Serious Death Penalty

[shaian]

For the record, there is no known relationship between the death penalty and capital crime rates (Greenberg & Agozino, 2012). I for one disagree with the idea of a death penalty, I much prefer the idea of prison as a system of rehabilitation rather than punishment. Also the feelings of the victim are not, and should not, be taken into consideration when determining punishment. The system is for justice, not vengeance.

Also, I apologize for not linking the article, it's kind of hard to find free versions of jstor articles.

 

[X5Dragon]

I find it fascinating that you say no known relationship and then point out to a study done in a single country to support that claim. Furthermore from the same study:

"The researchers acknowledged the role geography could play into the findings.

“Generalizations from Trinidad and Tobago to other settings must obviously be made cautiously,” they wrote. “Every country has distinctive elements of culture, social structure, and social organization that may influence the way its population responds to criminal justice sanctions, including the death penalty.”

The researchers acknowledged that murders in the republic have risen dramatically since 2000—when executions ceased, even though death-penalty sentences have continued—but maintained this change says little about the impact of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder."

=====

As for claims that support the relationship:

"Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.""

Here's another study performed by economists for those with time/interest: http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DezRubShepDeterFinal.pdf

==================

I much prefer the idea of prison as a system of rehabilitation rather than punishment

I don't think anyone is against prison primarily being a rehabilitation center, but we disagree on who can get rehabilitated. For the interest our discussion the death penalty, and to rule out discussions about the verification of the crime, let's consider terrorist (Brevik) and the serial killers mentioned in the article. Do you believe they can be rehabilitated?


==================

Also the feelings of the victim are not, and should not, be taken into consideration when determining punishment.

So I take it your against hearing testimonies from the victims families before the Judge sentences the criminal?

 

[shaian]

Actually most of those issues were addressed in the full article, which is why I apologized for not linking it. I'm about halfway through your linked article, though some facts that need to be addressed that it hasn't answered are why states that do have a death penalty tend to also have higher than average crime rates? And to follow up, why do they have higher rates of recidivism? If the death penalty worked as truly effective deterrence, then shouldn't those numbers be different?

As for your later points, I actually do think people such as Breivik can be rehabilitated and if the system can not actually help people in cases like that it should be seen as a failure of the system, rather than an excuse to put a bullet in someones head. The system in Norway for instance tends to keep criminals who have paid their time out of prison again, producing a recidivism rate of 20%, compared to the system in the US which is about 76.6%. My general view is that prison should be based around rehabilitating when they are in it so once they leave they stay out, not a system that should keep them held up, strip them of humanity, and ultimately unsuited for life amongst normal people, regardless of what they do.

I'm not against the idea of testimonies, I am however against the idea of passing sentences just to appease the victims. What some people are saying ITT is that the death penalty should be used to, for lack of a better word, please the victims, is appalling to me as an idea. Taking a life just to satisfy someone else is no better than the original crime.

 

[JES]

"super duper bad".

Try "inhumanly atrocious". "Super duper bad" would've been raping her, then killing her quickly.

Can we please refrain from ad passiones by means of articles like the one JES posted and instead make an actual case, please? No matter how disgusting the acts of some people may be, it does not automatically justify death penalty, you're gonna need to make some actual arguments.

I'm just posting an example where the death penalty would be appropriate. I don't want to share the same planet with someone who would excruciatingly torture someone like that, especially a pretty young lady like that. I think we can all agree however that the death penalty shouldn't be handed out like (poisoned) candy. Then again, I'd settle for those men never walking free for the rest of their lives, without the possibility of parole.

Vengeance wouldn't be giving these not-so-gentlemen a lethal injection (or a seat in the electric chair, or in the gas chamber). Vengeance would be botching their executions on purpose, so they can suffer for half an hour, or putting them through the exact same experience that they put their victim through. That wouldn't be justice, only vengeance, and I do agree we need to be better than that.

For those who have committed far lesser crimes, if they can be rehabilitated, then I say we should do that!

 

[X5Dragon]

Actually most of those issues were addressed in the full article, which is why I apologized for not linking it. I'm about halfway through your linked article, though some facts that need to be addressed that it hasn't answered are why states that do have a death penalty tend to also have higher than average crime rates? And to follow up, why do they have higher rates of recidivism? If the death penalty worked as truly effective deterrence, then shouldn't those numbers be different?

Well the point is there are many studies for and against the death penalty and it's effect as a deterrent for murder. As mentioned in your study, culture and socioeconomic factors as well as the overall prevailing justice system matter a lot but cannot be studied just as easily.

As for recidivism the whole point of the death penalty is that the death row inmate who will be executed will never have another chance of committing heinous crimes, acts of terrorism or kill someone on the inside ever again. The deterrent effect of the death penalty (if any according to its opponents) would logically only apply to would be murders, rapists, etc. You don't expect a thief for example to be deterred by it but rather the punishment for his crime which is theft.

As for your later points, I actually do think people such as Breivik can be rehabilitated and if the system can not actually help people in cases like that it should be seen as a failure of the system,

A system should provide a proper punishment that fits the crime, a deterrent, red lines that once crossed there is no going back, a safeguard for society. You want to equate terrorists, rapists and serial killers to common criminals and treat them as such, at the risk of them coordinating attacks on the outside or committing crimes on the inside or even escaping, for the purpose of doing some kind of useful work inside of prison? Would kind of message would that send to would be murders?

I'm not against the idea of testimonies, I am however against the idea of passing sentences just to appease the victims.

The judge hears the relatives and family of the criminal pleading for a lesser punishment and the testimonies of the victims to inflict the maximum punishment allowed by law in the cases that concern the death penalty. The judge ruling in the favor of the victims desire for the severest punishment is in fact giving them peace and closure, so I'm not sure how exactly you both support it and then don't. In your true view it would be better if the judge figured it out on his own after the jury deliberates.

 

[DM]

There is no proof that the death penalty deters further violence. Virtually none. The only reason it exists is for a biblical sense of revenge.

 

[Bughouse]

There is no proof that the death penalty deters further violence. Virtually none. The only reason it exists is for a biblical sense of revenge.

Nah I think there would also be a substantive argument in favor of the death penalty if the crimes were serious and the threat of escape is high enough. Not saying that's true in the US. It isn't. No one significant ever escapes these days, no matter what the news makes it seem like. But if Mexico wanted to execute El Chapo the next time he was caught (it was outlawed there in 2005, but has had increasing support as the country has become more violent recently), I think they would have justification.

 

[g]

It is not the hardness of the punishment that deters the criminal from, well, committing a crime but it is in fact the likelihood to get punished at all. And anyways the lack of any hope that a life sentenced will suffer during is imprisonment is a far worse punishment than just getting sentenced to death (it can be a blessing disguised as a curse for some). And anyways when rehab won't work life sentence is still a better option.

The worst part is there is ppl who argue against these.

 

[Luka~]

Being a realist myself, I tend to think that no matter how much you wish to "rehabilitate" someone, there will be evil in the world. Violent and disgusting crimes cannot be forgiven, in my eyes. Killing someone in cold blood is just not acceptable. I can understand the death penalty ONLY in murder. The other things can probably be fixed with rehabilitation, but murder is a mental decision. That person decided to deal with whatever problem / concern they had with the other person by ending their life. Whether the person you killed was insane, or the insane person was the one who did the killing, there is no excuse. You don't accidentally murder someone, unless it was unintentional, such as a ricochet bullet or something. I think in these major cases, the death penalty is a necessary means of protecting the society. It won't stop all the evil in the world, but it does solve a temporary problem. I would like to think life in prison makes those who committed the action reconsider this decision, and perhaps wish they had been a better member of society. However, in some cases insanity just cannot be solved with logic. The tendency of human nature seems to be conform, and avoid or completely disagree with difference. Those who have morals that don't meet the norm are punished, that is human nature.

Nah I think there would also be a substantive argument in favor of the death penalty if the crimes were serious and the threat of escape is high enough. Not saying that's true in the US. It isn't. No one significant ever escapes these days, no matter what the news makes it seem like. But if Mexico wanted to execute El Chapo the next time he was caught (it was outlawed there in 2005, but has had increasing support as the country has become more violent recently), I think they would have justification.

I think they would have justification as well. The news likes to fluff things up, but I agree with you here.

 

[Kingler]

I mean I'd say it's only justified, as bughouse said, when there's a reasonable chance the prisoner might escape and the situation can't be remedied in other ways. I mean I do kinda consider money to be an issue (for example, India had spent a ton of money keeping Kasab in jail before hanging him (which the UN opposed btw)) but honestly a life outvalues that and wanting someone dead for "national pride" or "relief to victims' families" is pretty dumb. If there's a threat of life sentence for a person committing [insert x crime here] there's a pretty good chance he'd to it anyway if the death penalty were in effect. It's also pretty hard to argue that solitary confinement/being in jail for you whole life is 'worse' than having your life taken away. So yeah, pretty much my views on the whole thing.

Edit- also you can't just say that doing something incredibly terrible makes you "not worth living" because that's honestly incredibly subjective and again, we really shouldn't be using "eye for an eye" justice here.

 

[Fluke]

I am always interested when I see a topic like this. The same answers are common: I don't like it. Unfortunately, that does ot answer the problem. The problem we have, regardless of the country we live in is, "How do we control illegal acts of violence". Everyone is quick to state what they don't like about a system or the outcome of justice: "I don't like capital punishment." That is great, but if you were ruling the country and you had a percentage of the population that indiscriminately killed or maimed people for their own evil intentions, how would you protect the rest of the law abiding people?

 

[termi]

f you were ruling the country and you had a percentage of the population that indiscriminately killed or maimed people for their own evil intentions, how would you protect the rest of the law abiding people?

By putting them in prison. Next question please.

 

[UncleSam]

By putting them in prison. Next question please.

If it were proven that you could not stop those evil people from killing/harming various guards and other prisoners while in prison, then what would you do with them? I mean of course in a perfect world we could imprison someone without it costing a significant amount or providing any real threat of harm to anyone else, but in reality we can't do that so what would you propose instead?

The point is that there is a certain baseline where it becomes beyond obvious that the death penalty is necessary. There is a question as to whether there are any cases in reality that fall below this baseline, but at a certain point you're arguing against self-defense for ordinary citizens (if taken to the extreme).

 

[BenTheDemon]

There is no proof that the death penalty deters further violence. Virtually none. The only reason it exists is for a biblical sense of revenge.

I agree. When I took Law classes, I did my research paper on the Death Penalty, and I can confirm with the data I collected, that there is no correlation between the number of crimes committed nationally and the number of executions nationally. I had a graph I made of it, but it's gone now.

On a separate note, states that allow the Death Penalty in the United States tend to have MORE violent crimes committed every year. Crime statistics can easily be found with the slightest bit of research. So if there is even the slightest correlation between crimes and executions, then by these numbers, the Death Penalty theoretically INCREASES violent crimes.

So based on my research, there is no logical reason to allow the Death Penalty, but on a human level, there's even more reason to disallow it. First thing is the 8th Amendment, which protects US citizens from cruel and unusual punishment. What is more cruel than ending someone's life?
Also, the Death Penalty tends to be supported more by Conservatives, who favor smaller government. Yet they want to give the government the ultimate power over life and death? That is blatant hypocrisy.

On a fiscal level, the Death Penalty is also a bad idea, as it costs more to execute someone "humanely" (an inherently bullshit pretense) than to keep them in jail for life.

The Death Penalty also denies people due process of law. There have been many cases in history where people were found guilty of crimes which later they were proven innocent. The Death Penalty is the only irreversible punishment, and denies people their basic Constitutional rights.

Justice, not vengeance.

 

[g]

The "person will be a ridiculous threat to multiple citizens life no matter how we imprison it" is the only ipothetical instance in which even Beccaria retains death penalty (which isn't actually penalty but is just defending the nation) effective but it is such a ridiculously rare if not impossible instance and doesn't justify any other use of Death Penalty for any other reason. Stop trying to justify something so barbaric in principle and nonsensical in any modern sovereign stat logic.

 

[__N]

Coming from a country where there is no death penalty, and those found guilty of murder are rarely sentence to more than 10 years in prison- capital punishment seems extremely harsh and antiquated.
After talking to a professor of criminology at my university, he claimed that 98% of those incarcerated could be properly rehabilitated into society under directive and structured jail time essentially (of course not like USA jails, more like Scandinavian/ Northern European). The other 2% compromised sociopaths/ phycopaths and the like which no amount of rehabilitation could essestianaly institutionalise.
I don't really want to get into the ethics and morality around the implications arising from that (some people want harsher penalties for those simply due to a disposition innate to their being... -ist to me). But it stands to reason that the USA prisons don't do a very good job at rehabilitating criminals.

Also the stigma in the USA to do with crime makes it incredibly difficult for inmates to adjust post incaseration. But yeah, death penalty. I just can't fathom peoples reasoning for pro capital punishment.

 

[DM]

First, we underfund education in urban areas. Then, when the kids get into trouble, we tell them they're "thugs" and "criminals" until they accept the labels, internalize it as fact, and stop trying to find a different life. Then, they get thrown into a criminal justice system that stacks the deck against those without the funds to pay for their own defense. Finally, they are tossed into a for-profit jail or prison, which, in the US, are breeding grounds for criminal activity.

Yeah, we could use some improvements on our methodology.

 

[BenTheDemon]

DM, unfortunately, you are 100% correct on that. We as a people have let the very rich and elite in our country buy and sell our civil liberties, and the more we accept it as inevitable, the more they will take from us. The table isn't only tilted, it's downright upside down where all of the prosperity goes right to the elite and the middle class like you and I have to fight each other for the scraps.

 

[eren]

My personal thoughts on capital punishment (im a traditionalist l0l): I feel, of you commit the act of murdering someone, and it has been proven in court, without a doubt, you should receive death. I know this may sound "inhumane" or "not modern" in a sense, however, why should I use my money to give you a bed and food when u killed someone who didnt deserve to die. You completely destroy one's family and expect to smile and get free food and free lodging in Prison while I have to work and make money to feed myself and pay my rent. I think its completely illogical to allow murderers who have been proven guilty by court to be punished by death as well.

 

[BenTheDemon]

My personal thoughts on capital punishment (im a traditionalist l0l): I feel, of you commit the act of murdering someone, and it has been proven in court, without a doubt, you should receive death. I know this may sound "inhumane" or "not modern" in a sense, however, why should I use my money to give you a bed and food when u killed someone who didnt deserve to die. You completely destroy one's family and expect to smile and get free food and free lodging in Prison while I have to work and make money to feed myself and pay my rent. I think its completely illogical to allow murderers who have been proven guilty by court to be punished by death as well.

When I did my research paper, I discovered that the process of putting someone to death is actually MORE expensive than keeping them in prison for their whole life, so the paying for a bed, etc point is moot.

Also, in my same research, I found that the Death Penalty is also implemented in a racist way. Based on crime statistics, a black or Hispanic person is more likely to receive the Death Penalty as a punishment compared to a white person. Also, if you look at sentences based on percentages, the mostly likely group to receive the Death Penalty are blacks that kill whites, while whites killing blacks are the least likely groups to receive the Death Penalty.

It may seem so compelling to support the Death Penalty based on emotions, but please remember to think with your brain's rationale rather than primal instincts of revenge.

 

[eren]

When I did my research paper, I discovered that the process of putting someone to death is actually MORE expensive than keeping them in prison for their whole life, so the paying for a bed, etc point is moot.

Also, in my same research, I found that the Death Penalty is also implemented in a racist way. Based on crime statistics, a black or Hispanic person is more likely to receive the Death Penalty as a punishment compared to a white person. Also, if you look at sentences based on percentages, the mostly likely group to receive the Death Penalty are blacks that kill whites, while whites killing blacks are the least likely groups to receive the Death Penalty.

It may seem so compelling to support the Death Penalty based on emotions, but please remember to think with your brain's rationale rather than primal instincts of revenge.

While I am african-american myself, I try not to view things from a racial point of view, while sometimes there is racial profiling, its just so wronf in my opinion to even make a different decision due to race, and overall race doesnt matter whether one is put to death or not.

Secondly, while it may be more expensive (have to look into this), I much rather use my money to help a criminal who may be released on"good behavior" or on parole than fund their free soft drinks.

Lastly, how can you not view thos emotionally? If someone killed your mum or pop, wouldnt you want some justice to punish the offender? While this wouldnt bring back the dead in this case, to me it helps one move on from terrible and heinous crimes commited.

 

[BenTheDemon]

While I am african-american myself, I try not to view things from a racial point of view, while sometimes there is racial profiling, its just so wronf in my opinion to even make a different decision due to race, and overall race doesnt matter whether one is put to death or not.

Secondly, while it may be more expensive (have to look into this), I much rather use my money to help a criminal who may be released on"good behavior" or on parole than fund their free soft drinks.

Lastly, how can you not view thos emotionally? If someone killed your mum or pop, wouldnt you want some justice to punish the offender? While this wouldnt bring back the dead in this case, to me it helps one move on from terrible and heinous crimes commited.

What if someone you loved was the killer? It's a two-sided coin. Someone once in my family killed someone when high on meth, and her husband's family wanted her to be put to death. Her son never got over the fact that the dead husband drugged her and his family tried to put her to death.

 

[DM]

My personal thoughts on capital punishment (im a traditionalist l0l): I feel, of you commit the act of murdering someone, and it has been proven in court, without a doubt, you should receive death.

1. The burden of proof on the prosecution is not "without a doubt", but "beyond a reasonable doubt". Those are quite different levels of proof.
2. Perhaps you should read up on all those people that are being released from prison after being exonerated by DNA evidence. There are, by conservative estimates, thousands of prisoners currently rotting in our prison system that are innocent of the crimes with which they are charged, likely convicted based primarily on witness testimony (which, by all accounts according to professional studies, is ridiculously unreliable for myriad reasons).

So, yeah, if we had a way to guarantee we were putting innocent people into prison, maybe we could revisit your statements. But we don't, so we can't.

 

[eren]

1. The burden of proof on the prosecution is not "without a doubt", but "beyond a reasonable doubt". Those are quite different levels of proof.
2. Perhaps you should read up on all those people that are being released from prison after being exonerated by DNA evidence. There are, by conservative estimates, thousands of prisoners currently rotting in our prison system that are innocent of the crimes with which they are charged, likely convicted based primarily on witness testimony (which, by all accounts according to professional studies, is ridiculously unreliable for myriad reasons).

So, yeah, if we had a way to guarantee we were putting innocent people into prison, maybe we could revisit your statements. But we don't, so we can't.

But at that point, we wouldnt put anyone in prison and our cointries and world woild become more unsafe then they already are. I understand that there are cases of innocent people being put away to unreliable testimonies, however, nowadays, mostly some kind of physical, forsensic, or at least circumstantial evidence is needed to have a case, as it is much tougher to convict someone of murder then than of murder now.

I will give of a recent example which won't rely on witness testimony. The illegal immigrant who murdered a young girl 5 days after ge was released from prison, where he had been several times. There is substantial evidence that he commited rape (his semen was on the girl) and that brutally murdered her. I do believe in the statement "people can change" but give me a statstic on this one: what percent of people who commit murder and are released on parole, continue their lives as criminals and possibly even mirder again? I understand where you are coming from, but "not being able to even consider" my opinion is quite as you would say, egregious.

What if someone you loved was the killer? It's a two-sided coin. Someone once in my family killed someone when high on meth, and her husband's family wanted her to be put to death. Her son never got over the fact that the dead husband drugged her and his family tried to put her to death.

If someone murdered someone else, you would have to accept what you have done and ask yourself a couple of questions: why was I high on meth, and why didnt I stop. I am very sorry for your family member and I feel for you, but you told me to view this objectively.

I know I am probably wasting my time and posts, but I feel that "theres no other view" is simply wrong

 

[g]

(im a traditionalist l0l)

there is no tradition. The fact that you live in a democratic state with the aim to protect your life and that of the other citizens just stops any possibility of death sentences in its tracks. The fact that an entity such as the state (which is basically your representative in a democratic state) acts revenge against its citizens (also the state entity) doesn't also make any sense at all. Don't try to justify your position on tradition since there is no opinion or tradition here.