Capital Punishment

[Dillinger]

Barbaric? Nescessary(Sp)? Deserved? What is your opinion on it?

Personally I prefer to think that we are better people than the inmate, and thus should not have to resort to his/her methods.

[ichi]

It is necessary, in principal, to have captial punishment, as far as I am concerned.

I have serious concerns about how it is applied sometimes.

ichi

[Gregoshi]

Since this is one of those hot topics, I'll just remind all participants to behave and remember the Good Poster's Mantra: (repeat after me)

Address the issue - not the person

In other words, argue about capital punishment and don't toss out insults to those whose views differ from yours.

Thank you.

[k1injuries]

I've heard arguments that life-in-prison costs cheaper then executions which to me is a paradox, if it's true.

If it is true, then it throws one pro-capital punishment argument out the window.

Can someone please verify?

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (ichi @ Jan. 09 2004,07:56)]It is necessary, in principal, to have captial punishment, as far as I am concerned.

I have serious concerns about how it is applied sometimes.
Ichi said it all.

[el_slapper]

It's a matter of collective consciousness. Very different, depending on the side of the ocean you are in...

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (el_slapper @ Jan. 09 2004,12:11)]It's a matter of collective consciousness. Very different, depending on the side of the ocean you are in...
I don't think the arguments differ. The difference is in how important some of the considerations are.

[Nelson]

Great care must be exercised to verify the guilt of the condemned criminal. After that, so far as I am concerned, executing a cold-blooded murderer is no different than destroying a rabid dog. Some persons are monsters. Ted Bundy for example. Or the recent DC area sniper. Or the guy who robs a convenience store and calmly blows away the clerk before leaving. In cases like these, the people, through the agency of their government, have the right to exact retribution commensurate to the crime. Society’s desire for vengeance is not misplaced nor does it reduce the plaintiffs to the level of the accused.

[The_Emperor]

I am against Capital Punishment.

In a miscarraige of justice a prisoner can always be released and have his conviction quashed... But a person under the death penalty, well you know

The justice system is not perfect and it does make mistakes.

There's no bringing the dead back.

[Shamus]

Just for the sake of argument, would people who are against the death penalty oppose it if it could be guaranteed that no innocent people would be convicted and executed? (hypothetically speaking)

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (k1injuries @ Jan. 09 2004,02:45)]I've heard arguments that life-in-prison costs cheaper then executions which to me is a paradox, if it's true.

If it is true, then it throws one pro-capital punishment argument out the window.

Can someone please verify?
It depends on how you look at it on average housing and executing a prisoner is cheaper than housing a prisoner for the rest of his natural life. What makes the cost of executing someone greater are the numbers of appeals that a condemned prisoner is given, the cost in terms of legal fees, court costs, evidence handling etc.

If you are convicted of capital murder the jury has the option of sentencing you to life without parole or death, if you are sentenced to death you get automatic appeals if you are sentenced to life without parole you get nothing. So if you know that you are innocent of a capital crime you are better off being sentenced to death because the law allows you so many chances to have your sentence overturned whereas you are given no such opportunities if convicted of the same capital crime and given a lesser sentence of life in prison.

The overwhelming majority of people sentenced to life without parole live at or below the poverty line. It is safe to assume that many of them do not have the resources to mount a long term legal battle. The state only grants free representation during the actual criminal trial, and not to assist in filing appeals unless they are sentenced to death. It only stands to reason that there are a fair number of people wrongly convicted of a capital crime and serving a life sentence who cannot afford a lawyer to file appeals on their behalf.

If justice is to be served then the state should recognize that the disparity in cost between life in prison and death should be equalized not by taking away the rights of those given a sentence of death to ongoing counsel, as some have suggested, but rather to increase the right to representation of anybody convicted of a capital crime, regardless of sentence.

For the law to work the law must be trusted and trust cannot, and does not exist, within large segments of the US population because the law is seen as arbitrary and capricious.

[Bezalel]

Shamus, sometimes I think people deserve the chance to change their ways and once again become a positive member of society. If they do not change they rot in jail. Which is worse living in prison w/ other ruthless murderers, or simply dying? Also, Ichi, this is their deterrent.

Added address to Ichi's point.

[Gregoshi]

Quote[/b] ]...sometimes I think people deserve the chance to change their ways and once again become a positive member of society.

The problem with this is how do we really know if a person has mended their ways or are just faking it to get a release from prison? Or for that matter, they might be sincere at the time but can't control themselves in certain situations? Psychology still has too many unknowns about the workings of the human mind to accurately determine if a person has truly reformed and if they are capable of staying that way.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Jan. 09 2004,10:34)]
Quote[/b] ]...sometimes I think people deserve the chance to change their ways and once again become a positive member of society.

The problem with this is how do we really know if a person has mended their ways or are just faking it to get a release from prison? Or for that matter, they might be sincere at the time but can't control themselves in certain situations? Psychology still has too many unknowns about the workings of the human mind to accurately determine if a person has truly reformed and if they are capable of staying that way.
Basicaly if being in jail once is sufficient to stop a person from commiting a crime again then to punish people by keeping them in jail forever or killing them is not a 'correction' strategy. Is the person who commited a murder because he was drunk at 20 , the same person at 40? There are some people who have studied , read , and in general became ery different persons in jail , usefull people. We should provide less 'punishment' and more opportunities. Afterall 99% of murder cases can be traced a) to alcohol or a momentary anger b)psychological reasons c)social injustuce.
When we jail someone from a ghetto , for life , because he ll murder again if he goes out then its a social failure and by putting the person away we just try to hide the obvious facts from our consience.

[ichi]

Quote[/b] (Bezalel @ Jan. 09 2004,09:04)]Shamus, sometimes I think people deserve the chance to change their ways and once again become a positive member of society. If they do not change they rot in jail. Which is worse living in prison w/ other ruthless murderers, or simply dying? Also, Ichi, this is their deterrent.

Added address to Ichi's point.
The prospect of living a long life behind bars is somewhat frighteneing to me, and I agree it is a deterrent.

Just as some deserve a chance to reform, there are some acts that are so despicable, some people that are so evil, that the appropriate course of action is to eliminate them.

For example, a mass murderer behind bars for life without the possibility of parole. He kills another inmate, or perhaps, a guard. Without the option of a death sentnece, he will essentially go unpunished for this act.


But your points are all well taken. Reasonable men can disagree over reasonable things. Unlike math class, where 3 times 3 is always 9, and the teacher has a sheet against which to compare students answers, these social/philosophical matters are rarely black and white.

ichi

[Dillinger]

I'm surprised that there are that many pro-deathsentence people on the board. (Please, it is a comment, not an insult.)

I just find capital punishment, and the manner in which it is carried out (For example, when McVeigh was executed, relatives to the victims who had won a drawingwere allowed to watch the execution), frankly, barbaric. It is a shame that society has not risen above the impulse of revenge. You say that a murder in prison is unpunishable? Send 'em to solitary.

[Obex]

I was shocked when the vatican spoke out against the death penalty for saddam spiderhole hussain. they said that the church had always been against it. i guess they forgot about galileo. And the crusades. and the inquisition. and colonial conquest of south/central america. and the violence of the reformation. no comments from the vatican on the hundreds of thousands killed by saddam though. its no wonder why catholic europe is abandoning religion.

[mercian billman]

Quote[/b] (Dillinger @ Jan. 09 2004,17:12)]It is a shame that society has not risen above the impulse of revenge. You say that a murder in prison is unpunishable? Send 'em to solitary.
I don't believe believe people are executed so much out of revenge, but out of fear. In the States judges and juries usually divide murders into 2 catagories Cold blooded murder and crimes of passion.

Murder in cold blood would be hiring a hitman to commit a murder, committing murder in the process of a crime(robbery gone bad etc.), pretty much any pre meditated murder.

A crime of passion is when two people get caught up in the moment and mistakes happen. Lovers qaurrels, someone taking an argument to far etc.

Most people who commit crimes of passion are not executed and are sentenced to life in prison. In states like Texas murder in cold blood is pretty much garunteed to get you executed. I believe we execute people out of fear because humanities number moral is survival. Cold blooded murderers are executed because we don't want them on our streets. Would you want a reformed child molestor living in your neighborhood?

Solitary confinement would make you or me crazy, but not most murderers. The reason is because their already crazy.

[Guthwyn]

I desperately want to be pro-death penalty, and if the justice system could perfectly identify the guilty, I would have no objections. I have no objections to a serial killer or multiple murderer being executed; there are enough people in the world that want to be productive members of society without having to be forced to reform; let's worry about them first.
However, there have been times when the death penalty has been applied based on circumstantial evidence. There have been cases of death row prisoners being released because of exculpatory (sp.?) evidence 5-10 years down the road.

Guthwyn

[Dillinger]

I actually have very little fear of bonafide hitmen, as, (How John Cussack put in Grosse Point Blank) If I show up at your house, chances are, you had it coming to you. Serial killers and such, should not be executed. They should be studied, examined, and learned from. What pulls a man to commit such heinous crimes as serial cannibalism, serial rape, and other such things, needs to be found out.

[chris]

America is too lax in capital punishemnt, I think. I ythink we are too lax in all, or most punishemnt. People can now htink, if i get cuaght, it will be just a little while in jail a few years, and then I will be out, that will be well worth it. If you take a life, be prepared to have yours taken.

FOR CHRISTIANS ONLY...
Yes, capital punishemnt is Biblical. Infact if you look up in Genisis, after the flood, God COMMANDED NOAH.


5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


If you kill, God has every right ot take your life. Notice by man shall your blood be shed. The government is the only rational group of men, that could take a live lagally, outside of war. Imagine everyone mad at a killer, and trying to kill him?
God calls on the governemtn to fufill this law.


EVERYONE...
I not only belive in capital punishemtn, but gun control. These two are much the same. They install fear. If I had desire to kill a man, or woman, and I knew there was a slim chance that I would make it out alive, I would definatly seriously reconsider. Make the people think about what they are doing. Don't slap wrists for ruining peoples lives. In capital punishment are we lowering ourselve? No, I htink not. We are saving lives by instilling fear. Its one of those hard issues to handle, like war. No man that takes a life, for irrational reasoning(not self defence, or the guy who pulls the switch) deserves to continue living. Nor should he be a burden to the tax payers to keep him alive. We save lives by taking the guilty's life.

I think every sane, competent human being that consicenously murders another human being, should be executed. There are few others that I support that for, violent rape being one.



Quote[/b] ]Great care must be exercised to verify the guilt of the condemned criminal. After that, so far as I am concerned, executing a cold-blooded murderer is no different than destroying a rabid dog. Some persons are monsters. Ted Bundy for example. Or the recent DC area sniper. Or the guy who robs a convenience store and calmly blows away the clerk before leaving. In cases like these, the people, through the agency of their government, have the right to exact retribution commensurate to the crime. Society’s desire for vengeance is not misplaced nor does it reduce the plaintiffs to the level of the accused.




Well said. If there is any doubt that the man has not commited the crime, then life in prison is execptable. But security cams don't lie. If there is VALID proof, take his life.

[mercian billman]

Gun control and capital punishment are not the same. The point of capital punishment is to protect people, and it does by keeping murderers off the street. I also agree that rape should be considered a capital crime.

Gun control doesn't protect people it only keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals can get guns through illegal methods, and gun control will not stop them.

Back to the topic Guthwyn I do believe we should study criminals to find the motivations for their crimes, but that doesn't we should feel pity for them. I reserve my sorrow for the victims.

[Bezalel]

Gregoshi, sorry for the delay in my response, this topic temorarily got lost to me (I looked and couldn't find it, but im inept). Anyways, I think that either way, it is our responsibility to give them that chance and what they do w/ it is up to them. It is then his/her choice to do the right thing, not ours. I can't deny your points credibility, I can only believe what I beleive, which is that it is wrong for us to kill someone that is now a good person w/ a bad past.

[ThePeach]

I believe that as a society of educated and (supposedly) moral people, we are obligated to make an attempt to rehabilitate and reintroduce to society any criminal (including rapists and serial killers). Sometimes our attempts may not be succesful, but we still must try. My opinion may be somewhat biased as I and my loved ones have never been touched by serious crime, but the fact remains that people make mistakes. Did not God also say Judge not lest Ye be Judged.? No one knows the circumstances which led a person to kill or rape or steal, the only one who sees that is God and he has the knowledge and power to give them a just trial. Is not written in the commandments Thou shalt not kill ?

Anyway, these are just my personal beliefs and though I believe them to be true and correct you must think for yourself.

(This doesn't apply to Medieval though... more often than not I kill my captured nobles and/or rebels http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif )

ThePeach

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (ThePeach @ Jan. 11 2004,00:40)]Is not written in the commandments Thou shalt not kill ?
This is a misrepresentation. The commandment is “Thou shall not murder”. Jews executed criminals with gusto even to the point of getting the whole community take up rocks and commence stoning. Jehovah could be an angry God. Smiting others was OK under the right circumstances.

[Gregoshi]

The risk with the whole reform them stance is knowing when the reform is successful. I'd rather not find out that the reform didn't work when more dead bodies show up in a dumpster. You are putting society at risk when you put concerns for the murder/serial killer first.

Dillenger's point about studying them does have some merit. We should be studying them.

chris also makes a good point about how lax the American justice system is. Capital punishment is not a deterrent if the sentence is never carried out. There are too many prisoners on Death Row for 5, 10 or more years. If you hand out a death sentence, then carry it out. Otherwise, don't bother and just sentence them to life behind bars.

[Nelson]

Likelihood of capture is a real deterrent IF it comes with a stiff penalty that is regularly applied. If a bad guy thinks the odds are good that he can get away I doubt he bothers much about any punishment.

[Bezalel]

Our choice made them free again, it's their choice what they do w/ the oppertunity. About .4% of all people convicted of murder (not manslaughter too) and are released on parole become repeat offenders, according to the National Parole Board. (http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pr101001_e.htm) Albeit, not many are released on parole. These that have been reintroduced into society, have become new people (most of the time). We become the murderers if we kill someone that has become a good memeber of society.

[Papewaio]

Game Theory.

A deterent occurs when:

Payoff < Chance of penalty occuring times size of penalty.

So if someone knows that they have only a 1/10 chance of getting caught for a crime and the penalty for the crime is a &#036;1000 dollars then it will only be a deterent for values less then &#036;100. For larger amounts the person will make a net profit.

Can uses other factors like freedom, lust etc and essenially the penalty and the chance it gets applied has to have a net amount greater then the payoff to have a chance of acting as a deterent.

[chris]

Quote[/b] ]Our choice made them free again, it&#39;s their choice what they do w/ the oppertunity. About .4% of all people convicted of murder (not manslaughter too) and are released on parole become repeat offenders, according to the National Parole Board. (http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pr101001_e.htm) Albeit, not many are released on parole. These that have been reintroduced into society, have become new people (most of the time). We become the murderers if we kill someone that has become a good memeber of society.


Well put, but if we let them free again, and leave it up to them, and they murder again. IS the blood on OUR hands? If allowing a known killer to go free, or putting him in prison, wich have been known to be escapable, and he gets lose, and kills agian, who is to blame. It would be nice to say it was his fualt. And it is, in part. But we let him go. Human nature is sinful, as much as we would like to be perfect, we sin. And all people have certain sins that we go back to repeatdely. Murder is no different, only a larger, less personal scale. I live in the country, and there is a standing rule. If you have a mean animal, especially one who has killed something it was not intedned to (coon dogs are excpetions when they kill coons) you shoot the dog. You do not give it away, you do not let it lose. You shoot it. The dog is probably going to kill again, be it some old ladys beloved cat, or some mothers beloved child.

[mercian billman]

Murder is a very heinous crime people who commit murders shouldn&#39;t be pitied. Their victims should. Parole boards only grant parole to murderers if their absolutely sure that the person won&#39;t commit another murder. Most of these men are also old when they leave prison.

I don&#39;t believe we become murderers by executing murderers these people commited a grave crime and should be made to pay in full.

Society is not obligated to try and bring back rapist and serial killers. Morality has nothing to do with it. No one wants to raise a family in a neighborhood where a &#39;reformed&#39; serial killer or rapists lives. It&#39;s that simple.

Blame should be placed on the people who commit crimes, not society.

[Bezalel]

I&#39;m not saying pity them. I said let them rot in jail, because they commited a terrible crime. Parole boards do let only people who they are sure wont commit again. I&#39;m not saying reintroduce them all. Only that they all shouldnt be killed w/o thought because there is the chance that they will change. Not only that, many innocent people are incarcerated for murders they didn&#39;t commit and then some of them are executed.

[Pruneau]

Quote[/b] (Shamus @ Jan. 09 2004,15:38)]Just for the sake of argument, would people who are against the death penalty oppose it if it could be guaranteed that no innocent people would be convicted and executed? (hypothetically speaking)
That would most definitely change my views on the topic. If only persons that are 100% guilty can be given capital punishment, then I can surely find a few likely candidates in my own country.

Sadly enough, I fear that a 50% success rate for justice is a bit optimistic. Flipping a coin will yield better results, though possibly more random.

Don&#39;t mind me though, my glass is broken.

[Finn]

There are 2 distinct topics here that are being confused

Capital Punishment

Is it morally correct to take the life of someone who commits a hideous crime where there is no doubt whatsoever that they are guilty (eg 100 witnesses, incontrovertible evidence etc)

And the failings of the judicial systems.


Personally, i feel that in the cases listed above, capital punishment is viable, however the problem is the jury system imo, it comes down to the opinions of 12 people, people are unfortunately flawed.

Perhaps there should be a seperation of guarenteed cases to jury cases,

Eg man walks into a shopping centre with a machine gun, mows down a load of people in plain view of CCTV cameras and all the survivors, he is then apprehended at the scene.
That would be a candidate for Capital punishment.

However any case where a jury would be needed to decide there is room for error of judgement, parhaps in those cases it shouldnt be allowed.

[Dillinger]

I&#39;m not so much arguing for the re-introduction of serial killers and such, I&#39;m just saying that killing them is not the right thing to do. They should, in my opinion, be studied and evalutated to find out when and why
they &#39;snapped.&#39; Crimes aren&#39;t gonna go away if we just ignore why they are commited.

That, and I firmly believe that killing them, no matter their crime, is sick. You say that killing someone is terrible, and you&#39;re right. Killing anyone, especially when we have the prisons, money, and officers to keep them in confinement, is not exactly excusable.

And please, don&#39;t confuse my beliefs with me pitying the criminal. I loathe these individuals as much as the next man, I just think they should be dealt with in a different way.