You Kill, You Die.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

I want to hear what satan & gaudere have to say about my hypothetical killer. Are they against the Death Penalty NO matter what?

I’ve been trying to stay out of this one, but I’ll take this particular challenge.

Yes, I’m against the death penalty in all cases. The fundamental human right is the right to life, and no government should think it is justified in denying that right. If a government applies the death penalty, the message you are sending the population at large is that it’s OK to kill, provided you have sufficient justification. Which is what a psychopath may well believe, “I’m not a murderer, these people deserved to die.” The small benefit you could get from executing those prisoners (how many cases can someone cite of a well-known mass murderer escaping from jail?) is much outweighed by the moral iniquity of the death penalty.

[DSYoungEsq]

I’ve let this stew a bit since my commentary. Mostly, the two main proponents of the idea of the death penalty have ignored the arguments made therein. I won’t give danielinthewolvesden the satisfaction of discussing his ludicrous notion that there are large numbers of escaped or pardoned life-without-parole muderers out there murdering innocents; it’s the sort of argument one sees in tabloids, not in rational discussion. I note he hasn’t seen fit to provide any numbers to support the hypothesis that convicted killers under life-without-parole sentences kill again, in or out of prison.
Let’s get back to why the death penalty exists. To understand why we punish criminals at all, it helps to understand the reasons used to justify punishment.

1. Recidivism: By punishing people, we avoid the possibility of repeat offenses. This happens in two ways, first by incarcerating the offender for a period of time, second by acting to prevent the offender from repeating his error.

2. Didacticism: Punishing a criminal helps to educate society that certain behaviour in general is bad, not condoned, punishable.

3. Deterrence: Punishing a criminal is thought to act as a deterrent to the commision of that crime by others, who will try to avoid the punishment.

4. Revenge: Usually termed as retribution, a similar idea, society gets out its feelings of frustration at having suffered the offensive behaviour of the criminal by venting its spleen on that person. It should be noted that a portion of this purpose is general, and a portion is specific: the attempt to make the victims feel better by thinking the criminal got his/her ‘just desserts’.

5. Rehabilitation: During punishment, an opportunity is offered to try and change the thinking of the criminal to remove his/her tendency to anti-social behaviour.
   Now, let’s apply these thoughts to the choice between application of the death penalty and application of life in prison without possibility of parole. As we do, we should keep in mind the opinions of the United States Supreme Court, which, it must be remembered, has established that some applications of the death penalty are unconstitutional, limiting our ability to impose the sentence. In general, it must be kept in mind that there are very important guarantees that must be observed in the due process of putting someone to death by judicial killing; these guarantees include the substantial ability to appeal one’s sentence.
   Does the death penalty avoid recidivism? Yes. Does LWPP avoid recidivism? Yes (and I will continue to assert so in the absence of evidence that convicted killers with this sentence kill again).

Does the death penalty teach society something about behaviour among humans? Not really; we all know murder is wrong. For the same reason, there is little didactic purpose to application of LWPP in these cases.

Does the death penalty act as a deterrence to commission of first degree murder? No evidence supports this notion; substantial evidence supports the contrary conclusion (killers kill without thought to what will happen afterwards until afterwards). The same would be true of LWPP.

Does the death penalty rehabilitate the criminal. Of course not; it doesn’t even give him the chance. LWPP doesn’t let the criminal back out into society, but certainly it offers at least the chance of rehabilitation and some contribution to society by the person from behind bars.

Does the death penalty fulfill our societal need for revenge? Yes, and much more so than LWPP. To understand how society feels about killers, just look at the rhetoric used by Scylla to describe convicted killers; rhetoric totally absent of any Christian, compassionate feeling.
Conclusion? It ain’t about anything but revenge, an eye for an eye, baby. No other punishment purpose is enhanced by killing killers as opposed to locking them away for the rest of their lives.
Now one of the most absurd notions advanced here is that somehow one does a convicted killer a favor by killing him/her rather than letting them live life behind bars. While it is true some do feel that way, the evidence shows that by far the vast majority prefer to live even in prison over dying.

And, finally, has anyone noticed the irony of Scylla’s assertion that a speeded process would force the juries, prosecutors, judges, etc. to take a closer look at conviction of alleged killers? Wouldn’t this tend to increase the number of actually guilty persons found not guilty after the trial process? Wouldn’t that be the complete opposite of the intent of the proposal (kill the killers before they kill again)?
Now, finally, at the end, a note about personal feelings (which as an attorney I rarely inject into logical debate about legal principles, understanding the difference between how I feel and how the law works): I PERSONALLY THINK KILLING IS WRONG, PERIOD. I think that killing even those you know committed a murder is wrong, for the same reason the murder was wrong. I think shooting to kill someone in another army is wrong. I think killing someone to save your own hide is wrong. Get it? Killing is wrong.

Of course, we aren’t a perfect species, and sometimes we do the wrong thing. And it is hard to yield up one’s own life when threatened by another. But certainly, were you have a choice of killing someone or not killing someone but putting them in prison for good, I don’t see this as even a close call. And for all you death penalty advocates out there, I suggest the following experiment: take a gun and actually kill someone sentenced to die. Yes, you might do it, but I bet you’d have to think about it long and hard, first.

[Gadarene]

DSYoung says:

…the evidence shows that by far the vast majority prefer to live even in prison over dying.

To reinforce this, some sage words are in order… “Life in a box is better than no life at all, I expect. You’d have a chance at least. You could lie there thinking, ‘Well, at least I’m not dead.’”

It’s absurd to make the argument that we’re doing wrongfully convicted prisoners a favor by ending their life. The appeals process is in place for a reason, and it’s our societal responsibility to ensure due process to those convicted of crimes–both during and after the trial. Speaking of which, DSYoung wrote that

In general, it must be kept in mind that there are very important guarantees that must be observed in the due
process of putting someone to death by judicial killing; these guarantees include the substantial ability to appeal one’s sentence.

This is true to a point, but the appeals process for capital cases has been substantially eroded in recent years by a Supreme Court tired of (what they feel to be) frivolous petitions. This speeds up the process and renders commission of the death penalty much more expedient; unfortunately, it also largely abrogates the High Court’s role in checking the errors of the state and appeals court–which, in a perfect world, would be much better funded and staffed than they actually are. And, as I’ve noted, since some Justices (Rehnquist in particular) refuse to consider habeas petitions no matter the circumstances…well, let’s just say that many compelling claims of due process violations have been denied hearing.

And I’ll ask again: If Justices like William Rehnquist and Governors like George W. Bush reject stay requests as a matter of course, without review of the facts and with the knowledge that our judicial system is fallible, can’t their actions be described as depraved indifference or gross negligence?

[Scylla]

Spiritus:

I now understand your point 3 clarification. I doubt we can get any statistical significance out of such a small sample though. If there is a deterrent there, it is probably not measurable in a meaningful way.

You said:
“You point about other risky behavior that individuals choose to engage in seems not at all germane to
this discussion. If the government required all citizens to smoke or jump from airplanes, then you
would have a point. The fact that individuals choose to accept personal risk, however, in no way
justifies the government placing it’s citizens at risk unnecessarily.”

True, but other risky behavior is inflicted upon us. Pollution, being drafted into a war, and such. Not that this is particularly great, or anything. But, it happens. If it could be proven that it were a very effective detterent, then the risk would be justified based on the lives saved. Just as innoculations are.

When people say that it’s not a detterent, I think that’s silly. Of course it is. If it makes one person think twice, then it is a deterrent. My first link cites reports based on interviews with convicted criminals (not necessarily murderers), where they were asked as to whether thought of the death penalty served to deter them from committing murder. Apparently there was a very positive response. I don’t think you can necessarily draw any valid conclusions from this due to the nature of the study. That’s part of the problem. Anybody familiar with statistics knows that trying to measure a negative effect, and specifically trying to isolate it from other effects so that it is measurable, is extremely difficult. Add to that the small sample size we are forced to work with, and it is no wonder we get such contradictory conclusions.

Though it hasn’t been quantified in a convincing way as it applies to capital punishment, the deterrent effect in general is clearly understood, and quite significant. I discussed it earlier, but nobody responded. Here it is again:

"

                 2. Deterrant. As others have pointed out, this is unproven. Both ways. However, there have been
                 claims that the crackdown and harsher penalties for drunk driving have resulted in fewer fatalities and
                 drunk driving convictions in spite of increased vigilance. At least in PA.

                 Our whole legal system is basically founded on the deterrant factor. If you are caught committing
                 such and such a crime, you will recieve such and such a penalty. Most people don't park in front of
                 fire hydrants because they are afraid a fire truck won't have access to a fire hydrant. They don't do it
                 becuase they don't want to get a ticket.

                 I had a problem with a repeat tresspasser on my property until I called the police on him. He was
                 fined, and told that the next instance would result in a night in jail (he was poaching.) I haven't seen
                 him since.

                 When I was a kid I stole a playboy magazine from a drugstore. I was caught. I had a frightening
                 discussion with a policeman, and my parents about the penalties for what I had done, and what would
                 happen if I ever did it again. I never did. I was never even tempted.

                 While training my horses, undesirable behavior results in discipline. Desirable behavior is rewarded.
                 The horses understand this quite well.

                 If a young man is convicted of a drive-bye killing, and sent to prison for several years, he joins a
                 society of peers where he may be respected, and his behavior reinforced. He may learn how to be a
                 better criminal, a better killer. It is doubtful that he will become more fit for society as a result of his
                 incarceration. After several years he may be released and enjoy respect for his deed. This is not
                 rehabilitation. This is reinforcement.

                 If that same person is put to death, and others know that the same fate awaits them if they commit a
                 similar deed, how can that fail to be a deterrant?

                 Most criminals are aware of the risks they take in their actions. The problem is that these risks are
                 acceptable. In order to create an effective deterrant the risks have to become unacceptable. "

THen, you said:

“You believe that the same people
who have proven incapable of administering justice fairly and honestly given our present system of
checks and balances would somehow improve their record if those checks and balances were
removed.”

That’s the most valid problem with the death penalty (and one that I was not aware of when I started this debate. I guess sometimes the losing party in a debate can gain more than the winner.) Clearly we cannot effectively implement justice, much less the death penalty until we solve this problem. It’s clearly imperative that we do so.

next:

"You also believe, apparently, that no exculpatory evidence would stay hidden for longer than
the one month execution deadline you propose. I believe neither of those things, and I do not see how
you can look at the evidence dispassionately and come to those conclusions. "

That’s simply not true. If you read my OP you will see that the time for the trial and appeal is unspecified. Depending on the complexity of the case, this alone could take years. THen, there is a period that can be extended for up to 3 months, where further evidence would be sought. THe day before the scheduled execution there is a panel review by three judges.

What was left unsaid was that it should be only the most qualified and expert of judges and lawyers involved in this process, on both sides. I didn’t know this did not go without saying, but I see now that it doesn’t.

I had thought this would naturally be the case seeing as captital cases tend to be high profile. I was obviously not aware that death penalty cases were being defended by idiot lawyers on the fringe of disbarrment whose specialty is divorce, and that they were defending capital cases for $200 apiece

Clearly that shouldn’t occur. Assuming a high degree of competance and professionalism (which no longer seems a safe assumption,) I think that within the framework I’ve described, you could achieve an extremely high degree of accuracy.

As for the timeframe needed for additional evidence, Gimme a Break. Could OJ’s lawyers have done a better job given 10 years?

Let’s face it, with the exception of a confession, there is no such thing as “new” evidence. Once the events of a murder transpire, they are fixed. There is only uncovered evidence. If a witness recants 10 years after the fact, that’s most likely because the original interviewer was not as competent as the one 10 years after the fact, and could not find the discrepancies or apply the proper pressure. I would think the latter interviewer would naturally have the harder task, don’t you? Same goes for most of the rest of this “new evidence.” It’s only new because the original attorneys and investigators were too incompetant to find it.
Have competant attorneys, and high minimum standards, and this should be a rarity.

BTW, thanks for the courteous and uncondescending replies. I appreciate it.

DSYoungEsq:

You said:

“Does the death penalty teach society something about behaviour among humans? Not really; we all
know murder is wrong. For the same reason, there is little didactic purpose to application of LWPP in
these cases.”

It might teach society that murder is difficult to get away with and the penalty is very high. THat might sidduade others from committing the act.

Then:

“Does the death penalty act as a deterrence to commission of first degree murder? No evidence
supports this notion; substantial evidence supports the contrary conclusion (killers kill without thought
to what will happen afterwards until afterwards). The same would be true of LWPP.”

What “substantial evidence” The studies I’ve been looking at draw contradictory conclusions. As for killing without thinking of the consequences, How do you know what killers are thinking? Jailhouse interviews suggest some forethought in a number of studies. Burglars are rarely armed because of the increased penalties they face. That’s a detterent. Though Drunk drivers are not exactly in the most rational state, the increased penalties and recent crackdown have proven an effective deterrent. Do you deny that the deterrent effect exists as a whole, or just that it disappears magically when we are talking about capital punishment?

and:

"To
understand how society feels about killers, just look at the rhetoric used by Scylla to describe
convicted killers; rhetoric totally absent of any Christian, compassionate feeling. "

So what are you saying? Jews aren’t compassionate either? You have to be a Christian to be compassionate?

My compassion is reserved for the vistims and their families.

Sociopaths, and killers for profit are subhuman. If you want to feel sorry for Ted Bundy go ahead.

I’d respond to the borderline ad hominem implication of this comment (that I am incapable of compassion,) but I have to go outside, club some baby seals, repress a few minorities, and finish my toxic waste incinerator.

Next:

“I PERSONALLY THINK KILLING IS WRONG, PERIOD. I think that killing even those you know
committed a murder is wrong, for the same reason the murder was wrong. I think shooting to kill
someone in another army is wrong. I think killing someone to save your own hide is wrong. Get it?
Killing is wrong.”

You’re entitled. I think you are a little extreme though. I would like to think that the American veterans who gave their lives to liberate Europe from a man like Hitler were engaged in one of the most noble and justified events in History.

I would like to think that the countless others who fought and gave their lives for the freedom we enjoy were doing something worthwhile.

I would also like to think that I would kill or die to protect my family, if I had to. I consider this last a positive character trait.

THIS MAKES ME MAD:

" Mostly, the two main proponents of the idea of the death
penalty have ignored the arguments made therein."

I have gone out of my way to address each argument as fully as possible, I have gone over this entire thread in an attempt to find a single instance that could be misconstrued as dodging a point, and I can’t find a single one. Quite the contrary. I went out of my way to reply to Satan’s post twice because it appears he missed my first reply. I apologized to Pepper for having missed her statistics at first. Gimme a F****** break!

I’ve only deliberately skipped points to which I agree or have previously replied, and sometimes not then, as I’ve tried to point out when I understand or accept a contadictory argument.

If you’ve found an instance that I’ve missed, show me, and I’ll be glad to reply. If not, I’d appreciate a retraction.

Finally:

“Now, finally, at the end, a note about personal feelings (which as an attorney I rarely inject into logical
debate about legal principles, understanding the difference between how I feel and how the law works.”

So, you’re an attorney? You don’t happen to work in Illinois, do you?

(Hey, I’m kidding)

I hope you accept that in the humorous spirit it was offered, and don’t take personal offense.

[St.Attila]

**When people say that it’s not a detterent, I think that’s silly. Of course it is. **

I seem to recall that both Florida and California have the death penalty. Neither place is known for low incidents of violent crime. At the very least, the death penalty is clearly not enough of a deterrent.

**Most people don’t park in front of fire hydrants because they are afraid a fire truck won’t have access to a fire hydrant. They don’t do it because they don’t want to get a ticket. **

I don’t think your analogies and anecdotes are particularly useful. This one suggests ticketing murderers would be a good deterrent.

**Assuming a high degree of competance and professionalism (which no longer seems a safe assumption,) **

I would actually call it a fantasy.

Let’s face it, with the exception of a confession, there is no such thing as “new” evidence. Once the events of a murder transpire, they are fixed. There is only uncovered evidence.

Canadian David Milgaard was convicted of murder and spent 23 years in jail before DNA evidence cleared him.

**I would like to think that the American veterans who gave their lives to liberate Europe from a man like Hitler were engaged in one of the most noble and justified events in History.

I would like to think that the countless others who fought and gave their lives for the freedom we enjoy were doing something worthwhile.**

You also said:

Why should tax payers have to foot the bill for keeping these rabid dogs alive in prison? Why should we support the endless appeals?

Is your freedom worth anything to you? I happily pay my taxes to keep violent criminals in prison (I’d just like the murderers kept in longer). It’s a small price to pay for my family’s safety and (especially considering what the government does with some of my taxes) it’s money well spent. As a bonus, no innocent people are directly killed by my country’s legal system.

But if you’re really concerned about your wallet, consider if murder trials take longer when the defendant’s life is at stake (never mind that convictions are less likely in a jury trial as “reasonable doubt” has life or death consequences). Then there are the costs of all the resultant appeals for those placed on death row.

Also consider that when innocent people are wrongfully convicted and executed, the police are not motivated to continue investigation and find the actual culprit. Not only would an innocent man be dead, but the culprit would be free and possibly killing more people. Also, if that is the case, evidence from the trial of the wrongfully convicted person would not be linked to other evidence from the actual culprit in other murders.

[Scylla]

St. Attila

You said:

“I seem to recall that both Florida and California have the death penalty. Neither place is known for low
incidents of violent crime. At the very least, the death penalty is clearly not enough of a deterrent.”

I replied to this argument several times already.

A. I’m sure you would agree that it is not a pure equation statistically. There are other factors involved in a state’s murder rate then whether or not they have the death penalty. You might even argue that states with especially high murder rates or more likely to implement the death penalty out of desperation. This would give you a skewed # suggesting that the death penalty actually raises murder rates. It is more complex than you present it. Frankly I’m surprised that this argument keeps coming back at me since it so obviously flawed.

“I don’t think your analogies and anecdotes are particularly useful. This one suggests ticketing
murderers would be a good deterrent.”

If you pay attention to my context you’ll see that those are examples of the deterrent effect in general. It is logical to assume that you would need an extreme deterrent to deter an extreme act. Please don’t insult my intelligence (unless you think you can pull it off, of course.) Giving a ticket to a murderer would be a deterrent. It just would not be particularly effective. Neither is our current system wherein a criminal recieves respect and training in his trade of choice while in prison. Clearly our penal system is supposed to punish criminals and deter potential criminals. Right now we only incarcerate them. This gets them off the street for a while, sometimes permanently. More often it provides training and reinforcement for the criminal. This may be why the US has 25% of the world’s prisoners. We need to take steps that will provide an effective detterent, not a reinforcement if we wish to reduce crimes such as murder. If it is impossible to deter such an act, as others suggest, than we might as well give up. I would prefer to observe that the murder rate is not constant throughout the country or the world. I take this as proof that murder can be dettered. How then? Well, if you wish to deter an extreme act, you need an extreme deterrent, don’t you?

"I would actually call it a fantasy. " (Regarding judicial competance and accuracy)

I’ve admitted as much. This is the most significant problem with my argument. One that I was not aware of. It alters my conclusions. One could not use my suggestion, or really favor the death penalty without a competant judicial system. The fact that we do not have one is a disgrace.

“Canadian David Milgaard was convicted of murder and spent 23 years in jail before DNA evidence
cleared him.”

Good point. Technology improves. To use the same slippery slope argument you tried on me with the fire hydrants; this suggests that we shouldn’t convict anybody of anything because knew technology might come along and prove them innocent. (Kinda pisses you off when people pull this kind of obviously fallacious stuff, doesn’t it? Especially when you know they are smarter than that.)

“Is your freedom worth anything to you? I happily pay my taxes to keep violent criminals in prison (I’d
just like the murderers kept in longer).”

An excellent point. The financial part was an aside. Now that you put it that way it seems an ill-considered one. Point conceded.

“Also consider that when innocent people are wrongfully convicted and executed, the police are not
motivated to continue investigation and find the actual culprit.”

Nor are they motivated to do so if the criminal is convicted and put into jail. David Berkowitz is still alive, but how many cops are out there looking for the Son of Sam? Show me a case where the police are actively looking for a criminal for a particular crime when one has already been convicted, and you might have a point if you could show that such nonsensical behavior would be detterred if the criminal were dead instead of merely incarcerated. The death penalty has nothing to do with this.

[Gadarene]

Technology improves. To use the same slippery slope argument you tried on me with the fire hydrants; this suggests that we shouldn’t convict anybody of anything because knew technology might come along and prove them innocent. (Kinda pisses you off when people pull this kind of obviously fallacious stuff, doesn’t it? Especially when you know they are smarter than that.)

Uh, nice try, but no. It suggests that we shouldn’t execute anyone for anything because new technology might come along and prove them innocent. What part of “the death penalty is irrevocable while a life sentence is not” do you not understand?

Don’t make a fallacious argument that you know to be fallacious. St. Attila was absolutely right to call you on your fire hydrant analogy–you’ve yet to demonstrate that the death penalty deters future murderers in the least, let alone to a great enough extent as to balance out the possibility of executing a wrongfully sentenced man. Tickets and fire hydrants simply don’t enter into it.

I understand you’re getting frustrated with us, Scylla, but that’s no reason to respond in such an overtly facile manner. Try taking our objections on their merits, hmmm? Rather than repeating claims about the death penalty’s deterrent value?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

DSY: yes I have still not come up with the #s on escapes & guard deaths. I’m working on them. BUT, I have noticed that the “anti-execution” crowd, such as YOU, have not come up with any numbers of what my numbers are to refute: ie that innocents are executed. So far we have one wildass guess. Not a single solid figure. Do YOU guys have any figures to show there have been any signif amount of innocents executed? How about one? One will not convice me, but it’s a start. And I don’t mena some case where the was enuf evidence to convice a Govenor to suspend an execution, or have a new trial, I mean actual evidence that the person executed was innocent.

Oh, yes, we have had innocents convicted & sentenced, but justice has prevailed.

But all this about you folks opposing the Death penalty because an innocent might be executed is a smokescreen, isn’t it? At least Arnold & DSY admit it: it does not matter how sure we are or how henious the crime, they oppose the death penalty. And just because it is “wrong”. Well, prisoners do escape & kill again, or kill guards, and you should admit this even if I have not yet shown how prevelant it is. So those deaths are on your hands. On my hands are the deaths of proven multiple murderers (I am talking figuritavely, of course). I think I have the moral high ground.

[ahbiteme]

OK, I don’t think one murder deserves the death penalty… it depends on circumstance.
The initial post suggested that a fist-fight gone wrong does not count as murder, but is it not still one person killing another? Does this mean the only time that the death penalty should be imposed is when it’s in “cold blood”?

To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the death penalty either, but if it were to be legal, then I believe the only thing that it should be used for is murder… or perhaps repeated rape/paedophilic crimes, although castration with two bricks should do the job there (which yes, assumes that most sex offenders are male… but you know what I mean).

However, if it were to be implemented as a punishment for murder, do all murderers get it? Are there mitigating circumstances? I think there should be, as suggested by the initial post in this thread… ie, if someone accidentally hits someone with a car, and that person dies, then that does not deserve the death penalty.

So how about the “three strikes and you’re out” rule? Of course, then you need to define what a strike is. I think that a strike should count as a murder that was intended and planned, or a murder which could have been prevented by the will of the murderer… self-defence counts as a defence. Also, serial killings count as as many strikes as there are proven murders.

But would the judges be able to contain themselves? You’ve all heard about hanging judges… I’m sure most of you are aware of the Ned Kelly murder trial in Australia, a famous bush-ranger… he was recently re-trialed, over a century after his execution, and it was found he was acting in self-defence… so let’s not go back to those barbaric ways, where anyone can be executed… there has to be an over-seeing body.

Thoughts on this?

Sorry, I got a bit carried away

[pulykamell]

OK, Dan – you want the evidence, you got it:

The most recent comprehensive study, in The Stanford Law Review (1987), stated that 23 innocent prisoners had been executed in this century. In addition, the Death Penalty Information Center reports that currently nearly 70 prisoners have been released from death rows since 1973 because DNA or other evidence demonstrated their innocence. A more current example is the work of two groups of Northwestern University journalism students and their professor, David Protess. Within the last three years two men have been freed from death rows because of evidence of innocence discovered by the students. The last, Anthony Porter, freed on February 5, 1999, at one point had come within 48 hours of being executed. He had served over 16 years in prison.

Another study shows:

Bedau and Radelet (1988) studied capital convictions for the period from 1900 to 1986 and identified 350 cases in which defendants were erroneously convicted of capital crimes. Twenty four of these people were executed for crimes that they did not commit.

[Scylla]

Gadarene:

I don’t understand how a life sentence is revocable. How do you give a person back 20 years that’s been stolen from them? With both the life sentence and the death penalty, you rob somebody of something that is irreplaceable if you implement it in error. Saying that well, we are not killing the murderers, we are only imprisoning them and can revoke that imprisonment is not an excuse or a fix for judicial incompetance. Some may console their conscience by saying well, they may be still alive and have a few years left if they are later found to be innocent. I would like us to get it right the first time wouldn’t you?

I’ve admitted the naivete of this last, and that it is pretty much a death blow to my argument unless and until the justice system can do a lot better.

Please don’t tell me what to do. I will feel perfectly free to post a knowingly fallacious argument, as long as I identify it as such. The example fit, unless you actually beleive that my arguments can be equally extended to suggest that the death penalty is appropriate for parking violations.

I will also feel free to talk about deterrence if I like. So far Spiritus Mundi is the only one who actually bothered to address my arguments, instead of saying “deterrence doesn’t work,” or “don’t talk about deterrence.”

Yeah, I am getting frustrated. Oh well.

[Scylla]

Went to Clarkprosecutor.org, where there are over 1000 DP links. Focussing on deterrence, I found studies, some admitted in Supreme court cases that found that each execution deterred 18 murders. I also found studies that refuted that study. I found studies on the “brutalization factor,” that demonstrating a disrespect for life at the government level may actually increase murder rates.

In short, there are as many sophisticated studies supporting each side of the argument as you would care t find.

Rather than be unfair and just cite those that support my issue, I’ll just conclude that there is strong evidence on both sides of the question, and that it remains unsolved as to whether in the past the death penalty has provided a measurable detterent effect above incarceration.

I did find one quote that I would like to share from Ernest Van Den Haag, Professor of Jurisprudence:

“Murder rates are determined by many factors; neither the severity nor the probability of the threatened sanction is always decisive. However, for the long run, I share the view of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen: “Some men, probably, abstain from murder because they fear that if they committed murder they would be hanged. Hundreds of thousands abstain from it because they regard it with horror. One great reason why the regard it with horror is that murderers are hanged (16)” Penal sanctions are useful in the long run for the formation of the internal restraints so necessary to control crime. The severity and finality of the death penalty is appropriate to the seriousness and the finality of murder (17).”

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Scylla:
I appreciate your honesty in not reporting only those studies which support your side. The real test, of course, is not the number of studies which support either side but the soundness of the methodology combined with the reproducability of the results. I, for one, have neither the time, skillset nor inclination to examine each study and weigh them appropriately. Since I cannot conlude that a detterence factor exists, I do not feel justified in using this undemonstrated factor to support the decision to end a life.

I found your quote, however, to be uncompelling. (I can imagine your shcok. ;))

One great reason why the regard it with horror is that murderers are hanged (16)"

I assume that the parenthetical reference indicates that he is citing a reference. Without knowing that reference, I cannot judge whether his conclusion has any basis in fact. I can say unequivocally that it does not jibe with my personal experience. The horror I feel is inherent in the nature of the act, not dependent upon the consequences.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Pulykamel: OK, I accept your figures of about 23-24, more than I thought, but still not a lot- over 100 years or so. That means about 2 per decade, and I would strongly guess a bunch are concentrated in the pre WWII South- of Blacks being executed for, umm, er, well,… being Black. Still more than I would like, but the figures do not indicate a major problem (more people died of spider bites). I am still working on my sources.

AHBITEME: We are talking only executions for 1st degree, “premeditated”, “cold-blooded” murder. We all seem to agree that Killing in the throes of anger, or by accident, does not deserve death.

Still I would like an answer to my query from some of the other anti-death penalty crime> A hypothetical case of a man who killed, sexually abused, and even ate parts of; 20+ small children, and not only admitted the crime, but bragged of it, said he would do it again, videotaped himself doing it, and even showed the police where the bodies were hid–do we execute him?? --Hmm, satan? Gaudere?

[pulykamell]

I will honestly say, that even in this extreme case I would not execute the fellow. Lock 'em up for life, but I will not make any exceptions to my belief that the government should not have the power to kill people, even the vilest, most vicious cold-blooded murderers. What good would killing this guy do to society, anyway? I think much more is said for the sanctity of life if we as civilized human beings decide to keep such a person alive than if we kill him.

[untateve]

I have to say I like the death penalty and I apply its theoretical underpinnings in other aspects of my life.

For example, the other day I caught my son picking on/hitting a child smaller than himself.

So I grabbed my son and I spanked him good. I wanted to teach him it is wrong to hit someone, particularly if they are smaller than you. I figured the best way to teach him hitting was wrong was to hit him.

The best way to teach society that killing is wrong is, of course, to kill a few of them.

Huh??? I can’t be the only one who questions this logic. To me, it’s more important to look at what type of society we want to be.

As far as what is a worse type of punishment, death or life in prison, I worked in a state prison for four years. I promise you, the stories about prison rape, abuses, depression, and horrific living standards are true. Given the choice, I would run to the death chamber.

[FunkDaddy]

I don’t agree with the death penalty for a number of reasons. I don’t have a great deal of hard evidence to back up my stance - it’s more of a personal philosophy.

I used to be a big-time death penalty advocate up until I took a course called War & Aggression from Dr. Elliott Leyton (he writes excellent texts regarding homicide - if you have interest in the subject, try “Men of Blood”). Besides presenting the statistics which have already been mentioned pointing out that there was no appreciable increase or decrease in homicide (and other violent activities) during the period where the death penalty was enforced in Canada, he also pointed out that by not killing the perpetrator we send the message that killing is never right, under any circumstance.

I think sending this message is a good idea in the long run. The short-term disadvantages of not having the death penalty look nonexistant- there’s no evidence that abolishing the death penalty has any effect (positive or negative) on crime rates. It also sends the message that revenge isn’t an acceptable method of grieving - another good message.

Danielinthewolvesden, I disagree with your insistence that many murderers manage to either escape and kill again, or are released (the crackpot governor releasing the inmates willy-nilly seems best reserved for a bad film like Dolomite or such). I’d like to see statistics for reoffending, anyone have them?

One more thing to consider is that if you’ve got someone in jail for 30 years for a murder he committed at 20, homicide is an activity that ‘matures out’ or shows a lower rate amongst the higher age brackets (and yes, I’m aware that this effect may be because of the number of murderers being caught early in life and never released). Hopefully by 50 he’ll have mellowed out some - is he a happy and productive member of society? That’s another debate; prisons aren’t known for developing life skills.

Anyhow. Most of this post is just opinion, but it works for me.