This should be a good topic for discussion.
On the pro side, besides the ‘an-eye-for-an-eye’ argument, there is the issue of “lifers” and such maintaining criminal organizations in prison (“What are they going to do–throw me in jail?”), which they could not do if they were executed; on the con side, it is possible to execute an innocent man–and many sources assert that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
It seems to me that the “eye-for-an-eye” justification for the death penalty is the only one that really ends up being presented. As you said, the deterrent idea really doesn’t stand up. Essentially the death penalty is just the basic vengeance idea coming into play, it really shouldn’t have anything to do with the justice system in this country(just as it doesn’t with most any other industrialised country).
On the other hand it’s a good way to get rid of all those darkies in the prisons.
The way it’s handled now, no, it’s not a deterrent. There is too large a span of time between the crime and the execution. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I’m all for a citizen’s right to due process, and I’d rather have a guilty criminal sit around an extra few years than an innocent person put to death because they were rushed through the system.
I’m not a big fan of the death penalty, but then I’m hardly a big fan of the criminal acts that merit it. I do feel that there are people - men and women - that are so monstrous that we shouldn’t take a chance that they will ever be able to harm again. I also feel that punishment is a legitimate motivation in sentencing a criminal, and that there are some crimes that merit death as punishment.
Doesn’t make me happy. Doesn’t make me comfortable. Doesn’t mean that I think it’s a solution for all crimes. Doesn’t mean that I’ll be the first in line to throw the switch. It just means that I think there’s a legitimate use for it.
Some of the discussion in the last death penalty thread might be worth reading.
The November 1999 Atlantic Monthly article, “The Wrong Man”, which I excerpted from at length on that thread, is also worth reading. It gives details about a few zillion ways in which we’ve demolished any reasonable safeguards to protect the innocent from being fried. Whether or not there’s a moral basis for the death penalty in the abstract, the article demolishes the notion of a moral basis for our system of capital punishment.
The earlier thread has a number of other good links; it’s worth going back over just for those.
“I truly believe that dragging Jesus Christ into partisan politics is a grave mistake. It will do Jesus no good at all to be seen in the company of politicians - apt to ruin his reputation, if you ask me.” - Molly Ivins
I don’t feel Vengence is a proper mission for our justice system though. Vengence is not equal to justice in fact it is generally the oppsite of.
-Frankie
“Mother Mercy, can your loins bear fruit forever?/Is your fecundity a trammel or a treasure?”
-Bad Religion
Someone feel free to update this: As of 1995, out of the 258 persons executed since the re-instatement of the death penalty, 143 were white, 99 black, 15 Latino, 1 Native American.
I’m certainly not saying that there is no racial component to our justice system, including, but not limited to, capital cases. Foe example, the racial angle is often brought up when referring to the color of the victims.
I just want to set things straight right here, before we get going too far, that by far more whites (as a actual number) are executed than blacks. Of course that changes when one talks about representative percentages of the population at large, though not as a percentage of prison population.
As far as a deterrent goes, of course a punishment that is implemented so infequently, compared to the number of murder cases tried, can never be an effective deterrent. Also, since as many as 15 to 20 years can pass between incarceration and execution, there is no immediate threat that would cause most murderers to think twice. If punishment were swift and sure, I submit one would be able to quantify an overall deterrence compared to, say, the last 20 years.
Of course, the question then becomes one of how fair is it to have a swift and sure execution without allowing the current appeals process to run its course. A valid concern, certainly.
IMO, it is the delay between conviction and implementation that is the largest factor in the lack of deterrence often noted. People in general have a harder time with delayed consequences, whether we’re talking good or bad. Peolple too often are overwhelmed by the now, not the far future. This can be seen with attitudes all over the map. Look at the ideas many people have about investing. Try explaining the miracle of compound interest and 20 years down the road. Intellectual knowledge often loses to the temptations of the moment.
And let’s face it; most people on death row are not the brightest bulbs in the room. I doubt most potential murderers will ever make enough of a connection between their crime and the remote possibility that they will end up in the electric chair for the death penalty to ever be a deterrent.
The deterrent factor is a very interesting question. I read an article, a very long time ago, that argued that the death penalty was a deterrent for “smaller” crimes but not for murder. The authors had gleaned historical statistics from all over the world to support their claims, but common sense will tell you that this is most likely true.
Peace,
mangeorge
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000
Since the “deterrent” issue is like the abortion issue - one that isn’t likely to get agreement of all, let’s just drop it.
Who cares?
The DP does however, deter that criminal from ever having the opportunity of repeating the crime, and killing you or me.
I view the DP as our legal system’s way of protecting us from murderers.
When it comes to murder, rape, or other violent crimes, particularly against the helpless (children or elderly) I really don’t care about punishment or rehabilitation. I care about society being protected from these criminals, whether that means life without parole or the DP for the criminal.
If I had my way, the death penalty would be abolished. As a more practical consideration, I would like to see the end of “death qualification” of the jury. (As I understand it, you are excused from the jury in a capital murder trial if you would not be willing to give someone the death penalty.)
A jury is supposed to be made up of one’s peers, and excusing those who are against the DP automatically cuts out 25% of those peers. I think it would be more than that, since many of those 75% who support the idea of the death penalty would not be willing to hand it out themselves.
I would also say that the remaining 50% or so do not otherwise represent an adequate cross section of your “peers”. These people support the death penalty for a reason–maybe they’re tired of seeing criminals walk, tired of legal loopholes, or tired of low standards of “reasonable doubt”. Maybe they believe the DP sends a message to other would-be criminals. I believe these people would be much more likely to render a guilty verdict. (Please note that I am not saying all who support the DP are like this–I just think DP supporters are more likely to feel this way than non-DP supporters, which is the very definition of bias.)
Ending death qualification would essentially put an end the death penalty, although I think some of the more heinous crimes (McVeigh) would probably still slip through. One problem is that one jury in 4096 would be made up of those willing death penalty supporters anyway.
I believe this was brought up on the other thread, and I’ve thought about it quite a bit since. If I have any misconceptions that the legal types or more knowledgable folks would like to clear up, please do so. (Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a lawyer. :))
Dr. J
One question I have always had-how come mass murderers (like Jeffry Dahmer) mis getting the hot squat? Most of these people seem to get life, while some unlucky minority gets the DP for only one (disputed) murder! All kidding aside, a well known study of the DP concluded:" those subjected to it show an EXTREMELY low rate of recidivism"
[sarcasm]I say kill everyone on death row. It’s a deterant for all those guilty parties.
What about all those that are innocent? I say kill them, too! I figure that, after all those years in prison, they’re probably corrupt, and are likely to be very angry and violent if they get out. Killing them would be preventative medicine. In fact, if we just took random prisoners and executed them, too, it would probably settle the prison population down. It’s not like they’re human, y’know. They are constantly refered to as “monsters”, “animals”, and “inhuman beasts”, aren’t they?[/sarcasm]
Dahmer was convicted in Wisconsin, which doesn’t have capital punishment. At least, not officially… He was killed in prison.
Justice at last!
I don’t see this as a racial issue, I see it as an economic issue. When is the last time a wealthy person was put to death?
For another recent discussion, see http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001219.html.
“The large print givith, and the small print taketh away.”
Tom Waites, “Step Right Up”
Well, this is the problem. I agree with what most of all y’all are saying about an eye for an eye. The DP usually has more to do with punitive rage than with justice (I’ve read some studies supporting this idea).
I noticed an interesting thing on the last thread: Most DP opponents had arguments that went something like “A more reasoned approach might be…”, while DP supporters had arguments closer to “Fry the bastards…” The anger was clearly evident. Often (and I’m not speaking for all DP supporters) DP proponents tend to be angry people in general. If I were on trial for murder (whether or not I was guilty), I certainly wouldn’t want a jury made up of people who had toxic anger against their parents/spouses/bosses. I’d be too afraid that they’d take their anger out on me. And this happens! All too often.
So by excluding the 25% that don’t support the DP, you get an angrier and more punitive demographic. Hardly conducive to “justice.”
Sage posted
[q]Since the “deterrent” issue is like the abortion issue - one that isn’t likely to get agreement of all, let’s just drop it.
Who cares?[/q]
I care. The killing of another human is a very serious issue. Those in favor of capital punishment do use the idea of death threats as a deterrent.
[q]The DP does however, deter that criminal from ever having the opportunity of repeating the crime, and killing you or me.[/q]
So does permanent incarceration. Why kill?
[q]I view the DP as our legal system’s way of protecting us from murderers.[/q]
I disagree. Dead criminals do not prevent me from murdering my neighbors. A legal system can only directly affect those already punished by it. Where do you think murderers come from? Since I am not in prison, I am free to take any action I desire. At any time, I could to engage in a mad killing spree. There are only two things that will prevent a person from action: physical restraint and a sense of morality. Killing is a form of physical restraint, but it is excessive. There is no need to go to that extreme when incarceration serves the same purpose just as effectively. Victims of capital punishment have all been removed from society prior to their executions.
[q]When it comes to murder, rape, or other violent crimes, particularly against the helpless (children or elderly) I really don’t care about punishment or rehabilitation. I care about society being protected from these criminals, whether that means life without parole or the DP for the criminal.[/q]
I agree with you here. In order to progress, society must separate itself from destructive individuals. However, no matter how terrible we might think a crime to be, we must remain objective. We only need to separate ourselves from destructive individuals. Those individuals are not destructive all the time. If a man kills another while in a state of extreme rage, it does not mean that that man is in a permanent state of extreme rage. That man must be separated from society because of his inability to control his rage. When his rage passes, he will no longer be murderous. Why kill him? Because he might get angry again? I might get angry some day. You’d better kill me now before it happens.
Oops. Sorry about the quotes.
If it is wrong for an individual to kill, how can it be acceptable for the state to do so?
If you won’t question what you think, why call it thinking?
Wolf,
Perhaps it is an even greater evil when the state kills. An individual can feel justified in killing another. Often times those who kill do believe that the victim posed a direct threat to their way of life. How the heck could a state possibly claim that the threat posed by a single individual was so great that death was a merited response?
I believe that the killing done by individuals is the result of irrational, incomplete, undeveloped thought. The killing done by a state is very deliberate and those who carry out such killing are the well educated leaders of our country. It all makes me rather ill.
tymp, I didn’t say “let’s drop it” in reference to discussion of the DP, but in reference to whether it acts as a deterrent. Totally different from what you apparently thought I said.