continuation of (yet another) death penalty debate

Great Debates
1

In a thread in MPSIMS, there was a discussion of the death penalty. I didn’t want to put a debate in that forum so I’ll bring it here.

In this thread, Joe_Cool mentioned some reasons for which he supported the death penalty. Here is my response.

*1) no chance of escaping to commit more murders. *
I’ll take life in prison without parole, to avoid the risk of executing an innocent person.

2) satisfaction for the victims or their families
Well, if I someone fell asleep while driving and ran over my daughter and killed her, I might want that person to get a death sentence for my satisfaction. Does that mean the death penalty would be justified?

3) when you find a rotting branch on a tree, you cut it off before the rot spreads and kills the tree. What? People aren’t trees? When a person has gangrene, they cut off the affected flesh so the rot doesn’t spread and kill the person. We haven’t been doing that because so many people cry about “criminal’s rights” so we ignore the victim’s rights. And the rot spreads.
That’s what prison is for. I fail to see how this is an argument for the death penalty. There are many victim’s rights groups in this (and other) countries. What criminal rights are you upset about? The right to a fair trial? The right to an attorney? The right to a speedy trial? The right not to be coerced into confessing?

4) DETERRENT. If you knew you’d be caught and killed for doing -X- crime, then you likely wouldn’t do it.
The example mentioned in the OP is obviously an example of how the death penalty is not a deterrent. I know of no study that shows that the death penalty is a deterrent. I have read of several studies that show that it is not a deterrent. One example: http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html#deterrent

5) The right to life? You have no right to life. 100 out of every 100 people born DIE. Show me where that indicates a right to life. If you’re drowning, who do you claim your right to life from? I agree that people shouldn’t arbitrarily end lives, but there are times when it’s appropriate. What about the “right to life” that the 100 kids he slaughtered? If you wrongfully take a life, you deserve to lose your own. If you take 100 lives from CHILDREN for God’s sake, you deserve to be thrown to a pack of rabid dogs to fight for your right to life.
How do you prove that killing is wrong by executing someone? The message you’re sending there is that “it’s OK to kill someone under certain circumstances.” People will have different opinions of the circumstances under which it’s OK to kill someone. What if the person had murdered 1 child? Severely injured 100 ? Severely injured 1? Molested 20?

2

If I had more surety of the modern judicial system I would be pro-death penalty, if for no other reason that to provide closure for the victim or victim’s family. Perhaps that should be a decision for the victim or victim’s family, in fact. Because of the flaws in the system that seem to send a few too many innocent people to prison or death I currently oppose the death penalty. When we start seeing higher quality crime labs and more assurance of a person’s guilt I will undoubtedly flip-flop again. :slight_smile:

In any event, there is NO doubt that the death penalty is not a deterrent. There is vast field of knowledge about the criminal mind. To sum up (because it is so vast), the criminal doesn’t typically see what they are doing as necessarily wrong (the degree of wrongness and why varies widely which is why I am just summing up here). Many feel they are absolutely justified in their action, so as they ponder doing their crime the notion of death as a punishment simply doesn’t enter into it.

3

Here in L.A. county we have the ‘Rampart’ scandal where there are now 20 officers being investigated for purjury, falsifing(sp)
evidence, and outright framing people.
This, and this alone, is the reason to do away with the death penalty.
I watched an A&E documentary that told of a man convicted of murdering a child, even though he was in prison in another state when the murder took place. I wouldn’t want my life in the hands of our justice system.

4

If you knew you’d be caught and killed for doing -X- crime, then you likely wouldn’t do it.

And if you assumed you wouldn’t be caught for doing -X- crime, as is the case with the vast majority of criminals, it wouldn’t matter what the possible penalty was.

Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

5

I favor the death penalty, but think it should only be used in circumstances where the criminal has wilfully demonstrated a permeditated plan to cause grevious bodily harm or death to someone else, or with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated the same. Strangely enough, for me it had nothing to do with deterence, little to do with punishment and everything to do with responsibility.

First, a word on deterence. if we truly wanted to use the DP as a deterent, then it should be death by torture- crucifiction comes to mind. The idea that one would die horribly might just deter some people where simple death would not. This is prohibited by the Constitution, however, ( cruel and unusual punishment ) so it is a moot point.

Punishment is a valid point, and this line of thought is as old as mankind. “An eye for an eye” has been part of the human justice code since society started. Let the punishment fit the crime is a reasonable statement, and I can’t argue with it.

However, most oponents of the DP now base their views on the idea that mankind has grown beyond such simple concepts, and by putting the killer to death, we are lowering ourselves to his level and cheapining the sanctity(sp?) of human life. Here is why I disagree. There are 2 sides to the question, that of the individual, and that of society. Society has the obligation to provide the individual with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, the persuit of happyness, ability to live w/o fear, opportunity to prosper, etc… If it does not, then the individuals ( plural-as a group) need to change society. See the founding of the United States as an example. But, at the same time, each individual has the obligation to function within the rules of society, and not to deny other individuals the same rights he enjoys. If it helps, think of it as a contract between “society” and the “individual”. True, the individual did not have a choice about entering into this contract, but no one does so it’s another moot point. Thus if an individual willfuly refuses to abide by the rules governing society, he is in “breach of contract”. If the offense is minor, he might have to do jail time or pay a fine. If it is major- and I outlined what I think qualifys in the first paragraph, then the “contract” can be terminated. At this point, society no longer owes the individual anything, including respect for his right to life. He had that, but by his own actions he forfited it. it is then reasonable to sentence the criminal to death without cheapening the rights of any other member of society. He did what he did of his own free will, and by abrogating his responsibilities, he eliminated societie’s obligation to treat him as if he were still a functional member of itself. ( is that clear?) I feel that this punishment should be carried out in as humaine a manner as possible, for society should take this drastic step with the utmost regret,( and also while realizing that it has an obligation not to cheapen itself- by that I mean that no matter what you’ve done, we will not stoop so low as to mistreat you, ie.e. torture) but it is an viable option, IMHO.

Actually, were it possible, I would favor permanent banishment from society( actualy being removed physicaly from the planet) over the death penalty, but until we discove a habitable world we can ship these people to, that’s not an option.

Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.

6

Thanks Dave…

It’s funny how people take the anti-DP stance, believing it to be moral high ground–not noticing that the anti-DP road leads downhill.

–Kalél
TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court

7

Ehhh - EnigmaOne, care to elaborate ? The anti-DP stance “leads downhill”, whatever that means ? I beg to differ. Actually, I consider having an executioner on the public payroll a major step downhill and I’m quite pleased that my taxes aren’t used for the poison used to kill other people.

dave, I understand your reasoning, but I believe that society could just as easily “terminate the contract” by locking the offender up - and for life. Yes, it might be considered more cruel by some, but then I suppose the offender could pop himself off if he prefers that option. BTW, your reasoning reminds of the old Icelandic custom of making a man “fredlös” (lit., “peaceless”) - that is, he was no longer under the protection of the law, and killing him carried no penalty. Now, that’s terminating the contract with society!

Arnold, I believe you’ve got it right.

Norman

8

Glitch, who admittedly has a stronger background in criminology than I have, said:

As far as I can tell, the primary reason that the death penalty is not a deterrent is the half-assed way it’s carried out. Of course it’s no more frightening than life imprisonment, when “death” includes 25 years on death row while your attorneys file appeals on top of endless appeals, knowing full well that you’ll most likely die in a cell waiting for your execution.

[if I were in charge]
The way the death penalty should work is this: You’re convicted of a capital crime. You’re sentenced to die. One of two things happens:
a) You accept your sentence. you’re taken in shackles outside behind the courthouse, given a few minutes to make a statement for the record, a few minutes to say goodbye to your family, and you’re executed by firing squad. Total time post sentencing, 1 hour max.

b) You want an appeal. You’re granted 60 days to gather additional evidence that you feel will exonerate you. At the appellate hearing, if your conviction is upheld, see part a). Otherwise, you’re free to go with an apology from the state.
Simple.
[/if I were in charge]

Arnold said:

Which is less humane: Executing a person for a crime he did not commit, or stripping that innocent person of his rights, his dignity, his humanity, his individuality, and locking him away from his friends, his family, his way of life for 20 years, all while he is acutely aware of the fact that he doesn’t deserve this treatment?
Were it I, I’d prefer execution.

Of course not. That’s why sentence is pronouonced by a judge, rather than the victim’s (understandably) not-in-control-of-his-senses father. But once somebody is convicted in a death penalty case, I’d let the father execute the sentence.

No. Those are rights of the ACCUSED, not the CONVICTED. The so-called rights I object to are the right to avoid punishment by exhaustive appeal, knowing that you’re guilty. I object to loopholes in the law that allow obviously guilty people go free (this is more excusable, as it’s in the interest of avoiding the conviction of the not-guilty). I object to the “right” for a convicted rapist or murderer to serve minimal
time and be free. Please note the distinction between MURDER and KILL. Somebody who falls asleep at the wheel and accidentally runs over your daughter is not a murderer. Now if they did it a second and third time…

(And yes, in case you missed it, I do believe that rape should be a capital crime in 100% of cases. It’s a vile crime, and I think convicted rapists should be executed.)

Prison does not remove the rot from our society. This much should be obvious. People are released from prison. People escape from prison. Many (perhaps most? Lies, damn lies, or statistics, anybody?) post-release convicts go on to commit more crimes and land back in prison. And repeat the cycle.

Glitch is right that our judicial system is badly in need of reform, but I feel he’s incorrect in thinking that we need to dish out softer punishments “just in case”.

Oh, what’s that? So now you say life sucks?
Well 99% of it’s what you make of it…
So if your life sucks, YOU suck!

Joe_Cool

9

Whoa! I didn’t say anything about softer punishments. I think we need to take a very hardline approach to prison sentencing. 80-90% of all violent crime is commited by recividists, and yet we keep letting them out on parole. One study stated that for every recividist we release 187 violent crimes are commited. This is a staggering figure. The policy of rehabilitation and parole is a lofty and, in theory, a good goal. It is, sadly, obvious that our methodology for attaining it is terribly flawed and just doesn’t work. I believe we should be keeping violent criminals in prison for the full duration of their sentence unless they can give evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact rehabilitated.

Re: Deterrent Factor. The methodology we use for implementing the death penalty is probably not a factor (it is difficult to say with 100% certainity). No punishment in fact seems to be a deterrent to criminal behaviour in criminals. Now, you are probably think ol’ Glitch has lost it … criminal behaviour in criminals, what the hell does that mean, right? Well, it has been shown that embarressing punishment does reduce certain minor crimes amongst civilized folk. For example, if speeders are listed in a newspaper column speeding incidents tends to decline. But to violent criminals, in particular, they see their actions as justified and/or necessary and the notion of punishment (death penalty or jail) doesn’t enter into it. In fact, the only major felon who expects to be caught is the mass murderer (and they expect to got out in a hail of bullets). All other felons expect that they will not get caught, and again, one reason is that they don’t see what they are doing as being necessarily wrong.

In any event, with regards to the death penalty, I am highly concerned about the number of innocent people who have been found in prison or death row. With a “wrong” implemenation of a prison term, there is the possibilty of making it up to them. With a “wrong” implementation of death, that’s it. It can’t be taken back. And it is the state of crime labs in the nation that gives me the most concern. The lack of standards and certification is abyssmal. That is changing and that is a good thing. We’ll have to see how it all turns out though. I think for the time being a national review of all past death sentences prior to implementation is not unjustified. For current cases, I think there should be a moratorium on the death penalty.

10

I posted this same question in the “Chop him up, etc.” thread, so forgive me for repeating myself. But I’d really like to hear thoughts on this.

What is the stated purpose of the american criminal justice system? Is it justice (fairness)? Punishment (penal code)? Rehabilitation of criminals (correctional facilities)? I think that answer to that question has significant impact on Capitol punishment debate. For that matter, IS there a unified mission within the justice community?

11

{{{Ehhh - EnigmaOne, care to elaborate ? The anti-DP stance “leads downhill”, whatever that means ? I beg to differ. Actually, I consider having an executioner on the public payroll a major step downhill and I’m quite pleased that my taxes aren’t used for the poison used to kill other people.}}}—Spiny Norman

Norman, I had a post typed up and somehow lost it on this end–needless to say I’m on the computer that has Windows installed. I’m now irritated by that… forgive me if that shows a bit.

Government has an obligation to protect an innocent and productive society from the predatory and destructive elements contained within that same society. Putting certain criminals to death is simply part of that obligation–not a pleasant duty, but a duty none-the-less. To shirk that obligation–as is so popular today–is to take the morally depraved path, as it were. To defensively stand on false moral superiority, ignoring the life that was destroyed by the willful actions of a convicted criminal, is illogical and, quite frankly, barbaric.

I once shared your opinions–something I no longer do.

I further agree that rape should be reinstated as a capitol crime, along with crimes against children.

I have additional comments on this subject in the “Chop him up” thread.

Time for me to go throw darts at a picture of Billy-Joe-Bob-Gates.

–Kalél
TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court

12

“I further agree that rape should be reinstated as a capitol crime, along with crimes against children.”
—EnigmaOne

This attitude is one of the reasons I’m against the DP. Once the door is open…
What about treason? What if you willfully injure another person so badly that they are paralyzed for the rest of their life?
I can’t get over the problem of where to draw the line.
Peace,
mangeorge

13

I believe that the DP is both good and bad. It is good in that it eliminates murderers, thus keeping them from committing more atrocities. This is fine, as long as it can be proven that the murderer was in a rational state of mind. Obviously no one is in a completely rational state if they willfully commit a murder, but I use the term rational in regards to the perpetrator having control of themselves, i.e. they are not under the influence of any drug/alcohol, and they are not insane. If it is found that at the time of the murder, the perpetrator was under the influence of drugs/alcohol and/or were insane, then they should not be given the death penalty but rather life in prison, since they were not in full control of their actions.

14

How would life imprisonment without the possibility of parole not fullfil that obligation?

15

INRE: The drug/alcohol/insanity copout, et al.

This is equivalent to saying that you don’t object to firearms ownership as long as ammunition is banned. (Not to be taken literally, ok?)

I mean no blatent disrespect to you TCA, but I think you are overlooking the fact that many criminals use drugs/alcohol to bolster their courage to carry out crimes that they have already planned (anestheia for the conscience, if you will); with the full knowledge that, if caught, a claim of diminished capacity may fall upon sympathetic ears.
I am in no way swayed by the line of reasoning.

I don’t buy the line of argument that a person who commits murder is in an irrational state of mind, but I think I see where you are coming from. A bit on the simplistic side, if you ask me.

True insanity is another matter entirely, and I have no easy answers for that one. I do look on such claims with a very critical eye though. I think there is much room for creativity in sentencing while increasing the culpability of the perpetrator–the end goal being the protection of the innocent. Personally, I would look to a prior credible diagnosis as foundation for the plea.

I’d like to refer you to the book by Stanton E. Samanow (not sure of the spelling of the sur name): Inside the Criminal Mind. The author has insight into such matters that I can only characterize as disturbingly accurate.

–Kalél
TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court

16

Joe_Cool proposes vastly reducing the time for appeals. The consequence of that would be a large increase of the number of executions of people who are not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. There are currently many “innocence projects” in this country that are using DNA evidence to overturn convictions, some of those convictions having ensued in death row sentences. Here is one link:
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/innocence_project/

Joe_Cool then argues that life imprisonment is a harsher punishment (and/or more of a human right violation) than the death penalty. Shouldn’t that please death penalty advocates, who say that the punishment should deter criminals? I personally believe that the worst human violation is depriving someone of their life, which seems borne out in our criminal justice system. The punishment is greater for murdering someone than for kidnapping them and holding them prisoner.

As far as letting the family decide on the sentence for the criminal, I will point to the thread on vengeance ( http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001533.html ) and how it appeals to the base side of human nature.

His other arguments (rights of the convicted) seem to me to be arguments pointing out “flaws” of the current legal system (loopholes in the law that allow obviously guilty people go free, right to avoid punishment by exhaustive appeal). These would almost have to be reviewed on a case by case basis, but the foundation of our legal system is the premise that it’s better to let a criminal go free than to convict an innocent person.

“People are released from prison. People escape from prison.”
Release is not possible for someone imprisoned without possibility of parole. As far as escapes go, that points to the need for better security in prisons, not the necessity of the death penalty. The escapee is just as likely to be a drug dealer than a murderer.

17

With today’s DNA testing, executing the innocent is not the issue it once was.

No - probably some lesser punishment - 10 yrs maybe

Totally bogus issue. the DP for the convicted killer is a deterrant for that killer. No chance of escape or parole. He gets the sentence he gave his victim. The only thing more fair would be if he got the same kind of death sentence his victim got.

Unfortunately we can only kill the mass murder once. Once will have to suffice.

Exactly right! and if you had to fear a death such as you carried out on your victims, e.g., torture, mutilation, dismemberment, etc, Hmmmmmmmmmm…

18

If only this were so, unfortunately there have been numerous errors in DNA testing because of sloppy work either done by typically undertrained scientists. The state of crime labs in the US is terrible. There are few if any standards or certification. That is starting to change as forensic labs are requiring more education and experience in their employees or providing said training, but I don’t think we reached the point yet where we can put such faith in forensic labs to the degree you suggest.

19

Arnold said:

I can’t say that locking someone away forever does not remove them from society, it does. However, when we take that route, society still has the obligation to expend it’s resources to house, dress and feed the prisoner. I have seen various studies reguarding what it costs to keep a prisoner in confinement for a year, and as I remember it’s in excess of $20K/year. I got this figure here. These figures are simply for normal prisoners and not for maximum security, which I imagine costs more. If we reached the decision to remove the criminal from society because of his actions, why should society still have to pay for his care?

Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.

20

Because implementing the death penalty actually costs a great deal more than lifelong imprisonment when you factor in the court costs, what with all the appeals that people sentenced to death typically wind up getting. And cutting back to the point where the death penalty was economical would almost invariably cause innocent people to be executed.

Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.