Death Penalty

[bascule]

If you say life must be guarded at all costs, then you can't have death penalty, abortion, war, etc.

 

I don't say life should be guarded at all costs, and I don't believe that an unborn fetus has morally relevant properties, or if it does, they surely are fewer than that of any adult mammal, particularly simians.

 

If you make exceptions, then you can take life for certain situations. Even programs have exceptions, surely moral codes can as well.

 

There's nothing wrong with exceptions so long as you have reasons for them.

 

My question is what is the moral justification for killing them? Does the sense of relief it provides in their victims outweigh the moral relevancy of their properties as human beings? How does more killing make things better?

[padren]

Out of curiousity, what qualifies an offense as justifiable for capital punishment?

 

Is it when a law says its ok, or when a law says its ok and the laws were drafted in a democracy, or when drafted by a democracy not in a freakish liberal swing, or in a freakish conservative swing...or is it when a general consensus on a forum website is reached about what actions are especially ebil?

 

My point isn't that its subjective (since all laws are) but while I feel comfortable with the nation I live in being allowed to imprison citizens that commit crimes against the laws of the nation...I don't trust the same body to just execute people.

 

My problem is that once you start taking about "heinous crimes" people seem to start acting like they can divine absolute moral truths. Since we live in a nation where laws are drafted by people subjectively responding to the culture and political pressures of the moment, its not a question of if "criminal X did crime Y which everyone can see is monsterous" but "should the state be in the business of crafting laws that decide which of its citizens should be forceibly executed and who it should not" as a general rule.

 

 

If someone I loved was horribly murdered I'd probably want to see the guy die (to be honest, if someone beats up someone I love I'd probably feel that way) but I would hope to hades that the state would be more clear minded than myself and not start offing people just because I went nuts with grief.

[Sisyphus]

 

 

If someone I loved was horribly murdered I'd probably want to see the guy die (to be honest' date=' if someone beats up someone I love I'd probably feel that way) but I would hope to hades that the state would be more clear minded than myself and not start offing people just because I went nuts with grief.[/quote']

 

Additionally the contrary:

 

If my wife is murdered, and I'm happy about it because I hate her, I would hope that that wouldn't excuse the murderer from punishment.

[Royston]

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

 

So should we give up, and just continue stamping these people out ?

[Phi for All]

There are many reasons to go to war....[sNIP]

Some killing really is unavoidable. Protecting your country, protecting your family, protecting yourself. If it comes down to kill or be killed we all have decisions to make and consequences to bear and in those situations stopping to weigh moral justifications can be detrimental because hesitation can take those decisions out of our hands. Capital punishment is not one of those unavoidable, crisis-time, heartbeat decisions.

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

Or, I would never kill merely to appear strong. I would, instead, appear strong to avoid killing. But when the ultimate appearance of strength is the willingness to kill to deal with a problem, it becomes more easily justifiable for the individual. When the individual witnesses the state executing a prisoner in custody who poses no immediate threat when life imprisonment is a viable option, the justification to use deadly force becomes even more morally justifiable.

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

I have no problem with strength and it's importance. My wish is that killing weren't glorified as the ultimate in strength. Why can't strength in physical power be superceded by strength of character?

 

If it's so heinous to kill a little girl, why isn't it just as heinous to kill a policeman? A convenience store clerk? A street junkie? A murderer? Is my life's value measured by what I do for you?

[Bettina]

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."

 

I know your trying to nettle me but I'm ready for anything you can throw. My answer couldn't have been said better than Jim. Think of each of those words. They carry their own deep meaning.

 

I can't get inside the mind of the child murderer, but I certainly have the ability to act out what that little girl went through. Its my all time number one problem and its sickening sometimes and hard to forget. I take each death personally.

 

Something else struck me too. My dad, our neighbors, and my friends at school all think like me when it concerns a little girl. Not one of them wants to spare the murderer. I want to know why the science forum members are of a different mindset. Is it because you are smarter, or is it because you all have less empathy? What is the difference that separates us? I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to know.

 

I hope that I never change the feelings I have for a child murderer because if I do, I will hate myself.

 

Bee

[Pangloss]

The question here can really be rephrased as' date=' "What is the purpose of law?"

(etc)[/quote']

 

Nice post. IMO this is a far more important point than the death penalty issue itself.

 

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but you know what would happen if I got "stuck" on a DP jury? I'd weigh it with an open mind, and then apply the applicable law as directed by the judge. If that meant the death penalty, then that's what he or she would get. The rule of law is far more important to me than any specific issue.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that people should just keep their mouths shut and accept the death penalty as fiat. What I'm saying is that taking ideological stances on issues -- being inflexible and intractible -- is contrary to the overall functioning of society.

 

Bascule (whom I actually agree with about the death penalty) said something above which is a good example of this:

 

I remain unilaterally opposed to the death penalty, primarily due to the (scientifically-derived) concept of potential falsifiability.

 

Well doggon it, I remain unilaterally opposed to people who are unilaterally opposed to things! So there! (grin)

[Jim]

Out of curiousity' date=' what qualifies an offense as justifiable for capital punishment?

 

Is it when a law says its ok, or when a law says its ok and the laws were drafted in a democracy, or when drafted by a democracy not in a freakish liberal swing, or in a freakish conservative swing...or is it when a general consensus on a forum website is reached about what actions are especially ebil?

 

My point isn't that its subjective (since all laws are) but while I feel comfortable with the nation I live in being allowed to imprison citizens that commit crimes against the laws of the nation...I don't trust the same body to just execute people.

 

My problem is that once you start taking about "heinous crimes" people seem to start acting like they can divine absolute moral truths. Since we live in a nation where laws are drafted by people subjectively responding to the culture and political pressures of the moment, its not a question of if "criminal X did crime Y which everyone can see is monsterous" but "should the state be in the business of crafting laws that decide which of its citizens should be forceibly executed and who it should not" as a general rule.

 

 

If someone I loved was horribly murdered I'd probably want to see the guy die (to be honest, if someone beats up someone I love I'd probably feel that way) but I would hope to hades that the state would be more clear minded than myself and not start offing people just because I went nuts with grief.[/quote']

 

Here's a decent history on the subject. You'll see that the 1976 cases overturning Furman's 1972 ban on CP primarily tried to guide sentencing discretion. The objection of Furman was that the punishment was being meted out arbitrarily. As a result, juries now have to find "aggravating circumstances" to impose capital punishment. The aggravating circusmtances in Okla are probably typical:

 

Aggravating circumstances shall be:

 

1. The defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person;

 

2. The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person;

 

3. The person committed the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employed another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;

 

4. The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel;

 

5. The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution;

 

6. The murder was committed by a person while serving a sentence of imprisonment on conviction of a felony;

 

7. The existence of a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; or

 

8. The victim of the murder of an institution under the control of the Department of Corrections, and such person was killed while in performance of official duty.

 

Except for #4, these are all reasonably specific; however, I would certainly not oppose any revisions which tighten up the discretion given juries. As I have mentioned, I would also allow the jury to revisit guilt even in the sentencing phase. If there is ANY doubt (less than a reasonable doubt but more than a "well anything's possible" kind of doubt), I would instruct the jury not to impose the death penalty.

[Phi for All]

My dad, our neighbors, and my friends at school all think like me when it concerns a little girl. Not one of them wants to spare the murderer. I want to know why the science forum members are of a different mindset. Is it because you are smarter, or is it because you all have less empathy? What is the difference that separates us? I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to know.

When I see a dead human body it diminishes me, I really hate it. Some people don't care, they say, "I'm not squeamish, I can handle seeing dead bodies!" To them, facing that without flinching, without feeling bad about it, is a sign of strength. They then equate that strength to being equally blasé about killing. They become numb to death, whether natural or unnatural

 

I'm not trying to hide from death, but killing is something that usually doesn't have to happen. It's tragic when anyone dies leaving their potential behind. It's horrible when anyone removes that potential from the world by killing. But more killing is not going to make us revere life the way we need to.

 

History is teaching us every day that killing killers isn't preventing more killers. I maintain that it's part of what is making us numb to killing, why millions can be ethnically cleansed around the world and rate only headlines and head-shaking from us. Executing Mr. Woodward will give closure to an issue that shouldn't be closed. I think it would be better to figure out why the US has triple the number of murders per capita than any other major nation and is also the only one with a death penalty.

[Sisyphus]

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

 

I know very little about criminal psychology, but I do know the entire science is based on (guess what?) studying criminals. Like all of psychology, it's still very much evolving. But better psychological profiles do lead to catching criminals more quickly, and thus do save lives, even if they rarely (so far) prevent the original crime in the first place.

[abskebabs]

Whatever is done to this guy the damage is already done and an innocent girl has suffered and been killed. If someone close to me had been murdered this way I can't say I wouldn't be feeling the same way as Bettina, so I can't really argue against him deserving death, even though I know it would be absolutely arbitrary in the end(apart from perhaps feeling a little better that the person was punished). But I can't really say what course of action is required, as this depends entirely on your predispositons and your emotional feelings about these things. There's no easy judgement to make on these types decisions, and no real solutions.

 

In the end I guess whatever method is deemed best for the protection of society, as well as to prevent crimes like this should be pursued and in the end a balanced judgement is reached. This is pretty much what happens in most societies today anyway. We have no where near a perfect law and order system anywhere, but it's all we got. The main emphasis should be placed on how we can prevent these sorts of crimes, and what kind of behaviour leads to them. From reading the article though, I don't think anyone who knew him closely could have seen this coming.

 

Also, one more thing, is the number of paedohiles per some 100000 ppl(for example) greater today than it was 20 or 30 years ago, or is the media just more scaremongering and sensationalist about it today?

[bascule]

Well doggon it, I remain unilaterally opposed to people who are unilaterally opposed to things! So there! (grin)

 

I went on to say that I always allow exceptions if someone can make a good enough argument... or I'll change my mind entirely.

[Callipygous]

i would first like to say that the word "murder" needs to stop being used for describing the death penalty. murder means to kill illegally. the death penalty is not illegal. as much as you would like to push your opinion by attaching emotion to it, and making it seem like some horribly monsterous punishment is being inforced upon this person, it is not murder.

 

now for my personal opinions. i think this guy should no longer be a part of society in any way. he needs to be removed, and he deserves to be removed. as for the death penalty, im very much for it as a concept, but the current form of death penalty doesnt cut it. the fact that it costs more to kill someone than to keep them alive is the problem.

 

part of that problem is when this guy was confronted he said oh yeah, ive got the body of a 10 year old girl that i smothered and hacked up sitting in a tupperware dish waiting to be cooked for dinner. then, instead of taking him to court and saying, this is what he said, and we found the body as he described, and then putting a 4cent bullet in his head, they are going to have him sit on death row for 30 years giving him appeals to make absolutely sure he really did kill and cut up the child in his closet, like he said he did.

 

i understand that there is always a chance that the verdict is wrong, and therefore the death penalty is risky, but when the guy TELLS YOU he has a dead girl that he killed and tried to dismember sitting in a tub, and then you find the tub, and what do you know, it has a dead girl in it..... i think its a pretty reasonable assumption that he actually did it.

 

most cases arent as clear cut as that, and im sure we put down plenty of people who didnt actually do it, but compared to the number of dangerous criminals that have been permanently removed as a threat to society i think were still coming out ahead. i understand that the families of the accused probably feel differently, but society is not responsible for taking care of individuals, it is responsible for the overall health of the society. so... aside from the fact that currently it costs more to kill the guy, i think its just fine.

 

the way it is right now, i think they should be locked in the deepest hole we can find and just drop food down to them, because then they are no longer a threat, and its the smallest possible burden on society. but what i think NEEDS to happen, is the system needs to change so its not so damn expensive to get rid of a bad person.

[In My Memory]

Bascule,

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?

Its just a principle of justice theory itself: the punishment should be proportioned to the severity of the crime. But for the worst people on the planet, like Hitlers and bin Ladens, the punishment in proportion to the crimes exceeds the value of even their own lives by a significant margin, so the death penalty doesnt do anyone injustice.

 

I dont really "support" the death penalty, because it makes no difference to me whether its implemented or not (its not a voting issue for me). From a justice point of view, I dont really see that its wrong, and some of the most common talking points against the death penalty just arent very persuasive.

[Jim]

So should we give up, and just continue stamping these people out ?

 

If there was a reasonable chance at success, I would say do your experiments. So far, I've not heard any success stories and I do not see why it justifies life imprisonment. You could study them while on death row.

[Jim]

History is teaching us every day that killing killers isn't preventing more killers. I maintain that it's part of what is making us numb to killing, why millions can be ethnically cleansed around the world and rate only headlines and head-shaking from us.

 

Most can understand why Jamie's killer should die without becoming numb to genocide. American soldiers in WWII who fought into Germany and witnessed the horrors of war still fully appreciated the evil of the concentration camps they liberated.

[Phi for All]

Most can understand why Jamie's killer should die without becoming numb to genocide. American soldiers in WWII who fought into Germany and witnessed the horrors of war still fully appreciated the evil of the concentration camps they liberated.

I was hoping you would get tired of using war as a strawman for your arguments in favor of the death penalty. Since I see a very large difference between kill-or-be-killed situations like war and executing a prisoner in custody like the DP does, I would appreciate it if you could drop this particular fallacy.

[In My Memory]

Phi for All,

History is teaching us every day that killing killers isn't preventing more killers. I maintain that it's part of what is making us numb to killing, why millions can be ethnically cleansed around the world and rate only headlines and head-shaking from us.

Darling, are you seriously blaming the death penalty on the USs lack of interest in the Darfur genocides? I dont really think theres a connection at all, and it probably has much more with what sells in the US, which for now is the evil evil gays kissing in the park and immigrants taking our jobs. If it doesnt affect who people vote for or sell papers, then its not a front page story.

[Jim]

i understand that there is always a chance that the verdict is wrong' date=' and therefore the death penalty is risky, but when the guy TELLS YOU he has a dead girl that he killed and tried to dismember sitting in a tub, and then you find the tub, and what do you know, it has a dead girl in it..... i think its a pretty reasonable assumption that he actually did it.

 

most cases arent as clear cut as that, and im sure we put down plenty of people who didnt actually do it, but compared to the number of dangerous criminals that have been permanently removed as a threat to society i think were still coming out ahead. i understand that the families of the accused probably feel differently, but society is not responsible for taking care of individuals, it is responsible for the overall health of the society. so... aside from the fact that currently it costs more to kill the guy, i think its just fine.

 

the way it is right now, i think they should be locked in the deepest hole we can find and just drop food down to them, because then they are no longer a threat, and its the smallest possible burden on society. but what i think NEEDS to happen, is the system needs to change so its not so damn expensive to get rid of a bad person.[/quote']

 

 

Who should decide which case is appropriate for expedited justice?

[Jim]

I was hoping you would get tired of using war as a strawman for your arguments in favor of the death penalty. Since I see a very large difference between kill-or-be-killed situations like war and executing a prisoner in custody like the DP does, I would appreciate it if you could drop this particular fallacy.

 

You are the one who referenced history to support the proposition that CP can numb a person to genocide. You didn't refer to any particular historical evidence so I threw out the first thing that occurred to me. Why is it a bad example? The soldiers who liberated the death camps had seen more killing than we, thankfully, ever will, yet they were still horrified by what they saw.

[Callipygous]

I was hoping you would get tired of using war as a strawman for your arguments in favor of the death penalty. Since I see a very large difference between kill-or-be-killed situations like war and executing a prisoner in custody like the DP does, I would appreciate it if you could drop this particular fallacy.

 

it seems like a pretty valid analogy, as the concept your dealing with is becoming numb to violence... people in war experience far more violence in a very short time than most people in their whole lives. his statement of them still being affected by the concentration camps seems pretty relevant.

 

i believe his point was, or at least what i took from it, is that a persons sensitivity to death doesnt come from lack of exposure to it, so much as who they are as a person.

(ok... im a little tired... ill try to read the next post down next time : P)

[Callipygous]

Who should decide which case is appropriate for expedited justice?

 

 

well... the people who normally make such decisions are generally known as judges.

 

anyway... im not talking about a personal preference. no one said there couldnt be laws to determine which cases. for example, one thing i heard in a comedy routine(no idea if its true or not) was about texas adding a law where if 3 or more people saw you commit the crime you move to the front of the line at death row.

[Phi for All]

Darling, are you seriously blaming the death penalty on the USs lack of interest in the Darfur genocides? I dont really think theres a connection at all, and it probably has much more with what sells in the US, which for now is the evil evil gays kissing in the park and immigrants taking our jobs. If it doesnt affect who people vote for or sell papers, then its not a front page story.

I don't think it's just the DP that makes us numb to lives taken. I don't think it's just Hollywood's casual treatment of killing and guns and violence. I don't think it's just shoot-em-up video games where killing let's you win points. I don't think it's just political prioritizing that emphasizes Christian values like heterosexual union over somebody else's problem like genocide. I don't think it's just gigabytes of photos of mass graves and video footage of casual killings that are available to any young person with Internet access.

 

I think all these things together in a major country that has more access to guns than any other, that has a news media that salivates over gruesome killings, AND that has a legal system where the ultimate justice is more killing could possibly point to the reason why people like Underwood come to be. We'll never catch guys like him before they kill with the present system.

 

You are the one who referenced history to support the proposition that CP can numb a person to genocide. You didn't refer to any particular historical evidence so I threw out the first thing that occurred to me. Why is it a bad example? The soldiers who liberated the death camps had seen more killing than we, thankfully, ever will, yet they were still horrified by what they saw.

My reference to history was to point out that the past should show that executing murderers hasn't done much to stop murder. Perhaps I should have said "the past" earlier so your mind didn't immediately jump to "war" when I said "history". Given what I'm arguing about, I can certainly see why your mind would make that leap.

 

I was trying to show that killing is viewed as the ultimate deterrent to unwanted behavior, but history the past shows that's not true. The more numb we become to killing the less importance life has for the individual who may just pick up a gun to solve his disputes tomorrow.

 

I don't like the war analogy because, as I said, some killing IS justified, like in war where defense is paramount and killing an enemy means saving lives on your side. I don't see how war is a good argument for supporting the DP. Are we executing captured prisoners of war now?

 

it seems like a pretty valid analogy, as the concept your dealing with is becoming numb to violence...

The concept I'm addressing is becoming numb to killing, not just violence. Many people have been violent and still maintain the restraint to stop short of taking a life. Rules of conduct change in war and most military procedures, like continuing to shoot a wounded enemy soldier until he's dead, would land a civilian in jail. War is not an apt analogy for the DP.

people in war experience far more violence in a very short time than most people in their whole lives. his statement of them still being affected by the concentration camps seems pretty relevant.

Soldiers were horrified by seeing prisoners that had been executed. This is a good reason to support executing prisoners because...?

[Royston]

We'll never catch guys like him before they kill with the present system.

 

Absolutely ! I've posted and deleted 4 times today on this thread, because I was so sickened by the mentality of (clearly intelligent) people that support the death penalty on here, I was trying hard not to let my emotions get the better of me. This holds especially for the example from the OP, someone who commits an act like that is BLATANTLY mentally disturbed. You shouldn't get swayed by the act itself, but think of a solution to stopping it happening again...and killing somebody is soooo not the answer.

 

I will quite happily look for psychological testing on inmates (globally) and the positive results that have come about...in fact I know they tested on inmates in Texas on deathrow (I'll look for the link). However the time is limited, if you have a subject for 40 years that you can gain useful information from, and analyse their behaviour so it can be recognised in another potential killer...that has got to be good. The more subjects there are to compare results the better...not just sweeping tragedy under the carpet.

 

Bah, it's too nice a day to get worked up over this...I'll come back to this when I've calmed down a little.

[Callipygous]

The concept I'm addressing is becoming numb to killing[/i'], not just violence. Many people have been violent and still maintain the restraint to stop short of taking a life. Rules of conduct change in war and most military procedures, like continuing to shoot a wounded enemy soldier until he's dead, would land a civilian in jail. War is not an apt analogy for the DP.Soldiers were horrified by seeing prisoners that had been executed. This is a good reason to support executing prisoners because...?

 

i still say the point of the analogy was only to address the exposure to violence, not to compare the situations of war and the death penalty.

 

the soldiers werent horrified by seeing executed prisoners, they were horrified by seeing starving, tortured prisoners who were then burned alive. its a pretty big difference.