So a non-violent kidnapping, with 100% known certain guilt, but an unknown chance to offend again, would not be up to snuff?
I know the current laws don’t support this, but part of this discussion thread is expanding the scope of the Death Penalty.
I think there are some crimes we want to deter as absolutely as possible. Like Rape. Kidnapping. Murder. Theft, for me. If kidnapping someone earns you a death sentence, I think fewer people would take the option.
What makes you think that? Studies I’ve seen show that criminals don’t believe they’ll get caught for murder, and so they don’t take the death penalty into consideration when they make the decision to murder. Why would kidnapping be any different?
Daniel
I would propose to add adultery to your list.
The death penalty - I’ve heard statistics that say it works as a deterrent, and some that say it doesn’t - if it doesn’t work as a deterrent, I submit that it’s partially because the punishment fits the crime so closely.
Those ready to kill in cold blood are, psychologically, more likely to be ready to die.
So you regard Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness as inalienable rights. I’m with you so far. But what do we do with a murderer, then? Life imprisonment? Still nixes two out of three of those rights.
What punishment can we put forth that WILL deter murderers? Torture?
Well, in the case of non-violent kidnapping, it’s a bit harder to get away with, since you have brought along a living eyewitness and all…
Yes, that is what I think.
LHOD beat me to it, but I will say my piece anyways…
Absolutely, there are crimes that we want to deter. But you’re making a fallacious assumption that the death penalty is a sufficient deterrent. Why would drug lords continue to deal massive amounts of drugs and murder their opponents if they all knew that they would be killed if caught? Maybe because they fear being caught less than they fear their opponents?
There is always the smart cookie who commits a crime, regardless of penalty, because he doesn’t think he can get caught. Those are the people that need to be removed from society, either through prison for non-violent or less-damaging crimes, or through the death penalty. I am not looking at the death penalty as a deterrent but as a punishment and a mechanism for ensuring that said crime doesn’t happen again. If someone is violent and will re-offend, then they need to be removed.
Just to be sure I am understood - Since our current justice system is riddled with errors and mistakes (it is a human system after all) I do not support the death penalty. Whilst I do believe there are crimes that are death-worthy, I do not believe that any human agency is good enough to ensure that the person who did it is guilty, and therefore it is not a good idea for people to be killing other people as a punishment for crime.
May I ask why? It seems a bit extreme to kill someone for having sex outside marriage, is all…
Which means that, if deterrence does play a role and there’s equal penalties for kidnapping and murder, you’ve given the kidnapper the strongest possible motive to murder their victim. I’m not sure I like that result.
Daniel
That is a point. We do need some gradation, especially in the case of kidnapping since it can so easily lead to murder. So, life imprisonment for kidnapping then, and death penalty for murder.
I guess the essence of my position is that if we can prove, without any doubt, that a person has deliberately and willfully deprived another person of inalienable rights, then the perpetrator by that deliberate action has forfeited his or her rights.
I can definitely get behind that position.
The problem is that in the current system we can’t prove to the degree I would find satisfactory in sentencing someone to death, of either their guilt or their likelihood to re-offend. Ever. I would never agree to the death penalty if the option for real (not paroled in 20 years or something stupid like that) life imprisonment exists.
Since the OP invokes a fairytale hypothetical ‘perfect knowledge’ (and presumably also then incorruptible) legal system, I’ll invoke a fairytale hypothetical perfect system of imprisonment and/or rehabilitation, making the death penalty superfluous; I’ll also replace any hypothetical deterrent value from the DP with a similarly effective public information scheme (albeit imaginary), the precise details of which are irrelevant.
Fair enough - I see your imaginary circumstance and raise you one -
What if, inspite of all your in-built rehab, the criminal still re-offends, repeatedly.
What then?
For that to occur, the magic wand (the same one we used to make both the legal and penal systems perfect) must be broken, we will have to find a real-world solution that doesn’t require magic wands, probably in another thread.
I would only agree with the DP in the case where the charge was something like murder one. Planning and intention, direct action, etc. Espionage? Eh. Ok. Desertion? Hmm… no, not for me, thanks.
Killing a pregnant woman with the intent to cut open her womb and rip out the fetus, at great risk to the fetus too.
Why is it assumed that life imprisonment without parole is any better or more humane that the death penalty? * unless permanent imprisonment, in reality, isn’t? (still, i don’t see how spending 50 years in prison is any better than death. )
IMHO, there should not be a death penalty since there are alternatives, especially since we’re not even fully sure if a guilty person truly is. however, death should be an option left to the unforgiven.
and as far as i know, that’s true for the rest of the world as well. ;j
Really? Never? Suppose a person kills his girlfriend. It’s absolutely certain he did it because he was found by his sister standing over the body saying that he killed her because he loved her. He goes to prison and eventually gets out. A pattern soon emerges- he gets out of custody, assaults someone (usually a girlfriend) and is re-incarcerated. One time, he didn’t even wait to be released- he assaulted a fellow inmate. There are at least six known assaults, and one was nearly fatal. Over the years, he is interviewed by various people in the criminal justice system. He has never denied the killing. He repeatedly justifies his violence and doesn’t even acknowledge that his actions were wrong,much less show remorse. He now (30 years after the killing) has assaulted yet another girlfriend. He admits to this latest assault, and again justifies his actions. As he is being arrested, he vows that no matter how long he is in prison, when he gets out, he will “get her”. There isn’t any doubt in my mind that he will be violent when he is again released- the only question is whether the assault will be fatal or not. If it’s fatal under circumstances in which it’s certain he’s guilty , I would have no problem with him getting the death penalty. In the current system , a person’s guilt or likelihood to reoffend can’t always proven to my satisfaction, but sometimes it can.
I would support the death penalty under those circumstances for any person who committed the same or similar violent crimes after being released for doing them once.
I would not support the death penalty for desertion, but I would for high treason. I would define high treason as knowing and willing cooperation with a foreign power with whom we are at war. Spying for France wouldn’t give the death penalty, but spying for an Al Quaida cell would.
I would not support the death penalty for any crime of theft or fraud, or any non-violent crime of similar nature.
Its the ultimate level of personal betrayal that can be experienced. imho
It destroys peoples lives, their famlies. It hurts children.