Executions ~ Right or wrong?

[Lisa]

I have seen a lot of video links pop up here on MT and elsewhere regarding Saddam Hussein's execution, all of which I have opted not to watch.

For my own personal reasons I can not bring myself to watch another human being's life end. That being said, perhaps if the circumstances were different and the person convicted of a crime had murdered a loved one, my feelings would be different. An eye for an eye and all that. However, even then I can not honestly say that I would be able to.

So it got me to thinking and I figured I would ask the question here. How does everyone else stand on the topic of State sanctioned executions? Are they right or wrong and could you or would you watch an execution if given the option.

p.s. please do not link any video of executions here, as they will be removed by the staff. Thanks.

 

[Kacey]

This is a difficult issue, which, I think, each person must decide for him or herself.

From a truly pragmatic viewpoint, it is impossible for someone to repeat a crime once the person has been executed - but I don't know that that is a good enough reason.

On the other hand, the populations in the prisons have never been larger - because our system of imprisonment is not working. The reasons for this are too complex to address, but part of the issue that for too many people, being in prison is preferable to being out - clothing, food, shelter, a discernable and predictable routine and culture - all are available in prison. Rehabilitation is, in general, minimal and meaningless - and not just for those who commit major crimes - the character of Brooks, in The Shawshank Redemption, is a good example: a man who lived most of his life in prison, who had a known place in the culture, who was released into a world that had passed him by, that he did not know how to live in.

And yet, to return to the pragmatic viewpoint, in the US system at least, actually executing someone is a very lengthy, difficult and expensive process. The required appeals (very rarely waived, as was done by Timothy McVeigh) take years of time, during which time the accused is supported by the state - from that viewpoint, I would rather see these people incarcerated for life than pay for the appeals necessary to actually execute them.

Philosophically, I am not sure that any person has the right to execute another - eye for an eye notwithstanding, once you execute someone - even a murderer - are you, any longer, better than the person you executed? And yet, when I look at some of the students I teach at school, who have been abused in various ways, I often want to inflict on the abusers the same indignities they have inflicted on the children. Where do you draw the line in Hammurabian justice? If you do inflict upon a person the same negative actions the person inflicted on others, how are you better than they? And yet, unless these perpetrators understand how they have hurt their victims, how will they learn not to repeat their actions in the future?

All I know for certain is that our currrent system is not working - but I don't have any answers about how to make it better.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I have seen a lot of video links pop up here on MT and elsewhere regarding Saddam Hussein's execution, all of which I have opted not to watch.

For my own personal reasons I can not bring myself to watch another human being's life end. That being said, perhaps if the circumstances were different and the person convicted of a crime had murdered a loved one, my feelings would be different. An eye for an eye and all that. However, even then I can not honestly say that I would be able to.

So it got me to thinking and I figured I would ask the question here. How does everyone else stand on the topic of State sanctified executions? Are they right or wrong and could you or would you watch an execution if given the option.

p.s. please do not link any video of executions here, as they will be removed by the staff. Thanks.

I am not into watching the pain of others.

I do think that that executions serve a purpose. They remove people unacceptable from society. If people lock them up then it costs society even more and even detracts from the society's survival.

The issue that always comes up are those that are convicted and were actualy innocent. Those that were either political enemies or did not fit the mold of society at that time. i.e a different race or religion or ..., .

I think it serves a purpose. Although today's implementation of lots of appeals and time and money, it is not a deterent to those involved with unnacceptable behaviour of society.

 

[Kacey]

I am not into watching the pain of others.

I do think that that executions serve a purpose. They remove people unacceptable from society. If people lock them up then it costs society even more and even detracts from the society's survival.

The issue that always comes up are those that are convicted and were actualy innocent. Those that were either political enemies or did not fit the mold of society at that time. i.e a different race or religion or ..., .

I think it serves a purpose. Although today's implementation of lots of appeals and time and money, it is not a deterent to those involved with unnacceptable behaviour of society.

The last line, which I have bolded, is, I think, the key here - execution is not a deterrent to unnacceptable behavior. If it were, then, perhaps, my opinion might be different - but since execution does not serve the purpose it is intended to serve, then I see no purpose in continuing the practice.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

sometimes it's hard to see the purpose when it doesnt affect you directly.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

In Britain at the moment we have a recent history of newly released, violent or sexual criminals reoffending. Sadly many of these cases have involved children.

It is my belief that if people are proved beyond any doubt to be guilty and have commited murder (there should be exceptions for circumstances here) or rape of a child etc then they should be executed to protect society. As Rich says, we are just paying to keep them in jail, and when released they become a threat again.

Why should people be released after destroying someone elses life, to become a threat again?

 

[ed-swckf]

In Britain at the moment we have a recent history of newly released, violent or sexual criminals reoffending. Sadly many of these cases have involved children.

It is my belief that if people are proved beyond any doubt to be guilty and have commited murder (there should be exceptions for circumstances here) or rape of a child etc then they should be executed to protect society. As Rich says, we are just paying to keep them in jail, and when released they become a threat again.

Why should people be released after destroying someone elses life, to become a threat again?

Yeah we are just paying to keep them in jail, but aren't we supposed to be paying to rehabilitate these people instead? So i guess my question is, are we able to rehabilitate people to avoid this behaviour?

I mean punishment means a lot less if the reason for the punishment isn't addressed, often people will think they are wrongly punnished or innocent so the punishment only serves to alienate them and they end up being released as you say to become a threat again. So i feel not only should their undoubted involvement in a crime be present but we also need to be able to decide if we are able to rehabilitate these people or not.

 

[jdinca]

The last line, which I have bolded, is, I think, the key here - execution is not a deterrent to unnacceptable behavior. If it were, then, perhaps, my opinion might be different - but since execution does not serve the purpose it is intended to serve, then I see no purpose in continuing the practice.

I prefer to take the sentence as a whole, which implies that the way we implement the death penalty in this country is not a deterrent. I agree with that statement completely. As for it not being a deterrent period, that I disagree with. If a criminal thought that he would be put to death quickly, such as was the case with Saddam, then I think it could be a deterrent but with an expected trial and appeals process that can last 20 years, it is definitely not a deterrent.

I consider the death penalty to be a regrettable but sometimes necessary sentence. There are those in society that have committed such heinous crimes that they need to pay the ultimate price. We just have to make sure it's done right.

 

[Lisa]

sometimes it's hard to see the purpose when it doesnt affect you directly.

Those are very true words.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I honestly do not know anymore, but I am trying to figure it out.

I use to be for it but I am no longer certain. To be honest the only thing it guarantees is that the person being executed will never do it again. It appears to have little effect on deterring others.

Also I too just can’t bring myself to watch any of the Saddam execution videos

 

[heretic888]

I do think that that executions serve a purpose. They remove people unacceptable from society. If people lock them up then it costs society even more and even detracts from the society's survival.

While it's been awhile since I've researched into this particular issue, I can state with a fair degree of certainty that this statement is not supported whatsoever by any substantive data. Life imprisonment in the United States is actually less costly than a state execution.

I'm also not sure what "detracts from the society's survival" means, either. This is a rather vague and seemingly non-sensical statement. Social psychology indicates there is a correlation between socially accepted violence (such as war or executions) and violent behavior in society as a whole (which is probably the main reason capital punishment is not a "deterrent"). If anything, such policies would be detrimental to "society's survival", not beneficial to it.

One of the hypothetical hallmarks of the United States legal system is the assumption that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to face imprisonment. Yet, organizations that have actually taken up death row cases have demonstrated, through forensic testing not available at the time of the original trial, that roughly 20 to 25 percent of those on death row are actually innocent.

That, in my opinion, is unaccaptable.

 

[Rich Parsons]

While it's been awhile since I've researched into this particular issue, I can state with a fair degree of certainty that this statement is not supported whatsoever by any substantive data. Life imprisonment in the United States is actually less costly than a state execution.

I'm also not sure what "detracts from the society's survival" means, either. This is a rather vague and seemingly non-sensical statement. Social psychology indicates there is a correlation between socially accepted violence (such as war or executions) and violent behavior in society as a whole (which is probably the main reason capital punishment is not a "deterrent"). If anything, such policies would be detrimental to "society's survival", not beneficial to it.

One of the hypothetical hallmarks of the United States legal system is the assumption that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to face imprisonment. Yet, organizations that have actually taken up death row cases have demonstrated, through forensic testing not available at the time of the original trial, that roughly 20 to 25 percent of those on death row are actually innocent.

That, in my opinion, is unaccaptable.

DUH!

Read the whole frigging quote. You can read right? You bring it to people heretic so I mean I have to ask you right?

I am not into watching the pain of others.

I do think that that executions serve a purpose. They remove people unacceptable from society. If people lock them up then it costs society even more and even detracts from the society's survival.

The issue that always comes up are those that are convicted and were actualy innocent. Those that were either political enemies or did not fit the mold of society at that time. i.e a different race or religion or ..., .

I think it serves a purpose. Although today's implementation of lots of appeals and time and money, it is not a deterent to those involved with unnacceptable behaviour of society.

What is that the last paragraph "Although today's implementation of lots of appeals and time and money," , is what you missed.

Once again you partial quote and try to make a point out of context.

You can make your point. For I am not arguing against your point, I just really hate it when ignorant people mis-quote me to make their point and to try to sound superior while putting everyone else down.

Try to make your point without being insulting next time.

 

[Lisa]

Ya know, I started this thread to find people's opinions regarding executions, not to give anyone a platform to snipe at eachother.

As this is my thread, I can not moderate here. All I ask is that we get back on topic and not let this go any further. I think important information can be shared and we may all learn a little if we just keep our eye on the ball.

Thank you.

 

[heretic888]

What is that the last paragraph "Although today's implementation of lots of appeals and time and money," , is what you missed.

Once again you partial quote and try to make a point out of context.

You can make your point. For I am not arguing against your point, I just really hate it when ignorant people mis-quote me to make their point and to try to sound superior while putting everyone else down.

Try to make your point without being insulting next time.

Ignorant people, eh? I will just let that one go for the time being....

I did not misquote you. You stated imprisonment costs more than state executions. This statement is not supported by actual data. What "context" am I missing here??

You argue that today's implementation entails "lots of appeals and time and money", but the context of the argument --- if you will actually read your own post --- is why capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. You were not addressing the cost of execution versus imprisonment. I did not misread the context here nor did I misquote you.

If you wish to change the context of your argument after the fact and state that the appeals process artificially inflates the cost of executions you also have to selectively ignore the appeals process for imprisonment, as well. It is not as if appeals and time evaporates into a magical legal void once someone is imprisoned. Appeals take place with or without death row.

In any event, I find the whole line of argumentation morally incredulous. We're essentially saying that it's okay to kill human beings because it'll save us some cash. That is a bit too Machiavellian for my tastes.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

DUH!

Read the whole frigging quote. You can read right? You bring it to people heretic so I mean I have to ask you right?

What is that the last paragraph "Although today's implementation of lots of appeals and time and money," , is what you missed.

Once again you partial quote and try to make a point out of context.

You can make your point. For I am not arguing against your point, I just really hate it when ignorant people mis-quote me to make their point and to try to sound superior while putting everyone else down.

Try to make your point without being insulting next time.

Yet, organizations that have actually taken up death row cases have demonstrated, through forensic testing not available at the time of the original trial, that roughly 20 to 25 percent of those on death row are actually innocent.

It seems the argument being made is that the lengthy time required to execute someone is the prime contributor of the cost in completing capital punishment.

Therefore: society must elminate many of the steps of the appeals process, to bring the cost of execution down.

This, unfortunately, according to the evidence presented, means that we would speed the execution of those, who with more time, have would be found to be not guilty of the capital crime.

The conclusion I draw from these premised circumstances, is that without the cost of capital punishment being what it is, we would be living in a society that practices less justice.

But, if the unintentional execution rate is only 1 in 5 executed, or maybe 1 in 4, and the costs are lower, is that better?




No ... No ... something there doesn't seem correct. That is why I find all executions performed by the State as wrong. The only exception would be that if imprisoning a convicted person was not reasonable. Show me that our prisons are not secure, and you might begin to sway my opinion.

 

[Kacey]

This issue is, as the discussion shows, one that incites strong emotions in everyone who considers it. That does not mean that such a discussion need devolve into nit-picking about others' opinions.

For myself, I will stand by what I said earlier: if execution does not provide a deterrent to crime, then it is not an appropriate punishment.

As has been discussed in great detail, there are significant problems with the criminal justice system in the US, in regards to the time and cost necessary to actually execute someone, no matter the crime, unless the person waives his/her right to the time- and money-consuming appeals a convicted person is legally entitled to... during which time the person is living in a familiar (and often, to the convicted person at least, comfortable) environment. There are so many safeguards piled on top of each other to prevent punishment from being meted out unfairly that by the time a significant punishment is enforced, criminals often don't believe that they have actually been sentenced - and even then, the rate of plea bargaining and time off for good behavior is incredibly high, because there are more prisoners incarcerated than the system has room for.

At some point, legislators and voters in the US and other countries with similar systems and similary system issues need to realize that piling new laws on top of existing ones does not change criminal behavior, and that, while expensive in the beginning, prevention is much less expensive than punishment. At that point, something in the system might actually change.... but until then, we're stuck with what we've got, and what we've got is a system with so many checks and balances, and a culture of acceptance toward inmates and former inmates (it is no longer nearly so negative to have been in jail as it was in times past) that it no longer deters the crimes the system was designed to deter - the system as a whole is punitive rather than preventative, and that is, I think, the root of the problem. When the system was smaller and justice swifter, punishment was a deterrent - and it no longer is. Until that changes, the issue of execution, as part of the larger issue, will remain.

 

[mrhnau]

It appears to have little effect on deterring others.

One thing I've disliked about executions are the manner in which they are performed. They generally happen at odd hours of the night, with just a few witnesses. Is there a degree of shame, that you must do it at night? Is it a true deterant if noone can actually observe the execution?

I'm half of the mind that if we condone executions, we should do it in more of a public manner. I don't think it needs to become a social event, or anything ridiculous like that, but I would not have issues with it being obersevable if you so choose.

I am not into watching the pain of others.

Ever watch boxing? UFC? Pride fighting? Ever see a fight at school and keep watching? How about rubber necking traffic accidents?

I'm assuming you are refereing directly to executions. However, our soceity at large seems to not mind watching the pain of others.


Now, directly to the question of execution... I must admit, I kind of respect what Iraq did. The case could have been tried and retried for decades. If the evidence is absolutely overwhelming, then why must someone spend 20-30 years on death row? Got DNA, witnesses, video, blood on victims and incontravertable evidence? Then why wait until they are in their 70's?

 

[Ceicei]

For myself, I will stand by what I said earlier: if execution does not provide a deterrent to crime, then it is not an appropriate punishment.

It might not be a deterrent for those who may consider doing the crime; execution however, does [for proven offenders such as serial killers or those who kill more than one person during the same incident] stop them from re-offending.

I don't have a problem with the serial killers or mass killers being executed.

Criminals who do *not* have a history of maliciously killing are those I have reservations whether they should be executed. If there is proof beyond doubt....

- Ceicei

 

[MA-Caver]

sometimes it's hard to see the purpose when it doesnt affect you directly.

And sometimes you can. I had a cousin who at 17 was raped and murdered by her boyfriend and left out in the woods to rot. He even pretended to aid in the search for her and her mutilated body was found by hunters. DNA evidence found indisputable evidence of the rape and her fighting back (skin samples under her nails) and his fingerprints on the body after he broke her neck. Police investigation concluded that he raped and killed her in his car, then tossed her body over the edge of a cliff.
He was sentenced to death... later it was turned over and now he serves life.
You tell me... should we feel that this animal still live after treating her this way? How much harder was it for her mother when she was informed that his death sentence was turned over to a life sentence?
The girl would've been 35 this year.

You can go ahead reply that you're sorry that this terrible thing happened and offer your sympathies and all that, but it still doesn't affect you... and that's okay. That's just okay. It only affects us, the victims family, who have to live with the grief, try to get over the pain and loss and be reminded of the loss every time the victim's birthday comes around (like it did this Dec 26th) and knowing that animal is still alive in a prison getting three squares a day.

Perhaps you don't see a purpose of the death penalty... but we sure as hell do!

 

[heretic888]

It might not be a deterrent for those who may consider doing the crime; execution however, does [for proven offenders such as serial killers or those who kill more than one person during the same incident] stop them from re-offending.

Not only is there no data to support this assertion, but I seriously doubt such data could even be gathered on such a specialized sample. First off, you would have to identify a pool of serial killers (which make up, what, about one percent of all violent criminals?). Then, you would have to ascertain their reasons for continuing or discontinuing their criminal tendencies. Lastly, you would have to demonstrate these patterns across both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.

I'm sorry, but this simply sounds like a just-so statement made to affrim a pre-existing a priori belief.