Rabid Dogs (The Death Penalty)

[Arminius]

I was introduced to a new argument for the death penalty today. The argument likened murders to rabid dogs. They are afflicted with a disease that we cannot cure, and thus for the good of society we put them down. The argument that we cannot cure is supplimented with the fact that most convicted murders who escape or are released commit more murders.

Now, I love to play the Devil's Advocate, but this argument has me stumped. What logical arguments would you make against such a statement? In the end, coupled with the argument that even if an innocent is killed, more innocents are saved, this argument seems bulletproof.

Thoughts?

 

[Dragonlord]

They are afflicted with a disease that we cannot cure, and thus for the good of society we put them down. The argument that we cannot cure is supplimented with the fact that most convicted murders who escape or are released commit more murders.

Not really a new argument at all! This comparison has been made many times...

The above quote is where the argument breaks down - these are assumptions, not facts. Also, it's a flawed analogy:
Rabies is a communicable disease, a mad dog must primarily be shot because he communicates this deadly disease by his bite, not because of the actual damage he does.
Murder is not a disease, and it certainly can not be communicated like a disease! Thus the rabies analogy is not applicable.

Edit: BTW, this does not mean I'm necessarily summarily opposed to the death penalty - only that one has to be very, very, very careful how one applies it and to whom. 'Eye for an eye' is not enough reason to execute someone. OTOH, if you really do have a homicidal psychopath 'mad dog' whom you can never release into society, better to shoot him and have done with it.

I'd also like to see proof for the 'most convicted murderers.. commit more murders' statement! Certainly, some do, but many do not.

The truth is that murderers are not all of a kind. Some are indeed sick (e.g. sociopaths), and, if they can't be cured, certainly should not be released into society.
Surprisingly many are just normal people, though, who under certain circumstances and stresses did a deed which they would not necessarily repeat.
Anyone can be a murderer under the right circumstances - which is more frightening than the 'they're all abnormal' point of view... precisely the reason so many people like that point of view.

 

[DexterJ]

I dont agree with the rabies analogy because it seems to suggest murder is a biological trait, something that sets murderers apart from 'normal' people. I think serial killing is very rare:
of the 3,452 inmates on Death Row as of Jan 1, 1999, 9% had a prior homicide conviction at the time of the murder

and so most murderers do not reoffend.

Most murders are also spur of the moment occurances rather than pre-meditated by a cold blooded killer.

It is immoral to increase someone’s punishment on the belief that they will commit another crime at a later date;you could argue that robbers should be executed to prevent them reoffending, or at least locked up forever.

Although obviously murder is far worse than robbery they are both still crimes. Why is murder similar to rabies (or any disease that we cannot cure) but robbery is not? the severity of the crime?

Comparing people to animals or a disease in order to justify killing them is more than a little suspect.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think this "rabid dog" argument is in fact not an argument, but an analogy. You can not use an analogy to demonstrate or prove anything, so case closed.
Plus, as Dragonlord said, it's not even a well-thought analogy...

 

[Timko]

I would have thought that one of the main reasons to kill a rabid dog, apart from the fact that it can spread the disease, was that it was incredibly painful. Even if you could safely (and cheaply) isolate it, it would be in everyones (including the dog's) interest to kill it.

This would make it a better argument for euthanasia than death penalty. As you said:
"They are afflicted with a disease that we cannot cure, and thus for the good of society we put them down."

Why are people against euthanasia? Is it a religious thing?

 

[DexterJ]

This would make it a better argument for euthanasia than death penalty. As you said:
"They are afflicted with a disease that we cannot cure, and thus for the good of society we put them down."

I'm not sure about that, I would hope in the case of euthanasia that it was the individual choosing to end their own life (for whatever reason) rather than others ending it 'for the good of society'. The former is what they have in Switzerland and Holland, the latter is what they had in Nazi Germany.

 

[Mise]

It's quite easy to prove that rabid dogs are in fact rabid. But even if you have 100% faith in the courts, Dragonlord, Masquerogue, Dexter and Timko made better arguements.

 

[Scuffer]

The argument hinges on whether it is a disease we can not cure. If it isn't, the argument falls through.

If it is, should it then be applied to people who have dangerous mental diseases that can not be cured?

 

[The Last Conformist]

The analogy makes the bizarre assumption there is only one one cause for being a murderer.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The death penalty is murder carried out by the state. Murder is wrong. What is the penalty for committing murder? Murder...

The death penalty is illogical, but justified in certain extreme cases.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

The death penalty is murder carried out by the state. Murder is wrong. What is the penalty for committing murder? Murder...

The death penalty is illogical, but justified in certain extreme cases.

Killing an innocent person and killing just about the worst sort of person physically imaginable are not the same thing.

 

[Arminius]

I extend my apologies, you are all correct that it is an analogy. However, most murders have a slightly different development of the brain. We cannot reverse such "damage". So in a way, those who would kill (in an unjustifiable manner), are "suffering" from a malformation that they cannot help. As for most released (violent) murders commiting more murders; that's the stance of most legal entities. A good place to discover such information is LexisNexis, but it cost money to go to if you don't have a connection. (A good thing about going to University, it's all free!) And if I posted a link it would just ask you to join LexisNexis. I hesitate to use Google, as it is has been found to have only ~28% factual, reference-worth information.

@ Dragonlord: Yes, many kinds of people kill people. The difference to me is that there is (a) justifiable homicide, (b) unintentional manslaughter, (c) reckless endangerment that ends in manslaughter, (d) homicide of passion, and (e) calculated murder. All except (e) are what I would consider normal folks in extreme situations. Those that fall into (e) are the one that I think should be executed. My above argument applies only to them.

@DexterJ: Those facts are skewed. Consider what I said. Most RELEASED or ESCAPED murderers commit more murders. How many of the people on Death Row have been RELEASED or have ESCAPED? That narrows the numbers a bit. At any rate; again, see that I am speaking of those truly guilty of First-Degree Murder (i.e. premeditated).

@Timko: I think it's in society's best interest to kill these people. What's wrong with euthanasia? I think people are worried it will be misused by doctors. Personally: no problems.

@Bozo Erectus: If we consider these people dangerous to the rest of society then the punishment becomes logical. It isn't really that we're punishing them, we're protecting ourselves.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I extend my apologies, you are all correct that it is an analogy. However, most murders have a slightly different development of the brain. We cannot reverse such "damage". So in a way, those who would kill (in an unjustifiable manner), are "suffering" from a malformation that they cannot help.

That doesn't follow unless it also be demonstrated that people with this deviant brain development all or almost all become murderers. If there are peaceful law-abiding citizens with the same deviancy, clearly one can overcome the killer urge.

 

[E-Raser]

Death penalty should be banned. I is a democtacy unworthy. Furthermore it isn't penalty - it is simply revenge. The escape argument doesn't count. It is possible to lock ppl up that they will NOT escape, no problem at all.
A punishment should include the option for the person being punished to understand the mistake and have an option to regret. Killing this person can't be therefore named punishment. It is and will stay revenge.
All what's needed is simply not release those ppl back to society, that's all. If they work something they will not even cost much- so easy.
May be this would be even the harder punishment because being locked up with the remorse until death may be even harder than simple getting killed.
Anyway I am happy death penalty is abolished here and I don't feel less save as if it wasn't. And as far as I know the States in USA with death penalty don't have less homicides than those without?
So what is it good for in fact?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Killing an innocent person and killing just about the worst sort of person physically imaginable are not the same thing.

Killing is murder, regardless of what motivations are involved. Im not saying that the death penalty should be eliminated, because there will always be somebody who deserves to die. All Im saying is, lets call it what it is: legal murder.

 

[Masquerouge]

However, most murders have a slightly different development of the brain. We cannot reverse such "damage". So in a way, those who would kill (in an unjustifiable manner), are "suffering" from a malformation that they cannot help.

Can you back that up ? I highly doubt it. Those who kill don't do it because of a defect in their brains... Do you realize what this implies ? It implies that if we were able to detect such a defect, countries with the death penalty could kill babies, saying "but he will turn into a murderer when he grows up !"...

 

[DexterJ]

Arminius I find the claim that you can identify murderers by their brain is very dubious. Have you heard of phrenology?
This whole thread is absurd, all the information I have seen quotes that murder has the lowest reoffense rating among all crimes. For some reason there are no stats on murderers who kill again when released. You seem to suggest that all murderers are serial killers (3 or more murderers) which is completey untrue. Although there has likely been an increase in the prevalence of serial murder from the end of the 1960s, this type of crime accounts for perhaps 2 or 3 percent of American homicides.

What about other countries that don't have the death penalty? I.E. the civilised world. Murderers in Britain get a life sentance which is 15 years or less. Only 25 people in Britain are in prison for life (will not be released ever). I have never heard of a single case in Britain where someone has been released from jail and killed again. There would be massive outcry and all the reactionary tabloids would call for the reintroduction of hanging.

 

[Arminius]

Thanks guys, I've got my English professor on the ropes now. As for your arguments: (now in reverse order!)

DexterJ: LexisNexis lists over 1000 cases in the last two years (inside the US) where an escaped or released (premeditated) killer commits another (premeditated) murder. [Good for Britain, but it doesn't seem the same on this side of the pond] From what I understand (and I'm no doctor) the portion of the brain that deals with decision-making is what is malformed. This presents a serious problem, because not all who have malformations will make bad decisions, and some who do make bad decisions will not be malformed. (Nature vs. Nuture...?)

Masquerouge: No, I cannot find any online sources. However, a doctor from Pennigton Biomedical is where our English professor got the info.

TLC: See above.

 

[Aegis]

The counter-argument is quite simple: Dogs are not people, thus they do not have the same rights that humans do.