Question for the death penalty abolitionists among us.

[Firestormalpha]

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.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Attalus: "What the shield of society failed to protect, the sword of justice can avenge."

Oh I do so love it when empty rhetoric is used to justify violent aggendas.

Originally posted by Faceman: There are two main categories of theories on criminal justice and punishment. 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." relative theories: They think of punishment as a tool for perevention, splitted up in: special prevention: so that this criminal won't strike again general prevention: so that others get the message and don't attempt to do that 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.

the absolute theory is interesting, but one wonders if the price is high enough.

of the relative theories, only the special prevention one holds any merit. numerous studies have shown that crime rates for capital offenses do not drop off after institution of the DP.

personally, killing my child's killer may not bring my child back, but it would bring psychological benefits (eg closure) and would just plain feel good.

and before any jumps on me for being barbaric (not saying you will, not saying i'm not), remember that i, as a "killer" in this instance, would have curbed that urge until sanctioned by society.

[Faceman]

To clarify,
these two sets of theories I presented are not only about DP but about criminal justice in general.
about prevention:
Special Prevention is trying to keep a perpetrator from striking again by
locking him up, psychological treatment, etc.
In the recent years it has turned out that imprisonement in general makes people even more socially incapable, so in many countries (e.g. Austria) long-term sentences are avoided as good as possible (of course you'll still be in for 20+ years with murder or something comparable, or 10+ years for your umpteenth offense).
General Prevention actually gets more important with really small "crimes", where the consciousness of guilt is not really there. Perfect examples are traffic violations such as speeding or overtaking a traffic jam on the restricted lane. These are things that can be tempting for the otherwise law-abiding citizen too. But if there is an immediate reaction by the police and the guy who was just seconds ago successfully cheating is pulled over, people will be content with their law-abiding ways and won't copy his behaviour.
.
Death Penalty does not serve General prevention, as people who commit a murder usually don't factor in how much time they'll have to do for it or if they get executed. Generally harsh punishment doesn't deter many, because people are optimists and don't want to think about getting caught.
And it does only serve special prevention in a very crude and simplicistic manner which completely neglect the second side of special prevention: making the culprit a useful member of society again.
.
Oh, and about DP providing closure. Wouldn't locking the guy up for life and never hearing of him again provide closure too?
I figure that quite a few of the guys on death row are there because they thought that murder was the only way to get closure with their ex-girlfriend.

Originally posted by Faceman: To clarify, these two sets of theories I presented are not only about DP but about criminal justice in general. about prevention: Special Prevention is trying to keep a perpetrator from striking again by locking him up, psychological treatment, etc. In the recent years it has turned out that imprisonement in general makes people even more socially incapable, so in many countries (e.g. Austria) long-term sentences are avoided as good as possible (of course you'll still be in for 20+ years with murder or something comparable, or 10+ years for your umpteenth offense). General Prevention actually gets more important with really small "crimes", where the consciousness of guilt is not really there. Perfect examples are traffic violations such as speeding or overtaking a traffic jam on the restricted lane. These are things that can be tempting for the otherwise law-abiding citizen too. But if there is an immediate reaction by the police and the guy who was just seconds ago successfully cheating is pulled over, people will be content with their law-abiding ways and won't copy his behaviour. . Death Penalty does not serve General prevention, as people who commit a murder usually don't factor in how much time they'll have to do for it or if they get executed. Generally harsh punishment doesn't deter many, because people are optimists and don't want to think about getting caught. And it does only serve special prevention in a very crude and simplicistic manner which completely neglect the second side of special prevention: making the culprit a useful member of society again.

thanks for the clarification. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] since the discussion was about the DP in particular, i hope you'll forgive my narrow evaluation of the theories.

Originally posted by Faceman: Oh, and about DP providing closure. Wouldn't locking the guy up for life and never hearing of him again provide closure too?

i've never been in that position, so i cant be certain. however, my role-playing imagination can make a pretty good case either way: knowing they live, any life, could be an insult to the memory of a dead parent/child/spouse.

Originally posted by Faceman: I figure that quite a few of the guys on death row are there because they thought that murder was the only way to get closure with their ex-girlfriend.

true. however, i was referring to "pulling the switch" in a case of state-sanctioned "murder". the motivation there isnt so much closure as vengeance, and since society okay'd it, there'd be no prison time attached either.

[Pikachu_PM]

Well fellas...I dunno if the death penalty is morally right or not, but here is what I do know:

1. Millions upon millions of people have died in wars over the past century
2. Millions upon millions of people are currently starving to death in the world
3. The cost to keep a prisoner in jail for life is horrendous.
4. It really is very rare now for an innocent person to be put to death. It's not nearly as prevolent as the dramas on TV would make you believe.

So, I think it is a mistake to spend time, money, and effort worrying about what happens to these guys who, lets face it, are not anywhere close to winning the "Model Citizen of the Year" award. When we have all the other problems of the world figured out perhaps we should step back and examine this issue, but at the moment lets makes sure the decent people of the planet are taken care of first.

[ 11-09-2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Pikachu_PM ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: 4. It really is very rare now for an innocent person to be put to death. It's not nearly as prevolent as the dramas on TV would make you believe.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Still happens with too much frequency. Gov. Ryan, a previous supporter of the D.P., reviewed all clemency cases in IL, and found so many with flaws that he commuted them all.

Do you realize how many people get sentenced to death on a confession they try to recant? Or on the testimony of ONE witness -- a police officer? The system ain't as procedurally fair as Law & Order will have you believe, man. Every day my wife watches people get sent to jail on the testimony of one officer, against whom the alleged criminal says "he planted it on me."

And, occassionally, a CPD officer she knows will get the suspension for doing just that.

Since this injustice happens, we cannot assume anything about it is fair. And, with finality of life on the line, it's a trusting leap that is not only wrong -- but also of direst consequences.

So, for you, and for Attalus, I point out that this unfortunate few innocent people who get killed just may be an acceptable error in your view -- but let's just hope the eyes of big-brother government, corrupt cops, society's jump-on-the-bandwagon suspicions, and faulty "justice" never turn their eyes to YOU.

[Melusine]

Timber is right - it's NOT a fable or an extreme rarity for someone innocent to be sentenced to death. Check Amnesty International's site. Or any other source if you prefer.

- sentencing a person to death is more expensive than putting them in jail for life (if you consider the cost of appeals)
- the death penalty is not a proven deterrent for criminal behaviour
- innocents DO get sentenced to death, mistakes ARE made
- I can understand the individual need for revenge that close relations of a victim will feel, but I don't condone a state that acts upon those feelings. A state should not be allowed to kill people

Those are my personal reasons for being against capital punishment - people can argue about this ad infinitum but I don't think I'll ever change my mind.

And just to add my tired old disclaimer that I've found is still necessary:
I don't *like* criminals, I don't want to freaking cuddle them and I'm not a wishy-washy-he-must-have-had-a-bad-childhood type. I'm all for serious punishment of serious crimes! In fact I feel that living in a cell for the rest of your life is a much worse punishment than death. People always underestimate life in prison but even with three decent meals a day and relative luxury (which I'm against, BTW - good meals and a TV are fine, but I think prisons should not be like hotels or holiday resorts in any way) it is an enormous punishment.

[Timber Loftis]

Melusine, did you see my "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right" rebuttal?

If you did, and you still feel it is wrong for the state to kill, what makes it right for the state to imprison? Both are "wrongs" for us to do to each other. And, as you mention, imprisonment may be a worse wrong. So, for you, what makes one allowable and the other not allowable?

[ 11-09-2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Pikachu_PM]

Well what you guys said is all well in good but:

I would like some more evidence of innocent people actually being executed. Now, there are a fair too many # of innocent people who are SENTENCED to death, but after appeals VERY VERY few people are actually put to death...and of those I have yet to see a case where the guy even remotely appeared to have a possability of being innocent. If you disagree please site some examples of my error...as well as some cited statistics. I could be wrong, but i don't think i am.

MOre to the point, yall are missing the bigger picture...with all the other bad things in the world the death penalty seems like a silly thing to focus on. Besides, even if the innocent guy isn't put to death, he's still put in jail for a long ass time, so arguing the death penatly issue is still kinda absurd.