I’ve never been THE victim (haven’t been murdered yet), but I did know people who were. A person was recently executed for such a killing. It was premeditated and unnecessary, and it was over a lousy $300.00, a robbery/murder. The robber had already gotten the money but it was not enough I guess. While I am against the death penalty, I can easily understand the all too human desire for vengeance, as I had mixed feelings. No matter what theories or words are used, it is the thirst for pay back.
In that case, we need to reform the judicial system. There is still the possibility of effective reform of the judiciary to reduce the ability to leave prison without invoking the death penalty.
In my opinion, that would be absolutely ludicrous. There is still a need to restrict the person from society for security and punishment reasons in order to prevent further heinous crimes. Perhaps there can be counseling and rehab in a prison setting.
It’s a simple difference of opinion, combined with cultural factors. The death penalty is not accepted in many nations, but in many, it is accepted.
It’s really not that hard. We got rid of it decades ago.
What is particularly unfortunate about the death penalty as applied in the United States, IMHO, is that the effects go way beyond the trials in which it is imposed, and those effects tend to be ignored. The existance of the death penalty distorts other homicide trials. In order to avoid a capital charge being placed against them, there is an incentive for individuals to accept a plea to, say, second degree murder. While I am not alleging that this drags wholesale innocents into prison, I have no doubt that it does result in those who had, for example, legitimate arguments for a manslaughter charge being willing to take the higher charge. Unfortunately, of course, there are no statistics for this as once someone takes the plea, they are guilty. The only cite I can offer is anecdotal evidence from working at the Nashville Metro Public Defender’s Office. Even without statistical backing, it does appear theoretically likely that this will be the case.
Further, a death qualified jury is, I believe, likely to be more amenable towards the prosecution than a typical murder jury, so a lower burder of proof may well be applied in death cases. One cannot serve on a death jury if one is morally opposed to capital punishment to the extent of being unable to impose it. It is my supposition, again without a cite (apologies) but I believe logical, that those who are excluded from juries for being unwilling to impose death are likely to be more willing to look skeptically at the prosecution’s case.
Once appeal is reached, the burden shifts massively to the convicted person. There is therefore a huge importance in achieving a correct result at trial. Given the sorry funding of public defenders in the majority of the country and in particular in states that impose death most heavily, I don’t see how death can be imposed with any degree of certainty. Even if it was guaranteed ‘fair’, I’d oppose capital punishment. But given that the trial sytem is not perfect, we have to accept that errors will occcur, and those errors will lead to innocent people being killed by the state if we are to maintain a system of capital punishment. If no innocents have been executed yet, that is luck rather than a sign of the perfection of the system. Now, people may feel the benefits of capital punishment outweigh the chances (or certainty over time) of executing a number of innocents. That’s just not a calculation I am happy entering into.
I can respect those who, like you say, believe in the death penalty in theory but oppose it in practice. I’d personally say that it is theoretically constitutional in the states, though violates the constitution in practice. I am having trouble with those who recognize the faults in its application in the US, yet continue to support it. Especially when at the same time many of them are campaigning to reduce the availibility of (and the issues that can be raised on) appeals. Admittedly, that will make death cheaper than life imprisonment; unfortunately it would increase the number of innocents (or not-guilty-of-capital-murder to be more accurate) killed.
Nick
Since this is the Pit and not GD, I’ll make a sweeping generalization:
As evidenced by this thread at lead, ProDPers’ justifications are almost all from an emotional POV. AntiDPers’ tend to be based on logic and fact.
I’m glad I’m on the right side of this one.
Ah, but, you see – it’s NOT “so obvious”. SOME people will think it’s obvious, just like SOME people believe that swift execution as the answer to murder is no-brainer “obvious”; but other people come to one conclusion or the other due to applying considerations of their value set and life experiences, plus their emotional reaction to heinous crimes or to miscarriage of justice.
A person’s honest understanding that a thing or idea is “right” or “true”, is not invalidated by it not being self evident.
What the–?
Should be “at least.”
I’m against the death penalty, for two reasons:
- You can’t ressurect someone who was wrongly executed.
- Life in prison is, in my opinion, so much crueler than the execution methods used here.
Normally this is not an argument I’d undertake because there are tons of Dopers who are more articulate on this subject than I am, but there are some issues about the death penalty I haven’t seen mentioned yet, so I’ll throw them out there. Note: it is notoriously difficult to find unbiased sources for cites on this subject. I will do the best I can, feel free to point out bias if you see it.
The death penalty is given disproportionally to racial and ethnic minorities. Ths is a very controversial statement, I realize. Janet Reno and John Ashcroft both contend that this is not so, that in fact minorities are given the DP less than white defendants. This is in contradiction of a Justice Department report that indicates the opposite is true. Some folks also have issues with the way Reno and Ashcroft approached the study. They didn’t bother to check out all those defendants for whom the death penalty could have been pursued but wasn’t. Those defendants, by and large, are white.
The above link also suggests that there is a geographic discrepancy, considering that only 9 districts account for 43% of the executions. Check out the last link to see what those areas are and draw your own conclusions. This is a fairly straightforward statistic, so I tend to give credence to it. There are racial and socioeconomic implications inherent in this geographical concentration of executions.
Under our current system, death row inmates spend an average of 10 years and 10 months on death row. While this is not the same as life in prison, it’s not a brief stint either. It’s a long time to have to house someone in the environment required of death row facilities, with all attendant considerations and costs.
As others have already pointed out, life imprisonment is less expensive than the death penalty process. Innocent people have been and will be convicted and executed, and for me that alone is a deal-breaker.
Even if you are skeptical of the above arguments and statistics, they certainly are troubling questions and should be considered carefully before one makes a whole-hearted endorsement of death penalty policy. Reno, Ashcroft and the DoJ are not unbiases sources of factual information on death penalty trends. Personally, there’s enough uncertainty about the fair application of the death penalty that ethically, I am unable to endorse it, even as I fully understand and sympathize with those who feel that certain crimes are so heinous that the natural consequence should be death. If it were that easy, we wouldn’t be arguing over it. JMO.
That’s not at all what I meant. I’m talking about the criteria for deciding whether one penalty is “better” or “more appropriate” than another.
For example, I’d say an appropriate punishment must prevent a criminal from reoffending. Imprisonment does this, because he can’t harm society if he’s locked away from it (ignoring inmate-on-inmate crimes for now). It should serve as a deterrent. It should be reversible, since we know that innocent people are sometimes found guilty.
The only criterion I’m seeing from DP supporters, however, is that an appropriate punishment should make the criminal suffer as much as his victims. I don’t see how anyone benefits from that.
Yeah, but you forget who the pro-DP people have on their side.
They can count among their friends in this debate upstanding governments like those of Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Cuba, Uganda, Afghanistan (under the Taliban), Libya, Myanmar (Burma under the SLORC), and North Korea.
On the other hand, those of us who oppose the death penalty have to live with the stigma of taking the same side as evil regimes like those of Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada.
And for those who argue that the death penalty is practical because it acts as a deterrent, perhaps you could compare for us the murder rate in the United States with the murder rates in other western countries with similar legal and cultural backgrounds, and similar levels of socio-economic attainment.
It’s well established that the DP is absolutely not a deterrent; even George Bush admitted the inarguability of the research on that point. But then, of course, he added: “I still feel in my heart that it is.”
One of the first things the newly ‘sovereign’ government of Iraq did was to reinstate the death penalty.
Oh, well then. Let’s take them as a role model, shall we?
Yes, let’s. 
Just correcting a possible impression that our invasion of Iraq produced something good in the form of the abolition of the death penalty in that country. It didn’t.
I’m conflicted. I don’t approve of state-sanctioned executions, for most of the reasons that have been listed (unevenly applied, irrevocable, etc.). But, on the other hand, there are just some people that need killing!
Decisions, decisions…
There are some people whose death would scratch some kind of primitive itch we have to take our anger out on the person who caused it. How is that a basis for “justice”?
I didn’t say it was “just.” I said it “needed to be done.” There is a big difference.
The problem is: how do you remove someone who has transgressed against Society’s rules so egregiously? They need to be removed from society; that much is clear and accepted by everybody. But why should the body politic have to pay for their continued upkeep for the rest of their lives?
What we need is a “Coventry.” A place where we can ship these transgressors, never to return. Find a big island, surround it with enough mines to sink Cuba, and kick our death-row inmates out of an airplane over it. If we feel generous, we’ll even give them a parachute. What happens to them after that is no longer our concern. Live, die, who cares? That way both needs are satisfied: they are removed from society, and society does get its hands sticky killing them.
To have an entire system of justice based on the self-indulgent need to have an emotional itch scratched is outrageous.
This, I think, is the flaw in your argument; the state is under no such constraint.
FTR, I’m not sure if I’m totally anti or not; if we could ever be 100% assured that a conviction was 100% reliable, then there might be cases when I’d shrug and say the DP was possibly acceptable, but there isn’t any such security of conviction.