The Death Penalty

[mojorising]

Not sure if this one has been done already but what about the death penalty?

Who is in favour?

Why?

Who is against?

Why not?

It is a complicated issue with many moral and political implications for society.

I am in 2 minds about it to some extent but I think there are persuasive arguments on each side of the debate so I am keen to hear the thoughts from the free thinkers on the forum.

There are aspects of morality and aspects of politics to the argument but in the end I went for the morality forum as I think the arguments for and against are more profound than mere politicking.

Mods please move to another forum if my brief meta-analysis of the topic in the preceding paragraph is unsound.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't have an issue with the state killing people in response to certain crimes per se. What I have an issue with is the fallibility of the legal system used to determine that. It makes no difference to crime rates to risk death for some crimes, so there's really nothing gained from it.

 

[mojorising]

Good opener Tom.

I think one of the problems with the lack of 'deterrence' is that a death sentence recipient in the USA knows he has at least 15 years of sitting around while the legal system bats his case back and forth.

A lot of criminally minded folk take a short term view of life anyway so 15 years is so far away to them that it is not on their radar.

If the death row time could be reduced to 12 months max it might be more of a eye-opener.

 

[credoconsolans]

I'm for it.

The problems with mistakes should be covered in my opinion by long appeals processes which I am also in favor of.

I don't see it as a deterrent. It's basically to take someone guilty of heinous crimes out of society. Permanently.

 

[dystopian]

Good opener Tom.

I think one of the problems with the lack of 'deterrence' is that a death sentence recipient in the USA knows he has at least 15 years of sitting around while the legal system bats his case back and forth.

Does not compute.

There are countries where the death penalty is administered far more swiftly after sentencing and it doesn't appear to have any noticeable deterrance effect there either. Even if it could actually be demonstrated there's a statistically significant deterrance effect, the fact that most developed countries have very low murder rates without any sort of death penalty in place makes it exceedingly obvious that this deterrence effect is unneccessary, which given the downsides makes it essentially a given that countries should abolish it.

It does not deter crimes; and while it removes the possibility of murderers getting free and killing again, so too does life imprisonment. The latter actually being the cheaper option. That leaves revenge as the sole reason for the death penalty; and killing out of revenge is an immoral act and not something a civilized government should involve itself with; it serves no purpose other than to briefly appeal to an archaic and barbaric sense of "justice".

There is no practical reason to institute a death penalty, despite the best efforts of proponents to find one that lets them pretend it's about something more than petty revenge.

 

[fromderinside]

DP makes enough people who, when they think about it, feel good. That's enough I guess. Its only a life here or a life there. A lot fewer lives than those taken by others texting while driving. Apparently that's not enough.

I like the moral equivalence. How about you?

 

[freshie23]

Not sure if this one has been done already but what about the death penalty?

Who is in favour?

Why?

Who is against?

Why not?

It is a complicated issue with many moral and political implications for society.

I am in 2 minds about it to some extent but I think there are persuasive arguments on each side of the debate so I am keen to hear the thoughts from the free thinkers on the forum.

There are aspects of morality and aspects of politics to the argument but in the end I went for the morality forum as I think the arguments for and against are more profound than mere politicking.

Mods please move to another forum if my brief meta-analysis of the topic in the preceding paragraph is unsound.

I'm against the death penalty for several reasons. The most important reason is because I believe people are valuable in the sense of dignity above all else. The death penalty measures human value by social usefulness, not by dignity.

 

[4321lynx]

In favour of it being mandatory in cases of child rapists/abductors where the result is victim's death. Also in cases of abduction/kidnapping of adults as well as children, resulting in death whether associated with rape or not. Some cases of 1st degree murder, eg in cases of torture before murder.
Reason -- same as credoconsolans'.
All these "capital crime" cases to be appealed twice, second appeal if first unsuccessful, and all appeals to be completed within 12 months. Judges and lawyers to be "encouraged" to treat cases as urgently as, say, cases of operable cancers are treated by doctors, by having their tenure and licence dependent each year upon their attention to this proviso. Because "Justice delayed is justice denied" as somebody said.

Other safeguards and provisors can be applied. eg No plea bargains, special federal investigators in these cases to ensure no negligent, untrained, inexperienced or corrupt local investigators handle them.

 

[mojorising]

Good opener Tom.

I think one of the problems with the lack of 'deterrence' is that a death sentence recipient in the USA knows he has at least 15 years of sitting around while the legal system bats his case back and forth.

Does not compute.

There are countries where the death penalty is administered far more swiftly after sentencing and it doesn't appear to have any noticeable deterrance effect there either. Even if it could actually be demonstrated there's a statistically significant deterrance effect, the fact that most developed countries have very low murder rates without any sort of death penalty in place makes it exceedingly obvious that this deterrence effect is unneccessary, which given the downsides makes it essentially a given that countries should abolish it.

It does not deter crimes; and while it removes the possibility of murderers getting free and killing again, so too does life imprisonment. The latter actually being the cheaper option. That leaves revenge as the sole reason for the death penalty; and killing out of revenge is an immoral act and not something a civilized government should involve itself with; it serves no purpose other than to briefly appeal to an archaic and barbaric sense of "justice".

There is no practical reason to institute a death penalty, despite the best efforts of proponents to find one that lets them pretend it's about something more than petty revenge.

I think you are giving revenge a bad name it does not entirely deserve.

It is part of the evolved human emotional behaviour system. It is a hunger for redress against an offender followed by satiation when redress is achieved.

I am a bit dubious about the relative cost. I think the 'higher cost' is because they sit around on death row for 15 years with lawyers' meters ticking which is something we could do without.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Magical brownies:

Yes, but only for those that are too dangerous to keep.

 

[DBT]

Voted No. It's just a state sanctioned killing.

 

[fast]

I think you are giving revenge a bad name it does not entirely deserve.

It is part of the evolved human emotional behaviour system. It is a hunger for redress against an offender followed by satiation when redress is achieved.

I am a bit dubious about the relative cost. I think the 'higher cost' is because they sit around on death row for 15 years with lawyers' meters ticking which is something we could do without.

The hunger is for the state to kill? It would seem to me that the anger fuming from within would be momentarily misdirected away from the killer and to the one's upholding the law in search of that sick thing called justice. For instance, if a killer were to take the life of my loved one, and if the warm blooded do-gooder individuals standing before me espouse that sick mantra about finding justice for my loved one, I'd feel like I was in the throws of being cheated. Please, don't offer justice--that's sick. Why in the hell would I want justice--that's nothing but some twisted, sick, socially constructed morally justified (and Tom Sawyer approved) means of cheating me out of the product of which you dub as, "evolved human emotional behavior system."

I would want to stand in defense of the killer, in hopes of thwarting the theft-riddled agenda of bringing the killer to justice. How dare the state take away my RIGHT to have the killer walking the streets with me.

ETA: I change my story to what dystopian said.

 

[dystopian]

I think you are giving revenge a bad name it does not entirely deserve.

If you're forced to argue that revenge "isn't so bad", then you've already lost the moral argument.

It is part of the evolved human emotional behaviour system. It is a hunger for redress against an offender followed by satiation when redress is achieved.

Which is completely irrelevant and doesn't make it any less immoral.

 

[Juma]

I think you are giving revenge a bad name it does not entirely deserve.

It is part of the evolved human emotional behaviour system. It is a hunger for redress against an offender followed by satiation when redress is achieved.
.

And have absolutely no place in a civilized society. The "need" for revenge is a bug which you should learn to ignore.

 

[BarryM]

Totally opposed, I would not want to live in a country where the state has the right to kill me, period.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not sure if this one has been done already but what about the death penalty?

Who is in favour?

Why?

Who is against?

Why not?

It is a complicated issue with many moral and political implications for society.

I am in 2 minds about it to some extent but I think there are persuasive arguments on each side of the debate so I am keen to hear the thoughts from the free thinkers on the forum.

There are aspects of morality and aspects of politics to the argument but in the end I went for the morality forum as I think the arguments for and against are more profound than mere politicking.

Mods please move to another forum if my brief meta-analysis of the topic in the preceding paragraph is unsound.

I think putting people in jail and killing them is comparable. A day in jail is a day free life has been denied. That is a type of death IMHO. So I think this idea that jail is more humane is a fantasy. I think the degrees of cruelty are comparable. The extreme trauma that a person in jail has had to endure is like being raped continuously. Jail is NOT a walk in the park in any country. Anybody that has been to jail will have plenty of psychological and emotional damage that will take many years to overcome. That is true even for short jail terms.

So I don´t think it matters if we have the death penalty or not. The fallibility of the legal system is the same regardless. There is simply no way to make up for the damage caused to a person that has wrongfully spent years in jail. And thinking that we can is fooling ourselves. The only way to avoid this is to get it right to begin with.

 

[dystopian]

I think putting people in jail and killing them is comparable. A day in jail is a day free life has been denied. That is a type of death IMHO. So I think this idea that jail is more humane is a fantasy. I think the degrees of cruelty are comparable. The extreme trauma that a person in jail has had to endure is like being raped continuously. Jail is NOT a walk in the park in any country. Anybody that has been to jail will have plenty of psychological and emotional damage that will take many years to overcome. That is true even for short jail terms.

So I don´t think it matters if we have the death penalty or not. The fallibility of the legal system is the same regardless. There is simply no way to make up for the damage caused to a person that has wrongfully spent years in jail. And thinking that we can is fooling ourselves. The only way to avoid this is to get it right to begin with.

It is absurd and extraordinarly arrogant to argue that because you personally think that life in jail is a 'type of death' that therefore the death penalty and a prison sentence are comparable. They're not. Not even remotely comparable; in one instance you may (or may not, in fact) have "emotional trauma to overcome", but you at least the option of actually fucking doing so instead of being denied that possibility. Saying that the trauma a person in jail has to endure is like being raped continuously is to understand absolutely nothing about either rape or prison life such as exists in developed countries; and even if that absurd comparison were accurate it wouldn't be an argument for the deathpenalty but for prison reform.

If a prisoner genuinely believes that life in prison is the same or worse than death, then you could always offer them the *choice* of euthanasia. But forcing an end to their very existence and justifying it using your own subjective metrics for suffering is disturbingly and dangerously arrogant. I guarantee you that the majority of people serving life sentences will choose to keep living.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think putting people in jail and killing them is comparable. A day in jail is a day free life has been denied. That is a type of death IMHO. So I think this idea that jail is more humane is a fantasy. I think the degrees of cruelty are comparable. The extreme trauma that a person in jail has had to endure is like being raped continuously. Jail is NOT a walk in the park in any country. Anybody that has been to jail will have plenty of psychological and emotional damage that will take many years to overcome. That is true even for short jail terms.

So I don´t think it matters if we have the death penalty or not. The fallibility of the legal system is the same regardless. There is simply no way to make up for the damage caused to a person that has wrongfully spent years in jail. And thinking that we can is fooling ourselves. The only way to avoid this is to get it right to begin with.

It is absurd and extraordinarly arrogant to argue that because you personally think that life in jail is a 'type of death' that therefore the death penalty and a prison sentence are comparable. They're not. Not even remotely comparable; in one instance you may (or may not, in fact) have "emotional trauma to overcome", but you at least the option of actually fucking doing so instead of being denied that possibility. Saying that the trauma a person in jail has to endure is like being raped continuously is to understand absolutely nothing about either rape or prison life such as exists in developed countries; and even if that absurd comparison were accurate it wouldn't be an argument for the deathpenalty but for prison reform.

If a prisoner genuinely believes that life in prison is the same or worse than death, then you could always offer them the *choice* of euthanasia. But forcing an end to their very existence and justifying it using your own subjective metrics for suffering is disturbingly and dangerously arrogant. I guarantee you that the majority of people serving life sentences will choose to keep living.

I notice how you didn´t argue your position other than to call me arrogant. The fact that a majority of people serving life sentences would rather chose to keep living doesn´t prove anything. It´s like forcing somebody between AIDS and Syphilis. Both are awful to suffer from. One is slightly less awful.

 

[dystopian]

I notice how you didn´t argue your position other than to call me arrogant.

Whereas I would notice a certain lack of reading comprehension on your part; since the post you responded to contained no less than five separate arguments against equating the death penalty with a prison sentence. 1) I argue that the basis on which you equate the death penalty with a prison sentence is subjective and not a sufficient basis to determine equivalence. 2) I then address the claim that the two are equivalent on the grounds of emotional trauma and argue how they're in fact not. 3) I proceed to argue that your colorful assessment of the level of emotional trauma prison induces is based on an ignorance of the actual conditions of prison and the experience you liken it to. 4) I then argue that your assessment of the level of emotional trauma prison induces is not something that can be used to argue that there's no difference between sentencing people to prison or death and that it is instead an argument for prison reform. 5) I conclude with arguing that if you're genuinely concerned with the prisoner's emotional wellbeing, and you genuinely think life in prison is just as bad or worse than death, then you would offer them the *choice*; which the death penalty by definition is not. By taking away their ability to choose, you are forcing *your* opinions on them: it is deciding that *your* opinion, not theirs, is the superior one. The very definition of arrogance. Which is a pretty big fucking deal when it results in someone's death.

If you genuinely didn't notice any arguments against your position (and therefore in support of mine), well, then that's an interesting bit of psychological insight into the ability of the human mind to ignore things that contradict their personal biases, but that's rather OT.

The fact that a majority of people serving life sentences would rather chose to keep living doesn´t prove anything.

Uh, yes. Yes it does. If a majority of the people serving life sentences would rather choose to keep living; then that proves living in jail is more desirable than death, which completely destroys the notion that the death penalty and life imprisonment are equally harsh and therefore morally equivalent.

 

[4321lynx]

Whereas I would notice a certain lack of reading comprehension on your part; since the post you responded to contained no less than five separate arguments against equating the death penalty with a prison sentence. 1) I argue that the basis on which you equate the death penalty with a prison sentence is subjective and not a sufficient basis to determine equivalence. 2) I then address the claim that the two are equivalent on the grounds of emotional trauma and argue how they're in fact not. 3) I proceed to argue that your colorful assessment of the level of emotional trauma prison induces is based on an ignorance of the actual conditions of prison and the experience you liken it to. 4) I then argue that your assessment of the level of emotional trauma prison induces is not something that can be used to argue that there's no difference between sentencing people to prison or death and that it is instead an argument for prison reform. 5) I conclude with arguing that if you're genuinely concerned with the prisoner's emotional wellbeing, and you genuinely think life in prison is just as bad or worse than death, then you would offer them the *choice*; which the death penalty by definition is not. By taking away their ability to choose, you are forcing *your* opinions on them: it is deciding that *your* opinion, not theirs, is the superior one. The very definition of arrogance. Which is a pretty big fucking deal when it results in someone's death.

If you genuinely didn't notice any arguments against your position (and therefore in support of mine), well, then that's an interesting bit of psychological insight into the ability of the human mind to ignore things that contradict their personal biases, but that's rather OT.

The fact that a majority of people serving life sentences would rather chose to keep living doesn´t prove anything.

Uh, yes. Yes it does. If a majority of the people serving life sentences would rather choose to keep living; then that proves living in jail is more desirable than death, which completely destroys the notion that the death penalty and life imprisonment are equally harsh and therefore morally equivalent.

Of course the two are completely different, and life in the Maximum Security prison is/was not so terrible for a seasoned ruthless killer - look what we now know of that place in NY State. Hope never dies in the human breast, and the escape even from there was engineered, if only partly successful.
Personally I am for giving the criminal just as much consideration as he (in the examples of crimes I gave it is almost always a he) gave to his victims.
With safeguards outlined, no mandatory sentences, three trials, modern crime labs and methods of investigation, disinterested honesty of investigators, what are the chances of the scandalous miscarriages of justice that have occurred in Canada and the USA in the past?