capital punishment in America

[CrusaderKing]

Crusader: Although I can't blame you on that, it is worth-while to note that the Pope did write prior to becomming pope the following. (Which I think you may be familiar with but is wroth repeating.)

Thank you for posting that. I removed that part of my post out of a desire to not ruffle any feathers, but it's a point worth mentioning.

 

[CoachR64]

But restitution doesn't really apply in capital cases. What restitution is there, other than the criminal's life, to pay for taking away the life/innocence of a victim? What price time can you set on a victim's life or innocence? The only restitution that means anything in those cases is justice, and the death penalty gives that.

Coach

 

[KarrieTex]

beat me to it.

i find it more abhorant to put a price on human life. taking life is the ultimate crime, then they should pay the ultimate punishment by having their life taken.

 

[MacFall]

So the funeral costs, grief counseling to the victim's heirs, and income lost to the victim's household should be the responsibility of those heirs rather than the responsibility of the murderer who through his crime creates those liabilities? If you dislike the idea of a murderer paying restitution to your heirs, then that is your prerogative. But don't deprive others of that because of your preference.

 

[Wren]

So the funeral costs, grief counseling to the victim's heirs, and income lost to the victim's household should be the responsibility of those heirs rather than the responsibility of the murderer who through his crime creates those liabilities? If you dislike the idea of a murderer paying restitution to your heirs, then that is your prerogative. But don't deprive others of that because of your preference.

I can appreciate what you believe (in regards to the quoted), but I find it disturbing in that the lives of rich (or even middle class) would be considered worth more than a poor person's life. The therapy costs might be the same, but funeral costs and income lost (especially income lost) would say that a murderer owes more money to a rich(er) family. I don't like the idea that if a member of my family was murdered, they would be considered worth less than someone in a middle class to rich family.

 

[Luther073082]

I find restitution to be impractical in most cases.

Most people convicted of murder arn't exactly well off.

Also I don't think that restitution means that justice had been done.

 

[Tamara224]

But restitution doesn't really apply in capital cases. What restitution is there, other than the criminal's life, to pay for taking away the life/innocence of a victim? What price time can you set on a victim's life or innocence? The only restitution that means anything in those cases is justice, and the death penalty gives that.

Coach

Well, let's say a man who is the sole breadwinner for his family is murdered. Restitution for that family would be some form of monetary provision to make up for the lost income they were relying on the victim to bring in.

However, the death of the murderer doesn't mean that the victim's family can't get that restitution. The family can file a wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of the criminal and collect whatever money he/she has.

If the argument is that the murderer should be kept alive in order to make restitution - it's not a very good one, IMHO. A person in prison for the rest of his life isn't going to make significantly more money than a dead person.

 

[MacFall]

I can appreciate what you believe (in regards to the quoted), but I find it disturbing in that the lives of rich (or even middle class) would be considered worth more than a poor person's life. The therapy costs might be the same, but funeral costs and income lost (especially income lost) would say that a murderer owes more money to a rich(er) family. I don't like the idea that if a member of my family was murdered, they would be considered worth less than someone in a middle class to rich family.

Considered worth less (compared to others) is better than considered worthless (by being deprived of restorative legal action altogether). And besides, punitive damages could have some equalizing effect. No just court would fix the price of murder so low that a person of means could get away with the murder of a poor person.

 

[KarrieTex]

Well, let's say a man who is the sole breadwinner for his family is murdered. Restitution for that family would be some form of monetary provision to make up for the lost income they were relying on the victim to bring in.

However, the death of the murderer doesn't mean that the victim's family can't get that restitution. The family can file a wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of the criminal and collect whatever money he/she has.

If the argument is that the murderer should be kept alive in order to make restitution - it's not a very good one, IMHO. A person in prison for the rest of his life isn't going to make significantly more money than a dead person.

Not to mention the COST to the tax payer to keep said person alive. And where does this money really come from? Those who are well off or who have money of any sort are not the normal group of people who are the ones committing crime. How praytell are you going to get blood out of a turnip?

 

[MacFall]

I find restitution to be impractical in most cases.

Most people convicted of murder arn't exactly well off.

The best way to do it that I can think of is to have a life insurance company indemnify the victim's heirs, and then collect on the debt from the criminal. Of course I'm not an expert, and if we had a system and philosophy of justice that allowed courts and victims more autonomy, we may find that all sorts of better solutions exist than either of us have thought of.

Also I don't think that restitution means that justice had been done.

But I would. And I suggest that our respective beliefs give neither the right to choose for the other what ought to be done.

 

[Tamara224]

I can appreciate what you believe (in regards to the quoted), but I find it disturbing in that the lives of rich (or even middle class) would be considered worth more than a poor person's life. The therapy costs might be the same, but funeral costs and income lost (especially income lost) would say that a murderer owes more money to a rich(er) family. I don't like the idea that if a member of my family was murdered, they would be considered worth less than someone in a middle class to rich family.

But the concept of restitution isn't about putting a price tag on a person's life.

It's about financially restoring the victims to the place they would have been if the crime had not happened.

Restitution is a concept that is applicable in many areas of life. For example, let's say you live in a house worth $100,000 and your next door neighbor's house is worth $200,000. If you and your next door neighbor both had your houses destroyed by a tornado, the insurance company isn't going to give you both $200,000 even though you are both homeless and suffering from the loss of a home. The sentimental value is not what is being compensated for - it's the fair market value that counts.

 

[KarrieTex]

The best way to do it that I can think of is to have a life insurance company indemnify the victim's heirs, and then collect on the debt from the criminal. Of course I'm not an expert, and if we had a system and philosophy of justice that allowed courts and victims more autonomy, we may find that all sorts of better solutions exist than either of us have thought of.



But I would. And I suggest that our respective beliefs give neither the right to choose for the other what ought to be done.

That makes no sense. You are in essence wanting my life insurance payments to increase to handle a settlement like that when it doesn't effect me??? No, that's my money you would be playing with.

 

[Wren]

But the concept of restitution isn't about putting a price tag on a person's life.

It's about financially restoring the victims to the place they would have been if the crime had not happened.

Restitution is a concept that is applicable in many areas of life. For example, let's say you live in a house worth $100,000 and your next door neighbor's house is worth $200,000. If you and your next door neighbor both had your houses destroyed by a tornado, the insurance company isn't going to give you both $200,000 even though you are both homeless and suffering from the loss of a home. The sentimental value is not what is being compensated for - it's the fair market value that counts.

That makes sense. I guess I'm a little protective (overly so?) of my family and their social class.

 

[MacFall]

the death of the murderer doesn't mean that the victim's family can't get that restitution. The family can file a wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of the criminal and collect whatever money he/she has.

That may not be sufficient to replace the loss of the victim's income.

If the argument is that the murderer should be kept alive in order to make restitution - it's not a very good one, IMHO. A person in prison for the rest of his life isn't going to make significantly more money than a dead person.

That's the fault of the prison system. Currently the philosophy is that the criminal has a debt to society, which he pays by sitting in a jail cell paid for by none other than the same society which he has wronged. That's horse crap. But a prison can be built around a factory, a quarry, a warehouse, or any other installation within which a criminal can work to pay off an actual debt.

 

[KarrieTex]

They do work. Texas puts our criminals to work. There are farms all over the state that's sole purpose is to sustain the prison system and the inmates work it.

 

[MacFall]

That makes no sense. You are in essence wanting my life insurance payments to increase to handle a settlement like that when it doesn't effect me??? No, that's my money you would be playing with.

Why are you assuming that would be the case? An insurance firm would profit by collecting on the debt if they were smart about it. Of course, so long as the state restricts competition among insurance companies, you may be right. We're talking about a major peeling-back of government control in order to make something like this work.

 

[KarrieTex]

That doesn't work business wise. In order for the Insurance Companies to pay for that ALL the payments would have to go up to sustain the trust they would have to set up for the small percentage. Again, you are playing with my money.

I mean you do realize that an insurance company builds a trust first for the payments. When Ike happened they just didn't pull those billions from the air, that money was in trust and was gotten through monthly payments.

 

[Tamara224]

That makes no sense. You are in essence wanting my life insurance payments to increase to handle a settlement like that when it doesn't effect me??? No, that's my money you would be playing with.

Yeah, I wouldn't suggest that as an option either. As it is now, families can collect life insurance and an award for wrongful death (or restitution).

If life insurance became indemnity insurance then the insurance companies could have subrogation rights - which would mean that if you did collect life insurance and then received an award for the wrongful death claim, you would have to pay the insurance company back with some of the award or settlement from the lawsuit.

 

[MacFall]

They do work. Texas puts our criminals to work. There are farms all over the state that's sole purpose is to sustain the prison system and the inmates work it.

So redirect that purpose to make restitution a priority, and expand the prison system to allow for different and more profitable kinds of work. That would also be the solution to your objection that taxpayers would have to pay for the work programs. The idea is that the inmates pay for them and taxpayers have nothing to do with it.

Of course as I said before, this would entail a lot of changes in the way things are currently run. It might mean that a few high-ranking bureaucrats have to take smaller paychecks. Weird, though - I can't seem to find any pity for them.

 

[KarrieTex]

I didn't even think of that. But there is another point there that would render that a bad option.