Death Penalty: For or Against?

[Yared]

Is there any evidence to suggest that death penalty worked as a good enough deterrent back when it was legal?

 

[El_Machinae]

There tend to be two sets of statistics: (a) deterrence due to proper use of the death penalty, when it's available and (b) deterrence due to the mere presence of a death penalty.

IIRC, the successful use of a DP has a short-term societal deterrence effect. In that, a successful use or a failure to use (e.g., a governors' stay, etc.) will help sway the number of murders for a bit of time afterward. So, there's an effect due to (a) that would meet casual predictions.

Unfortunately, the mere presence of a death penalty requires a more savage and barbaric people. More savage and barbaric peoples are more likely to have murderers. So, the mere presence of a legal DP will cause the total number of murders to rise compared to regions without a DP (because the legal DP is social savagery written into public acceptance). Even regions that benefit from (a) will suffer due to (b), so the DP not only costs more, but doesn't save lives.

 

[metatron]

It's not my idea. William II Rufus of England used that very same idea to keep sexual crimes low.

Oh. So you didn't do that on purpose.

A parapraxis is a freudian slip. You called that punishment "an appropriate crime for rape" in such a slip. Which did fit your (and my) position well.

 

[Machiavelo]

Against. An eye for eye could make us blind. The price of a judiciary error should never be the life of someone. Except for High Treason and war time

 

[Zack]

 

[GhostWriter16]

Life imprisonment isn't a light sentence. People who commit murder simply do not consider the punishment they might face.

The problem is, parole laws change, and people who are given "Life without parole" still get parole. If we actually made it impossible to change the laws (If you commit premeditated murder, you aren't leaving jail unless found to be innocent, even if parole laws change), then I'd be more OK with it. I'd still support the DP, but it would make more sense.

Currently? Serving the whole life sentence isn't common.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/annual/section2.html#murder

I know this is just Florida, but I consider it balanced enough due to Florida being a swing state in the US. For murder, average sentences are far less than life. For rape, a couple of years. That is RIDICULOUS. Hang the scum! Or at the very least, keep them in their cages for the rest of their lives.

Also, notorious gang members can often survive longer on Death Row than out on the streets, simply because they're protected from violence and appeals take so many years, often using public lawyers, I fail to see how simply locking them up normally is not any cheaper.

Probably using the current system (Which is ridiculous since they can appeal the sentence and their technical charges, they should only be able to appeal if they feel they were innocent and the first trial was done unfairly, and only one appeal.)

Get rid of the death penalty, and you'll get better convictions in the first place.

No, these are not separate. DON'T CONVICT people who aren't proven guilty in accordance with Constitutional Law.

Killing people solves nothing. If you really want to have an appropriate crime for rape, you castrate the offender. It's much simpler.

I would have no issue with that. Though most people would.

Pro-lifers would be against this.

I'm pro-life, and I'm not against this. Serial Killers and innocent children aren't one and the same.

Pros:

It prevents repeat murders. Also arguably celebrates the dignity of the victim by saying that thou shalt not murder(first, anyway).

More expensive than life - to the tune of 1.1 million more per person.

Because our appeal system is insane, allowing TEN YEARS, sometimes more, of appeals. I understand appeals are necessary, but since the Feds have no control of punishing crime, SCOTUS has no right to be involved in the case. And the State Court, while constitutionally allowed to be involved, should not be. One appeal, if you feel there is a breach of justice and you weren't tried fairly, and that's it.

Death is not the worst of fates as easy as it is to believe. Mercy killing, anyone?

Well, allowing the government to TORTURE people would be more of an abuse of liberty. While I might like to see it in some cases, its still morally wrong. Just kill the scum and let God judge them.

1/4 of death row inmates die of natural causes.

Again, because appeals take too long.

Can't be reversed.

Neither can life once its been served.

Gives an arguably detrimental power to the state: the power to take the right to life away from its citizens, the most sacred right from which all others are derived.

I personally believe killing murderers is a part of natural law (I cite Gen 9:6 to prove this), and that the government NOT killing murderers means it is not doing its duty to protect its citizens. There are exceptions certainly, such as insanity, but I believe that as a general rule they are obligated to kill murderers.

Its primarily about punishment. While rehabilitation is indeed attempted, its not always successful.

Well, if we are going to enforce laws against things like drugs for "People's own good," rehab had BETTER be the goal. For moderate crimes, such as theft, this should be the case as well simply because a thief can be redeemed. A murderer however, took someone else's right to live away, so they lose theirs, just as a criminal (Should) have to pay restitution for his crime, the murderer must pay with his life.

Whats immoral about putting someone to death that has been shown to murder others. Doesnt it keep them from killing even more people in the future?

On average yes, but it should because of the mandatory appeal process of the death penalty. If we made appeal mandatory for life sentences, you would see the costs involved there increase significantly as well.

And then they'd say "Well then sentence them to less than life" and we'd come to a worse situation.

So I'd A: Reduce appeals overall and B: Make them mandatory for any long sentence (10 + years.)

False. In fact, even to date, there has never been a confirmed innocent person wrongfully accused, and even those suspected are less than a handful. Thats out of thousands upon thousands of executions via our system. I would say thats plenty accurate enough.

There's no such thing as "Accurate enough" short of 100%, but we are doing pretty well. In places like China where trials aren't determined fairly, I'd say they should eliminate capital punishment. But not here, we are doing as well as we can. Not suggesting we shouldn't improve, but we are doing well.

No, as there is a difference in an innocent child and a murderer.

Because Gandhi was perfect

 

[Tee Kay]

Because Gandhi was perfect

...which of course is completely missing the point of the post.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Or rather "Because everyone pokes someone's eye out."

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm pro-life, and I'm not against this. Serial Killers and innocent children aren't one and the same.

Either you hold human life sacred or you don't.

Well, allowing the government to TORTURE people would be more of an abuse of liberty. While I might like to see it in some cases, its still morally wrong. Just kill the scum and let God judge them.

No... if you kill the guy then you're the one dealing out judgement.

I'm not going to say much because our views on this issue are very different and I'm too tired to try to reconcile them at the moment.

Or rather "Because everyone pokes someone's eye out."

And you missed the point a second time!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Either you hold human life sacred or you don't.

This could also be used against the pro-choice anti-death crowd. Hence I will consider it for the CFC quote of the month in January.

However, this doesn't hold. I can hold INNOCENT life sacred, but I can say GUILTY people lost that right.

No... if you kill the guy then you're the one dealing out judgement.

At God's command. Hence a Natural Law.

From a secular point of view, I would consider it a natural law along the same vein of retribution. You pay back an equal price for your crime. By taking someone else's life, you owe them your life. Since the victim is not able to ask the state not to execute you, you should be executed.

 

[MobBoss]

Well. What is left but to wish you a happy journey on the denial boat.

Its not denial. I have actually looked into a bit, and my comments reflective on the fact that I can find multiple studies that both claim there is and is not that effect by the death penalty.

I hope climate change deniers, creationists and islamophobes make for a decent game of cards.

As opposed to?

We could execute you. And me. It would keep us from killing people in the future.

Who did we murder?

Unfortunatly cruelty is a completely relative and subjective thing.

Fortunately, we have these things called 'courts' to sort that out for us.

The marginal difference (between execution and life imprisonment) in preventing further death is negligible, and is outweighed by the possibility of innocence, and the simple fact that execution involves killing someone.

At what percentage point does the possibility of innocence decline enough for you to support the death penalty?

Well, I think one has to be particularly sadistic to think of punishment as an end, rather than a means of deterrence.

How can there be rehabilitation without punishment? How do you know what you did is wrong and you shouldnt do it again without punishment? If there is no punishment why not just do what you did again and again?

 

[useless]

No, no. You are such a massive hypocrite if you talk about the sancity of life, whilst advocating executions. Both are incompatible and you should be called out on this!

 

[Tee Kay]

However, this doesn't hold. I can hold INNOCENT life sacred, but I can say GUILTY people lost that right.

Guilty of what? And if they're guilty of a crime, that made them less than human?

From a secular point of view, I would consider it a natural law along the same vein of retribution. You pay back an equal price for your crime. By taking someone else's life, you owe them your life. Since the victim is not able to ask the state not to execute you, you should be executed.

Except there's nothing inherently "natural" about that.

 

[MobBoss]

No, no. You are such a massive hypocrite if you talk about the sancity of life, whilst advocating executions. Both are incompatible and you should be called out on this!

If you are utterly unwilling to accept his clarification, then why discuss it further? There is indeed a difference in innocent life lost and punishing criminal behavior, just like there is a difference in the word murder and the word kill.

But you have to be willing to admit there is a difference. If your're not willing, then there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Tee Kay]

The only thing that distinguishes executions from murders in general is the law that made exceptions for state-sponsered killing of convicts.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Guilty of what? And if they're guilty of a crime, that made them less than human?

Nope, still human. But them losing their life is the price they have to pay, just like a thief should have to pay fines for his crime.

 

[useless]

Sorry I didn't realise that you knew what God's view on life was, Thanks for telling me what God believes.

If you take the premise that all life is sacred and then say "oh but well you know, this man he can hang..." then not only is it hypocritical, there is no consistency.

 

[MobBoss]

The only thing that distinguishes executions from murders in general is the law that made exceptions for state-sponsered killing of convicts.

There's a bit more than that. But if thats how you wish to see it, then you will.

Sorry I didn't realise that you knew what God's view on life was, Thanks for telling me what God believes.

Well, we have the bible for that reference. Were people put to death for their crimes in the bible? Should be an easy answer.

If you take the premise that all life is sacred and then say "oh but well you know, this man he can hang..." then not only is it hypocritical, there is no consistency.

Who is saying 'all life is sacred'?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The only thing that distinguishes defending yourself in war from murders in general is the law that made exceptions for state-sponsered killing of enemy soldiers in combat

Thus I prove killing =/= murder, unless you agree to my modification of your post.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Thus I prove killing =/= murder, unless you agree to my modification of your post.

No. The point trying to be made there is that this distinction is completely arbitrary, and there is nothing natural about it. In the same way, the definition of what nets a death sentence is also completely arbitrary.