Death Sentence - Best/Worst Alternative?

[Astor]

However, why should the state pay to support them after that?

 

By that example, why should the state kill people in the name of people who don't agree with it?

[Litofsky]

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.

But why should we lower ourselves to the same level as the convicted? By killing the killer, what do we gain (in a non-literal sense)?

 

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.

Since when does being a murderer mean that they are not a person? Sure, they've committed a terrible crime, but they're still a human being.

[EnderWiggin]

It's whether the life of a murderer is worth the risk of another death.

 

What death? Expand, please.

 

Imprisonment is effective, but when criminals are transfered, the risk of escape climbs exponentially.

 

Then that's a problem with the practical application of imprisonment, and has nothing to do with its morality.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

By that example, why should the state kill people in the name of people who don't agree with it?

 

You can't provide for everyone under even the most favorable conditions.

 

My support of capital punishment is provisional because the US is the only State in the Global North that implements it. I don't want the US to abolish it completely, but to carry it out ONLY for neutralizing a risk to the general public. I don't support execution for a means of punishment, but often it's used for that.

 

And to answer your question... if the majority of the State want to be rid of a danger, then should a murderer have more rights than an entire nation? It isn't wrong to deny a murderer of those rights because he deliberately acted and knew he would lose those rights. It would also ensure he never kills again.

[El Sitherino]

The answer is obviously rehabilitation and a self-sustaining prison system. Not to mention stop placing innocent people in there when you know the "crime" they have commited is harmless.

[Litofsky]

You can't provide for everyone under even the most favorable conditions.

But you're taking the situation out of context: because a few people are afraid of someone escaping, we should kill someone?

 

And to answer your question... if the majority of the State want to be rid of a danger, then should a murderer have more rights than an entire nation? It isn't wrong to deny a murderer of those rights because he deliberately acted and knew he would lose those rights. It would also ensure he never kills again.

So, strip the murderer of right to life for the opinions of others? Even if he is a danger, why should we kill him? Lock him up in a high-security prison. Killing him only ends his life prematurely and makes him a martyr (if the situation permits).

 

Also, would you please take a moment and answer my question: "What gives you (or the state) the right to take away someone's right to life?" Thanks in advance.

[True_Avery]

Also, would you please take a moment and answer my question: "What gives you (or the state) the right to take away someone's right to life?" Thanks in advance.

What makes life a right? Considering it can be taken from you at any moment, I'd think its more of a privilege.

[Darth_Yuthura]

But you're taking the situation out of context: because a few people are afraid of someone escaping, we should kill someone?

 

 

So, strip the murderer of right to life for the opinions of others? Even if he is a danger, why should we kill him? Lock him up in a high-security prison. Killing him only ends his life prematurely and makes him a martyr (if the situation permits).

 

Also, would you please take a moment and answer my question: "What gives you (or the state) the right to take away someone's right to life?" Thanks in advance.

 

I'm not saying anyone has any right to anything. The system set up in every state around the world is established by a collection of people who form a group. The issues that come from this subject are very complicated and even more complex because it's a question of the state vs. the individual.

 

When you say a few people, I think you underestimate the threat that certain people represent. Because the US law protects certain rights, some murderers are allowed to go to court for obviously open-and-shut cases... costing the state huge sums of money and giving them a better opportunity to escape than being in prison.

 

Overall, I'm against the US using capital punishment, but there are times when losing it puts others at risk and costs the state huge sums of money that shouldn't be wasted on someone who's life is essentially nothing but a burden to everyone else.

[Litofsky]

What makes life a right? Considering it can be taken from you at any moment, I'd think its more of a privilege.

A valid question. I suppose that it is a privilege, but it's not something that should be taken away from someone without their consent. Life is, as far as we can prove, our only existence. To deny someone their life goes against the morals we have created in our society.

 

I'm not saying anyone has any right to anything. The system set up in every state around the world is established by a collection of people who form a group. The issues that come from this subject are very complicated and even more complex because it's a question of the state vs. the individual.

I'm afraid that I don't understand that statement fully- would you rephrase it, please?

 

When you say a few people, I think you underestimate the threat that certain people represent. Because the US law protects certain rights, some murderers are allowed to go to court for obviously open-and-shut cases... costing the state huge sums of money and giving them a better opportunity to escape than being in prison.

But it's part of their rights granted to them by our Founding Fathers. According to our law, every has the right to a fair trial. Sure, the process could be more streamlined, but that's not part of the law, that the bureaucracy.

 

Overall, I'm against the US using capital punishment, but there are times when losing it puts others at risk and costs the state huge sums of money that shouldn't be wasted on someone who's life is essentially nothing but a burden to everyone else.

Again, are you saying that a person should be killed because it costs too much?

[Darth_Yuthura]

No one really has any rights when you get down to it. All the laws of the US were made up by a bunch of people, often by the cream of the US population. The very idea that anyone has any rights is a flawed belief. It works, but there will always be people who don't see justice or are not given the privileges that the majority of the population receive. All we individuals can do is try to work with the system of laws we are given, or break upon them when we go against that system.

 

To be direct, if there is going to be a system established to provide rights to citizens, then those who follow it should not have to suffer for other's defiance. Anyone who murders another has broken that system and should not be given any rights to life because he chose to throw them away.

 

I wouldn't apply this to anything other than the most extreme crimes that cannot be amended. Rape and murder cannot be corrected once they're done, but the majority of crimes can be corrected. This goes way of the topic, but I seriously believe that once a person has deliberately committed a capital crime does not deserve the rights he denied another.

[Litofsky]

No one really has any rights when you get down to it. All the laws of the US were made up by a bunch of people, often by the cream of the US population. The very idea that anyone has any rights is a flawed belief. It works, but there will always be people who don't see justice or are not given the privileges that the majority of the population receive. All we individuals can do is try to work with the system of laws we are given, or break upon them when we go against that system.

That's an interesting point. You're saying that our 'rights' are a bunch of ideas cobbled together by the Founding Fathers, correct? In a sense, you're right. They took their personal beliefs and applied it to the entire country. Combine that with our Supreme Court and their decisions, and you've got our basic 'rights.'

 

I guess to continue using the word "rights," we must define it. The word rights, in my definition, is idea- the idea that each person has a certain set of "inalienable" laws that keep them safe from harm- and prevent them from doing harm to others. However, as you said, some people do not abide by these laws, and are therefore subject to punishment. This is done to keep others safe.

 

Technically, we could say that a large part of the problem resides in the Penitentiary System, and its lack of ability to rehabilitate its inhabitants. But a counter would be to say that it's society's fault in the first place for creating these... impulses (I'm not sure if that's the right word, in this case...).

 

To be direct, if there is going to be a system established to provide rights to citizens, then those who follow it should not have to suffer for other's defiance. Anyone who murders another has broken that system and should not be given any rights to life because he chose to throw them away.

I'm tending to disagree. Why should we try kill this person? Will it bring closure? You're advocating killing one person to save another, which implies that one person's life is worth more than another. Though, your argument is that by committing a criminal act, they surrender their right to life.

 

I guess this is why we have so many lawyers: they all have different views.

 

I wouldn't apply this to anything other than the most extreme crimes that cannot be amended. Rape and murder cannot be corrected once they're done, but the majority of crimes can be corrected. This goes way of the topic, but I seriously believe that once a person has deliberately committed a capital crime does not deserve the rights he denied another.

Again, an interesting proposal. However, by affording them rights like a fair trial, and by not saying, "We're going to kill you because you destroyed someone else" we place ourselves about the criminal. I guess it's a sort of 'ethical superiority' trip that we've got going, but it works for some of us.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I don't mean to keep perpetuating this thread; I'm just interested in what others have to say about this issue.

 

In response to the last post, I understand why certain criminals are given more privileges than I society thinks they should. It doesn't matter what the murderer/rapist had done; because under the US system of laws, the state does not have the right to deny a US citizen the right to a trial by jury. This has been greatly distorted by the fact that the US government has disregarded this on numerous occasions.

 

I am truly against capital punishment, but there are some definite issues I have with abolishing it. This isn't about making the State more important than the individual... the murderer/rapist had done that himself. And I think it's only proper that people be granted inalienable rights as long as they don't deny those rights to others.

[Litofsky]

I don't mean to keep perpetuating this thread; I'm just interested in what others have to say about this issue.

That's what Kavar's' for: obtaining everyone's opinions. We just get carried away sometimes, and things get ugly. I don't think that this thread is too heated, for what it's worth.

 

In response to the last post, I understand why certain criminals are given more privileges than I society thinks they should. It doesn't matter what the murderer/rapist had done; because under the US system of laws, the state does not have the right to deny a US citizen the right to a trial by jury. This has been greatly distorted by the fact that the US government has disregarded this on numerous occasions.

Well, we've got the whole idea of 'civility' coming into the conversation, and we'd draw the topic waaaay off course if we went there. Another thread, perhaps?

 

I am truly against capital punishment, but there are some definite issues I have with abolishing it. This isn't about making the State more important than the individual... the murderer/rapist had done that himself. And I think it's only proper that people be granted inalienable rights as long as they don't deny those rights to others.

So, you're saying that the risks outweigh the benefits of abolishing capital punishment? I understand that, but I think that the people on death row would disagree.

 

All of this aside, I have a feeling that we're going around in a circle. Sure, we're asking different questions, but we're reaching the same conclusions. Not that I have a problem with it, I just wanted to point it out.

[EnderWiggin]

The very idea that anyone has any rights is a flawed belief.

I think we've found the crux of our disagreement.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

That's what Kavar's' for: obtaining everyone's opinions. We just get carried away sometimes, and things get ugly. I don't think that this thread is too heated, for what it's worth.

 

 

Well, we've got the whole idea of 'civility' coming into the conversation, and we'd draw the topic waaaay off course if we went there. Another thread, perhaps?

 

 

So, you're saying that the risks outweigh the benefits of abolishing capital punishment? I understand that, but I think that the people on death row would disagree.

 

All of this aside, I have a feeling that we're going around in a circle. Sure, we're asking different questions, but we're reaching the same conclusions. Not that I have a problem with it, I just wanted to point it out.

 

I am not forgetting the ones on death row or their families, but they knew that would happen before they committed the crime. It wasn't something as simple as speeding or possession of a lethal weapon... that had happened to me. Minor crimes or those done in ignorance should not have escalated consequences, but murder and rape are deliberate, heinous, and permanent. Anyone on death row knew the law and chose to ignore it... they deserve no sympathy. It's not revenge; it's not causing the state or its people additional strain to make way for one who defies the system.

 

I'll stop here now. Unless another has something else to add or ask, I'll just leave this thread alone.

[El Sitherino]

Alright, we'll start with first point.

The death penalty does in fact prevent re-occurance of the crime, by state ordered prisoner. Now, it's entirely possible that a first and single occurance murderer could be rehabilitated, and I support this fully. I actually strongly believe in treating the problem with as little negative recourse as possible. However I also understand and must accept that there are limitations. Some of these can be financial, some of them simply based on what is truely possible to happen.

 

Currently our nation is in so much debt that we can't afford to focus on saving a mass-murderer/repeat killer, not to mention many of these people take up violent action in prison. While a lot can and is curbed by prisons that are starting up rehabilitation efforts (gardens, rebuilding cars for police auction, etc.), most of that does not include many eligible for the death penalty as these are people that have and will likely kill again. Many are those who within their first ten minutes in prison, kill another inmate.

 

So now not only are we confronted with the safety of society, but the safety of those we're claiming we want to save by abolishing the state ordered execution. A large majority of prisoners are in fact rather innocent parties serving time for petty drug charges, young adults that were caught with an ounce of pot and a pipe or something, but they're getting stabbed, beaten, and raped by truely violent offenders. Not only that, but with everyone knowing about that "You know what they do in prison, right?" thing, everyone goes in trying to make sure they aren't the ones playing the part of the puppet in Prisonyard Pals. This means more violence and more generalized aggression that has to be managed.

 

All of this means time and energy, time and energy people are not willing to invest. And this is already occuring, take out the death penalty and we're looking at an ever expanded issue. While many might not think 5 or 10 extra prisoners per rotation (season guards and particular inmates are held at any one penitentiary), that's anywhere from $5,000 each to $50,000 each. The change in this can be caused by medical necessities (many serial killers infact end up needing quite an interesting bit of medical attention), personal care as dictated by state, county, and individual prison, and general upkeep for the area these prisoners are held in.

 

So to round off what I was discussing, I would love to be able to rehabilitate each prisoner and bring back a productive member of society. However unfortunately at this time mankind as a whole is not ready to make such a humanitarian effort. There are others that we need to focus salvation on, as they will likely be our future, and in effect the possible future of these prisoners. At this time our finances will be better placed into saving those in the African continent, eastern Europe, the former Soviet States, and Vietnam/Thailand/Laos/Etc.

And not to mention our own society at large.

 

 

 

Not to mention prisoners now that are placed through a rehab program and let back out into the world are not given the necessary means to make their rehabilitation work, therefore they are essentially forced back into a life of crime. We'll need to fix that before we can even think of rehabilitating those who earn a State ordered execution.

 

I just view it as a responsibility. With our most violent of criminals being killed (by the state) we're preventing comparatively innocent prisoners from being killed, other citizens from being killed, and we're saving a bit that can be spent on other humanitarian efforts. Although we all know it's going into BS warfare.

 

Seriously though, [/thread]

 

Also I think it's necessary to point out that simply killing one person doesn't get the death penalty except in the case of assassination. Usually you're a mass murderer and a sociopath with no concept of morals.

[Totenkopf]

Seriously though, [/thread]

 

Also I think it's necessary to point out that simply killing one person doesn't get the death penalty except in the case of assassination. Usually you're a mass murderer and a sociopath with no concept of morals.

 

I was under the impression that killing a cop also usually was a 1-way ticket to the beyond (Abu Mumia Jamal aside). Of course, with the appeals process being what it is today, even that would probably take more time to carry out than not.

[El Sitherino]

I was under the impression that killing a cop also usually was a 1-way ticket to the beyond (Abu Mumia Jamal aside). Of course, with the appeals process being what it is today, even that would probably take more time to carry out than not.

That is one of the trickier bits of sentencing.

[Darth333]

...except it's cheaper.

Is it? There might be less fees related to incarceration but the trial costs and other related fees for death penalty cases are much higher.

[Lance Monance]

I have a question for all those who support the Death penalty. What if lifelong imprisonment didn't cost a thing? Suppose it were the perfect solution when it comes to protecting the society from a criminal.

 

Would you still prefer the death penalty in some cases, even if imprisonment could guarantee that recidivism is 0%? If so, what's the moral reasoning behind it?

[ChAiNz.2da]

Is it? There might be less fees related to incarceration but the trial costs and other related fees for death penalty cases are much higher.

That's an interesting read D3

I'd be interested to know though if the costs leveled out considering long-term incarceration (still on taxpayers dime) vs semi-long term incarceration costs of death-row inmates.

 

While 'at-trial' costs may be more upfront, would the (for lack of a better word) "maintenance" costs of housing inmates for extended periods of time balance out (ie. a hypothetical 30+ years death row stay VS. a 50+ years life-term) * numbers are a guess-timation on my part at best as far as duration of stay with appeals factored in. Hard source numbers would be most welcome.

 

I have a question for all those who support the Death penalty. What if lifelong imprisonment didn't cost a thing? Suppose it were the perfect solution when it comes to protecting the society from a criminal.

 

Would you still prefer the death penalty in some cases, even if imprisonment could guarantee that recidivism is 0%? If so, what's the moral reasoning behind it?

Good question LM

However IMO the word 'perfect' is a slight misnomer. Would it be a 'perfect solution', then I (personally) would not have a problem in it. I certainly wouldn't condone the taking of a life, no matter the consequences, could it be 'perfectly' dealt with.

 

However, in RL terms it's far from perfect We have to factor in the construction of more prisons, court costs of prosecution/defense, housing of inmates for years to come, the tiny risk/possibility of escaped (or paroled) convicts for nefarious reasons (revenge) (a sad but true, albeit small, factor), etc. Most of which are all paid (directly or indirectly) by the good-standing law-abiding tax-paying citizen. Life sentences often-times aren't life at all.. unless in severe circumstances that a 'no possibility of parole' is granted.

 

I definitely don't advocate to being even close to 'right', completely knowledgeable of, or even innocent of judgment about the death penalty (I'm human, I'm flawed, I judge). And I really hate breaking it down in $ signs, as it doesn't really reflect the complete truth of the matter. It is a factor in today's society though.

 

I do support it however. I also support a person's right to exhaust every-single-appeal-allowed to plead their case/innocence.. since history has proven several death-row inmates to be falsely convicted (DNA testing, late admittance from 3rd party, etc.) but I also think that those who are rightly convicted do pay a price eventually, especially for the most heinous crimes.

 

Again though, since you asked "What if lifelong imprisonment didn't cost a thing? Suppose it were the perfect solution when it comes to protecting the society from a criminal. (guaranteeing 0% recidivism)" I would adamantly say "Yes. I would prefer a Life-term imprisonment be given over a Death sentence".

[Darth_Yuthura]

Is it? There might be less fees related to incarceration but the trial costs and other related fees for death penalty cases are much higher.

 

If those fees and costs that go into an execution were removed, then execution would be the cheapest way to deal with these kind of criminals. The easiest way to solve this problem is to overcome the court and appeals process with something much faster and more difficult for murderers to fight.

 

With the current arrangement in the US system of law, an execution is WAY more expensive than 10 years imprisonment. If this does not change, then I'm for a life sentence. If an execution can be done very efficiently and quickly, then I would favor capital punishment.

[EnderWiggin]

The easiest way to solve this problem is to overcome the court and appeals process with something much faster and more difficult for murderers to fight.

 

Why not just eliminate the court system entirely, and instate a dictatorship where you're allowed to kill off anyone you want?

 

_EW_

[Astor]

Why not just eliminate the court system entirely, and instate a dictatorship where you're allowed to kill off anyone you want?

 

_EW_

 

Because history's shown us it's bound to work...

 

A question, for anybody who'll indulge it.

 

I've seen mentioned that anyone who murders someone must already know the consequences of their act, so therefore deserve whatever punishment they recieve.

 

But, this is surely not always the case. For instance, let me cite a fictional character - Lennie from Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. I'm sure those of you who've read it will know what i'm getting at.

 

Lennie, in that book didn't know his own strength, and certainly never meant to kill anyone - he has the mind of an eight year old, after all, yet he did.

 

Alright, my example maybe extreme, and fictional, but this sort of thing probably, and could happen easily in real life.

 

So is it right to punish someone with death assuming that they know the consequences of their act?

[Litofsky]

I've seen mentioned that anyone who murders someone must already know the consequences of their act, so therefore deserve whatever punishment they recieve.

 

But, this is surely not always the case. For instance, let me cite a fictional character - Lennie from Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. I'm sure those of you who've read it will know what i'm getting at.

 

Lennie, in that book didn't know his own strength, and certainly never meant to kill anyone - he has the mind of an eight year old, after all, yet he did.

 

Alright, my example maybe extreme, and fictional, but this sort of thing probably, and could happen easily in real life.

 

So is it right to punish someone with death assuming that they know the consequences of their act?

 

As I've advocated throughout the thread, I don't believe that the state has the right to kill anyone. However, if I were to support the death penalty, I'd assume that the old saying "Ignorance of the law doesn't excuse the crime" would apply.