Capital Punishment

[bacon]

Capital Punishment
This is a mature discussion so please no spam. Think Symposium here.

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences.

Capital punishment has in the past been practiced in virtually every society, although currently only 58 nations actively practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it (the remainder having not used it for 10 years or allowing it only in exceptional circumstances such as war.

• Do you think Capital Punishment is cruel
• Do you think the government sets examples by using the death sentence
• Do you think Capital Punishment is over-used
• Do you think that we should abolish Capital Punishment
• Do you think Capital Punishment sets a bad example?

Feel free to add your own questions and whatnot to this. You don't have to answer every question, these are just guidelines to help encourage answers.

 

[Tindy]

This is a mature discussion so please no spam. Think Synopsis here.

Symposium?

Do I think it's cruel? It depends.
Do I think the government sets examples by using it? Eh, not really. No one really *sees* it. Sure, they know it's happening, but knowing something and seeing something =/= same thing.
As for thinking it's overused...I have no idea. If anything it *seems* underused, given the amount of murderers/etc who get out after a few years. But then again, I don't really know. Then you have to add the amount of people that are actually innocent, and et cetera et cetera.... So I don't know.
Abolish it? Nah. It's worked for X-amount of centuries pretty well.
Bad example? Not really, except in cases when it was that "poor innocent guy who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time."

 

[Daxis]

* Do you think Capital Punishment is cruel
No, people die all the time, people murder all the time, overpopulation, blah blah blah, at least capital punishment gives a justifiably and arguably good reason to harm someone. The only really bad thing in this is that maybe some years later we find out that they were innocent....

* Do you think the government sets examples by using the death sentence
No, because people that kill would do it anyways. Under the influence of drugs, what do you care? Alcohol, drugs, mind-effers(forgot the technical term), the ones that harm under influence would not be thus affected by capital punishment. People that actually and seriously premeditate it, honestly would just then have incentive to do it better, to hide it better. The crazy people, well, it really wouldn't matter for them.

* Do you think Capital Punishment is over-used
No answer, because I'm not really exposed to any ideas of capital punishment usually except for some southerner-lynching in the 1940's.

* Do you think that we should abolish Capital Punishment
Meh. Reason to, reason not to.

* Do you think Capital Punishment sets a bad example?
Yes. Basically, it enforces the idea that those in power can do whatever they want. Authority, government, they are areas of power, with jurisdiction over your very life. Or maybe I'm looking too deeply into it.

 

[Kuahewa huki 'ino]

* Do you think that we should abolish Capital Punishment
Meh. Reason to, reason not to.

I mean, I know trying to see both sides of an argument, but god, this is a wishy-washy as hell outlook.

Basically, it enforces the idea that those in power can do whatever they want. Authority, government, they are areas of power, with jurisdiction over your very life. Or maybe I'm looking too deeply into it.

Except it doesn't enforce this idea. In countries where this practice isn't absolutely abused (in which nothing can be done anyway because things are down the drain so far it can't be helped), people in power don't decide who proverbially gets the chair. They do, however, decide who doesn't, and that's only a presidential pardon, and only in America.

In civilized countries, the people who decide it are generally objective social peers. They might not all be up on their law, but it's certainly not some Big Brother Sting Operation it sounds like you believe it to be.

I support even more enforecement wholeheartedly because pound-you-in-the-ass-and-then-slit-your-throat hardened criminals chill in prison every goddamn year, and do you know how much it costs? Twice as much as it does to fund the entire public school system in most states, at least. Just so some drug-pushing murderer can live in relative luxury and watch Sports Center and browse the internet on a daily basis.

Kill 'em, such people don't deserve to live on my tax dollars. Or if you're too cowardly to do that, then at least make 'em live in absolutely crippling destitution while barely adhering to the Geneva Conventions, none of these people deserve half the things they get for free.

 

[Vadon]

I swear that I've seen this topic before on this forum...

Either way, I've returned to play in the debate threads again.

Do you think Capital Punishment is cruel?
Yes.

Do you think the government sets examples by using the death sentence?
Yes.

Do you think Capital Punishment is over-used?
Yes.

Do you think that we should abolish Capital Punishment?
Yes.

Do you think Capital Punishment sets a bad example?
Yes.

Boy, that was easy! I love direct questions. No need for elaboration. :wink:

Nah, I'll humor the debate. I'm anti-death penalty. I view it as an archaic, barbaric relic of a time where we didn't know better. I don't believe that we should empower individuals in society to make life and death decisions about their peers. This is the type of logic that can justify lynchings or other vigilante justice in communities. The death penalty is applied disproportionately among different demographics and those convicted of capital offenses have sometimes been found innocent after exoneration through DNA evidence.

A point of clarification I'd make to Kuahewa is that the President can't commute/pardon all sentences, only those who've committed federal crimes. The only federal crime that comes to mind that carries a death sentence is drug trade stuff. It's the state's governor that has the authority to pardon a sentence. But that's beside the point and doesn't refute the underlying argument you've provided.

You know what's actually funny about your cost estimate? (Other than you're using monetary value to determine justice, which I find reprehensible) The death penalty actually costs the system more than if you simply had life in prison without parole. With people lasting decades on death row and a constant steam of appeals, the cost of maintaining those prisoners is actually higher than if you 'locked them up and threw away the key.'

I do believe that the death penalty sets a violent precedent in society that influences the populace, even if subconsciously. It's society saying that violence is not the answer unless they committed a grave offense against you, in which case you can just kill the bastard. I don't like that train of thought. It justifies violence, and because we (Americans) view the right to judge the purported guilt of an individual through civilian juries, it means that civilians have the right to bring violence against one another.

Now, I'm not one of those silly folks who claim that all violence in society stems from the usage of the death penalty. I think it's just a specific example of the violence our(American) society has, and that combined with other violent aspects (A love for violent movies, a strong pro-gun movement, strong fan-bases for violent sports) of society, we get a more violent society. So yeah, I think the death penalty is an influence on behavior in society, though I don't make the mistake of claiming that it's the proximal cause for all evil.

Ultimately, one's view on the death penalty comes down to a values judgement. I personally find it atrocious. Others don't. And while I'm willing to accept your view point as one of the many 'valid' points of view, I think it's wrong. The story I usually point to which demonstrates my perspective is this:

"A father and daughter go out to dinner at a fancy restaurant. The daughter starts flicking her food at another patron. The father picks up the wine bottle from the center of the table and bludgeons his daughter's brains in, killing her.

Most would say that for such a relatively minor infraction of etiquette on the daughter's part, there is no way to justify the father's action. But is there anything that man's daughter could have done that would have justified the father to act in such a way?"

Some people have some answers they're satisfied with. (His daughter starts shooting everyone, or something similar.) I've yet to find one.

Our state is supposed to take care of its citizens. We should judge society how we treat the worst among us, not the best.

ETA: While I'm at it, I also support letting felons vote. :smile:

 

[Kuahewa huki 'ino]

You know what's actually funny about your cost estimate? (Other than you're using monetary value to determine justice, which I find reprehensible) The death penalty actually costs the system more than if you simply had life in prison without parole. With people lasting decades on death row and a constant steam of appeals, the cost of maintaining those prisoners is actually higher than if you 'locked them up and threw away the key.'

Except the majority of the factors you're considering here are on the judiciary process level, and not on the retention/cost of living level. Delegate the court costs to some other source (preferably the offender's pocketbook), and suddenly things look pretty different. In a perfect world, justice would be swift, decisive, and accurate, and the worst criminals would take it on the spot.

Of course, you could always just delegate the costs to the defendant anyway, which would solve the monetary issue. But we don't, because we don't even make them work in prison.

Then again, it would be a moot point in my eyes if criminals worked themselves to the bone until the day they died to pay for their upkeep in prison. I'd be less inclined to vouch for the death penalty if they paid for themselves, or if they lost all the luxuries they do get in prison.

Death is the end. Regardless of your belief system, once that happens, you don't get more time right here, right now. No more living off the state's tab, no more living in better conditions than your own country's more destitute--and more innocent--residents, no more new victims. This isn't to say that prison's a barrel of laughs, but there's no better way to put a period on the more heinous crimes than capital punishment.

I guess not all of us have the luxury of kind optimism. Maybe I'm too codgerly about people paying the full price of whatever they've brought upon themselves through their actions, but death penalty or no, the way criminals are treated now is way too good for them.

There's a happy medium between what we have now and third-world prisons, the latter of which may as well be capital punishment, but damned if anyone's clever enough to think of trying that.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

I am halfway between capital punishment and life sentences without parole. First of all, life sentence needs to mean life sentence. I don't think I need to explain that any.

The reason, though, I am halfway between the two is that on one hand, I'd like to see the bastard that molests little girls fry. On the other hand, I'd also like to see how he likes being raped for the forty or so years he's got left in his life.

For the people who say that emotion shouldn't be involved in the justice system, I say why not? There's nothing fair and equal about letting the rapists, the murderers, the molesters get away with what they do, because it is very much emotional for the victims and the victims' friends and families.

For the people (In the US) who say that the Constitution says that people like that get to get their "fair" trials (That aren't fair) well, you have to understand that the Constitution is the "law of the land". That doesn't mean it's always right simply because it is the Constitution. The Constitution has been changed when it was wrong before.

The biggest problem I see with what I've said is a slippery slope. If we change the rules to deal with murders and rapists, they might add armed robbery. Well, that could end up in getting someone killed. Then they change it to robbery. Well, that's just the same thing minus the gun. Then they change it to speeding tickets... Obviously I used very bad examples, but you know what I mean. Point is, we need to change the justice system to actually be just. Being lenient to criminals who weren't being fair to their victims is just plain not justice. At the same time, you don't want to kill people for driving with a tail light out.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention rehabilitation. First of all, why does someone deserve a second chance if the person they killed doesn't get a second chance? Second of all, there are definitely people who cannot be rehabilitated, so if you really think everyone deserves a second chance, what about those that cannot be rehabilitated. Also, what about serial killers who've gone past their tenth chance?

EDIT AGAIN: Oh yeah, and about whether or not it is used as an example: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Enough said. (They were pretty sure that Ethel did not know what Julius was doing. As it turns out, they were right. Ethel did not know that her husband was selling information about nuclear weapons. They killed her anyway, though, to set an example of what they would do to spies. Oh, then there's the whole McCarthy era. The government uses the death penalty to set an example, just not for things that do not threaten the government (I use the word threaten loosely)) That is actually an example of the slippery slope problem I was talking about >.>

 

[moog]

if someone kills someone else with a malicious intent they deserve to die; nuff said. This isnt trigun LOL NO ONE GETS TO PLAY GOD its real life and if you wanna have the balls to do something as extreme as take someone's life then you just automatically offered yours in return.

like life with out parole is retarded and its unfair. look at manson; fucker got lucky, and he has opportunities to get out of prison via parole. the criminal justice system is such balls in the united states.

 

[Venetia]

well actually the US is seen as having some of the nastiest capital punishment laws in the world after most 3rd world countries ... Manson is a special case because he was grandfather-claused into a life sentence instead of the alternative: he was in prison while it was briefly illegal to exact cap. punishment in the 70's.

In any case I agree. Plus I don't want to pay taxes to let some motherfucker just wait to die of old age in a jail cell.

However a pressing moral question is: the person who performs the capital punishment (i.e. the "lever thrower", the one who administers the killing blow, no matter the circumstance)---is that, morally, murder?
Obviously not legally, but if you take someone's life, even justifiably, is it actually justified? War is one thing, you are fighting for your life. But a doctor giving a sweet shot of death to an inmate is in no danger and it is not self-defense.

 

[Ellie]

I don't like it. I can see why it's an idea but I don't agree that a death should be countered with a death. There's so many factors in play. Motives. What the person they murdered did to deserve death. Whether it was premeditated, accidental, spur-of-the-moment, affected by a recent situation, affected my mental health or physical, and of course whether you can ever be 100% certain that x actually committed said crime.

It costs a lot to keep someone in prison. But it also costs a lot to kill someone humanely, and they still have to be in prison up until that point (which will be a while since they have to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that they are the murderer).

And then what about governments who have armed forces. They are commanding people to kill for them - and the soldiers themselves are killing - for the aims of the government. Why does that not have any penalties attached and yet someone ordering the murder of someone else, or murdering someone else, would get punished severely?

 

[Kuahewa huki 'ino]

However a pressing moral question is: the person who performs the capital punishment (i.e. the "lever thrower", the one who administers the killing blow, no matter the circumstance)---is that, morally, murder?

The lever-thrower is an interesting concept, actually, and the earliest "modern" philosophical musings about it, at least in America, started in the old west when they'd put a man up to the firing squad. As one idea went, apparently one day, someone thought up a contraption that fired some rigged rifles at a convict rather than having some actual people pull the trigger.

It was pretty much unanimously concluded that, somehow, it was much more humane to have people do the deed rather than a machine.

 

[Vadon]

I've some time before I need to scurry off to my next appointment, so I thought I'd drop in and see how this debate is going. If y'all'll (There's a fancy contraction) permit me, I'd like to cover some of the questions raised in this thread.

Cost

The point I'll mention here briefly is that I'm not a fan of having the defendant automatically cover court costs. Why? Well, a person has the presumption of innocence here in the US. They also are entitled to a defense, even if they can't afford one. It doesn't sit well with me that we could have a system where you get as good of a defense as you can pay for.

But fun fact! We DO work inmates while they're in prison. (Granted, not enough to recoup their cost of living, but still.) In fact, while in prison, you are technically a slave to the state. Slavery isn't illegal in the United States. 13th amendment explicitly allows for prisoners to be slaves.


Involvement of emotion
There's a decent hypothetical that a former supreme court justice(I've forgotten which one and am too lazy to look it up) created that illustrates much of the difficulty in using "victim's rights" to determine sentencing. Let's pretend that a couple get into an argument. It's a heated exchange that leaves both unhappy, so one of them walks out to vent some steam. The other feels a need to vent some steam as well. So they go to their kitchen, grab a gun, and fire blindly into their backyard, (Stupid, yes) a large forest with no residential establishments for miles.

The next morning, the police discover the body of a homeless person who had been shot by accident the night before. This person was a drifter with no family or friends and no one can identify them.

Naturally, the sentence that person should receive would be involuntary manslaughter, right? It was a fit of emotion and they intended no harm to come to anyone.

Let's now pretend that the dead body was (and this is a hypothetical, so I'm allowed this) the Pope.

Should the punishment be any different for the killer if the victim was a drifter or the pope? A lot more people are upset by the pope's death, yet the action in both of these situations was the same.

This is why many of the courts say that we should sentence based on the heinousness of the act and not the harm sustained by the victim or their families.

Slippery Slope (More things will be capital offenses)
I'm not too worried about this one. The only way I see this happening is if more people buy into general deterrence theory and forget their notions of retributive justice.

The way to justify those things (like rear-ending and breaking a tail-light) as capital offenses is to say that having such a severe punishment associated with the crime will deter people from committing the offense. When someone knows that they'll be killed if they jaywalk, then they're not going to jaywalk. The problem with deterrence theory is that it doesn't hold its weight in reality. If deterrence theory worked, why do we still have people committing capital crimes?

What's more, people tend to have the deep-seated belief that "justice is balance." It's the "eye for an eye" logic. If you murder someone, the punishment should be death. It breaks the balance to bring the death penalty on folks who carry an ice-cream cone in their back pocket.

Rehabilitative Justice
Rehabilitative justice isn't about giving everyone 'second chances.' It's about trying to help folks who are victims of circumstance acquire the capacity to function as active members of society. It doesn't mean that if someone is genuinely beyond rehabilitation (Like Manson, since he's a popular topic on here) they'll focus on rehabilitating him. Further, with "Life in prison without parole," rehabilitative justice wouldn't even take effect. They wouldn't have a chance to say, "Give me a second chance!" Having a system in place with rehabilitative measures allows those who CAN get parole to better testify their capability to function in society.

Pay taxes to let a mother-fucker die of old age.

This is just me pointing out again that the cost of living on death row for a couple decades costs more than life in prison without parole. My question to you, Venetia, is if the person dies in prison, does it really matter how? Less is spent if you go with life in prison without parole and by allowing them to "rot" in prison, the increased time allows for the possible (though not guaranteed) evidence that may exonerate that individual to come forward. I'd rather my tax dollars go there than frying folks who have a higher potentiality of being innocent. :smile:

Killing v Murder
This is an interesting distinction that I'm glad has come into this debate. There is a difference between killing and murder. In a time of war, the military casualties, while tragic, are the collateral damage of trying to defend one's nation from greater harm. (If it's a war of aggression, it's a different story. Though I put the blame on the state, not the soldiers with some reservations.)

I also believe that the 'switch thrower' is acting on behalf of the state as an agent independent of their personal preference. In other words, the blame rests on the shoulders of the state. If you believe, like I do, that the death penalty is murder, than the state IS committing a crime. If you believe it's a 'killing' in the vein of defending the state from that individual, you're able to safely protect both the state and the executioner from the legitimate charge of murder.

 

[united washcloth express]