Yet another case that shows why the death penalty is such a bad idea

[Pindar]

"When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender. We are rejoiced to see him attack his adversary in his turn, and are eager and ready to assist him whenever he exerts himself for defence, or even for vengeance within a certain degree." -Adam Smith

This is vengeance and retribution and it is why we despise the Nazi camp guard and lend our sympathy to the inmate of such places. Anger is the sentiment aroused by the sight of injustice, and is therefore intimately connected with justice. Should we not exact retribution from those who wrong us? Should we not act as defenders for those who cannot defend themselves?

Justice makes a virtue of controlled vengeance.

Well said.

[Pindar]

You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate.

Xiahou my good man, I think your passion is getting the better of you. My position is not inconsistent or logically strained in any way. I cannot say the same about the above view. It doesn't follow that a right to kill is therefore justification to kill carte blanche. In logic this fallacy is called a hasty induction or "secundum quid" In practical terms this means one does not determine a general conclusion by a particular case. The justification to kill is constrained to specific situations. For example: the military has the right to kill, but this does not mean kill anyone at anytime anywhere. Rather, the military is bound by civilian political oversight that determines the scope and parameters of military action i.e fight in Iraq, but not in Jordon. There is also an established military code of conduct that has the weight of law. This is one of the reasons Courts Marshal can occur for wrongful killing even in a war scenario. The same is the case when the state exercise its right to kill under the Criminal Code. Those executed must have met certain criteria. No one is killed for a traffic ticket or listening to Country Music (though this should be reconsidered) for example.

Now it seems you are confused by or taking issue with two basic points: state killing and rights language. Let me explain these a little. I'll start with the latter first. A "right" refers to a legal mandate, but it also has a moral element. It implies a just cause of action. I know your challenge is focused on the moral position, but we cannot totally divorce it from the legal sphere because of the political nature of the concept. Even so, when a rights claim X is made, it implies a duty by the state to insure that X is provided. An example would be the right to protection. This means the state is obligated to provide that protection. Nationally this would be the military. Domestically this would be the police. The performance of this charge also implies a moral basis. The state by providing protection is serving the good.

Now the state's right to kill (I'm now moving to the first point) also contains a moral charge. This charge may fall under the more general right to protection. In fact, it would be common to consider the one a natural consequent of the other. The right to be protected entails the states' right to kill in the furtherance of that protection. Were it not the case the nation could lose its sovereignty or heinous crime could go unchecked. This is called right piggy-backing. where one right operates in tandem with another. The right to kill does not necessarily have to depend on another duty however. The moral aspect of state killing operates independently. State killing is necessarily tied to justice. Justice at its core is an equity relation: a basic quid pro quo where what is owed must be accounted for. If this is not provided then justice is not considered served. For example: if someone steals a thing they have violated an aspect of the equity relation. If the thief were found out and the authorities decided to punish in some fashion but didn't require he give up what was taken: there remains an inequity with the object itself, an injustice. Now murder represents the complete elimination of all possibilities for the murdered. In Jewish thought their is a maxim: "He who saves a life, saves a nation" meaning the life preserved has unqualifiable potential. The taking of life for private gain in a reverse of the maxim "destroys a nation" as all potential is lost. How is equity brought to this unbalance? By the sacrifice of the one who took all that the murdered had. Life in prison, regardless of its inhumane aspect, cannot meet or fill the void created by the guilty. Infinite loss must be met with infinite sacrifice. The state under whose auspices justice is decided is uniquely placed to administer this verdict.

[Voigtkampf]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

Your logic is flawed. I have both legal and moral right to kill someone in defense who is trying to murder me for the content of my wallet. That doesn’t mean I have the right to kill anyone arbitrarily. Same applies to the state.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone.

Actually, you own position is absurd. The state derives its right to kill as punishment for the criminals or in war from many legal, ethical and moral sources, the greatest of them being the society itself that needs to be protected from its foes, internal and external. Its “right” to arbitrarily kill without any constrain would be derived solely from its power to do so, unlike the prior example. There is no logical conclusion that “right to kill” equals “right to kill arbitrarily”. Please refer back to my first example above.

If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate.

That is, with all due respect, plain wrong. There is no such thing as an “unlimited” right. All of our rights have boundaries. One of the most famous law sayings about rights goes “My rights end where the nose of another person begins.” I have right to protect my property. I don’t have a right to shoot someone down who just might happen to try and steal/damage my property. I believe other similar examples have been named, no need to elaborate on this anymore.

As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing.

Then again, your logic has made place to emotions.

It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

Again, not true.

Capital punishment, like many other forms of punishments, have several functions.

1. Removes the ability of the perpetrator to repeat his crime. In case of death penalty, forever.
2. Retribution/compensation. Most important issue. Returns the faith in law, justice, equity, ethics and moral. Restores the balance of the society as much as possible. Despite what you think, it is a most important issue, perhaps the most important.
3. Intimidation effect. Over this one, one could argue for days, but it shouldn’t be a day’s work to figure out most of the people obey law only out of the fear of punishment. When I go speeding down the highway and see cops, I don’t slow down because I feel the ethical or moral repercussions; I slow down because I am afraid of the consequences in the shape of a large money fee that I will have to pay if I get caught. Same principle, larger stakes.

There are more, but these are nicely rounded up and are in every fundamental law book there is.

[Steppe Merc]

So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?

Assassination is different from execution.

[sharrukin]

Quote:
So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?

Assassination is different from execution.

Yes, they are different but in this case the principal remains the same.
In this particular case it is state sanctioned execution in the furtherance of justice.
Would it be morally wrong to execute Adolf Hitler?

How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special?

Because thats the deal the state makes when it takes away the right of blood feud.
I do not have the right of private vengeance, because the state promises to protect and defend me and my family, and to see that justice is carried out for any wrong done to them.

Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.

So it would have been morally wrong for us to intervene in Rwanda to save those people being massacred?
It would be morally wrong for us to intervene to save a planload of hijacked Brazilians being held hostage in Mexico by terrorists? Not our problem, and we are not being directly threatened.
It would also be morally wrong for you to walk across the street and save your neighbours life?
Don't you believe we have a moral duty to act in the defence of others?

Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.

Yes, there is a difference!
The history of prison systems suggests there will be many escapes and mistakes made that result in innocent people being killed. Do you seriously believe that a 100 people should die by the hand of these men, when we could prevent those deaths. We might make a mistake and execute an innocent man so we will let a 100 innocents die instead? What the hell kind of logic is that? Who are we protecting here? Our own sensibilities that shrink away at the idea of the calm and deliberate taking of a human life? That is pure selfishness.

It has been said that it is "Better a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man hang." Better for who? For the victims of those hundred guilty who are let loose? We are talking about the death penalty so these are not people who threw a rock through someones window. Will the victims of those guilty thank you for your delicacy? Will justice be held in greater respect as the murderers and rapists take victim after victim?

How would this be better for everyone?

[Steppe Merc]

Yes, they are different but in this case the principal remains the same.
In this particular case it is state sanctioned execution in the furtherance of justice.
Would it be morally wrong to execute Adolf Hitler?

If he was arrested, he should have been imprisoned until he dies under very high security.

So it would have been morally wrong for us to intervene in Rwanda to save those people being massacred?
It would be morally wrong for us to intervene to save a planload of hijacked Brazilians being held hostage in Mexico by terrorists? Not our problem, and we are not being directly threatened.
It would also be morally wrong for you to walk across the street and save your neighbours life?
Don't you believe we have a moral duty to act in the defence of others?

Yes. But execution of criminals is not defence, it's vengance. Of course there is an obligation to help the people of Rwanada, captives or your neighbor. It is totally different from executing someone who is a captive than saving people's lives from dangerous people. When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat.

Yes, there is a difference!
The history of prison systems suggests there will be many escapes and mistakes made that result in innocent people being killed. Do you seriously believe that a 100 people should die by the hand of these men, when we could prevent those deaths. We might make a mistake and execute an innocent man so we will let a 100 innocents die instead? What the hell kind of logic is that? Who are we protecting here? Our own sensibilities that shrink away at the idea of the calm and deliberate taking of a human life? That is pure selfishness.

It has been said that it is "Better a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man hang." Better for who? For the victims of those hundred guilty who are let loose? We are talking about the death penalty so these are not people who threw a rock through someones window. Will the victims of those guilty thank you for your delicacy? Will justice be held in greater respect as the murderers and rapists take victim after victim?

How would this be better for everyone?

A criminal escaping is preventable. If a criminal escapes, then it is the fault of the failure of the prison. However, the actions of the criminal is his fault.
On the other hand, when the government executes an evil person, that is murder, and is directly the fault of the government, and is far more preventable than the escape of a criminal,
In addition, a criminal can escape while awaiting to be executed, or if they do not have the death sentence, or even while awaiting trial. Following your logic, is it not easier to kill all people who would end up in jail, because they might escape and might end up harming others?

[sharrukin]

If he was arrested, he should have been imprisoned until he dies under very high security.

That simply isn't justice!

Yes. But execution of criminals is not defence, it's vengance. Of course there is an obligation to help the people of Rwanada, captives or your neighbor. It is totally different from executing someone who is a captive than saving people's lives from dangerous people. When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat.

You are partly right because Retribution is part and parcel of justice. Not vengeance, but retribution.

The evidence as to how much of a threat they pose, suggests otherwise.

“Under the Massachusetts concept of repair rather than revenge, no person is believed beyond redemption, not even a rapist or a killer.” That’s why, despite “the fact that 85 percent of the DOC inmate population has a present or past violent criminal history,” 28 percent of that population had participated in the furlough program as of January 1987. Since the program’s inception in 1972, 121,713 furloughs had been granted to 10,835 Massachusetts inmates; 5,554 of those unescorted leaves were taken by first-degree murderers, supposedly serving “life without parole” sentences.

Massachusetts officials proclaimed a furlough “escape rate” of only 0.5 percent.
This is calculated by dividing the 428 escapees by the 121,713 furloughs granted from 1972 through 1987. However, those furloughs were granted repeatedly to only 10,835 inmates. Dividing 428 by that number reveals an actual escape rate of one out of every 23 participants!

Peter J. Limone sentenced to “life without parole” for a contract murder was one of those, and he got 160 furloughs and used them to manage a local loan-shark operation.

Kenneth McDuff got 'life without parole'
http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plai...-p/mcduff.html

Kenneth D. Williams got 'life without parole' for the murder of a university cheerleader.
He escaped on Oct. 3, 1999, while serving that sentence at the Cummins Unit of the state prison system in Lincoln County, Ark. After 57-year-old farmer Cecil Boren was slain at his home near the prison, Williams fled to Missouri in Boren's truck. He was captured near Urbana after an accident that killed Culligan delivery driver Michael Greenwood, 24, of Springfield, Mo. Williams was convicted for Boren's slaying and sentenced to death. If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.'' At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.

Dawud Mu’Min got 48 years for the 1973 murder of a cab driver.
He escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery and got $4.00.

William D. Davis and Douglas E. Gray to escape a Stringtown, Okla. prison on March 16. Both were serving life sentences for homicide. Davis stabbed a man 80 times with a knife during a 1974 robbery while Gray fatally beat and shot a teacher in 1988.

Michael Rodriguez, sentenced to life for murder, joined six lesser criminals in overpowering prison employees in Connolly, Tex. last December 13 before leaving in a maintenance truck. Police say the "Malevolent Seven" robbed an Oshman's sporting goods store on Christmas Eve, then shot police officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times and drove over his corpse.

After escaping a Florida prison in 1991, John Fred Woolard shot and killed a park ranger. Last May 28, Woolard escaped again, this time from a Mississippi prison, accompanied by armed robber Roy Randall Harper. The two convicts allegedly fired at a sheriff's deputy who stopped them for speeding, then embarked on a high-speed chase in a stolen van last June 14. Woolard surrendered three days later, after a final getaway bid in yet another carjacked van.

James Robert Thomas who escaped the Oklahoma County Jail in 1994, was doing life for the 1993 rape and killing of Jessie Roberts, his 81-year-old neighbor who paid the then 17-year-old to mow her lawn.

Tracy Lynn Harris received life without parole on the felony murder charge and a 20-year sentence on the rape charge.
Madelyn Ruth Bomar, is the 81-year-old woman whom Harris was convicted of murdering and raping in 1998,
http://www.azcorrections.gov/News/20...r_escapes.html

Steve Murphy, O.C. Borden, and Gary Scott. These three murderers, all lifers, escaped a high-security prison in St. Clair Springs, Ala. on January 30. Along with three fellow inmates, they lifted the fence with a broom handle and slithered to freedom. Murphy once escaped this facility in the 1980.

The number of murderers who escaped the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1995, was 35 (all males). That's one state, and not a big one.

It is claimed that 23 (12 of whom actually have substantial evidence of guilt) innocents have been mistakenly executed this century and it is said that 77 persons have been released from death row because they were not guilty of the crime for which they had been condemned to death. Some of these are in fact known to be guilty and in at least 29 cases it is unknown as to whether they are or are not.

Bedau and Radelet, the authors of that study, conceded - in 1988 - that neither they nor any previous researchers have proved that any of those executed was innocent: "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/1988).

"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives."

"The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation . . . commit ‘at least’ 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies." American Guardian, May 1997, pg. 26. Incredibly, this slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision".

The expected punishment for murder was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and Punishment in the U.S.", National Center for Policy Analysis, 1997).

"When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat."

A criminal escaping is preventable. If a criminal escapes, then it is the fault of the failure of the prison. However, the actions of the criminal is his fault.

The courts exist for the sole purpose of serving the people and for no other reason.

Its not your fault! Not your problem?
I mean, if the actions of criminals are not the problem of the government then why bother with a criminal justice system at all?

Deaths due to acts of omission on the part of the authorities are not the states responsibility? So the government doing nothing while a business pours toxic waste into the water supply it isn't the governments problem? They bear no responsibility for a failure to protect?

So the state has no duty to protect its own citizens at all? The entire justice system is based on the idea that the state has a positive duty to prevent its citizens and that private acts of vengeance are not allowed and that the state shall administer justice. This is an abdication of such responsibility.

It is the duty of the State to protect fundamental rights of the citizens as well as the right to property. If they fail in this then we should replace them with a judiciary that will. The judicial system is being derelict in its duty to protect the public from such people.

On the other hand, when the government executes an evil person, that is murder, and is directly the fault of the government, and is far more preventable than the escape of a criminal,
In addition, a criminal can escape while awaiting to be executed, or if they do not have the death sentence, or even while awaiting trial.

So a lawful execution and murder are the same thing?
What about kidnapping and imprisonment? Same thing? No? Well why not?
So rape and sex are the same thing? Right?
Two acts which have the same ending are NOT morally the same.

Your logic only works if you believe that the life of a criminal is of equal value to someone who isn't! They are not of equal value. The life of a rapist is NOT of equal value to the woman he is raping!

By executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again. Its that simple. The examples above regarding those who have escaped to murder again demonstrate that keeping them alive guarantees nothing. Even if the mythical LWOP (life without parole) actually existed, which it does not.

If the death penalty is a deterrent and we execute, we are saving many more lives. If the death penalty IS NOT a deterrent and we execute we are fewer saving innocent lives well. If we fail to execute we are sacrificing innocent lives.

Following your logic, is it not easier to kill all people who would end up in jail, because they might escape and might end up harming others?

No, because that would not be justice! Someone who steals should be given justice, and sentence of death would not be just, given the offence. That they should be held accountable for what they do? Yes! The ones we are discussing, are not those who might do something in the future, but rather those who have already been tried and convicted of what they have done in the past. The question is, should we give them another chance to rape and murder? I fail to see any reason that we should!

[Xiahou]

Xiahou my good man, I think your passion is getting the better of you. My position is not inconsistent or logically strained in any way. I cannot say the same about the above view. It doesn't follow that a right to kill is therefore justification to kill carte blanche. In logic this fallacy is called a hasty induction or "secundum quid" In practical terms this means one does not determine a general conclusion by a particular case. The justification to kill is constrained to specific situations. For example: the military has the right to kill, but this does not mean kill anyone at anytime anywhere. Rather, the military is bound by civilian political oversight that determines the scope and parameters of military action i.e fight in Iraq, but not in Jordon. There is also an established military code of conduct that has the weight of law. This is one of the reasons Courts Marshal can occur for wrongful killing even in a war scenario. The same is the case when the state exercise its right to kill under the Criminal Code. Those executed must have met certain criteria. No one is killed for a traffic ticket or listening to Country Music (though this should be reconsidered) for example.

So what are you trying to prove with all of this? Like I said, it's irrelevant to the debate. The state can kill based on rules it creates- I thought we were all in agreement on that. The state says abortion if fine, it also says the the death penalty is fine- we're under no obligation to agree with either just because the state can perform both. People can ever disagree with war, but I find that argument flawed on self-defense grounds. In capital punishment, there is no threat and there is no tangible benefit.

In the same fashion that prisons could be made cheaper by cutting back cable, Executions could be made cheaper by using some rope and a scaffold. Right now we use expensive chemicals, or elaborate little gas rooms, or an electric chair. Silly, really.

You're totally ignoring what I said. The actual methods of death are insignificant in terms of costs.

Capital punishment, like many other forms of punishments, have several functions.

1. Removes the ability of the perpetrator to repeat his crime. In case of death penalty, forever.
2. Retribution/compensation. Most important issue. Returns the faith in law, justice, equity, ethics and moral. Restores the balance of the society as much as possible. Despite what you think, it is a most important issue, perhaps the most important.
3. Intimidation effect. Over this one, one could argue for days, but it shouldn’t be a day’s work to figure out most of the people obey law only out of the fear of punishment. When I go speeding down the highway and see cops, I don’t slow down because I feel the ethical or moral repercussions; I slow down because I am afraid of the consequences in the shape of a large money fee that I will have to pay if I get caught. Same principle, larger stakes.

And yet, they don't have to kill you for speeding for it to have a deterrent effect. Criteria 1 and 3 are both fullfilled by life imprisonment, in fact, according to Pindar, life imprisonment is torture and worse than death- so it's deterrent effect should be greater on those grounds. I think 2 must be where everyone isn't seeing eye to(for?) eye. Compensation, where possible, is well and fine. Someone steals your tv, the police catch him, you should be compensated for it. However, there is no compensation for having a loved one murdered. The death of the murderer does not bring anyone back- all if does is provide for vengeance. My position is consistent in that killing people who are not a threat, is best avoided.

[Slyspy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Does that include the mistakes made by the legal system when they let some killer escape or get parole released to kill again? Or do those innocents not count?


Deaths due to acts of omission on the part of the authorities are not the states responsibility?

"Such incidents are regrettable"
So the innocents who are murdered by state negligence are not your responsibility, but the death of an inmate not guilty of the crime is your responsibility?
The moral obligation that weighs heavily on you is the one regarding the imposition of the death penalty, not the one regarding the states obligation to protect its own citizens?
Far more innocents are killed by such negligence than could ever possibly be killed by direct state action.
Is it about protecting innocents, or not?
Or is it about protecting your conscience?

You seem to be assuming that the death penalty is wrong based on the idea that the state has no scope of moral action beyond that which is permitted to an individual. Any legitimate state has a duty to defend itself and its citizens. It also has the right to go to war, and that is not something we would grant to an individual. The state is not a person, and cannot conduct itself based on personal morality.

A moral stupor seems to have descended on us that says the death of a murderous thug is not of equal moral significance to that of an innocent, but is rather of greater moral significance than that of an innocent, simply because the state carried it out!

Question is, why put them in prison at all?
I mean according to your logic the state bears no responsibility for what private citizens do.

Put simply human depravity exists and the moral and social order requires a response to the offense.



You are willing to accept a person is wrongfully left to rot until they die in prison, but you are opposed to capital punishment. You are willing to accept that they will be sent to prison and sodomized or killed. You are not willing to accept the state sanctioned killing due to the fact that they by implication represent you?



Well, in point of fact it was the anti-death penalty crowd that brings up the dollars and cents issue time after time. The claim being that the death penalty cost more than life without parole. It is disproven by the evidence. I agree that justice for money is not an acceptable tradeoff. They should hang regardless of the cost, because it is just and right that they should!

In such a situation the State would be no more to blame than the killer's grandmother. The killer did the deed, not the State. Besides which you over look the fact that either the man is tried and freed (ie not guilty according to law) or is tried and banged up (not free to kill anyway). If parole and early release are concerns then address those issues before killing people off.

People are rarely "left to rot" in prison these days, though I appreciate that such colourful terms are just your way. Anything that happens to them in prison is, however, the state's responsiblility since killings in jail may indicate poorly run institutions (though with privatised jails I wonder who actually has this responsibility).

Again if you choose dollars over lives then you have, IMO, a very skewed out-look on life.

In belated response to Pindar: The state has no right to kill its own citizens. This is why the police ask questions and then shoot if absolutely necessary, and why there is an enquiry over every shooting. It does have the ability, however. The comparison to the military is cunning but not valid when it comes to internal affairs. The first government here to turn the army on the people will have destroyed my country utterly.

Would I have executed Hitler? No. That would have made him a martyr, whereas suicide made him appear as he was, weak and frightened.

[Pindar]

So what are you trying to prove with all of this? Like I said, it's irrelevant to the debate.

The point was that rights claims are tied to justice. If the state has a right to kill: it ipso facto has a justification. This applies internationally and domestically. It is not simply a question of deciding a rule. Rights claims run deeper than that.

People can ever disagree with war, but I find that argument flawed on self-defense grounds. In capital punishment, there is no threat and there is no tangible benefit.

If you consider war only justified in self defense (as a response to attack) then you must reject the American Revolution which was an offensive act.

Further murder is an attack and a threat to society by the act alone. The tangible benefit of capital punishment is serving justice. A just society is a good thing.

[Xiahou]

If you consider war only justified in self defense (as a response to attack) then you must reject the American Revolution which was an offensive act.

I think that's something of an over-simplification(secundum quid?). The fight for independence had many causes, including the deprivation of rights to property and self-determination of the Americans by the crown. You know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and so on.

Further murder is an attack and a threat to society by the act alone. The tangible benefit of capital punishment is serving justice. A just society is a good thing.

Yes, murder is a threat to society. It should be prevented altogether and discouraged whenever possible and reasonable steps should also be taken to make sure perpetrators can't re-offend. I don't see where killing is a necessary part of this.

The only argument I see still standing is killing for vengeance. People are entitled to their opinions, but I, in principle at least, can't agree with killing someone out of revenge.

[sharrukin]

In such a situation the State would be no more to blame than the killer's grandmother. The killer did the deed, not the State.

If the state has no duty regarding the safety of its citizens then why arrest anyone?

Besides which you over look the fact that either the man is tried and freed (ie not guilty according to law) or is tried and banged up (not free to kill anyway).

By "banged up" I assume you mean 'in prison'?
These guys are "banged up".

BTW, over here "escaped" means they were serving a prison term (banged up) and managed to get out.

Kenneth D. Williams got 'life without parole' for the murder of a university cheerleader.
He escaped on Oct. 3, 1999, while serving that sentence at the Cummins Unit of the state prison system in Lincoln County, Ark. After 57-year-old farmer Cecil Boren was slain at his home near the prison, Williams fled to Missouri in Boren's truck. He was captured near Urbana after an accident that killed Culligan delivery driver Michael Greenwood, 24, of Springfield, Mo. Williams was convicted for Boren's slaying and sentenced to death. If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.'' At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.

Dawud Mu’Min got 48 years for the 1973 murder of a cab driver.
He escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery and got $4.00.

William D. Davis and Douglas E. Gray to escape a Stringtown, Okla. prison on March 16. Both were serving life sentences for homicide. Davis stabbed a man 80 times with a knife during a 1974 robbery while Gray fatally beat and shot a teacher in 1988.

Michael Rodriguez, sentenced to life for murder, joined six lesser criminals in overpowering prison employees in Connolly, Tex. last December 13 before leaving in a maintenance truck. Police say the "Malevolent Seven" robbed an Oshman's sporting goods store on Christmas Eve, then shot police officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times and drove over his corpse.

After escaping a Florida prison in 1991, John Fred Woolard shot and killed a park ranger. Last May 28, Woolard escaped again, this time from a Mississippi prison, accompanied by armed robber Roy Randall Harper. The two convicts allegedly fired at a sheriff's deputy who stopped them for speeding, then embarked on a high-speed chase in a stolen van last June 14. Woolard surrendered three days later, after a final getaway bid in yet another carjacked van.

James Robert Thomas who escaped the Oklahoma County Jail in 1994, was doing life for the 1993 rape and killing of Jessie Roberts, his 81-year-old neighbor who paid the then 17-year-old to mow her lawn.

Tracy Lynn Harris received life without parole on the felony murder charge and a 20-year sentence on the rape charge.
Madelyn Ruth Bomar, is the 81-year-old woman whom Harris was convicted of murdering and raping in 1998,
http://www.azcorrections.gov/News/2...er_escapes.html

Steve Murphy, O.C. Borden, and Gary Scott. These three murderers, all lifers, escaped a high-security prison in St. Clair Springs, Ala. on January 30. Along with three fellow inmates, they lifted the fence with a broom handle and slithered to freedom. Murphy once escaped this facility in the 1980.

The number of murderers who escaped the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1995, was 35 (all males). That's one state, and not a big one.

Again if you choose dollars over lives then you have, IMO, a very skewed out-look on life.

I wouldn't accept any amount of money to spare their lives because they deserve to die for what they have done. I begrudge them every penny spent on their miserable worthless lives. That is the only dollars and cents issue I have. Their lives IMO have a negative value.

[Redleg]

The only argument I see still standing is killing for vengeance. People are entitled to their opinions, but I, in principle at least, can't agree with killing someone out of revenge.

Well sentencing people to prison once they are convicted of a crime - is not because of any other principle but retribution (SP) for their commiting a crime against society. That some prisons attempt to reform the convicted individual does not negate what the principle of prisons are all about. To serve justice for one's criminal act. Ie vengence of society upon the wrong-doer.

[Xiahou]

Death-row convicts have also escaped. I don't think poor prison oversight a very strong argument.

edit:

Well sentencing people to prison once they are convicted of a crime - is not because of any other principle but retribution (SP) for their commiting a crime against society. That some prisons attempt to reform the convicted individual does not negate what the principle of prisons are all about. To serve justice for one's criminal act. Ie vengence of society upon the wrong-doer.

First, you're not killing someone for revenge- like I said. Second, I see other purposes than retribution as apparent. As you mention, reform- but also it is a deterrent. Also, while they are in prison they are unable to re-offend. So, yes, I think there are many other reasons above retribution. In fact, I don't put any stock at all in foggy notions such as retribution or societal balance as reasons for criminal justice.

[sharrukin]

Death-row convicts have also escaped. I don't think poor prison oversight a very strong argument.

The above point addresses the false statement below.

Also, while they are in prison they are unable to re-offend.

[Xiahou]

The above point addresses the false statement below.

What's false? If they escape they aren't in prison are they? And it's a poor argument for execution, because as Ive said, people have escape while waiting on death row as well. In both cases, escapes are extremely rare and always due to negligence by the prisons.

[sharrukin]

What's false? If they escape they aren't in prison are they?

Your right! Your logic is impeccable!

[Xiahou]

I really wasn't trying to be cheeky.
My point was, and is, that arguing they should be executed because they might possibly escape is invalid since a death sentence isn't even sufficient to guarentee that they won't escape.

[sharrukin]

I really wasn't trying to be cheeky.
My point was, and is, that arguing they should be executed because they might possibly escape is invalid since a death sentence isn't even sufficient to guarentee that they won't escape.

True, but it does have validity if you want to argue that an extensive prison term is risk free for those, who would otherwise not be around to attempt an escape.

Innocent lives will be lost if we choose LWOP in place of execution. They (the innocents) don't need to die, and that is the point!

[Redleg]

Death-row convicts have also escaped. I don't think poor prison oversight a very strong argument.

edit:
First, you're not killing someone for revenge- like I said. Second, I see other purposes than retribution as apparent. As you mention, reform- but also it is a deterrent. Also, while they are in prison they are unable to re-offend. So, yes, I think there are many other reasons above retribution. In fact, I don't put any stock at all in foggy notions such as retribution or societal balance as reasons for criminal justice.

Then one must do a little more research about criminal justice

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Criminal_justice

Theories
There are several basic theories regarding criminal justice and its relation to individual rights and social control:

Restorative justice assumes that the victim or their heirs or neighbors can be in some way restored to a condition "just as good as" before the criminal incident. Substantially it builds on traditions in common law and tort law that requires all who commit wrong to be penalized. In recent time these penalties that restorative justice advocates have included community service, restitution, and alternatives to imprisonment that keep the offender active in the community, and re-socialized him into society. Some suggest that it is a weak way to punish criminal who must be deterred, these critics are often proponents of


Retributive justice or the "eye for an eye" approach. Assuming that the victim or their heirs or neighbors have the right to do to the offender what was done to the victim. These ideas fuel support for capital punishment for murder, amputation for theft (as in some versions of the sharia).

Psychiatric imprisonment treats crime nominally as illness, and assumes that it can be treated by psychoanalysis, drugs, and other techniques associated with psychiatry and medicine, but in forcible confinement. It is more commonly associated with crime that does not appear to have animal emotion or human economic motives, nor even any clear benefit to the offender, but has idiosyncratic characteristics that make it hard for society to comprehend, thus hard to trust the individual if released into society.

Transformative justice does not assume that there is any reasonable comparison between the lives of victims nor offenders before and after the incident. It discourages such comparisons and measurements, and emphasizes the trust of the society in each member, including trust in the offender not to re-offend, and of the victim (or heirs) not to avenge.
In addition, there are models of criminal justice systems which try to explain how these institutions achieve justice.

The Consensus Model argues that the organizations of a criminal justice system do, or should, cooperate.
The Conflict Model assumes that the organizations of a criminal justice system do, or should, compete.

[Papewaio]

I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.

Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil. Capital punishment has been the standard for jurisprudential thought since the rise of Civilization. The reason being, it is almost impossible to come up with a sound understanding of law and punishment without it. Capital punishment is directly tied to equity which is the basis for law.

Have you been possessed by Navaros lately?

I don't equate feminisation with lack of Capital punishment. It is quite a sexist, offensive and uncivilised notion to think that women and men are not equal.

Nor drinking coffee with not wanting the death penalty. If it was that simple to get rid of violent tendancies then we would put all offenders on a Cafe Latte Anger Management program.

The world used to be the center of the Universe. Just because something used to be the standard of old does not automatically mean it is the standard now. To say something is okay because it is traditional is to limit ones advancement. If the law is to be just, it would have to be current. Things like slavery where once just.

Capital punishment is about equity, fair enough. What happens to the balance of equity when an innocent is incorrectly sentenced? What ratio of guilty true to guilty untrue balances out this equity? At least with a life sentence if new evidence comes to light that finds the prisoner not guilty he can belatedly regain some of his life. Until you can raise the dead I suggest that carrying out the death sentence is not necessarily the most equitable solution nor the most harsh.

Also when you do get the right person does equity exist if that person has already killed more the one other. Sure you can kill the serial killer or terrorist but he has already killed 5, 10, 50, 3000 others. Can equity be gained by killing them?

The State has the right to do something, does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior.

Was this a jibe or a serious response? What is wrong with socialism as practiced by democratic governments running a capitalistic economy? I always thought they work hand in hand rather well, as the strengths and weaknesses of each are mitgated and they can be used to strengthen each other. Also what kind of civilisation can you call it that seeks not to look after its weakest? The issue I have with some flavours of socialism are those that remove competition and make social welfare a life style choice rather then an emergency option or a long term option for those who have served their country (pensions etc). Other issues are when socialism goal becomes instead of raising intedependent and intradependent members it creates hordes of zombie dependents who never get out of that rut. Ultimately a good social system should mitigate the harshest times and get people the skills to climb to their fullest potential.

[Voigtkampf]

And yet, they don't have to kill you for speeding for it to have a deterrent effect.

True.

Criteria 1 and 3 are both fullfilled by life imprisonment, in fact, according to Pindar, life imprisonment is torture and worse than death- so it's deterrent effect should be greater on those grounds.

Not everyone shares that impression. Most of people that haven’t been in prison, in matter a fact, fear death more then prison. Those who have been in prison are very often more willing to die shooting the cops down then to go back inside again. Consider this.

I think 2 must be where everyone isn't seeing eye to(for?) eye. Compensation, where possible, is well and fine. Someone steals your tv, the police catch him, you should be compensated for it. However, there is no compensation for having a loved one murdered.

No complete compensation, of course, because the complete balance cannot be restored. A murdered person cannot be revived. But there are degrees of compensation. If someone wrecks your car, it is no sufficient compensation that he gives you 100 dollars (unless you were driving a real piece of crap ;)), he must pay far more then that. Even if he pays back the value of the car, the attachment you had to the car, the memories of your first sex in it, no one can compensate that. But the more it gets compensated, the easier can one bear the loss.

When beloved one is murdered, having his murderer executed gives the bereaved ones more satisfaction/compensation back then sentencing the perpetrator to 20 years/for life. How often did you see men going to prison for 20 years for rape and murder of a six year old girl? You think that is righteous? I don’t.

And still, even if I agree with Pindar-sama’s arguments, I do not support his position.

I would be much more barbaric to the really vile offenders, rapists, mass murderers. I wouldn’t give them the benefits of the death penalty, the easy way out. I’d make them go into forced labor and spend the rest of their days in pain and misery. If you are looking for a barbaric person in this thread, look no further, it’s me.

The death of the murderer does not bring anyone back- all if does is provide for vengeance.

Again, the three points outlined above.

My position is consistent in that killing people who are not a threat, is best avoided.

I agree. Bring out the chains and a pick.

It is quite a sexist, offensive and uncivilised notion to think that women and men are not equal.

Men and women are not equal.

Only equality that there is and can be is the equality before the law.

[bmolsson]

Only equality that there is and can be is the equality before the law.

There are currently no society that offers equality before the law.

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar
If you consider war only justified in self defense (as a response to attack) then you must reject the American Revolution which was an offensive act.

Xiahou, I think that's something of an over-simplification(secundum quid?). The fight for independence had many causes, including the deprivation of rights to property and self-determination of the Americans by the crown. You know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and so on.

Actually my statement, aside from the conditional (because I wasn't sure if I understood your view) is deductive not inductive. There is no secudnum quid issue.

As far as cause is concerned. My point wasn't concerned with justifications, but the act of rebellion itself. Rebellion is an offensive act. It is an attack upon the existing system. This is true formally as well as true historically as the rebels were first to draw blood. The British were trying to maintain the status quo.

Yes, murder is a threat to society...

The only argument I see still standing is killing for vengeance. People are entitled to their opinions, but I, in principle at least, can't agree with killing someone out of revenge.

What seems to be missing here is any reflection on the nature of justice. I have argued that justice is at core an equity relation. An unbalance can serve as an injustice. This is the rationale for punishment. Regarding murder, the only way to properly meet the demands of justice and give redress is for the sacrifice of the guilty. Now objections to CP have been:

-It's barbaric: which is emotive
-The innocent may also be killed: which is the same in cases of war (friendly fire, collateral damage) which creates an inconsistency regarding state sponsored killing.
-It isn't necessary given the threat is removed through imprisonment: which doesn't respond to the base inequity caused through the original act of murder.

None of these objections seem to offer any counter to what justice actually entails.

[Pindar]

Have you been possessed by Navaros lately?

That's a scary thought.

I don't equate feminisation with lack of Capital punishment. It is quite a sexist, offensive and uncivilised notion to think that women and men are not equal.

You missed the point. Feminization does not refer to gender equality.

Capital punishment is about equity, fair enough. What happens to the balance of equity when an innocent is incorrectly sentenced?

If the innocent are condemned that is a miscarriage of justice. If the innocent die due to friendly fire or collateral damage on the battlefield that is also a tragedy, but it does not deter one from prosecuting a just war. All systems fail in some regard. The foibles of men are what they are. If a man condemned to a life sentence lives out that sentence and then after the fact new evidence comes to light showing his innocence that is also a miscarriage of justice. Judicial systems and the decisions contained therein must be concerned with the facts at hand, not fear of an inability to give redress if some unknown factor changes the whole equation. One cannot prove a negative nor base a system of justice upon it.

Also when you do get the right person does equity exist if that person has already killed more the one other. Sure you can kill the serial killer or terrorist but he has already killed 5, 10, 50, 3000 others. Can equity be gained by killing them?

Yes.

The State has the right to do something, does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Yes it does. Rights language implies moral force.

Was this a jibe or a serious response?

Both.

What is wrong with socialism as practiced by democratic governments running a capitalistic economy?.... Also what kind of civilisation can you call it that seeks not to look after its weakest?

Socialism breeds dependency and apathy through the avoidance of responsibility. It is not the government's job to look after people. It's people's job to look after each other. Bureaucracies are not moral agents.

[Xiahou]

As far as cause is concerned. My point wasn't concerned with justifications, but the act of rebellion itself. Rebellion is an offensive act. It is an attack upon the existing system. This is true formally as well as true historically as the rebels were first to draw blood. The British were trying to maintain the status quo.

As much as you may like to, you can't dismiss the reasons or justification. That would be like calling all killing murder regardless of its reasons, like self-defense. If you're trying to ask how I feel about armed rebellions in general, then I tend not to like them because they are bloody messy affairs. But, as is the case in the American Revolution, there can be just cause. It's not a black and white issue.

What seems to be missing here is any reflection on the nature of justice. I have argued that justice is at core an equity relation. An unbalance can serve as an injustice. This is the rationale for punishment. Regarding murder, the only way to properly meet the demands of justice and give redress is for the sacrifice of the guilty. Now objections to CP have been:

-It's barbaric: which is emotive
-The innocent may also be killed: which is the same in cases of war (friendly fire, collateral damage) which creates an inconsistency regarding state sponsored killing.
-It isn't necessary given the threat is removed through imprisonment: which doesn't respond to the base inequity caused through the original act of murder.

None of these objections seem to offer any counter to what justice actually entails.

Your third point is the one that doesn't stand. Firstly, killing a murderer doesn't achieve equity- the victim is still dead and I doubt many value the life of a murderer as equal with that of an innocent. Or, what of serial killers? You can only execute someone once- what about the other victims? Where's the equity?

Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"? What does killing a prisoner achieve that isn't achieved by their permanent incarceration?

[Pindar]

As much as you may like to, you can't dismiss the reasons or justification. That would be like calling all killing murder regardless of its reasons, like self-defense. If you're trying to ask how I feel about armed rebellions in general, then I tend not to like them because they are bloody messy affairs. But, as is the case in the American Revolution, there can be just cause. It's not a black and white issue.

I am not dismissing the reasons or causes for revolution. I am pointing out, correctly I might add, that revolution (justified or no) is an offensive action. That is the point. This is black and white.

Your third point is the one that doesn't stand. Firstly, killing a murderer doesn't achieve equity- the victim is still dead and I doubt many value the life of a murderer as equal with that of an innocent. Or, what of serial killers? You can only execute someone once- what about the other victims? Where's the equity?

Equity is in the redress equal to the damage done, to the degree it is possible. The murder of a person is the complete erasure and removal of all possibilities of that person. The death of the murderer is the only comparable act of redress.

Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"?

Equity is considered the basis of justice. Justice is considered the basis of law. A society of law is superior to barbarism in that it creates a uniform standard whereby order can be maintained, security instilled, fairness documented and peace abound.

What does killing a prisoner achieve that isn't achieved by their permanent incarceration?

Justice.

[Steppe Merc]

Pindar, I can't compete with your logic. However, I just feel that killing someone who is unarmed and in custody is wrong. Killing is something that should always be avoided.
I'd prefer to be morally inferior and insure that no innocents are killed than be morrally superior and kill many evil people while killing one innocent. Perhaps that is wrong, or doesn't make sense. But it doesn't change the fact that that is what I believe, and that I will not change that opinon.

[Pindar]

Pindar, I can't compete with your logic. However, I just feel that killing someone who is unarmed and in custody is wrong. Killing is something that should always be avoided.
I'd prefer to be morally inferior and insure that no innocents are killed than be morrally superior and kill many evil people while killing one innocent. Perhaps that is wrong, or doesn't make sense. But it doesn't change the fact that that is what I believe, and that I will not change that opinon.

Going with your feelings: if Hiler had been captured, it would have been wrong to execute him? Is this your view?

[JAG]

Going with your feelings: if Hiler had been captured, it would have been wrong to execute him? Is this your view?

It should be everyone's view.