If new types of research (DNA, for instance) can prove for the full 100% that someone was guilty of a crime, would you still be against the death penalty?

Personally, I would be still be against it, as I feel that the death penalty has more to do with revenge then justice. Of course, I didn't post this to hear my own opinion, so lets hear it. ;)

[ 11-06-2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

I'm really against the death penalty. Imprisonment for life is bad enough, and with all the technology available and technology being made will allow a more sophisticated way of punishing/rehabilitating criminals. Only mass murderers and the like deserve the death penalty, for there is no hope for them.

In the face of 100% certainty, Like Dahmer, I am all for it. Remove the human stain. It is the only fair price one can pay for taking a life -- nothing else will suffice. It isn't about revenge, it is about requiring the proper price for the decision to kill. No amount of money, time spent suffering, or isolation, can pay for the intentional killing.

My opposition to the death penalty is based on the error rate, sometimes up to 20%. I don't know what the acceptable error rate would be, but I know it's less than 1%.

Accordingly, I think if a prosecutor will "sign off" on seeking the death penalty, willing to forfeit their life as recompense if it is later determined to be erroneous, I would support it. Since nothing can pay for a life except a life, someone needs to pay the price for a wrongfully executed person. Currently, prosecutors always seek the D.P., or bargain it off the table in a plea. It's such a powerful hammer in their tool box, as well as a quick way to gain laurels for their crowns and lapels for their suitcoats. The system of prosecutorial advancement rewards seeking it and does not punish NOT seeking it.

So, make somebody, prosecutor or otherwise, provide independent D.P. audits, and sign a paper stating "I attest, upon penalty of death, that this person is fully and completely guilty" or disallow the state to seek the D.P.

Of course, everyone always takes a look at these little insights into the "world according to Timber" and does a jawdrop. One wonders why?
[img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img]

im against the death penalty. the crime it is currently used for is the taking of a life right? well i dont see how the taking of a life changes if it is done to someone elce. therefore anyone who implements the death penalty has simply commited the same crime as the accused. except we KNOW 100% that the executor commited the crime. even if we could prove the accused 100% guilty, it wouldnt make a difference. two wrongs do not make a right.

(but three lefts do :D . cant remember where that came from :D .)

[ 11-06-2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Zero Alpha ]

Brief Essay on "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" and Criminal Punishment:

The way I see it, if a piece of gum says $0.25 on it, and you pick it out of the basket and chew it, YOU made the decision, YOU are the one who CHOSE to spend $0.25. Just because you broke your contract and ran out of the store without paying, doesn't mean the cops came along and *forced* a $0.25 penalty upon you. You already contracted for it yourself.

Same with the death penalty. If everyone knows the price, and intentionally willfully takes a life, they have no one but themselves to blame. The state didn't *kill* them -- it simply enforced what they agreed to pay on their own free will. Deflecting the responsibility of the act to the state is mere semantics.

This argument has a certain reductio ad absurdum to it. It is wrong to take money from someone else, ergo the state can't fine you because 2 wrongs don't make a right. It is wrong to take away the liberty of others, ergo the state can't imprison you because 2 wrongs don't make a right. It is a logical fallacy that has a certain nice "ring" to it that traps people.

The problem is one of symmetry. If someone can't kill, the state can't kill, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Well, if someone can't imprison, the state can't imprison, because two wrongs don't make a right. Or, remove the symmetry, and you get the completely bogus-sounding: if somone can't kill, it is wrong to imprison for killing, because two wrongs don't make a right. Remove the symmetry, and the logical flaws of this argument become glaring.

Every punishment that exists for a crime is an other-wise prohibited "wrong" for people to do to each other.

Sorry, but this argument holds zero merit at all. I hope you can see it for what it is now. Believe me, I too was briefly seduced by it. But, if you step back you can see it for what it is.

{edit} This post is independed of support for the D.P. or its abolition. It is merely based on raw logical reasoning. One would hope that more salient reasons would be found by the abolitionist camp -- they are certainly out there. I just hate to see so many people hang their hat on reasoning that is absolutely flawed at its base.

[ 11-07-2003, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

While I can understand the logic of Timber's argument (and it was a really good one, better than most I've come across) I still can't justify state-sanctioned execution. It isn't justice, where's the justice in giving the criminal the easy way out (as some would put it)? And how does the "eye for an eye" bit in any way make up for the fact that they killed someone. It doesn't, plus it just pulls us down to their level and completely undermines the basis for the universal taboo on murder. You killed a man, so I'm going to kill you for killing that man, and that somehow makes me a better person than you because somehow this murder is right. It doesn't matter, murder is murder no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it, even if that spin is "justice".


incidently, these are my exact thoughts on war, and I guess it fundamentally comes down to individual definitions of morals.

And just what is so wrong with revenge?
Don't tell me that if someone murders one of your family, you wouldn't want to see the perp suffer the same. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

I am not against the death penalty. If life imprisonment was indeed for the rest of a person's life then I would see no use for it. Some people get out for murder after 15 years on 'good behaviour'. Some people are so dangerous that they should never be allowed around people - ever and never do change. This is where the death penalty is appropriate. Again, if life was for the rest of a persons life then that would solve the problem.

Recently on the anniversary of Bali there was a TV special with interviews with survivors and family members of people killed. Some were for the death penalty for those responsible, but many were not, saying that as it would not bring their children/spouses/parents back, they would prefer them to rot in jail for the rest of their lives. Being against the death penalty isn't just a matter of not understanding what it's like to have a family member murdered.

Well, my code is to never kill anyone that cannot fight back. Even if the killing is 'officialised' as 'war' or 'execution', only kill if the person has a fighting chance of killing you too. To kill under any different circumstance is cowardice.

[ 11-06-2003, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Hmmm... getting rid of the death penalty is fine with me. But I also think that state funding of prisons should be reduced. No more five star meals for the inmates, no more cable TV for the inmates. Give them all antennas for all I care, cable is too expensive to waste on criminals. The way things work now criminals in prison make more money than mid-level workers.

Erm......

I don't have statistics on what criminal make in terms of income for making licnse plates, etc., but I think they only get perks in prison or a less-that-minimum wage amount. And, I note that ANY prison is funded by tax dollars. I do agree, of course, that prisons should be horrible, and should not be a place where the wrongdoers can find some solace in cable TV.

Sorry for not being clear TL. I meant to say that they tend to get more perks than a middle class citizen, of which there are many, I think, in the U.S.

Basically I believe that Alcatraz pretty much had it figured out. 6 days out of the week all you did was get up and eat, do 8 hours of work, then sit around bored in your cell. then on Sundays you got the priveledge of walking the prison yard for a couple hours and you didn't have to work. As far as I know you didn't get paid for the work you did either.

No doubt some will find flaws in that system. But most of them are a psyche issue.

Hey, no worries, I've done all the tours at Alcatraz (while my wife was working for the DOJ in S.F.) and I agree. But, remember, Alcatraz was a "secondary" prison, meaning you only went there if you were a miscreant at a normal federal prison.

[ 11-07-2003, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I would assume this is hypothetical because its never going to be that. In my opinion, no, because prisoners suffer much more if they waste away in prison than if they are given the special treatments from the death penalty. I say, if this person is 100% absolutely guilty, let them rot in prison with absolutely no change for parol.

Guess what, having someone in prison for 80 years doesn't change what they did either, maybe we should just absolve all the prisons and spend all that money to work on learning to ressurect the dead. I hope you see the sarcasm here.

By the way, two wrongs for the right reason do make a right. If you want me to explain it I will, but for now, I'll spare everyone my intensely tedius posts on this.

ACtually, concerning the death penalty, there is a blinding degree of how bad a punishment is. Death penalty is FAR LESS bad as life impisonment? Why? Cause you suffer your whole LIFE from life imprisonment, and you only suffer a minute moment from death penalty. Also, people tend to underestimate the hardness of even 1 year in prison, I have talked to a former inmate or two, and they think it's HELL, even in a relatively MILD prison like here in Holland. It is simple HELL that you are taken away all your freedom to only spend 1 hour a day outside in a CAGE while the rest of the day, you are either asleep or bored in your own cellroom.

Basically, I am against death penalty cause it's not that a severe penalty. It might seem for the bystanders, but for the criminal, it is far from a bad punishment.

Main issue I have with the death penalty is that sentencing is inequitable. Why should one murderer live whilst another is killed for the same crime? Whatever the motive they still killed a person.

<font color=gold>
Death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous(sp?) of crimes, or the manic criminals: those who keep returning to the dark-side. I mean, some of the stories I hear on discovery channel, of what some people are capable of doing to other human beings or even children(!), I feel much better when their sick minds are put out of commission. If you shoot a man point blank for a stupid reason, you need to be rehabilitated and imprisoned, but if you do things I will not name here to a kid, you need to be put to sleep..... forever. Common sense and wisdom is what we need. Ethics, general law & order.
</font>

I'd be against death penality no matter what. There's no point to it. Simple as that. If you've killed someone, you can't "make it right," whoever you killed will stay dead no matter what. It doesn't make a difference to me wether a mass murderer is locked away for the rest of his/her life or killed off, it's not like he/she will be able to do anything to anyone either way, so why should I bother? I'm quite sure it makes quite the difference to the mass murderer, so let him/her decide.
I don't think anyone should imprison or kill. So no, I don't we should imprison for killing. I think that killing is worse than imprisoning though, so I do think we should imprison to prevent killing.

<font color=gold>
Imprison everyone for the rest of their lives if you planned on putting them to death in the first place? As a tax-payer, I'd prefer to have them put to death. ( <- still in the thought of my previous post!!!!)
</font>

Costs more to put them to death. ;) Remove all the appeal rights, of which there are too many, and this goes away, of course. ;)

see, if we found a way to bring back the murdered using the life of the murderer, i would be fine with it. problem is the deceased will stay that way. it seems to me two pointless deaths is worse than one.

I Know, how about we put them in prizon for 80 years and if they are still alive, kill them :D (Joke in case you cant tell)

On the other hand, if we found ways to bring people back to life, we could kill the murderer multiple time. :D "I sentence you to 5 deaths by lethal injection, to run concurrent." :D

Now, there's a happy thought.

There are two main categories of theories on criminal justice and punishment.
</font>

• absolute theories: These concentrate on punishment as revenge or payment.
  Your death is the price you pay for the taking of another life. Brought up prominently by Kant: "Even if society unanimously decided to dissolve itself, the last imprisoned murderer would have to be executed, so that everybody receives what is the worth of his deeds."</font>
• relative theories: They think of punishment as a tool for perevention, splitted up in:
  </font></font>
  • </font>
  • special prevention: so that this criminal won't strike again</font>
  • general prevention: so that others get the message and don't attempt to do that</font>
  The judicial system here does not have to exact revenge or equality but has to protect the public.
  Many countries nowadays apply (mostly) relative theories which of course excludes the death penalty, as it is an extremely harsh measure to achieve crime prevention and studies show, that federally sanctioned killing could be the cause of a higher social acception of killing and thus increase murder rates.

So, whether you advocate death penalty or not depends on how you see your judiciary system and your society. I for myself advocate the relative theories
because:
I like to view society as a big family and I think that it is the law's obligation to educate people. Punishment may be a necessary element of education, but revenge is IMHO not.

[ 11-08-2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

While Timber's proposal for dealing out more appropriate punishments seems - unfortunately - currently impossible to realise, couldn't the very same purpose be almost as ideally served by reintroducing torture? Besides, he and others have claimed that the only significant problem they see with the current practice of the death penalty in is the uncertaintly over the percentage of the wrongfully convicted and executed. So, wouldn't the possibility of getting more confessions through torture be a perfect way to reduce that uncertainty?

And, come to think of it, as the excessive appeal opportunities for death row inmates were also cited as a problem, wouldn't the new degree of certainty of the guilt of convicts gained through a greatly increased percentage of confessions be the ideal argument to curtail those appeal options - if not to completely abolish them?

I feel, and always have, that in an imperfect world, there will always be mistakes, but I don't think it an reason or excuse to get rid of such a useful public health device as the death penalty. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote, "What the shield of society failed to protect, the sword of justice can avenge."

Now if they could just give the death penalty in a timely manner like in the old days, instead of delaying it for months or years at a time costing tax payers that much more expensive.

With consideration of my philosophical stance of what occurs "after-life" leads me to beleive that if guilt was proven 100%, that is well beyond 'reasonable doubt' to the point of 'no doubt what so ever', that hypothetically my position on the death penalty would shift to 'neutral' rather than my current stance which is 'against'.

With consideration of my philosophiocal stance of what code of 'morality' I think is the "best", my 'against the death penalty' stance would not change what so ever in light of 100% evidence of guilt.

With consideration that I weigh my philosophical stances towards what happens 'before death' with greater importance than those that occur 'after life' my stance on the death penalty would remain 'against' in any circumstance.


I would rather debate the ethics of executing retarded people and people who commited capital crimes as minors. These peripheral issues are more important to me than the greater death penalty debate.

Kill them. I don't mind paying money to wipe them from the Earth, but DO have a problem paying for them to live in prison... especially the facilities with cable television, gyms, etc.

Yup, I hate the current flow of deathrow. The courts say, "Hey, they're doomed to die by execution so lets give them all the stuff that most average American citizens can't afford all the time. Let's give them 3 high quality hot meals a day. Free cable and top of the line gyms, cuz they screwed up got the death penalty and deserve the perks."

Gotta love the court system. We live in a world where the burglar can sue the owner of a house he broke into for shooting him in the butt, and win. That's worse than the infamous McDonalds coffee case.