Death Penalty - Punishment or Murder?

[Khamsin]

On the most basic level of humanitarianism, what are we trying to accomplish? Big picture. From world relief efforts (hunger, natural disaster, medical) to capital punishment, from clothing drives to charitable donations, from the spotted owl to the blue whale, from global warming to peace treaties, from labor laws to menopause (just because it rhymes) to saving the forests... why?

Ultimately, we want to increase the collective number of man-hours of existance of humans and compatible (symbiotic) lifeforms, while eliminating that which inhibits this goal.

Whatever the immediate impacts or moral reasonings for any humanitarian cause, no matter how far of a stretch you have to make, it eventually trickles down to that.

Somebody running around murdering people inhibits this goal, and this goal is better reached without said people running around murdering people. Granted, there are flaws with the system, and humans aren't omniscient. But what we do is better than not doing anything at all. Doesn't mean there aren't better ways of achieving the ultimate humanitarian goal, but those better ways certainly don't include letting murderers stick around.

Imagine if you could play god for a moment, and had a means of determining what impact the life of one person had on the longevity of others' lives. e.g. you knew that by eliminating person #1,273,490,883 that twenty other people would live for another 40 years each, on average. If you could manage the world from this vantage point, would you not work toward that ultimate humanitarian goal? Or would you just let things run its course, and not work to increase the collective life of the world?

This is not a humanitarian effort I am championing. It is an opinion I hold. I am not trying to quantify it with something like 'productive man-years saved' as that wouldn't be realistic to calculate nor particularly significant to my point. My point is about natural laws: that each individual person have a right to life. I think it is appropriate to 100% remove offenders from society, but not to take their life. They may have taken this right from someone else, but in my opinion (and I emphasize that is just that), it does not mean the government has the right to do it to them.

You're wrong. It is your opinion that the government does have the right to do it, and I can point you to the laws and constitutional amendments that clearly state what your opinion shall be.

If that's not enough, then all in favor of evilbau believing in the validity of government sanctioned executions? Aye! All opposed? The ayes win! You believe in the validity of government sanctioned executions now!

[Fuuko]

The only problem I have with the death penalty is that somewhere, somehow an innocent person is going to be killed. Even in the best humanly possible system. So I think it should only be reserved when guilt is pretty much 99.9999999%. It will still not be 100% though =/

Here's two choices, pick the one you prefer:

A) a few innocent people and hundreds of guilty people killed.
B) 0 guilty people and hundreds of innocent people killed.

A is what happens when you institute the death penalty, B is what happens when you abolish it. There's no third choice, and anyone who says there is is dealing with a case of denial and idealism.

I'm not saying abolish it, just saying don't use it in cases where its he said she said guess work. Like those cases were you have two guys, one of whom killed someone. They both swear up and down the other one did it, but person B takes a plea, and person A gets death. I just don't think it should be used in cases like that is all.

I think there was a study recently that showed that 18 lives are saved for each death penalty, or something like that.

[Devek]

Imagine if you could play god for a moment, and had a means of determining what impact the life of one person had on the longevity of others' lives. e.g. you knew that by eliminating person #1,273,490,883 that twenty other people would live for another 40 years each, on average. If you could manage the world from this vantage point, would you not work toward that ultimate humanitarian goal? Or would you just let things run its course, and not work to increase the collective life of the world?

Well, a better question is this.

Lets just say that these pedo-rapist-murderers had some sort of significant mental defect (which I kind of feel they do, since normal healthy people don't even consider doing those type of activities).

Lets say there was a guaranteed treatment to fix these people with lets say.. a simple surgery? (which at this time, there is none). How would people feel about fixing this guy and letting him back out on the street with the knowledge he would live a productive life, pay taxes, benefit everyone around him, and not hurt anyone?

Total pipe dream today, but who knows maybe someday we will be able to do that. In the meantime..

I don't consider life sentences without the possibility of parole, since they are even stupider than the death penalty.

What are you trying to say exactly? You have a better idea besides killing them in the same batch with the innocents?

[Khamsin]

Lets say there was a guaranteed treatment to fix these people with lets say.. a simple surgery? (which at this time, there is none). How would people feel about fixing this guy and letting him back out on the street with the knowledge he would live a productive life, pay taxes, benefit everyone around him, and not hurt anyone?

Total pipe dream today, but who knows maybe someday we will be able to do that. In the meantime..

You can bet that, at least in the US and other wealthy, civilized first world countries that currently utilize the death penalty, once such a surgery becomes routine, it will be requested by the criminals' lawyers and will be granted in lieu of the death penalty. In time, it would likely replace it completely. Remember, the court system is separated from sensationalism and kept objective. People like that girl's father would propose death no matter what, but as far as what would actually happen in the legal proceedings, such a surgery would be taken advantage of.

[divisortheory]

I don't consider life sentences without the possibility of parole, since they are even stupider than the death penalty.

What are you trying to say exactly? You have a better idea besides killing them in the same batch with the innocents?

I'm saying that, in my opinion, you forfeit your right to life when you take someone else's. And no, I don't have any better ideas than killing them in the same batch with the innocents. But since (imo) the guilty have already forfeit their right to life when they committed the crime, putting them in jail forever (or even keeping them on death row for 20 years) is wasteful, and punishment should be carried out swiftly. The number of lives saved directly (by preventing them from killing again if/when they get released) and indirectly (by deterring other people from comitting crimes) will outweigh the number of innocent people that are killed via the death penalty. The end result is that after a given number years, with a swift death penalty system in place fewer innocent people will have lost their lives than if a slow or non-existant death penalty system is in place.

Lets say there was a guaranteed treatment to fix these people with lets say.. a simple surgery? (which at this time, there is none). How would people feel about fixing this guy and letting him back out on the street with the knowledge he would live a productive life, pay taxes, benefit everyone around him, and not hurt anyone?

This seems overly hypothetical. While I can see future medical techniques possibly being able to fix someone who has mental incompetencies, I can't see it being able to fix someone who is simply a cold blooded killer, perhaps a product of the environment he was raised in.

[Shuemue]

[Samuel L. Jackson] Yes they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in Hell. [/Samuel L. Jackson]

[Khamsin]

This seems overly hypothetical. While I can see future medical techniques possibly being able to fix someone who has mental incompetencies, I can't see it being able to fix someone who is simply a cold blooded killer, perhaps a product of the environment he was raised in.

There have been studies into what parts of the brain are activated when such emotions and urges are felt, and while it means little today, someday they may discover specific portions of the brain that they could remove or stimulate to alter peoples' behavior to better control them. In genetics, there have been discoveries of a number of genes that influence various traits in people. It may also be possible someday to genetically engineer some traits out of an unborn child.

One day, when such procedues are commonplace and are no longer controversial, what Devek proposes could be possible. They may even discover additional ways to utilize such surgeries and genetic engineering beyond simple altering criminals. It's an exciting new area that we're just getting into and could mean a lot for the future of our society.

[divisortheory]

This seems overly hypothetical. While I can see future medical techniques possibly being able to fix someone who has mental incompetencies, I can't see it being able to fix someone who is simply a cold blooded killer, perhaps a product of the environment he was raised in.

There have been studies into what parts of the brain are activated when such emotions and urges are felt, and while it means little today, someday they may discover specific portions of the brain that they could remove or stimulate to alter peoples' behavior to better control them. In genetics, there have been discoveries of a number of genes that influence various traits in people. It may also be possible someday to genetically engineer some traits out of an unborn child.

One day, when such procedues are commonplace and are no longer controversial, what Devek proposes could be possible. They may even discover additional ways to utilize such surgeries and genetic engineering beyond simple altering criminals. It's an exciting new area that we're just getting into and could mean a lot for the future of our society.

I'm aware of such studies, I just think that it's far more likely they will be able to "unlearn" genetic traits as opposed to conditioned traits.

[evilbau]

On the most basic level of humanitarianism, what are we trying to accomplish? Big picture. From world relief efforts (hunger, natural disaster, medical) to capital punishment, from clothing drives to charitable donations, from the spotted owl to the blue whale, from global warming to peace treaties, from labor laws to menopause (just because it rhymes) to saving the forests... why?

Ultimately, we want to increase the collective number of man-hours of existance of humans and compatible (symbiotic) lifeforms, while eliminating that which inhibits this goal.

Whatever the immediate impacts or moral reasonings for any humanitarian cause, no matter how far of a stretch you have to make, it eventually trickles down to that.

Somebody running around murdering people inhibits this goal, and this goal is better reached without said people running around murdering people. Granted, there are flaws with the system, and humans aren't omniscient. But what we do is better than not doing anything at all. Doesn't mean there aren't better ways of achieving the ultimate humanitarian goal, but those better ways certainly don't include letting murderers stick around.

Imagine if you could play god for a moment, and had a means of determining what impact the life of one person had on the longevity of others' lives. e.g. you knew that by eliminating person #1,273,490,883 that twenty other people would live for another 40 years each, on average. If you could manage the world from this vantage point, would you not work toward that ultimate humanitarian goal? Or would you just let things run its course, and not work to increase the collective life of the world?

This is not a humanitarian effort I am championing. It is an opinion I hold. I am not trying to quantify it with something like 'productive man-years saved' as that wouldn't be realistic to calculate nor particularly significant to my point. My point is about natural laws: that each individual person have a right to life. I think it is appropriate to 100% remove offenders from society, but not to take their life. They may have taken this right from someone else, but in my opinion (and I emphasize that is just that), it does not mean the government has the right to do it to them.

You're wrong. It is your opinion that the government does have the right to do it, and I can point you to the laws and constitutional amendments that clearly state what your opinion shall be.

If that's not enough, then all in favor of evilbau believing in the validity of government sanctioned executions? Aye! All opposed? The ayes win! You believe in the validity of government sanctioned executions now!

lol, i already agreed its valid... legally. A lot of things are legal in a lot of countries, but that doesn't necessarily mean I find it compatible with my morality.

I'm saying that, in my opinion, you forfeit your right to life when you take someone else's. And no, I don't have any better ideas than killing them in the same batch with the innocents. But since (imo) the guilty have already forfeit their right to life when they committed the crime, putting them in jail forever (or even keeping them on death row for 20 years) is wasteful, and punishment should be carried out swiftly. The number of lives saved directly (by preventing them from killing again if/when they get released) and indirectly (by deterring other people from comitting crimes) will outweigh the number of innocent people that are killed via the death penalty. The end result is that after a given number years, with a swift death penalty system in place fewer innocent people will have lost their lives than if a slow or non-existant death penalty system is in place.

The effect as a deterrent is so nebulous, and so incalculable and unquantifiable, that it should not be used as evidence for or against the death penalty. Unless you have some sources? I also don't agree with 'if/when they get released' because I find it hard to imagine that those which would ordinarily get sentenced to death would not get the next logical sentence: life imprisonment without parole.

[Khamsin]

The effect as a deterrent is so nebulous, and so incalculable and unquantifiable, that it should not be used as evidence for or against the death penalty. Unless you have some sources? I also don't agree with 'if/when they get released' because I find it hard to imagine that those which would ordinarily get sentenced to death would not get the next logical sentence: life imprisonment without parole.

Well, you could use some common sense to determine that it would deter people.

Afterall, if you had a cookie in your hand and I told you that if you ate it, the guy with the gun to your head would pull the trigger, then you probably wouldn't eat it.

Same thing, just replace the cookie with a murder weapon... and replace the "eating" with "killing".

[evilbau]

The effect as a deterrent is so nebulous, and so incalculable and unquantifiable, that it should not be used as evidence for or against the death penalty. Unless you have some sources? I also don't agree with 'if/when they get released' because I find it hard to imagine that those which would ordinarily get sentenced to death would not get the next logical sentence: life imprisonment without parole.

Well, you could use some common sense to determine that it would deter people.

Afterall, if you had a cookie in your hand and I told you that if you ate it, the guy with the gun to your head would pull the trigger, then you probably wouldn't eat it.

Same thing, just replace the cookie with a murder weapon... and replace the "eating" with "killing".

well, its not as simple as that. This is getting off point, and this is conjecture, but there are a certain percentage of the death-row inmates who live on the fringe of society, they may face death daily, so the death penalty may have not have any effect at all. To use your analogy, what if the consequences of being caught by the cookie owner for stealing was being killed, but being caught by the police meant getting executed, would you be any less deterred from trying to get the cookie? Would the mentally ill who by their very disease may not realize the consequences of their actions? Does it have an effect on crimes of passion?

Common sense WOULD dictate that it is more likely to deter than not, but is the effect (statistically) significant? That is what I'm driving at. There are no conclusive studies that I know of which can quantify it. I don't think you can fairly say it directly/indirectly causes/prevents saves/kills more/less lives. There is no concrete data on this.

[divisortheory]

well, its not as simple as that. This is getting off point, and this is conjecture, but there are a certain percentage of the death-row inmates who live on the fringe of society, they may face death daily, so the death penalty may have not have any effect at all.

That's the point. They may face death daily. But then again, they may not. They may sit on death row for the rest of their life like everyone else who abuses the legal systems and files countless pointless appeals just to drag out the process. This is why I was careful to use the word "swiftly". The way we do it now isn't a deterrent at all, because people aren't afraid of the joke that is our capital punishment system. If people absolutely knew beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that pulling this trigger = certain unavoidable death in the next 2 months, you might see different results.

[Tyche]

I used to be against the death penalty, then I went to law school and had a baby girl. I'd pull the damn trigger myself if someone raped, assaulted, and buried my daughter alive...if they confessed to it. In all seriousness, Death Penalty in cases where a lot of the evidence is circumstantial (even if it is one hell of a circumstance) and there are no witnesses, etc, etc, I'm completely against it. In cases with 1 or more credible witnesses and a mound of evidence, they need to be in the carpool lane to the death chamber, especially in cases with women and children that involve sexual assault. I know you can't put value on human life, but if there's a child involved, I'd sit em in the chair as I was handing down the sentence.

[Khamsin]

well, its not as simple as that. This is getting off point, and this is conjecture, but there are a certain percentage of the death-row inmates who live on the fringe of society, they may face death daily, so the death penalty may have not have any effect at all.

That's the point. They may face death daily. But then again, they may not. They may sit on death row for the rest of their life like everyone else who abuses the legal systems and files countless pointless appeals just to drag out the process. This is why I was careful to use the word "swiftly". The way we do it now isn't a deterrent at all, because people aren't afraid of the joke that is our capital punishment system. If people absolutely knew beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that pulling this trigger = certain unavoidable death in the next 2 months, you might see different results.

Exactly. When a rapist, serial killer, domestically violent spouse, jilted lover, drug addict, armed robber, gang member, insane asylum escapee, whoever is standing there, finger on the trigger, considering their options and carefully weighing the consequences of each one, if the consequence of carrying through means certain death, then it will deter them.

At the moment, it just means possible certain death with a lot of waiting.

[evilbau]

well, its not as simple as that. This is getting off point, and this is conjecture, but there are a certain percentage of the death-row inmates who live on the fringe of society, they may face death daily, so the death penalty may have not have any effect at all.

That's the point. They may face death daily. But then again, they may not. They may sit on death row for the rest of their life like everyone else who abuses the legal systems and files countless pointless appeals just to drag out the process. This is why I was careful to use the word "swiftly". The way we do it now isn't a deterrent at all, because people aren't afraid of the joke that is our capital punishment system. If people absolutely knew beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that pulling this trigger = certain unavoidable death in the next 2 months, you might see different results.

Executing a swift sentence would certainly be more of a deterrent than what is the current system, but it would circumvent people's right to properly appeal a conviction. I am also disgusted with how criminals can drag this process out, but that is due to inefficiencies and the workload of the judicial system, not a flaw of the system itself. I'm definitely not saying its flawless, but the solution shouldn't be a mandated time period before execution and denying a thorough appeals process.

I'm glad you agree with my point. If you missed it, it was that we can't quantify its effect so we can't make statements like that the crimes prevented "indirectly (by deterring other people from comitting crimes) will outweigh the number of innocent people that are killed via the death penalty." Swiftly or not, there is no un-debunked conclusive data on the deterrent effect of capital punishment (that I know of), for you to make those statements. I see that in the part I quoted you were more measured in your response. I certainly agree what you propose probably would affect its deterrent effects, but I doubt it would ever be able to be verified.

Always the curious guy, I have been trying to find stats of death row inmates broken down by economic status and crime committed, and came across this: http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Its very concise, but might be useful for clarifying your position for those who are 'shooting opinions from the hip', so to speak.

edit: this site is pretty interesting as well http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

I went to the DOJ's site and their information is a bit sparse: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

[Xiona]

killing them is just a quick fix really. i dont care so much if current inmates are getting reformed, but id rather see research done on violent criminals and sex offenders to find ways to prevent this.

killing them just makes you just as bad as them really. although if youre a kantian/retributionist, then youd see the only moral solution is to treat them as they treat others (executioned). a lot of violent crimes could be taken care of through better education and actually reducing the poverty rates by a signifigant amount. a lot of violent crimes inmates spring from gang related instances, which they join gangs for safety and monetary advancement.

we can keep pulling the weeds out of the lawn, or we could ignore the top soil and go directly for the roots

[Nirokun!]

punishment.

whoever stated the general idea that denying someone else's right to live voids their own, i agree with

[Sadler]

denying someone else's right to live voids their own

You wanna take down the Government while your at it? Maybe have every president killed after his time in office?

Problem is there are too many things that make the death penality stupid if you define it by certain "do this, get this" laws.

this isnt aimed at Nirokun, just something to think about with people who agree with that statement.

[Nirokun!]

denying someone else's right to live voids their own

You wanna take down the Government while your at it? Maybe have every president killed after his time in office?

Problem is there are too many things that make the death penality stupid if you define it by certain "do this, get this" laws.

this isnt aimed at Nirokun, just something to think about with people who agree with that statement.

what is the bolded supposed to mean?

government sanctioned... lets say~ "denial of the right to live" seems ok to me, especially for murders and the like

[Marquisate]

In my first year Criminal Law class we looked at at least half a dozen people who were executed based on faulty eyewitness reports, lack of DNA testing, coerced confessions, etc. Can these wrongfully-executed men ever be proven "innocent"? No, they're already dead so there's really no way to prove they didn't do the crime... there's just absolutely no credible evidence suggesting that they DID commit it.

At the time of their execution, each of these men had what seemed to be airtight cases made against them. Then, a few years later, it turns out that the eyewitness who pegged one man as a shooter was a cocaine addict who made up his testimony because he had been picked up for possession. Or that another supposed killer looked nearly identical to another man who had a personal enmity with the victim, plus a long criminal record, and was in the area at the time... and the "eyewitness" couldn't tell them apart successfully.

You can't play "breaking a few eggs to make an omelet" with human lives. This is the main reason I don't support the death penalty, the fact that it's not a proven effective deterrent, that the requisite appeals process makes death sentences more expensive than life without parole sentences, and the other arguments against the death penalty aside.

denying someone else's right to live voids their own

So when do we apply the death penalty? First-degree murders? Second-degree murders? Manslaughter? Criminally-negligent homicides? What does it mean to "deny someone else's right to live"? To cause someone else's death? How responsible for the death do you have to be to get the death penalty under this rule? 1%? 50%? 51%? What if there are mitigating factors or co-participants?

Turn that into a generalizable rule that can cover all homicides and shades of guilt and you're getting somewhere. Until you define what it means to "deny someone else's right to live" then you're getting nowhere fast.