Death Penalty: For or Against?

[MobBoss]

I disagree, I think it is more about increasing the safety of the public. it's less about punishment for wrong-doers, and more about the benefit of everyone else. Criminals have a negative impact on society, so removing them from society is a good way to fix that. I don't really think it should be viewed as punishment, but it certainly is (just not the primary reason IMO).

Fair enough. But in these cases, punishment and this concern still go hand-in-hand.

When you spank a kid, its as much of a lesson or teaching tool as it is as a way to get revenge.

But you dont do that for the safety of the rest of the family. Thats about deterrance more than it is otherwise....but it uses punishment as a means to an end to accomplish that.

 

[civver_764]

Spanking your kid isn't really something to be admired.

 

[Zelig]

No, punishment is the main reason for a prison. Rehab and deterrance secondary to that. Because you simply cant even have rehabilitation and/or deterrance without adequate punishment.

Punishment is increased by the nature of the crime committed. The more serious the crime, the longer the punishment.

Simple.

Fine, but my original post still stands, someone who enjoys inflicting punishment simply for its own sake is a sadist, by definition.

 

[Zardnaar]

One of the reasons they got rid of the death penalty in the UK was that at least 2 people executed turned out to be innocent.

 

[MobBoss]

Spanking your kid isn't really something to be admired.

Not if you spank them needlessly. But thats not the point nor the topic of this thread.

Fine, but my original post still stands, someone who enjoys inflicting punishment simply for its own sake is a sadist, by definition.

Why make references to something not being discussed? No one here is advocating punishment for only its own sake. Neither is the death penalty, nor prison in general, is punishment 'for its own sake' ergo its simply not sadism.

 

[Zelig]

Why make references to something not being discussed? No one here is advocating punishment for only its own sake. Neither is the death penalty, nor prison in general, is punishment 'for its own sake' ergo its simply not sadism.

You did exactly that.

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

You replied:
"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?"

I figured you didn't really think punishment was an end, rather than a means, but wasn't sure why else you'd be replying to my line about punishment being a means to an end, so I asked for clarification:
"What?

I'm not saying punishment shouldn't be part of the justice system, I'm saying it should be used with a goal in mind, either rehabilitation or deterrance. One should not be in favour of increasing punishment simply because they like inflicting pain onto others."

At which point you very clearly replied that you disagree, and that punishment is a end unto itself:
"No, punishment is the main reason for a prison."

Recap: My original comment mentioned sadism, you said you agree with the view which by definition makes you a sadist. After I point this out, you promptly claim that sadism is not being discussed, and that you're not actually arguing for the exact thing you were claiming in the past couple posts.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Spanking your kid isn't really something to be admired.

What is wrong with it, in and of itself?

The more time between cases, the higher likelihood new evidence can turn up...

Yes, but if the evidence is overwelming of guilt, that should be the end of it. If the evidence isn't overwelming, and there is reasonable doubt, they should be released.

I want to see the papers on how much it cost to let these people just rot versus actively going through appeals. Ten bucks says they support people being locked up.

Only if you accept (Which I don't) that our current appeals process is a good idea.

Sure. But if you let a person live 40 years versus killing them after 10, and evidence turns up after 20 that proves them innocent, which side made the right choice?

The ones that let him go. But this does not often occur.

This is why I add "sanctity of innocent life." The "sanctity of life" position seems hypocritical at first glance, but if you clarify that innocent life has different rights from guilty life, then it's not hypocritical at all - a baby hasn't killed anyone. A murderer has.

If we go by the doctrine of reciprocal rights, that means the baby has the right to life; the murderer does not.

This, however, even if the murderers life is valuable just like anyone else (Which I'd agree to), he still has to pay the fair penalty for stealing someone else's life, he has to give up his own life.

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

I tend to agree here.

Who is saying 'all life is sacred'?

While it is true, I don't think anyone said it until just now.

 

[Bamspeedy]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Would these states have lower murder rates whether any state at all had the death penalty or not? This is like comparing the gun related deaths rate of the UK vs the US and saying it is because of the gun laws passed in the 1990's in the UK....... while not finding out that even in 1910, well before any kind of gun laws anywhere the UK had a far lower rate than the US.

While there are a few exceptions (HI, AK, WV), most of the non-death penalty states are in the northeast or upper midwest. There are other factors that can cause a lower murder rate than just the death penalty.

Why do they start the comparison in 1990 when the death penalty was re-instated in 1976?

1990 is when the non-death penalty states peaked in murders, thus they were the closest they would ever be to the death penalty states, thus making any later changes in rates more drastic. A better comparison would have been to compare 1975or 1976 to present.

I compared the rates in 5 year intervals (1960, 1965, 1970, etc.) up to 2005 and then 2009. I didn't add up the populations and figure out a true per capita average, I averaged the states as if they were all equal (a state with 5.0 and a state with 10.0 would average to 7.5). What may work for high population states of New York and California may not work for lower population states.

There is faults with this method as well (Wyoming is treated the same as California), but any method has it's flaws. If a high population state such as New York sees a huge decline in murder rates by not having the death penalty, while a low population state has a huge increase then it makes sense that NY would not want the death penalty and the low population state would want it, but if you are just looking at total population numbers, the result is skewed by the results of high population states.

Percent change in Murder rate
...................................States with.............
.......................No Death...............With Death
Years...................Penalty...............Penalty
1965-2009...........+12.53%..............-11.22%
1970-2009...........-28.37.................-38.71
1975-2009...........-41.70.................-47.91
1980-2009...........-38.29.................-47.29
1985-2009...........-25.03.................-30.96
1990-2009...........-57.49.................-38.26
1995-2009...........-51.03.................-35.90
2000-2009...........-27.61.................-05.51

In 1975, nearly half of the death penalty states (17/36) had a murder rate over 10, but in the non death penalty states there was only 3/13 (note that in 1975 there was no death penalty in any state).

Number of states who saw a decrease of murder rate from 1975-2009

Percent...No Death ............With Death
Drop.......Penalty...............Penalty
70%+......2.......................3
60-70%...0.......................2
50-60%...2.......................12
40-50%...2.......................7
30-40%...2.......................7
20-30%...3.......................4
10-20%...0.......................0
0-10%....1........................1 (LA -6%)
Worse.....1 (ND +87%*).......0

All my calculations excludes Kansas and New York since they changed death penalty status in mid '90's.

New York's murder rate dropped after re-starting the death penalty, but it already was on the decline anyways due to other reasons. NY peaked in 1990 but the rate was already cut in half by the time they restarted the death penalty, and you can't say that not having the death penalty is responsible for that decline unless you want to say that not having it was responsible for it peaking in the first place!).

*If you think ND +87% for not having the death penalty is bad then keep in mind that if I had done 1970-2009 then it was +200%, and if I had done 1980-2009 then South Dakota (with death penalty) was +271%. (A change from 0.7 in 1980 to 2.6 in 2009), but in 1975 (with no death penalty) SD had a rate of 3.7.

Any particular state you could pick certain dates to show an increase or a decrease to support whichever political stance you want to support. Some states would go from a rate of 5.0 to 10.0 in one year, and then back down to 5.0 the next year and the death penalty was certainly not a factor. Whether you compare 1975-2009 or 1980-2009, all states saw a decline of murder rates (except the Dakotas, with SD having the Death Penalty and ND not having it)

Most death penalty states peaked in 1975-1980, so perhaps they saw the need for having the death penalty. The non-death penalty states, if they didn't peak in 1975 (6 states), they peaked in 1990 (DC, WI, RI and NY). Only 2 death penalty states peaked in 1990, (CT and LA), since many saw their peak already in 1975-1980.

Edit: Source comes from this site:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

Just change 'ny' in the link to the abbreviations for the state you want (KN is for kansas rather than KS), and sometimes the e in crime needs to change to n. NY is missing 1960 data and why I started at 1965.

Edit 2: Conclusion

I can see (and perhaps agree with) the argument that the death penalty has no effect on murder rates, but I don't really see the evidence that the death penalty INCREASES murder rates.

 

[Quackers]

I'm against death penalty because of the possibility of innocents getting killed. I don't subscribe to other arguments against it.

If that is your logic then convicted murderers must never be allowed parole because of the chance they will murder an innocent civilian again.

 

[pesgores]

Exterminate people who completely disregard the physical (and in some cases psychological)suffering of others. That kind of *people* can't be rehabilitated in any way. Plus cleanses the world from more who have a higher predisposition to commit murder.

 

[Bei1052]

If you violate someone else's right to live, you lose your own right to live. We follow the format everywhere else, why not here?

 

[bhsup]

I can't really vote in the poll. I don't think the death penalty is a necessary part of justice, but I support its use. There is nothing inherently wrong with the State determining that some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator should answer for them with his/her life, but if the good people of Missouri voted tomorrow to ban it, I'd not lose any sleep. I might "told you so" if five years down the road the State collectively bemoans their decision when a serial pedophile killer is caught, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over them abolishing it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So would you fit with "Only in extreme cases?" Or something different altogether.

 

[bhsup]

Well I guess that depends on what you view as extreme. I personally think the death penalty should be expanded to cover rape, child molestation, kidnapping, and some others. Those are 'extreme' crimes in my book, but not most other peoples'.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think we should have opt-in capital punishment. If you really think it deters you from committing a heinous crime, and you don't care if you might someday be falsely accused and convicted of a crime you didn't actually commit, then go for it.

 

[bhsup]

Proper implementation of the death penalty is an entirely separate issue from, and not really related to, whether you think the death penalty itself is acceptable.

EDIT: dur, missed adding the word 'separate', kind of altering the whole meaning...

 

[MobBoss]

You did exactly that.

No, I didnt. You gave my comments meaning I didnt intend. Thats not an endorsement of punishment for simply punishments sake, but an indication that you cant have rehabilitation or deterrance without punishment.

"No, punishment is the main reason for a prison."

Sure, but no where do I say its the SOLE reason. Sigh. Thats where you misunderstand my comment.

 

[Camikaze]

Any?

Dont you think thats a bit extreme?

Nope, not really. "Oh, whoops, we killed someone innocent," is a bit of a bad thing.

Especially in cases where the evidence is simply overwhelming? Like in the cases of so many serial killers we have seen?

Then it's more about morals.

Also, your comment begs the follow up question. If you require zero percent chance of error there.....how much error do you allow in cases that give life in prison without parole then?

The error can be the same. The difference is that you can release someone from gaol, but you cannot release them from death.

Has there ever been an absolute positively known error in the US death penalty system where an innocent person was put to death since its re-enactment?

Answer:

Spoiler :

Nope.

I'm not going to challenge you on this, but your wording suggests that there have been very dubious cases.

But seriously, you don't have to even go past the fact that it is simply wrong to kill people when there is a cheaper and equally effective alternative available, to oppose the death penalty.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Perhaps you need to tell all the Iraqis and Vietnamese about this particular piece of news. Not to mention the bombed wedding parties in Afghanistan and Yemen.

Oh good lord. We're talking crime and justice, not foreign policy.

Also. Of course innocent people are going to be killed in wars.

One of the more interesting little factoids about the US is that, despite a 1995 Congressional Mandate, there are no statistics about how many people the police kill.

I'm sure there's a rational explanation besides some authoritarian conspiracy.

Any?

Dont you think thats a bit extreme?

Do you think it was a bit extreme to advocate keeping DA;DT based on the idea 1/1000 of the soldiers might engage in violence against gays?

Clearly a minority incident should determine the overarching policy...

Spanking your kid isn't really something to be admired.

Au contraire. If the parent is disciplining their child for bad behavior, I think it's something to be admired - parental discipline is sorely lacking in many cases.

Now, if they were spanking just for the hell of it, that's different.

Yes, but if the evidence is overwelming of guilt, that should be the end of it. If the evidence isn't overwelming, and there is reasonable doubt, they should be released.

Even so, you can't extract the fruits of their labor if they're a corpse.

As for the appeals, they are a near-guarantee no innocent will be executed, unlike a one or two trials approach.

This, however, even if the murderers life is valuable just like anyone else (Which I'd agree to), he still has to pay the fair penalty for stealing someone else's life, he has to give up his own life.

Let me tell you a story that was shared to me by a very educated Polish friend of mine.

In Pre-Catholic Ireland, there was no death penalty when a family man murdered another family man. Why? Because the murdered man's family now didn't have someone to support them, and by killing his killer, there'd be no one to support that family either. You'd have a net loss of two workers and plenty of suffering by their dependents as a result.

What was the punishment, you ask? They forced the murderer to work, and split his earnings between both families. The death penalty became popular when the Catholic Church arrived.

And this woman's also a strong Catholic, so she's not biased at all.

The point is, it's wiser economically speaking to keep the murderer around and try to make some monetary use of them. Hell, I'm sure plenty aren't completely psychotic and probably wouldn't kill again.

 

[Communisto]

Against. It's just one of those things that can't be justified so long as a margin of error exists.

Exception made for war criminals.