Death penalty - right or wrong

[quatona]

As opposed to preventing people from re-offending?

I don´t know as opposed to what you were speaking.
You said "I know it doesn't solve anything, I don't think it is any kind of a deterant, but the victims family will see justice being done". (emphasis added)

I don´t know what justice concept you are assuming those victim families to have, but I personally don´t see justice in returning harm with harm.

As for re-offending: I don´t see much reason to assume that the chance that someone who murdered once will do it again is significantly higher than that someone else will do it for the first time. But even if this could be demonstrated to be accurate, I don´t see any basis in our societal paradigms for killing people based on probabilities.

In general I don´t feel comfortable with the idea that we do exactly that which we try to communicate and establish as inacceptable: Killing others intentionally without being immediately threatened.

 

[keith99]

Unless the death penalty can convincingly be shown to be a significantly more effective deterrent than life imprisonment (something which to the best of my knowledge has never been shown to date), it should not be used.

The state's business is to protect the general public, not to hand out retributive punishment.

As usual you give the conditions under which you might change your mind.

Unlike almost everyone else I oppose the death penalty for horrific cases. Those are the very kind of case where the emotion is tyo "Get the B@st@rd who did it", unfortunatly that far too often means less care is taken to be sure they have the right b@st@rd.

Going back to your condition. I think it can easily be shown life in prison is less of a deterent if it is believed that one still might get out. So it becomes important to society that life without the possibility of parole means just that. No chance. In the same vein death for those already in prison for life for violence, at least during an escape attempt makes sense.

There are a few other exceptions worth considering.

Murder for gain. I think this one might fit your exception. It has to be intended murder, not techkical, eg death in the commission of a felony.

Murder as witness, police or juror intimidation, as these are attacks on society and law itself.

Multiple violent crimes. But I'd make a few conditions. First truely independent. Trial of each before comission of next. Also notification at each step. Here I do not see the problem of getting the wrong person. Eg the number should be high enough and again truely seperate that even with 2 errors you still have 'the right guy'. (I guess i would add a plea bargins do not count in hte count as that has been a significant issue in the past).

 

[NailsII]

How can society say - we are killing you because it is wrong to kill...?

Maybe wrong to kill, but surely worse to rape.

I don´t know as opposed to what you were speaking.
You said "I know it doesn't solve anything, I don't think it is any kind of a deterant, but the victims family will see justice being done". (emphasis added)

I don´t know what justice concept you are assuming those victim families to have, but I personally don´t see justice in returning harm with harm.

The purpose of life imprisonment is punish and prevent re-offending, I only suggested what part of justice is to allow the people a sense of justice.
If someone hurt my family I'm pretty sure my basic instincts would be to hurt them back.

As for re-offending: I don´t see much reason to assume that the chance that someone who murdered once will do it again is significantly higher than that someone else will do it for the first time. But even if this could be demonstrated to be accurate, I don´t see any basis in our societal paradigms for killing people based on probabilities.

Approx. 1% of the population is sociophobic, and these people tend to have little or no remorse or consideration for others. Although not neccesarily evil, if people of this nature have killed a person they are statistically much more likely to kill again (I will try and find some stats for you if you want).
My personal belief is that serial killers and multiple rapists (especially child abusers) should face the death penalty, but this in itslef is problematic.
Some mass-murderers have attempted suicide shortly after arrest/conviction, so maybe they see death as a quick way out and not a punishment.

In general I don´t feel comfortable with the idea that we do exactly that which we try to communicate and establish as inacceptable: Killing others intentionally without being immediately threatened.

But is it more unacceptable to allow these people parole and the chance to re-offend and destroy more lives?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I voted against the death penalty, only because I would rather see people suffer in prison as opposed to an easy out in death.

 

[PassionFruit]

The death penalty is one of those issues I've always been conflicted about. But in the end, for me it comes down to the fact that the death penalty really doesn't do much to stop rape, murder, and other horrible crimes for occurring. Another issue I have with the death penalty is because our justice system (in the US) isn't really up to code, innocent people have been executed. How can you have the death penalty when the justice system is flawed?

More time should be spent on how to prevent these horrific crimes occur and figuring out why they happen.

 

[katautumn]

Recently in the UK we have had a few high profile and horrific murder trials which has resurfaced a debate on the death penalty.

Shocking story of child abuse and murder in a care home - under investigation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7274190.stm
Bus-stop murderer jailed for life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7264138.stm
Rape and murder of an 18-year old model:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7254628.stm
Murder of five prostitutes in Suffolk:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7258115.stm

So, as some of you have more experience of this than I (especially thise who live in states which use said punishment) I welcome your thoughts. I especially would like to raise the issue of proof, as DNA evidence while not infallable would add a great weight of certainty behind many convictions.
Is it morally just, or unjust to execute a mass-murderer, rapist or child abuser?
Is it morally correct for us to keep them alive, sometimes against their will in luxury prisons at tax-payers expense for the rest of their natural life?
Also, does the potential of sentencing someone to death bear on a jury's decision?

Here are my basic thoughts on the death penalty (and our prison system in general):

1. The death penalty does not deter the non-incarcerated from committing violent crimes.

2. The death penalty is an easy way out. Why not let the offender sit in prison until they die?

3. Capital punishment costs taxpayers three times as much as it does to house an inmate for a life sentence.

4. Many people are in prison due to faulty trials and racial profiling. Why is it that a staggering majority of prison inmates are black men? African-Americans (according to the US Census) only account for something like 12% of the US population. You can't lead me to believe that twelve percent of our population is committing the majority of the crimes. Not only that, but most of them are in there on drug possession/intent to distribute charges rather than prosecution for committing a violent crime.

5. The death penalty typically doesn't give anyone a sense of closure. Many family members of murder victims don't feel any sense of peace or closure because their loved one's death has been avenged. In fact, many times they feel an additional level of grief for the criminal's family.

Edited to add point number six:

6. Most people who go into prison for a petty crime such a theft or breaking and entering leave prison as a much more violent and knowledgeable criminal. A lot of people who go in for stealing a car come out knowing how to deal drugs and kill people.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I voted against the death penalty, only because I would rather see people suffer in prison as opposed to an easy out in death.

That's a wee harsh, but you're entitled to your opinion I suppose.

 

[GrannieAnnie]

First of all, thanks to everyone who has answered so far; I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on this issue.
I havn't voted in my own poll yet (shock horror) because I'm a bit of a fence sitter on this one. Maybe I just need someone to help me make my mind up....

Just one question - why?

A good point, self-defence is not murder and should not be treated as such.
The point I was trying to get across is that some of those who walk amongst us are as evil as evil can be.
If you knew the cases I had linked to, like the man who has a history of bullying and extorting then starts killing women at random with a hammer - this guy needs a noose around his neck, big time.
I know it doesn't solve anything, I don't think it is any kind of a deterant, but the victims family will see justice being done.

Firstly, the life and death power is being handed to a judge and jury.
Second, an isolated prison cell in the UK with someone on suicide watch costs more than a room at the London Hilton. They have TVs, good food and books, gym access and everything except freedom.

Is there a better alternative?

It sure eases overcrowding.......

Why do I write to inmates.....the simplest answer is because.....there but for the grace of God go I.....

Although I am a Christian, I don't preach to these people, I tell them I am a Christian but only discuss religion if they wish to. I write normal simple letters, some are long and involved, most are fairly ordinary, it depends on the inmate concerned and what he/she is interested in. I guess I hope that though friendship these people will loose some of their anger and see people in the free world as just ordinary people. Many inmates are very hostile, from the time they were born they have lived with violence, some have never known any kindness. Many of the men have certainly never respected or had any respect or normal conversation with a woman. Hopefully I can soften their hearts and give them an outlet to express themselves in a way they are unable to within the confines of prison and most tend to lose contact with family and friends, so I try to be that person in their lives who they can trust....sometimes the only person they trust. It's been an interesting journey.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The criminal justice system, like all other human social systems, is fashioned and controlled by evil men. That's why it doesn't work, but it 'works' for them. The reason punishment, including the death penalty, doesn't do what it is 'supposed' to do is because it is doing what it was designed, by evil men, to do.

That purpose is to make a big, expensive, impossible, unworkable, mess out of it. They have succeeded brilliantly.

owg

 

[quatona]

The purpose of life imprisonment is punish and prevent re-offending, I only suggested what part of justice is to allow the people a sense of justice.

I can´t seem to succeed in seeing "punish" as a purpose. I understand it is a means, and I am asking "What purpose is punishing someone supposed to serve?", and the discussion whether and which punishment I find reasonable depends on its purpose.
The "sense of justice" argument is circular because it presupposes that killing in return constitutes justice. I don´t think it does (and this would be the point to discuss first), so I don´t find it convincing.

If someone hurt my family I'm pretty sure my basic instincts would be to hurt them back.

I don´t think that justice means satisfying people´s basic instincts. I don´t think that legislation is a matter of basic instincts and/or emotional response - and I definitely would like to keep it that way. In fact my wish is that in the future it will be based on reason even more than it is now.

Approx. 1% of the population is sociophobic, and these people tend to have little or no remorse or consideration for others.

Sociopathic or sociophobic?
This raises the question: How do we deal with persons who are different and apparently uncurably handicapped?

Although not neccesarily evil, if people of this nature have killed a person they are statistically much more likely to kill again (I will try and find some stats for you if you want).

Not necessary. I don´t dispute sociopathy and I don´t dispute that sociopaths are likely to harm others on a regular basis. I just wasn´t aware that we were talking about this small group of severely sick and handicapped persons.
I think sociopaths and your average murderers require completely different considerations and discussions.

My personal belief is that serial killers and multiple rapists (especially child abusers) should face the death penalty, but this in itslef is problematic.
Some mass-murderers have attempted suicide shortly after arrest/conviction, so maybe they see death as a quick way out and not a punishment.

I´m still not clear about the purpose you want to pursue with punishment. Whilst so far you have explicitly mentioned "prevention of re-offending" (which killing the offender would clearly do, no matter how he feels about it), the above suggests that merely harming this person for harm´s sake is also part of the equation for you. That´s the part I see as problematic.
I think that protecting the majority from a sick minority is very important, but I also put great value in feeling regret in face of the fact that we can´t seem to find a better solution to a dilemma than to harm people intentionally (as opposed to: institutionalize the satisfaction of our basic instincts or negative emotions). This includes doing every effort to keep the harm we do as minimal as possible while still providing us with the goal of protection.

But is it more unacceptable to allow these people parole and the chance to re-offend and destroy more lives?

This appears to be a false dichotomy.
As far as I can see nobody advocates allowing them to destroy more lives - at least this is not my position.
The question I am discussing is: What do we do in order to protect ourselves from offenders in general (and sociopaths in particular)?

 

[cantata]

I will simply repeat that I do not think morality should be legislated. The public should be protected by the penal system and that is all. I heartily disapprove of the state handing out retributive punishments. If you think someone's very likely to re-offend, you don't let them out. It's as simple as that. There is simply no need to kill them.

We think of Iran's habit of rewarding bad behaviour with 100 lashes as pretty barbaric; the death penalty is no different, and in my opinion there is no way of doing it which doesn't amount to torture. The prison system is not there to physically harm people because someone thinks it'll make them feel better. It is there to protect.

 

[cantata]

This raises the question: How do we deal with persons who are different and apparently uncurably handicapped?

Not kill them, I hope

 

[quatona]

Not kill them, I hope

Exactly. It is my understanding of the principles of my society that our intention is to help people with handicaps and birth defects to the best life possible given their condition, and that we are willing to summon up a lot of effort and money for that (although there sure are options that appear to be more convenient on first glance) in order to remain a humane society.
I think this is a good principle.

 

[cantata]

Exactly. It is my understanding of the principles of my society that our intention is to help people with handicaps and birth defects to the best life possible given their condition, and that we are willing to summon up a lot of effort and money for that (although there sure are options that appear to be more convenient on first glance) in order to remain a humane society.
I think this is a good principle.

I think you're right.

Of all the people who do things that we judge to be terribly wrong, those who do the things which seem to us to be the very worst are frequently those whom we cannot hold to the same standards to which we hold everyone else. I find it utterly peculiar that some think killing such people is a worthy solution.

 

[Baggins]

As Kinky Freidman pointed out when he was running for Governor of Texas when the incumbent stated he had never executed an innocent man:

" I don't know how he knows that, but I know he never executed a rich man"

In a society that doesn't have equality before the law then miscarriages of justice will always happen and in that situation the death penalty is immoral.

I believe it is immoral even if we had 100% certainty about a crime and full equality before the law, but I think increasing numbers of thoughtful people now accept that both of those things are illusory and it is not worth the life of one innocent man to execute 100, 1000 or even 1,000,000 guilty men.

 

[NailsII]

I can´t seem to succeed in seeing "punish" as a purpose. I understand it is a means, and I am asking "What purpose is punishing someone supposed to serve?", and the discussion whether and which punishment I find reasonable depends on its purpose.
The "sense of justice" argument is circular because it presupposes that killing in return constitutes justice. I don´t think it does (and this would be the point to discuss first), so I don´t find it convincing.

A simple notion, the punishment should fit the crime.
That way, a thief gets a sentence that is proportional to taking someone's property, as opposed to taking someone's life.
As for killing in return, I can see both sides of the argument and I would welcome your thoughts on this.

I don´t think that justice means satisfying people´s basic instincts. I don´t think that legislation is a matter of basic instincts and/or emotional response - and I definitely would like to keep it that way. In fact my wish is that in the future it will be based on reason even more than it is now.

A valid argument.

Sociopathic or sociophobic?

My mistake, sociopathic.

This raises the question: How do we deal with persons who are different and apparently uncurably handicapped?

With compassion.
Even if a criminal is born this way, they are still a criminal and need to be incarcerated as such.

Not necessary. I don´t dispute sociopathy and I don´t dispute that sociopaths are likely to harm others on a regular basis. I just wasn´t aware that we were talking about this small group of severely sick and handicapped persons.

But not necessarily all murderers.

I think sociopaths and your average murderers require completely different considerations and discussions.
I´m still not clear about the purpose you want to pursue with punishment. Whilst so far you have explicitly mentioned "prevention of re-offending" (which killing the offender would clearly do, no matter how he feels about it), the above suggests that merely harming this person for harm´s sake is also part of the equation for you. That´s the part I see as problematic.
I think that protecting the majority from a sick minority is very important, but I also put great value in feeling regret in face of the fact that we can´t seem to find a better solution to a dilemma than to harm people intentionally (as opposed to: institutionalize the satisfaction of our basic instincts or negative emotions). This includes doing every effort to keep the harm we do as minimal as possible while still providing us with the goal of protection.

But at least we agree that:
1. the punishment must fit the crime.
2. serial offenders must be prevented from re-offending

My specific point on this is regarding paedophiles. Their re-offending rate is extremely high (I think around 80% even after 'treatment') and to lock them up for a few years is not a workable solution.

Also, a problem with prison is that if the general public think it is a soft option, being denied freedom, then are we heading down the road of retribution to satisfy the public's need for justice?

This appears to be a false dichotomy.
As far as I can see nobody advocates allowing them to destroy more lives - at least this is not my position.
The question I am discussing is: What do we do in order to protect ourselves from offenders in general (and sociopaths in particular)?

So there is no perfect one-solution-fits-all, and each type of crime needs to be judged on its own merits.
The problem with sociopaths is that, while around 1% appear to be this way, this figure can increase dramtically in certian circumstances - military training, for example.
And as for early release, this appears to be a big problem in the UK as our prisons are at breaking point.
Simple solution - build more prisons, at taxpayers expense.
But is there a more permanant solution?

 

[quatona]

A simple notion, the punishment should fit the crime.

Please don´t take it the wrong way, but I don´t think this is a simple notion. Rather I think it is merely a practically meaningless phrase.
„Fitting the crime“ in which way? In that it harms the harming person as badly as he harmed others? Why would we want to do that? Which purpose would that serve?
I am under the impression that our intended goal is to remove harmful behaviour, and not add harm upon harm.

That way, a thief gets a sentence that is proportional to taking someone's property, as opposed to taking someone's life.

I don´t seem to get the „proportional“ thing. If a thief takes someone´s property returning the property (and possibly paying for the temporal loss) would be proportional. Compensation.
Unfortunately you can´t compensate for taking a life, so this part is obsolete.
So what the heck does „fitting the crime“ mean theoretically and practically when it comes to violence crimes that you can´t compensate for?

With compassion.

Yup.

Even if a criminal is born this way, they are still a criminal and need to be incarcerated as such.

No. We want to protect ourselves, and we feel we need to incarcerate them in lack of a more reasonable and compassionate alternative.

But not necessarily all murderers.

As I have said before, I think it would be a good idea to determine what exactly you want to discuss. When I spoke about your average murderer, you responded by pointing to sociopaths. When I answered in regards to sociopath, you answered „but not necessarily all murderers“. I´m confused.

But at least we agree that:
1. the punishment must fit the crime.

I´m not sure I agree with that. For the time being I have problems understanding what that is supposed to mean, in the first place.
Furthermore I sense (correct me if I am wrong) that you use this unspecific term in order to introduce revenge for a factor. I don´t agree with that.

2. serial offenders must be prevented from re-offending

Yes, agreed. The question is: What is the best method for doing this, and which basic principles of a humane society are we willing to sacrifice for the goal of protecting ourselves from these persons.

My specific point on this is regarding paedophiles. Their re-offending rate is extremely high (I think around 80% even after 'treatment') and to lock them up for a few years is not a workable solution.

If this is so, I currently don´t see any way around locking them up for the rest of their lives.

Also, a problem with prison is that if the general public think it is a soft option, being denied freedom, then are we heading down the road of retribution to satisfy the public's need for justice?

I don´t think being denied freedom, and, yes, the „soft option“ argument seems to be based on nothing but the idea of retribution – harming the person for harm´s sake.

So there is no perfect one-solution-fits-all, and each type of crime needs to be judged on its own merits.

My approach doesn´t circle around the idea of judging crimes, but around the idea of protecting ourselves with causing as little harm as possible. This indeed requires individual consideration of every single case, but I don´t see any case in which the death penalty is required for that.

The problem with sociopaths is that, while around 1% appear to be this way, this figure can increase dramtically in certian circumstances - military training, for example.

Then there is quite obviously something wrong with military training (in general or in the way it is performed with these results). Let´s fix that instead of harming its victims even more.

And as for early release, this appears to be a big problem in the UK as our prisons are at breaking point.
Simple solution - build more prisons, at taxpayers expense.
But is there a more permanant solution?

I personally would expect much good coming from getting rid of the idea of coercing and conditioning humans into the desired behaviour. Education.
I also would expect great progress coming from a society that doesn´t violate its own principles. The acceptance of institutionalized premaditated killing (and besides the death penalty I mean war here in particular) is not reconcilable with the desire to establish the idea that human life is the highest good.
Trying to teach people to not act upon their negative emotions and instincts, whilst officially establishing negative emotions and instincts as one of the parameters for justice can´t come across as a credible approach.
A permanent solution? To the fact that some people kill others? No, I am afraid I don´t have such. Since the death penalty is demonstrably not such a solution either I don´t see that as a problem of the position that opposes the death penalty.

 

[cantata]

But at least we agree that:
1. the punishment must fit the crime.

What does this mean? Are you talking about morality here, or deterrence?

2. serial offenders must be prevented from re-offending

Of course.

My specific point on this is regarding paedophiles. Their re-offending rate is extremely high (I think around 80% even after 'treatment') and to lock them up for a few years is not a workable solution.

Bolding mine.

Please do not muddy the waters. Not all paedophiles are child sex offenders. Not all child sex offenders are paedophiles. You are talking here about child sex offenders, not paedophiles.

I don't see how the fact that they are likely to re-offend implies that we should kill them. At most, we should incarcerate them for life.

Also, a problem with prison is that if the general public think it is a soft option, being denied freedom, then are we heading down the road of retribution to satisfy the public's need for justice?

The public's need or otherwise for 'justice' is irrelevant. It is not the government's business to administer justice in the moral sense. Prison needs only to be unpleasant enough to put people off committing crimes.

So there is no perfect one-solution-fits-all, and each type of crime needs to be judged on its own merits.

I'm not sure what the merits of any crime might be, but you are right that there is no single solution - we should not lock up all criminals, petty or otherwise, for the rest of their lives. Fines, community service, and different terms in prison, are currently what the state offers. Personally I think that more should be done to rehabilitate offenders, but that is beside the point.

The problem with sociopaths is that, while around 1% appear to be this way, this figure can increase dramtically in certian circumstances - military training, for example.

That's because military training and other situations which involve repeated and vigorous invocations of authority tend to cause people to slip into what is sometimes called the agentic state. When in this state, people do not feel that they are responsible for their actions, but that they are agents of authority comparable to limbs of someone's body. The famous Milgram experiment demonstrated very clearly the way in which people can shed their moral inhibitions, often experiencing horrific internal conflict, when they are subject to the orders of someone who is perceived to be a powerful authority. I think there is something quite worrying about producing these states in people, but I don't really see your point. All that can be said is that people who are in the agentic state do seem to have reduced psychological responsibility for their actions.

Were concentration camp guards evil people? No, they were ordinary men who were just following orders.

And as for early release, this appears to be a big problem in the UK as our prisons are at breaking point.
Simple solution - build more prisons, at taxpayers expense.

Even simpler solution: stop locking people up for possession of drugs and other pointless crimes.

But is there a more permanant solution?

We should kill people because we're short of cash? What sort of a vile argument is that?

 

[Meshavrischika]

The death penalty is one of those issues I've always been conflicted about. But in the end, for me it comes down to the fact that the death penalty really doesn't do much to stop rape, murder, and other horrible crimes for occurring. Another issue I have with the death penalty is because our justice system (in the US) isn't really up to code, innocent people have been executed. How can you have the death penalty when the justice system is flawed?

More time should be spent on how to prevent these horrific crimes occur and figuring out why they happen.

I beg to differ about it not stopping those actions. If nothing else, the person who is put to death is not free to commit a second or third or fourth crime. Look at Henry Lee Lucas. If he'd been put to death for his first murders, the people who died after he was paroled would not have died.
I do agree we need to figure out the whys and address them before hand... but this really does stop some suffering and death of innocents.

 

[cantata]

I beg to differ about it not stopping those actions. If nothing else, the person who is put to death is not free to commit a second or third or fourth crime. Look at Henry Lee Lucas. If he'd been put to death for his first murders, the people who died after he was paroled would not have died.
I do agree we need to figure out the whys and address them before hand... but this really does stop some suffering and death of innocents.

This only shows that he shouldn't have been paroled; not that he should have been killed.