The Death Penalty

See, that's the problem - too much money put in prisons (we don't make that mistake here I can tell you - but that's OK since most of our criminals are out on the streets. Or to be more precise in limos on streets. Anyway endrant.)

I am sure there are crimes that deserve the death penalty (genocide springs to mind - but for some reason the death penalty doesn't seem to apply there, at least since the war).

I am sure there are people that deserve the death penalty. Oh god yes.

I would support the death penalty if I was convinced of the infallibilty of the justice (or rather legal) system. I am not. Twelve people are deciding whether somebody is guilty or inncoent? And they do this objectvely? Based on facts?

Aha. Human predjudice, fears, complexes, likes, dislikes and even honest errors all come into play. Can anyone deny this?

I just don't want to give too much power to those predjudices that they can decide whether someone lives or dies.

There are people wrongly convicted. There are people wrongly sentenced to the death penalty. What justice can you find for them? Or their families?


Death penalty in theory? - Yes.

Death penalty in practice? - Not unless we find a better system of determining guilt than the one we have now.

One good argument here is to try to imagine someone in my family being killed. Would I not want justice, and the bastard who did it to die?
I would. I would probably want to kill them myself, or at least to see them executed.

But I can also imagine the opposite - someone in my family being innocent and accused of murder nonetheless. And I can imagine the death penalty hanging over their heads.

 

First off, I am strongly for the death penalty. always have been, always will.

On the issue of reliability, you can complain about it until the end of time. And apply the exact same arguement to any other issue. The problem is that people are not perfect. They allow the issue, any preconceptions, and generally their entire left to color any decisions they make, regardless of any evidence given. I believe that the system that the United States uses, of given other citizens the ability to decide their fate is as close to perfect as we could get without a total overhaul of the entire system. One little way to make sure that the jurors will take a little time to ensure that their decision is the correct one. Make them watch the execution. A lot of time, a jury will just make a decision quickly because all the evidence seems concrete and they wish to get back to their own lives. If they have to see the results of their decision firsthand, don't you think that they would consider far more carefully because they decide to kill someone? Many people can easily say, "kill the bastards" and them walk away. Pardon my language. It's a lot harder to watch someone die. trust me. And harder still to watch them die when you know that it was your decision that put them their. I ask you, anyone, would you like to be there, sitting outside a room, watching a person about to die, and be able to think to yourself that you could have just killed someone by not considering the evidence carefully enough? An experience that I for one, would choose to pass on.

Another issue brought up was that of demographics. Sure, certain groups commit crimes more. Certain groups are pardoned more. One could claim that it's merely a statistical anomaly. However, that would be false. Different social groups interact different in reality, because those different groups raise their children to value different things. In the poor, gang-ridden area mentioned earlier, the law takes second place to immediate desires and the need to feel like you are a part of something. And consequently, your life, as well of the lives of other people, mean less to you. One group of I know of, highly values success, and drive their children mercilessly to succeed academically, to the point that some of the children need therapy to deal with the pressure. So, unless someone discovers a magic way to make everything think the same way, and value the same things, and look forward to the same type of future, different groups will act differently. And on an off note, I certainlly would not approve of such an action even if it were possible. 1984, anyone?

Interestingly, there is another aspect to this debate which was only briefly mentioned, but was missed in all subsequent posts. Cost was debated. Morally as well. People have mentioned the permanency of the decision, and possible reasons behind it. These are the basis for discovering the reason behind implementing capital punishment. But what about the safety of those innocents still alive? Someone who brutally murder large amounts of people is not likely to be one who will be rehabilitated by gentle care and thoughfullness. By instituting capital punishment, you are able to remove people who have proved themselves to be vast threats to innocent people as a whole. Permanently. Life imprisonment could be argued to be another option. But there are far too many problems. The earlier mentioned cost is ridiculous. But more importantly, how many people sentenced to life imprisonment actually stay in prison for life? Relatively few. Life no longer means life. These people, once free, will likely return to their old ways and once again threaten the lives of countless innocents. Something I would not want to risk for the people whom I care about, based purely upon the right to live of someone who, in my opinion, has long ago forfeited that right.

The quote mentioned earlier, "an eye for an eye," quite simply sums up the moral issues. You take a life, you lose a life. You rape someone, you destroy their life. Therefore, you lose yours. However, this does not only apply to vicious crimes. We should be able to apply it in all places. An eye for an eye, paraphrased, is "You get what you deserve." And what is more fair and moral than that? Stealing breaks this tenant. You don't deserve what you stole merely because it is now in your possession. True in dealing with people, buying things, and in justice. Morally and legally, the people who commit such violent crimes do have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" under American law, but so did the people that whose lives they took. Why should the rights of a murderer take precidence over those of the victim? You can forfeit your rights, and by committing a violent crime, you do so. You no longer have a right to travel freely. You no longer have a right to say whatever you wish. You no longer have a right to cable tv, (which I don't have), or a library to read from, or a well stocked weight room, or anything like that. You no longer have a right to life.

Sorry for the length, but this is an issue I feel very strongly about.

 

Have to comment on that one, Tenshi:

"You rape someone, you destroy their life. Therefore, you lose yours."

I appreciate that you are trying to be sensitive to women's feelings, but being raped hardly destroys any woman's life. It is awful and humiliating and certainly affects her life -- but she survives. If he doesn't kill her, too.

And to discourage rapists from killing their victims, rape is not a capital crime, that is, the death penalty *cannot* be sought for rape.

And at last, Vulkodlak -- excellent points well made (and I am not completely alone.)

 

I fail to see how being raped doesnt ruin a persons life(note I didnt limit it to women, its not just women who are raped, males have been as well). How do you explain someone who was raped, and is now to afraid to leave their house by themselves, because they are afriad it will happen again, yes that might be a little extreme, but it is something that has happened in the case of rape victums. How do you explain that, if it is not ruining someones life?

[edit]
The way you put it Methyl, if you survive something, your life isnt ruined, so the paraplegic's life isnt ruined by the drunk driver who put him/her in a wheelchair for the rest of thier lives? So the person who is put in a permenant coma, and lives the rest of their life as a vegetable, that persons life isnt ruined? Just because you live through something, doesnt mean you arent ruined by that same thing you survived.

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited July 13, 2002).]

 

Well, I don't know, DeBhaal. Maybe the rape survivors I hang out with are unusually tough. I know two women who were violently raped by strangers, one woman who was date-raped, and one man who was molested as a child. I myself foiled an attempted rape, if that counts.

None of these people, all of whom I know well, are ruined. I imagine you are trying to draw an emotional parallel to a physically diabling accident? Well, none of these people are emotional paraplegics let alone emotionally comatose. Give me a break.

What's your point, anyway? That you're *against* rape?

Shouldn't that be a separate topic: "Rape: pro or con?"

 

I am with you here Violet but I have said my things and the bloodthirsty 'prodeathers' are just repeating their argument over and over again, revenge, revenge, revenge. They may put it differently but its all about vengeance, not justice, not moral and most certainly not fairness.

 

I just wanted to show the fair lady that she wasnt alone. Been keeping silent due to not wanting to repeat oneself

 

Yes, right, Blackthorne, thank you for that distillation of every thing joacquin (thanks for your voice, joacquin, I was forgetting you), Vukodlak, and I have argued throughout this long acrimonious post.

However many times things are repeated, they cannot penetrate the arcane lock on your mind regarding this subject. Or maybe you just didn't like me knocking San Pedro.

Ye gads can anything be worse than having a *moderator* against one? One dares to open one's mouth and "no, WRONG!" comes thundering down like the voice of God.

I sure hope you are on the correct side of the next issue we argue, Blackthorne, because you are so articulate and so omnipresent that I shudder to think of opposing you again.

 

Methylviolet, I don't think being a moderator has anything to do with the exchanging of ideas on this topic.





[This message has been edited by eveningdrive (edited July 14, 2002).]

 

From reading the posts from the last several days, I've been seeing suggestions that twelve people should not decide the fate of an individual. Yet, in that case, how do you propose we remedy that? Let a judge decide? Twelve is more likely to be correct than one. Otherwise, what you're proposing is a complete revamp of the legal system, not nessessarily the morality of the death penalty. I still fail to see the point of letting the murderer go to jail, get pardoned in five years, and go back onto the street where he (yes, most murderers are men, that has been established) goes out and kills many more innocents. I fail to see how this is any more moral and costs more lives than simply his.

 

By the way, the cost of keeping the average prisoner in jail (in America) for one year is about TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS more than the average salary of an American...now THERE'S some food for thought.

 

Well, yes I agree that's not very good. However, I think it more of a problem that they get pardoned rather that they are still alive. Anyway isn't there something along the lines of: life sentence without the possibility of parole? I mean I know it exists but does anyone here know whether it actually works out that way in practice?

Also I'd like to point something out here, because of constant prodding that keeping people in jail is expensive. Well yes, I agree, it is. However, I'm not sure how many people are actually sentenced to death in various countries around the world, but I reckon (well I hope) that they are a minute percentage of the total number of people in prisons. Now, I would have thought that large majority of cost for prisons is spent on people committing various crimes that do not warant the death penalty or life sentence. In point of fact I AGREE that the current system of prisons is not great (masterpiece of an understatement) and I am convinced that pretty soon it will become impossible. An alternative needs to be found - preferably not an increase in the number of death penalties.

 

Yes, unfortunately, pardons aren't considered parole and therefore can still be passed off to the guilty party.

The cost issue should also be considered. Considering that prisons are funded with the taxes paid by us, law-abiding citizens, we could save a large sum of money simply by proceeding on the eye-for-an-eye concept illustrated earlier. The fact that it costs more than the average salary to support these people, and the penalty is much cheaper than this, we could all save a lot of money by following through on the penalty that they justly deserve.

 

No, the cost issue should not be considered.

Because we're dealing with morals here, you can never really reach a point at which you say, "Oh, I think he should live. Unless it's too expensive. Then kill him."

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited July 15, 2002).]

 

But the cost has to be considered. I don't mean when deciding on whether to convict someone to death or not, I mean with the whole system. It is already too expensive to keep people in prisons - and hence (at least partly) paroles, pardons etc. - even when they are not pertinent.

Oh. Actually this post was a bit , sorry. But it is still connected - if the alternative to prisons needs to be found (and I think that it will soon become necessary) - so can then, perhaps, the alternative to the death penalty?

 

When I mentioned the cost of imprisoning someone for a year, it was not to say that it should hold weight when deciding on a sentence but that we already imprison the wrong people for the wrong "crimes" at a high price to us, the taxpayers.