Death Sentence - Best/Worst Alternative?

[TriggerGod]

also Derived from my Cannibalism thread, is the Death Sentence the Best, or Worst, alternative?

A scenario(s) might help.

Scenario 1: A man Rapes a woman, then goes on to rape the child.

Scenario 2: Someone robs a store, gets a 5 year sentence. After sentence is over, goes on to commit a murder of a (semi-)famous person.

Anymore Scenarios are welcomed.

[Litofsky]

I feel a bit torn on this issue. I'll provide both sides of my feelings, and then, hopefully, I'll get somewhere.

 

Pro-Death Penalty

 

- It could deter would-be criminals. The possibility of death might be powerful enough to do that.

-- If, by not executing the criminal, you allow (him) the opportunity to kill again.

 

Anti-Death Penalty

- It violates your right to life. Why should the government be allowed to take life away from you?

-- By maintaining a "no death to prisoners" pact, we make ourselves/the legal system, better than the criminals that do kill.

 

That's what I've got right now (if you couldn't tell, it's kind of late here ). I think that I, personally, would opt for the 'Anti-Death Penalty' stance. Though, if it were proven to save more lives than it takes, I might be convinced otherwise...

[Totenkopf]

I'd say that the death penalty cuts recidivism to 0 %. I find no problem with the idea of a death penalty. The flaws are always in the execution (pun partially intended ) of such a policy. It's irrelevant to me whether application of the death penalty deters one person (the perp) or many from committing any future crimes. The big problem is ever a question of did the accused receive a fair and untainted trial. If it can be fairly concluded that such was the case......c'est le vie.

[Litofsky]

I'd say that the death penalty cuts recidivism to 0 %. I find no problem with the idea of a death penalty. The flaws are always in the execution (pun partially intended ) of such a policy. It's irrelevant to me whether application of the death penalty deters one person (the perp) or many from committing any future crimes. The big problem is ever a question of did the accused receive a fair and untainted trial. If it can be fairly concluded that such was the case......c'est le vie.

 

But what happens when the system fails, and the wrong person is sentenced to death?

[Totenkopf]

That's why I said that the problem is in the execution (that and c'est le vie) .

[Darth_Yuthura]

I think executions should be abolished unless the one in custody would be considered a threat to others. Although Law and Order is fictional, there is one episode that emphasized that a murderer escaped the death penalty and escaped prison only to kill again. Odds are that there are people who have little or no hope of being innocent. Criminals should only be executed if they are considered too great a threat and have no hope of parole. It should not be punishment, but a means of neutralizing a threat to humanity.

[ForeverNight]

By maintaining a "no death to prisoners" pact, we make ourselves/the legal system, better than the criminals that do kill. [/Quote]

 

I've always hated the "That makes us no better than X" argument. The difference between the two is that the Criminal who killed did it, and, more than likely, enjoyed it. Also, said Criminal got something out of it, whether it be pleasure, money or some other gain, whilst the person who delievers the execution has law and order on their side, they are doing it because it is right, not because they get Y out of it.

 

I wish I was speaking this, I'm always better at that than typing... Oh well.

 

@Darth_Yuthura

 

I have to agree with the point that you brought up with the person in custody being a threat to others. However, having just said that, I have to bring up the bit I've been told -so, it's pure hearsay, not hard fact- that prisons are fill with more repeat criminals than first-time criminals.

 

So, to me that's saying that the system's too easy on people. I know I've heard stories (From a friend who heard from a friend who heard from TV... You get the idea, basically this is hearsay yet again) that special interest groups are ticked off because prisoners aren't getting Luxury Item Z.

 

I dunno, I almost wish we could go to the justice systems of the late 18th Century. Look at what crime was like then!

 

---

 

I guess that my view of the Death Penalty is that it shouldn't be used on a fellow human being, however there are points at which you are no longer human. E.G. Scenario 1 that TriggerGod provided.

 

Darn it! I wish I could talk instead of type!

[Q]

I not only believe that capital punishment is necessary as both a method of disposal and as a deterrent, but that it should also be used on repeat offender rapists and (especially) pedophiles.

[Burnseyy]

you can't have a death penalty, because what if it turns out the police are mistaken?

if it wasn't for possibility of being mistaken, I'd be all for death penalty... but not for petty crimes like stealing. Only serious ones, like murder.

if they think killing someone is fine, then they shouldn't have a problem with it.

[Q]

Well, at least this guy didn't.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I think executions should be abolished unless the one in custody would be considered a threat to others.

Well, that person is arrested. He/she is already considered a threat to others. Whether he/she is fitting to be place on the category of "to-be relapsing" is simply subjective.

 

I've always hated the "That makes us no better than X" argument. The difference between the two is that the Criminal who killed did it, and, more than likely, enjoyed it. Also, said Criminal got something out of it, whether it be pleasure, money or some other gain, whilst the person who delievers the execution has law and order on their side, they are doing it because it is right, not because they get Y out of it.

That makes taking someone else's life different, doesn't it?

[Achilles]

- It could deter would-be criminals. The possibility of death might be powerful enough to do that.

I don't know that punishments are much of a deterrent for any crime. I'm sure I could be easily persuaded with some reputable statistics though.

 

My 2 cents is that the only people that will be persuaded not to kill are those that probably wouldn't kill anyway.

 

- If, by not executing the criminal, you allow (him) the opportunity to kill again.

Quite right. Even if you could reform a cold-blooded killer, would you be doing him or her any favors by doing so?

 

"Congratulations, we've successfully restored your mental and emotional health. Oh by the way, you now get to live the rest of your life knowing that you brutalized innocent people."

 

I think the death penalty is the kindest choice for everyone involved, but that's only my opinion.

 

- It violates your right to life. Why should the government be allowed to take life away from you?

The government is representative, no? We allow them to make laws and enforce them already. Isn't this the same thing?

 

- By maintaining a "no death to prisoners" pact, we make ourselves/the legal system, better than the criminals that do kill.

I'm not sure I have a counter-argument for this one.

 

you can't have a death penalty, because what if it turns out the police are mistaken?

I agree that this is a serious consideration. My instinctual reaction is to point out that every case of wrongful conviction I've ever heard of (yes, I am qualifying that) usually involved some sort of bias on the part of the legal system (racist judge, crooked attorney, etc). So my question becomes: should we not pursue justice because we're afraid of making a mistake? I don't know that I have an answer to that question.

 

if it wasn't for possibility of being mistaken, I'd be all for death penalty... but not for petty crimes like stealing. Only serious ones, like murder.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'll go one further and say that prison should be reserved for violent crimes only.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I'm actually a bit scared that none of the people who posted here excluding myself have shown despise to death penalty. How's it so easy to get rid of human beings? Even if it's human garbage?

 

May I never be found guilty of killing any of your relatives.

[Corinthian]

Oh, don't worry. If you murdered one of my family, the legality of the Death Penalty will go out the window in favor of what I like to call 'The Batman Alternative'. Hauling two hundred fifty pounds of criminal up Gotham Towers is hard work, but the scream alone is worth it.

 

The Death Penalty is an effective means of disposing with human trash, much like dumping waste uranium into space. Not only do I feel it should be used in cases of Second Degree Murder and above, but I also think that rape, particularly of children, should be punishable with this as well. Of course, I also advocate severing the right hand of thieves, so I don't think there's really any doubt about my viciousness in this regard.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Oh, don't worry. If you murdered one of my family, the legality of the Death Penalty will go out the window in favor of what I like to call 'The Batman Alternative'. Hauling two hundred fifty pounds of criminal up Gotham Towers is hard work, but the scream alone is worth it.

 

Unless the said relative was an example of human garbage, right?

[jonathan7]

I'm actually a bit scared that none of the people who posted here excluding myself have shown despise to death penalty. How's it so easy to get rid of human beings? Even if it's human garbage?

 

May I never be found guilty of killing any of your relatives.

 

I've refrained from posting merely because my view on the subject should be known to all and I'm somewhat on holiday (apparently I need to chill out from all the thinking I do according to friends) hence my diminished activities here...

 

I am against the death penalty as;

 

a) Miscarriage of Justice is the biggest concern; as what if you make a mistake, even if only 1 in a 1000 mistake are made on the death penalty, should that one not be given the benefit of the doubt?

 

b) As far as we know we are the only 'intelligent' life in the universe, should we dispose of said life, even if it has done vulgar things?

 

c) Does the government not loose the 'moral' high-ground by executing those guilty of murder?

 

d) I don't trust our governments with the "privileged".

 

e) Is redemption possible? There is a fascinating case in Australia (I'll see if I can dig you out a link) of a Serial Killer with multiple personality disorder; and only one of those personalities is the serial killer - with medication that personality has disapeared.

 

I could think of more, but I'll stop

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I'll go one further and say that prison should be reserved for violent crimes only.

 

Agreed; though on a case by case basis.

[Achilles]

a) Miscarriage of Justice is the biggest concern; as what if you make a mistake, even if only 1 in a 1000 mistake are made on the death penalty, should that one not be given the benefit of the doubt?

I would say no. Everyone gets the same appeals system. And no system is perfect.

 

b) As far as we know we are the only 'intelligent' life in the universe, should we dispose of said life, even if it has done vulgar things?

Yes. Is there some deeper context to your argument that I may be missing?

 

Hint: our "intelligent" life dies anyway. If the argument is life vs death (which seems to be the context), then I'm wondering where the repercussions of this line of thinking would end.

 

c) Does the government not loose the 'moral' high-ground by executing those guilty of murder?

Does the government have some moral high ground to begin with? My answer to both questions is "no".

 

d) I don't trust our governments with the "privileged".

I'm not sure what this means.

 

e) Is redemption possible? There is a fascinating case in Australia (I'll see if I can dig you out a link) of a Serial Killer with multiple personality disorder; and only one of those personalities is the serial killer - with medication that personality has disapeared.

I hope that I adequately addressed this argument in my earlier post.

 

Agreed; though on a case by case basis.

Then you don't agree at all

[jonathan7]

I hope that I adequately addressed this argument in my earlier post.

 

The dude in question wants to live; IIRC though he doesn't remember much about that particular personality at all.

 

Then you don't agree at all

 

No I do, however I like having things at the discretion of a judge - you can get some quite unique cases.

[Achilles]

The dude in question wants to live; IIRC though he doesn't remember much about that particular personality at all.

I guess I would need to know more about the case to comment further. Suffice it to say that this all sounds highly suspect to me.

 

No I do, however I like having things at the discretion of a judge - you can get some quite unique cases.

I'm sorry, my friend, no prison for non-violent cases sounds pretty cut and dry to me. "Case by case basis" is an open invitation to discrepancies in the administration of justice.

[mimartin]

I agree wholeheartedly. I'll go one further and say that prison should be reserved for violent crimes only.

So people that steals someone life savings should not go to prison because it is a white collar crime? I’d agree we are locking up way to many people that are not a risk to anyone but their own self, but I’m unwilling to go this far due to the fact violent crimes are not the only crimes that can destroy innocent people. Do you really believe the people behind the Enron scandal did not deserve prison sentences?

[jonathan7]

I guess I would need to know more about the case to comment further. Suffice it to say that this all sounds highly suspect to me.

 

Its so long ago since I read about him; and Australia has so many serial killers I have thus far failed to track you down a link (sorry).

 

I'm sorry, my friend, no prison for non-violent cases sounds pretty cut and dry to me. "Case by case basis" is an open invitation to discrepancies in the administration of justice.

 

Meh What I mean is, I'm always uncomfortable with a set rule; guidelines sure, but what happens if you get a non-violent fraudster who continually steals millions of £ and causes great damage to many peoples lives? (Say by brining a bank down?).

[Darth333]

Quite right. Even if you could reform a cold-blooded killer, would you be doing him or her any favors by doing so?

 

"Congratulations, we've successfully restored your mental and emotional health. Oh by the way, you now get to live the rest of your life knowing that you brutalized innocent people."

 

I think the death penalty is the kindest choice for everyone involved, but that's only my opinion.

Have you ever met one? I can't give much details for professional reasons but I did and yes, some (note that I didn't say everyone) people can be "recovered". It does not erase the past but some I know are know fully devoted to community voluntary work and/or who try to use what remains of their lives positively and pose no danger to the public.

 

I agree that this is a serious consideration. My instinctual reaction is to point out that every case of wrongful conviction I've ever heard of (yes, I am qualifying that) usually involved some sort of bias on the part of the legal system (racist judge, crooked attorney, etc). So my question becomes: should we not pursue justice because we're afraid of making a mistake? I don't know that I have an answer to that question.

Sometimes it's the witnesses too and other times, new techniques that can prove innocence become available with time (can't remember the names of the cases but I'll try to look for a few of them...just not tonight...enough for the legal research today...). Still, errors can happen even when everyone acts in good faith. Note that the onus of proof in criminal cases is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond any doubt" (at least in Canada and the US).

[Achilles]

So people that steals someone life savings should not go to prison because it is a white collar crime? I’d agree we are locking up way to many people that are not a risk to anyone but their own self, but I’m unwilling to go this far due to the fact violent crimes are not the only crimes that can destroy innocent people. Do you really believe the people behind the Enron scandal did not deserve prison sentences?

Yes, that's what I am saying. That isn't to say that they should not have to face any sort of punishment at all.

 

Have you ever met one?

No, I absolutely have not and I hope that I didn't say anything to suggest that I have.

 

I can't give much details for professional reasons but I did and yes, some (note that I didn't say everyone) people can be "recovered". It does not erase the past but some I know are know fully devoted to community voluntary work and/or who try to use what remains of their lives positively and pose no danger to the public.

I was pretty sure that there would be cases such as these when I posted earlier. My point simply was "wouldn't we be doing them a favor by killing them?". I'm sure that view point could be argued both ways (and I'm not committed to either side).

 

Sometimes its the witnesses too and other times, new techniques that can prove innocence become available with time (can't remember the names of the cases but I'll try to look for a few of them...just not tonight...enough for the legal research today...). Still errors can happen even when everyone acts in good faith. Note that the proof onus in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" and not "beyond any doubt".

That is true. Thank you for pointing out that witnesses are a factor also. And I am sure that people are falsely convicted even when everyone is acting in good faith, however as I pointed out every case I've heard of (which I'm sure pales in comparison to every case you've heard of) involved some part of the system not acting in good faith. Again, I am not firmly on either side of the argument.

 

Thanks for your post.

[mimartin]

Sometimes its the witnesses too and other times, new techniques that can prove innocence become available with time (can't remember the names of the cases but I'll try to look for a few of them...just not tonight...enough for the legal research today...).

Found one I read about recently that involved a problem with the witness. People gripe that condemn murders spend too much time on death row, but this innocent man spent 14 years on death row before being released. Levon Jones - ACLU

 

Here is a famous one that involves both witness problems and new technology. Frank Lee Smith - PBS Frontline

[Corinthian]

Oh, no, Ctrl. My family does not produce human trash, owing no doubt to our superior genes . My family is a safe, effective means of reproduction, with no hazardous byproducts.