Death Penalty

[gcol]

Personally, I can not decide whether a murderous lunatic is best in the graveyard or the nuthouse, as long as he is prevented from harming me and mine. Once he has shown his propensity, he has to be separated from civil society.

 

Where is law and order if this sequestration is not done, and if those we are forced to elect to govern us fail in their duty of care and protection, of what use are they?

[Jim]

Jim' date=' your argument has become:

 

Criminals must be punished in order to satisfy those who would seek revenge, thus preventing vigilante justice.

 

Is that more or less what you're saying?[/quote']

 

That is a characterization of one of my arguments. How would you build a justice system in a lawless country without that assurance? This is not to say that an individual has the complete right to dictate justice. OTOH, there is a form of contract here - Dukakis will not play rambo but society will punish.

[Phi for All]

I see a conclusion but no argument. How can you compare the assessment of guilt after due process is afforded to stalking and then destroying a ten year old girl? Underwood killed an innocent. The state should kill Underwood only if he is guilty. Apples and oranges my friend.

Under the current system, in a state with the death penalty it may be apples and oranges. I don't think capital punishment sends the message we want it to send, the message we think it should send. Law abiding citizens think it's justice to kill a killer. The killers obviously couldn't care less.

No, I call him a monster because that is what he is.

He's a murderer. Calling him a monster just makes it more justifiable to kill him. Do you assign some kind of point system in your mind for murderers and say, "Murderer A just pointed a gun and took a life. Murderer B raped and tortured before he killed so he's a monster and deserves to be killed more"? I think if all life were considered more precious we wouldn't have as many murderers.

Bingo! This is the philosophical underpinning of this argument. Societal vrs individual responsibility. If Underwood is legally sane, i.e. able to determine right from wrong, then he is personally responsible for his crime. Not me. Not you. Not his mother. Not the failure of some republican administration to fund head start. Him. Why is it unfair for him to pay with his life?

Under the current legal and societal system he is personally responsible. I simply don't think the DP works the way we think it should, and it sends a message about the value of a human life that isn't consistent with what I believe.

That's actually kind of scary. Determine the genetic or psych profile of a killer and then "catch" him before the crime is done? A very Minority Reportish kind of idea....

Yeah, I think you have some interesting images in mind about psychological screening. It doesn't have to be "thought police". Perhaps catching a tendency towards certain behavior could lead to some special classes or training. I think a nudge earlier is better than a shove later.

Does life imprisonment without parole deter more than a ten year sentence?

I'm more of an early prevention as opposed to deterrant kind of person. Tough to see how prison is a deterrant for anyone except honest people.

I sure didn't learn that lesson. What I would learn is that a ten year old's life is precious and that if a "man" extinguishes that life while knowing right from wrong, he pays.

I think the lesson that everyone needs to learn is that a human life is worth more than everyone thinks it is.

[Jim]

 

He's a murderer. Calling him a monster just makes it more justifiable to kill him. Do you assign some kind of point system in your mind for murderers and say' date=' "Murderer A just pointed a gun and took a life. Murderer B raped and tortured before he killed so he's a monster and deserves to be killed more"? [/quote']

 

The law recognizes classes of murderers - first, second, third degree. Juries have to find a certain number of "aggravating circumstances" to impose death. There is nothing remarkable about saying that some killings are more heinous than others.

 

I think if all life were considered more precious we wouldn't have as many murderers.

 

I seriously doubt that Mr. Underwood was motivated to kill by the existence of the death penalty

 

Under the current legal and societal system he is personally responsible. I simply don't think the DP works the way we think it should, and it sends a message about the value of a human life that isn't consistent with what I believe.

 

I do not believe that human life is an absolute value. There are some instances where killing is morally defensible - a solider in war, with consent of a terminal patient, self defense and, here, to punish.

[john5746]

This has been discussed many times in many ways. The morality issue cannot be resolved. If someone doesn't want to take a life on moral grounds, that is it, discussion over. I have no moral problem with taking a life. On an individual case, it is very easy to support the death penalty. Give me a gun and I will kill this guy myself, no problem. But, for the state to be able to do it on a regular basis, then you have the problem with innocents being murdered, etc.

 

With the moral resolved for me, what it boils down to is economics. If we say everyone has a right to life that cannot be taken away, that doesn't guarantee the right to free resources to keep that person living, IMO. Healthcare, food, shelter, cable TV, legal services etc all are provided for these people. To me they must work to offset these costs, if at all possible. If they don't work, then they can be refused all but the most basic(bread, water) of resources. That's what would happen to me if I refused to work and I am innocent as well. Indeed, some convicts find life outside of prison harder than on the inside.

 

Also, I don't see the distinction in sanity. A predator that will kill again is dangerous whether it is a lion, an insane person or a sane person. If the person is "fixed", they still need to serve the life in prison. Unfair? It was unfair for the victim too.

 

I think if the death penalty were applied with a bullet to the head right after conviction, it would have some deterrent effect, but probably not for this type of murderer. It is like an instinct for them.

[Phi for All]

The law recognizes classes of murderers - first, second, third degree. Juries have to find a certain number of "aggravating circumstances" to impose death. There is nothing remarkable about saying that some killings are more heinous than others.

And, of course, I was referring to Murder One.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Underwood was motivated to kill by the existence of the death penalty

I don't follow you here. I was trying to say that a bit more time spent as children learning to value life might make for fewer people who see murder as a means to an end. And perhaps not in Mr. Underwood's case. Some people may be completely incorrigible. For them, life with no hope of parole seems actually more fitting and may help deter others. I don't need to see them dead to give me a sense of justice and killing them just shows others that killing solves your problems.

I do not believe that human life is an absolute value. There are some instances where killing is morally defensible - a solider in war, with consent of a terminal patient, self defense and, here, to punish.

I agree with all the above except the punishment. I don't consider executing a prisoner a "kill or be killed" situation.

[Dave]

I have to agree with Phi and the other opponents. I am certainly of the opinion that the death penalty is not something that one should have in a civilized society.

 

My main problem is the complete and total finality of it; there's no way of bringing someone back to life if after they're dead. If you cannot be 100% sure that the person you are going to kill is guilty, then sooner or later innocent people going to die. And that is cold blooded murder, which ever way you look at it.

[Tetrahedrite]

I have to agree with Phi and the other opponents. I am certainly of the opinion that the death penalty is not something that one should have in a civilized society.

*Most* civilised countries have abolished the death penalty. The USA is the only supposedly civilised western democracy that retains it, although one can only hope that the American peoples' thirst for revenge and retribution will die out with time.

[In My Memory]

Bascule,

I remain unilaterally opposed to the death penalty' date=' primarily due to the (scientifically-derived) concept of potential falsifiability. I believe that, no matter how much of an open and shut case a particular murder/rape/what have you may be, that the charges should always be considered potentially falsifiable, and therefore do not provide a sufficient justification for taking life.

 

Penn and Teller did an awesome Bullshit on the death penalty... more innocent people have been put to death in the last 30 years than have been killed by inmates who received a deferred life sentence or for whom the death penalty was considered as a potential punishment. There is no correlation between the implementation of the death penalty and the murder rate: it does not act as a deterrent. And finally, it costs substantially more to execute an inmate (due to legal fees) than it does to keep them in jail for life.

 

So what's the point? I think it's to feed some carnal desire humans have for brutal revenge upon the wicked.

 

The death penalty is bullshit.[/quote']

I dont know if you know this, but Penn and Teller are just entertainers. Their show is just entertainment. But more importantly, they're entertainment is extremely extremely one-sided, and its more like watching a Michael Moore documentary. They're documentaries are strongly ideolically libertarian, and sometimes they can be right, but then other times they get their facts miserably wrong (see the Peta episode and the recycling episode for example). Dont take P&T as gospel.

 

The death penalty might be wrong, but not for the reasons that P&T say it is. The worst argument is the "cost" argument, because the real cost of the death penalty comes from the number of appeals that defendants are given, but people who get life sentences get the same number of appeals.

 

Similarly, the number of people wrongfully executed is extremely low, even by the estimates of anti-death penalty groups. According to National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 23 people have been wrongfully executed in the past 100 years. I'm going to go out on a limb, but did P&T provide a number on innocent people killed in prison? Was it greater than 23 people in the past century?

 

I think the argument that the death penalty isnt a deterrent is a valid one, but death penalty supporters have an automatic reply: people who get capital punishment are the ones who are most likely to murder again and again, so killing them prevents them from ever being able to commit future murders, so the death penalty saves lives overall no matter if the death penalty is a deterrent or not.

 

I dont know how I feel about capital punishment. Sometimes I feel that its wrong because its irreversible, then I dont really have much sympathy for the people who get the death penalty. I wouldnt object to the death penalty for bin Laden or Hitler, and I didnt have any objections to the death penalty for Gayce, Bundy, Ramirez and others.

[padren]

According to National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty' date=' 23 people have been wrongfully executed in the past 100 years. I'm going to go out on a limb, but did P&T provide a number on innocent people killed in prison? Was it greater than 23 people in the past century?

 

I think the argument that the death penalty isnt a deterrent is a valid one, but death penalty supporters have an automatic reply: people who get capital punishment are the ones who are most likely to murder again and again, so killing them prevents them from ever being able to commit future murders, so the death penalty saves lives overall no matter if the death penalty is a deterrent or not.[/quote']

 

I think what he was saying, was that the number of innocent people who were murdered by released murders who had differed sentences is less than the number of innocent people put to death by the state.

 

 

I doubt that would include people who murdered after being released for serving their whole sentence, and I have no personal idea of what the statistics are, but I think he wasn't referring to the number of innocent people killed in prison.

[Bettina]

The child killers that I want to see put to death have already admitted guilt. They have been convicted based on their admission, DNA testing, security cameras, Semen stain testing, and a host of other tests that prove guilt beyond a shadow.

 

They have admitted kidnapping, raping, torturing, beating and killing an innocent little girl purely for self gratification, and in one case, burying the little girl alive while she was still in shock. Some seek big thrills in life.

 

These people are without feelings or remorse and to them a childs life is meaningless. Just a piece of flesh they can have a good time with and cast it away when done. One person called having sex with a little girl the "ultimate sexual experience". Then, when caught, have three meals a day delivered to your cell, free medical care, TV, etc etc.

 

Well, I want them to pay the ultimate price for destroying that life. I want them to feel what the victim felt, to show them that their life means nothing to me either and I won't shed a tear.

 

I can respect those of you who are against capital punishment for the variety of reasons you've stated because I am like that too. But not a child killer. I will never understand and never respect that at all.

 

Bee

[Miss Perfect]

I also used to be in favor of death penalty for some criminals like child abusers. First because I thought it might prevent some people from doing such crimes, but now I think if these people were sane enough to care about these things, they'd never do crimes. Sometimes I think why we should value someone's life who doesn't value other people's lives, but then I think who are we to get to decide who's worthy to be alive and who isn't?

 

 

 

I think the argument that the death penalty isnt a deterrent is a valid one' date=' but death penalty supporters have an automatic reply: people who get capital punishment are the ones who are most likely to murder again and again, so killing them prevents them from ever being able to commit future murders, so the death penalty saves lives overall no matter if the death penalty is a deterrent or not.[/quote'] Actually it seems the only way that you can make sure the murderer couldn't do any more crimes, but anyway how about confinement of those indivisuals who seem to be dangerous to others?(This way the revange is partly done too)

[bascule]

I dont know if you know this, but Penn and Teller are just entertainers. Their show is just entertainment. But more importantly, they're entertainment is extremely extremely one-sided, and its more like watching a Michael Moore documentary. They're documentaries are strongly ideolically libertarian, and sometimes they can be right, but then other times they get their facts miserably wrong (see the Peta episode and the recycling episode for example). Dont take P&T as gospel.

 

I bet you loved the PETA episode (although it has perhaps one of the morally egregious things I've ever heard them say... "Teller and I would personally strangle every chimpanzee on earth with our bare hands to save one street junkie with AIDS." Can I kill the street junkie if it would keep P&T from strangling all those chimps?)

 

Penn and Teller certainly carries the mark of your typical CATO Institute member/capital L Libertarian, but as a social libertarian, I tend to agree with them on most issues.

[Severian]

T

I can respect those of you who are against capital punishment for the variety of reasons you've stated because I am like that too. But not a child killer. I will never understand and never respect that at all.

 

Why a child killer? What is more precious about a child's life? Is it the innocence thing?

[Jim]

The child killers that I want to see put to death have already admitted guilt. They have been convicted based on their admission' date=' DNA testing, security cameras, Semen stain testing, and a host of other tests that prove guilt beyond a shadow.

 

They have admitted kidnapping, raping, torturing, beating and killing an innocent little girl purely for self gratification, and in one case, burying the little girl alive while she was still in shock. Some seek big thrills in life.

 

These people are without feelings or remorse and to them a childs life is meaningless. Just a piece of flesh they can have a good time with and cast it away when done. One person called having sex with a little girl the "ultimate sexual experience". Then, when caught, have three meals a day delivered to your cell, free medical care, TV, etc etc.

 

Well, I want them to pay the ultimate price for destroying that life. I want them to feel what the victim felt, to show them that their life means nothing to me either and I won't shed a tear.

 

I can respect those of you who are against capital punishment for the variety of reasons you've stated because I am like that too. But not a child killer. I will never understand and never respect that at all.

 

Bee[/quote']

 

I would reserve the death penalty for cases where there is literally no doubt about guilt and where the crime was heinous. Underwood, so far, appears to be a prime example.

[Phi for All]

I would reserve the death penalty for cases where there is literally no doubt about guilt and where the crime was heinous. Underwood, so far, appears to be a prime example.

Many people feel executing heinous criminals sends a "strong" message about how society feels about this type of crime. When we go to war we appear "strong" when we kill our enemies. The message that killing is "strength" pervades our society, it's glorified in games and entertainment and has become a symbol of the ultimate defense. We all strive to be strong and retribution through execution has made brutal killers out of too many.

 

This is what I see as wrong, and the fact that it's part of a state supported system gives it even more legitimacy. I think we need to emphasize how wrong it is to snuff out a human life, and this emphasis should start early, when we're young. It's hard to send that kind of message when kids see adults trading life for life like baseball cards.

[Jim]

Why a child killer? What is more precious about a child's life? Is it the innocence thing?

 

 

A number of things: Innocence. Potential. A life not yet lived. Fragility. Trust. Dependence. Embodiment of our future.

 

When my two year old was in the hospital for two weeks as far as he knew he would always be in pain. I spent those weeks in a pediatric ward which is a place you can go to feel very lucky very quickly no matter what your circumstances. If Jamie's fate were to be mine or my wife's, at least we would be able to put the actions in some kind of context. We'd be terrified, in pain but at least would know that we were simply and extremely unlucky to have crossed the path of a monster. We wouldn't assume we'd done something wrong but would know that we'd just been unlucky. I don't even want to think how a ten year old girl would process such events.

[Jim]

Many people feel executing heinous criminals sends a "strong" message about how society feels about this type of crime. When we go to war we appear "strong" when we kill our enemies. The message that killing is "strength" pervades our society' date=' it's glorified in games and entertainment and has become a symbol of the ultimate defense. We all strive to be strong and retribution through execution has made brutal killers out of too many.

 

This is what I see as wrong, and the fact that it's part of a state supported system gives it even more legitimacy. I think we need to emphasize how wrong it is to snuff out a human life, and this emphasis should start early, when we're young. It's hard to send that kind of message when kids see adults trading life for life like baseball cards.[/quote']

 

 

There are many reasons to go to war. For example, I might go to war if a dictator invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, pledged in lieu of surrender to account for his WMDs, failed to honor that pledge, attempted to assassinate a former US president, paid terrorist's families millions of dollars and then continued to fail to honor his commitments even as US troops gathered to strike. If, in the process, it gave an entire nation an opportunity for liberty, I wouldn't mind.

 

I would never go to war merely to appear strong. I would, instead, appear strong to avoid war.

 

I too wish strength were not important to our species. Good luck making that happen.

[Jim]

And, of course, I was referring to Murder One.

 

Even within Murder One, to impose the death penalty the supreme court requires the finding of a number of aggravating circumstances.

 

I don't follow you here. I was trying to say that a bit more time spent as children learning to value life might make for fewer people who see murder as a means to an end. And perhaps not in Mr. Underwood's case. Some people may be completely incorrigible. For them, life with no hope of parole seems actually more fitting and may help deter others. I don't need to see them dead to give me a sense of justice and killing them just shows others that killing solves your problems.

 

I don't think killing Mr. Underwood, if he is proven guilty, is going to warp anyone.

 

I agree with all the above except the punishment. I don't consider executing a prisoner a "kill or be killed" situation.

 

A soldier may kill to accomplish a strategic objective even if he is not in a "kill or be killed" situation. Same for a doctor who withdraws food and water pursuant to a living will. Society makes some killings lawful, which by definition, means those killings are not murder.

 

Calling it "murder" (not talking about you here) is just another way of skipping past analysis of the question.

 

Jim

[Royston]

A number of things: Innocence. Potential. A life not yet lived. Fragility. Trust. Dependence. Embodiment of our future.

 

When my two year old was in the hospital for two weeks as far as he knew he would always be in pain. I spent those weeks in a pediatric ward which is a place you can go to feel very lucky very quickly no matter what your circumstances. If Jamie's fate were to be mine or my wife's' date=' at least we would be able to put the actions in some kind of context. We'd be terrified, in pain but at least would know that we were simply and extremely unlucky to have crossed the path of a monster. We wouldn't assume we'd done something wrong but would know that we'd just been unlucky. I don't even want to think how a ten year old girl would process such events.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure anyone is trying to devalue the tragedy of such an event, but I think it's always best to look at the bigger picture. Simply ending the life of someone who's committed a heinous act means we have learnt nothing except...well that was tragic, thank goodness he's gone...until the next time it happens, and then kill that person, and then kill the next person that does it, and so on. That achieves nothing in my mind.

 

Even if it sounds callous to use someone who is clearly sick as a guinea pig to work out what motivates such acts and what behaviour they display, it can be recognised and treated before it happens again. It could stop many children in the future going through such a terrible ordeal. Even if it's just a small amount of information we can gain on why such things happen, it's another step closer to understanding the minds of such people. Simply stamping them out and labelling them as monsters is wrong, two wrongs never make a right.

[Jim]

I'm not sure anyone is trying to devalue the tragedy of such an event' date=' but I think it's always best to look at the bigger picture. Simply ending the life of someone who's committed a heinous act means we have learnt nothing except...well that was tragic, thank goodness he's gone...until the next time it happens, and then kill that person, and then kill the next person that does it, and so on. That achieves nothing in my mind.

 

Even if it sounds callous to use someone who is clearly sick as a guinea pig to work out what motivates such acts and what behaviour they display, it can be recognised and treated before it happens again. It could stop many children in the future going through such a terrible ordeal. Even if it's just a small amount of information we can gain on why such things happen, it's another step closer to understanding the minds of such people. Simply stamping them out and labelling them as monsters is wrong, two wrongs never make a right.[/quote']

 

I was only responding to Sev's question about why we are more appalled at the death of a child than of an adult.

 

I don't think the "put em in prison for life" advocates are planning on doing phsych studies that yield such answers.

[Sisyphus]

 

I don't think the "put em in prison for life" advocates are planning on doing phsych studies that yield such answers.

 

Actually, they are.

[Jim]

Actually, they are.

 

That yield answers? I've not heard them yet.

[bascule]

I wouldnt object to the death penalty for bin Laden or Hitler

 

I'm curious to know... how exactly do you justify that position logically? Does the harm they have caused somehow override their moral attributes of being (in this hypothetical situation) healthy, adult human beings?

[john5746]

I'm curious to know... how exactly do you justify that position logically? Does the harm they have caused somehow override their moral attributes of being (in this hypothetical situation) healthy, adult human beings?

 

Pretty easy to me - cause and effect. Why treat people differently at all? Why give one student an A and another an F?

 

Depends on how you shape your morality. If you say life must be guarded at all costs, then you can't have death penalty, abortion, war, etc. If you make exceptions, then you can take life for certain situations. Even programs have exceptions, surely moral codes can as well.