Death Sentence - Best/Worst Alternative?

[DeadYorick]

I personally do not support the death penalty. I know there are much better alternatives like life imprisonment. At least then the criminals would eventually learn the consequences of their actions.

[veridianblade]

While I'm against the death penalty for similar reasons, the fact he only got 11 years suggests it wasn't a serious enough crime to warrant death.

 

Also how do you know your friend was innocent? Has he since been declared innocent?

 

I don't know why exactly he got 11, possibly because a lot of the evidence was circumstancial.

His defence thought he would get at least 35.

 

- The witnesses were known to be working for a rival family at the time.

- They were known to have bent police on their payroll (this has since been proven).

- A substancial amount of money went missing while he was inside, while these police had very generous pensions, if you get me.

[jonathan7]

I don't know why exactly he got 11, possibly because a lot of the evidence was circumstancial.

His defence thought he would get at least 35.

 

- The witnesses were known to be working for a rival family at the time.

- They were known to have bent police on their payroll (this has since been proven).

- A substancial amount of money went missing while he was inside, while these police had very generous pensions, if you get me.

 

I'm affraid I remain sceptical; purely because he is your friend and emotion could be clouding your perception, that's not to say he isn't innocent, but within this context, I hope you understand, I can't really draw any firm conclusions.

[veridianblade]

I'm affraid I remain sceptical; purely because he is your friend and emotion could be clouding your perception, that's not to say he isn't innocent, but within this context, I hope you understand, I can't really draw any firm conclusions.

 

No, that's ok man.

 

To be honest if he did do it he had a very good reason, they'd paid the "victim" £5,000 to dig up my mates dad and brothers graves, the guy was bragging about it in the pub.

 

Even if he did do it, most people would have done worse.

[Astor]

With regards to the death penalty, I think that, although the statement has since been disputed, former Chief Executioner of England Albert Pierrepoint said it quite well.

 

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."[/Quote]

[Tommycat]

I don't know why exactly he got 11, possibly because a lot of the evidence was circumstancial.

His defence thought he would get at least 35.

 

- The witnesses were known to be working for a rival family at the time.

- They were known to have bent police on their payroll (this has since been proven).

- A substancial amount of money went missing while he was inside, while these police had very generous pensions, if you get me.

 

Even in Texas they wouldn't have tried for the Death Penalty. Death Penalty cases are very hard to win. Death penalty cases are not handed out for violent crimes that do not lead to the death of another individual. The most he would get would be 35 years for attempted murder which would likely have been reduced to 10 years, and with parole likely out in 8 years.

 

As for the death penalty itself, I support it.

My reasons for you to pick apart:

1) It removes a harmful element not only from society but from the prison system itself.

 

2) It may give the victim's family some measure of closure.

 

3) It can be an effective tool to convince someone involved in organised crime to help investigators solve other crimes.

 

4) It keeps those convicted of Life in prison from commiting other murders in the prison system.

[Astor]

1) It removes a harmful element not only from society but from the prison system itself.

 

I can agree with that, but don't think that should be the only reason to support a death penalty.

 

2) It may give the victim's family some measure of closure. [/Quote]

 

Not all the time though, simply taking an eye for an eye won't bring the victim back.

 

3) It can be an effective tool to convince someone involved in organised crime to help investigators solve other crimes.[/Quote]

 

Organised Crime is sort of a hobby of mine, and in many cases, that wouldn't help in the slightest.

 

If a member of a criminal organisation (the Mafia, especially, as breaking the Omerta is a deadly sin) was to help investigators then they'd be killed, pure and simple. Even with the witness protection, more often than not, the criminals will get their man.

 

So killing someone to coerce someone into compliance would just lead to more deaths.

[Tommycat]

I can agree with that, but don't think that should be the only reason to support a death penalty.

It's not. But it's one of my better reasons. I have a whole list, but that's just my best.

 

Not all the time though, simply taking an eye for an eye won't bring the victim back.

No, but I sure as heck would feel better if the guy that killed my sister were to face the death penalty. But that's just MY reason.

 

Organised Crime is sort of a hobby of mine, and in many cases, that wouldn't help in the slightest.

 

If a member of a criminal organisation (the Mafia, especially, as breaking the Omerta is a deadly sin) was to help investigators then they'd be killed, pure and simple. Even with the witness protection, more often than not, the criminals will get their man.

 

So killing someone to coerce someone into compliance would just lead to more deaths.

Not all organised crime is tied to the mafia. But then maybe my use of the term organised kinda threw you. But basically it can be used to get someone to get someone to work with investigators to lessen their sentence.

 

Life in prison can get parole. I mean even Charles Manson gets an opportunity to be paroled(chances are that'll never happen, but it's possible).

[Astor]

No, but I sure as heck would feel better if the guy that killed my sister were to face the death penalty. But that's just MY reason.

 

Then that's an entirely subjective reason for the death penalty. Not everyone will want revenge.

 

Not all organised crime is tied to the mafia. But then maybe my use of the term organised kinda threw you. But basically it can be used to get someone to get someone to work with investigators to lessen their sentence.

 

I am aware that not all organised crime is tied to the Mafia, but I used that as an example for why it wouldn't work in many cases.

[Tommycat]

Then that's an entirely subjective reason for the death penalty. Not everyone will want revenge.

 

I know. That's why I fully qualified it as MY reason. Of course that's the reason the family gets to speak before the sentence is handed down. The family can also make a plea to the governor. It holds quite a lot of sway.

 

I am aware that not all organised crime is tied to the Mafia, but I used that as an example for why it wouldn't work in many cases.

 

Might not in some, but for others...

[Darth_Yuthura]

I'm an advocate for Capital punishment to only a very limited extent.

 

I wouldn't use execution for punishment, but rather to neutralize a threat. I don't think that someone who has committed mass murder would be likely to be paroled. If one is going to serve multiple life sentences and are still considered dangerous should not be allowed to kill again. I would not use execution for anything other than the most extreme threats. Other than that, I'm against it for punishment entirely.

[EnderWiggin]

Woah whut? I missed the revival of this thread!

 

Even in Texas they wouldn't have tried for the Death Penalty. {snipped for brevity}

 

The point was that in some cases mistakes are made in the justice system, and as such, shouldn't be used to prevent innocent people from losing their lives. Not a point I actually agree with, just clarifying so that you understand your refutation was not applicable.

 

As for the death penalty itself, I support it.

My reasons for you to pick apart:

 

Will do.

 

1) It removes a harmful element not only from society but from the prison system itself.

 

So you feel that there is actually no inherent worth in a person?

 

2) It may give the victim's family some measure of closure.

 

Using the word "may" should tell you something. Some families would rather have the convicted rot in prison for the rest of his/her natural born life.

 

So my equally useless counterargument is: killing them may not give the victim's family some measure of closure.

 

But even so, closure for the family doesn't have a bearing on whether or not the death penalty is a moral punishment.

 

3) It can be an effective tool to convince someone involved in organised crime to help investigators solve other crimes.

 

But you can't say it's moral just because it's useful as a tool, unless you're speaking from a completely utilitarian viewpoint.

 

Are you telling me that it's ok for the state to kill a man in order to scare another into telling the truth?

 

Just as a point of personal inquiry, what's your stance on torture?

 

4) It keeps those convicted of Life in prison from commiting other murders in the prison system.

 

Which ones are going to kill in prison? Better kill all the convicts, just to be sure.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

The point was that in some cases mistakes are made in the justice system, and as such, shouldn't be used to prevent innocent people from losing their lives. Not a point I actually agree with, just clarifying so that you understand your refutation was not applicable.

 

 

So you feel that there is actually no inherent worth in a person?

 

 

So my equally useless counterargument is: killing them may not give the victim's family some measure of closure.

 

 

But you can't say it's moral just because it's useful as a tool, unless you're speaking from a completely utilitarian viewpoint.

 

Are you telling me that it's ok for the state to kill a man in order to scare another into telling the truth?

 

_EW_

 

 

I think people forget about a significant fact when it comes to capital punishment: the murderer knew the consequences of killing before the committed the act. Anyone legally executed were done so because of what s/he chose to do. It's not murder to execute a murderer and it's not immoral if the criminal remained a threat to society.

 

I think that once a person takes the life of another, s/he forfeits their own rights because they violated the rights of another in the first place. Once that line has been crossed and proven in a court of law, the criminal no longer has the right to life. I think an innocent life has more value than a murderer's.

[Litofsky]

I think that once a person takes the life of another, s/he forfeits their own rights because they violated the rights of another in the first place. Once that line has been crossed and proven in a court of law, the criminal no longer has the right to life. I think an innocent life has more value than a murderer's.

What does that say about the court that convicts him? Even though this person took a life, who are (we) to say that we should take his life? Doesn't that put us on the same level as the murderer?

[Astor]

I think people forget about a significant fact when it comes to capital punishment: the murderer knew the consequences of killing before the committed the act. Anyone legally executed were done so because of what s/he chose to do. It's not murder to execute a murderer and it's not immoral if the criminal remained a threat to society.

 

I think that once a person takes the life of another, s/he forfeits their own rights because they violated the rights of another in the first place. Once that line has been crossed and proven in a court of law, the criminal no longer has the right to life. I think an innocent life has more value than a murderer's.

 

So an eye for an eye, and no chance of redemption?

[Corinthian]

Hey, you spend a long time on Death Row. If he wants to redeem himself, he's got more than enough time.

[EnderWiggin]

Anyone legally executed were done so because of what s/he chose to do.

 

Anyone executed by Hitler were done so because of what s/he chose to do (in this case, believe in Judaism). See what I did there?

 

It doesn't make it right for them to impose capital punishment just because the person who committed the crime knew that the punishment was possible.

 

It's not murder to execute a murderer

Oh, really? And it's not stealing to steal from a thief? And it's not being an ass if you're insulting an ass?

and it's not immoral if the criminal remained a threat to society.

 

Utilitarianism ftw

 

First of all, how does the state decide who remains a threat to society? Secondly, doesn't life imprisonment also eliminate that threat?

I think that once a person takes the life of another, s/he forfeits their own rights because they violated the rights of another in the first place. Once that line has been crossed and proven in a court of law, the criminal no longer has the right to life.

I agree, partially. Except, of course, for the last line. I feel that no government should have the ability to decide which citizens have a right to life. IMHO, everyone has a right to life. Obviously, those who violate another's right to life should then lose rights, however, that's what I think life imprisonment is for.

 

I think an innocent life has more value than a murderer's.

And I feel that the state doesn't have a right to take a person's life.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

What does that say about the court that convicts him? Even though this person took a life, who are (we) to say that we should take his life? Doesn't that put us on the same level as the murderer?

 

I would be for the innocent until proven guilty ideal, but there are times where the is at least a shred of doubt as the the guilt of a murderer.

 

I would be for having a statute that a criminal cannot have capital punishment forced upon them for a single murder. The greater the number of murders... or the more heinous the crime, the greater the likelihood that the statute is nullified.

 

I'm not for execution as a measure of punishment, but prevention of another murder. If someone dies because a murderer was allowed to live, then wouldn't the state be responsible for that murder? I would not risk endangering ANYONE'S life for a murderer's.

[EnderWiggin]

I'm not for execution as a measure of punishment, but prevention of another murder. If someone dies because a murderer was allowed to live, then wouldn't the state be responsible for that murder? I would not risk endangering ANYONE'S life for a murderer's.

 

Again, doesn't life imprisonment solve this problem? They can't endanger another life if they're in prison.

 

_EW_

[Litofsky]

I would be for the innocent until proven guilty ideal, but there are times where the is at least a shred of doubt as the the guilt of a murderer.

And yet you just said, "Innocent until proven guilty." It's not up to you to decide if someone is guilty or not- it's the jury's job. The lawyers on the defense and prosecution attempt to sway their opinions, and witnesses provide facts on the matter.

 

But I digress.

 

I'm not for execution as a measure of punishment, but prevention of another murder. If someone dies because a murderer was allowed to live, then wouldn't the state be responsible for that murder? I would not risk endangering ANYONE'S life for a murderer's.

So, kill one person to save two? The Greater Good? Your post is telling me that the government should take one person's life to save another's. Does that mean that my life is worth less than my neighbor's?

[Corinthian]

We're not talking Minority-Report style 'You might kill someone in the future, so we're jailing you now.' We're talking 'You've killed someone. Now, you pay the ultimate price.' It's effectively the same punishment as life imprisonment, except it's cheaper.

[Astor]

How is it the same, exactly? At least with imprisonment you live.

[Litofsky]

We're not talking Minority-Report style 'You might kill someone in the future, so we're jailing you now.' We're talking 'You've killed someone. Now, you pay the ultimate price.' It's effectively the same punishment as life imprisonment, except it's cheaper.

 

But who are we to say that the murderer deserves to give up their life? What happens to our justice system when we begin to kill the killers?

[EnderWiggin]

It's effectively the same punishment as life imprisonment, except it's cheaper.

 

I must have missed the day they taught the 'cost dictates morality' lesson.

 

And you know full well that they're not the same punishment, as in one case a life is ended.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

But who are we to say that the murderer deserves to give up their life? What happens to our justice system when we begin to kill the killers?

 

WE did not make that choice. The murderer knew the consequences before he acted. He knew that killing meant forfeiting whatever rights he had if/when he was proven guilty.

 

You asked earlier if your life was worth more than another's... this is not comparing everyone's rights to another. It's whether the life of a murderer is worth the risk of another death. Imprisonment is effective, but when criminals are transfered, the risk of escape climbs exponentially.

 

If it meant sealing a murderer in a maximum security cell and he never sees the light of day, then I'll support life imprisonment. However, why should the state pay to support them after that?