Death Penalty

Remove all ads!

I want no state, court, or whathaveyou to have the power of life or death, no matter how unlikely it is they are to use it against me. I simply don't trust such systems, and there is damn good reason for that (it's coming up to May Day, the anniversary of a riot which resulted in seven innocent people being sentenced to death on absolutely ridiculous charges...)

 

I'm for capital punishment. With modern investigation techniques, DNA testing and so forth the chances of being wrong are very slim if there at all. Waste of people's money keeping sadistic animals in a cell. Even better way to execute would be via a big man with a big axe. Would cost less than the needle/chair and it's rather swift.

Sure it might just be to appease the masses from a political standpoint but it removes those who would prey on other humans and sends out a harsh methods to those who would want to emulate their actions.

We aren't playing God but we sure are puttin' the fear o' God in 'em!

 

In the modern circumstances, death penalty is wrong most of the time. I believe there should still be the option to sentence people to death and have them executed in a time of war (you can't spare soldiers to guard someone who has an inclination to murder or kill people and you don't want him to run loose and wreak havoc across the land), but normally life sentence should be the limit. Human life is not a statistical figure, a factor in equations. Killing someone to make the victim's family or the society better (avenged, cleansed respectively) is not a justification for killing. We are opposing murder not because the murderers' killings aren't sanctioned or because they kill unprovoked or any such reasons; we oppose them because they kill, because they don't have respect for life. Killing the murderer, we close the cycle. It would be better to be above it and spare even his life. I don't mean, however, that he should be kept in a luxurious hotel with a gym and free porn but just bars in the windows. There would be no problem in making him work.

 

I have said this before but there is no ethical and moral in the death penalty. It is all about pure vengeance, if you are ok with that then shoot away but then you should also accept that you are not really any better then the person you want killed.

As I see a state that criminalizes murder but practice the death penalty loses all moral highground. The state is supposed to be coldly logical and rational and a punishment based on pure revenge isnt, it is an emotional punishment and emotions should never infere in the state.

 

It's not always an emotional punishment. Locking someone up is basically giving them free food and board for the rest of their life. Everyone else has to work yet these people don't. You can't 'force' an inmate to work. If they don't do as their told in that reguard the state can't do anything. The state still has to feed, clothe and give shelter to murderers and rapists.

These people don't deserve it.

Comparing an execution to a murder, they're only similar on one thing: someone's getting killed. However a murderer is more often than not killing an innocent who has no choice in the matter. The murderer often KNOWS what his punishment will be for the crime he's about to commit. The murderer has a choice in the matter, murder or do not murder. The victim has no such choice. Rather than locking these people up and 'throwing away the key' it's better to just dispose of them. Why should the state fund the life of someone who stole someone else's?

Let's think of the Washington snipers for a moment. No reguard for human life. No way can these people be accepted back into society. They knew what they were doing was wrong. They brought a whole city to its knees in fear. A message needs to be delivered. Frankly I think this type of action deserves a slow painful death lasting at least 4 days. Make them beg for it and let every would be criminal KNOW that this is what waits for them should they not play by the rules.

 

Why not sticking them in jail? Because it is expensive?
Well, I'll pay any time to prevent the state eroding it's ethical roots by doing exactly the same as any common murderer.
Murderes pay no heed to societal rules (most of the time). But a society that does not adhere to rules that is set up itself is a paradox.

That may be. But who gave you the right to decide? Or anyone, for that matter.

This is vengeance. Vengeance is a base motivation for murder. Supporting murder is criminal. Assigning someone to murder someone is criminal.
Do you see where this is going?

 

Then you can pay the share of anyone that doesn't want to spend over 100 k per year to keep someone who made Rape and Snuff videos featuring two teenaged girls from getting "justice" at the hads of the prisoners in general population.

Doesn't the social contract guarantee certain rights as long as we obey society's laws? By this, once the law is broken, for a period of time, the criminal's rights are suspended. And in the case of the most severe crimes, the right to life could be revoked...

 

As I have already said, if they disobey the law in such a manner that restricts (or rather, destroys) someone's right to life, their right to life is forfeit. They broke the number one law, they deserve the harshest penalty.

 

I wouldn't mind keeping murderers alive so long as it is not with MY tax dollars. Perhaps we could do what you imply here and have a charitable foundation which pays for these monsters to stay alive -- I would wager they would die faster than they do now. So many people are all talk, but would not be willing to put out the millions necessary to keep such scum alive.

 

Well, you can try to limit your tax money by writing a note to the state: "Please do not use this money for keeping murderes alive." No one stops you, but if this is succesfull, I'll happily eat a broomstick.

Society does not give anyone the right to live, so it can not take it away. Your logic is flawed.

The human rights definition of life was made to prevent the unnatural death of people, not to give them the the right to live. It just stated that every human being has this right by default.

 

Gnarff (and the other Christians in favour of this:

I can only really ask: 'What the hell?'

Seriously, you of all people should know how badly the death penalty can be abused. Jesus, anyone? (Not to mention the whole 'turn the other cheek' stuff and general pacificm he advocated...)

And don't go; 'oh, but that was thousands of years ago. Things have changed.'
They haven't changed that much, really. You have far too much faith in the system if you believe that. The afore mentioned Haymarket martyrs again come to mind. And no, things haven't really improved since then, either. AFAIK, nothing's really been done to patch up the system.

Then let's take for example that guy (can't really remember what he did: black guy who helped improve social conditions somehow while in prison, anyway) who they executed recentlyish despite much public protest and after him effectively showing that he was rehabilitated.

You can't say that the system can 100% accurately identify someone who has commited a crime and execute them without possibility of executing the wrong person. You also can't be sure that the system won't be used in the pursuit of ideology or pressured into being unbiased, thus resulting in an undeserved death sentence. Then if you can say that people can never be redeemed, change their mind on matters, and become productive again to society - well, I think you should reconsider your cynicism, because it's to the point of being ridiculous.

And if you can defend against those points and justify them to yourself - well, I suppose the death penalty is for you. But I honestly can't see how you can, seeing the precedents.

(that changed from being directed at Gnarff somewhere along the line ... oh well)

 

on the whole the death penalty is more expensive, but if we did away with all the beraucratic crap which happens after a man is sentenced then it would be cheaper, if a man is sentenced to death then odds are there is significant conclusive evidence which placed him there as the perpetrator, courts dont issue a death sentence to someone who has only reasonable doubt. the process could be made much cheaper if we went back to the way service men who were sentenced to death were executed in the colonial british army... they were sentenced then the next day they were taken out back and shot.

 

Shoshino, here in the USA a jury should not be convicting anyone if there is Reasonable Doubt. This is made very clear when the Jury is charged. And there have been cases where a person sentenced to death has been found to be innocent.

Although I can't honestly say I am 100% opposed to the Death Penalty. Probably more like 99%.

You are correct that a death sentence is not cheaper than keeping them in jail. The appeals process is there to hopefully protect the innocent and it does work. The question I have is: How can we be sure it works 100% of the time?

 

Let me just frame my further thoughts after the development of the discussion.

From Abomination:

They don't have to be given it for free. They can be made to pay for it. They sometimes have money that could be taken instead. However, I have a little doubt as to whether it's justifiable for the society to take money from someone for his being in jail that he didn't choose to go to. It would be a bit like having people pay for whips they are whipped with.

If people choose to lie down in the middle of the road and assault anyone who tries to feed them, do we make them happy by force? Unless they are psych cases maybe, but if an inmate is one, he should be treated rather than executed or kept in jail, anyway. Still, they can work for it and if they refuse to work, they can be given no food. They can receive as good food as their work is, for instance, meaning basic sustenance for slackers and something normal for normal work.

Right, death penalty is not the same as murder. And, as I said before, it may be necessary in some cases. But we can't just dispose of people as if they were litter.

From Fabius:

It's by no means exactly the same. Even if the murder kills someone for killing someone else, it's still not the same as executing a fair law. However, you are right that death penalty may erode the ethical roots of the society.

Agreed.

From Gnarff:

The right to life is not within the power of the government. Neither is liberty of any kind. The government may restrict the exercise of those rights or liberties but not question or alter their substance. Even if in a particular circumstance death penalty were the only right solution, it would still be despite the criminal's right to life rather than by taking it away. In the old times, there was the idea of the king or prince owning his subjects' all property and even bodies, up to temporal life itself (more in the context of having to go fight a war than being punished), but it's not compatible with modern political structures where the whole of the society is the sovereign. But even then death penalty was typically regarded as paying a price for something terribly wrong.

From T2Bruno:

Death penalty convicts still sit for years in the death row. There is a lot of appealing and questioning the verdict. Some very strict standards for everything trial-related. It costs a friggin' lot of time and money and energy and nerves of many people. Also, executioners need to be trained and paid their wage, as all other associated personnel. Think also defence lawyers of sufficient knowledge and experience. Plus, healthcare etc for death row convicts also costs money. In a country without death penalty, death rows and execution chambers would have to be built. Introducing death penalty and establishing the sentencing, awaiting and execution standards would cost a friggin' lot. Even if it costs less than keeping people in jail, then probably still not by too far. And as I said, convicts can be made to work.

From Fabius:

Yes, those rights are inalienable. They can't be taken away even with the subject's consent.

@Shoshino:

One problem with death penalty is that courts will adjust the punishment to the degree of certainty they have. And that's wrong! For goodness' sake, people can't go to jail for as many years as the judge and jury are certain that he did what he did! That's a complete and utter absurd and every lawyer worthy of this name should scold it. Also, degree of certainty or doubt could intermingle in common perception with the degree of culpability (the offender's particular, own, subjective guilt based on his attitude, knowledge and consent, motives, severity of the crime etc). No people should be put in jail or even fined if there is reasonable doubt.

And something from myself now, to finish off:

Sitting for many, many years in death row, awaiting execution and being unsure of tomorrow for twenty years or more is cruel and unusual. No one deserves that. Additionally, after 20 years, the criminal is probably no longer the same person anymore. Things have changed since the time the crime was committed, as well.

 

i dont care if it works 100% of the time, at the end of the day, we are at war with crime, in battle, a soldier cannot hesitate because the target may possibly be innocent, if you have reason enough to fire you fire, if the court had reason enough to sentence the person, then thats good enough for me, give me the gun ill shoot them myself, and after all, noone is innocent of everything.

 

By commiting a crime and knowing that it is a crime (how can murder not be a crime), they chose to go to jail.

 

@Shoshino: Between punishing people for the results only and for intent/attitude only, it's like between being blind or primitive and playing God. It's a freaking tough nut to crack. I agree that if you shoot at a charging crowd and it turns out your bullet landed in a civilian running along with attacking soldiers, you shouldn't be punished for it. On the other hand, trigger happy people will always claim appearance of danger to their lives.

Well, while I don't believe death penalty is good, I believe people shouldn't be so happily put in jail for killing in self-defence or defence of other people, objects, perhaps even some kind or value of property. For example, if you're about to be killed, raped, kidnapped, done anything permanent to, you should be allowed to shoot to kill. And shooting in the legs or arms someone who attacks you shouldn't be made into such a problem. Heck, people should be allowed to kill rather than submit to beating because while the law can expect you to give up revenge or leave investigation to proper services, it can't except you to submit to criminal behaviour.

@Saber:

That works in most cases but only so long as the law keeps in touch with the society's values. Some people don't choose to turn against their community or fellow man. Besides, you can't really say they signed any contract by being born citizens of a nation or living there. Not like this means they aren't subjected to the law but choice of going to jail isn't always so clear. Still, people are expect not to break the law, so if it's made clear beforehand that inmates will pay for their own upkeep, I guess it's still fair. It could be a good deterrent, actually. But from just committing a crime, it doesn't follow one should pay a compulsory hotel-like fee for ending up in prison.

 

You are allowed to kill for self defense. If someone breaks into your house, threatens you at gun point, and looks like they're going to shoot, if you kill them, you can't be put in jail (at least in America).

 

Sorry, this is not correct. Prisoners MUST recieve food if they work or do not work.

Oh, people, I agree with you there. But we sure as hell can take out the trash. I'm not saying that 'every' murderer should be killed but Judges should be allowed to sentence murderers to death and they use their own judgement on if a murderer should be executed or not. And don't say we can't trust judges because if we can't trust them then the entire legal system is beyond repair.

By living in a country you have indirectly signed an agreement to obey all its laws and are prepared to suffer the punishments for breaking said laws.

Actually this sounds like a damn good idea. Strip them of their assets to pay for their own incarceration. The law should throw the whole damn book at you, people should be seriously punished for breaking the law and not be given free living expenses for the rest of their lives.

I remember a case in New Zealand when a man was sent to jail a second time for his first murder yet not his first violent offence. The first thing he asked the guard when leaving he courtroom was "Will we get there in time for the gym session?".

 

If society recognizes this right, then they have the right to end the life of a person that kills another.

Then the sin is with the abuser(s).

Yeah, a gang leader. He spent over 20 years in prison between conviction and execution. Why should it take that long? Secondly, he did NOT acknowledge his guilt. If he was innocent, then surely that would have been proven in that time. Confession of sins is required for repentance, and with no repentance, such forgiveness cannot be given.

So you'd decline justice to 99.9% of killers to protect that one in a thousand that is falsely convicted? I've got more confidence in the system in that case.

Life in prison with no parole sends the same message.

An excellent solution. Bravo.

That is why I have more confidence in the system as it stands.

First off, those cases are rare, and secondly, I believe that with modern scientific evidence, the odds of that are greatly reduced.

So I have to pay more taxes to house, feed, babysit, and sometimes protect those who commit the most heinous of sins available to them? Why not just hang them and be done with it?

Not now that there is prison reform. They all eat the same regardless of what they do. That's why I see Capital punishment as a necessity of Government.

Nor should it be automatic in all cases, but it should be available.

BUt if it's the right solution, then it ought to be done.

Then make the prisoner responsible for their own appeal costs--ALL OF THEM. If they are innocent, there is civil redress ofcourse, but if they are guilty, then their estates would be responsible for the added costs. But take the burden away from innocent people. If a convicted prisoner lives better than people that work for a living, then there is a major problem with the system.

It ought to be determined by the severity of the crime.

But they shouldn't be allowed to drag out the procedings that long. It's the added court procedings that cause the cruel and inhuman part. When the process is complete (and a much shortenned process), they should simply be killed, with little fanfare.

[ May 01, 2006, 07:25: Message edited by: Gnarfflinger ]