Support for the death penalty

[Whyayeman]

I am okay with it, but only with incontrovertible evidence that the accused is guilty, such as DNA.

You seek absolute proof; that is a higher standard than the law requires, which is proof that is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I understand that this comes from a revulsion about executing an innocent person. Actually I feel this revulsion about executing the guilty as well.

That revulsion is behind the historic shift away from capital punishment in many countries, including yours and mine.

(Historical note: In the UK in the fifties juries became increasingly unwilling to reach guilty verdicts knowing that it would lead to the death of the person they could see in the dock.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

You seek absolute proof; that is a higher standard than the law requito be maderes, which is proof that is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I understand that this comes from a rev between deciding guilt (lsion about executing an innocent person. Actually I feel this revulsion about executing the guilty as well.

That revulsion is behind the historic shift away from capital punishment in many countries, including yours and mine.

(Historical note: In the UK in the fifties juries became increasingly unwilling to reach guilty verdicts knowing that it would lead to the death of the person they could see in the dock.)

I think there is a distinction to be made between deciding guilt (reasonable doubt) and deciding the sentencing (incontrovertible or, perhaps, absolute evidence).

For myself, I'd rather abandon the death penalty for everyone rather than be wrong about the evidence being incontrovertible.

 

[Arcangl86]

You seek absolute proof; that is a higher standard than the law requires, which is proof that is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I understand that this comes from a revulsion about executing an innocent person. Actually I feel this revulsion about executing the guilty as well.

That revulsion is behind the historic shift away from capital punishment in many countries, including yours and mine.

(Historical note: In the UK in the fifties juries became increasingly unwilling to reach guilty verdicts knowing that it would lead to the death of the person they could see in the dock.)

It's a higher standard then what the law requires, but capital punishment is unique in that it is irreversible.

 

[Whyayeman]

capital punishment is unique in that it is irreversible.

Not so. Many have been freed on appeal after years of imprisonment. The time spent in prison cannot be reversed.

However, this is not a fruitful line of argument. We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe that capital punishment is wrong in all circumstances. I always have and now public opinion and the law is catching up.

 

[o_mlly]

Every debate on the death penalty I have seen never presents the key benefit of the death penalty that I am aware of. When I taught forensics I noticed that many of the major discoveries in forensics were made during death penalty cases and in fact the death penalty was the prime motivator for the discovery. This is true of fingerprints and DNA and fiber analysis.

1. Some argue that the Death penalty is more expensive than life in prison, that these cases can take 25 years to finally exhaust all appeals. To me this is the major benefit of the death penalty. The death penalty provides time, resources, and volunteer labor to look for a way to prove innocence. These discoveries benefit thousands of people, not just the one on death row. I would never want the death penalty to be the cheaper alternative. No one wants the judge sentencing a person to death in order to save money.

2. Some argue that the Death penalty is biased. Minorities and the poor are much more likely to get the death penalty. This to me is a very big justification for the death penalty. The bias is for all incarcerated, not simply death penalty. If I was poor and innocent I would definitely want the death penalty. That would open the door to all kinds of non profit services that would help me defend myself. How is life in prison a better option for someone who is innocent? Also, things like fingerprints and DNA have helped to dramatically reduce the number of innocent people in prison from just 100 years ago. Therefore every advancement made in forensics benefits the poor to far greater degree than the rich.

3. Some argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. I agree, that is not the benefit. The benefit is not that it motivates criminals not to commit a crime, no the benefit is that it motivates researchers and lawyers to prove that an innocent person is innocent. This is undeniable, look at the pro bono work done because it is a "death penalty case". It is obviously a motivator for lawyers and researchers.

Plato thought that it is always much better to suffer injustice than to do an injustice. This insight is especially true if the act contemplated is killing another person. In his view, no injury that we can suffer at the hands of others can possibly be as destructive of our well-being as taking unto ourselves the moral evil of being unjust toward others.

Epistemic point: beyond a reasonable doubt is always less than a moral certainty. In ignorance, are we morally allowed to kill an innocent person? A child in the womb?

Changing the focus from the one unjustly treated, what do such killing acts do to us as a society?

 

[Whyayeman]

The one unjustly treated being the victim? If you mean the victim justice is done by finding and punishing the perpetrator - in murder as in other crimes. It is a very long time since we abolished the death penalty here and the bereaved only very rarely lament its passing. As a society we have more or less forgotten it, or at least put it aside.

Justice is diminished by inhumane measures, and with it society at large.

 

[Arcangl86]

Not so. Many have been freed on appeal after years of imprisonment. The time spent in prison cannot be reversed.

However, this is not a fruitful line of argument. We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe that capital punishment is wrong in all circumstances. I always have and now public opinion and the law is catching up.

Yes, and they were let go before their term was finished, and often compensated for it. You can't bring somebody back to life after you kill them.

 

[Whyayeman]

they were let go before their term was finished, and often compensated for it.

Getting a fistful of dollars in compensation - when it occurs - does not reverse time. That loss of liberty is irreversible. A thirty year old is released after five years because he was innocent; how does he get those five years back? Five birthdays of his children; five years being deprived of his family life; five Christmases away from the children; five years his children lost his love. Five years of poverty for the family and a career down the pan.

How do you reverse all that?

 

[Estrid]

My argument is that you should look at all the facts when debating this issue. As an atheist you find that argument weak? Do you speak for all atheists?

Of course he speaks for all atheists in this regard.

I hope you don't speak for all Christians.

"Imitators of god"!?
As if you could.
I won't go into the examples of behaviour not
emulate but just point out one thing-

Innocent people are executed for crimes they
did not commit.

Now, the Bible is full of such, but are you certain
that is societies proper role?

 

[Whyayeman]

XNP's contention seems to be that we should retain the death penalty because it stimulates advances in forensic science.

This argument has the benefit of novelty. I doubt if many forensic scientists would agree with it. I suspect that they would consider it bizarre, as I do.

 

[Estrid]

For me, the topic of the death penalty has always been very controversial. On the one hand, I can agree with you and with the opinion that such a method should be supported, provided there are irrefutable facts that prove the guilt of a person (although we can never know exactly what facts we can consider as such). I realized that it is impossible in a particular country just prohibit or permit the death penalty. After all, countries have different contexts, different conditions of political, historical, social and economic spheres. For example, in countries where there is a high level of corruption among government agencies, it would be foolish to approve of the death penalty, because it can destroy the lives of many innocent people!

At the time I was assaulted, I'd have shot
stabbed or pushed him into boiling oil
if I could have.
I bought a gun ( now long gone)

I'd have had the court execute him.
Of course, he was never even caught.

All that said, the "proof" thing has no
absolutes in it, no bright line distinction
between proved and probable.

Execution of innocents have over the centuries almost
certainly exceeded that of the guilty.

Even one ever is too many.

So, no, I could not support death penalty.

 

[Whyayeman]

I know that innocent people have suffered the death penalty, but I object to the execution of the guilty as well. I am opposed to capital punishment for all crimes.

Many countries have abolished it. These figures are from Wikipedia:

Abolitionist countries: 107

Abolitionist-in-practice countries (have executed nobody during the last 14 or more years), and abolitionist-in-law for all crimes except those committed under exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in wartime): 7

Abolitionist-in-practice countries (have not executed anyone during the past 10 years or more AND are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions): 27

Retentionist countries: 54

 

[Estrid]

I know that innocent people have suffered the death penalty, but I objection to the execution of the guilty as well. I am opposed to capital punishment for all crimes.

Many countries have abolished it. These figures are from Wikipedia:

Abolitionist countries: 107

Abolitionist-in-practice countries (have executed nobody during the last 14 or more years), and abolitionist-in-law for all crimes except those committed under exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in wartime): 7

Abolitionist-in-practice countries (have not executed anyone during the past 10 years or more AND are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions): 27

Retentionist countries: 54

The USA is in bad company.

 

[J_B_]

To be honest, there probably isn't much use for the death penalty in the U.S. IMO it's benefits are more practical, and more suited to other times and places, than the benefits promoted in most pro arguments.

So, I'm not opposed to it, but wouldn't put up much of a fight either way.

With that said, I'll stir the pot a bit and mention that it is interesting to contrast the vehemence of people's pro/con position on capital punishment with their pro/con position on abortion.

 

[Nithavela]

Every debate on the death penalty I have seen never presents the key benefit of the death penalty that I am aware of. When I taught forensics I noticed that many of the major discoveries in forensics were made during death penalty cases and in fact the death penalty was the prime motivator for the discovery. This is true of fingerprints and DNA and fiber analysis.

1. Some argue that the Death penalty is more expensive than life in prison, that these cases can take 25 years to finally exhaust all appeals. To me this is the major benefit of the death penalty. The death penalty provides time, resources, and volunteer labor to look for a way to prove innocence. These discoveries benefit thousands of people, not just the one on death row. I would never want the death penalty to be the cheaper alternative. No one wants the judge sentencing a person to death in order to save money.

2. Some argue that the Death penalty is biased. Minorities and the poor are much more likely to get the death penalty. This to me is a very big justification for the death penalty. The bias is for all incarcerated, not simply death penalty. If I was poor and innocent I would definitely want the death penalty. That would open the door to all kinds of non profit services that would help me defend myself. How is life in prison a better option for someone who is innocent? Also, things like fingerprints and DNA have helped to dramatically reduce the number of innocent people in prison from just 100 years ago. Therefore every advancement made in forensics benefits the poor to far greater degree than the rich.

3. Some argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. I agree, that is not the benefit. The benefit is not that it motivates criminals not to commit a crime, no the benefit is that it motivates researchers and lawyers to prove that an innocent person is innocent. This is undeniable, look at the pro bono work done because it is a "death penalty case". It is obviously a motivator for lawyers and researchers.

Sounds wonderfull, let's give everyone the death penalty.

 

[Estrid]

To be honest, there probably isn't much use for the death penalty in the U.S. IMO it's benefits are more practical, and more suited to other times and places, than the benefits promoted in most pro arguments.

So, I'm not opposed to it, but wouldn't put up much of a fight either way.

With that said, I'll stir the pot a bit and mention that it is interesting to contrast the vehemence of people's pro/con position on capital punishment with their pro/con position on abortion.

I'm against both ifn ya is looking for some of that
hypocrisy stuff

 

[J_B_]

I'm against both ifn ya is looking for some of that
hypocrisy stuff

I wouldn't call that hypocrisy.

 

[Carol Walker]

Oh for crying out loud! After going through everyone's posts on this matter, it's odd how many don't actually try to understand their opponents. And a great many take certain Biblical examples out of context or downplay them to serve the agendas they're posting.

I support the death penalty. In a certain type of case: if a person has killed another on purpose and would do it again if he could.
However...
There are a few things I would like to make clear: to kill a murderer is not to become a murderer yourself. Every situation in life, this included, is morally justified by two things: motive and context. As I am a Christian, of course I believe these two should be aligned with what the Lord has written in the Scriptures. And there is a great deal more complexity in that Book than I'm seeing most people understand.
I understand that it's hard, awfully hard, to prove someone was actually guilty of murder, but if it can be done, then the murderer should die because he was arrogant enough to take the image of God(a human being) and destroy it. Also, if you tell me that the death penalty does the same thing, I will respond by saying that there's a reason it is called a "punishment". Not because it can bring back the victims. Nothing can do that and it makes you sound dumb if that's an objection you give, so don't paint yourself in a bad light. It's a punishment, a very final one, because taking someone's life without just cause is one of the worst offences you can commit to God, yourself, and to others around you. So the punishment fits the crime. You killed, so you are killed.
But I understand that it is also of the most importance to prove that a person is or is not guilty, so I hope the courts take their time about the process.

Okay. Come at me, 'cause I'm sure you will.

 

[Whyayeman]

I support the death penalty. In a certain type of case: if a person has killed another on purpose and would do it again if he could.

How would it be possible to prove that somebody is unrepentant? If a murderer shows remorse would that rule out the death penalty? How long should we wait to see if the murderer is remorseful - a year, ten years?

For me the Bible is not an authority, though I recognise that it is for many people. I do not know what the Bible has to say about the death penalty, if anything; as it is mentioned here I would be interested to learn.

 

[Carol Walker]

How would it be possible to prove that somebody is unrepentant? If a murderer shows remorse would that rule out the death penalty? How long should we wait to see if the murderer is remorseful - a year, ten years?

For me the Bible is not an authority, though I recognise that it is for many people. I do not know what the Bible has to say about the death penalty, if anything; as it is mentioned here I would be interested to learn.

Well, outside of the Scriptures themselves, I believe it's possible to talk to the murderer(I do not know prison laws). Should a psychological expert be able to speak with a proven murderer, they should be able to determine whether or not the person is remorseful for their crime or not. If they are, I believe the murderer's fate should be decided by those closest to the victim. Jail is, unfortunately, a prime place for criminals to become much worse than they previously were, and I would not recommend it unless the punishment were solitary confinement.
As for the Bible, I provide this example from Exodus 21. Not all the verses are provided, only those to do with the punishment of death for murder. But you can look it up yourself should you like to.
Exodus 21:12-14: "Whoever strikes someone so that he does must surely be put to death. But if he does not do it with premeditation, but it happens by accident, then I(the Lord) will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks his neighbor to kill him cunningly, you will take him even from My altar that he may die."
Exodus 21:22-25: "If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman's husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
There are numerous cases where a crime that is not murder is committed and death is still the punishment. I am not citing these verses because they don't match the context of those discussion.