The Purpose of the Death Penalty Is To . . . . . .

Great Debates
101

** My interpretation is that Jesus did not mean, “Only those who have not committed adultery may stone this woman.” My interpretation is that he meant only a perfect person may execute someone and no one is perfect.

** Christians are in the majority in this country and on this board, so I assumed that you were one as well. I was wrong.

However: If a philosophy is correct, it does not matter who originated it. It matters not if it were Jesus who spoke out against executions or a Babylonian or an Aztec or a Cro-Magnon or the president of a country or an ordinary citizen. This is not physical science, this is ethics.

Another topic: War and executions are not the same thing. Whether one is for or against the death penalty, one should not equate them.

102

There was a case here in Minnesota about eight years ago. The beloved eighteen-year-old daughter of a prominent psychologist and his wife was kidnapped from a bar, gang-raped and murdered, and buried in a shallow grave. They later caught all four perpetrators.

The victim’s father later testified in state legislature hearings about the death penalty. He argued against the death penalty, giving reasons that it would not bring back his precious daughter, and that the people who did this obviously had something mentally/emotionally wrong with them to have done this.

I thought it was one of the bravest things I ever heard, that he testified in that way, and I don’t know if I could have shown that kind of integrity had it happened to one of my daughters.

But I do believe that the death penalty demeans society, rehabilitates no one, probably deters no one (because most people don’t think they’ll get caught, or are in such a passionate anger that they do not think about being caught), and harms those who have to carry it out.

I echo biggirl’s sentiments that a government should be above revenge. Murderers can be imprisoned with no chance for parole (unless they are found later to be innocent), and society can in this way be protected from them. And perhaps these murderers can be studied, and hypotheses formed as to what conditions produce murderers. The money otherwise spent on millions of dollars worth of appeals processes as the final steps before execution, could better be spent to change societal conditions which produce murderers.

103

**

Which is probably a pretty good interpretation. However just because I may have done something wrong in the past doesn’t mean I can’t judge in the future.

**

I can understand why you’d think I was one. But as an atheist I don’t understand why you’d want to use it. I’m an atheist and I don’t use christian philosophy to prove my points.

**

I suppose that’s true. It doesn’t matter who speaks out executing someone for murder is still just. Of course I understand there are those who disagree.

Murder and executions aren’t always the same thing either.

Marc

104

And what makes you think that just because a person is sent to college, that that person will succeed in college? Do you really think your average gang banger is going to pass, let alone, understand, calculus? Not likely.

Am I underestimating the intelligence of your average gang banger? Perhaps. But if that’s the case, why are they gang banging in the first place? Financial gain? Peer pressure? Boredom? All of the above? I’m going to go ahead and side with stupidity.

To the OP, the purpose of the death penalty is not to deter crime, not for revenge, not even for “justice.” It is to prevent future crimes.

Time and time again, I hear about murderers, rapists, and pedophiles released from prison on some legal oversight, or parole, then a few days after their release, they’re on the news again because they just committed the same crime they were orginally incarcerated for.

The preservation of a killer will ultimately lead to more killings. What’s to stop him? Rehabilitation? You’re only lying to yourself if you believe that one. I’ll use this analogy – I like ketchup. Rehabilitate me all you want, but in 100 years, I’m still going to like ketchup.

Life in prison, you say? Okay, that might work, but he’ll only end up killing his fellow inmates or maybe even a gaurd. Let alone the cost of keeping him alive for his entire life in a lavish prison (I’m not going to get into the whole cost of life in prison vs execution debate. You take away all the legal bullshit that comes with executions, and your problem is solved).

105

So we both agree that the Bible contradicts itself? Thank you. (Oh, and if you click on that link in my earlier post, you’d see that the Philadelphia Church of God uses those same verses to back up their argument that a legal execution is an act of love for the murderer.)

Me neither, but far too many people use the Bible to back up their pro-death-penalty arguments, picking the verses that agree with their view and ignoring the ones that don’t.

106

Don’t you see what violence did to you? It made you angry, hurt, resentful and wishing to do the same to others. (But legally, which makes it all right. :rolleyes: ) It transformed you for the worse. Maybe that drunk who beat you had a father who beat the crap out of him, so he grew up thinking that’s what people are supposed to do, so he beat you. Imagine this happening to many others; what kind of society would result?

One where violence is accepted as normal behavior, one where killing is accepted as a normal fact of life, one where people who dislike violence and are sickened by it and won’t indulge in it are considered weaklings and wimps. Some would say the USA is already there.

I’ve been beaten up, too. (I suppose you’ll reply that I wasn’t beaten hard enough.) It didn’t change my mind. I still think the worst way to punish someone is to imprison them for life.

vandal, please tell me where these “lavish” prisons are. I’ve never seen one. And even if they do exist, a gilded cage is still a cage.

107

I always feel compelled to respond to the endless “what-ifs” put forth by DP proponents.

Let’s say you came home and found your wife murdered, in the manner described all-too-well above. The police have the “obvious perpetrator” in custody, although he denies the crime.

He is found guilty, and you and the government work day and night to assure that he sees a speedy execution. He is executed within two years of committing the crime, as you breathe a sigh of relief and DP fans applaud the speed with which the sentence was carried out.

However, shortly thereafter, evidence comes forth that proves, conclusively, that he didn’t commit the crime.

How do you feel then?

To bring it even closer to home, what if you were that “obvious perpetrator”? Are you willing to die as a casualty of the system? What if it were your son?

I don’t like arguing from hypotheticals, but I think this one carries just as much weight as “What if your wife were killed?”.

By “legal bullshit”, I would guess that you mean the appeals process. Any reduction in the appeals process could only lead to less specific application of the DP–that is, more false positives. Innocent people are winding up on Death Row, and it is only the “legal bullshit” that kept them from being killed.

If you think that innocent people never get murder convictions and DP sentences, you have more faith in the system than I do (and I’m a damn socialized medicine proponent). If you accept that the execution of a few innocents is the price we pay for justice, that’s fine–you just need to be willing to die for that belief.

Dr. J

108

Ah, yes, the religious excuses for capital punishment again rearing its head. I’ve always found it amusing how Christians use the Old Testament to justify the death penalty. Aren’t they supposed to be followers of Jesus Christ, who didn’t show up til Matthew in the New Testament, who taught turn the other cheek?

Either way the intended ends up dead.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to change/enforce sentencing laws so that violent criminals spend more time in jail?

109

If I may steer the discussion a bit, I’d like to offer my middle-ground idea.

When a capital murder case is tried in which the DP may be offered, the jury is “death-qualified”–that is, those who claim that they could not give a convicted murderer the DP are excused. (Those more knowledgable than me can feel free to correct or clarify this explainaton.)

About 25% of Americans are opposed to the DP in all cases. I’d be willing to guess that another significant percentage (I’ll say another 25%) support the DP in theory, but their consciences would not allow them to give the sentence themselves. You’re left with those who can and would give out the DP, and that opinion is not held in a vacuum. I have seen studies that bear out my suspicions–DQ’d juries are more likely to convict, and more likely to convict incorrectly, than non-DQ’d juries. (I don’t have a cite handy.)

My answer, therefore, is to stop death-qualification of the jury. That way, the DP would only be given to those whose crimes were so clear and so horrific that a statistical 3-6 jurors would be convinced that it was warranted. This lets the McVeighs and the Bundys through, while sparing some of the more questionable cases.

The problem here is that the occasional jury, mathematically, will be all DP supporters, particularly in places where a pro-DP stance is more common (i.e. Texas). That would lead to inconsistent application.

Note that I’d much rather see the DP done away with entirely, but I do think that this is an interesting idea.

Dr. J

110

MGibson, I have reached this conclusion after much self-evaluation, thought, praying,(yes praying), and religious study. My feelings stem from my own religious back-ground, and interpretation of scriptures, etc etc. My feelings also stem from researching the DP, and its history, and learning that there are far too many innocent people dying.
Therefore, I can’t desribe my stance in this debate. For two reasons:

  1. It’s not a religious debate.
  2. I don’t want people coming up with “Well, I’m an athelist, so it doens’t apply to me.” Fine. I don’t care. But it applies to me and I take it very seriously.
111

Perhaps and perhaps not.

I’ve read and listened to countless people flap their gums over how unjust the death penalty is for what seems like eons, and have been aware of our laws concerning cruel and unusual punishment. I know the holier than thou ones, who have had loved ones killed and ‘forgive’ the killer and those who would have killed the killer themselves if the police had not restrained them.

The majority of the people talking the talk have never been victimized, have had no one attempt to kill them, have never had a loved one killed nor even a close friend.

I studied and toured jails of the past and understand the methods and processes used on criminals. For those who were not cold blooded murderers, I felt them harsh and unjust. For repeat and unrepentant killers, I felt them not harsh enough.

I went through a couple of modern jails and was impressed. Air conditioned, though not as cold as I like it. Clean, kept so by the inmates. Well painted, floors polished, nourishing meals served daily, showers every other day, clean clothing every other day supplied by the State, free medical care, free medicine, free consoling, clean cells, clean beds, personal effects, music, television, library, the ability to earn small amounts of money to buy a few luxury things, companionship, conversation, arts and crafts, schooling and more.

Some of the inmates did not have it that well on the outside. Some people I know don’t have it that well.

I’ve given examples of killers before in this post. It gripes my ass to have a raving maniac sitting in such a place, enjoying life, filing appeals, learning how to be a better thief or killer, using smuggled drugs and occasionally getting a piece tail while his violated victim lies rotting in the dirt.

He does not deserve to be kept alive at the expense of others. If we don’t kill the beast, then we should use him for medical experiments – but then, that would be cruel and unusual punishment, wouldn’t it? Oh no, we mustn’t treat the killer poorly, even though he ripped open that guy and pulled his guts out as a warning to others and left him twitching on the street. Then he went and blew that other guys nuts off and let him scream awhile before shoving the gun in his mouth so hard that he snapped off teeth, then blew his brains out.

No, we must be nice to this ravening beast who would kill us without hesitation if we let him. So, why confine him for 30 or 40 or even 50 years in a controlled environment, careful about violating his rights, and letting him live? We can suck millions in funds to keep him going, funds which could buy food and medicine for the poor and starving and do much more good.

Plus, he can serve as an object lesson to other would be killers who feel smug that if they ever got caught, they’ll get life or 25 years and then parole.

This is for the down and dirty killers who have no real remorse, who kill repeatedly, often for the enjoyment of it, not Joe Schmuck who walks in on his wife banging the garbage man and goes nuts and kills him or both.

There is a difference.

Mussolini got millions of his people killed. You all know what the Italians did to him once they managed to shake off Hitler. What do you think the Jews would have done had Hitler fallen into their hands? Patted him on the butt and said bad boy and locked him away in a luxury prison?

Look what the war tribunal did to the Japanese Military leaders who were actually responsible for the slaughter and torture of hundreds of thousands of people. Also what happened to Hitler’s rabid generals who enjoyed the slaughter of innocents.

Dead!

It’s kind of odd how Americans will almost willingly take a convicted child molester, one who did not kill his victims, smear him through the news, ruin his life, ruin his family’s life, throw him in jail where prisoners and guards will abuse him, and some try to kill him, fight his parole, drag him through the news as often as possible, release him on parole on humiliating and degrading restrictions, publish his whereabouts for all to know and harass him nearly forever, ignoring the cruel and unusual punishment bit. Yet, they’ll fight to keep a savage killer alive and his civil rights intact.

Kind of odd, is it not?

The molester, as low as he is, did not kill his victim. The killer did, and often, not easily.

You can sit and debate the penalty for unrepentant and savage murder all you wish, but until you’ve been there and seen the gore left behind, heard the most stupid reasons given for taking a human life and looked at these killers smirking and know they will do it again if they can, you’re talking out of your hats.

Like the kid who dragged that old lady to death after stealing her purse. He didn’t want to get caught.

The kid who beat the old lady to death with his radio, then spray painted her body and tried to burn it because she pissed him off criticizing his loud rap music.

The ‘gangsta’ who shot another kid because he happened to be wearing the wrong ‘colors’ in the wrong spot and wasn’t even a member of any gang.

The guy who got into a fight with a neighbor, got his butt royally beat and went home, got his gun and came back and blew the other fellow away for winning the fight.

Oh, yeah. We need to keep these people alive and in good physical and mental health until they die of old age.

In ancient times, such people were either killed in duels, fights or by vigilantes. If not, they were dumped in dungeons, placed on enough rations so they wouldn’t starve noisily and allowed to die miserably of disease and neglect, though the rulers of the time had little problem with having them killed.

Sometimes they were shipped to new lands, hopefully to die there while carving out a colony but we don’t have that alternative anymore.

At least we have made execution painless and fast. I never did like the gas chamber.

I find no reason to keep mad dog killers alive for years at our expense.