Death Penalty: Justice or revenge?

Great Debates
1

Dylann Roof was sentenced to death after about three hours of deliberation by the jury. Reports make note of the fact that he showed no remorse, and one might infer this was a factor in the sentence. In death-penalty cases this point often comes up.

If the death penalty is supposed to provide punishment for illegal acts, why do the courts consider remorse for those acts to be a mitigating factor? It doesn’t lessen the horror of the crime or impact to victims. It does make it easier to forgive someone, from a moral standpoint. But the courts are a place of laws, not morals. The courts are supposed to make decisions based on the law, not morals, except to the extent that the laws are an expression of our society’s moral code.

So is the death penalty meting out justice, or just a ceremonial way to take revenge for the ultimate crime?

(There are many arguments pro and con for the death penalty, and I am not trying to spark a larger discussion but rather just this one point. But I know by now that threads tend to take on a life of their own so I expect to quickly lose ownership of this topic after the first few posts.)

2

Disclaimer: I’m strongly against the DP, personally.

First of all, recognize that a sentence isn’t about just one thing. It’s about justice, revenge, punishment, deterrence… If a person is guilty of a capital offense, and shows no remorse, one might expect that he will commit that crime again and again (even in prison). If he does show remorse, then the possibility of rehabilitation is there.

3

I disagree with the death penalty, but I can see why people think it serves justice. Not like I shed any tears over Roof’s sentence, though.

4

With a death penalty on the books, this sure looks like a textbook case for its use. There is no doubt the guy is guilty. The crime is of the most heinous imaginable. No remorse.

The only mitigating factor I would note is Roof’s age. Our brains aren’t fully “adult” until well into our 20s, even though our laws make us legally an adult (wrt the criminal justice system) at 18.

5

I am against the death penalty because I don’t think people can be trusted to use it fairly and justly. Still, there are some people who should be killed because their own actions make them non-human in my eyes. I love dogs too but a rabid dog must be put down. Unfortunately there’s no absolute way to determine if a person should be put down that way so as a society we have to pointlessly keep some people alive just so we don’t make a mistake.

However, since some people think they can judge these situations properly then it does make sense to consider remorse as a factor that distinguishes humans from monsters. I don’t think so myself, remorse can be faked.

6

I dunno. Perhaps I killed someone who I really think deserved it, and I have no remorse about killing that particular individual. That’s not to say I would feel the same about killing someone else – perhaps I would feel remorse for someone else.

Can’t say how the justice system would address something like that.

7

I’m not sure I see why it can’t be both.

As far as the question of remorse, it only makes sense that one would be more willing to extend mercy to someone who acknowledges and regrets doing something wrong than one who takes an arrogant position, perhaps even implying that he would do the same thing again, given the chance. It’s not that the remorseful person somehow deserves mercy on the basis of his remorse. Rather, the extension of mercy is a gracious act by the one who has been wronged (which, in the case of a criminal act, is society as a whole).

8

My position is more nuanced. I’m opposed to routine application of the death penalty but am more than prepared to make an exception for someone who targets, for murder, random strangers. By and large, the greater the amount of premeditation that goes into the offense, the less I have a problem with offing the perp. (And, by doing so, letting other would-be Dylan Roofs know that this should be a factor in their calculations.) I also do demand that there not only be no reasonable doubt, but no doubt period.

This case meets those criteria quite neatly.

9

In the case of Roof… he has actually referred to his victims as “innocent”, yet has expressed no remorse over having killed them, and would do it again.

10

Disclaimer: I do not believe in the death penalty.

For me justice is a fair, open and public trial where the accused is afforded all rights and protections under the rule of law (i.e., US Constitution in America). No more and no less. If after that fair, open and public trial the accused is found guilty, a fair punishment for violating the law is sufficient.

Revenge is an attitude seeking personal vengeance by someone (or more than one) who is not the subject of the actual crime. The death penalty does not “fix” what is broken; it merely serves the blood-lust of victim’s family and friends. The death penalty does not deter others from committed similar crimes. It has no economic cost savings. It is a personally politically asset for politicians and others to keep the power, money and influence for themselves at the expense of the greater population and society that they claim to serve. The only thing attributed to the death penalty is the accused will never do it again. Life without parole serves the same purpose, but with an added benefit that reasonable doubt as to guilt raised later can be investigated.

TriPolar’s rabid dog comment is a fair comment. So is his comment we may never be sure all of the time.

11

Nuance can be good (though it needn’t be), as long as it is grounded in fact. The problem with your position is that there is no evidence that the DP acts as a deterrent.

12

You mean as a general deterrent. It certainly acts as a specific deterrent.

As to the OP:

Why cannot “justice” include “revenge”? Define what you mean by “justice”, and we can discuss this. For some people, a “just” result is a result that not only reaches the correct conclusion, using proper methods, but also metes out a consequence that is appropriate for the crime committed. One would think that, for such people, a “just” sentence for an avowed murderer who has shown no indication that he/she is personally tortured by what they did would be the death of the person who committed the murder(s).

I am not one of those people, but my opposition to the death penalty is not rooted in a discussion of what is “just” or “proper.” My opposition is rooted in the concept that, if it is generally not moral to kill a person, it is no more moral for the state (a group of people) to kill a person. I certainly am satisfied with the alternative of removing that person from society for the rest of their natural life, and in the process have no qualms about isolating them in any way which would not be considered “torture” (infliction of pain or distress solely in order to accomplish that end).

But I understand why people support the death penalty, and why they can consider it “just”. I even understand why they consider it “just revenge.”

13

It prevents the killer from killing again.

And no, Life without Parole doesnt do that.

The killer can still:
Plan and order a killing outside prison
kill a guard
Kill a prisoner (and do you want the death penalty foe bad check writers?)
Escape.
Get Paroled anyway.
Get accidentally released.

all of these have happened.

14

I see four legitimate purposes for sentences in general: Restitution, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence. People sometimes say that there’s a fifth, some abstract notion of “justice”, but I’ve yet to see anyone pin down just how that differs from simple revenge, which I do not consider a legitimate purpose.

Now, as to those purposes: Restitution is impossible for murder, and the death penalty makes rehabilitation impossible, so those are out. The death sentence certainly does prevent the subject from repeating the offense, and acts as a nonzero degree of deterrence, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that it’s more effective at either of these than life imprisonment.

But even more importantly, even if it were more effective than life imprisonment, it’s still wrong. It is not any mortal person’s place to decide that any other mortal person should die. That’s why we have the laws against murder in the first place.

15

A person who is dead doesn’t care, so it can’t serve as retribution. And, as justice, the pain of a death falls on the family members and friends of the dead, so it’s unlikely that you’re going to hit something equal in terms of full effect, between the death of the murderer and murdered - nor is that really desired.

But if you’re going to deprive someone of their life for the rest of their life, you might as well just end it. It’s a waste of time and resources to keep someone alive in a pit, just so you can feel good about not having killed them. Ultimately, the purpose of life is freedom. Minus that and what’s the point? Like, sure, we could give you a full golf course, hook you up to a morphine drip for the rest of your life, etc. so that it’s enjoyable, but if you’re not part of society and have no way to gain from it, to add to it, etc. then you’re already effectively dead. The rest of your life is known and pointless.

Death isn’t inherently bad. Killing someone isn’t inherently evil. Kidnapping someone and sticking them in a box, with no real goal beyond that is far more so.

16

This, mostly, with a hefty dose of expedience. It costs a lot to keep someone incarcerated and until relatively recently, we couldn’t afford it, so it was more expedient to just kill the criminals.

17

It prevents the killer from killing again.

And no, Life without Parole doesnt do that.

The killer can still:
Plan and order a killing outside prison
kill a guard
Kill a prisoner (and do you want the death penalty foe bad check writers?)
Escape.
Get Paroled anyway.
Get accidentally released.

all of these have happened.

A startling number of murders are committed by criminals previously convicted of homicide. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1 out of every 11 killers now on death row had already been found guilty of one or more killings before committing the murder for which they were sentenced to die. At least 30 of the 3,000 current death-row inmates were prison escapees when they committed capital murder. We can lock our most vicious killers behind bars, but some will find a way to get out — and some of them will kill again.

18

Not seeing how that makes any difference.

19

There is no universal and consistent reason for any legal penalty. Just collections of individual reasonings, by all the people who chose to codify them, or who inherited and retained them.

Looking at why people have been killed as a punishment over the millennia, I’ve seen everything from rule by terror, to laziness, to subtle theoretical notions, to pure practicality.

In my observation, most people advocating for or against it, tend to list more than one reason for their decision, most often, because whether THEY like all the reasons or not, they assume that having multiple reasons for something will gain them their way.

In addition, no matter what the original, or even the official current reason was/is for a death penalty, there will be people who urge it to be carried out for their own personal reasons.

For myself, I try to be as practical as I can. I am generally/mostly opposed to the death penalty, for entirely practical reasons, rather than emotional ones.

For one thing, I don’t agree with it being considered a “penalty.” This is because I think of a “penalty,” as being something that we use to persuade someone to modify their behavior. And death ENDS the person, so they aren’t being “penalized,” they are being eliminated.

Another element in my considerations, is an indirect one. Laws are like machines. Once they are put in place, they can be used, and often MUST be used on anyone and everyone, even when no one wants them to be. I suspect this is why we tried in many locales, to limit the use of the law, to fully adult humans.

In addition, laws give power to authorities. We try, in this country, to limit how much power authorities get in making life or death decisions, precisely because humans have a deep history of abusing power once they get a hold of it.

So I am wary in a general way, of supporting such an all-or-nothing “penalty.”

But there are valid concerns about how insanely dangerous some clearly defective humans are. There really are humans who are so viciously destructive, that only death will stop them from being destructive of everyone and everything around them. If anyone is detailed to hold such people in captivity, the expense has to be tremendous, just to allow any kind of safety at all for the caretakers.

Another practical consideration: killing everyone who commits horrible crimes, prevents us from being able to study them, and use the information to help us with future miscreants. We are much better at recognizing and catching serial killers and other sociopaths, because there was a time when the death penalty was outlawed and the captive examples were available for study.

As I said, all of what I listed, results in my being GENERALLY opposed to death, especially as a “punishment.” But I don’t fanatically and thoroughly oppose it, because I can appreciate that there are situations where nothing else is practical.

I don’t know enough about the Dylan Roof case to decide it for myself.

20

Or, simple paragraph abuse. :smiley: