:40 PM
Sometimes its the witnesses too and other times, new techniques that can prove innocence become available with time (can't remember the names of the cases but I'll try to look for a few of them...just not tonight...enough for the legal research today...).
Found one I read about recently that involved a problem with the witness. People gripe that condemn murders spend too much time on death row, but this innocent man spent 14 years on death row before being released. Levon Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levon_Jones) - ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/capital/innocence/35122prs20080502.html)

Here is a famous one that involves both witness problems and new technology. Frank Lee Smith (http://www.truthinjustice.org/frank-smith.htm) - PBS Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/)

Corinthian
07-26-2008, 12:17 AM
Oh, no, Ctrl. My family does not produce human trash, owing no doubt to our superior genes . My family is a safe, effective means of reproduction, with no hazardous byproducts.

jonathan7
07-26-2008, 08:24 AM
Oh, no, Ctrl. My family does not produce human trash, owing no doubt to our superior genes . My family is a safe, effective means of reproduction, with no hazardous byproducts.

That's a matter of opinion ;) :xp:

Darth_Yuthura
07-26-2008, 09:47 PM
If I had to make a choice one way or the other, I would be against the death penalty. The US in the only first-world country that continues to exercise capital punishment. It may have little or no weight, but it simply is an undesirable practice that the US should should terminate.

The penalty of a life sentence is great enough that the death penalty would barely have any effect on crime rates. If a person is willing to risk life in prison, I don't see how he could be any more deterred by death. There is no confirmation that states with the death penalty have lower rates of extreme crimes than those without.

There is also the matter of executing an innocent. There have been many cases where the defendant has been executed, but later exonerated. You can't free a dead man. Instead, those murders were done by the state. It is simply hypocritical if the state won't set a proper example.

As for the burden of imprisonment vs. execution... it is very inefficient to execute. If it was cheaper and easier to execute rather than imprison... maybe there would be merit in that. For now, that's not the case. Executions are much more difficult to implement than a decade of imprisonment.

Burnseyy
08-01-2008, 12:20 PM
Let me elaborate on my opinion...

Going on what's been said, I'd hate it if I were the person in question to be sentenced to death, because the judge misjudged me, I was wrongly accused, or it was a complete accident.

But if someone is imprisoned for killing, set free, kills again, imprisoned, and this cycle goes on - is that more humane than just executing the killer? I'm not saying killing people is right, and someone said it before... I hate the 'you're no better than such a person' argument, but only because I know it's right. Maybe if they knew the punishment, there wouldn't be so many murder incidents.

Although another argument can come into it - all killers have to be somewhat mentally unstable, so is it okay to execute someone who just needs help? Is it okay to excuse someone who is seeking revenge on a murderer?
All in all, the death penalty is never going to come back in, and if it does, people will probably take the law into their own hands.

If there's a chance it can decrease crime, there's always the chance it can increase crime, and whilst I hate the idea of murderers walking about the street, and want them to just stop, we'd be hiring murderers to kill murderers.

If you ask me, that's a bit out of control.

If anything, prisons should keep people for longer but the prisons are overflowing. But that's another story.

Darth_Yuthura
08-01-2008, 12:38 PM
Although another argument can come into it - all killers have to be somewhat mentally unstable, so is it okay to execute someone who just needs help? Is it okay to excuse someone who is seeking revenge on a murderer?
All in all, the death penalty is never going to come back in, and if it does, people will probably take the law into their own hands.

If there's a chance it can decrease crime, there's always the chance it can increase crime, and whilst I hate the idea of murderers walking about the street, and want them to just stop, we'd be hiring murderers to kill murderers.

If you ask me, that's a bit out of control.

If anything, prisons should keep people for longer but the prisons are overflowing. But that's another story.


Murder is murder... it doesn't matter if it's revenge or serial killing. Unless it is done in self-defense, taking the life of one who could either be imprisoned or neutralized is murder. It doesn't matter if it's a serial murderer or an innocent who is the victim... the question is not if one deserves to die... it's whether another has to right to kill.

I'm not a supporter of legal executions, but I know that there are individuals who are too extreme a threat to simply be imprisoned. I would rather limit the number of executions to ONLY the limited number who are considered too extreme a threat to simply imprison. As for how to determine who meets to criteria is another issue.

Burnseyy
08-01-2008, 12:44 PM
Murder is murder... it doesn't matter if it's revenge or serial killing. Unless it is done in self-defense, taking the life of one who could either be imprisoned or neutralized is murder. It doesn't matter if it's a serial murderer or an innocent who is the victim... the question is not if one deserves to die... it's whether another has to right to kill.

I'm not a supporter of legal executions, but I know that there are individuals who are too extreme a threat to simply be imprisoned. I would rather limit the number of executions to ONLY the limited number who are considered too extreme a threat to simply imprison. As for how to determine who meets to criteria is another issue.

Though, you have seen how small crimes have been overexaggerated and big crimes have been underexaggerated.

The right to kill? We kill everyday. People have said we're the intelligent species, but we still kill animals. And if someone says 'animals aren't as important as people' then just go away -.-'

People have a very strange idea of what's right and wrong. Kind of like most alcohol being cheaper than water, but it still happens.

I'd want something bad to happen to murderers, but I don't know what. Prison just doesn't seem to justify it.

Web Rider
08-01-2008, 01:44 PM
I'm not a supporter of legal executions, but I know that there are individuals who are too extreme a threat to simply be imprisoned. I would rather limit the number of executions to ONLY the limited number who are considered too extreme a threat to simply imprison. As for how to determine who meets to criteria is another issue.

Alright, here's one for you, happened just a day ago.

Guy gets on bus, totally normal guy, rides bus all day, doesn't say anything to anyone, considering most people aren't chatty on a bus, this is no big deal. He ends up with some young person(19) sitting next to him, still nothing. Part way through the bus trip, he starts stabbing the guy.

Not with rage or insanity, but just robotically, 40-50 times, the people evacuate the bus and this guy goes about butchering the body. Goes so far as to behead the kid and drop the head near the door to the bus where the people have locked him in. He then returns to continue carving up the body.

Eventually the cops(in this case, mounties 'cause it's in Canada), and the guy breaks a window and tried to get out, and is quickly captured.

source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080731/Manitoba_bus_080731/20080731?hub=TopStories

Obviously, this guy isn't right in the head, but at the same time, he must be right in the end enough to distinguish right from wrong long enough to not simply murder any person who comes near him. From the way it's described, it's not insanity, he appeared to be fully aware of what he was doing, including the whole dropping the severed head in front of the people blocking the door.

Frankly, I don't know what to do with the guy. The death penalty to me seems most fitting for psychopaths and guys who do horrible things with malice and hate and all that. This guy? I dunno, if he's got some trigger in his head that can switch him from nice neighbor to murderer, then he shouldn't be around people, but I don't know if just locking him away is enough. Logically for only one murder he'll get out in 25 years or something, what's to say he won't kill then, or while in prison? Obviously it's not a predictable sort of thing.

KinchyB
08-01-2008, 03:25 PM
Web Rider - Eye for an Eye...or in this case...Head for a Head :xp:

Simple, easy, to the point...but that is just my opinion.

Ctrl Alt Del
08-01-2008, 03:46 PM
Web Rider - Eye for an Eye...or in this case...Head for a Head :xp:

Simple, easy, to the point...but that is just my opinion.

Yes, let's just apply the Code of Hammurabi because it's an easier and simplier way to answer a hard to understand and complicated situation.

KinchyB
08-01-2008, 04:04 PM
hard to understand and complicated situation.

So what's hard to understand about the situation exactly? Oh, and why is it complicated...?

EnderWiggin
08-01-2008, 04:42 PM
Web Rider - Eye for an Eye...or in this case...Head for a Head :xp:

Simple, easy, to the point...but that is just my opinion.

....Very retributivist.

_EW_

KinchyB
08-01-2008, 05:04 PM
....Very retributivist.

QFT

Ctrl Alt Del
08-01-2008, 05:13 PM
So what's hard to understand about the situation exactly? Oh, and why is it complicated...?

Why did he kill the teenager?
What was he thinking?
What happened on the bus?
He got up thinking that he would kill someone today?
If not, why did he had a knife with him on the bus?

Even the investigators don't know what prompted the murder.

Web Rider
08-01-2008, 05:13 PM
Yes, let's just apply the Code of Hammurabi because it's an easier and simplier way to answer a hard to understand and complicated situation.

Actually, the Codes of Hammurabi are very complicated and deal with everything from personal rights, self defense, inheritance, divorce, marriage and an assortment of other things. It was actually very progressive at the time. Women had some semblance of rights! It always annoys me when it all gets boiled down to "An eye for an eye."

The law didn't actually say that you could take the other guy's eye if he took yours, it said that you are free to defend yourself up to the amount that the guy did to you, and then beyond that, now you're in the wrong.

Rev7
08-01-2008, 05:15 PM
Well I think that if you are going to kill someone, you should be prepared to be killed yourself. Yes, I value human life, but some crimes should have harsher punishments. If you kill someone, and you maybe get 25 years in prison. You killed someone! I will assume that in this situation that this victim is innocent. You have taken the life of an innocent person, and you only get 25 years. I just don't think that is fair. Yes, situations vary, but I think that America should be a lot harder. There is a lot of crime. I guess that it depends on the situation though....

EnderWiggin
08-01-2008, 05:18 PM
Why did he kill the teenager?
What was he thinking?
What happened on the bus?
He got up thinking that he would kill someone today?
If not, why did he had a knife with him on the bus?

Even the investigators don't know what prompted the murder.

Ok, we can work with this ;)

Take the assumed fact that the kid was innocent at face value.

Now, postulate - he either acted in passion or it was premeditated. Why does one of these make the death penalty "wrong" but the other adjective makes the death penalty "right"? Or, do you assert that the death penalty is wrong no matter if the murder was premeditated or not? In that case, then the facts of the case are irrelevant, and you're just throwing us off ;)

He's (on the surface) guilty. So why (as in, what is your argument) is the death penalty "immoral" or "unethical" or "wrong" if that's what Canada sentences him with? (I know this happened in Canada, and they obviously don't use capital punishment, but let's change the facts in order to facilitate this discussion.)

_EW_

KinchyB
08-01-2008, 05:26 PM
Why did he kill the teenager?
What was he thinking?
What happened on the bus?
He got up thinking that he would kill someone today?
If not, why did he had a knife with him on the bus?
Even the investigators don't know what prompted the murder.

First 2 points...What does it matter what he was thinking? Is there a just reason in your opinion to kill someone sitting next to you on the bus that is sleeping?

3rd and 4th points...Sounds like it...he got on a bus and was carrying a carving knife (think this is the right one, but at any rate the witnesses said it was a large kitchen knife if I recall correct, please correct if I'm wrong). Ooo, maybe he was a traveling knife salesman...:xp: ...kidding aside...no reason to have a knife like that on a bus.

What prompted the murder is somewhat moot. He killed someone he didn't even know (assumption, yes, but pretty sure it's a safe assumption). Now if we do assume that they knew each other, what would justify one killing the other?

Now that the act is done, for the good of everyone this guy ever meets he should be put to death...sooner than later.

Edit...

Yes, situations vary, but I think that America should be a lot harder.

QFT

Rev7
08-01-2008, 05:27 PM
One question, was it premeditated? I mean Web Rider said that this guy sat on the bus all day...? Or was this guy just insane? But yes, on the surface, this guy is guilty.

EnderWiggin
08-01-2008, 05:28 PM
One question, was it premeditated? I mean Web Rider said that this guy sat on the bus all day...? Or was this guy just insane? But yes, on the surface, this guy is guilty.

I don't think we know at this point - but does it matter?

How does that affect the moral rightness of capital punishment?

The evidence of him bringing a knife on a bus is pretty conclusive to me, but I'm not aware of the inner workings of the case, obviously.

_EW_

Rev7
08-01-2008, 05:32 PM
I don't think we know at this point - but does it matter?

How does that affect the moral rightness of capital punishment?

The evidence of him bringing a knife on a bus is pretty conclusive to me, but I'm not aware of the inner workings of the case, obviously.

_EW_
Well yes. I guess that it really doesn't matter. The act was done. I don't think that the punishment should be lighter just because someone is insane or has any mental problems. They still committed the crime. What makes them (anyone with mental issues) any better than the rest of us?

EnderWiggin
08-01-2008, 05:38 PM
Well yes. I guess that it really doesn't matter. The act was done. I don't think that the punishment should be lighter just because someone is insane or has any mental problems. They still committed the crime. What makes them (anyone with mental issues) any better than the rest of us?

....It doesn't make them better, it makes them less accountable for their actions because of the legal concept of culpability. When someone is completely incapable of realizing the consequences of their actions, (or perhaps are seriously unable to resist the urge they have to commit a crime) they are not 'culpable' and no one will benefit from their punishment. Often, when someone is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect they receive help in mental facilities.

_EW_

Rev7
08-01-2008, 05:41 PM
....It doesn't make them better, it makes them less accountable for their actions because of the legal concept of culpability.

_EW_
Yes. That is what I meant, but I know where you are going. ;)

EnderWiggin
08-01-2008, 05:46 PM
Yes. That is what I meant, but I know where you are going. ;)

You'll have to present a counterargument that details why you think they should receive normal punishment if you disagree, otherwise I'm not sure how to convince you :xp:

_EW_

Rev7
08-01-2008, 05:57 PM
You'll have to present a counterargument that details why you think they should receive normal punishment if you disagree, otherwise I'm not sure how to convince you :xp:

_EW_
Well, I guess that my thoughts are simple. Like I said, it depends on the crime commited. For some crimes I think that they should get some help, while for other crimes I do not think that they should recieve help. I am not exactly sure how much this 'help' would 'help' them other than just keeping them out of trouble. If someone seriously has mental problems, there, as far as I know (I have limited knowledge in this area), they cannot be 'fixed', so to say. :giveup: I guess that I could get cut from both sides because of what I think. However, we really cannot truly get into their mind to know why they would do something like this.

But to simply answer your question, I don't think that they should be treated any different than a 'normal' person just because they have mental issues. They really are no different than the rest of us. As I just said, I know that I can get cut from both sides because of my thoughts. I guess that it is a little hard to explain. But yes Ender, educate me. :xp:

Burnseyy
08-01-2008, 06:06 PM
Well I think that if you are going to kill someone, you should be prepared to be killed yourself.


My point exactly.

mimartin
08-01-2008, 07:43 PM
Well I think that if you are going to kill someone, you should be prepared to be killed yourself.

My point exactly. Even if the person has no understanding of what they are doing and/or the ramification of what they are doing?

However, we really cannot truly get into their mind to know why they would do something like this. I can’t either, but that is the reason there are people that are in the mental health profession and that is why there are hearings where evidence is presented to decide if the person is mental competed to stand trial. Yes, people sometimes plead insanity that are not insane, but there is a procedure in place to deal with that.

But to simply answer your question, I don't think that they should be treated any different than a 'normal' person just because they have mental issues. What if it was a four year old picking up a loaded weapon and shooting his/her father? Do you believe that child should also be punished just as any other normal person? The reason we don’t is because a four year old does not have the mental ability to understand what they have done. The same can be said of some adults that have mental disabilities. It is up to the courts to decide if the person can even stand trial and we cannot execute anyone without a trial, can we? They really are no different than the rest of us. Really? Is someone that has the mental capacity of a six-year old the same as a normal forty year old?

Burnseyy
08-01-2008, 07:53 PM
Even if the person has no understanding of what they are doing and/or the ramification of what they are doing?



I mentioned that earlier. It seems rather cruel executing someone who has no understanding of what they've just done. I think those people should just be restrained or something.

Though I highly doubt there's that many murderers in the world with the same excuse.
Some people are quite knowledgable of what they've done, and that's quite scary.

Web Rider
08-01-2008, 07:56 PM
Really? Is someone that has the mental capacity of a six-year old the same as a normal forty year old?

A lot of 6-year-olds are not morons. A good chunk of kids these days understand right and wrong, they know when they've broken the rules, and parents who teach their kids about guns and say "these are not for playing with" and make their kids understand, are not as likly to have an accident as a parent who has a gun and just keeps it "hidden".

Sure, a 6-year-old can't understand the greater complications of the world, but that does not mean a 6-year-old is stupid.

mimartin
08-01-2008, 08:03 PM
Sure, a 6-year-old can't understand the greater complications of the world, but that does not mean a 6-year-old is stupid. And your point? I never said they were morans. I was saying the system would not put one to death. Are you saying the isn't a difference in the mental capacity of a 6-year-old and a normal 40-year-old? Maybe we should allow 6-year-olds to drive. :rolleyes:

EnderWiggin
08-01-2008, 09:18 PM
But yes Ender, educate me. :xp:

I'm not trying to be annoying, just trying to get a lively discussion going :)
Well, I guess that my thoughts are simple. Like I said, it depends on the crime commited. For some crimes I think that they should get some help, while for other crimes I do not think that they should recieve help.

Why should someone so obviously in need of help not receive it? Are you saying if the crimes are not severe, they should receive punishment? or are you saying that if the crimes are severe, that makes them more "deserving" of life in prison?

I am not exactly sure how much this 'help' would 'help' them other than just keeping them out of trouble. If someone seriously has mental problems, there, as far as I know (I have limited knowledge in this area), they cannot be 'fixed', so to say. :giveup: I guess that I could get cut from both sides because of what I think. However, we really cannot truly get into their mind to know why they would do something like this.

The mental illness that a person has is determined by the DSM-IV (type it into google). There are many, many things that are discussed in this manuscript. Many of the illnesses are managable with the right perscription medications or psychological treatments. However, you are right that for the most part they are incurable. By getting them professional help, it's possible for them to live relatively normal lives in some cases.


But to simply answer your question, I don't think that they should be treated any different than a 'normal' person just because they have mental issues. They really are no different than the rest of us. As I just said, I know that I can get cut from both sides because of my thoughts. I guess that it is a little hard to explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability

That's just it - they have to be treated than a 'normal' person because they are extremely different than us. They are physically unable to understand what they've done wrong.

You can't get mad at an amputee when he can't shake your hand.

It sounds to me like you've not really had much interaction with someone who falls under the specifications of the DSM. True?

I was saying the system would not put one to death. Are you saying the isn't a difference in the mental capacity of a 6-year-old and a normal 40-year-old? Maybe we should allow 6-year-olds to drive. :rolleyes:

And luckily, at this point the legislation on the death penality rules it illegal to give minors or those mentally ill the death sentence. (In the USA, of course).

_EW_

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 05:58 AM
Rev7: Look at the crime statistics of countries when they had the death penalty, then after they abolished it. The preventive effect seem to be around zero.
And while you think an eye for an eye is fair, to me it is extremely unfair to ruin two lives instead of one (the victims).

Achilles: I'm of a rather diferent oppinion of what should be punished how. "White collar" crime should be punished harshly because it is often a "well informed choice". For instance, I make the decicion to break safety standards on my factory, I know I can get caught, I know what the punishment is, yet I do it because of things like: I want to get promoted and I could use the cash. Now, if it was likely that I would get caught, and the punishment was harsh, I probably wouldn't do it (risks outweights the benefits).
Now, I don't think the woman who stabs her cheating husband in anger, or the druggie stealing for the next fix will be detered by the severity of the punishment simply because they aren't thinking about the consequences. And when the punishment dosen't deter others, then it should be focused on geting the criminal "back to normal", rather than making the criminal suffer.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 01:29 PM
Rev7: Look at the crime statistics of countries when they had the death penalty, then after they abolished it. The preventive effect seem to be around zero.

Yeah, there are no conclusive statistics either way at this point.



And while you think an eye for an eye is fair, to me it is extremely unfair to ruin two lives instead of one (the victims).


Wait, by killing the person who killed someone else we're ruining another life?

Don't you think that his life was ruined either way the moment he pulled the trigger?

_EW_

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 02:52 PM
Don't you think that his life was ruined either way the moment he pulled the trigger?

Not neccesarly, while some people don't manage to, several people "get over it", some try to live a normal life, others are driven by a need to repent. Anyway, I still think it better that those are given a chance to put their lives together once they aren't considered a threat, rather than rob them of that chance.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 02:58 PM
several people "get over it", some try to live a normal life, others are driven by a need to repent.

They "get over it"? Don't you think that's something that they shouldn't have the opportunity? They should ask God for forgiveness - but they should never "get over it."

And how does one live a normal life after 30 or so years in prison?

_EW_

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 03:15 PM
Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to "get over it"?

And how does one live a normal life after 30 or so years in prison?

By not spending so long in prisson in the first place? If someone is ever to be considered safe enough to return to society, they would probably be regarded as safe far sooner.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 03:26 PM
Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to "get over it"?

He/she killed another human being. They should pretty much feel guilty for the rest of their life.



By not spending so long in prisson in the first place? If someone is ever to be considered safe enough to return to society, they would probably be regarded as safe far sooner.

25 to life. Minimum sentences.

_EW_

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 03:34 PM
He/she killed another human being. They should pretty much feel guilty for the rest of their life.

Sure, and they most likely will, it dosen't prevent them from having a good life afterwards.

25 to life. Minimum sentences.

Well, a few posts up I argued for focusing on the helping rather than punishing such criminals, which would lead to shorter sentences for most, not that I think it will ever happen.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 03:37 PM
Sure, and they most likely will, it dosen't prevent them from having a good life afterwards.



I would assert that one cannot have a good life if they are wracked by guilt every waking moment.


Well, a few posts up I argued for focusing on the helping rather than punishing such criminals, which would lead to shorter sentences for most, not that I think it will ever happen.

Obviously you're not a proponent of the deontological viewpoint? That they deserve the punishment?

_EW_

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 03:44 PM
I would assert that one cannot have a good life if they are wracked by guilt every waking moment.

And I'd agree if that where the case, many can "get over" their actions while still feeling guilty. A bit like I can "get over" the death of my great granny, yet I still miss her.

Obviously you're not a proponent of the deontological viewpoint? That they deserve the punishment?

Bingo:D
Feel free to convince me otherwise though.

Darth_Yuthura
08-02-2008, 03:57 PM
I would assert that one cannot have a good life if they are wracked by guilt every waking moment.

Obviously you're not a proponent of the deontological viewpoint? That they deserve the punishment?

_EW_

My stand on the death sentence is not to punish the murderer... it's to ensure they don't kill again. It also has to provide a preventive measure to keep future murders from taking place.

I wouldn't mind it if certain people evade punishment, but if it leads to future crimes, the punishment must be enforced. The main reason why non-threatening individuals MUST be punished is to ensure others to not believe they could escape the consequences. If a murderer is murdered... the question is not if he deserved to die... if the one who murdered him had the right to do it.

Imprisonment is not for punishment... it's for prevention of future crimes.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 04:37 PM
My stand on the death sentence is not to punish the murderer... it's to ensure they don't kill again. It also has to provide a preventive measure to keep future murders from taking place.

So it's all about the utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)? The good for society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill)?


If a murderer is murdered... the question is not if he deserved to die... if the one who murdered him had the right to do it.

Are you saying the state is immoral for doing so? Or moral for doing so?


Imprisonment is not for punishment... it's for prevention of future crimes.

Depends on your point of view, friend ;) Deontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology) says otherwise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
08-02-2008, 04:55 PM
So it's all about the utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)? The good for society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill)?


Are you saying the state is immoral for doing so? Or moral for doing so?



Depends on your point of view, friend ;) Deontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology) says otherwise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)

_EW_

Revenge is not the jedi way and it should not be our way. There is nothing gained by executing another... the dead are still gone. The best thing is to limit what is lost and try to prevent it in the future. I'm not siding one way or another on the death sentence. I'm just stating the reasons why to keep it or abolish it.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 04:59 PM
Revenge is not the jedi way and it should not be our way.
You can't use Jedi as an argument ;)
And it's not vengeance - it's retribution. There's a difference. The state enforces just deserts.

I'm not siding one way or another on the death sentence.
I didn't either, did I?

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
08-02-2008, 05:26 PM
You can't use Jedi as an argument ;)
And it's not vengeance - it's retribution. There's a difference. The state enforces just deserts.


Retribution can't be provided for a murder. Can anyone give life back to a victim? The only thing the state can do is act to limit the damage or keep future damage from taking place. Be reasonable... retribution can't apply to something that is irreplacible.

Rev7
08-02-2008, 05:48 PM
Even if the person has no understanding of what they are doing and/or the ramification of what they are doing?
Well you see, I think that they should still be punished. We see this with little kids all of the time. If a very young child hits someone they get punished to know that is right from wrong, and to know that what they did was wrong. I think that the same thing should be used for people that don't know what they are doing just maybe not as severly. I guess that it depends on what age they are, and what the situation was.

<EDIT>
Just look at the rest of my post. :) I feel like I am all over the place! I guess that I am a little bit split, but I am learning a lot from this topic. ;)
</EDIT>
I canít either, but that is the reason there are people that are in the mental health profession and that is why there are hearings where evidence is presented to decide if the person is mental competed to stand trial. Yes, people sometimes plead insanity that are not insane, but there is a procedure in place to deal with that.
Yes.
What if it was a four year old picking up a loaded weapon and shooting his/her father?
I guess this is irrelevent, but who in the world would leave a loaded weapon accesable to a child?
Do you believe that child should also be punished just as any other normal person?
No, I don't think that he/she should be treated as any 'normal' person. I know that this is exactly what you wanted me to say, and I said it. :)
The reason we donít is because a four year old does not have the mental ability to understand what they have done. The same can be said of some adults that have mental disabilities. It is up to the courts to decide if the person can even stand trial and we cannot execute anyone without a trial, can we? Really? Is someone that has the mental capacity of a six-year old the same as a normal forty year old?
However, you can teach a 4 year old what is right and wrong. Someone that has the capacity of a six-year old and is a legal adult is the same as everyone else, in a certain point of view. I'm sure that one point in their life they have been told that they are no different than anyone else. If someone has the capacity of a six-year old and is an adult should have some sort of help. That, I think, would help prevent something bad from happening in the first place. They need, and deserve guidence.

I know that I am flip-flopping around here. I am sorry for that, but as I have said in my earlier post(s) it all depends on the situation. We are talking about the whether or not the death sentance is the Best/Worse alternative, not people that suffer from mental problems commiting crimes and/or how they should be punished, no?
I'm not trying to be annoying, just trying to get a lively discussion going :)
Oh, I know that. I wasn't calling you annoying, and you aren't being annoying at all Ender. ;) I was basically wanting you to educate me more on the subject.

Why should someone so obviously in need of help not receive it? Are you saying if the crimes are not severe, they should receive punishment? or are you saying that if the crimes are severe, that makes them more "deserving" of life in prison?
Someone in need of help most definately should recieve it. And who exactly are you refering to commiting the crime. If someone metally impared commits a "not severe" crime, they should be punished in some way to let them know that what they did was wrong. Would you say that murder should not be treated the same as someone that has shoplifted? IMO, no they should not be treated the same. I believe that it depends on the severity of the crime. I think that a reasonable punishment for someone that say, shoplifted could be community service. Then if the crime is committed again, the punishment should be more severe.

The mental illness that a person has is determined by the DSM-IV (type it into google). There are many, many things that are discussed in this manuscript. Many of the illnesses are managable with the right perscription medications or psychological treatments. However, you are right that for the most part they are incurable. By getting them professional help, it's possible for them to live relatively normal lives in some cases.
I agree. I think that a person that has a mental illness deserves (professional) help so that they can live somewhat of a 'normal-life'. I believe that they deserve this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability

That's just it - they have to be treated than a 'normal' person because they are extremely different than us. They are physically unable to understand what they've done wrong.
Sometimes, yes. :)
It sounds to me like you've not really had much interaction with someone who falls under the specifications of the DSM. True?
Not much, but I have had interactions with some that do fall under the secifacations of DSM. In my interactions with them, it certainly seems that many of them know the basic right from wrong. They have said sorry when they know when they have done something wrong. But, these of just some of my experiances. ;)
And luckily, at this point the legislation on the death penality rules it illegal to give minors or those mentally ill the death sentence. (In the USA, of course).
Yes, I agree.

Rev7: Look at the crime statistics of countries when they had the death penalty, then after they abolished it. The preventive effect seem to be around zero.
And while you think an eye for an eye is fair, to me it is extremely unfair to ruin two lives instead of one (the victims).

Well, you see the person that committed murder had already ruined his/her life, IMO. They made their choice to kill that person. ;) Oh, and I really don't think that an eye for an eye is all that fair. ;)
Imprisonment is not for punishment... it's for prevention of future crimes.
Really? Many crimes are still committed in prison. ;) I have no link, but I have heard that in Japan people rarely commit crimes because of how they were treated in prision, if they committed a crime of course. They were punished, to what extent, I really have no idea. That is prevention and punishment. This is just what I have been told. ;)

One form of punishment would be to take away (some) luxuries such as television, interaction, ect. This is used with children, so why could it not be implemented in the prison system, more than it already is?

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 06:53 PM
EW:
So it's all about the utility? The good for society?


I'd say for the good of the people, but essentially yes.

Depends on your point of view, friend Deontology says otherwise.

Indeed it does, though I dislike their whole "holier than thou" atitude. Do what works, not what makes you feel good is my view, which isn't exactly compatible with theirs.

R7:
Well, you see the person that committed murder had already ruined his/her life, IMO. They made their choice to kill that person.

Errr, so because the criminals life is ruined by guilt, it is okay for us to wreck it because it's allready ruined?
First off, many manage to live decent lives afterwards when given the chance.
Second, what good does it do to wreck the criminals life?

Rev7
08-02-2008, 06:57 PM
R7:
Errr, so because the criminals life is ruined by guilt, it is okay for us to wreck it because it's allready ruined?
First off, many manage to live decent lives afterwards when given the chance.
Second, what good does it do to wreck the criminals life?
What gave this person the right to wreck the life of the person that he/she killed?

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 07:00 PM
No one, but why wreck his?

Rev7
08-02-2008, 07:04 PM
No one, but why wreck his?
I understand where you are going with this, but do you not think that murder is unpunishable?

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 07:06 PM
Err what? Please elaborate.

Rev7
08-02-2008, 07:09 PM
Do you think that murder is unpunishable?

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 07:17 PM
Err, not sure what you mean, but I'll give it a shot.
It obviously is punishable, people are punished for it every day. Should it be puinshable? Yes, but to see how I think it should be done, read my earlier posts.

I have no link, but I have heard that in Japan people rarely commit crimes because of how they were treated in prision, if they committed a crime of course. They were punished, to what extent, I really have no idea. That is prevention and punishment. This is just what I have been told.

Japan is a special case, their culture, including their concept of honor makes them "naturally" lawfull. As for their legal system, it operates on the concept of you're guilty, not until proven innocent, just guilty.

Relenzo2
08-02-2008, 07:29 PM
And I'd agree if that where the case, many can "get over" their actions while still feeling guilty. A bit like I can "get over" the death of my great granny, yet I still miss her.





That's different & normal. You did not killi your great granny.


...Did you?

Well you see, I think that they should still be punished. We see this with little kids all of the time. If a very young child hits someone they get punished to know that is right from wrong, and to know that what they did was wrong. I think that the same thing should be used for people that don't know what they are doing just maybe not as severly. I guess that it depends on what age they are, and what the situation was.


If someone is dead... I think it's safe to say it doesn't matter whether they learned their lesson.

RyuuKage
08-02-2008, 07:41 PM
"right to life" only goes so far. when you violate the rights of others, say, by taking their life, you knowingly forfeit your own rights.

in either case, scenarios 1 and 2: kill the bastard.

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 07:42 PM
That's different & normal.

How do you know being able to move on is not normal for murderers?

You did not killi your great granny.

No, but the point was I can miss her without doing it all the time.

Edit: Ryuu: what good does killing the guy do?

Anyway, it's getting late around here, and I have a 16 hour drive tomorow, so keep clucking without me.

RyuuKage
08-02-2008, 07:55 PM
Edit: Ryuu: what good does killing the guy do?

eliminating the possibility (or rather, likelihood, as statistical probability shows) of repeat offense. it has little to do with punishing the hypothesized murderer/rapist (though that is part of it), but rather preventing him from causing further harm and suffering to others. Incarceration might do that, but execution always does.

of course, the "death sentence" in the United States is more of a life sentence in prison, as people are rarely executed and granted endless appeals (hence the "high cost" of death row inmates as opposed to regular ones). The odds of them getting away on a technicality or the whims of activist judges are good, and that makes even execution an ineffective deterrent since potential criminals know that about the worst that'll happen to them in most cases is some prison time.

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 08:10 PM
eliminating the possibility (or rather, likelihood, as statistical probability shows) of repeat offense. it has little to do with punishing the hypothesized murderer/rapist (though that is part of it), but rather preventing him from causing further harm and suffering to others. Incarceration might do that, but execution always does.

Yet wouldn't it be better to use the criminals to try and find "treatment" that actually works and get those nasty statistics down ?

The odds of them getting away on a technicality or the whims of activist judges are good, and that makes even execution an ineffective deterrent since potential criminals know that about the worst that'll happen to them in most cases is some prison time.

Ah, so that's why abolishing the death penalty haven't had any effect on the crimerates:D

Rev7
08-02-2008, 08:31 PM
Err, not sure what you mean, but I'll give it a shot.
It obviously is punishable, people are punished for it every day. Should it be puinshable? Yes, but to see how I think it should be done, read my earlier posts.

Oh, sorry. I guess that I should have rephrased what I asked. But your shot was on target. Thanks.

I must say that your question is a little hard to answer as well. Why should we kill the murderer. It is a little hard to answer because it is so easy to say the wrong thing. I believe that everyone deserves a second chance, but as I said if you take the life (or are willing to take the life) of someone else you really should be able to give up your life, as I said before. I guess that is the most that I could break it down. For now, at least.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 08:46 PM
I missed a couple hours, so here goes:

Well you see, I think that they should still be punished. We see this with little kids all of the time. If a very young child hits someone they get punished to know that is right from wrong, and to know that what they did was wrong. I think that the same thing should be used for people that don't know what they are doing just maybe not as severly. I guess that it depends on what age they are, and what the situation was.


Yet, children have the option of learning from that punishment and not doing it in the future. Those who are mentally ill are unable to do so.



I guess this is irrelevent, but who in the world would leave a loaded weapon accesable to a child?
It happens all the time, unfortunately.

No, I don't think that he/she should be treated as any 'normal' person. I know that this is exactly what you wanted me to say, and I said it. :)


That seems a bit heartless, though.. The kid is only 4 - his brain isn't even close to being fully developed yet. He can't realize the consequences of his actions - especially if it's his first contact with a firearm.

However, you can teach a 4 year old what is right and wrong. Someone that has the capacity of a six-year old and is a legal adult is the same as everyone else, in a certain point of view. I'm sure that one point in their life they have been told that they are no different than anyone else. If someone has the capacity of a six-year old and is an adult should have some sort of help. That, I think, would help prevent something bad from happening in the first place. They need, and deserve guidence.

Just because everyone who falls under the DSM IV 'should' have help (in terms of drugs, treatments, or aides) doesn't mean they always do. Sometimes, for a person to be recognized as needing help, they need to do something bad and be found.

I know that I am flip-flopping around here. I am sorry for that, but as I have said in my earlier post(s) it all depends on the situation. We are talking about the whether or not the death sentance is the Best/Worse alternative, not people that suffer from mental problems commiting crimes and/or how they should be punished, no?

It seems we're talking about both, however, you're right.

Oh, I know that. I wasn't calling you annoying, and you aren't being annoying at all Ender. ;) I was basically wanting you to educate me more on the subject.
:lol: This is a first :xp:
Well, I'm trying, nonetheless.


Someone in need of help most definately should recieve it. And who exactly are you refering to commiting the crime. If someone metally impared commits a "not severe" crime, they should be punished in some way to let them know that what they did was wrong.
What purpose would it serve? How would it be 'just'?

Would you say that murder should not be treated the same as someone that has shoplifted? IMO, no they should not be treated the same. I believe that it depends on the severity of the crime. I think that a reasonable punishment for someone that say, shoplifted could be community service. Then if the crime is committed again, the punishment should be more severe.

I was asking the first question, which I responded to your answer above. I agree with this, of course.


I agree. I think that a person that has a mental illness deserves (professional) help so that they can live somewhat of a 'normal-life'. I believe that they deserve this.

Then it seems we agree :D


Not much, but I have had interactions with some that do fall under the secifacations of DSM. In my interactions with them, it certainly seems that many of them know the basic right from wrong. They have said sorry when they know when they have done something wrong. But, these of just some of my experiances. ;)

I was referring to those of them who could actually plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in a court of law. It seems the ones that you're referring to would in fact not be able to use the defense for the same reasonings you're using. They are able to tell right from wrong.

I'm talking about those who cannot tell, and could use the defense.


Well, you see the person that committed murder had already ruined his/her life, IMO. They made their choice to kill that person. ;) Oh, and I really don't think that an eye for an eye is all that fair. ;)

Is it just?

EW:
I'd say for the good of the people, but essentially yes.
Isn't society just "people as a whole"?

Indeed it does, though I dislike their whole "holier than thou" atitude. Do what works, not what makes you feel good is my view, which isn't exactly compatible with theirs.

Doing what makes you feel good is Egoism. See: Ayn Rand. Doing what works is Utilitarian, yes. Kantians, on the other hand, would say "do the actions that are inherently right in themselves." They care about what the actions are, not what you feel about them.


Errr, so because the criminals life is ruined by guilt, it is okay for us to wreck it because it's allready ruined?


We're not wrecking it. It's already in a state of wreckage.

First off, many manage to live decent lives afterwards when given the chance.
Do they deserve the chance?

Second, what good does it do to wreck the criminals life?
Justice?
eliminating the possibility (or rather, likelihood, as statistical probability shows) of repeat offense. it has little to do with punishing the hypothesized murderer/rapist (though that is part of it), but rather preventing him from causing further harm and suffering to others. Incarceration might do that, but execution always does.

So justice has no bearing on punishment? It's all about the utilitarian standpoint on deterrence?

of course, the "death sentence" in the United States is more of a life sentence in prison, as people are rarely executed and granted endless appeals (hence the "high cost" of death row inmates as opposed to regular ones). The odds of them getting away on a technicality or the whims of activist judges are good, and that makes even execution an ineffective deterrent since potential criminals know that about the worst that'll happen to them in most cases is some prison time.Irrelevant. This has to do with the application, not the morality, of capital punishment.

Yet wouldn't it be better to use the criminals to try and find "treatment" that actually works and get those nasty statistics down ?

So maybe there's a better option out there somewhere. For now, we're stuck arguing the morality of the death penalty :xp:



Ah, so that's why abolishing the death penalty haven't had any effect on the crimerates:D

....Maybe that affects the Utilitarian views here, but the deontological arguments still hold.

_EW_

Rev7
08-03-2008, 01:02 AM
I have thought about this all evening. It has been one of the main things that I have been thinking about, and it seems that my opinion on the matter has somewhat changed. That, and I really don't feel like quoting and responding to Ender's post when I am just going to say the same thing. :xp: Those that have mental illnesses are somewhat different than a "normal" person. Mentally, of course, otherwise I don't think that they are any different than 'us'. Sometimes those with mental illnesses cannot be responsible for a lot of what they do. Not always can they judge what is right from wrong, and all that accompanies that. Here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/executc.htm) are some interesting facts and other stuff about executions of the mentally impaired. Here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/execute.htm) is a list of all viewpoints on the Death Penalty. My opinion has not only changed with the mentally impaired, but overall on the death penalty. I have read....some stuff...and my opinion on the matter has changed. ;)

Thanks

*the links aren't that recent, but I still think that it helps the discussion.*

EnderWiggin
08-03-2008, 01:11 AM
I have thought about this all evening.
That's really cool to hear, and I think it's what this forum is all about. :)

My opinion has not only changed with the mentally impaired, but overall on the death penalty. I have read....some stuff...and my opinion on the matter has changed. ;)
Just to make it clear, what is your current opinion on the death penalty as a whole?

_EW_

Rev7
08-03-2008, 01:41 AM
That's really cool to hear, and I think it's what this forum is all about. :)
Yeah, I seriously think about most of the threads in Kavar's. Threads that make you do that, often address a serious question and almost makes you think about it all day long. :D
Just to make it clear, what is your current opinion on the death penalty as a whole?

_EW_
Dispite what many 'believe' in, I knew that there were scriptures about execution in the Bible. I just didn't know where, so I looked them up. I know that I jumped to conclusions without research. Matthew 5:38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-39;&version=31;), Matthew 5:43-45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-45;&version=31;), John 8:1-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:1-11;&version=31;) are several.

The next is a non-"religious" (I only say that because I am not a "religious" person ;)) view, I guess. Just thinking about it, what would I want in a situation like that? Would I want a second chance? Yes, I would want a second chance. Putting yourself in another's shoes helps me quite often. I believe that many deserve a chance at redemption. However, I do not believe that they should go unpunished. Essentially, those are the reasons why. I have really been thinking about it. Sometimes thinking really helps. :xp:

EnderWiggin
08-03-2008, 01:59 AM
Yeah, I seriously think about most of the threads in Kavar's. Threads that make you do that, often address a serious question and almost makes you think about it all day long. :D

Dispite what many 'believe' in, I knew that there were scriptures about execution in the Bible. I just didn't know where, so I looked them up. I know that I jumped to conclusions without research. Matthew 5:38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-39;&version=31;), Matthew 5:43-45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-45;&version=31;), John 8:1-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:1-11;&version=31;) are several.

The next is a non-"religious" (I only say that because I am not a "religious" person ;)) view, I guess. Just thinking about it, what would I want in a situation like that? Would I want a second chance? Yes, I would want a second chance. Putting yourself in another's shoes helps me quite often. I believe that many deserve a chance at redemption. However, I do not believe that they should go unpunished. Essentially, those are the reasons why. I have really been thinking about it. Sometimes thinking really helps. :xp:

Very nice post, Rev7. :)

It's good that you went to go research it yourself. That's a great habit to get into.

Matthew 7:1 is another good one (and one of the ones I can recite, in fact):
"Do not judge, lest you be judged."

_EW_

Rev7
08-03-2008, 02:01 AM
Very nice post, Rev7. :)

Matthew 7:1 is another good one (and one of the ones I can recite, in fact):
"Do not judge, lest you be judged."

_EW_
I'm sure that there are others as well....and thank you.

Just looking back at it a little bit, and I really jumped to conclusions. I'm glad that I took that time to think about it and actually do the research. Thanks for your time Ender. :)

mur'phon
08-03-2008, 06:59 PM
Isn't society just "people as a whole"?

Yup, though it apears a lot of people think of it as the state, just wanted to clarify.

Doing what makes you feel good is Egoism. See: Ayn Rand. Doing what works is Utilitarian, yes. Kantians, on the other hand, would say "do the actions that are inherently right in themselves." They care about what the actions are, not what you feel about them.


I know, sorry for oversimplifying.

We're not wrecking it. It's already in a state of wreckage.

In some cases, yes, in others, no. Trashing everyone because of those who are "wrecked" goes against the idea of breaking something allready broken, while trashing only those truly wrecked seems to go against your idea of justice.

Do they deserve the chance?

In my mind, yes.

Justice?

Is not something I'm terribly worried about, feel free to show me why I should be. As an aside, would you mind saying where you stand philosophically? Would make it easier for me to understand what you put into things like justice.

...Maybe that affects the Utilitarian views here, but the deontological arguments still hold.

Sure, but that wasn't directed at them. Anyway pherhaps a Deontology vs Utilitarian could be intersting? It seems like that is where we get stuck.

EnderWiggin
08-03-2008, 07:12 PM
Sure, but that wasn't directed at them. Anyway pherhaps a Deontology vs Utilitarian could be intersting? It seems like that is where we get stuck.
If you make the thread, I'll post in it.

As for where I stand? I don't know if it can be classified into one category. In this thread, I'm just using the viewpoints of Kant to argue back and forth.

I'm against the death penalty, however.

_EW_

El Sitherino
08-03-2008, 07:24 PM
I think people have the wrong perspective on this argument, personally. I don't see execution as justice via revenge, but rather it's an act of self-preservation. I personally see state ordered execution as something that should be reserved after heavy debate and review of realistic possibiities.


Anyway, at this point in time we do not currently have the means to actively pursue full rehabilitation efforts and tests. While it sounds cruel, it is more effective and beneficial to both parties to continue with State ordered execution. However should needless arrests for petty drug charges and the like cease, then we may look at a higher capability to pursue even more humane efforts in self-preservation.

EnderWiggin
08-04-2008, 12:48 PM
Anyway, at this point in time we do not currently have the means to actively pursue full rehabilitation efforts and tests. While it sounds cruel, it is more effective and beneficial to both parties to continue with State ordered execution. However should needless arrests for petty drug charges and the like cease, then we may look at a higher capability to pursue even more humane efforts in self-preservation.

OK, since you have asserted that the Death Penalty is in fact moral, let's go with that assumption. Now we're talking about whether or not it's effective or practical to use it in present day society.

My question is - what's "beneficial" about the death penalty? Especially "to both parties"? You think it's the best option - why is it better than life imprisonment?

_EW_

El Sitherino
08-04-2008, 01:11 PM
OK, since you have asserted that the Death Penalty is in fact moral, let's go with that assumption. Now we're talking about whether or not it's effective or practical to use it in present day society.

My question is - what's "beneficial" about the death penalty? Especially "to both parties"? You think it's the best option - why is it better than life imprisonment?

_EW_

Alright, we'll start with first point.
The death penalty does in fact prevent re-occurance of the crime, by state ordered prisoner. Now, it's entirely possible that a first and single occurance murderer could be rehabilitated, and I support this fully. I actually strongly believe in treating the problem with as little negative recourse as possible. However I also understand and must accept that there are limitations. Some of these can be financial, some of them simply based on what is truely possible to happen.

Currently our nation is in so much debt that we can't afford to focus on saving a mass-murderer/repeat killer, not to mention many of these people take up violent action in prison. While a lot can and is curbed by prisons that are starting up rehabilitation efforts (gardens, rebuilding cars for police auction, etc.), most of that does not include many eligible for the death penalty as these are people that have and will likely kill again. Many are those who within their first ten minutes in prison, kill another inmate.

So now not only are we confronted with the safety of society, but the safety of those we're claiming we want to save by abolishing the state ordered execution. A large majority of prisoners are in fact rather innocent parties serving time for petty drug charges, young adults that were caught with an ounce of pot and a pipe or something, but they're getting stabbed, beaten, and raped by truely violent offenders. Not only that, but with everyone knowing about that "You know what they do in prison, right?" thing, everyone goes in trying to make sure they aren't the ones playing the part of the puppet in Prisonyard Pals. This means more violence and more generalized aggression that has to be managed.

All of this means time and energy, time and energy people are not willing to invest. And this is already occuring, take out the death penalty and we're looking at an ever expanded issue. While many might not think 5 or 10 extra prisoners per rotation (season guards and particular inmates are held at any one penitentiary), that's anywhere from $5,000 each to $50,000 each. The change in this can be caused by medical necessities (many serial killers infact end up needing quite an interesting bit of medical attention), personal care as dictated by state, county, and individual prison, and general upkeep for the area these prisoners are held in.

So to round off what I was discussing, I would love to be able to rehabilitate each prisoner and bring back a productive member of society. However unfortunately at this time mankind as a whole is not ready to make such a humanitarian effort. There are others that we need to focus salvation on, as they will likely be our future, and in effect the possible future of these prisoners. At this time our finances will be better placed into saving those in the African continent, eastern Europe, the former Soviet States, and Vietnam/Thailand/Laos/Etc.
And not to mention our own society at large.



Not to mention prisoners now that are placed through a rehab program and let back out into the world are not given the necessary means to make their rehabilitation work, therefore they are essentially forced back into a life of crime. We'll need to fix that before we can even think of rehabilitating those who earn a State ordered execution.

I just view it as a responsibility. With our most violent of criminals being killed (by the state) we're preventing comparatively innocent prisoners from being killed, other citizens from being killed, and we're saving a bit that can be spent on other humanitarian efforts. Although we all know it's going into BS warfare.

EnderWiggin
08-04-2008, 01:25 PM
Alright, we'll start with first point.
The death penalty does in fact prevent re-occurance of the crime, by state ordered prisoner. Now, it's entirely possible that a first and single occurance murderer could be rehabilitated, and I support this fully. I actually strongly believe in treating the problem with as little negative recourse as possible. However I also understand and must accept that there are limitations. Some of these can be financial, some of them simply based on what is truely possible to happen.

Ok, that all sounds good.

Currently our nation is in so much debt that we can't afford to focus on saving a mass-murderer/repeat killer, not to mention many of these people take up violent action in prison. While a lot can and is curbed by prisons that are starting up rehabilitation efforts (gardens, rebuilding cars for police auction, etc.), most of that does not include many eligible for the death penalty as these are people that have and will likely kill again. Many are those who within their first ten minutes in prison, kill another inmate.

Ok, this sounds good too. Although, it might be feasible to argue that they kill another inmate in order to earn respect and not be raped every day. But that's irrelevant, so let's continue.

So now not only are we confronted with the safety of society, but the safety of those we're claiming we want to save by abolishing the state ordered execution. A large majority of prisoners are in fact rather innocent parties serving time for petty drug charges, young adults that were caught with an ounce of pot and a pipe or something, but they're getting stabbed, beaten, and raped by truely violent offenders. Not only that, but with everyone knowing about that "You know what they do in prison, right?" thing, everyone goes in trying to make sure they aren't the ones playing the part of the puppet in Prisonyard Pals.
Oh, you seem to have made this point too. Oops. :)

All of this means time and energy, time and energy people are not willing to invest. And this is already occuring, take out the death penalty and we're looking at an ever expanded issue. While many might not think 5 or 10 extra prisoners per rotation (season guards and particular inmates are held at any one penitentiary), that's anywhere from $5,000 each to $50,000 each. The change in this can be caused by medical necessities (many serial killers infact end up needing quite an interesting bit of medical attention), personal care as dictated by state, county, and individual prison, and general upkeep for the area these prisoners are held in.

What about the cost for the numerous appeals that each inmate uses? This, plus the cost it takes to imprison them on 'death row' means more per prisoner.

So to round off what I was discussing, I would love to be able to rehabilitate each prisoner and bring back a productive member of society. However unfortunately at this time mankind as a whole is not ready to make such a humanitarian effort. There are others that we need to focus salvation on, as they will likely be our future, and in effect the possible future of these prisoners. At this time our finances will be better placed into saving those in the African continent, eastern Europe, the former Soviet States, and Vietnam/Thailand/Laos/Etc.
And not to mention our own society at large.


A very compelling point.



I just view it as a responsibility. With our most violent of criminals being killed (by the state) we're preventing comparatively innocent prisoners from being killed, other citizens from being killed, and we're saving a bit that can be spent on other humanitarian efforts. Although we all know it's going into BS warfare.

It's really unfortunate that we can recognize a problem and are unable to correct it.


_EW_

Totenkopf
08-04-2008, 02:09 PM
Hey, don't forget "swiss bank accounts" Sithy.

El Sitherino
08-04-2008, 02:18 PM
What about the cost for the numerous appeals that each inmate uses? This, plus the cost it takes to imprison them on 'death row' means more per prisoner.

Actually, this brings the most interesting scenario. Most prison systems actually have the prisoners use money they earn ($0.40 - $0.50 per hour from doing yard chores, the rehab centers (gardens give produce for food, can be sold or used by the prison to save money on food), and random chores to provide them with their appeals attorney. Often state assisted when a serious investigation takes place, as they may actually be getting out.

But still, this is for people who are able and display capability of reform. After all, anyone that can play the part half-assedly can be taught to instictively act in a more civilized manner. I won't get too much into the scenario by scenario basis of mental disability vs. conscious choice, but I can tell you everyone is capable of recognizing what they do, it's the ability to react upon this that we must judge and find value in.

mimartin
08-04-2008, 02:23 PM
Sorry for the delay, but I had a fairly busy weekend.
Well you see, I think that they should still be punished. Iím all for locking them away to prevent future murders, Iím just not prepared to use the death penalty as a punishment for a severely mentally handicapped person. We see this with little kids all of the time. If a very young child hits someone they get punished to know that is right from wrong, and to know that what they did was wrong. And what is a mentally handicapped person going to learn from being put to death? I think that the same thing should be used for people that don't know what they are doing just maybe not as severely. I guess that it depends on what age they are, and what the situation was. Yes, Iíll agree with this. Iím for locking them away so that they cannot harm another. I just donít believe a death sentence is appropriate for someone that does not have the mental capacity to understand their actions.
I guess this is irrelevant, but who in the world would leave a loaded weapon accesable to a child? Irrelevant, but people do it every day or how else do you explain the accidental shootings involving children.
However, you can teach a 4 year old what is right and wrong. Someone that has the capacity of a six-year old and is a legal adult is the same as everyone else, in a certain point of view. What point of view is that?
I'm sure that one point in their life they have been told that they are no different than anyone else. Iím sure they were. I tell my cousin that every time I see her, but that does not make it true.
If someone has the capacity of a six-year old and is an adult should have some sort of help. That, I think, would help prevent something bad from happening in the first place. They need, and deserve guidence. There is help out there, but that does not prevent bad things happening. While every effort needs to be made to treat this people as normal as possible, I just do not believe holding them to the same standard as I would myself is fair. I also believe killing someone that cannot understand what they have done is both cruel and unusual.

Rev7
08-06-2008, 01:58 PM
^
As I have said, my opinion on the matter has changed, just in case you didn't notice. ;)

veridianblade
09-03-2008, 09:34 AM
I myself cannot support the death penalty.

In 1994 a good friend of mine was sentenced to 11 years for kidnap, torture and absconding.

He was not only innocent, apart from escaping, he was also set up.

If the death penalty was in place there is a good chance he would have got it.

jonathan7
09-03-2008, 10:45 AM
I myself cannot support the death penalty.

In 1994 a good friend of mine was sentenced to 11 years for kidnap, torture and absconding.

He was not only innocent, apart from escaping, he was also set up.

If the death penalty was in place there is a good chance he would have got it.

While I'm against the death penalty for similar reasons, the fact he only got 11 years suggests it wasn't a serious enough crime to warrant death.

Also how do you know your friend was innocent? Has he since been declared innocent?

DeadYorick
09-03-2008, 10:49 AM
I personally do not support the death penalty. I know there are much better alternatives like life imprisonment. At least then the criminals would eventually learn the consequences of their actions.

veridianblade
09-03-2008, 11:48 AM
While I'm against the death penalty for similar reasons, the fact he only got 11 years suggests it wasn't a serious enough crime to warrant death.

Also how do you know your friend was innocent? Has he since been declared innocent?

I don't know why exactly he got 11, possibly because a lot of the evidence was circumstancial.
His defence thought he would get at least 35.

- The witnesses were known to be working for a rival family at the time.
- They were known to have bent police on their payroll (this has since been proven).
- A substancial amount of money went missing while he was inside, while these police had very generous pensions, if you get me.

jonathan7
09-03-2008, 12:11 PM
I don't know why exactly he got 11, possibly because a lot of the evidence was circumstancial.
His defence thought he would get at least 35.

- The witnesses were known to be working for a rival family at the time.
- They were known to have bent police on their payroll (this has since been proven).
- A substancial amount of money went missing while he was inside, while these police had very generous pensions, if you get me.

I'm affraid I remain sceptical; purely because he is your friend and emotion could be clouding your perception, that's not to say he isn't innocent, but within this context, I hope you understand, I can't really draw any firm conclusions.

veridianblade
09-03-2008, 12:43 PM
I'm affraid I remain sceptical; purely because he is your friend and emotion could be clouding your perception, that's not to say he isn't innocent, but within this context, I hope you understand, I can't really draw any firm conclusions.

No, that's ok man.

To be honest if he did do it he had a very good reason, they'd paid the "victim" £5,000 to dig up my mates dad and brothers graves, the guy was bragging about it in the pub.

Even if he did do it, most people would have done worse.

Astor
09-04-2008, 05:18 AM
With regards to the death penalty, I think that, although the statement has since been disputed, former Chief Executioner of England Albert Pierrepoint said it quite well.

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."

Tommycat
09-05-2008, 11:33 PM
I don't know why exactly he got 11, possibly because a lot of the evidence was circumstancial.
His defence thought he would get at least 35.

- The witnesses were known to be working for a rival family at the time.
- They were known to have bent police on their payroll (this has since been proven).
- A substancial amount of money went missing while he was inside, while these police had very generous pensions, if you get me.

Even in Texas they wouldn't have tried for the Death Penalty. Death Penalty cases are very hard to win. Death penalty cases are not handed out for violent crimes that do not lead to the death of another individual. The most he would get would be 35 years for attempted murder which would likely have been reduced to 10 years, and with parole likely out in 8 years.

As for the death penalty itself, I support it.
My reasons for you to pick apart:
1) It removes a harmful element not only from society but from the prison system itself.

2) It may give the victim's family some measure of closure.

3) It can be an effective tool to convince someone involved in organised crime to help investigators solve other crimes.

4) It keeps those convicted of Life in prison from commiting other murders in the prison system.

Astor
09-06-2008, 04:15 AM
1) It removes a harmful element not only from society but from the prison system itself.

I can agree with that, but don't think that should be the only reason to support a death penalty.

2) It may give the victim's family some measure of closure.

Not all the time though, simply taking an eye for an eye won't bring the victim back.

3) It can be an effective tool to convince someone involved in organised crime to help investigators solve other crimes.

Organised Crime is sort of a hobby of mine, and in many cases, that wouldn't help in the slightest.

If a member of a criminal organisation (the Mafia, especially, as breaking the Omerta is a deadly sin) was to help investigators then they'd be killed, pure and simple. Even with the witness protection, more often than not, the criminals will get their man.

So killing someone to coerce someone into compliance would just lead to more deaths.

Tommycat
09-06-2008, 06:21 AM
I can agree with that, but don't think that should be the only reason to support a death penalty.
It's not. But it's one of my better reasons. I have a whole list, but that's just my best.

Not all the time though, simply taking an eye for an eye won't bring the victim back.
No, but I sure as heck would feel better if the guy that killed my sister were to face the death penalty. But that's just MY reason.

Organised Crime is sort of a hobby of mine, and in many cases, that wouldn't help in the slightest.

If a member of a criminal organisation (the Mafia, especially, as breaking the Omerta is a deadly sin) was to help investigators then they'd be killed, pure and simple. Even with the witness protection, more often than not, the criminals will get their man.

So killing someone to coerce someone into compliance would just lead to more deaths.
Not all organised crime is tied to the mafia. But then maybe my use of the term organised kinda threw you. But basically it can be used to get someone to get someone to work with investigators to lessen their sentence.

Life in prison can get parole. I mean even Charles Manson gets an opportunity to be paroled(chances are that'll never happen, but it's possible).

Astor
09-06-2008, 06:26 AM
No, but I sure as heck would feel better if the guy that killed my sister were to face the death penalty. But that's just MY reason.

Then that's an entirely subjective reason for the death penalty. Not everyone will want revenge.

Not all organised crime is tied to the mafia. But then maybe my use of the term organised kinda threw you. But basically it can be used to get someone to get someone to work with investigators to lessen their sentence.

I am aware that not all organised crime is tied to the Mafia, but I used that as an example for why it wouldn't work in many cases.

Tommycat
09-06-2008, 06:54 AM
Then that's an entirely subjective reason for the death penalty. Not everyone will want revenge.

I know. That's why I fully qualified it as MY reason. Of course that's the reason the family gets to speak before the sentence is handed down. The family can also make a plea to the governor. It holds quite a lot of sway.

I am aware that not all organised crime is tied to the Mafia, but I used that as an example for why it wouldn't work in many cases.

Might not in some, but for others...

Darth_Yuthura
09-13-2008, 04:45 PM
I'm an advocate for Capital punishment to only a very limited extent.

I wouldn't use execution for punishment, but rather to neutralize a threat. I don't think that someone who has committed mass murder would be likely to be paroled. If one is going to serve multiple life sentences and are still considered dangerous should not be allowed to kill again. I would not use execution for anything other than the most extreme threats. Other than that, I'm against it for punishment entirely.

EnderWiggin
09-14-2008, 04:01 PM
Woah whut? I missed the revival of this thread!

Even in Texas they wouldn't have tried for the Death Penalty. {snipped for brevity}

The point was that in some cases mistakes are made in the justice system, and as such, shouldn't be used to prevent innocent people from losing their lives. Not a point I actually agree with, just clarifying so that you understand your refutation was not applicable.


As for the death penalty itself, I support it.
My reasons for you to pick apart:

Will do.


1) It removes a harmful element not only from society but from the prison system itself.

So you feel that there is actually no inherent worth in a person?


2) It may give the victim's family some measure of closure.


Using the word "may" should tell you something. Some families would rather have the convicted rot in prison for the rest of his/her natural born life.

So my equally useless counterargument is: killing them may not give the victim's family some measure of closure. ;)

But even so, closure for the family doesn't have a bearing on whether or not the death penalty is a moral punishment.


3) It can be an effective tool to convince someone involved in organised crime to help investigators solve other crimes.

But you can't say it's moral just because it's useful as a tool, unless you're speaking from a completely utilitarian viewpoint.

Are you telling me that it's ok for the state to kill a man in order to scare another into telling the truth?

Just as a point of personal inquiry, what's your stance on torture? :)


4) It keeps those convicted of Life in prison from commiting other murders in the prison system.

Which ones are going to kill in prison? Better kill all the convicts, just to be sure.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
09-14-2008, 04:25 PM
The point was that in some cases mistakes are made in the justice system, and as such, shouldn't be used to prevent innocent people from losing their lives. Not a point I actually agree with, just clarifying so that you understand your refutation was not applicable.


So you feel that there is actually no inherent worth in a person?


So my equally useless counterargument is: killing them may not give the victim's family some measure of closure. ;)


But you can't say it's moral just because it's useful as a tool, unless you're speaking from a completely utilitarian viewpoint.

Are you telling me that it's ok for the state to kill a man in order to scare another into telling the truth?

_EW_


I think people forget about a significant fact when it comes to capital punishment: the murderer knew the consequences of killing before the committed the act. Anyone legally executed were done so because of what s/he chose to do. It's not murder to execute a murderer and it's not immoral if the criminal remained a threat to society.

I think that once a person takes the life of another, s/he forfeits their own rights because they violated the rights of another in the first place. Once that line has been crossed and proven in a court of law, the criminal no longer has the right to life. I think an innocent life has more value than a murderer's.

Litofsky
09-14-2008, 04:35 PM
I think that once a person takes the life of another, s/he forfeits their own rights because they violated the rights of another in the first place. Once that line has been crossed and proven in a court of law, the criminal no longer has the right to life. I think an innocent life has more value than a murderer's.
What does that say about the court that convicts him? Even though this person took a life, who are (we) to say that we should take his life? Doesn't that put us on the same level as the murderer?

Astor
09-14-2008, 04:38 PM
I think people forget about a significant fact when it comes to capital punishment: the murderer knew the consequences of killing before the committed the act. Anyone legally executed were done so because of what s/he chose to do. It's not murder to execute a murderer and it's not immoral if the criminal remained a threat to society.

I think that once a person takes the life of another, s/he forfeits their own rights because they violated the rights of another in the first place. Once that line has been crossed and proven in a court of law, the criminal no longer has the right to life. I think an innocent life has more value than a murderer's.

So an eye for an eye, and no chance of redemption?

Corinthian
09-14-2008, 04:40 PM
Hey, you spend a long time on Death Row. If he wants to redeem himself, he's got more than enough time.

EnderWiggin
09-14-2008, 04:40 PM
Anyone legally executed were done so because of what s/he chose to do.

Anyone executed by Hitler were done so because of what s/he chose to do (in this case, believe in Judaism). See what I did there?

It doesn't make it right for them to impose capital punishment just because the person who committed the crime knew that the punishment was possible.

It's not murder to execute a murderer Oh, really? And it's not stealing to steal from a thief? And it's not being an ass if you're insulting an ass?

and it's not immoral if the criminal remained a threat to society.

Utilitarianism ftw :(

First of all, how does the state decide who remains a threat to society? Secondly, doesn't life imprisonment also eliminate that threat?

I think that once a person takes the life of another, s/he forfeits their own rights because they violated the rights of another in the first place. Once that line has been crossed and proven in a court of law, the criminal no longer has the right to life.
I agree, partially. Except, of course, for the last line. I feel that no government should have the ability to decide which citizens have a right to life. IMHO, everyone has a right to life. Obviously, those who violate another's right to life should then lose rights, however, that's what I think life imprisonment is for.


I think an innocent life has more value than a murderer's.
And I feel that the state doesn't have a right to take a person's life.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
09-14-2008, 04:45 PM
What does that say about the court that convicts him? Even though this person took a life, who are (we) to say that we should take his life? Doesn't that put us on the same level as the murderer?

I would be for the innocent until proven guilty ideal, but there are times where the is at least a shred of doubt as the the guilt of a murderer.

I would be for having a statute that a criminal cannot have capital punishment forced upon them for a single murder. The greater the number of murders... or the more heinous the crime, the greater the likelihood that the statute is nullified.

I'm not for execution as a measure of punishment, but prevention of another murder. If someone dies because a murderer was allowed to live, then wouldn't the state be responsible for that murder? I would not risk endangering ANYONE'S life for a murderer's.

EnderWiggin
09-14-2008, 04:49 PM
I'm not for execution as a measure of punishment, but prevention of another murder. If someone dies because a murderer was allowed to live, then wouldn't the state be responsible for that murder? I would not risk endangering ANYONE'S life for a murderer's.

Again, doesn't life imprisonment solve this problem? They can't endanger another life if they're in prison.

_EW_

Litofsky
09-14-2008, 04:54 PM
I would be for the innocent until proven guilty ideal, but there are times where the is at least a shred of doubt as the the guilt of a murderer.
And yet you just said, "Innocent until proven guilty." It's not up to you to decide if someone is guilty or not- it's the jury's job. The lawyers on the defense and prosecution attempt to sway their opinions, and witnesses provide facts on the matter.

But I digress.

I'm not for execution as a measure of punishment, but prevention of another murder. If someone dies because a murderer was allowed to live, then wouldn't the state be responsible for that murder? I would not risk endangering ANYONE'S life for a murderer's.
So, kill one person to save two? The Greater Good? Your post is telling me that the government should take one person's life to save another's. Does that mean that my life is worth less than my neighbor's?

Corinthian
09-14-2008, 04:56 PM
We're not talking Minority-Report style 'You might kill someone in the future, so we're jailing you now.' We're talking 'You've killed someone. Now, you pay the ultimate price.' It's effectively the same punishment as life imprisonment, except it's cheaper.

Astor
09-14-2008, 05:00 PM
How is it the same, exactly? At least with imprisonment you live.

Litofsky
09-14-2008, 05:02 PM
We're not talking Minority-Report style 'You might kill someone in the future, so we're jailing you now.' We're talking 'You've killed someone. Now, you pay the ultimate price.' It's effectively the same punishment as life imprisonment, except it's cheaper.

But who are we to say that the murderer deserves to give up their life? What happens to our justice system when we begin to kill the killers?

EnderWiggin
09-14-2008, 05:05 PM
It's effectively the same punishment as life imprisonment, except it's cheaper.

I must have missed the day they taught the 'cost dictates morality' lesson.

And you know full well that they're not the same punishment, as in one case a life is ended.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
09-14-2008, 05:26 PM
But who are we to say that the murderer deserves to give up their life? What happens to our justice system when we begin to kill the killers?

WE did not make that choice. The murderer knew the consequences before he acted. He knew that killing meant forfeiting whatever rights he had if/when he was proven guilty.

You asked earlier if your life was worth more than another's... this is not comparing everyone's rights to another. It's whether the life of a murderer is worth the risk of another death. Imprisonment is effective, but when criminals are transfered, the risk of escape climbs exponentially.

If it meant sealing a murderer in a maximum security cell and he never sees the light of day, then I'll support life imprisonment. However, why should the state pay to support them after that?

Astor
09-14-2008, 05:37 PM
However, why should the state pay to support them after that?

By that example, why should the state kill people in the name of people who don't agree with it?

Litofsky
09-14-2008, 05:39 PM
WE did not make that choice. The murderer knew the consequences before he acted. He knew that killing meant forfeiting whatever rights he had if/when he was proven guilty.
But why should we lower ourselves to the same level as the convicted? By killing the killer, what do we gain (in a non-literal sense)?

You asked earlier if your life was worth more than another's... this is not comparing everyone's rights to another. It's whether the life of a murderer is worth the risk of another death. Imprisonment is effective, but when criminals are transfered, the risk of escape climbs exponentially.
Since when does being a murderer mean that they are not a person? Sure, they've committed a terrible crime, but they're still a human being.

EnderWiggin
09-14-2008, 05:41 PM
It's whether the life of a murderer is worth the risk of another death.

What death? Expand, please.

Imprisonment is effective, but when criminals are transfered, the risk of escape climbs exponentially.

Then that's a problem with the practical application of imprisonment, and has nothing to do with its morality.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
09-14-2008, 05:50 PM
By that example, why should the state kill people in the name of people who don't agree with it?

You can't provide for everyone under even the most favorable conditions.

My support of capital punishment is provisional because the US is the only State in the Global North that implements it. I don't want the US to abolish it completely, but to carry it out ONLY for neutralizing a risk to the general public. I don't support execution for a means of punishment, but often it's used for that.

And to answer your question... if the majority of the State want to be rid of a danger, then should a murderer have more rights than an entire nation? It isn't wrong to deny a murderer of those rights because he deliberately acted and knew he would lose those rights. It would also ensure he never kills again.

El Sitherino
09-14-2008, 05:57 PM
The answer is obviously rehabilitation and a self-sustaining prison system. Not to mention stop placing innocent people in there when you know the "crime" they have commited is harmless.

Litofsky
09-14-2008, 06:00 PM
You can't provide for everyone under even the most favorable conditions.
But you're taking the situation out of context: because a few people are afraid of someone escaping, we should kill someone?

And to answer your question... if the majority of the State want to be rid of a danger, then should a murderer have more rights than an entire nation? It isn't wrong to deny a murderer of those rights because he deliberately acted and knew he would lose those rights. It would also ensure he never kills again.
So, strip the murderer of right to life for the opinions of others? Even if he is a danger, why should we kill him? Lock him up in a high-security prison. Killing him only ends his life prematurely and makes him a martyr (if the situation permits).

Also, would you please take a moment and answer my question: "What gives you (or the state) the right to take away someone's right to life?" Thanks in advance.

True_Avery
09-14-2008, 06:03 PM
Also, would you please take a moment and answer my question: "What gives you (or the state) the right to take away someone's right to life?" Thanks in advance.
What makes life a right? Considering it can be taken from you at any moment, I'd think its more of a privilege.

Darth_Yuthura
09-14-2008, 06:41 PM
But you're taking the situation out of context: because a few people are afraid of someone escaping, we should kill someone?


So, strip the murderer of right to life for the opinions of others? Even if he is a danger, why should we kill him? Lock him up in a high-security prison. Killing him only ends his life prematurely and makes him a martyr (if the situation permits).

Also, would you please take a moment and answer my question: "What gives you (or the state) the right to take away someone's right to life?" Thanks in advance.

I'm not saying anyone has any right to anything. The system set up in every state around the world is established by a collection of people who form a group. The issues that come from this subject are very complicated and even more complex because it's a question of the state vs. the individual.

When you say a few people, I think you underestimate the threat that certain people represent. Because the US law protects certain rights, some murderers are allowed to go to court for obviously open-and-shut cases... costing the state huge sums of money and giving them a better opportunity to escape than being in prison.

Overall, I'm against the US using capital punishment, but there are times when losing it puts others at risk and costs the state huge sums of money that shouldn't be wasted on someone who's life is essentially nothing but a burden to everyone else.

Litofsky
09-14-2008, 07:40 PM
What makes life a right? Considering it can be taken from you at any moment, I'd think its more of a privilege.
A valid question. I suppose that it is a privilege, but it's not something that should be taken away from someone without their consent. Life is, as far as we can prove, our only existence. To deny someone their life goes against the morals we have created in our society.

I'm not saying anyone has any right to anything. The system set up in every state around the world is established by a collection of people who form a group. The issues that come from this subject are very complicated and even more complex because it's a question of the state vs. the individual.
I'm afraid that I don't understand that statement fully- would you rephrase it, please?

When you say a few people, I think you underestimate the threat that certain people represent. Because the US law protects certain rights, some murderers are allowed to go to court for obviously open-and-shut cases... costing the state huge sums of money and giving them a better opportunity to escape than being in prison.
But it's part of their rights granted to them by our Founding Fathers. According to our law, every has the right to a fair trial. Sure, the process could be more streamlined, but that's not part of the law, that the bureaucracy.

Overall, I'm against the US using capital punishment, but there are times when losing it puts others at risk and costs the state huge sums of money that shouldn't be wasted on someone who's life is essentially nothing but a burden to everyone else.
Again, are you saying that a person should be killed because it costs too much?

Darth_Yuthura
09-14-2008, 08:22 PM
No one really has any rights when you get down to it. All the laws of the US were made up by a bunch of people, often by the cream of the US population. The very idea that anyone has any rights is a flawed belief. It works, but there will always be people who don't see justice or are not given the privileges that the majority of the population receive. All we individuals can do is try to work with the system of laws we are given, or break upon them when we go against that system.

To be direct, if there is going to be a system established to provide rights to citizens, then those who follow it should not have to suffer for other's defiance. Anyone who murders another has broken that system and should not be given any rights to life because he chose to throw them away.

I wouldn't apply this to anything other than the most extreme crimes that cannot be amended. Rape and murder cannot be corrected once they're done, but the majority of crimes can be corrected. This goes way of the topic, but I seriously believe that once a person has deliberately committed a capital crime does not deserve the rights he denied another.

Litofsky
09-14-2008, 08:42 PM
No one really has any rights when you get down to it. All the laws of the US were made up by a bunch of people, often by the cream of the US population. The very idea that anyone has any rights is a flawed belief. It works, but there will always be people who don't see justice or are not given the privileges that the majority of the population receive. All we individuals can do is try to work with the system of laws we are given, or break upon them when we go against that system.
That's an interesting point. You're saying that our 'rights' are a bunch of ideas cobbled together by the Founding Fathers, correct? In a sense, you're right. They took their personal beliefs and applied it to the entire country. Combine that with our Supreme Court and their decisions, and you've got our basic 'rights.'

I guess to continue using the word "rights," we must define it. The word rights, in my definition, is idea- the idea that each person has a certain set of "inalienable" laws that keep them safe from harm- and prevent them from doing harm to others. However, as you said, some people do not abide by these laws, and are therefore subject to punishment. This is done to keep others safe.

Technically, we could say that a large part of the problem resides in the Penitentiary System, and its lack of ability to rehabilitate its inhabitants. But a counter would be to say that it's society's fault in the first place for creating these... impulses (I'm not sure if that's the right word, in this case...). :giveup:

To be direct, if there is going to be a system established to provide rights to citizens, then those who follow it should not have to suffer for other's defiance. Anyone who murders another has broken that system and should not be given any rights to life because he chose to throw them away.
I'm tending to disagree. Why should we try kill this person? Will it bring closure? You're advocating killing one person to save another, which implies that one person's life is worth more than another. Though, your argument is that by committing a criminal act, they surrender their right to life.

I guess this is why we have so many lawyers: they all have different views. :p

I wouldn't apply this to anything other than the most extreme crimes that cannot be amended. Rape and murder cannot be corrected once they're done, but the majority of crimes can be corrected. This goes way of the topic, but I seriously believe that once a person has deliberately committed a capital crime does not deserve the rights he denied another.
Again, an interesting proposal. However, by affording them rights like a fair trial, and by not saying, "We're going to kill you because you destroyed someone else" we place ourselves about the criminal. I guess it's a sort of 'ethical superiority' trip that we've got going, but it works for some of us.

Darth_Yuthura
09-14-2008, 09:21 PM
I don't mean to keep perpetuating this thread; I'm just interested in what others have to say about this issue.

In response to the last post, I understand why certain criminals are given more privileges than I society thinks they should. It doesn't matter what the murderer/rapist had done; because under the US system of laws, the state does not have the right to deny a US citizen the right to a trial by jury. This has been greatly distorted by the fact that the US government has disregarded this on numerous occasions.

I am truly against capital punishment, but there are some definite issues I have with abolishing it. This isn't about making the State more important than the individual... the murderer/rapist had done that himself. And I think it's only proper that people be granted inalienable rights as long as they don't deny those rights to others.

Litofsky
09-14-2008, 09:27 PM
I don't mean to keep perpetuating this thread; I'm just interested in what others have to say about this issue.
That's what Kavar's' for: obtaining everyone's opinions. We just get carried away sometimes, and things get ugly. I don't think that this thread is too heated, for what it's worth.

In response to the last post, I understand why certain criminals are given more privileges than I society thinks they should. It doesn't matter what the murderer/rapist had done; because under the US system of laws, the state does not have the right to deny a US citizen the right to a trial by jury. This has been greatly distorted by the fact that the US government has disregarded this on numerous occasions.
Well, we've got the whole idea of 'civility' coming into the conversation, and we'd draw the topic waaaay off course if we went there. Another thread, perhaps?

I am truly against capital punishment, but there are some definite issues I have with abolishing it. This isn't about making the State more important than the individual... the murderer/rapist had done that himself. And I think it's only proper that people be granted inalienable rights as long as they don't deny those rights to others.
So, you're saying that the risks outweigh the benefits of abolishing capital punishment? I understand that, but I think that the people on death row would disagree.

All of this aside, I have a feeling that we're going around in a circle. Sure, we're asking different questions, but we're reaching the same conclusions. Not that I have a problem with it, I just wanted to point it out.

EnderWiggin
09-14-2008, 09:43 PM
The very idea that anyone has any rights is a flawed belief.
I think we've found the crux of our disagreement.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
09-14-2008, 10:00 PM
That's what Kavar's' for: obtaining everyone's opinions. We just get carried away sometimes, and things get ugly. I don't think that this thread is too heated, for what it's worth.


Well, we've got the whole idea of 'civility' coming into the conversation, and we'd draw the topic waaaay off course if we went there. Another thread, perhaps?


So, you're saying that the risks outweigh the benefits of abolishing capital punishment? I understand that, but I think that the people on death row would disagree.

All of this aside, I have a feeling that we're going around in a circle. Sure, we're asking different questions, but we're reaching the same conclusions. Not that I have a problem with it, I just wanted to point it out.

I am not forgetting the ones on death row or their families, but they knew that would happen before they committed the crime. It wasn't something as simple as speeding or possession of a lethal weapon... that had happened to me. Minor crimes or those done in ignorance should not have escalated consequences, but murder and rape are deliberate, heinous, and permanent. Anyone on death row knew the law and chose to ignore it... they deserve no sympathy. It's not revenge; it's not causing the state or its people additional strain to make way for one who defies the system.

I'll stop here now. Unless another has something else to add or ask, I'll just leave this thread alone.

El Sitherino
09-14-2008, 10:03 PM
Alright, we'll start with first point.
The death penalty does in fact prevent re-occurance of the crime, by state ordered prisoner. Now, it's entirely possible that a first and single occurance murderer could be rehabilitated, and I support this fully. I actually strongly believe in treating the problem with as little negative recourse as possible. However I also understand and must accept that there are limitations. Some of these can be financial, some of them simply based on what is truely possible to happen.

Currently our nation is in so much debt that we can't afford to focus on saving a mass-murderer/repeat killer, not to mention many of these people take up violent action in prison. While a lot can and is curbed by prisons that are starting up rehabilitation efforts (gardens, rebuilding cars for police auction, etc.), most of that does not include many eligible for the death penalty as these are people that have and will likely kill again. Many are those who within their first ten minutes in prison, kill another inmate.

So now not only are we confronted with the safety of society, but the safety of those we're claiming we want to save by abolishing the state ordered execution. A large majority of prisoners are in fact rather innocent parties serving time for petty drug charges, young adults that were caught with an ounce of pot and a pipe or something, but they're getting stabbed, beaten, and raped by truely violent offenders. Not only that, but with everyone knowing about that "You know what they do in prison, right?" thing, everyone goes in trying to make sure they aren't the ones playing the part of the puppet in Prisonyard Pals. This means more violence and more generalized aggression that has to be managed.

All of this means time and energy, time and energy people are not willing to invest. And this is already occuring, take out the death penalty and we're looking at an ever expanded issue. While many might not think 5 or 10 extra prisoners per rotation (season guards and particular inmates are held at any one penitentiary), that's anywhere from $5,000 each to $50,000 each. The change in this can be caused by medical necessities (many serial killers infact end up needing quite an interesting bit of medical attention), personal care as dictated by state, county, and individual prison, and general upkeep for the area these prisoners are held in.

So to round off what I was discussing, I would love to be able to rehabilitate each prisoner and bring back a productive member of society. However unfortunately at this time mankind as a whole is not ready to make such a humanitarian effort. There are others that we need to focus salvation on, as they will likely be our future, and in effect the possible future of these prisoners. At this time our finances will be better placed into saving those in the African continent, eastern Europe, the former Soviet States, and Vietnam/Thailand/Laos/Etc.
And not to mention our own society at large.



Not to mention prisoners now that are placed through a rehab program and let back out into the world are not given the necessary means to make their rehabilitation work, therefore they are essentially forced back into a life of crime. We'll need to fix that before we can even think of rehabilitating those who earn a State ordered execution.

I just view it as a responsibility. With our most violent of criminals being killed (by the state) we're preventing comparatively innocent prisoners from being killed, other citizens from being killed, and we're saving a bit that can be spent on other humanitarian efforts. Although we all know it's going into BS warfare.

Seriously though, [/thread]

Also I think it's necessary to point out that simply killing one person doesn't get the death penalty except in the case of assassination. Usually you're a mass murderer and a sociopath with no concept of morals.

Totenkopf
09-15-2008, 01:47 AM
Seriously though, [/thread]

Also I think it's necessary to point out that simply killing one person doesn't get the death penalty except in the case of assassination. Usually you're a mass murderer and a sociopath with no concept of morals.

I was under the impression that killing a cop also usually was a 1-way ticket to the beyond (Abu Mumia Jamal aside). Of course, with the appeals process being what it is today, even that would probably take more time to carry out than not.

El Sitherino
09-15-2008, 03:01 PM
I was under the impression that killing a cop also usually was a 1-way ticket to the beyond (Abu Mumia Jamal aside). Of course, with the appeals process being what it is today, even that would probably take more time to carry out than not.
That is one of the trickier bits of sentencing.

Darth333
09-15-2008, 05:48 PM
...except it's cheaper.
Is it? (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) There might be less fees related to incarceration but the trial costs and other related fees for death penalty cases are much higher.

Lance Monance
09-16-2008, 07:49 AM
I have a question for all those who support the Death penalty. What if lifelong imprisonment didn't cost a thing? Suppose it were the perfect solution when it comes to protecting the society from a criminal.

Would you still prefer the death penalty in some cases, even if imprisonment could guarantee that recidivism is 0%? If so, what's the moral reasoning behind it?

ChAiNz.2da
09-16-2008, 08:57 AM
Is it? (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) There might be less fees related to incarceration but the trial costs and other related fees for death penalty cases are much higher.That's an interesting read D3 :)
I'd be interested to know though if the costs leveled out considering long-term incarceration (still on taxpayers dime) vs semi-long term incarceration costs of death-row inmates.

While 'at-trial' costs may be more upfront, would the (for lack of a better word) "maintenance" costs of housing inmates for extended periods of time balance out (ie. a hypothetical 30+ years death row stay VS. a 50+ years life-term) * numbers are a guess-timation on my part at best as far as duration of stay with appeals factored in. Hard source numbers would be most welcome.

I have a question for all those who support the Death penalty. What if lifelong imprisonment didn't cost a thing? Suppose it were the perfect solution when it comes to protecting the society from a criminal.

Would you still prefer the death penalty in some cases, even if imprisonment could guarantee that recidivism is 0%? If so, what's the moral reasoning behind it?Good question LM :)
However IMO the word 'perfect' is a slight misnomer. Would it be a 'perfect solution', then I (personally) would not have a problem in it. I certainly wouldn't condone the taking of a life, no matter the consequences, could it be 'perfectly' dealt with. :)

However, in RL terms it's far from perfect :( We have to factor in the construction of more prisons, court costs of prosecution/defense, housing of inmates for years to come, the tiny risk/possibility of escaped (or paroled) convicts for nefarious reasons (revenge) (a sad but true, albeit small, factor), etc. Most of which are all paid (directly or indirectly) by the good-standing law-abiding tax-paying citizen. Life sentences often-times aren't life at all.. unless in severe circumstances that a 'no possibility of parole' is granted.

I definitely don't advocate to being even close to 'right', completely knowledgeable of, or even innocent of judgment about the death penalty (I'm human, I'm flawed, I judge). And I really hate breaking it down in $ signs, as it doesn't really reflect the complete truth of the matter. It is a factor in today's society though.

I do support it however. I also support a person's right to exhaust every-single-appeal-allowed to plead their case/innocence.. since history has proven several death-row inmates to be falsely convicted (DNA testing, late admittance from 3rd party, etc.) but I also think that those who are rightly convicted do pay a price eventually, especially for the most heinous crimes.

Again though, since you asked "What if lifelong imprisonment didn't cost a thing? Suppose it were the perfect solution when it comes to protecting the society from a criminal. (guaranteeing 0% recidivism)" I would adamantly say "Yes. I would prefer a Life-term imprisonment be given over a Death sentence". :)

Darth_Yuthura
09-16-2008, 01:05 PM
Is it? (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) There might be less fees related to incarceration but the trial costs and other related fees for death penalty cases are much higher.

If those fees and costs that go into an execution were removed, then execution would be the cheapest way to deal with these kind of criminals. The easiest way to solve this problem is to overcome the court and appeals process with something much faster and more difficult for murderers to fight.

With the current arrangement in the US system of law, an execution is WAY more expensive than 10 years imprisonment. If this does not change, then I'm for a life sentence. If an execution can be done very efficiently and quickly, then I would favor capital punishment.

EnderWiggin
09-16-2008, 09:49 PM
The easiest way to solve this problem is to overcome the court and appeals process with something much faster and more difficult for murderers to fight.

Why not just eliminate the court system entirely, and instate a dictatorship where you're allowed to kill off anyone you want?

_EW_

Astor
09-17-2008, 03:41 AM
Why not just eliminate the court system entirely, and instate a dictatorship where you're allowed to kill off anyone you want?

_EW_

Because history's shown us it's bound to work... :xp:

A question, for anybody who'll indulge it.

I've seen mentioned that anyone who murders someone must already know the consequences of their act, so therefore deserve whatever punishment they recieve.

But, this is surely not always the case. For instance, let me cite a fictional character - Lennie from Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. I'm sure those of you who've read it will know what i'm getting at.

Lennie, in that book didn't know his own strength, and certainly never meant to kill anyone - he has the mind of an eight year old, after all, yet he did.

Alright, my example maybe extreme, and fictional, but this sort of thing probably, and could happen easily in real life.

So is it right to punish someone with death assuming that they know the consequences of their act?

Litofsky
09-17-2008, 04:01 PM
I've seen mentioned that anyone who murders someone must already know the consequences of their act, so therefore deserve whatever punishment they recieve.

But, this is surely not always the case. For instance, let me cite a fictional character - Lennie from Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. I'm sure those of you who've read it will know what i'm getting at.

Lennie, in that book didn't know his own strength, and certainly never meant to kill anyone - he has the mind of an eight year old, after all, yet he did.

Alright, my example maybe extreme, and fictional, but this sort of thing probably, and could happen easily in real life.

So is it right to punish someone with death assuming that they know the consequences of their act?

As I've advocated throughout the thread, I don't believe that the state has the right to kill anyone. However, if I were to support the death penalty, I'd assume that the old saying "Ignorance of the law doesn't excuse the crime" would apply.

Tommycat
09-26-2008, 06:09 PM
What makes life a right? Considering it can be taken from you at any moment, I'd think its more of a privilege.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equally, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Rights are given by the state. Those rights are also at the mercy of the state.

SW01
09-26-2008, 06:57 PM
@Astor

The example you give is a good one, and a major concern. However, in such circumstances the defence of diminished mental responsibility applies. There are also various other defences to a murder charge which result in either acquittal, or charge reduced to manslaughter, most of which originated as ways to avoid the death penalty.

In cases of, for example, what the Americans call 'first-degree murder' (causing death of another with the intent to kill), and especially where there is no possibility of reprieve or parole, the sentence may have an application. However, without absolute certainty of the decision, such a ruling could not be supported in my view.

@Tommycat

Bear in mind that the society of the 'Framers' tolerated the death penalty.

Tommycat
09-26-2008, 07:17 PM
@Tommycat

Bear in mind that the society of the 'Framers' tolerated the death penalty.
I'm quite aware of the differences between that society and this one. I was simply answering the question of where the Right of life was defined in the US.

SW01
09-26-2008, 08:05 PM
I'm quite aware of the differences between that society and this one. I was simply answering the question of where the Right of life was defined in the US.

Missed that - sorry:)

Just to elaborate on what I said earlier - defences to the charge of murder, as they stand, are pretty comprehensive - temporary insanity, diminished responsibility, provocation, self-defence (if reasonable), necessity. This covers a lot of the 'didn't mean to' or 'couldn't help/avoid it' type cases. What we are left with is essentially cold-blooded premeditated murder. That, in my opinion, is a case in which capital punishment is justifiable. Basically, any violent or highly immoral crime that is done with absolute intent of the outcome.

Evidence is key, and the main failing of capital punishment. Despite all the DNA matches and myriad tests you see on CSI which always lead to the guilty person, such evidence can easily point investigators in the wrong direction. Until we have 100% of convicted offenders being guilty in fact of the crime, it is not viable to press for execution.

Darth_Yuthura
10-13-2008, 01:25 AM
I have seen some past posts asking what the State has to gain by executing a murderer and why we lower ourselves to their level...

It's not what is gained, but cutting our losses. I would be for an execution of a serial murderer if and only if it were indeed cheaper than life imprisonment. The justice system has so many loopholes that it ends up costing the State huge sums of money to keep a murderer in prison and provided for.

If you imprison someone for life, they should become indentured into servitude to at least sustain themselves. If they don't work, then they should not be fed. If they starve to death or refuse to do what they must to survive, then they killed themselves. I would NOT have life-incarcerated convicts feeding off taxpayer dollars and not being forced to give anything back. If they can provide for themselves, then I'll support life imprisonment to capital punishment almost always.