how is the death penalty justified?

[blackhole123]

the reason for the death penalty is because someone is a threat to society and need to be removed from it right? cant the same thing be achieved with life imprisonment? when you think about it the death penalty is about revenge and i dont think our legal system should be based on revenge.

[Pangloss]

I don't mind a separate thread on this because it's a slightly different subject, but let me wear my "mod hat" for a moment and just add a couple of references to other recent discussions on this same general subject (the death penalty) for the benefit of our readers and to try to keep the inter-topic repetition of arguments down to a minimum:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20189

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20494

[Pangloss]

the reason for the death penalty is because someone is a threat to society and need to be removed from it right? cant the same thing be achieved with life imprisonment? when you think about it the death penalty is about revenge and i dont think our legal system should be based on revenge.

 

This has always been my general feeling as well, that the DP is too much about retribution and not enough about justice.

 

Unfortunately it's not quite that clear of a demarkation on a theoretical level. Your summary misses a key point: Justice isn't just about removing the perpetrator from a position of causing any more harm. After all, if that were the case then we would have to lock up, in perpetuity, every single offender for every single offense!

 

The additional property of justice that we need is some form of punishment that conveys the message both to the offender and to other potential offenders that society does not tolerate crime.

 

There are proponents of the DP that make reasonable non-retributive, or justice-oriented arguments. I'm not one of those people so I don't know if I can really play a decent Devil's Advocate here, but I believe the argument is made along the lines of the old axiom "make the punishment fit the crime". In other words, for cases that aren't just murder, but are perhaps torturous in nature (etc), you need something that's more balancing than mere incarceration for life.

 

I think that argument has merit. But it just isn't how most people look at it -- for most people the death penalty is about retribution. And that's not what justice is about.

 

And of course there is the issue of our flawed ability to determine of guilt. The fact that innocent people could be put to death by accident is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? Why run the risk of making that ultimate mistake when we don't have to?

 

I believe in law and order, not because I'm any kind of conformist or authoritarian but because I believe in the power of democracy and the consent of the governed. I also beleive in the responsibility of citizenship, and so if I were placed on a death penalty jury, I could do it. But you'd sure have to erase all doubt from my mind before I'd apply it.

[augment]

People whose sentence includes the death penalty have been found guilty by a jury of their peers.

 

They have killed another human being. This human being no longer exists. How do you think that will affect your family and any children the victim may have? They will now have to grow up with a father or a mother. What if the victim was the bread winner of the family?

 

Not only have they killed another human being, if they are recieving the death penalty they most likely did it in a very hanus way.

 

I think that the family is entitled to a little revenge.

 

The person revieving the death penaly is not the victim, he is the perpatrator.

[ecoli]

pretty much described my feelings, pangloss... I'm not really for it unless you completely convinced me that the guy was guilty.

 

I wonder though, if it was me, would I be for or against the death penalty. I hope, that if I was guilty, I would be so disgusted with myself that I felt I deserve to die... or is that just taking the easy way out and trying to avoid living with my guilt....

[Pangloss]

I think that the family is entitled to a little revenge.

 

I applaud your honesty. But I want to point out that the concept of justice as a means of revenge' date=' while satisfying, presents an important, if often overlooked, logical trap. If you ask the justice system to make a subjective, situational, even emotional determination of [i']relative[/i] harm like that, then you remove from the justice system the one thing that makes it work in the first place -- it's blind sense of fairness and equality.

 

Put another way, we push justice to a level above petty, real-world concerns because it means that it cannot be swayed by external pressures. If you want justice to be blind to politics, or power, or money, then you also have to settle for the fact that it is blind to emotion as well.

 

The founding fathers knew this, as did many in other leaders in systems of justice in western civilization at the time. That's why our system was created in the form that it's in, where retribution is set aside so that something more important can be tackled, free of the burden of emotional bias.

 

It isn't a perfect system, and it could even be argued that this approach is inherently flawed (can it ever be truly fair and equal?). But it's the best system we have. Pulling it down a peg, just so we can go Hammurabi on the bad guys, would be more than just a simple mistake. It would be a major leap backward for western civilization.

 

In the end, it's not about whether we're treating the perpetrator as if they are a victim. We don't give them assumption of innocence and all those avenues of defense for their benefit.

 

We do it for ours.

[JustStuit]

Also, if we kept them all in life imprisonment it would cost a ton of money. More prison space, food, high security, guards, etc. I'm not saying this is a good reason but I'm merely pointing it out. I wish it could be that money wasn't a problem but it always will be.

[Jim]

pretty much described my feelings' date=' pangloss... I'm not really for it unless you completely convinced me that the guy was guilty.

 

I wonder though, if it was me, would I be for or against the death penalty. I hope, that if I was guilty, I would be so disgusted with myself that I felt I deserve to die... or is that just taking the easy way out and trying to avoid living with my guilt....[/quote']

 

This is why I would require the jury to reassess guilt in the sentencing phase. They've already convicted the guy "beyond a reasonable doubt" and, with the current system, in the sentencing phase they will have to find certain "aggravating circumstances" in order to impose death. Under the current system, a judge does not have to accept the jury's death sentence.

 

In addition to these and other safeguards, I would give the jury one more chance before imposing death to reassess guilt. I wouldn't let new evidence on guilt come in at this phase, but I would let them say, "okay, we don't think there is a reasonable doubt but there is enough doubt about guilt to keep us up at night if we kill the guy." I almost wish they had percentages instead of words so the jury had to find to a 99.999% certainty to impose death. This would only impose death in cases where there is nothing but the inherent "anything is possible" kind of risk. I would require the judge to set aside death if he doesn't agree with the 99.999% guilt finding.

 

I would then be very receptive to tightening up the aggravating circumstances criteria so that it would be both a case with virtually no doubt and the genuinely heinous murder that requires death.

 

If you limit death to this type of case, I don't see that it requires a lot of justification. The punishment fits the crime and we've done everything we can to eliminate the risk of putting an innocent to death.

 

In these rare "Kevin Underwood" type cases, the punishment seems to fit. OTOH, I have to admit that life in prison doesn't strike me as that much more humane than death, even if these cowards do typically want to live.

[budullewraagh]

stu, just to put this myth to rest, it costs $35k/year to house an inmate and millions upon millions to get the death penalty. say an inmate commits a crime and is jailed at 25. if he serves a life sentence for 50 years, then dies at 75, it costs $1.75million. in some cases it has cost $200k just to print relevant data for prosecution, let alone writing it and all the other relevant things (consider how ridiculously expensive lawyers must be for such cases).

 

also, sorry to be less nice about it than pangloss was, but the idea of revenge being ok is mind-bogglingly ridiculous. as disturbing as it sounds, people who commit crimes have justified them in their own minds at least in the moment that they do commit said crime. when a criminal is convicted of, say, murder, the jury may be in the same position that the criminal once was in. to execute or not to excute: that is the question. and if the victim's family wants him dead, is it really best to sink to the level of the criminal? surely the victim's family should be held to more humane standards than the cold-blooded killer, right?

[augment]

I think you guys watch a little two much Boston Legal and Law & Order. Are you guys trying to tell me that the jury's emotions are not going to come into play when deciding guilt. We're humans. Emotions are what drives us to do everything. Emotions drived the killer to kill. Emotions will kill the killer. Like an equation in mathematics, balance has been restored.

[augment]

One other thing, from your guys posts it doesn't seem like know how severe the actions of these peolp really are. Nobody in my family has been killed in my lifetime and I considered myself blessed. Picture not having your mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, child gone. They're never coming back.

[MacroQuantum]

I cannot say that revenge is okay... but lets face it the victim or victims family must get some comfort in "seeing justice served". I think Stephen King put it best in... I don't remeber the book when he said approximately "Justice is the honest man's revenge".

 

... best to sink to the level of the criminal ....

Are we actually doing any good to "rise above" the criminal mindset. The death penalty delivers a clear and distinct message that might actually cause a person right on the verge to change his mind. That message being simply "certain conduct will not be tolerated".

And yes, I find it offensive that I am paying someone's cable/internet bill who has killed, raped or stolen. I find it offensive that I am putting food in their mouths when they are generally not earning that food. If not the death penalty then bring back the chain gang, where some use was gotten out of them. They have shown that their conduct is somewhat less than human, yet, for some reason they feel like they should be treated humanely? Make that make sense.

I find it offensive that we have to build another prison. Obviously we are not doing something right, so it might be time to change tactics. I would almost be willing to guarantee that if everyone who cost the life of someone else was executed, no discrimination, then murder statistics would go down.

[budullewraagh]

Are we actually doing any good to "rise above" the criminal mindset.

is this a question? and absolutely yes. if we are all at the level of this "criminal mindset" that you speak of, we will all be just like criminals. think of it- if someone takes the life of a friend of yours and you want the criminal dead, this makes you no different from the one that killed your friend. it really is all about intent- i honestly think that the sentences for attempted murder/robbery/arson, etc should be the same as the sentences for successful murder/robbery/arson, etc, but that is a different subject. the point is that if we are allowed to become like criminals through punishment of criminals, we become criminals ourselves in that we are commiting the same offenses as those that they have allegedly committed.

 

also, i would like to remind you that when people commit crimes, they are justified in the eyes of the criminal. to a criminal, a life sentence is hardly better than death if it is better at all, so the slight difference in punishment probably won't do much to deter.

 

and if you're going to be offended by the fact that your tax dollars pay for the feeding and housing of certain criminals, why not be mention any offense you may have at the fact that your tax dollars pay for the defense of such criminals?

[Royston]

I cannot say that revenge is okay... but lets face it the victim or victims family must get some comfort in "seeing justice served". I think Stephen King put it best in... I don't remeber the book when he said approximately "Justice is the honest man's revenge".

 

 

Are we actually doing any good to "rise above" the criminal mindset. The death penalty delivers a clear and distinct message that might actually cause a person right on the verge to change his mind. That message being simply "certain conduct will not be tolerated".

And yes' date=' I find it offensive that I am paying someone's cable/internet bill who has killed, raped or stolen. I find it offensive that I am putting food in their mouths when they are generally not earning that food. If not the death penalty then bring back the chain gang, where some use was gotten out of them. They have shown that their conduct is somewhat less than human, yet, for some reason they feel like they should be treated humanely? Make that make sense.

I find it offensive that we have to build another prison. Obviously we are not doing something right, so it might be time to change tactics. I would almost be willing to guarantee that if everyone who cost the life of someone else was executed, no discrimination, then murder statistics would go down.[/quote']

 

This just seems to be a blatant disregard to the conditions on why people murder. First, people don't kill unless they are driven to murder, or they are mentally ill, or it's an accident. Is there less murder in the states where the death penalty is a punishment.

 

If somebody murdered one of my family, I would be questioning why them, and trying to make sense of the whole thing. Killing the murderer would not quench my bafflement of the event...in fact I could only see as it would add to it. Like I've expressed in another thread, an eye for an eye doesn't solve anything in this respect. Whatever the events are...and however callous they may seem, we can't learn properly from said callous acts unless the perpetrator is alive to make sense of the mindset of such a criminal.

 

EDIT: apologies for bringing in the same argument as the 'death penalty' thread. I just can't see how execution solves anything...murder keeps happening despite the sentence, I can only see that learning from the mind of a criminal is the only way forward.

[Pangloss]

I think you guys watch a little two much Boston Legal and Law & Order. Are you guys trying to tell me that the jury's emotions are not going to come into play when deciding guilt. We're humans. Emotions are what drives us to do everything. Emotions drived the killer to kill. Emotions will kill the killer. Like an equation in mathematics, balance has been restored.

 

I think you do a disservice to the debate (not to mention insult your fellow members) to pawn it off as some sort of two-bit, television-derived argument. If you think that's where my logic comes from, you're seriously mistaken. I fully understood my position on this long before either one of those television shows was even created (and yes, I know how long Law & Order has been on the air).

 

You've not even tipped the iceberg in refuting the argument I posted above, which had nothing to do with jury emotion at all. What *you've* done is very much like what television does, actually -- play on emotions, ignore logic and reason, and pretend like the other side of the debate has nothing of interest to say at all.

 

That's not debate. It's simple appeal to emotion. And it's not what we do here, so you might want to give some more thought to your position before posting again.

[sunspot]

One thing about the death penality that most people miss is the relativity of reference. Good citizens try to empathize, essentially putting themselves in the shoes of someone, while looking through their own eyes and honest beleif system. The mind of a criminal sees a different reality.

 

A good analogy is a pickup basketball game. If there are no officials around, some players will cheat, while others will try to play by the rules. If the cheating got bad where it involves elbows, pushes and trips, if one continues to play by the rules there is no incentive for the cheater to stop. It also puts one at a disadvantage. Eventually, after a chipped tooth and bloody nose, one may decide to play by the cheater's rules to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

This is what the death penality come down to. If we play by the rules of good citizens and allow others to cheat, there is no incentive for change. If we play by the rules sets by the cheater he would begin to understand the affects of his or her actions. There will change from an ego-centric child into a more globally understanding adult.

[YT2095]

I`m not arguing For or Against the DP here, I present a Simple question (Primarily to Panglos).

 

What is so wrong with "Revenge"?

[ecoli]

There's revenge and then theirs costs for punitive damages.

[budullewraagh]

What is so wrong with "Revenge"?

 

please see post #13

(http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=271495&postcount=13)

[Edtharan]

The death penalty delivers a clear and distinct message that might actually cause a person right on the verge to change his mind. That message being simply "certain conduct will not be tolerated".

If this is true then anywhere they institute a death penalty for a crime then that crime would no longer exist. This does not occure, so this is not a deterent. A criminal will comit the crime because they don't think they will get caught (or it is a remote posability that they will get caught). So punishment will deter some criminals, but just increasing the severity of a crime beyond a certain point will not have any more effect.

 

In Australia we do not have the death penalty and we do not have a huge number of murders (iirc: it is even less than those states in America that have the death penalty).

 

People whose sentence includes the death penalty have been found guilty by a jury of their peers.

unfortunatly, the jury is not perfect and does make incorect convictions.

 

Ask your self this: How many inocent people must die to punish the guilty?

 

So, does the death penalty have the effect it is intended to have? Probably not, and the cost that it incures in the wrongfull excecutions of inocents that have been wrongly convicted is too high a price to pay for the little effect that it has.

[Pangloss]

I`m not arguing For or Against the DP here' date=' I present a Simple question (Primarily to Panglos).

 

What is so wrong with "Revenge"?[/quote']

 

Are you kidding?

 

Far be it from me to say what actions will assuage the emotional journey that the family members of victims have to endure. If revenge is what makes them feel better, who am I to pass judgement on their emotions?

 

My concern is with the purpose and integrity of the justice system. If you construct a justice system whose purpose is to make subjective decisions based on each individual case, then you lose the consistency and reliability that you need to make the hard decisions.

 

Put another way, if you want mob rule then who needs a judge? Grab a rope and a burning 2x4 and wade in. Enjoy.

[YT2095]

no I wasn`t kidding.

 

I just wanted to know of some Reasonings behind the whole "Revenge" idea.

Thnx both

[MacroQuantum]

My concern is with the purpose and integrity of the justice system. If you construct a justice system whose purpose is to make subjective decisions based on each individual case, then you lose the consistency and reliability that you need to make the hard decisions.

What do you think justice is, if not society's revenge on someone who dared to break their rules?

 

While I'm at it you say the death penalty is wrong in one post, and then you advocate it in another? Which way is it?

 

In the end' date=' it's not about whether we're treating the perpetrator as if they are a victim. We don't give them assumption of innocence and all those avenues of defense for their benefit.

 

We do it for ours.[/quote']

I actually liked this argument until you accused augment of playing on emotion, which is exactly what this is. But a realistic question: at what point do you say enough is enough. Oh, wait a moment. I guess that would be the other post.

 

If this is true then anywhere they institute a death penalty for a crime then that crime would no longer exist. This does not occure, so this is not a deterent. A criminal will comit the crime because they don't think they will get caught (or it is a remote posability that they will get caught). So punishment will deter some criminals, but just increasing the severity of a crime beyond a certain point will not have any more effect.

 

You're right, some criminals will in fact commit a crime because they don't think they will get caught. Ergo, you're right, the death penalty does not stop a crime completely. On the other hand if it stops one person from commiting a crime, is it worth it?

For that matter, we've spent a lot of time talking about the criminal but what about the society as a whole. I know I would feel more secure if the death penalty was in full swing, and I knew we were trying, instead of releasing murders because jails are full.

 

One thing about the death penality that most people miss is the relativity of reference. Good citizens try to empathize' date=' essentially putting themselves in the shoes of someone, while looking through their own eyes and honest beleif system. The mind of a criminal sees a different reality.

 

A good analogy is a pickup basketball game. If there are no officials around, some players will cheat, while others will try to play by the rules. If the cheating got bad where it involves elbows, pushes and trips, if one continues to play by the rules there is no incentive for the cheater to stop. It also puts one at a disadvantage. Eventually, after a chipped tooth and bloody nose, one may decide to play by the cheater's rules to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

This is what the death penality come down to. If we play by the rules of good citizens and allow others to cheat, there is no incentive for change. If we play by the rules sets by the cheater he would begin to understand the affects of his or her actions. There will change from an ego-centric child into a more globally understanding adult.[/quote']

Good point. As soon as someone establishes a line that they will not cross then you know that a criminal will be beyond that line, so that they can successfully thumb their nose at society and do it "their way". Society is not about conformisim, it's about cooperation and the criminal as already stated that he has no intention of cooperation. Obviously that can be taken to far, as well.

 

Snail

This just seems to be a blatant disregard to the conditions on why people murder. First, people don't kill unless they are driven to murder, or they are mentally ill, or it's an accident. Is there less murder in the states where the death penalty is a punishment.

You really need to get out more. "Driven to murder"? When people starts considering murder as a viable alternative then, yes I say it is time to start cleaning the gene pool.

 

apologies for bringing in the same argument as the 'death penalty' thread. I just can't see how execution solves anything...murder keeps happening despite the sentence

 

But look at it. Every year the laws gets padded a bit more, to make sure the criminals get their rights, etc, and what happens? Every year the murder statistics goes up.

 

I can only see that learning from the mind of a criminal is the only way forward.

I'm not exactly sure there is a way forward in this respect. There will always be people who beleive in cheating, people who beleives that what they want is more important than the soceity they live in. Therefore the only thing that can be done with them is to remove them. The cheapest way to do that is a .45.

However, in the case of the criminally insane could/should they be cured? I don't know. Does the idea that they were ill make it better, them less responsible? And if cured should they then take responsibility for what they did?

Of the three people that I know of that should have went to jail, two of them did. It did not change their minds one bit. The third probably should have gone to jail but didn't, and years later he turned into a very compassionate man. So does jail help?

For a quick look around, let's touch on the SF mindwipe. Would this be any better than the death penalty? I don't see how. It still comes down to 'personality death'.

 

and absolutely yes. if we are all at the level of this "criminal mindset" that you speak of, we will all be just like criminals.

When speaking to a criminal it is a good idea to speak a language that they can understand.

 

and if you're going to be offended by the fact that your tax dollars pay for the feeding and housing of certain criminals, why not be mention any offense you may have at the fact that your tax dollars pay for the defense of such criminals?

Last thing I heard, before he is convicted he is not a criminal. He is being held in custody and is innocent until proven guilty.

[Pangloss]

What do you think justice is, if not society's revenge on someone who dared to break their rules?

 

I've answered this question already, in great detail -- is there some reason you can't respond directly to the answers that I went through the time and effort to type into this forum before? Are you unable to do so?

 

 

While I'm at it you say the death penalty is wrong in one post, and then you advocate it in another? Which way is it?

 

So you have read my other posts. Odd, it didn't sound like you had, based on the quote above. On the other hand, perhaps you really haven't, since if you had you would know that I have not *advocated* the death penalty in any of my posts.

 

You know, I've taken the time to say what I mean very carefully. I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to read what I actually wrote, and respond to what I actually wrote, rather than responding in a spinning and distortive manner.

 

 

I actually liked this argument until you accused augment of playing on emotion, which is exactly what this is.

 

Well thanks for letting me know that your judgement can be swayed merely by the tone and behavior of the poster. (Or at least the way you've interpretted their post.)

 

I'll remember to judge your responses according to the manner in which you apparently would prefer that they be perceived. Thanks, I guess?

[Jim]

I`m not arguing For or Against the DP here' date=' I present a Simple question (Primarily to Panglos).

 

What is so wrong with "Revenge"?[/quote']

 

I think most accept retribution as justice on some level. Let's assume ten years from now that we study the thought process of Kevin Underwood and conclude that this type of killer is not influenced by prison sentences or death. Whatever bizarre mechanism leads a person to this type of crime is not deterred by threat of punishment.

 

Let's also assume that we can keep him from recidivating merely by attaching a bracelet or wearable computer with a camera to him for the rest of his life. We plug that feed into a computer, that would let him live out the rest of his life just as a normal person except that an anonymous computer would be tracking him. We embed a GPS transceiver in his body so that if he takes off the minuscule computer, we can pick him up instantly.

 

Moreover, Kevin asks to have plastic surgery at his own expense so he will not be known for what he did and hires a lawyer to do a name change. Since we will be anonymously tracking him why punish him unnecessarily with the stigma of his past crime?

 

How many would let an Underwood type live so easily, literally paying no consequences for his actions even if he had zero chance of recidivating and if deterrence would not be served?

 

All of these terms sound slightly different: revenge, vengeance, retribution, punishment, justice. But on some level, most of us want criminals to be punished because they deserve to be punished.