Imprisonment is also more likely to be imposed on poor minority defedants, and has no apparant effect on crime, so pehaps we should just ditch the entire criminal justice system and let them live at your house? This is such a silly arguement.
BTW, why is it not barbaric to lock someone in a cage for 20 years? Am I missing something?
Sorry, wrong curve:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/rearrest.html
Keep in mind, this is only the ones who get caught. I think we can safely say the lifetime recidivism rate is well over 85-90%
No cites, but Jeffrey Dahmer was killed by another prisoner who was not executed.
For a fair comparison, you need to include all those who are killed by murderers who did not receive the death penalty - not just those awaiting execution. Also those who murdered, were not executed, and then went on to kill again. Such as:
[ul]
[li]Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz. He got interested in birds while in solitary confinement for stabbing another inmate to death who refused his sexual advances.[/li][li]Jack Abbott, author of In the Belly of the Beast. Killed a man, went to prison, got out, killed another man, went to prison. Norman Mailer got interested in his book, and got him sprung. Abbott then stabbed a waiter to death at a restaurant over an argument on whether or not Abbott should urinate in the alley behind the restaurant.[/li][li]Henry Lee Lucas, sentenced to prison for first murdering, then raping the dead corpse of his own mother. Subsequently released, he has been convicted of nine further murders.[/li][li]Charles Kemp, who killed his grandparents because, in his own words, he wanted to “know what it would be like to kill Grandma”. Also released, he murdered nine more co-eds at the campus at which his mother worked. [/li][li]Arthur Shawcross, who kidnapped, raped and murdered two children. After his release, he murdered nine prostitutes in a rage over his own sexual impotence. [/li][li]Ed Wein, who had his death sentence commuted to life in prison with no parole by Gov. Brown of California. What can be changed once can be changed again, and his sentence was changed to life with parole, and he was then released. Thereupon he kidnapped, raped, and murdered a woman he spotted who was waiting for the bus.[/li][li]Willie Horton. He didn’t kill anyone, but he was also serving a life sentence with no parole when he escaped and spent some hours torturing and raping a young couple whose house he broke into. [/li][li]Other murderers who escaped from prison include Ted Bundy and James Earl Ray. [/ul] [/li]
The death penalty saves lives, not by deterring, but by preventing repeat offenders. The safety offered to society by the death penalty exceeds that offered by life in prison with no parole, as documented above.
Still not sure why shooting someone is so much worse than lethal injection. Is this simple squeamishness over the blood? Both offer a quick, relatively painless and certain death.
So what’s the problem?
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, I didn’t even notice the typo – I just went back to your post to see what you meant. No worries! 
Although you didn’t mean it as an analogy, I was responding to the gunslinging chimp who’d originally suggested treating murderers like rabid dogs. Near as I can tell, he meant it as an analogy, and I was showing how the analogy broke down in several fundamental ways.
I do agree that a lot of murderers suffer emotionally for their crimes (or commit their crimes because of their emotional/psychological suffering). However, I don’t think that their suffering can be used as an argument in favor of execution, unless we can show that they suffer to a degree far beyond the suffering of other folks whom we don’t mercy-kill.
Daniel
Defenders of capital punishment usually cite deterrence as a factor in favor of the practice. If there is no evidence that murder rates are dropping in countries that practice the death penalty, then the deterrence argument has no merit. Ergo, the death penalty cannot be justified on the basis of deterrence.
I wasn’t talking about imprisonment, life or otherwise. I wasn’t suggesting that verifiable deterrence should be the only cause for meting out justice, in any case. I brought it up because death penalty supporters use it to support their arguments when, in fact, the evidence doesn’t back them up.
One of the many problems with the death penalty is that it’s irreversible. If new evidence indicates that a convict was innocent, you can free him if he’s been imprisoned. You can’t do anything if he’s been put to death.
Go Utah!
I disagree. If we have a mechanism in place to keep people from killing again – prison with no chance for parole – then in evaluating its efficacy, we should only consider those killed by people currently in prison, in cases where the dead person wasn’t on death row anyway. Cases where the system let someone loose and then they murdered again are not a good argument for the death penalty, since this flaw can be fixed by not letting them loose.
Daniel
I have on occasion wished death on certain individuals because of the heinous natures of their crimes but once my passion has cooled there is the reality.
The death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes
as the mindset of those who commit most crimes is that they will not be be caught. Fear of punishment doesn’t often enter the equation.
States with the death penalty have similar or even higher rates of capital crime to states that do not practice executions.
Texas executes more criminals than anyone yet has extremely high rates of capital crimes.
Law enforcement officials support the fact that execution does not serve as a deterrent.
Executions are more costly than life imprisonment.
Many individuals have been wrongly convicted, incarcerated, and consequently executed. Imagine yourself to be that innocent man awaiting execution…
The system discriminates against those in lower socio-economic groups… the odds of a rich man being executed are slim and if he is white, the odds of his being executed even slimmer.
Canada no longer punishes criminals by executing them. We also have stricter gun control legislation and homicide via firearms continues to decrease although we are now experiencing an increase in gang related shootings.
Our per capita murder rate is significantly lower than our southern neighbours even when you compare similar large urban centres.
Ted Bundy and James Earl Ray weren’t let loose.
Were Ted and James in maximum security wards, ones designed for murderers?
Daniel
I guess then I should state the basis of my support for the death penalty. It has nothing to do with deterrence. I have not idea if the DP deters crime, and I do not care. I support the DP because society should not have to coddle and pay for these heinous criminals. Sure, it may be more expensive to execute them, but that can be easily fixed by fixing the system to eliminate ridiculous appeals. One trial, one appeal, one year, one execution.
As for the argument that poor minorities are unfairly targeted, this is true for all forms of punishment and is an argument against criminal justice not the DP. So the system may need fixed. Fix it. Don’t eliminate it.
As for the argument that the innocent may be put to death, I must admit that this has almost certainly happened and may happen again. This is the only reasonable argument against the DP IMHO. However, it is an argument for an effective legal system, not for eliminating punishment. I mean, we lock up innocent people knowing that if found innocent, there is not way to replace the 10-15 years they lost. I say have an effective system on the front end so the innocent are not convicted, and let the chips fall where they may.
Well, Coldfire, YOU may be outraged that Timothy McVeigh was put to death, but I’m rather outraged that the scumbag who murdered Pim Forteyn will be on the street in 11 years, in all likelihood.
I’m not convinced we have a lot to learn from the Netherlands, when it comes to handling kilers.
All right, fair enough, my point needs more explanation.
First off, I mentioned Christ because Utah, as far as I know, is run by a Mormon government. Yup, that assumption doesn’t seem to be too far off. I always get a good chuckle out of Christians (in this case Mormons) advocating the death penalty. I did not mean to imply Christ himself is guiding my own moral decisions actively.
In principle, the death penalty is unacceptable, IMO. However, an example of a possible exception came to mind as I typed this: the Breda Four, SS war criminals tried and convicted in the Netherlands shortly after WWII. These men were responsible for thousands of Dutch and Jewish deaths, and were sentenced to a death penalty by the War Tribunals that were instated after WWII. A few months or years (not sure) into their incarceration, it was decided that for humanitarian reasons, the death penalties were to be converted to life emprisonment.
Two of the SS’ers died in jail during the 1970’s/1980’s. In 1989, the Dutch government decided to release the remaining two, because they were both close to dying, and wanted to die in Germany with their relatives.
I vividly remember the TV images of war vets protesting at the gates of the prison as these two subhuman pieces of shit were transported out in an armored van. Their release caused so much societal unrest, even 45 years after the war. The actions of those men cut into our society SO deeply, that I feel a death penalty (as was excecuted many a time in the months following WWII, per the War Tribunals’ verdicts) in 1945 would have been the better, societally more responsive sollution.
Of course, I realise such a judgment call opens up the debate about what the gray area really is, or where the line is supposed to be. Kill one person and go to jail, but kill 10 and die? 40? 1,000?
The answer is, I don’t know. I tend to look at these things at a case-by-case basis. The American legal system has proved many times to be particularly vulnerable to incorrect verdicts, even concerning the death penalty. It makes me even more suspicious of its merits: how many people have died for no reason already?
Having said that, there might be exceptions in the US too. I certainly don’t feel as enraged by the execution of McVeigh as I would by the execution of an “average” schmoe who just happened to kill one person.
I know my opinion here isn’t fully logical, and I know it can probably be shot down by many of the participants here. So I’ll just conclude that if I had to make a choice between “absolutely no death penalty” and “death penalty for all crimes involving murder”, I would certainly opt for the former, and I’d take the consequences of examples like “the Breda Four” for granted.
Quite true, Coldfire. This truth, however, does nothing to dim my support for capital punishment in the U.S. Our society is barbaric, and violent and pathological as well. It’s built into our institutions, our laws, and our culture in such a way that the stain won’t wash out for centuries.
American society: where it’s not only tenable, but quite popular to suggest that poor people ought to starve to death; that personal ownership of weapons of war is essential to liberty; that safety equipment on cars and motorcycles is an infringement on personal freedom; that environmental regulations are government theft; etc. Millions have been murdered in America; and injustice runs rampant, yet here we debate saving the lives of criminals. This society wants, needs, and deserves the death penalty, and will have it until violence is no longer our code.
I’m not suggesting you need to look at the Netherlands as an example for your justice system. Although it certainly couldn’t be a step back. 
Our penal system is based on the notion that incarceration doesn’t cure a criminal. Someone who kills another person is psychiatrically evaluated, and is either declared sane or insane (in various degrees, but let’s simplify for clarity reasons here). When you are declared sane (as was Pim Fortuijn’s murderer), you get a sentence with a maximum of 20 years. When you’re declared insane, you can get life improsenment, which usually means a decade in the slammer, and the rest of your days in a supervised psychiatric insitution for the criminally insane.
The fact that Fortuijn’s murderer will be out in 12 years, is because:
#3 is the only one I truly object to, but that’s beside the point. It deserves a rant of its own.
The gist about the Fortuijn case was, that the judge decided not to weight the societal factors of the murder. Fortuijn was a high profile politician, and a controversial (but widely admired) one at that. The judge ruled that a murder is a murder, and he would not engage himself in an estimation game of how “important” the victim was.
I agree with him.
I never looked at it that way. I don’t agree with you: I still think the death penalty has no place, even in US society. But I certainly can’t deny that your point has a solid logic to it, albeit a rather harsh and detached one, coming from an American himself. Throught-provoking, nonetheless. Bravo, and I mean that in all sincerety.
First off, we need to make it very clear that chimps are not monkeys - they are apes. I think you should post an apology for calling me a chimp. The apology needs to go to the chimp, of course.
Anyway, if you take my “rabid dog” analogy to mean mercy killing, then yes, it falls about like a poorly constructed house of cards. There’s an additional flaw if you consider that the dog who contracted rabies is innocent, whereas convicted murderers are not (hopefully). However, if you look at the analogy from a standpoint of protecting the rest of the kennell, it holds up a little better. If the point of life imprisonment is to quarantine the convicted from the rest of society, it may be better to remove the hopeless recidivist from the population entirely.
Now to address one other point. Though I am pro-death penalty (in theory if not in practice), I find the “it would be cheaper” arguments to have more flaws than any imperfect analogy I could come up with. Questions of life and death should not be decided based on a cost/benefit analysis. Sure it would be cheaper, but it’s not right because it’s cheaper. The daily cost of imprisonment is therefore irelevant when discussing the moral implications.
These are arguments for life without parole, not the death penalty.
Would you like a list of all the “murderers” who have been found innocent through DNA evidence? Don’t you think there’s a pretty good chance that at least some innocent people have been executed?
At least with life sentences you can let people out and make some attempts to repair the damage. Executions are irreversible.
Do the police and military in your land use lethal weapons? If so, then there is a de facto death penalty used occasionally.
Okay - you’re right on this point - it is cheaper to allow these guys to live, but I would imagine that’s because most deathrow inmates are allowed an unlimited number of appeals. If the number of appeals were limited, it would, in fact, be cheaper to get rid of them than to keep them.