The Death Penalty: Full Debate

[classical_hero]

I chose option 2:
I would also add these crimes as well: Espionage, Treason, Drug related Murder, Desertion during wartime, and War Crimes. I chose option 2 instead of 1, because I do not view the Death Penalty as a legal tool for deterring crime or instilling fear, but rather a method for the state to punish the Worst Capital crimes. When the State applies this punishment, it is in essence admitting that there is no hope for reforming the criminal who committed these crimes and that the criminal has, by their own actions, forfeited all of their rights including the right to life. There Is a deterrent effect on other potential criminals which is beneficial, but that should never be the primary reason that we enforce it.


Dictionary.com definitions

mur-der
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous. The rush hour traffic is murder.

3. A flock of crows.


ex-e-cu-tion
n.

1.
a. The act of executing something
b. The state of being executed

2. The manner, style, or result of performance

3. The act or an instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty.

4. Law.
a. The carrying into effect of a court judgment.
b. A write empowering an officer to enforce a judgment.
c. Validation of a legal document by the performance of all necessary formalities.

5. Archaic. Effective, punitive, or destructive action.


hom-i-cide
n.

1. The killing of one person by another.

2. A person who kills another person.



It is very important to note the difference between these three words. When a person takes another's life unlawfully, it is Murder, or unlawful Homicide. When a soldier in war acting under the lawful orders of his commanders takes another's life, or a law enforcement officer kills a criminal in the process of committing a crime, or a citizen lawfully defends life or property with deadly force, that is a lawful Homicide. When the State punishes a convicted criminal, who has been sentenced and exhausted the appeals process, that is an Execution.

These words are Not interchangeable. Doing so only confuses the issue which is that Murder is an unlawful act of the highest order, an assault directly on one of the basic tenets of Civilization: All persons are endowed (by their Creator) with the right to life. When an individual illegally takes another's life, they Should forfeit their own. Our society has greatly deviated from the original intent of Punishment and changed it from the penalty that one pays for violating the law to become instead some sort of 'reeducational correction system' that exists to persuade a criminal to change their ways.

One need only look at the recidivism rate among criminals to see how this has failed us. There is no Reason for a criminal to stop their behavior if their worst penalty for a crime is several years spent as a ward of the state, where all their basic needs are met until their sentence ends.

Note that I am most certainly Not implying that prison or the penitentiary are a fun place to be, a resort hotel. But I Am saying that they have become a training ground for career criminals, the very antithesis of what they should be.

There are problems in all levels of the legal system, that is clear. But unless there remains an absolutely defined Ultimate punishment for the severest examples of criminal malfeasance, none of the lesser penalties will truly matter.


-Elgalad

Very well stated there. I cannot agree more wholeheartedly.

 

[IglooDame]

It´s not an opinion, it´s statistics. Check out the FBI homepage for 2001 Here
176 justifyable killings with guns (self defense by citizens), in summary 2300 killings with guns due to arguments. The relationship was in 2/3 of murders family or a friend or an acquaintance. (there is no cross statistics which gives weapon and relationship of murder cases together)

And: a robber will more likely kill you if you draw a gun (I dont think a robber will/can inform himself if the victim has a gun, the deterrence from owning a gun is minimal)

First, I can find the 176 justifiable homicide by civilian reference, but you're going to have to be more specific as to the 2300 killings during arguments with firearms, there's too many tables for me to find it readily.

You're missing a crucial point - legitimate use of a gun for self-defense frequently does not involve killing the felon. Depending on who you go by, there are between one hundred thousand and two million defensive uses of a gun per year, and most semi-impartial experts put it at 1 to 1.5 million per year.

And: please provide more statistics for "a robber will more likely kill you if you draw a gun". In many (I'd say most) circumstances criminals will break off what they're doing if there's a possibility that they'll get shot. If you draw a gun while they've got a knife to your throat or a gun pointed at you, well duh.

Now, if you want to continue this, open a separate thread so we can stop threadjacking this one.

 

[phoenix_night]

'Murder' doesn't have to be defined as 'unlawful' or anything like.

murder [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
the crime of intentionally killing a person

That's from the Cambridge dictionaries, btw.

Oh, and that was a response to Elgalad.

 

[IglooDame]

'Murder' doesn't have to be defined as 'unlawful' or anything like.

murder [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
the crime of intentionally killing a person

That's from the Cambridge dictionaries, btw.

Oh, and that was a response to Elgalad.

Huh? It is in the first two words of the definition: "the crime". Perhaps you're thinking of homicide, which can be justifiable, negligent, or accidental, as well as the more evil kinds.

 

[phoenix_night]

Huh? It is in the first two words of the definition: "the crime". Perhaps you're thinking of homicide, which can be justifiable, negligent, or accidental, as well as the more evil kinds.

Whoops for that quote...

How's this one? 'To kill brutally or inhumanly.' Or even...'To put an end to; destroy'.

IMO, you can't disregard the use of the term murder when talking of the death penalty.

Also, aside from the semantics, it sort of glosses over the whole issue of "this person committed murder, a crime so inhuman they need to be removed from society...let's murder them!".

(Also, back to my first definition, 'crime' is also defined as an 'immoral act').

 

[betazed]

I have to agree with what some of the other posters have said here.

I do agree that, in any reasonable sense some people forsake any right they have of their life for some crimes they commit. {I am thinking serial killers, serial rapists, genocidal crimes, etc. }.

But given that the possibility of error in meting out this punishment in non-zero and not insignificant enough to be ignored, added to the fact that the punishment is completely irreversible, makes me queasy about supporting death sentence.

 

[IglooDame]

Whoops for that quote...

How's this one? 'To kill brutally or inhumanly.' Or even...'To put an end to; destroy'.

IMO, you can't disregard the use of the term murder when talking of the death penalty.

Also, aside from the semantics, it sort of glosses over the whole issue of "this person committed murder, a crime so inhuman they need to be removed from society...let's murder them!".

(Also, back to my first definition, 'crime' is also defined as an 'immoral act').

I can disregard the use of the term murder when talking of the death penalty as readily as I can disregard the use of the term theft when talking of taxes.

 

[Adler17]

I don´t have time to read all 85 posts until now. I am a law student from Germany and my opinion is that the death penalty is generally no good penalty. Only for some rare exceptions I can think of that penalty. But mostly it is an even higher penalty to imprison someone forever. He has the time to think why he is in his position. Also this is not more costly than executing him, as I once read in a US study.
Perhaps a small histoical background of death penalty in Germany is sensible:
In Germany death penalty was questioned for centuries. In the 1860s Saxony abolished it as first German state. Until the Reichsstrafgesetzbuch (StGB; it is in modernized version until now current law) was made some other smaller states followed. However the StGB reintroduced this penalty but only for murder, high treason and slavery. After the Nazi reign the fathers and mothers of the German constitution continued this debate. After a long discussion death penalty was abolished (it was a decision on the edge of a knife). A few days before the constitution was in law the last execution was made (beheaded by Guillotine). In the GDR however the last execution was made in the 1980s until also there this penalty was abolished. Now it is a prerequsite for the EU to become member to abolish death penalty in times of peace at least.
Also I have to criticize the US law here. Even if you have this penalty the numbers of victims are higher than in other comparable states. In Germany in the times of the Emperor or the Weimar republic many death candidates were pardoned. Also the courts were (and are) acting better. We do have judges who has the right to make inquirees. The prosecutors must give facts they found in which the defendant is disburdened. This is so in some US states that the prosecutors do not give all fact they have. And also the judges can´t ask things they don´t understand without running danger to be biased. Also the prosecutors and judges are not elected in Germany. So they do not have to act like some US prosecutors who act in a very dubious way. I know cases which are so questionable that someone was imprisoned or even in the death cell. Also we don´t have a jury of 12 jurors any more. In 1922 this was reduced to 6, 50 years later to 2. Today in such heavy cases 3 judges and 2 jurors are the court. However if both jurors are not convinced of the guilt the defendant is free. He is acquitted if 2 of the 5 or more are not convinced of his guilt. Jurors are mostly not able to see the juristical consequences of an action. Heck, many law students and some lawyers do not see it. And so a jury is not the best to operate. Also death penalty is hardly the right penalty against mentally sick persons, not grown up ones or junkies. In these cases they can not get this penalty in my opinion. Their guilt is lower than others.
Another point is that the whole US penal system is too high generally. the most cruel thing is having stolen Hot Dogs three times and then being sent to prison forever. Is this really a good penalty? The penalty MUST be the consequence of the GUILT and not of some strange laws. This is one base of a law state.
The US system must be reformed fundamentally. Then you can discuss of not abolishing death penalty. Until then no execution is allowed and all death penalties pardoned. Only after that you can think of reintroducing the death penalty.

Adler

P.S.: Fear for a penalty is only in a very small extent existing. A few centuries ago thiefs were executed in England. While caught ones were hanged in the public, their collegues were stealing in the masses...

 

[Elgalad]

Opponents of the Death Penalty often bring up the subject of falsely convicted criminals who are later acquitted on DNA evidence. Improvements in forensic technology re: DNA mapping, ultraviolet scanning, reconstructive anthropology, and other methods are very useful in preventing the accidental conviction of an innocent person. But the flipside of this is that if they Do provide evidence of criminality, it is even more incontrovertible.

Noone wants an innocent to be punished for a crime they did not commit. These technological breakthroughs are helping to prevent that ~ but they are also aiding us in underlining much more clearly the factual trail of evidence that leads to a conviction.

If this evidence acquits suspected criminals of crimes they did not commit, Excellent! If this evidence proves guilt even further beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, Excellent! Scientific Progress marches onwards, benefitting Society as a whole. But nothing in the advances themselves argues against continued application of the punishment for criminal behavior.



-Elgalad

 

[bigfatron]

To decide this I think you have to uinderstand your primary purpose - is it:
- to deter others
- to punish the guilty (i.e. to cause them suffering)
- to encourage repentance/redemption (in a societal rather than religious way)?
- to prevent future re-offending

If the issue is deterrence, then you need to show that the death penalty deters above and beyind long-term imprisonment, i.e. that the penalty is the main determinant of deterrence. My understanding (I'd be interested in any evidence or links that can be provided - I don't know of any either way) is that there is little correlation between level of punishment and deterrence for serious crimes, but a very strong correlation between the chance of being caught and deterrence. This being so, the case under the first heading fails.

If your goal is to punish for its own sake (as opposed to punishment as a deterrence or to induce repentance), I have no obvious way of arguing with ou - to me the infliction by society of gratuitous pain simply for the satisfaction that we collectively derive from seeing that pain inflicted is clearly utterly immoral. If you don't get that then no argument from me is going to sway you.

If the goal is reformation, then clearly the death penalty is contrary to that goal as it negates the possibility of reformation 100%.

This leaves prevention as IMHO the only morally defensible argument for the death penalty, and I confess one which is quite powerful, especially in relation to the most appalling crimes that have a high rate of recidivism, such as sexually-linked child killing.

Still, on balance I lean toward locking them up, since none of the above touches on the possibility of error and the slaying of the innocent.

 

[Little Raven]

If this evidence acquits suspected criminals of crimes they did not commit, Excellent! If this evidence proves guilt even further beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, Excellent! Scientific Progress marches onwards, benefitting Society as a whole. But nothing in the advances themselves argues against continued application of the punishment for criminal behavior.

I think you misunderstand, Elgalad. We're not arguing that the advances argue against application of the punishment. We're saying that the advances have revealed deep flaws in the process we use to meet out that punishment.

If, as you say, you don't want innocent people executed, then how can you overlook the fact that the system we use to determine guilt is obviously sending innocent people to death row with frightening regularity?

 

[Elgalad]

I think you misunderstand, Elgalad. We're not arguing that the advances argue against application of the punishment. We're saying that the advances have revealed deep flaws in the process we use to meet out that punishment.

If, as you say, you don't want innocent people executed, then how can you overlook the fact that the system we use to determine guilt is obviously sending innocent people to death row with frightening regularity?

On the contrary, rather than dispute the fact that innocent persons Have been executed because of flaws in the system, I am simply pointing out that the system is improving. As it does improve, there will be less and less flaws and the system will be made even more Just.

So opponents And proponents of the Death Penalty alike should applaud these breakthroughs because they will only result in a more accurate legal system and less chance for error.


-Elgalad

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I refuse to believe that mass rapist/murderers have the right to live. There is a guy on trial right now for ADMITTED to doing this to 24-25 women, and is suspected of up to 100. THIS deserves to be put in jail for LIFE? WHY? What point would it make, he would continue to be a drain on society. I think he should be taken to the public square and hung from the neck until he is DEAD

I agree that rapists are evil, but I consider murder to be a crime in a league of it's own. He could've raped 1000 but still not be worthy of the death-penalty. Torture for a couple of decades perhaps, but not death.
I feel that murder, however, is a crime so despicable that the death penalty is the only punishment suitable.
In case you hadn't noticed, I consider the death penalty far worse than decades of torture... which gives you an idea of my opinions of murderers. And soldiers too, for that matter. Or as I call them, "Career-murderers", or "Murderers in uniform".

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally posted by IglooDude
First, I can find the 176 justifiable homicide by civilian reference, but you're going to have to be more specific as to the 2300 killings during arguments with firearms, there's too many tables for me to find it readily.

The data was taken from the tables "circumstances by weapon" and "circumstances by relationship".
Of course you can use the gun defensively, but in the theft example you only cause that the crime robbery is replaced by the crime attempted robbery if you can stop him. Deterrence is the only impact of a gun that would actually prevent crime.

There are four possibilities in the theft scenario (I think the most likely scenario to be hit by crime in your home) These scenarios have as prequesite that both of you know that the other person is present (you are not asleep) Usually a thief want to be sure that nobody is at home, so the following examples are just dealing with less than 50% of the cases.


1)Both are unarmed: he probably will run away
2)You are armed, he is unarmed: he will either run away if he thinks that you will not shoot at an unarmed and risk to hit him severly, because then you also commit a crime or he will give in and be captured. But: how many thiefs come unarmed?
3)He is armed, you are unarmed: he will point the gun at you, keep an eye on you, force you to give him some more money and leave. He will not shoot you, he came for theft (criminals have some ethics, too)
4)Both are armed: both of you have the gun drawn as you both hear the other person. The robber will less likely run away than in scenario 2 because he has the gun as advantage. Shootout, you can get killed or at least severely injured, as likely as the thief

Lets suppose you have a gun and only 2) and 4) can happen.
How many thiefs have no gun (lets assume 33%), how many thiefs will run away if you have a gun and they have none? Lets say 2/3 dont run. In 11% of the scenarios where you have a gun the thief will get away by running, in 22% he will be stopped and in 33% insured or shot.
In 33% of these cases you will get heavily insured or shot and he will get away.

I dont see how you can be shot if you have no gun. You will hide yourself and stay calm, if the thief notices you you will be forced to help him or roped up. The insurance will pay.

Neither did the gun prevent the thief from entering your home nor did it increase the chance of survival (66% instead 100%). He will less likely get away firsthand if you have a gun with 44% probability instead of 100%, but there is the police to solve crimes (don´t know % of theft cases solved).

Hope I made my points clear with this example.

 

[newfangle]

For people that have committed violent crimes, I am more fond of exile, rather than death.

Killers has simply forfeited their rights as humans. I still don't understand how this justifies our killing of them.

As such, I am undecided. For now, at least.

 

[Evertonian]

Well it seems the in the anti death-penalty group there are 2 main strands of thinking

1) Whilst there should be no philosophical objection to the death penalty, the practical difficulties in implimentation mean that it is undesirable at the present time, and likely to be so for the forseeable future (cost, making sure the innocent aren't wrongly punished etc etc)
and

2) The death penalty is a fundmentally wrong punishment

Personally I go for number 2), because...
If as a society we value human rights, we can't say that only people we like, or only our pals, or only the people we think are good people should have those rights.

Society is made up of all its members whether we think they are good people or bad people, whether we think they do good things or bad things. In order that members of society have a chance to live a reasonable life there has to be some system of regulating more extreme anti-social behaviours ie crime. Hence we have the criminal justice system, and people who are convicted of crimes can be locked up. That's one thing. But it is quite another to argue that a majority in society, even a huge one, should be able to decide that an individual should be killed.

If human rights are to mean anything, then we must say that the right to life for a human being means that even if 249,999,999 people in the population of 250,000,000 think he should die (with he himself being the only dissenter) then still his human right is to live. No matter what somebody does a society can't be in the business of killing its own members, and still say that all its members have rights. And if human rights are applies selectively then they are meaningless.

 

[Elgalad]

@Evertonian,

That is a very good argument and probably the best one opposing the Death Penalty. It still seems somewhat lacking though, because it assumes that criminals who are killed by the State (executed) are being unfairly discriminated against by a majority of their fellow citizens. But this is not an issue of Democracy, it is instead one of Legal Justice and Enforcement of the Law. If the Death Penalty were a matter of revenge against a criminal, then this might be the case, but Capital Punishment is instead a proscribed punishment for specific crimes that are of the highest magnitude and that directly assault Social Justice.

Human rights are usually applied to argue against State Executions. What right does the State have to deprive a citizen of their right to life? That's the basic question. But the bottom line is that it is Not the State who is arbitrarily making a decision to kill an individual citizen. It is that citizen's Choice to commit these criminal actions, knowing full well that they will result in their own Execution when they are brought to justice.

The Social Code is clear ~ In order to enjoy the protections the State offers (Rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness) one must abide by the laws set up by the State to protect these very same rights for other citizens as well. No citizen should ever illegally deprive another of them, but if they do so, they must then give up their own rights. A person who kidnaps or falsely imprisons another will go to jail. A person who steals or embezzles money from their company will have to pay restitution. The legal code is not set up to provide exact punishments 'that fit the crime', but it Is set up to provide varying levels of punishment based on the severity of them.

And the Death Penalty is the highest. This punishment is never given out lightly. The legal process for trying criminals in the United States has been set up with the primary goal of Not convicting innocent persons of crimes they did not commit. The onus is always on the State to prove guilt, never on the defendant to prove innocence. The defendant is afforded a speedy trial, right to legal counsel (provided by the State if they are financially unable to provide their own), a fair jury selected from their fellow citizens, the right to call witnesses who may provide proof of their innocence and the right to cross examine witnesses testifying against them, the right Not to testify if by so doing they might incriminate themself, and even when they are finally convicted ~ the judge may not sentence them to Death if he or she believes the punishment is not warranted for this specific crime. After the sentence is given, the convicted criminal has the opportunity to have their case examined and reviewed by every level of legal Jurisdiction all the way up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States. Only After all of those appeals are exhausted will the sentence then be carried out. But there remains even one more opportunity for their sentence to not be enforced ~ the Governor of the State where they were convicted or the President may choose at their discretion to commute the sentence to Life without Parole instead of Death.

Therefore, the argument that the State arbitrarily applies Capital Punishment in violation of Human Rights seems invalid. The State exists to Protect those rights. And therefore it Must act as an impartial enforcer when those rights are violated by a criminal. If it cannot mandate the highest punishment for the worst of crimes, then it is underlining its complete failure to protect and provide justice to its citizenry.


-Elgalad

 

[The Person]

Why does nobody think that locking somebody up for life can hurt somebody even more than just killing them outright? When you sit there, you can regret what you do. But you won't be let out, so you will be alone with your regret the rest of your life. I think that that is even worse than being executed. Execution will just bring a swift end to it. But if you don't regret, you could just as well be executed. Or is it that easy? If you're locked up with no visitors and only the bare minimum for living, is that a good life? Killing somebody should be punished as hard as possible. Considering how you suffer during a lifetime in jail, the Death Penalty is nothing. Even if lifetime lock-up will drain resources from society, it's worth it. It also is reversible (at least more reversible than the Death Penalty).

Funny why nobody has thought of it that way.

 

[Clito]

It's extremely expensive. In study after study, the death penalty has been found to be more costly to the state than life imprisonment.

That's extremely hard to believe. A life sentence in Ireland for capital crime is 25 years. The average cost of keeping a person in prison is €75,000 (latest statistics office figures) that equates to about $93,000 per year.

Therefore a life sentence would cost, in today's money, on average €1,875,000 or $2,343,750.

Does an execution cost this much?

PS, I haven't touched on legal fees as we presume that both sentences are for the same crime - murder - so they don't enter the equation.

 

[Elgalad]

Why does nobody think that locking somebody up for life can hurt somebody even more than just killing them outright? When you sit there, you can regret what you do. But you won't be let out, so you will be alone with your regret the rest of your life. I think that that is even worse than being executed. Execution will just bring a swift end to it. But if you don't regret, you could just as well be executed. Or is it that easy? If you're locked up with no visitors and only the bare minimum for living, is that a good life? Killing somebody should be punished as hard as possible. Considering how you suffer during a lifetime in jail, the Death Penalty is nothing. Even if lifetime lock-up will drain resources from society, it's worth it. It also is reversible (at least more reversible than the Death Penalty).

Funny why nobody has thought of it that way.

I get the impression that you favor revenge against the criminal who has committed a Capital Offense. I reiterate my earlier comments: the Death Penalty is Not about revenge. I'll add further ~ the Death Penalty is not about torture or suffering, it is about Justice. It's that simple. Were it otherwise, we would still be executing prisoners by the most barbaric methods employed in the past (drawing and quartering, pressing, drowning, burning, etc). Instead nearly every state that provides Capital Punishment now uses lethal injection which has been accepted by general consensus as the most humane and least painful method available today.


-Elgalad