Verdict - Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

[The Kid]

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.

It doesn't seem silly at all, unless you really believe that we "need" to incarcerate people for marijuana (or other drug) possession. The prison growth rate has exceeded the general population's growth rate for awhile. Since the 70s? I'm not sure since when. But at a certain point, this kind of thing simply cannot continue. Not because people will become enlightened about the way we handle drug offenders, but because prisons are an absolute drag on state economies. You pour a ton of money into them, and usually very little of that goes toward rehabilitation and career training, so you get nothing in return. I think Wisconsin is paying a few million a year right now to run a Supermax prison that is barely occupied.
The boom in prison building had more to do with politics and privatization than with societal "need" for more prisons.

[Cranius]

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?

Obviously, if he is still alive, our prisoner has a chance of appeal. I guess a pardon isn't much use when your dead.

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.

I don't think that the trend in prison building is linked to population growth and has more to do with the fact that it is growth sector in a privatized industry. Effectively, crime pays for the jailers and the populations of towns that they prisons employ. Prisoners are then a commodity: politically and financially. This is probably the main motivator for the three strikes law in the U.S.

[Gramsci]

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?

Easy, you can let someone out of jail, say "sorry" and give them a bundle of money for their trouble. It's a little more difficult to dig up a rotten corpse and apologise. I always find it interesting how theists like yourself are advocates of the death penalty.

[Gramsci]

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

Prego, come Udine oggi? Scusi per mio italiano. Mia moglie è da Fagagna vicino Udine.

[danmohr]

My wife and I argue over this all the time. I am pro-death penalty mostly because a) the people being put to death are [probably] unforgivable monsters who have completely reneged on the social contract and b) I like the unerring certainty that except for that guy in the X-Files episode, they're killing days are over.

My only real problem with it is the little [probably] thing. People, the atomic elements that make up juries, are on the whole terribly incapable of separating logic from emotion. Cases should be tried on facts, not feelings, but that doesn't really strike me as the case in most big-time trials. My dream is that one day we will have a giant computer (I like to call it the JusticeTron 3000) which has been meticulously programmed, tested and provided with the facts and findings of every previous case in the country. This computer will be given as input the evidence for each case under trial - which will not include the participants' race or creed or whether or not they have shifty eyes. The computer will render a simple binary verdict and the sentencing will be done by an honest-to-god human judge. Oh, it will be sweet.

An alternate plan, proposed by my wife who is VERY anti-death penalty, is to build a small domed city in each state which will serve as the substitute for our current prison system - a completely independent society for criminals in which they are left up to their own devices and kept wholly separate from the law-abiding folks. [My wife has never seen Escape from NY to my knowledge.] I suggest sending each person in with $10 and a steak knife, but she thought that might be marking the cards.

If you enjoy reading this thread (except for the ramblings about computers of justice), you might also enjoy Scott Turow's foray into non-fiction, Ultimate Punishment. I did. And, chances are, if you are reading this thread, this book will reinforce your existing beliefs. I picked up the unabridged book on tape for $7 at Half Price Books.

Dan

[gaetano]

quote]

Prego, come Udine oggi? Scusi per mio italiano. Mia moglie è da Fagagna vicino Udine.[/quote]


okay, let's get a little off topic.

your wife's from Fagagna? Fagagna is my favorite place in Friuli!
say "mandi" to her!

[Gramsci]

okay, let's get a little off topic.

your wife's from Fagagna? Fagagna is my favorite place in Friuli!
say "mandi" to her!

I was there for the Donkey -asino- races and theatre competition last year. The whole village had an out-door meal the night before, I ate so much polenta I thought i was going to be sick!

I spend a lot of time in No Fun when I'm in Friuli, do you know it?

[whiskerando]

Easy, you can let someone out of jail, say "sorry" and give them a bundle of money for their trouble.

actually i'm pretty sure most states do not have a system set up for rewarding wrongfully convicted people. a guy found innocent after years of incarceration is given his possessions back and set free, a guy that was guilty and serves his time is given some money and an appointment at an employment office.

[Gramsci]

My wife and I argue over this all the time. I am pro-death penalty mostly because a) the people being put to death are [probably] unforgivable monsters who have completely reneged on the social contract
Dan

But surely you can see that the life of one innocent isn't a price worth paying? People make mistakes, cops fuck with evidence, poor people don't get access to a decent lawyer.

It isn't the dealth penalty that is the problem, it is human error.

As I said, imagine yourself strapped into the chair waiting to die because some lazy cop lied or a witness in your favour didn't come forward. How would you feel? I'm sure you wouldn't be thinking, "oh well, at least they might execute a child-rapist next..."

[kofi_man]

This is a little extract from an essay i wrote last year on capitol punishment just covering the basic philosophical view on it read on if you can be assed:

The idea of capital punishment is one that has been dominated by two absolutist views. The retributive view is one where the murderer must be given the punishment he deserves, which is death. The opposite view suggests that there is in belief no possibility of justifying the act of capital punishment; in execution there is only 'the unspeakable wrongness of cutting a life short when it is in full tide'. Supporters of these two differing approaches agree only in rejecting the moral stance of utilitarianism. The idea of deprivation on a person, or to take this person's life, is something where those of us who are not retributive believe that there needs to be a very strong rationalization in terms of the benefits gained and lost, either to the person concerned or to other people.

Consequently, the absolutist's rejection of capital punishment is one where the act of killing a fellow human being is seen as wrong and the idea of it as punishment is thought of as 'judicial murder'. 'Is it not absurd that the laws which detest and punish homicide, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves?'

I'm against by the way.

[kofi_man]

This is a little extract from an essay i wrote last year on capitol punishment just covering the basic philosophical view on it read on if you can be assed:

The idea of capital punishment is one that has been dominated by two absolutist views. The retributive view is one where the murderer must be given the punishment he deserves, which is death. The opposite view suggests that there is in belief no possibility of justifying the act of capital punishment; in execution there is only 'the unspeakable wrongness of cutting a life short when it is in full tide'. Supporters of these two differing approaches agree only in rejecting the moral stance of utilitarianism. The idea of deprivation on a person, or to take this person's life, is something where those of us who are not retributive believe that there needs to be a very strong rationalization in terms of the benefits gained and lost, either to the person concerned or to other people.

Consequently, the absolutist's rejection of capital punishment is one where the act of killing a fellow human being is seen as wrong and the idea of it as punishment is thought of as 'judicial murder'. 'Is it not absurd that the laws which detest and punish homicide, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves?'

I'm against by the way.

[tmidgett]

I am pro-death penalty mostly because a) the people being put to death are [probably] unforgivable monsters who have completely reneged on the social contract and b) I like the unerring certainty that except for that guy in the X-Files episode, they're killing days are over.

dan, you get rid of that pesky 'probably,' and you have an argument

as you seem to realize, that 'probably' is a bitch

[bumble]

I would like to add that claims that people need "closure" and that this "closure" is provided not by the perpetrator being found guilty, but by that person being put to death, drive me batshit nuts up the wall throwing vases and variously abusing household electronics and bathmats.

Fuck "closure".

Thank you.

[steve]

It isn't the dealth penalty that is the problem, it is human error.

No, it's the death penalty that's the problem.

I don't think I can justify killing a criminal -- any criminal -- because I know it is only a short walk from where I am now to being called a criminal.

In order to see my point, think of those moments in your life that could be called "crimes." Now imagine there being a policeman and a politically motivated prosecutor standing there when these "crimes" happened.

Me, I've bought and distributed drugs, been in possession of drugs, brought unlicensed weapons across state lines, bought alcohol as a minor, distributed alcohol to minors, broken into houses, had sex with teenage girls (which is now apparently a crime), made fake IDs (including a hilarious bogus passport from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), put fireworks in mailboxes, chimneys, hallways, lockers, bathrooms and cars, performed countless minor acts of vandalism, made homemade explosives that were probably big enough to count as bombs, bought explosives that were definitely big enough to be considered bombs, set such "bombs" in my highschool ...and that's just before I hit college.

I don't think I am a criminal, though I engaged in what I consider typical adolescent lawlessness. If I had been caught and prosecuted for any of this stuff, I could easily be labelled a child molester, rapist, terrorist, attempted-murderer, etc.

The notion that criminals are different from us is at the root of this whole revenge-driven society. Any one of us, if his life were looked at with a microscope, could end up in prison. Any one of us could be accused of a grave crime. It's not "the criminals" against "us." We are all "us."

[whiskerando]

it's the death penalty that's the problem.

and it's not even an effective punishment. fear of death is the punishment and a cruel one at that. just about every religion i'm aware of that holds the idea of an afterlife seems to think if you're a bad person you can make up for it or be sorry for it. so no punishment there. and if you don't believe in an afterlife than non-existance is no punishment either.

[gaetano]

[/quote] I spend a lot of time in No Fun when I'm in Friuli, do you know it?[/quote]

GRAMSCI, YOU GOT PM.

(sorry for going off topic again, it won't happen anymore)

[Gramsci]

Whoa there cowboys!

I think I got missunderstood. I am extremely anti-death penalty, if you look at the rest of my posts you'll see that. The point I was trying to make -and I think it is the same point as Steve- is that regardless of the situation it is wrong to kill another human, especially for an institution as fucked up as the average State. I'm sure that most people wouldn't advocate the DP for anything other than the most extreme crime -i.e. fucking and killing little kids- if at all. But it is a very slippery slope so even executing people that maybe deserve a little revenge is wrong due to the potential from abuse of the system.

But what the hey, I'm from New Zealand and we started acting vaguely civilised in the 60s...

[seanurban]

I don't think that the trend in prison building is linked to population growth and has more to do with the fact that it is growth sector in a privatized industry. Effectively, crime pays for the jailers and the populations of towns that they prisons employ. Prisoners are then a commodity: politically and financially. This is probably the main motivator for the three strikes law in the U.S.

thanks
this is exactly the point that i in my laziness left unsaid.
the full article is here http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/ ... 2-usju.htm

[tipcat]

At its most basic level, the state is an entity ostensibly erected to safeguard the lives of its citizens. As such, it is fundamentally contradictory for that same state to mete out the penalty of death. Period.

To those who would rebut, "unless the death penalty were administered in the name of safeguarding life," I argue that in no case can it be shown that one person poses a threat so dire that every citizen's life (and hence the very existence of the state) is threatened.

[shagboy]

At its most basic level, the state is an entity ostensibly erected to safeguard the lives of its citizens. As such, it is fundamentally contradictory for that same state to mete out the penalty of death. Period.

To those who would rebut, "unless the death penalty were administered in the name of safeguarding life," I argue that in no case can it be shown that one person poses a threat so dire that every citizen's life (and hence the very existence of the state) is threatened.

how about this: person can kill psychically from a jail cell, even when unconscious.