Verdict - Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

[Swat]

All right... I've always found this one interesting.

[cjh]

Psst! over here.

But for the record: Not ever. I think the abolition of the death penalty is a prerequisite for a civilised society. You do not put another man to death. Not even a bastard like Eichmann.

I understand blood lust and the desire for Old Testament vengeance; we all have that in us. I can also envisage circumstances of a crime so personal and horrific that would make someone want the perpetrator executed but without getting into the usual arguments (bias and errors in judgement, it’s not an effective deterrent etc.) to kill someone for their crimes demeans us as a species.

If it was ever put to the vote here I'm absolutely sure John Public would bring back hanging in a heartbeat.

[Antero]

I'm not so much an outright hater of the concept of a death penalty so much as I am disgusted by our inability to apply it fairly. I also think, furthermore, it can never be applied fairly enough for a just society.

[steve]

My heart sinks when I realize there are people out there who think that killiing someone in retribution should be sanctioned (even ordered) by law. It's about as sick as a society can get.

It is a grandstnnd appeal to our outrage. It is a sop to victims and their kin. It is disgusting.

If any of us had a son or daughter murdered by someone, of course we would want to kill the motherfucker. We would be driven by rage and passion, which we would call "justice," so we could sanctify it and explain it to ourselves and others. That's why victims should not set policy -- they are driven by things unique to them, and we cannot assume this rage for ourselves. To appeal to our sympathy for the victims as a way of justifying creating more victims is absurd.

Put simply, I don't believe in revenge as policy.

Even if I thought revenge was a good thing, the imperfections in policework, prosecution, trials, application of law and human prejudice make it likely that mistakes will be made, and then innocent people are executed. This is an un-redeemable error, and I believe we should not create systems whereby a mistake cannot be ameliorated.

It is not a deterrent, except in the specific case where one is arguing the point to my father, and he replies "I am deterred." Can't really refute that. I think it is a rhetorical trick, but I can't argue with it.

Of course we want to kill them. Of course. But we shouldn't. It is evil.

[shagboy]

it is the potential for the mistaken killing of an innocent that makes me oppose the death penalty.

if it were possible to determine with 100% accuracy who committed what crime, i would still have qualms about putting anyone to death. however, if someone has killed multiple people in cold blood i don't really care if he remains alive.

[steve]

if someone has killed multiple people in cold blood i don't really care if he remains alive.

I agree. I don't want to feel like I'm one of those people, and that matters more.

Our government should not kill its citizens. Not ever.

[toomanyhelicopters]

if someone has killed multiple people in cold blood i don't really care if he remains alive.

I agree. I don't want to feel like I'm one of those people, and that matters more.

Our government should not kill its citizens. Not ever.

i'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute, if you'll so permit.

i assume you think that mass murderers should be incarcerated, and rehabilitated as possible, right? or do you have some other suggestion on how to deal with the most immoral and ruthless of our criminals?

i assume you will speak in favor of education and social programs (a la the generalized "democrat" thing, but more effective) in an effort to try and desuade folks from turning to crime and hard drugs that lead to further crime and such.

but let's say for a moment that the social programs don't get properly funded, and the "bad guy" element in this country expands at least following the trend for the population at large, if not even faster as the craziest motherfuckers out there don't seem to focus on birth control strategies that will get us to ZPG or NPG...

what is the practical solution for the future, assuming the country's monies continue to go to war and defense, more than education and social restructuring?

i realize the current implementation of the death penalty is responsible for so few deaths in the US annually, certainly not on the order of thousands or tens of thousands, so we're still incarcerating far more folks than we're executing.

but moving into the future, do you foresee an issue with prison space? there are many who would claim that american prisons are already horribly mismanaged and overfilled. as we move forward with our general population ever expanding, space becomes more and more of a premium... eventually we'll run out of places to put new prisons, won't we?

i saw a program on the tele years ago about the privatization of the prison industry... long story short, federal or state (i forget which) prisons were so badly overcrowded and underfunded, that the building and managing of prisons was outsourced to private companies. private companies provided the prisons, and as a result were allowed to employ the services of the prisoners. it was basically a reinstitution of slavery, when you factor in the terrible flaws (especially relating to racial and class biases) in our justice system. that program was pretty frustrating to watch.

how do you picture the prison population looking in the future, say 20 years from now? do you think crime and incarceration will decline moving forward?

[Brett Eugene Ralph]

First off, I agree with everything Steve says about this subject, which gets under my skin more readily than just about any other. For this reason, I forbid my students to write about it--not because it's not a valid topic but because I am wholly incapable of being objective about it. It literally turns my stomach.

That said, no one has ever explained to me why it is not totally illogical to condone at the institutional level what is being condemned at the individual level--that it somehow makes sense to kill people for killing people.

[shagboy]

if someone has killed multiple people in cold blood i don't really care if he remains alive.

I agree. I don't want to feel like I'm one of those people, and that matters more.

Our government should not kill its citizens. Not ever.

in my head, i agree with this point. but were i a citizen of a country that uses the death penalty, i don't know if i would actually feel any sense of culpability. i guess guilt gets watered down the more people one shares it with.

[toomanyhelicopters]

That said, no one has ever explained to me why it is not totally illogical to condone at the institutional level what is being condemned at the individual level--that it somehow makes sense to kill people for killing people.

i don't think there is really a distinction to be made, provided the killer being put to death made sure to only kill people who were themselves the most unscrupulous of criminals, the worst menaces to society.

the guy who gets put to death for murdering some kids, or for killing and raping old ladies, it'd be hard for anyone to argue his actions were being undertaken in the best interest of the well-being of society-at-large.

that seems like an explaination somebody might offer anyways.

[shagboy]

if someone has killed multiple people in cold blood i don't really care if he remains alive.

I agree. I don't want to feel like I'm one of those people, and that matters more.

Our government should not kill its citizens. Not ever.

i'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute, if you'll so permit.

i assume you think that mass murderers should be incarcerated, and rehabilitated as possible, right? or do you have some other suggestion on how to deal with the most immoral and ruthless of our criminals?

i assume you will speak in favor of education and social programs (a la the generalized "democrat" thing, but more effective) in an effort to try and desuade folks from turning to crime and hard drugs that lead to further crime and such.

but let's say for a moment that the social programs don't get properly funded, and the "bad guy" element in this country expands at least following the trend for the population at large, if not even faster as the craziest motherfuckers out there don't seem to focus on birth control strategies that will get us to ZPG or NPG...

what is the practical solution for the future, assuming the country's monies continue to go to war and defense, more than education and social restructuring?

i realize the current implementation of the death penalty is responsible for so few deaths in the US annually, certainly not on the order of thousands or tens of thousands, so we're still incarcerating far more folks than we're executing.

but moving into the future, do you foresee an issue with prison space? there are many who would claim that american prisons are already horribly mismanaged and overfilled. as we move forward with our general population ever expanding, space becomes more and more of a premium... eventually we'll run out of places to put new prisons, won't we?

i saw a program on the tele years ago about the privatization of the prison industry... long story short, federal or state (i forget which) prisons were so badly overcrowded and underfunded, that the building and managing of prisons was outsourced to private companies. private companies provided the prisons, and as a result were allowed to employ the services of the prisoners. it was basically a reinstitution of slavery, when you factor in the terrible flaws (especially relating to racial and class biases) in our justice system. that program was pretty frustrating to watch.

how do you picture the prison population looking in the future, say 20 years from now? do you think crime and incarceration will decline moving forward?

ship them to australia

[whiskerando]

prisons were so badly overcrowded and underfunded, that the building and managing of prisons was outsourced to private companies

i know you were playing devils advocate but allow me to refute regardless. our prisons are not crowded with murderers. they are crowded with drug offenders and recidivist thieves.

i heard someone in politics say something along the lines of "the least your government owes you is not to kill you" i agree with that.

in my high school sociology class we took a field trip to a maximum security prison and walked through the place(far less cat calls to 16 year old girls than you might expect) and we went into the chambers where they execute people.

...i sat in the electric chair because the guard asked if anyone would. i don't get freaked out by things but it was an eerie experience, no high school joking around, no nervous giggles, we were all solemn and i had goose bumps up and down my arms.

[echo]

hear hear whiskerando...the way i see it, there are far more arguments against capital punishment than for it. even from an economic standpoint, it doesn't make sense. most of the people on death row die in prison before they're ever executed, and they cost far more than a normal prisoner because of the special legal requirements (endless appeals, stays of execution, many extra hours by court appointed attorneys, etc. etc.). and as far as overcrowding, american prisons would have to start executing like, dozens of people a day for it to have any effect. it's an outdated, ineffective tradition that makes just as little sense as the right to own high powered handguns and assault rifles.

[toomanyhelicopters]

i know you were playing devils advocate but allow me to refute regardless. our prisons are not crowded with murderers. they are crowded with drug offenders and recidivist thieves.

excellent point. and for the record, i have no passion one way or the other on this issue. out of curiosity, is there a good breakdown of national prison population by offense? i'm having no trouble finding breakdowns by race, but can't seem to find any breakdown by offense...

[kerble]

out of curiosity, is there a good breakdown of national prison population by offense? i'm having no trouble finding breakdowns by race, but can't seem to find any breakdown by offense...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

[Gramsci]

The most simple argument against the death penalty is a miscarriage of justice.

One single wrongful execution and its a deal-breaker. And since the justice system will never be perfect that means no death penalty.

For supporters: image youself strapped to the chair waiting to die when you know that the State is about to kill you for a crime you did not commit. Why would anyone support giving the State that kind of power?

Oh, and since the US has one of the highest murder rates in the world you can hardly say that it is a deterent

[gaetano]

statistics (even statistics from 19th century) prove that death penalty
is not a deterrent to crime.
it makes committing a crime extremely dangerous...therefore people with a criminal mindset will go at greater lenghts to commit their crimes.
they will be more determined and ruthless.

also death penalty ensures that the least "good" criminals, the ones who leave traces and get caught, get killed, while the most skilled ones stay alive. it allows a "darwinian selection" of criminals.

and what can we say about a society that advocates the killing of human beings?
doesn't it justify the criminal mindset in a way?
"i live in a society where laws say i can get killed. society is violent...those bastards want to kill me. so i'll kill"

sorry for my bad english

[tmidgett]

The most simple argument against the death penalty is a miscarriage of justice.

yes

the death penalty is a perfect punishment. our justice system is not perfect.

more to the point, the standard for conviction in capital murder cases is not absolute certainty based on a complete, perfect set of all possibly relevant facts. death, however, is as absolute and certain as it gets. therefore, the death penalty is inappropriate.

for debating purposes, i think it's better framed as being inappropriate than barbaric or ineffective. no one cares about convicted murderers who obviously committed murder. and it's undeniably effective at eliminating repeat offenses.

[seanurban]

this debate is no fun. everyone agrees with each other! speak up, pro-cappers!

re: prisons...
the csm had a good article about california's prison population yesterday. apparently they have finally stopped building prisons over there because they realized, "if you build it, they will come." sounds about right.

[toomanyhelicopters]

The most simple argument against the death penalty is a miscarriage of justice.

yes

the death penalty is a perfect punishment. our justice system is not perfect.

by this line of reasoning, how is a life in prison any different for the same wrongly convicted guy? how is it not a miscarriage of justice? do we only disallow the ending of the life, but then permit the destruction of a life, making it into a life of shit, potentially a fate worse than death? or do we do away with prisons completely?

re: prisons...
the csm had a good article about california's prison population yesterday. apparently they have finally stopped building prisons over there because they realized, "if you build it, they will come." sounds about right.

that doesn't sound right at all. to think that the US population can increase steadily without building more prisons seems kinda silly. that would only make sense if as the population increases, crime (or at least convictions) decrease(s) at a proportional rate. i don't expect that reality to be manifest. though it could, i would be kinda surprised. from the stats that faiz linked to, it looks like the prison population growth rate exceeds the general population's growth rate. i guess it could be blamed on the building of prisons, but that seems pretty iffy to me.