Question for the death penalty abolitionists among us.

[Dreamer128]

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 ]

[Bozos of Bones]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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]

[Zero Alpha]

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 . cant remember where that came from .)

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

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[spydar]

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.

[HolyWarrior]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: 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.

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]

[SpiritWarrior]

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.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: 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]

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.

[The Hierophant]

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 ]