Why I oppose the death penalty

[Blaster_Master]

@bup

Blaster, I must say, I’ve never heard some distinguish between “revenge” and “eye for an eye” before, and convince me; however, your statements convince me it’s possible. I don’t think that’s what usually happens; I think juries and victims’ families and so on want revenge. But I do agree it’s possible.

I agree with you. I think most of the time victims’ families are seeking revenge, and its difficult not to. Quite honestly, I’d have a very difficult time not desiring revenge if someone I loved was murdered. Similarly, I think when juries see someone accused of a heinous act (like a rape/murder, or serial murder, etc.), its probably nearly as difficult for them to try to serve justice and not simply seek revenge on this person who is accused of doing so. Its made even worse because prosecutors will play on that desire for revenge to get convictions or harsher sentences. Unfortunately, emotions and simple error in judgment are parts of the equation whenever humans are involved.

DNA testing showed that we were doing a worse job of finding murderers than we thought before. There’s nothing to indicate we’re doing it correctly now, we’re just sometimes springing a guy who’s lucky enough to have been convicted of killing someone where the real murderer left DNA. So for that reason, I’m convinced we’re still convicting innocent people. Maybe at a high rate. Given the system’s track record, I can’t support the death penalty.

Again, I agree that its not perfect; but I argue that isn’t an error in the equity or inequity of the death penalty, but rather a problem with the trial system itself. I’d be very interested to see a non-biased confusion matrix on the convictions for various types of crimes, but I doubt that is possible. We can ascertain false positives (false convictions) only if they’re eventually acquitted; and we can never really be sure about false negatives, because it would be double jeopardy. I agree with the constitution’s framers that we should highly favor false negatives over false positives (ie, its better to let 10 guilty men free than imprison one innocent man), and that’s clear by the ability to repeatedly appeal, and no double jeopardy, etc.

We have to eventually have some level of trust in the system, and trust that it has a low error rate, and a very low false positive rate, otherwise, what’s the point? It is a depressing thought that some innocent people are imprisoned or put to death; but I think it would be far worse to live in a society where justice was not as much of a virtue as we think it is. Is the rule of law and justice worth that price to society? I think it is.

Honestly, given how I hope we are viewed by future generations, I can’t support it either. As we see the ancients as barbaric, so I think we will be seen.

We will inevitably be view as barbaric, whether it is for the death penalty, for destroying the Earth, for being racists, for eating meat, for being a bunch of warmongers, for not taking care of our poor, for being greedy, or Lord knows what else we may or may not be see as being barbaric. Because of this, its unreasonable to concern our current actions with what they’ll think precisely because of this. We have to do what we think is the right thing to do now, especially since we can never know what their standards of judging us will be.

Besides, I’d like to hope that future societies will be more strongly ruled by rights and just law. I doubt the death penalty will be going anywhere anytime soon, if ever. Even so, because of this, I doubt we will be looked down upon more for the death penalty than any number of other things we do or don’t do. Maybe we’ll eventually figure out a more equitable solution, maybe not… at least we’re trying to be just.

[Magiver]

@Giles

I’d add one more reason: there is no evidence that the death penalty has an deterrent value. That is, if you correlate crime rates with whether there is a death penalty, places without a death penalty do not have higher crime rates.

That’s something of a strawman. The death penalty is punishment for a heinous crime. If it acts as a deterrent that would be a bonus. However, the potential lack of that aspect does not alter the function of punishment.

If it were up to me I would change the nature of evidence required for a sentence of death. Without codifying my point I’ll just use an example, MUMIA ABU-JAMAL killed a Philadelphia Police Officer in a shooting that was witnessed by a number of people. He never left the scene of the crime or the view of witnesses so there is no doubt that he is the person who did this. It would take this level of certainty for my approval of the death sentence.

[Blaster_Master]

@Lissa

There is very little joy or comfort in the life of an inmate. It’s miserably hot in the summers, conditions are crowded, and you aren’t exactly living with the nicest folks.

Their food is adequate, but bland. There is no privacy-- all bodily functions and hygiene activites are out in the open. They have a library, but it tends to legal tomes and Dean Koontz novels. (A bibliophile like me would go utterly insane.) They may be able to see their family, but it’s restricted to a certain number of visits at certain times, and many inmates have families which don’t have reliable transportation. They are not allowed to touch.

I’m not saying that never being allowed to hug your child or order a pizza is as bad as being murdered. But I don’t think it’s accurate to portray most prisoners as happy or content with life. Yes, many adapt because that’s human nature, but prison is not a nice place to be. The sheer impersonal monotony is maddening for some. Many inmates prefer death-- suicide is a major issue in prisons today.

I don’t disagree with you here, that prison isn’t a pleasant place. My point wasn’t that they go to prison and enjoy themselves. My point was that if that person has ONE more smile, or ONE more moment of joy, or ONE more moment with his family, that is a luxury that his victim will never be afforded. Further, it was HIS choice that led him to that miserable life in jail, and HIS choice if he chooses to commit suicide while in prison. His victim never had the choice to live. His victim deserved the right to life, and he violated that right. As punishment is inherently the removal of rights/privileges, the only equitable right of his to remove as punishment is his right to life.

How can we have moral superiority in this case? I think it’s hypocritical to say that murder is wrong, and then turn around and do it ourselves, albeit in a comfortably ceremonial fashion.

I thoroughly disagree. It is not a matter of moral superiority; justice isn’t about morality, it is about rights. Besides, how can we be morally superior by allowing a grave injustice to go punished incorrectly? If I violate someone else’s right to property, I should forfeit an equitable amount of that or some other right. If I violate someone else’s right to freedom, I forfeit an equitable amount of that or some other right. If I violate someone’s right to life, I forfeit that right, or an equitable amount of some other right. However, I argue that no finite amount of ANY other right is an equitable forfeiture for the violation of another’s right to life; thus ONLY by forfeiting my right to life is justice served.

Unfortunately, emotion is often a driving force in whether the death penalty is applied, or seemingly even sought by the prosecution. If murder is worthy of death, then it should not matter whether the victim was a violent felon selling drugs or a cute white kid, the same penalty should apply, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. If that is what the penalty should be, it should not be requested only for crimes which particularly inflame our emotions or outrage.

I agree with you here. It is sad that emotoin plays a part in our justice system, and it shouldn’t matter what the race, ethnicity, sex, etc. of the murderer or victim is. However, as I stated before, this is an issue with our judicial system, not with the equity of the death penalty once an individual is found guilty.

But this is impossible. The only way to truly right the situation would be to go back in time and stop the crime from happening.

That is not righting the situation, that is undoing the situation. We can only right a wrong if it has been commited.

The example earlier of the thief illustrates this point to me. If someone stole $10,000 from you, you could seize the amount back from his assets, but you’ll never make him feel as bad as you did when you were a victim of crime. The sense of violation wouldn’t be present.

I think you’re mixing in revenge. I have a right to property; hence why my money should be returned to me if it is stolen. I do not have a right to be happy, or to never feel violated. Therefore, I think it is just to return my stolen money, but I think it is revenge to want to inflict a feeling of violation on the thief.

An inmate being executed is not going to feel the sense of terror and pain his victim felt. (He can ask for sedatives if he wants them.)

Again, I think this is mixing in revenge. I may want him to suffer because I want revenge, not because I want justice. Besides, making an executee suffer is utterly pointless. If you’re of religious persuasion, he’s going to a far worse place for his crime. If you’re not, then he’s going to oblivion, and his suffering won’t mean diddly. True justice would probably include an equitable amount of suffering, but really, making someone suffer before you execute him is like arresting someone for vehicular manslaughter and then slapping a speeding ticket on top of it

Lastly, an execution creates another grieving family, another widow or fatherless child. Where does their solace lie?

Sadly, it does. It is hard to realize that you will make people who had nothing to do with the crime suffer, but in a way, that’s part of the equity of the death penalty. When someone is murdered, not only are they dead, but their family grieves. Part of his punishment is forfeiting his life, and then knowing that those that he is supposed to love will be suffering just the same as the victim’s family. To me, that would be horrible to know that someone I did caused my loved ones to grieve needlessly. Besides, knowing that the punishment could be the death penalty, he essentially chose to put his family through that suffering by virtue of his own actions.

[Blaster_Master]

@Magiver

That’s something of a strawman. The death penalty is punishment for a heinous crime. If it acts as a deterrent that would be a bonus. However, the potential lack of that aspect does not alter the function of punishment.

I agree here, the deterrent, or lack thereof, has no bearing on whether the death penalty is an equitable punishment.

If it were up to me I would change the nature of evidence required for a sentence of death. Without codifying my point I’ll just use an example, MUMIA ABU-JAMAL killed a Philadelphia Police Officer in a shooting that was witnessed by a number of people. He never left the scene of the crime or the view of witnesses so there is no doubt that he is the person who did this. It would take this level of certainty for my approval of the death sentence.

I disagree here, for similar reasons with why I agree with you above. The accuracy of our judicial system in determining the guilt of the individual really has no bearing on whether the death penalty is an equitable punishment for murder. We check again and again to get the best chance possible to ensure the highest accuracy with the lowest chance of a false conviction possible. Just how sure is sure enough? What if in the above case, there was someone who looked almost exactly like him that was also at the scene of the crime, and could have easily been mixed up in all the commotion? What if a body is found murdered with the accused’s finger prints, blood, and sperm all over the victim and murder weapon, and the victim’s blood all in his car and house? Is that somehow LESS sure?

We can suppose all day about different levels of sure. That’s precisely why we have “reasonable doubt” and not “100% certainly” or “more likely than not”. There will inevitably be some degree of error, we’re only human, but if we’re not willing to make a few mistakes, we’ll never be able to provide a reasonable degree of justice.

[Der_Trihs]

@Zebra

If we could somehow change the system so that we knew, 100% that the person was guilty, would you then support the death penalty?

That’s like asking “If there was a perfect person, would you want him as a dictator ?” The answer is no; I don’t believe in perfect people or perfect legal systems.

@Zebra

If we could make it cost efficent, would you support the death penalty?

No, because that would mean it is even less just because it would mean less care is being taken.

@Zebra

If the criminal had no family, would you support teh death penalty?

Doesn’t matter.

@Zebra

If the method of death could be made less cruel, would you support the death penalty?

It’s easy enough ( a high powered gun to the head, for example ), but doesn’t matter to me since I oppose the penalty itself.

@Zebra

However, killing someone you have trapped in a cage is not ethical.

Agreed. In that situation, you don’t need to kill them.

I also just don’t trust the system enough to give it the right to kill me.

@magellan01

I am still of the opinion that a stronger response to an advesary who brings up cost, deterence, etc, is to simply say “It doesn’t matter. It is wrong for (place moral argument here).” Otherwise you cede the moral stance and venture into the ephemeral realm of “practicality”, which is where your opponents want the debate.

The problem is, some people don’t care about morality; for quite a few people, it’s an outright negative.

@Blaster Master

A murderer is punished, not to deter future murders (although it may), but because there is an injustice that needs to be corrected; this is not the same as revenge.

A crime with permanent consequences cannot be corrected. Wasn’t there a Nazi at Nuremburg who said something about how he’d won and they couldn’t do anything about it because the people he’d killed would stay dead ?

@magellan01

Take rape. If the penalty for rape (the violent strain) was castration (which I am in favor of), and the law was quickly an surely enforced so that people asociated violent rape with castration on a 1-to-1 basis, I’d bet that the incidence of rape would go way down.

I stipulate “violent” rape, only to focus the debate on a clearly heinous act. Their is often ambiguity in date rape and statutory rape where, a 19-year-old having consensuaql sex with a 16-year-old can result in the 19-year-old going to jail.

I doubt it. I expect that rapists would just make a point of killing their victims, and non rapists would largely avoid sex for fear of false accusations. If a woman could get me executed on a whim I’d want nothing to do with them.

@D_Odds

What purpose is served by keeping someone like him alive, provided we overcome any and all inaccurate convictions and can apply the punishment equitably across all racial and socio-economic spectrums?

Can’t be done.

@magellan01

Hypothetical: How about if we raised the threshold for puttiing someone to death to the point where we were certain that he was guilty? How about: DNA evidence, conviction, confession, eye witness accounts, and a video tape of the crime?

Still opposed? If so why?

Because that’s still not certain; it could all be fraud; the video faked, the confession from torture, the witnesses mistaken or paid off, and so on.

@Shalmanese

Heres a question for anti-DP folks: Would you support an unequivcal life sentence? That is, a life sentence with no chance of parole, no chance of retrying the case, no consideration of any new evidence or testimony etc.

No, that would be unjust as well.

@Blaster Master

I doubt the death penalty will be going anywhere anytime soon, if ever.

Given how savage and ruthless America is, you’re probably right; that’s why we have one.

[Uzi]

@Priceguy

No.No.No.No.

The justice system has one purpose and one purpose only: to reduce crime. The death penalty simply does not help achieve that.

Somewhat. I think the justice system is about revenge. It is there to take revenge on the perpetrator in the victim’s place.

Say a neighbor steals my lawnmower. Justice would be me getting my lawnmower back with maybe some compensation for any expense I occured to have my lawn mown without it. Punishing the guy who stole it by throwing him in jail for 30 days is revenge for the act.

By the state taking these steps it keeps me from having to do something myself. I could walk over to my neighbor and demand my lawnmower back. I may be so upset about my lawnmower that I punch the fellow in the nose. Or, I could pack a gun and blow his fool head off. The justice system is there to so that instead of me going over to get my lawnmower, I can call a police officer and he can do it. He can then arrest the guy so he can be prosecuted and the impartial state gives him a suitable punishment. I don’t have to do it then and maybe shoot some guy who just stole a lawnmower. If the penalties the perpetrator receives is far less than what the victims think it should be then the victim’s friends and family may decide to take matters into their own hands.

If the purpose of the justice system is to reduce crime then imagine in the future we invent a pill that will guarantee that murderers will never recommit such a crime. The perpetrator is convicted, given his pill and set free. Say his crime was to kill my wife. Would I be satisfied with the sentence? I’d bury the bastard alive except for a hole which I’d pour carnivorous ants down, and when the cops came for me, I’d ask for my pill.

I am personally against the death penalty due to the errors that allow for the conviction of innocent people. Though, I’m all for penal colonies where criminals can live in ‘harmony’ with other people of similar nature.

[ParentalAdvisory]

@Der Trihs

Because that’s still not certain; it could all be fraud; the video faked, the confession from torture, the witnesses mistaken or paid off, and so on.

It’s not fraud if someone is 100% guilty. For example, a man walks into a McDonalds and shoots as many people as he can, and is tackled after running out of ammo. This is certain guilt. If I’m a disgusting person for favoring the DP for these kinds of acts, in which the person is 100% guilty, then anyone who opposes the DP in this type of situation is a disgusting person, IMO.

[Fear_Itself]

@ParentalAdvisory

It’s not fraud if someone is 100% guilty. For example, a man walks into a McDonalds and shoots as many people as he can, and is tackled after running out of ammo. This is certain guilt. If I’m a disgusting person for favoring the DP for these kinds of acts, in which the person is 100% guilty, then anyone who opposes the DP in this type of situation is a disgusting person, IMO.

My opposition to the death penalty is not solely based of the certainty of guilt.

[calm_kiwi]

@Shalmanese

Heres a question for anti-DP folks: Would you support an unequivcal life sentence? That is, a life sentence with no chance of parole, no chance of retrying the case, no consideration of any new evidence or testimony etc.

Of course not! How is that justice? If someone can gather enough evidence to warrant a new trial then they should have a new trial. Not having the death penalty does NOT mean a prisoner can not gain access to a new trial.

@Shalmanese

It just seems to me that there is only a short moral leap from a life sentence to this unequivocal live sentence and just another short leap from this to the death sentence and I don’t see how one can claim to be morally for a life sentence yet absolutely certain that a death sentence is immoral.

That may be a short moral leap for you but to me it is leaps and bounds. A life sentence is a punishment for violating societies rules. A death sentence is society breaking it’s own rules. It is wrong to kill. It is equally wrong to kill someone who killed people who “in a moment of passion” or were killing because they are “loonies” or “hopeless criminals” or “just plain evil”. Killing is wrong. It is more than wrong if the state does it.

Part of me felt sorry for Zacarias Moussaoui when he got life, I expected him to get death (no offence it is just what I expected from an American court)…then I caught myself and thought BLOODY GOOD JOB! How would the death penalty have served anyone better? He is there to be punished! The rest of his life in a cell ith concrete funiture sounds like punishment to me.

[calm_kiwi]

@ParentalAdvisory

It’s not fraud if someone is 100% guilty. For example, a man walks into a McDonalds and shoots as many people as he can, and is tackled after running out of ammo. This is certain guilt. If I’m a disgusting person for favoring the DP for these kinds of acts, in which the person is 100% guilty, then anyone who opposes the DP in this type of situation is a disgusting person, IMO.

You may well call people opposed to the death penalty disgusting…just know that some of us feel that those of you in favour of the death penalty are disgusting.

Oh look… tit for tat.

[Der_Trihs]

@ParentalAdvisory

It’s not fraud if someone is 100% guilty. For example, a man walks into a McDonalds and shoots as many people as he can, and is tackled after running out of ammo. This is certain guilt. If I’m a disgusting person for favoring the DP for these kinds of acts, in which the person is 100% guilty, then anyone who opposes the DP in this type of situation is a disgusting person, IMO.

And if I, personally, wasn’t there, how do I know it really happened that way ? And if I was there, how do I know I’m not misremembering, given how bad eyewitness testimony is ? There’s no such thing as certain guilt; highly probable, yes; even “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but not certain. Then there’s the argument that someone who’d do such a thing is mentally ill and needs treatment, not punishment ( after all, what’s the profit or the point in doing such a thing ? ); not guilty by reason of insanity.

Besides which, why would you trust a confession gained by torture ? Why would you believe a prosecutor who produces faked video of the crime ? You seem to be saying that if you were in a kangaroo court run by the most corrupt judge in human history, you’d just know if the guy is guilty.

[calm_kiwi]

@Blaster Master

Part of his punishment is forfeiting his life, and then knowing that those that he is supposed to love will be suffering just the same as the victim’s family. To me, that would be horrible to know that someone I did caused my loved ones to grieve needlessly. Besides, knowing that the punishment could be the death penalty, he essentially chose to put his family through that suffering by virtue of his own actions.

What a load of crap! My late husbands father was one of the last few to be executed in Britain (Look him up. James Smith, 1961, Manchester). He robbed a bottle shop and hit the man behind the counter with a bottle. The man died. That IS/WAS and ALWAYS will be a tragedy and a horrible thing.

What followed did nobody in society a favour. The family of the murdered man got to see a man die (how can LIFE in a CELL not seem like justice?). A family who DIDN’T murder anyone went downhill faster then a speeding bullet.

When I met my husband I didn’t know the damage done by the murder his father commited, the effect it had on his mother and the lasting effect his father’s death had on my husband (and he was a BABY when it happened). I wonder if 1961 Britain felt anything when 1993-child-of-a-murderer killed himself (or feel anything for his drug addicted brother, petty theif brother or constantly pregnant sister…and there are 2 more siblings not QUITE as bad…ALL in Scotland thank goodness)

When his father recklessly bashed someone you really think he had the future of his children on his mind? Had his father been a long term prisoner, father would have suffered for his crime BUT I guarantee you his children would not have suffered to the same extent. Any reason why they should?

Unless you want to blame anyone ever thinking of a crime and ban them from having children of course.
HEY that would be a GREAT law!

[calm_kiwi]

Oh and just for the record Zebra, if the death penalty was more cost effective it would scare me more. We love price chopping too much!

[ParentalAdvisory]

@calm kiwi

You may well call people opposed to the death penalty disgusting…just know that some of us feel that those of you in favour of the death penalty are disgusting.

I didn’t say that. I said that if you anti-DP folks are going to find me disgusting for favoring the DP for 100% guilty acts, such as shooting up restaurants and the like with positive witnesses, then I can also say that those not favoring the DP for vicious criminals, are equally disgusting. I did not say that all those against the DP are disgusting. Just those that would support keeping a proven, 100% guilty, vicious criminal alive, is disgusting. Giving reasons such as; poor child hood, mental illness, social outcast, etc… is so PC and cliche, it’s crazy. For what purpose to keep a rapist or a murder alive that is proven guilty? Kinda vauge, but hopefully you see the difference. I don’t support putting to death innocent people either.

@Der Trihs

And if I, personally, wasn’t there, how do I know it really happened that way ?

So guilt is based on your presence now. I bow before you. Well unlock the doors to the jail cells and let everyone out. After all, you yourself weren’t there to witness anything.

@Der Trihs

There’s no such thing as certain guilt; highly probable, yes; even “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but not certain.

No such thing as certain guilt? Wha…? I suppose if I see you steal something from me, it’s only probable that you did it? If its probable, then certainly there’s a percentage of possible guilt. In this case, it’s not 80% likely that you stole from me. I saw you do it, you’re 100% guilty, and that is certain guilt. It’s about as certain as the Earth circling the Sun.

@Der Trihs

Then there’s the argument that someone who’d do such a thing is mentally ill and needs treatment, not punishment ( after all, what’s the profit or the point in doing such a thing ? ); not guilty by reason of insanity.

Personally, I don’t care if a vicious rapist or murder is mentally ill. Isn’t mentally ill pretty much a given after the crime is committed? “They couldn’t help it, it’s not their fault. He’s mentally ill!”. Well no shit. Let’s give him a cookie and some prozac, and everything will be ok!(in your best soccer moms voice):rolleyes:

@Der Trihs

Besides which, why would you trust a confession gained by torture ? Why would you believe a prosecutor who produces faked video of the crime ? You seem to be saying that if you were in a kangaroo court run by the most corrupt judge in human history, you’d just know if the guy is guilty.

You seem to be saying this as if it happens 99.9% of the time. Please. :rolleyes: Yes, there are some bad seeds in the justice system. No one can deny that. But I don’t feel that it’s common practice for prosecutors to make fake videos, and torture suspects day in and day out.

[Ludovic]

@ParentalAdvisory

It’s not fraud if someone is 100% guilty. For example, a man walks into a McDonalds and shoots as many people as he can, and is tackled after running out of ammo. This is certain guilt. If I’m a disgusting person for favoring the DP for these kinds of acts, in which the person is 100% guilty, then anyone who opposes the DP in this type of situation is a disgusting person, IMO.

Well, they could bring the wrong person to the courtroom when the trial comes up and convict a person of murder when he was only up on burglary charges – don’t laugh, it’s almost happened.

[ParentalAdvisory]

@calm kiwi

When his father recklessly bashed someone you really think he had the future of his children on his mind? Had his father been a long term prisoner, father would have suffered for his crime BUT I guarantee you his children would not have suffered to the same extent. Any reason why they should?

That is a sad story. But what about the children of the clerk? Any info on them and their successive lives? Bet it wasn’t all peaches and cream for them either.

[Blaster_Master]

@wm--

It seems to me that the issue at hand is not the death penalty, but the fact that a single crooked cop can victimize someone so heinously and nearly get away with it. Would we be any less outraged if this guy had “merely” spent his life in prison because he was framed?

How many other people are serving prison sentences because of falsified confessions? They’ve been victimized just as badly, death penalty or no.

Apologies, I missed this post last night. In light of this point, I agree that this is a poor case to use to support or denigrate the death penalty. This is a case where justice was not served, and not because the punishment was unfit to the crime (I agree that a rape/murder deserves the death penalty), but where the evidence was fabricated and the judicial system failed to correctly establish the guilt of the accused. Hence, I assert that this is a failure of the judicial system, and has no bearing the equity of the death penalty.

[Blaster_Master]

@Der Trihs

A crime with permanent consequences cannot be corrected. Wasn’t there a Nazi at Nuremburg who said something about how he’d won and they couldn’t do anything about it because the people he’d killed would stay dead ?

Perhaps this is a nitpick, but I agree that a crime with permanent consequences cannot be corrected. What I am concerned with is an injustice. No crime, even a small one, can be corrected; however, the injustice can always be corrected.

[Blaster_Master]

@calm kiwi

What a load of crap! My late husbands father was one of the last few to be executed in Britain (Look him up. James Smith, 1961, Manchester). He robbed a bottle shop and hit the man behind the counter with a bottle. The man died. That IS/WAS and ALWAYS will be a tragedy and a horrible thing.

This is a tragic story; I’m sorry that this impacted you and your family as gravely as it did. Please also understand that my responses are to your arguments, and not meant in anyway to minimalize the suffering of your family.

What followed did nobody in society a favour. The family of the murdered man got to see a man die (how can LIFE in a CELL not seem like justice?). A family who DIDN’T murder anyone went downhill faster then a speeding bullet.

This is a strawman; I have already said it is not about doing society a favor and I have already said it is not about revenge. The inequity is the fact that a man was murdered in the act of committing a crime. Also as I’ve stated previously, life in a cell is a “luxury” not afforded to the victim; no finite jail-term (including to the end of one’s life, that’s still a finite number of years), is a fair trade for the life of another individual. Thus,in my opionion, the only equitable punishment is the forfeiture of the guilty person’s life.

When I met my husband I didn’t know the damage done by the murder his father commited, the effect it had on his mother and the lasting effect his father’s death had on my husband (and he was a BABY when it happened). I wonder if 1961 Britain felt anything when 1993-child-of-a-murderer killed himself (or feel anything for his drug addicted brother, petty theif brother or constantly pregnant sister…and there are 2 more siblings not QUITE as bad…ALL in Scotland thank goodness)

When his father recklessly bashed someone you really think he had the future of his children on his mind? Had his father been a long term prisoner, father would have suffered for his crime BUT I guarantee you his children would not have suffered to the same extent. Any reason why they should?

It is absolutely unfair to the family, but that is not the fault of the state, that is the fault of the father. People constantly make foolish decisions that cause horrendous amounts of suffering to their family. If a man is drinking and driving and gets in a crash and dies; he made a foolish decision that resulted in his death, and his family has to deal with it. If a man commits a murder in the act of committing a crime, and gets the death penalty; he made a foolish decision that resulted in his death, and his family has to deal with it.

Are either of those situations fair to the family? Absolutely not, but its not the state’s responsibility to protect people from suffering emotional pain because a member of their family made a foolish decision. In either case, was the father thinking of his family when he made the decision? No, or he wouldn’t have made that decision.

Don’t get me wrong, I do feel an enormous amount of sympathy for the families of the victim and of the accused. In both cases, the family does not deserve what they received. However, this argument boils down to an appeal to emotion; the suffering of the family has nothing to do with the injustice of allowing a murderer to live. This would imply that it would somehow be more just to execute a man if he had no family; or that a murder is somehow more severe if a victim has a large family. You CANNOT account for the emotional anguish. The only way to fix that is to correct the crime, which is impossible; I am seeking to correct the injustice.

Unless you want to blame anyone ever thinking of a crime and ban them from having children of course.
HEY that would be a GREAT law!

Now THAT is certainly “a load of crap”. :rolleyes:

[Lissa]

@Blaster Master

His victim deserved the right to life, and he violated that right. As punishment is inherently the removal of rights/privileges, the only equitable right of his to remove as punishment is his right to life.

So, it’s okay to violate someone’s rights if they did it first? This seems like playground justice to me. “Jimmy! Why did you hit Mike?” “He hit me first!”

It seems to me that if we, as a society, are going to decree that killing someone in cold blood is wrong, then it should always be wrong. We shouldn’t get to make exceptions for those who really piss us off.

I thoroughly disagree. It is not a matter of moral superiority; justice isn’t about morality, it is about rights.

I disagree. Hypocrisy strips justice of its impact. Essentially, we punish the criminal by doing the same thing ourselves. That puts us on the same level as he-- as people who took a human life in cold blood.

Besides, how can we be morally superior by allowing a grave injustice to go punished incorrectly? If I violate someone else’s right to property, I should forfeit an equitable amount of that or some other right. If I violate someone else’s right to freedom, I forfeit an equitable amount of that or some other right. If I violate someone’s right to life, I forfeit that right, or an equitable amount of some other right. However, I argue that no finite amount of ANY other right is an equitable forfeiture for the violation of another’s right to life; thus ONLY by forfeiting my right to life is justice served.

And I argue that life in prison is forfeiting one’s life. For all intents and purposes, they are the living dead. They are legally reduced to the status of children as “wards of the state.” They watch from a distance as life goes on around them. Sure, they may get to see their families once in a while, but they’ll never again make love to their wives, or see their children graduate (or be able to stop them from going down the wrong path). Their parents will die without them by their bedside. They are stripped of all of life’s joys and surrounded by the scum of humanity. It’s as close to hell as a living person can come.

Yes, I think the death penalty is morally wrong, but I’m not saying that from a standpoint of a person with a soft heart. I want people who did evil things to suffer. If you kill them, their suffering ends. If you keep them in a prison, they grow old in misery. I’m very familiar with prisons (see my pit thread), and from what I’ve seen, I’m very comfortable with stating that life in prison is far worse a punishment than death.

That is not righting the situation, that is undoing the situation. We can only right a wrong if it has been commited.

But it doesn’t right the wrong. The victim is still dead. The family of the victim is still in anguish. Some may get small consolation from the fact that the perpetrator has been slain as well, but I imagine it’s cold comfort indeed. All it has done is create another grieving family.

I think you’re mixing in revenge. I have a right to property; hence why my money should be returned to me if it is stolen. I do not have a right to be happy, or to never feel violated. Therefore, I think it is just to return my stolen money, but I think it is revenge to want to inflict a feeling of violation on the thief.

Your money can be restored. Your life cannot. How is killing the murderer restoring anything to the family?

To continue with the example of the thief, what if he’s already spent the money and his assets don’t amount to the sum he stole?

Sadly, it does. It is hard to realize that you will make people who had nothing to do with the crime suffer, but in a way, that’s part of the equity of the death penalty. When someone is murdered, not only are they dead, but their family grieves. Part of his punishment is forfeiting his life, and then knowing that those that he is supposed to love will be suffering just the same as the victim’s family. To me, that would be horrible to know that someone I did caused my loved ones to grieve needlessly. Besides, knowing that the punishment could be the death penalty, he essentially chose to put his family through that suffering by virtue of his own actions.

No one ever commits a crime expecting they’ll be caught, so the suffering of the family is not a deterrent. Most murders are comitted in the heat of the moment, giving little or no time to ponder the consequences. Even those who plan a murder believe that they’ll get away with it.

Secondly, there’s no evidence that the death penalty has any deterrent effect. Think back to Merrie Olde England when criminals were publicly executed to the cheers of the crowd. Back then, theivery could get you executed-- theivery still occured, even though the thieves saw what happened to those who got caught.