The Death Penalty: Yes or No?

[MBuzzy]

Here is what I immediately thought when I saw the title of this thread: Everyone here on this board is a martial artist of some sort. What are we all taught in regards to self defence? That you have no ethical or legal right to kill someone unless they are using lethal force against you. Now, once the death penalty candidate is captured, he is no longer a threat. He is isolated from society, surrounded only by the people who gaurd him. At that point, killing him surves no purpose to the the public.

Except when he is released 10 years into his sentence after having served 10 years with OTHER criminals, learning to do things more efficiently. And probably going back to his previous behavior.

 

[JBrainard]

Except when he is released 10 years into his sentence after having served 10 years with OTHER criminals, learning to do things more efficiently. And probably going back to his previous behavior.

Ah, yes, good point. I should have added that these individuals need to be given life inprisonment without hope of parol. Then my statement holds true, no?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

When making arguments such as this, it is important to consider the function of such policies. Appealing to consequences is only relevant in two contexts:

1) Increasing or decreasing the frequency of future behaviors.

2) Exacting revenge on others.

In regards to the first point, capital punishment has not been demonstrated to decrease the frequency of criminal behaviors. This is most probably due to the reason that most crimes which warrant the death penalty are generally crimes of passion.

Maybe your two points are valid. However, one can not prove a negative. Therefore, it is possible that the death penalty is decreasing the behavior.

Now you can err on the side of it not, and therefore be against the death penalty. I generally believe the opposite.

What I am actually saying is that recapitulative violence, whose goal is to harm those who have harmed us, is wrong. It may feel justified, but its still wrong.

I disagree that it is always wrong to harm those who wrong us. What I think is a more appropriate to understand your position is this. Is there a justification in a delay in harming those who have harmed us.

In other words, if I wait a month to his someone who hit me justified? Or, if I hit them immediately, is that justified. Both are violence against one who has violated us. Only the timing is different.

Unfortunately, you are being inexact with your logical articulations and collapsing the concept of self-defense violence with recapitulative violence. In the former, I use violence to stop one from exerting violence on me. In the latter, I use violence to "pay back" one who has previously exerted violence on me (which is generally after-the-fact).

No, I'm saying that using the example of a child's articulation of self-defense is weak when discussing this subject. And, if someone hit my child, and he hit that person back, I would explain to him about self-defense, not automatically chastise him.

 

[fireman00]

YES - definitively YES... when I read about the John Couey's of the world I cringe to think they are still drawing breath and costing their victims and others money to house and feed them.

I am ashamed to live in NJ now they've shown how spineless they are in repealing the death penalty and the BS liberal " now doesn't everyone feel better" mentality. We already have one of the highest tax rates in the country... now rather then put it to good use by killing vermin off we'll waste it keeping them warm, cozy, fed with 3 meals a day and TV.

Rape, Murder, Drug dealing - should all be punishable by death. Sorry to the liberals but criminals show no mercy in the crimes they perpetrate against society... why should society show them mercy? Get drunk and run over a 16 year old girl who was riding her bike home from school? bye bye.... A mother that's turned into a heroin addict by a dealer who gives her a couple of free tastes... she then in turn kills her child by starving her cause she's always out of her mind high? both of 'em Dealer and mother ... bye bye... Get liquored up and bring your 6 week old little boy to bed 'cuz he's crying and roll over on top of him and kill him? bye bye. and on and on.... and that's not even taking into account the fools that just walk up and jam a knife into a victim's throat or shoots someone over a jacket or a robbery gone bad.

And another point to think about.. look at how our prison system have turned into incubators that churn out "super criminals" who have more criminal skills when they went in... couple that with the gang relations they build while in prison and we are in trouble. MS13, Crips, Bloods, the Aryan Brotherhood... we want to turn folks who have learned from these horrible folks loose back into society?

Sorry... can't buy into it. Give folks 3 tries to prove their innocence... if that fails then goodnight.

 

[Empty Hands]

If a person lacks that same capacity, they should clearly be removed from society. To allow further acts of violence by the insane, would be, well, insane.

Were you under the impression that a successful insanity plea means you get to walk? It means you get to spend most of the rest of your life confined in a psychiatric hospital.

 

[Big Don]

Were you under the impression that a successful insanity plea means you get to walk? It means you get to spend most of the rest of your life confined in a psychiatric hospital.

You mean like John Hinkley Jr? He gets UNSUPERVISED vacations from the hospital. HE SHOT THE PRESIDENT!

 

[Empty Hands]

You mean like John Hinkley Jr? He gets UNSUPERVISED vacations from the hospital. HE SHOT THE PRESIDENT!

26 years ago. He would have been out of jail on an attempted murder sentence long before the hospital let him go. You should be happy, his plea resulted in more punishment than he normally would have got.

 

[Doc_Jude]

I'm not sure I follow you here. The point is that the argument of "wrongfully executed people" is an appeal to people's emtions.

Yes, it can be used as an emotional appeal... except when it is proven that innocent men have been executed after the fact. If instances of wrongful execution have been proven, how many more are executed that aren't discovered? This is logic, not fallacy. If we are human and admit our own obvious imperfection, it is obvious that we must ere on the side of caution when handing out punishment to our fellow men.

The point is that I question the validity of the wrongfully executed argument. Where is the data that supports this? The majority of it comes from places like "Human Rights Magazine" and "The National Coalition to abolish the Death Penalty" neither of those are even borderline non biased sources...

Doesn't matter. Facts are facts. Finding a "non-biased" source in a subject like this is rather difficult, obviously if the opinion spread on this thread is any indication.

First off, I find it a bit harsh to say that it is the fault of all who support the death penalty when any criminal is killed. Though I fully support it and don't mind that at all....I don't see why you would say that. The logic doesn't make sense. Does this also mean that I'm at fault for every abortion? Does it mean that I'm at fault for any crime that is committed that isn't against my personal ethical code (not moral)? I don't think so. I do think that it is yet another emotional appeal trying to instill guilt in those who truly have NOTHING to feel guilty about. We are ALL entitled to our opinions. Luckily most people who support the Death Penalty do so quietly and have no interest in the changing the mind of others, or worse trying to make them feel guilty for their views.

You find that harsh, but you don't find your support of the death penalty harsh? I find the death penalty harsh, especially knowing how many screw ups occur in our legal system. Sometimes, we just don't have the proof to prove our innocence. Sometimes LE & legal personal screw up, or manufacture evidence. Sometimes people are blamed, or framed, for things they aren't guilty of. It happens.

I'm fine with that...I can handle it is someone thinks that I am at fault because a mass murdered is given the death penalty. I'm perfectly happy being the executioner of someone who rapes and kills 15 women - and I have no problems if you say that the blood of someone who kills his 3 children and wife if put to death. And you know, I am comfortable with the system, I am comfortable with society's punishment system. I am also comfortable with the fact that it is possible that innocent men will be put to death. Do I WANT this to happen, NO...a RESOUNDING no. I do NOT think that innocent men should die for any reason. But I also think that the system has made every attempt to prevent this. It is not by any means infallible, but has a great deal of checks and balances. By the time that an innocent man makes it to the chair, there has to be a pretty long line of deceptions and set ups - and HORRIBLE lawyers - or EXTREMELY good ones on the opposition. Meaning that the world is against this person. Or POSSIBLY, they actually are guilty and are LYING. If, as you say, the only people who know the truth are the accused and God, then they are fighting perception and trying to justify why they were at the scene of the crime at the opportune moment in a position to look like they did it.

So, you only find it harsh when the finger is pointed at you, right? You think that a system that occasionally murders someone that doesn't deserve it is a good system, as long as those that are obviously guilty of capital crimes are put to death? In case you were confused, I was talking about a system that murders innocent of capital crimes. You want those that you think deserve it to die, while I don't think that man should have the authority to dole that punishment so easily.

Oh well. Agree to disagree, I guess.

 

[Big Don]

26 years ago. He would have been out of jail on an attempted murder sentence long before the hospital let him go. You should be happy, his plea resulted in more punishment than he normally would have got.

That is just it, he has received NO punishment. The criminally insane are not subject to punishment, only treatment. There is a huge qualitative difference there. James Brady would, you can be sure, love even a supervised break from being stuck in his wheelchair, but, Hinkley's acts are permanent.
So, because it has been 39 years since Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy he should be released? Because people have served far less time for murder. Or what about Charles Manson. Manson never killed anyone, yet he rots in prison, and, he is friggin nuts, should his sentence be commuted and he be committed?

Were you under the impression that a successful insanity plea means you get to walk? It means you get to spend most of the rest of your life confined in a psychiatric hospital.

Not at all, do you think being in a psychiatric hospital is the moral equivalent of being jailed for crimes? The psychiatric hospital's mandate is to help the patient, not punish the guilty. If one is deemed "Sane" at some future point, they should then begin the punishment phase of their sentence. If ignorance of the law isn't a defense how is it that being too nuts to obey the law is?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Not at all, do you think being in a psychiatric hospital is the moral equivalent of being jailed for crimes? The psychiatric hospital's mandate is to help the patient, not punish the guilty. If one is deemed "Sane" at some future point, they should then begin the punishment phase of their sentence. If ignorance of the law isn't a defense how is it that being too nuts to obey the law is?

Uhhhhh... findings of Insanity, if actual, is a lack of logical or moral discernment, thereby the accused is not held responsible for their actions, hence they receive institutional psych treatment in leu of penal incarceration. Knowledge or ignorance of the law is a non-issue in such cases.
Are we really talking about this???

 

[Big Don]

Uhhhhh... findings of Insanity, if actual, is a lack of logical or moral discernment, thereby the accused is not held responsible for their actions, hence they receive institutional psych treatment in leu of penal incarceration. Knowledge or ignorance of the law is a non-issue in such cases.
Are we really talking about this???

Yes. People should be held responsible for their actions. Period.

 

[MBuzzy]

You're right, this tends to be a very emotional topic for people. It is also one in which the majority of people will not change their opinion, since it is linked heavily to their moral and ethical code. Personally, I choose to look at it objectively. So, as with everything in this board, it is nothing personal.

Yes, it can be used as an emotional appeal... except when it is proven that innocent men have been executed after the fact. If instances of wrongful execution have been proven, how many more are executed that aren't discovered? This is logic, not fallacy. If we are human and admit our own obvious imperfection, it is obvious that we must ere on the side of caution when handing out punishment to our fellow men.

Doesn't matter. Facts are facts. Finding a "non-biased" source in a subject like this is rather difficult, obviously if the opinion spread on this thread is any indication.

What I'm questioning is the validity of the proof. The investigations were done by a commissioned board, paid by a newspaper, years after the fact. And yet, the courts failed to find any of that? And then it was published ONLY in the newspaper that paid for it and an anti death penalty site? I'm not saying that it is wrong, it just sends up MANY red flags to my analytical brain.

In addition to that point, I question the "If instances of wrongful execution have been proven, how many more are executed that aren't discovered?" extension. I don't believe that this is a logical extrapolation. They are mutually exclusive points. One case has no bearing on any other. So let's look at the numbers....

In 2006, there were 766,010 inmates in the nations prisons, up almost 20,000 from 2005. Of those, approximately 3,366 are death row inmates (not taking into account appeals and unknown circumstances.....)[http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm] [http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=stats]
Therefore, 0.4% of the inmates in this nations prisons are on death row and that was with about 2 mins of internet searching. The next point would be to research how many of those have historically been actually executed.

So now, let's look at your assumption. Ho: Death row inmates are guilty Ha: Death row inmates are innocent. Now let's tie some numbers here. I admit the fallibility of the legal system. It would be folly not to. Of COURSE the legal system is fallible. MAN is fallible. There is NO WAY TO PREVENT that. So let's say that 5% of the inmates in the nations prison ARE innocent. So, there are 38301 innocent prisoners. And 169 Death row inmates who are innocent. Of those, it can be assumed that if they are TRULY innocent, half of those will get off. So 84 innocent men are executed....and that is using HUGELY inflated numbers. I do not believe that there are even close to 5% of the inmates who are innocent.

I can easily prove that the hypothesis is fails. I'm a nerd and wrote it out, but without showing you those calculations, you have no idea the numbers I used, which ties me back to my original point. With a basic knowledge of statistics, I can make the numbers say anything I want.

But that point aside, if 84 innocent men are executed over the next 30 years or so, I personally view that as acceptable losses. That sounds horribly cold and evil, but even without the death sentence, they are STILL IN JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. That changes nothing. They live life in a cell - and are the expenses of a bureaucratic system (bureaucratic has a negative connotation, but I'm using it in the organizational system sense), that is designed to protect the general public and punish the guilty.

That is true, it is difficult to find unbiased facts, because everyone has their agenda...and that is why I question every news report that fails to cite sources or presents statistics with no basis. I have DONE extensive statistical research, I know how incredibly easy it is to manipulate numbers.

You find that harsh, but you don't find your support of the death penalty harsh? I find the death penalty harsh, especially knowing how many screw ups occur in our legal system. Sometimes, we just don't have the proof to prove our innocence. Sometimes LE & legal personal screw up, or manufacture evidence. Sometimes people are blamed, or framed, for things they aren't guilty of. It happens.

So, you only find it harsh when the finger is pointed at you, right? You think that a system that occasionally murders someone that doesn't deserve it is a good system, as long as those that are obviously guilty of capital crimes are put to death? In case you were confused, I was talking about a system that murders innocent of capital crimes. You want those that you think deserve it to die, while I don't think that man should have the authority to dole that punishment so easily.

I also find the death penalty harsh. I think it is horrible that we do such a thing. I think it is terrible when innocent men die. and I don't deny that people are blamed, framed, evidence is manufactured, legal systems screw up, etc....but I don't buy how often this happens. If your world view is based only on television and movies, you probably think this happens every day. It is NOT a common occurance in my opinion. Sure, it happens, but there is no alternative. The only alternative is to scrap the entire legal system.

I also do not care if the finger is pointed at me. I feel no guilt for this. People can say that I'm to blame all they want, this does not impact me in the least. I haven't committed any crimes, and thank god, I live in a country where I am free to have my beliefs, you are free to have yours and anyone can say whatever they want about me and my beliefs....I say it is harsh because I don't see the connection. I see no logical way to link one's beliefs and a failure of a legal system that I have never been directly involved in. If I was a judge, sure. If I was a congressman, I would feel a personal responsibility. As a Civil Engineer....sorry.

On top of that, I have found in my discussions of this topic that as I stated earlier, guilt is the primary argument used against the Death Penalty. That is the logical fallacy I'm referring to. Statements that refer to these vast numbers of innocent people who are dying on death row. In 2006, 53 men were executed in this country. I would LOVE to see a Depeartment of Justice statistic regarding how many of these men were found innocent in an objective, legal setting after their death. THAT is something that would change the minds of lots of people.

The point here is that the subject must be looked at objectively, without ties to emotion and morals. I feel that those who are guilty of capitol crimes, and whose crimes fit within the criteria for a death penalty, and who have gone through an objective trial by their peers, were given the chance for appeal, and are still guilty, deserve to die. I personally feel that if you have gotten that far and are innocent....There's no way that you're completely blameless. I just can't see a situation where someone is put into the position to be blamed and then can produce NO EVIDENCE to the contrary over the course of years and many appeals.....and by juries of their peers. I have no faith in the media, so the few and far between instances of innocent men who are executed really don't bother me.

And by extension, if men do not have the authority to dole out punishment, where does this start and stop? What authority DO men have? So we can take someone's life away and keep them incarcerated, but cannot put them to death? Or is it that men do not have the right to pass judgement on each other at all? In which case we go back to the point of the general public's moral compass.....If people have internal, built in morality, then it isn't necessary. In which case, we can scrap the entire legal system and feel safe. I do not. I don't trust people at all. If you take away rules and punishments - you have chaos.

Oh well. Agree to disagree, I guess.

Exactly! This is the beauty of our country...and this forum. We are all free to have our opinions. And personally, I see this as a completely non-attributional system, i.e. an academic debate.

If there is objective information out there regarding these statistics of all the innocent men who have been executed, I would like to see them.

 

[MBuzzy]

Yes. People should be held responsible for their actions. Period.

Agreed. When a plea of insanity can be recommended by a lawyer....the system is being perverted.

This is of course an example of the fallibility of the legal system....only it works in the opposite direction! We're letting the wrong people go!

Insanity is WAY too objective. If I was guity of a crime and knew it and was facing a hefty punishment....i'd start eating crayons and talking to lamps.

 

[MJS]

Ah, yes, good point. I should have added that these individuals need to be given life inprisonment without hope of parol. Then my statement holds true, no?

And to ease the over crowding in prison, we need to a) build more or b) send them out of state to other prisons, both options of course, usually get flak from the general public.

I"m fine with either option. What I don't like it the long drawn out appeal process. Why is someone sitting on death row for 10 yrs? Either go thru with it or lock them up for life.

 

[MBuzzy]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS87a-dYyw3uytcrOSlWhaZcX0ZgD8THHKL80

Here is a perfect example from another thread.

""This is just another freak show of a hearing where they convicted an innocent man," Goudeau's wife, Wendy Carr, said outside the courthouse."

It is very easy for his wife or him to say that he is guilty....even when there is DNA evidence linking him to the crime. The man faces several counts of murder, rape, and other crimes. Now because he's well behaved in court, people are going to scream that he's innocent. With no back up other than his word alone.

Personally, I say put him to death. Instead, we put him in a jail cell to rot for the rest of his life and for the tax payers to support. AND on top of that, to give him the medical care he requires to PROLONG his miserable life while he sits in a cell. Not to mention education, free meals, entertainment, etc. Now how does a man like this with such little respect for human life or rights deserve to live?

 

[MJS]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS87a-dYyw3uytcrOSlWhaZcX0ZgD8THHKL80

Here is a perfect example from another thread.

""This is just another freak show of a hearing where they convicted an innocent man," Goudeau's wife, Wendy Carr, said outside the courthouse."

It is very easy for his wife or him to say that he is guilty....even when there is DNA evidence linking him to the crime. The man faces several counts of murder, rape, and other crimes. Now because he's well behaved in court, people are going to scream that he's innocent. With no back up other than his word alone.

Personally, I say put him to death. Instead, we put him in a jail cell to rot for the rest of his life and for the tax payers to support. AND on top of that, to give him the medical care he requires to PROLONG his miserable life while he sits in a cell. Not to mention education, free meals, entertainment, etc. Now how does a man like this with such little respect for human life or rights deserve to live?

Yes, this is the other side of the coin, and one that people no doubt compain about. I don't know the current stats as far as cost goes, but life in prison isn't as harsh as some think. You got a roof over your head, access to a phone, tv, gym equipment, visits, medical care, 3 meals a day, plus the prison store.

 

[bydand]

Red is positive, Black is negitive. Need somebody to flip the switch? PM me.

All I have to say on the subject.

 

[Cruentus]

Without having read the thread yet, I am going to weigh in.

I must proceed my statement with this, though. There are many times when people simply need to be killed. And I am not talking for revenge reasons, as I don't think that is ever justified. But I am talking about killing because they are a danger to the lives of others. Killing Saddam Hussien is a great example of a justifiable killing. When we target and kill global terrorist, that is another great example.

However, I am against the death penalty in our country. Why? There is too much of a margin of error in our justice system. There are still cases today where people are on death row and are found innocent. Really, I would only be for the death penalty if it were because that individual would be considered, with certainty, a danger to society, and if they were guilty of their crime with absolute certainty. Since our legal system cannot gaurantee the above, I cannot support the death penalty.

This is difficult for me when I hear about criminals who do horrific acts, but who are still allowed to live in our justice system. But I have to stand on my principles, not on my desires...

C.

 

[Kacey]

Yes. People should be held responsible for their actions. Period.

So... no extenuating circumstance for whatever reason? Any person who kills another should die - no matter how unintentional (e.g. suicide by car - that is, when a person walks in front of a car with the intent of being killed), accidental (e.g. car hits ice, slides into median, kills passenger), or in defense of another person (e.g. family, child, weaker, etc.)?

I understand the hard-line stance, I really do - but at the same time, Hammurabi is dead, and eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth system of Biblical justice has been revamped since his time - and even then, it allowed for monetary compensation... and no, I'm not suggesting that murderers be allowed to buy their way off - but isn't that what happens when a suspected murderer has an expensive lawyer? The difference is that the money goes to the lawyer instead of the deceased's family.

The justice system needs to be revamped, no doubt about it - and especially when dealing with capital crimes. But I don't see punishment being equal no matter the circumstances as being any better than the mess we've got now.

 

[Big Don]

So... no extenuating circumstance for whatever reason? Any person who kills another should die - no matter how unintentional (e.g. suicide by car - that is, when a person walks in front of a car with the intent of being killed), accidental (e.g. car hits ice, slides into median, kills passenger), or in defense of another person (e.g. family, child, weaker, etc.)?

I understand the hard-line stance, I really do - but at the same time, Hammurabi is dead, and eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth system of Biblical justice has been revamped since his time - and even then, it allowed for monetary compensation... and no, I'm not suggesting that murderers be allowed to buy their way off - but isn't that what happens when a suspected murderer has an expensive lawyer? The difference is that the money goes to the lawyer instead of the deceased's family.

The justice system needs to be revamped, no doubt about it - and especially when dealing with capital crimes. But I don't see punishment being equal no matter the circumstances as being any better than the mess we've got now.

There is a difference, both moral and legal between justifiable homicide and murder. It isn't hard at all to see the difference between self defense or defense of others and murder, at least I didn't think it was. Some of you people are starting to worry me...