The prisons are full

Remove all ads!

*sighs*

Okay, let's back track another step, as obviously the word hypothetical fits into a similar catagory as manslaughter. Who does the punishment have an effect on? The groups who jump to mind are:

(a) The families and friends of the victim;
(b) The families and friends of the criminal (although we've already established they don't count, as far as the pro-death people are concerned);
(c) The court/justice/prison systems;
(d) Possible future criminals (as a deterrant);
(e) Society in general, to know they are safe from the criminal repeating the killing.

Have I missed anyone?

 

a) The family has lost a member and the friends have lost a friend. No restitution can be made.
b) If the criminal is punished, any suffering by his family and friends is brought on by the punishment is the fault of the criminal, and nobody else. Surely you wouldn't advocate removal of incarceration because it hurts the the innocent family members would suffer?
c) They are already working because of the criminal. I think they should have the option to execute the worst of criminals.
d) No deterent seems to work because people are freakin' morons. Live or die, there is no effect--as the anti death penalty side continues to point out.
e) A dead criminal cannot re-offend.

 

So I haven't missed any groups then?

Your answer there honestly surprises me (in a good way). Looking at your own explainations there, there really is little, if any, reason for killing people. You say there is nothing that can be done about the victims family, nothing that should be done about the criminals family, neither way will deter further crimes. So what is the reason for having capital punishment? You've only given reasons against it there.

 

Because NO equal punishment for Murder exists. Justice demands that the criminal pay a price commensurate with the nature of his crimes. The victim is DEAD, why should the murderer live?

a) The inability to make restitution is an arguement FOR executing the murderer.
b) The Murderer didn't take the victim's family into account, therefore the state CANNOT take the murderer's family into account.
c) If the system is working properly, then capital punishment cuts the workload on the corrections system by eliminating the worst of criminals* and with enough lawyers and judges capable of handling the cases, the 20 plus year wait for executions would be a thing of the past, rather than a symptom of a failing system.
d) Any form of punishment is only a factor AFTER the fact. It means that either the deterent was ineffective, the criminal has a blatant disregard for society, or that they are a freakin' moron to begin with.
e) Again, I thought that was an arguement FOR the death penalty. A dead murderer won't murder again.

*By the worst of crimes or criminals, I would think that there should be a provision for the death penalty for any sufficiently damaging or violent crime. A serial rapist with dozens of victims would be a suitable candidate for such an execution, as would an arsonist who destroys enough buildings in a community--even if nobody is killed, especially if enough people are hurt by his actions.

 

rotku, the easist reason for you to support the death penalty is to stop those with life sentences from commiting all of the crimes that they commit while behind bars. the is a show in the states called "lockup", it may be availible on youtube, just watch a few episodes, they show numerous individuals that were locked up for 1 life sentence that now have numerous life sentences for the crimes they commited in the prison. 1 individual had 3 life sentences, 2 life sentences without the possibllity of parole, 2 60 years, 2 40 year & several other sentences he earned while in prison. if you are so concerned for others lives than you have to kill this one to save all the others that will suffer from him. ask anyone serving a life sentence and they will tell you they have no reason not to due whatever they want as they are never getting out anyway, thus life sentences are worse than the death penalty as it makes others suffer for as long as he lives.

 

Wouldn't the same thought process apply to someone on death row? They certianly have nothing to lose either, and so what would prevent them from doing whatever it was they wanted as well?

 

except death row inmates are single cell, with most(if not all) on 23hr a day lockdown. most life sentence cons are in the general prison population & in 2 man cells

 

Okay, Gnarf, I'll give you that point (e) is a point for, however one that is easy to refute. Surely someone securily locked up in a cell cannot reaffend either. If so, that means there is a problem with the prison systems - not that we need to go killing more people off.

(b) I'm putting aside for now, simply because I completely agree with you there - although it would be nice to see the victims families taken into account, the justice system won't function very effeciently if it did. However, while this can be used as a counter argument in favour of the death penalty, by itself it cannot be used as an argument for.

(c) I am also putting aside. I am sure not even the most pro-death person here will say we should kill someone because it costs too much to keep them alive. Same applies the opposite way - I wouldn't say we should keep them alive because it costs too much to kill them. Sounds like we're talking about live stock instead of humans. Costs may be used as a side argument, but it's never going to form a major argument for or against.

That leaves you with (a) and (d). So let's look at the arguments there.

(d) You said that no form of punishment will act as a deterant. For argument sakes I'll give you that point for now. However, if no form of punishment will help, you cannot use that as a reason to kill someone. If you were to prove that killing them DID make a difference to future crimes, then that would be a reason to kill them. However, arguing that it doesn't make a difference so we should kill them, is completely flawed. If there is no difference between death and living, then there fails to be a reason TO kill them. You have your argument back to front there. Take a look at all the pro-death sites - they will all tell you how big deterent the death penalty is

(a) Nothing can repay the victims family. Nothing. Not a big payment of cash, not the criminal been imprisoned for years and years, not even the criminal been killed in some horrible, painful way. There is no form of reparation that can equal what they have suffered. So what's your point in killing the criminal?


martaug, that's a fault of the prison system - not a reason to kill someone. "Opps, we made a mistake in guarding them. Hmm... why not just kill all the crimials?" Doesn't hold with me. I'm sure there's also a high amount of theft and drug deals in lower security prisons - the way to prevent these further crimes isn't to kill the people involved.

 

Martaug has refuted that one already. Suppose the other inmate that is killed was not deserving of death? Then he has murdered another citizen that did not deserve to die. This does not refute point (e)

The point is then moot, and should leave the arguement. The Murderer's family is irrelevent.

I'm just looking at how to make executions more cost effective yet still able to provide the safeguards needed to keep an innocent person from the gas chamber. I want the death penalty available as an option in these cases because of the nature of the crime, not because of the cost of incarceration.

If Deterence is not effective, then it leaves the arguement. Your alternatives are just as ineffective as the death penalty. It is also not the point. Deterents are about prevention. Punishment happens after deterent has failed.

They have taken a life. Their life should be forfeit. If the court decides that they should die, then they should die.

 

Regarding point (e), see my reply to martaug. If people in the cells are reaffending, it is not a reason to kill them. It is a reason to tighten security, and make sure the prisons are doing their jobs properly. If people are still stealing, dealing in drugs, or what have you, after been arrested, we don't go and kill them as a cure - we up the security so that it can't happen again.

Anyway, so we have decided that point (b) is irrelevent, as the murderers families do not matter.

Point (c) fits into the same catagory, because costs cannot be used as a solid argument to take a persons life, but more a supporting argument.

(d) also gets slotting into that catagory - if it does not deter, we cannot use the idea of a deterrant as an argument for the death penalty.

And last but not least, (e) falls into the same catagory, a imporisonment in a well run prison (hell, even a single cell, high security cell, if it came to it) will keep the offender from reoffending, so we have an alternative that has no (substancial) detrimental effect.

So, this leaves us with (a) - the victims families and friends - been the only group in society who gain from the killing of the criminal. Would you be able to explain for me what it is they gain, keeping in mind that we have established previously that it is impossible to pay back them for the life they lost? Satisfaction? A sense of revenge? A feeling of justice?

 

(e) The point is that an incarcerated murderer CAN re-offend. A dead murderer can't. Not a reason to kill the murderer, but an arguement against abolishing the death penalty.

Back to the Victim's family. I said earlier, robably a couple pages ago, that forgiveness does not mean letting the offender off without consequence or allowing then to hurt you again. They can provide a compelling case for killing the murderer, but under the law, every such case should be considered by itself, and as such, the family and friends will have a chance to speak their piece in the sentencing proceedings.

My original point still stands: Justice requires punishment as close to the offence as possible. Incarceration is only a substitute where that is not practical (8th ammendment, need for protection above and beyond punishment). In this case, deliberate killing can be met with deliberate killing, therefore, justice would be satisfied.

In the most extreme cases outside murder, I would argue that the same reasons for incarceration could be extended to the death penalty. In these cases, the crimes of the offender are so horrific that only their death can pay for the crimes and still protect the public. Who here would shed tears for a serial rapist (we're talking dozens of victims here) that is sent to the gas chamber? Or someone that inflicts severe torture on an innocent person?

 

THe problem is, you still haven't provided a valid reason of why justice requires a punishment as close to the offence as possible. Infact, you have said yourself that there are cases where this does not apply.

We've narrowed it down to the families of the victims - they are the people who might give us an reason why the death penalty is proper justice. WHat I am after a statement saying how they gain from the death of the criminal, as opposed to the criminals imprisonment.

Oh, and just a side note: I thought you were in Canada? The US 8th Ammendment doesn't apply there - unless they've secretly taken over while the world had their back turned
If you want to see Canada's view on the death penalty, check out the United States vs Burns case.

I believe even using the 8th ammendment in the states isn't a big use either - by memory, in a number of states capital punishment has been decleared a 'cruel and unusal punishment', and hence outlawed (New York is an example there). The recent Baze and Bowling v. Rees case, in the US Supreme Court, has infact more or less put an entire halt on state sanctioned killings, as it is feared that the court may rule the leathal injection unconstitutional.

I'm sure one of our US citizens can correct me if I'm wrong there.


[Edit]

As for your last question - shed a tear, no; strongly disagree with, yes. "Treat others as you would like to be treated" - the golden rule of ethics. I can't rule a line between the state legally killing someone and some punk on the street shooting someone. I would go so far as claim that the state sanctioned killings is worse, as it is carried out on a claimed higher moral ground. And not to mention bloody hypocritical.

 

Actually, almost without exception, it is the 8th amendment that is used to challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty. You're right in that a number of states have declared the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment - which is exactly what the 8th amendment bans. So anyone using that argument is basing the challenge of the death penalty on the 8th amendment.

 

I'm getting a little sick of the "would you shed a tear for a serial rapist," "they're crying about what a difficult childhood they had," and "I wouldn't feel sympathy for a criminal" rhetoric.

Opposing the death penalty is no more about shedding tears and feeling sympathy than supporting it is about murderous bloodlust. It's about having certain depths to which society should not sink. Namely, the depth of the murderers and rapists.

 

Because it is not about gains. It is about punishment fitting the crime.

Not directly, but I believe there is something similar in Canadian law. The 8th ammendment is simply a convenient way to say it that would convey the meaning.

I look at this the other way. When someone deliberately murders an innocent citizen, he is ASKING to be killed according to your comment. The State then simply steps in to grant that request. It is not hypocritical to enforce the law, but it IS hypocritical to make a law but not apply justice when it is broken.

The problem is that it is not "cruel" nor should it be "unusual" therefore it should not apply.

That is hypocritical. It tells someone that if they kill someone, the state will keep them alive for decades with no need to work. It values the life of a killer over the life of an innocent civillian. The Innocent Civillian that does not murder has to work and pay taxes--two things that criminals don't do. Execution of a murderer or a rapist is not sinking to their depths, but rather eliminating those members of society that sink to that level from society.

 

I think killing is cruel. I would hope that you do, as well. And I know I would certainly like all killing to be unusual. Infact, I can't say I know anyone who has ever been killed - so it that sense, it is unusal.

Then what is the point of punishing a crime if there is no gain? You've left me completely clueless here. I don't think you've really thought that statement through, have you?

I can think of three reasons for punishment (not just thinking of murder here):
-> Future deterrant;
-> Preventing that person from commiting a future crime (imprisonment); and
-> As reperation to the victim (fines / community service / etc).
All of them have a gain to a sect of society.

 

Murder is cruel. Rape is cruel. Execution is not cruel when compared to what the victim and their family has been put through. If the punishment does not fit the crime, then what good is the law?

If the death penalty is the normal punishment for such crimes, then it is nor unusual. Certainly due to the nature of the sentence, it should be handled more carefully, but it must be included.

If a crime is not punished, then why have a law against it in the first place?

Actually I have. Punishment means applying sanctions for a crime that has been committed. It is not about making a victim rich. Certainly restoration of what has been lost or making up for damages to the closest possible degree is okay, but punishment applies to the criminal, not his victim...

We've already established that people are freakin' morons and that nothing will deter a committed criminal. Therefore the arguement fails. Unless you want to recant the deterrant option and allow it as an arguement for Capital punishment...

Martaug has already countered this point. They commit crimes against other criminals. Therefore the Deathpenalty should be available for the worst of these.

This works for lesser offences, but for Murder, there can be no restitution. For the worst of crimes, this also is not a factor.

You talk about gains to society or the victim as if to liken it to winning a lottery. I just don't see it. I couldn't imagine a notification that informs me that my mother had been murdered but I had won 2 million dollars. That's just a crock...

 

Heh, I have never said not to punish crimes. Imprisoning is a punishment. A small slap on the hand and saying "Bad boy!" is a punishment.

But yes, following your reasoning, that there is no benefit from a punishment, why punish the crime? You haven't even attempted to answer the question yet.

Yes, murder is cruel. Yes, rape is cruel. Yes, execution may not be cruel when compared to what the victim and their family has been put through. However, I'll draw your attention there to the word COMPARED. Just because something is a lesser of two evils does not make it good. If I shoot someone, out of pure hatred, but then my neighbour goes and shoots four people, out of hatred, it does not make my crime any less cruel.

If you've managed to take that from my words, I pitty you (and feel sorry for your high school english teacher), as you have completely misunderstood everything I have said in the past god-knows-how-many pages. Winning lottery implies (a) luck; and (b) a net gain. The point of a crime is that it has a detramental effect, in some way or another, to a proportion of society. That is the sole reason why it is a crime. Far from winning lotto.

What I am trying to argue is that every action the state takes should have a positive effect on some sect in society. Infact, I would imagine that you would find it bloody difficult to provide an example of a state action which did not have a positive effect on some sect of society. I'm not speaking about a net positive effect, as we've already agreed that you cannot repay a life of a human. However, what I am wanting to see is why the state should kill someone instead of imprisoning them. You have provided, and if my prediction is correct, will continue to provide, absolutely no solid reasoning. Please prove my prediction wrong.

Let me give you another possible approch, and take a look at the other side of the coin; however I would still like answers to my above questions first.

What are the DISADVANTAGES of imprisonment when compared to capital punishment?

And don't you dare just say something along the lines of "it's not a fair punishment" - a phrase which you seem determined to drive to an early grave through over use. If you're going to take that approch, I first want answers to (a) why the hell isn't it a fair punishment; and, assuming you can answer that, then (b) why does it need to be a fair punishment?


And finally, regarding my last paragraph (and bullet points) in my above post - I have no idea how you were able to find an argument to 'refute' in there. They contained not one single argument for or against the death penalty. Was merely musing as to what your reasons for punishment could be. So I'm not even going to bother addressing your points on those, as there is simply nothing to be gained by doing so.

And please note: Just because I have no disagreed with you when you have said things such as "punishment is not a deterrent", does not mean I agree with it.

 

Gnarff is actually right with this comment. As I have stated previously, the meaning of "unusual" in the 8th amendment is a bit different from it's normal use. "Unusual" is typically defined as meaning odd or strange. In the context of the 8th amendment, it means different than what other people who have committed similar crimes have received as punishment. So you can argue that execution is cruel, but not unusual provided that the state in question allows executions, and the person has committed a capital offense. (That having been said, you use the 8th amendment as the basis of your challenge if your punishment is cruel OR unusual. You don't have to meet both requirements.)

A bit more on what constitutes an unusual punishment:

In the US, all judges are supposed to refer to "Sentencing Guidelines" in deciding what level of punishment is appropriate for a given crime. Different states have different criminal codes, and so the "Sentencing Guidelines" are different from one state to the next. So say someone commits Crime X, and the judge looks it up in the Guidelines and sees the typical sentence is 1-5 years in prison. The judge has some discretion as to where in that range the sentence should be. If the convicted person has no previous criminal record, the judge is likely to go closer to the one year mark, whereas a repeat offender is likely to get closer to five years. But the judge cannot sentence the convicted person to 10 years, even if he is a repeat offender. The convicted would likley appeal his sentence on the basis of the punishment being unusual. Similarly, if the guy had no prior criminal record and got the full five years, that guy also likely would say his punishment was unusual, because most first time offenders only get one year.

On a personal note, while I think we execute WAY TOO MANY people in the U.S., and that the death penalty is given to racial minorities far more often than whites (suggesting a racial bias in sentencing), I feel that it the most extreme cases, capital punishment should be an option. I don't think we should follow the lead of a state like Texas that executes a couple dozen people each year. Perhaps an example would better serve to illustrate my point. I believe someone like John Allen Muhammad should be sentenced to death for his crimes. But I do not think that his then-teenaged accomplice Lee Malvo is deserving of the death penalty.

 

Thank you sir. Yeah, I was aware that unusual in this case meant out of the ordinary and different from the norm - the contents makes that pretty clear. However, one can imagine a world where the death penalty is never used, so becomes an unusal punishment. Take the UK for example, where the last person to be executed was in 1964 - an execution for murder now would certainly be unusal.