Verdict - Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

[AnthonyCinder]

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.

Oh, he's most definitely pulling this one out of his ass. You can "almost guarantee there are such people out there in this country"? What would that "almost guarantee" look like?

Are people deterred from committing crimes by the potential punishments? Yes, in some cases, they are. I seriously question, though, how many people would decide to go through with a murder knowing they face life in prison instead of facing execution. I don't think this distinction makes a difference to someone willing to take it that far. I really don't. And your guarantee is beyond flimsy.

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.

So any time the crime results in something we can't bring back, we have to take something that can't be brought back from the convicted person? If someone sets fire to my house and destroys items that are completely irreplaceable, what do we do to that person under your view?

[matthew]

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.

So any time the crime results in something we can't bring back, we have to take something that can't be brought back from the convicted person? If someone sets fire to my house and destroys items that are completely irreplaceable, what do we do to that person under your view?

To call that a specious analogy is generous.

[matthew]

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

No one is claiming it does necessarily. It certainly can however. Every case is different and must be considered as such. That is why I stated at the outset of my argument here that I was drawing with broad strokes as far as when I think it's appropriate.

[matthew]

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.

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

I'm familiar with the case you're referring to. I was 13 and living in Chicago at that time and actually recall that.

You're referring to one instance of wrongful conviction and subsequent bullshit on the part of the CCSAO when it came to the exoneration, and in this case the parties didn't even receive the death penalty and were exonerated in the end. So what's your point? You're arguing from an exception, not from general principles. You're a pretty smart guy, Antero, and I mean that....you should know better. You're just dressing up the "might" argument while making it seem like unscrupulous, bloodthirsty prosecutors are a scourge of the land. Nonsense. That said, it says nothing as far as whether or not the sentence of death is appropriate for certain crimes, either.

[AnthonyCinder]

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.

So any time the crime results in something we can't bring back, we have to take something that can't be brought back from the convicted person? If someone sets fire to my house and destroys items that are completely irreplaceable, what do we do to that person under your view?

To call that a specious analogy is generous.

Right... just shows how flimsy your original point is.

So are you or aren't you saying that the goal of state administered justice should be to take away what cannot be restored from criminals who have taken away something that can't be restored? I honestly don't get why the "debt" is the murdered person. And under your view, should every single murderer be executed?

[matthew]

I honestly don't get why the "debt" is the murdered person.

Allow me to correct myself for your sake and Antero's, since you both questioned it. I didn't say what I meant to say. I'm sorry for that mistake.

I should have said that a debt is incurred by the murderer, and that coupled with with heinous, aggravating nature of the crime (cruelty, premeditation, scale, etc) can, in certain cases, mandate that the murderer pay with his life. Again, I'm drawing with broad strokes here.

[matthew]

How do you propose we "redress" the murder of the hundred people when only one person has committed the crimes?

Your logic doesn't allow for that.

In a case when only one murder is involved, the debt is repaid.

In a case where multiple murders are involved, obviously it is not repaid. In that case the death penalty would be simply the best attempt to repay it. It would be the best that society can do to redress the crime within the given circumstances. Life in prison is not always the appropriate option. It CAN be, but not always. Many crimes cannot be repaid in full measure. When that's the case, the sentence ought to come as close as possible to repaying it.

Again, drawing with broad strokes. General principles. Every case is different as it pertains specfically to when the death penalty is appropriate. I cannot stress all this enough in my argument.

To say that in the latter case "since it can't be repayed in full, therefore we shouldn't execute", is not a valid argument. We might as well not punish any crimes at all then using that logic...

[matthew]

If someone sets fire to my house and destroys items that are completely irreplaceable, what do we do to that person under your view?

Apart from being a specious analogy, your logic here suggests that nothing should be done with the person.

[Ernest]

Matthew, why are you looking at murder as if it were another financially oriented "transaction"? That someone murders, and they incur a debt.

[Antero]

Matthew, why are you looking at murder as if it were another financially oriented "transaction"? That someone murders, and they incur a debt.

That's what I was trying to figure out. It makes absolutely no sense.

[AnthonyCinder]

How do you propose we "redress" the murder of the hundred people when only one person has committed the crimes?

Your logic doesn't allow for that.

In a case when only one murder is involved, the debt is repaid.

In a case where multiple murders are involved, obviously it is not repaid. In that case the death penalty would be simply the best attempt to repay it. It would be the best that society can do to redress the crime within the given circumstances. Life in prison is not always the appropriate option. It CAN be, but not always. Many crimes cannot be repaid in full measure. When that's the case, the sentence ought to come as close as possible to repaying it.

Again, drawing with broad strokes. General principles. Every case is different as it pertains specfically to when the death penalty is appropriate. I cannot stress all this enough in my argument.

To say that in the latter case "since it can't be repayed in full, therefore we shouldn't execute", is not a valid argument. We might as well not punish any crimes at all then using that logic...

I think we also fundamentally disagree that in the case of a taken life, the debt can EVER be repaid. I don't think it can.

Obviously, I don't think we should not punish any crimes at all, and you know I don't think that. I was pointing that out as a way of showing my difficulty with your notion that execution be used to repay what was lost in a crime. I'm simply saying that this isn't possible, so therefor, it's not a valid reason to enact capital punishment.

[matthew]

Matthew, why are you looking at murder as if it were another financially oriented "transaction"? That someone murders, and they incur a debt.

That's what I was trying to figure out. It makes absolutely no sense.

How would you view it?

[AnthonyCinder]

If someone sets fire to my house and destroys items that are completely irreplaceable, what do we do to that person under your view?

Apart from being a specious analogy, your logic here suggests that nothing should be done with the person.

Man, you love the word "specious."

Again, I don't think nothing should be done. I was working from what I see as faulty logic. I simply don't think it's the job of any entity that administers justice take from the criminal what the victim has lost.

[matthew]

I think we also fundamentally disagree that in the case of a taken life, the debt can EVER be repaid. I don't think it can.

I don't think it can always either, as I said. What's your objection to capital punishment for the most heinous crimes then? I don't quite see where you're going...

[matthew]

I simply don't think it's the job of any entity that administers justice take from the criminal what the victim has lost.

And that's your misguided opinion, no offense. I on the other hand, along with more than a few other people, do think it is...not in the case of the most heinous murders but alot of other crimes. It's only just....for society and for the victim. Capital punishment is both retribution and a sign of how serious and grave a society considers the most heinous crimes and how much it values innocent human life.


Retribution is part of criminal justice. The latter never is without the former. Why's this so hard to understand?

[Ernest]

Matthew, why are you looking at murder as if it were another financially oriented "transaction"? That someone murders, and they incur a debt.

How would you view it?

Specifically about the death penalty- as an exercise carried out by a power structure. No morals to deal with, no ethics, no sense of communal good; power does what it wants to, and finds it justification anywhere.

Murder isn't even the thing to focus on- what's done is done, and the treatment of the criminal becomes the more pressing issue- not how to placate the victims of the crime. There is no debt to repay, no way to bring back the victim, and it would be utterly pointless for a seemingly rational society to then make the criminal jump through hoops, or get tortured for their crimes. Confinement works, and is enough of a deterrent.

There's really no rational argument for killing someone because they killed. Whenever this line comes up, it's pretty obvious we're seeing power arguing for it's own exercise.

Capital punishment is both retribution and a sign of how serious and grave a society considers the most heinous crimes and how much it values innocent human life.

This is the problem right here; the dismissal of life that is deemed anything but "innocent". It's a slippery slope, and a hallmark of an authoritarian form of thinking- black and white morality, simplistic designations.

Retribution is part of criminal justice. The latter never is without the former. Why's this so hard to understand?

It's one thing to be aware that retribution is possible, but it's another thing entirely to use it's presence for it's own justification. You're trying to pull an 'ought' from what is. At worst, it's a misunderstanding of the possibilities of a criminal justice system.

[matthew]

Capital punishment is both retribution and a sign of how serious and grave a society considers the most heinous crimes and how much it values innocent human life.

This is the problem right here; the dismissal of life that is deemed anything but "innocent". It's a slippery slope, and a hallmark of an authoritarian form of thinking- black and white morality, simplistic designations.

Bull. We're talking about a fundamental moral tenent- willfully taking an innocent human life. It is always wrong and always will be wrong. If you deny that I'm afraid we're done discussing.

If a man scopes out, kidnaps, rapes, mutilates and ultimately kills a woman walking down a street late at night, is arrested, tried and convicted of the crime, he is the guilty party. She is the innocent party whose life is unjustly taken. Don't pull this equivocation crap with me about guilty and innocent.

Pretty black and white to me.

The only gray area might be determining what sort of punishment is appropriate. That's obviously not always the easiest task.

[Ernest]

Capital punishment is both retribution and a sign of how serious and grave a society considers the most heinous crimes and how much it values innocent human life.

This is the problem right here; the dismissal of life that is deemed anything but "innocent". It's a slippery slope, and a hallmark of an authoritarian form of thinking- black and white morality, simplistic designations.

Bull. We're talking about a fundamental moral tenent- willfully taking an innocent human life. It is always wrong and always will be wrong. If you deny that I'm afraid we're done discussing.

And that would be a major copout to go run and hide because your morality is offended.

But morality isn't what we're talking about- we're talking about appropriate consequences to what we already feel is a terrible event; murder.

Your evaluation of capital punishment is simplistic, and not really representative of reality, where a bureaucratic way of doing things takes precedence over individual morality. This is why you can see vicious, immoral people walk free with a plea bargain. Punishments in criminal cases are rote, and formal, and instead of being morality turned into action, it's repetition of an established procedure. The law is not moral.

If a man scopes out, kidnaps, rapes, mutilates and ultimately kills a woman walking down a street late at night, is arrested, tried and convicted of the crime, he is the guilty party. She is the innocent party whose life is unjustly taken. Don't pull this equivocation crap with me about guilty and innocent.

I wasn't muddling the distinction between guilt and innocence, I'm challenging you on your simplistic take on those who are guilty. That to kill is an appropriate punishment for killing, all the while being ignorant of the hypocrisy of it.

Your morality here seems to be appearance, more so than something genuinely reflective, given your statements in this thread. No insult intended.

[AnthonyCinder]

I had a longer post, but I like what Ernest said--there is inherent hypocrisy in executing murderers.

You might think my analogies are wrong, but even the United States doesn't apply this reasoning to crimes. We don't burn down the arsonist's house when we convict him of the crime.

You have failed to put forth any convincing argument to counter what's been said here: executing murderers is a barbaric practice, built on Hammurabian principles, practiced by some truly questionable governments today, not plausibly a deterrent, and not in keeping with any modern definition of justice.

I'm not offended that you think my opinion is misguided. I know you think that, and it makes sense, given your overall stance built on flawed reasoning.

[Clyde]

Maryland is repealing the death penalty, becoming the 18th state to do so.

This organization helped them do it: http://www.deathpenalty.org/