Well, I didn’t want to turn this into a garden variety death penalty debate, and before I say this I know I’ll be hounded for cites, but it has always been my understanding that the DP is, in the big picture, far more costly than the alternative. It is not so simple as “Here’s 30K…feed and care for this prisoner, or kill him and free up that money to do some good.” But I’m not prepared right now to cite chapter and verse on why this is so, so feel free to ignore it. Unless someone else would care to step into the breech. (should that be “breach”? I can’t get the online dictionary to come up to check…)
I think you mean you have no doubt that he is guilty.
I’m not an expert on the english langauge when it comes to spelling or sentence formation. But can you please point out to me in the above where the question is located? Because I didn’t see one of these ? anywhere up there.
[aside]This isn’t the first time you’ve started a thread where answering something was nearly impossible. This isn’t a great debate this belongs in General Questions.[/aside]
So are you saying that we should apply the death penalty or not based on our assessment of what influence the person probably will have? Now THAT’s narrow.
You’ve missed the forest for the trees. I didn’t say that it’s important what kind of influence the conficted person might or might not have on society if allowed to live.
My simple belief is that when a person has demonstrated that they cannot live in civilized society in a reasonably peaceful manner, that society has not only the right but the duty to remove that person, permanently, from their midst. I don’t go down the path of trying to figure out, on a case-by-case basis, what affect that person might have on society if left alive.
The guy who holds up a convenience store and brutally kills an innocent, may very well need to be removed if that killing is part of a pattern of anti-social behavior. This is why I find it amazing that our “modern” legal system has the bizarre tenant that past crimes or behavior should not be considered when rendering a verdict (or at least sentence) in a current crime.
I’m saying that, in part, but I’m mostly saying that it’s not necessarily “wrong” for society to choose to execute those who cause damage. But I recognize that this is mostly based on my own personal philosophy of life.
Retribution is part of it, yes. I see no reason why “vengeance” is a negative thing when it comes to society punishing those who have chosen to cause harm.
Hell, throwing someone in prison for life - or at all, for that matter - is also “vengeance”. Should we do away with the entire Criminal Justice System because it’s not “enlightened”? Of course not.
Well, not so much that, but only that society has a right to maintain order. But, yes, certain people commit crimes that are so heinous that the best method of maintaining justice is their execution.
Ok, then I misunderstood you. Roadfood said, “People in prison can still affect us. As has been pointed out, they can show up on TV, they can write books, they can file lawsuits, etc.” I interpretted that to mean that you wanted to impose the death penalty to avoid the TV interviews, books, etc. I was mistaken, fine. I therefore consider that particular version of the restraint argument to be dropped.
Ok. I presume that you mean that if you murder 2 people in a convenience store robbery when you are 25 that you have demonstrated that you can’t live in civilized society peaceably. Of course, such a person may be able to live peaceably in society at age 45. That may or may not matter to you.
Furthermore, your argument sounds like a justification for prison: if somebody can’t live peaceably in society, throw them in jail. That’s the restraint argument. If you are saying that we should kill certain people before they kill others (in prison, for example), then I direct you to the McVeigh thread where I am currently discussing this point.
Put it another way. What do you do with a person who does a heinous act? If you say that they deserve to die, you are making the retribution argument.
If you are saying that society needs to defend themselves from the murderer, you must show how prison represents an insufficient defense. If you are worried about murders committed within prison, then (empirically) you are arguing that the state should kill a great many so as to save a relatively small number. (Again, see the McVeigh thread.)
Finally, let me point out that the restraint argument has a decidedly empirical element to it, which makes it fact-dependent. From the tone of your piece, I suspect that you will ultimately want to edge towards the retribution justification, an argument for which I personally have no response.
I see it as a negative thing, but this is an issue of values and not fact. My understanding is that most US residents agree with SPOOFE on this point.
No. Criminologists list a number of punishment justifications/theories. They include prevention, restraint, rehabilitation, deterrence, education and retribution. To that list I cynically add, “entertainment”. (Different criminologists categorize these justifications differently.) One can reasonably imprison criminals without appealing to vengeance as a justification.
[aside] I should also note though, that some criminologists distinguish between “rational retribution” and “vengeance”: the former is OK, the latter is allegedly not. I haven’t worked out that particular distinction though.[/aside]
Prevention: Well, the “punishment” phase would have Prevention and Deterrence almost the same thing. Prevention rests with a different tier of law enforcement than the punishment.
Restraint: Can you explain what the restraint is supposed to refer to? I’m not as familiar with criminology as some others… I assume it refers to providing a fair punishment to fit the crime. If so, it can be argued that killing someone who has killed others does not indicate a lack of restraint. However, if I’m mistaken on this topic, please let me know.
Rehabilitation: In my mind, this is the best argument against the death penalty… the criminal may still be able to DO SOMETHING. However, given the heinousness of the crime, it can be argued that society wouldn’t WANT those who commit such acts to produce anything. Would YOU want to have a license plate made by Timothy McVeigh?
Deterrence: The best argument for the death penalty… if someone knows his actions might result in his death, theoretically he/she would be more reluctant to commit such acts. Of course, this argument fails in light of those with VERY extreme views/mental conditions (such as the aforementioned McVeigh…).
Education: Don’t really see how one can educate someone by killing them… again, however, it serves to educate others that “killing is bad”.
Retribution: http://www.m-w.com provides this definition for the word “vengeance”:
I don’t think any further comment is necessary.
Look, I’m not about to claim that my belief that the death penalty is not morally wrong to be the correct one. And I also admit that the distinction between “vengeance” and “retribution” is mostly an argument of semantics (although I can see a slight difference… one seems more sinister than the other). Further, if the death penalty were outlawed, I’d most likely shrug it off.
I did not mean to imply otherwise, and if I did, I apologize. However, please note that one can reasonably execute criminals without appealing to vengeance as a justification, as well.
Here’s where we appear to disagree. (Dang.) I contend that the retribution / vengeance / entertainment cluster of justifications provide the only support for the death penalty that is both reasonable and informed.
Cool.
I couldn’t tell from my source what the difference between “Prevention” and “deterrence” was suppose to be.
Sure. Here are some examples.
Prison: By warehousing criminals, they don’t rob law abiding citizens.
Ankle Bracelets: An electronic curfew keeps the bad guys off the streets.
DP: Kill 'em and they won’t kill others. I dealt with the problems with this argument in the McVeigh thread.
::chuckle:: No.
Arg. Ok, broadly speaking there are a couple of responses. 1) Most crimes are crimes of passion. So the bad guys typically don’t work through a rational cost/benefit analysis before indulging in mayhem. That’s the theory (or one theory, anyway). Whether it is true or not -or whether or not the DP deters crime- is an empirical matter.
2) And empirically, no additional deterent value for the DP has been shown. See the McVeigh thread for my (partial) review of the literature. The review was directed at december the statistician (actuary, actually), but I could elaborate on my post, if necessary.
3) My understanding is that most criminologists believe that the probability of punishment matters more than the intensity of punishment. But see the McVeigh thread for an interesting qualification by Testy.
[Aside]Roughly speaking, if I believed that the DP saved a statistically significant number of lives, I would be for it.[/aside]
[Nitpick]Off-topic, but this being the Straight Dope . . . in the original cut of Fatal Attraction, the bad guy (assuming you’re talking about the Glenn Close character) does get killed. She commits suicide and manages to frame Michael Douglas for it, until his wife finds exonerating evidence. Of course, this ending was changed, since audiences were robbed of the excitement of seeing an obviously mentally ill pregnant woman be strangled in a bathtub then fatally shot by the philandering, lying asshole’s all-too-patient wife.[/nitpick]
Am I grimly pleased that McVeigh is dead? Yes, I am. While I think justice has been served, the primary reason that I am not bothered by his death is that, now that he is dead he will never harm another person. While there probably will be other mass murderers, this is, at least, one man who will never duplicate his horrible crimes.
)