Verdict - Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

[placeholder]

I'm going to draw with broad strokes.

I support capital punishment in the USA in specific cases of murder which there is one or more of the following: extreme scale, extreme cruelty/sadism, established premeditation and/or a recurring pattern of less heinous murders.

Has it been or will it be always applied appropriately in the USA? No, obviously. But this is not a reasonable argument to abolish it.

This is precisely why it needs to be abolished. If the state incorrectly "applies" the death penalty to an innocent person, there's obviously no way to undo it. There are instances where this has almost certainly happened in the U.S.

Even if you think killing someone is a perfectly appropriate punishment for their having killed someone—something I absolutely disagree with—there is always the possibility, given our inherently flawed justice system, that the state will kill yet another innocent person. This is not acceptable.

By the by, I realize that you probably meant "not applied to people who deserve it" when you said "[not] applied appropriately."

You might as well abolish the criminal justice system in the USA all together then, because it's far from perfect as a whole. I simply don't see why, say, a convicted, remorseless, brutal serial rapist/killer should not receive the death penalty because another guy in another case might receive unduly. I don't see the logic in that. Do criminal justice systems break down? Sure they do! But my point is only about the death penalty and its proper application, not the current state of affairs of a given criminal justice system.

Capital punishment and the criminal justice system are intrinsically linked in places that practice capital punishment. I don't understand separating the two, even hypothetically.

How do you proposed to redress a particularly brutal, heinous, premeditated murder? Lock the person up for good so he or she can "think" about their crime?

Yes. Nothing can bring back the dead. Keeping the perpetrator locked up for life ostensibly prevents him or her from murdering again—prison murders notwithstanding, and if someone is wrongfully imprisoned, they can still be released. Their quality of life may be shot to hell as a result of the prison time they're served, but they're still alive.

[krs]

Countries all over the globe are able to administer law enforcement, and conduct peaceful societies every day without death penalties. How do these people keep their shit together without the threat of death-by-state over their heads??

[Antero]

You're mincing my words and trying to turn this into a word game. I'm not going to turn this thread into the atheism thread where we spend a million pages debating the shades of meaning of a word. Let me put what I mean into plain, close-rhyming language: "You do the crime, you pay the fine."

I am doing anything but mincing words. You're talking about redressing a wrong and revenging it as if the two were the same thing. They're not. An execution is not like a compensatory fine - it doesn't repair the wrong to which it responds.

No one's saying "execute the innocent". Who's saying that? Where are you getting this?

You're saying that the execution of the innocent - which has happened many times in the past and will certainly happen again - is an acceptable loss due to the significance of retribution. I'm saying that's fucked up.

The execution of an innocent person by the state is an unjustifiable act of violence. A true and heinous crime, if undertaken without the cloak of the law.

Like I said before......outlawing capital punishment because someone innocent "might" be wrongly executed is senseless in term of the ability to effectively administer justice which fits certain heinous crimes (AND IN HELPING TO PREVENT OTHER SUCH FUTURE CRIMES)

The death penalty doesn't provide effective deterrence, particularly for the most heinous crimes. Serial killers are not deciding to skip the mutilation part because they might get the needle. Abusive husbands aren't skipping the baseball bat out of fear of the chair. Deterrence, at the level of death penalty crimes, is a pipe dream.

Again, why not just do away with the criminal justice system itself.....someone "might" be wrongly convicted.

I'm of the opinion that the American criminal justice system is largely an embarrassment. That said, there's an obvious difference: you can undo a wrongful conviction if the person is alive.

Look, it's not "revenge-obsessed" to have someone be punished for their crime.
They're in debt and they have to repay that debt.

The language of economics is a poor fit for retributive justice. There is no "debt" that they can repay. An execution doesn't bring back the dead; if it did the calculus would be far simpler.

When you commit certain types of murder, you should pay with your life.

I agree, morally speaking. That hypothetical, however, is not a fit place for the state, particularly given the risks of harm to innocents. It's importing the reasoning and language of the vigilante into the criminal justice system. That's not what the law is supposed to be about.

[crustandcrumb]

I think the abolition of the death penalty is a prerequisite for a civilised society. You do not put another man to death.

[numberthirty]

Countries all over the globe are able to administer law enforcement, and conduct peaceful societies every day without death penalties. How do these people keep their shit together without the threat of death-by-state over their heads??

That's before you even compare out citizen to convict ratio to theirs. Once you do that, you'll wonder if we shouldn't just start all over.

[Antero]

Countries all over the globe are able to administer law enforcement, and conduct peaceful societies every day without death penalties. How do these people keep their shit together without the threat of death-by-state over their heads??

That's before you even compare out citizen to convict ratio to theirs. Once you do that, you'll wonder if we shouldn't just start all over.

Seriously. Our criminal justice system is a fucking wreck.

[matthew]

How do you proposed to redress a particularly brutal, heinous, premeditated murder? Lock the person up for good so he or she can "think" about their crime?

Yes. Nothing can bring back the dead. Keeping the perpetrator locked up for life ostensibly prevents him or her from murdering again—prison murders notwithstanding, and if someone is wrongfully imprisoned, they can still be released. Their quality of life may be shot to hell as a result of the prison time they're served, but they're still alive.

You're correct when you say nothing can bring back the dead. That is why capital punishment is justified for particularly heinous murders- because nothing can bring back the one or ones who are murdered.

The punishment fits the the crime.

[numberthirty]

You're correct when you say nothing can bring back the dead. That is why capital punishment is justified for particularly heinous murders- because nothing can bring back the one or ones who are murdered.

The punishment fits the the crime.

Bull. If I kill seven people, you can't execute me seven times.

[AnthonyCinder]

You're correct when you say nothing can bring back the dead. That is why capital punishment is justified for particularly heinous murders- because nothing can bring back the one or ones who are murdered.

The punishment fits the the crime.

Bull. If I kill seven people, you can't execute me seven times.

Maybe we torture you six times, each time to the brink of death, and then actually kill you the seventh time.

You know, because then the punishment would fit the crime.

Seriously, Matthew, how do you feel about torture? Should the state torture criminals who tortured their victims? Should the state rape criminals who are convicted rapists?

Obviously, you don't think so. I'm merely pointing out that the whole "punishment fits the crime" spiel falls short. As a society that doesn't prescribe to the ideals of Hammurabi's Code, we already don't play by those rules. Thus, a society that kills its killers reverts to this operating mode.

Also, with regard to the whole "deterrent" argument, do the numerous countries in the world that have abolished the death penalty have higher murder rates than we do? Are there more heinous crimes per capita in, say, the European nations that abolished the death penalty a long time ago? No. And violent heinous crimes continue to occur in states in this country which utilize capital punishment.

If anything, a true detriment would be a government that doesn't respond to murder with murder. It's incumbent on the society to set the moral bar high. Of course, the United States would have problems being consistent there even beyond how it treats its criminals.

[matthew]

An execution is not like a compensatory fine - it doesn't repair the wrong to which it responds.

Yes, it does. You can't bring back the murdered victim or victims, likewise the murderer has no way of being brought back once he's executed. The punishment fits the crime. When you take an innocent life in a particularly heinous fashion and are convicted of such in a just, fair and rigorous judicial process (because, indeed, each capital case is different and has somewhat unique circumstances which might aggravate or mitigate the crime), you've forfeited your own life.

You're saying that the execution of the innocent...is an acceptable loss due to the significance of retribution. I'm saying that's fucked up.

And I'm saying that's your misguided opinion. In this day and age the risk of executing of an innocent is a very small and thus an acceptable risk. Our criminal justice systems in the US, for all their flaws, allows plenty of room for recourse and appeals in capital murder cases. The benefits.....retribution, deterrence....outweigh the potential costs. Look at it this way: There's the risk a surgeon could mess up or be grossly negligent and kill a innocent. After all, it's happened before. Just as in a case of a wrongly executed, there's an innocent life at risk. Ought surgery be outlawed as well? Innocent people die in just wars- friendly fire, collaterally, etc. It's happened before too. Therefore should we outlaw fighting wars and disband the military?

Like I said before......outlawing capital punishment because someone innocent "might" be wrongly executed is senseless in term of the ability to effectively administer justice which fits certain heinous crimes (AND IN HELPING TO PREVENT OTHER SUCH FUTURE CRIMES)

The death penalty doesn't provide effective deterrence, particularly for the most heinous crimes. Serial killers are not deciding to skip the mutilation part because they might get the needle. Abusive husbands aren't skipping the baseball bat out of fear of the chair. Deterrence, at the level of death penalty crimes, is a pipe dream.

Do you really think it's not a deterrent? How about the non-serial would-be killers who plan a murder-for-hire for or on their own (which is premeditated, thus heinous) but consider the potential consequences and don't do it. I can almost guarantee there are such people out there in this country who've been deterred by fear of the penalty.

...[T]he language of economics is a poor fit for retributive justice...

...[T]hat hypothetical, however, is not a fit place for the state, particularly given the risks of harm to innocents. It's importing the reasoning and language of the vigilante into the criminal justice system. That's not what the law is supposed to be about.

The debt is the murdered person. The price is the murder's life. As you can't bring back the former, you can't bring back the latter.

When a society through legislative and judicial process decides that capital punishment is justified in certain criminal cases, it's not "importing" vigilantism. That's nonsense. You're conflating ad hoc vigilantism with society deciding that “when you commit and are convicted of these types of crimes, you've forfeited your right to live”. If you disagree that retribution is not part or should not be part of criminal justice, then that's your opinion. I'm saying it is, always has been, and it should be- not the ONLY part, mind you......after all in non-capital cases and lesser crimes there needs to be a rehabilitative and penitental part.........but a significant part nonetheless.

[krs]

And I'm saying that's your misguided opinion. In this day and age the risk of executing of an innocent is a very small and thus an acceptable risk. Our criminal justice systems in the US, for all their flaws, allows plenty of room for recourse and appeals in capital murder cases. The benefits.....retribution, deterrence....outweigh the potential costs. Look at it this way: There's the risk a surgeon could mess up or be grossly negligent and kill a innocent. After all, it's happened before. Just as in a case of a wrongly executed, there's an innocent life at risk. Ought surgery be outlawed as well? Innocent people die in just wars- friendly fire, collaterally, etc. It's happened before too. Therefore should we outlaw fighting wars and disband the military?

...WOW...so much here...I really don't even know where to begin...

[numberthirty]

If you disagree that retribution is not part or should not be part of criminal justice, then that's your opinion.

Question: Has retribution put a stop to murder in the states? Even slowed it down?

[matthew]

If anything, a true detriment would be a government that doesn't respond to murder with murder. It's incumbent on the society to set the moral bar high. Of course, the United States would have problems being consistent there even beyond how it treats its criminals.

Murder is the taking of an innocent human life. A person convicted of a heinous murder is not innocent. Therefore taking that person's life within the context we're referring to is not murder.

A society sets the moral bar high by valuing innocent human life higher than the lives of those who are convicted of heinous crimes. One way of doing this is legislating the option of putting to death those guilty of such, albeit only after a fair, just and rigorous judicial process.

[numberthirty]

A society sets the moral bar high by valuing innocent human life higher than the lives of those who are convicted of heinous crimes. One way of doing this is legislating the option of putting to death those guilty of such, albeit only after a fair, just and rigorous judicial process.

Right here is where what you're saying falls apart. Right now, kids are going hungry. People are going without medical care. If you see more value being placed on innocent life, you're kidding yourself.

[AnthonyCinder]

If anything, a true detriment would be a government that doesn't respond to murder with murder. It's incumbent on the society to set the moral bar high. Of course, the United States would have problems being consistent there even beyond how it treats its criminals.

Murder is the taking of an innocent human life. A person convicted of a heinous murder is not innocent. Therefore taking that person's life within the context we're referring to is not murder.

A society sets the moral bar high by valuing innocent human life higher than the lives of those who are convicted of heinous crimes. One way of doing this is legislating the option of putting to death those guilty of such, albeit only after a fair, just and rigorous judicial process.

Fine, to not argue semantics, change "murder" to "killing."

I don't see how killing the convicted places a higher value on the lives of the innocent. That equation makes no sense.

When the state executes a convicted murderer, it somehow increases the value of the lives of the innocent? Or even maintains the value of their lives? That makes no sense at all.

[krs]

A society sets the moral bar high by valuing innocent human life higher than the lives of those who are convicted of heinous crimes. One way of doing this is legislating the option of putting to death those guilty of such, albeit only after a fair, just and rigorous judicial process.

A society sets the moral bar high by valuing all life. Not only innocent, human life. Your 'high bar' is pretty damn low in my estimation. You can do better.

[matthew]

Also, with regard to the whole "deterrent" argument, do the numerous countries in the world that have abolished the death penalty have higher murder rates than we do? Are there more heinous crimes per capita in, say, the European nations that abolished the death penalty a long time ago? No. And violent heinous crimes continue to occur in states in this country which utilize capital punishment.

I'll offer a few explanations for this. They are not the only explanations, of course.

In the USA we have, in contrast to Canada or the EU:

-More illicit firearms, because the money is here to buy them.

-More illicit drugs, again because we have more purchasing power that most other nations. It's hard to deny that illicit drugs play a part in many murders in this country, capital or not.

-A legacy of slavery and subsequent institutionalized discrimination, which produced a black underclass. This underclass expanded and was reinforced by certain social policies initially implemented during the 1960's.

[AnthonyCinder]

Also, with regard to the whole "deterrent" argument, do the numerous countries in the world that have abolished the death penalty have higher murder rates than we do? Are there more heinous crimes per capita in, say, the European nations that abolished the death penalty a long time ago? No. And violent heinous crimes continue to occur in states in this country which utilize capital punishment.

I'll offer a few explanations for this. They are not the only explanations, of course.

In the USA we have, unlike say Canada or the EU:

-More illicit firearms, because the money is here to buy them.

-More illicit drugs, again because we have more purchasing power that most other nations. It's hard to deny that illicit drugs play a part in many murders in this country, capital or not.

-A legacy of slavery and subsequent institutionalized discrimination, which produced a black underclass. This underclass expanded and was reinforced by certain social policies initially implemented during the 1960's.

I completely agree that having more firearms is part of the reason why there are more murders here. I completely disagree that capital punishment is any kind of detriment.

I laugh when I think about someone plotting a murder and thinking, "you know, I was about to go through with this, but the deciding factor that makes me NOT want to kill someone else is the fact that I might be executed if I'm caught instead of spending my life in prison if I'm caught." Serial killers don't think this way. Premeditated murderers don't think this way, and those committing "crimes of passion" don't think this way. It's seriously a joke that capital punishment is any kind of detriment to potential murderers.

[djimbe]

In the USA we have, in contrast to Canada or the EU:

-More illicit firearms, because the money is here to buy them.

-More illicit drugs, again because we have more purchasing power that most other nations. It's hard to deny that illicit drugs play a part in many murders in this country, capital or not.

-A legacy of slavery and subsequent institutionalized discrimination, which produced a black underclass. This underclass expanded and was reinforced by certain social policies initially implemented during the 1960's.

Probably another thread my nose doesn't belong in, but I would ask you to think about the following:

the US has more illicit firearms, not because we have the money to purchase them, but because firearms are general much less regulated in the US than most EU countries. There are more of them because the bar to ownership is very low, and on more than the economic front. The glut just serves to keep prices affordable.

The US has a huge appetite for illicit drugs, and the criminal codes we have adopted keep the drug trade a rugged and violent operation. Contrast that with the EU countries that have decriminalized drugs. The weed in Amsterdam is better and cheaper than quality weed in the US and no one needs to break the law to buy it or kill for the monopoly to sell it.


I'm white and was born in the '60's so I'm not qualified to comment on the racial component you cite, since I've never been subject to discrimination...

[Antero]

An execution is not like a compensatory fine - it doesn't repair the wrong to which it responds.

Yes, it does.

...do you speak English?

You're saying that the execution of the innocent...is an acceptable loss due to the significance of retribution. I'm saying that's fucked up.

And I'm saying that's your misguided opinion. In this day and age the risk of executing of an innocent is a very small and thus an acceptable risk.

The risk of executing an innocent is actually greater than you think - the risk of a wrongful conviction is substantially higher in a death penalty case than in any other criminal case due to the fact that prosecutors are allowed to death-test juries.

The appeals process, meanwhile, sets the bar staggeringly high for an individual's exoneration when a wrongful conviction occurs, and allows any number of opportunities for a judge of an authoritarian bent to put a stop to the appeal.

And prosecutors are unscrupulous about resorting to the most absurd arguments to block exonerations - ask me about the "wandering necrophiliac" argument.

Do you really think it's not a deterrent? How about the non-serial would-be killers who plan a murder-for-hire for or on their own (which is premeditated, thus heinous) but consider the potential consequences and don't do it. I can almost guarantee there are such people out there in this country who've been deterred by fear of the penalty.

I think that you're pulling things out of your ass. The consequences for murder are great regardless of whether or not the death sentence is handed down - it's not actually a relevant factor.

Also, the fact of premeditation does not in and of itself raise a case to the level of a death penalty trial.

The debt is the murdered person. The price is the murder's life. As you can't bring back the former, you can't bring back the latter.

I imagine your negotiations with your credit card company must be hilarious.