One case where capital punishment is definitely wrong

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Well, I´d like to think that we have evolved beyond capital punishment in the last 100 or so years...

Again, unsubstantiated opinion. What does having a death penalty for certain egregious situations have anything to do with "evolving?" You have a different opinion, so of course your opinion is the "evolved" one, right?

Why should we use DP at all? Killing people doesn´t solve the problem, it only kills the symptom. If you have an infected finger you don´t chop it off. You treat it with antibiotics.

Why put people in prison at all? After all, that's just getting revenge, and it doesn't change the fact that a crime was commited.

You have a right to defend yourself. But even so, killing in self defence isn´t a "get out of jail free" card.

Actually, it is. If you can prove self defense, it is an affirmative defense that serves as a bar to punishment. You don't have to serve any jail time.

And when you divide people into those who have the right to live and those that deserve to die, you´re on a slippery slope of fascism. In a civilized society no one can revoke your right to life, no matter how heinous the crime.

I was waiting for this. The inevitable Godwinization of the thread. Couldn't you also say that giving the state the power to punish criminals puts you on the slippery slope to Fascism? These murderers have revoked thier own right to life by their actions. No one took it from them. They did so themselves. That's the difference.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

There are reports which say that it is less expensive to keep someone in prison for his whole life (without parole) than to execute him,
mostly because the case are reviewed over and over again before the execution takes place (to be sure that the right person is executed)
And I doubt you would want less reviews of a case (which would make DP cheaper and let it take place sooner) as it would also mean that much more innocents get executed.

It's debateable whether that is really true, but I'll treat it as truth for the sake of argument. You identified part of the problem: too many reviews. However, the other part of the problem is that it can be applied too broadly, and includes borderline cases in which, despite a conviction, there are still reasonable doubts. That is why there are so many reviews. If the DP process were streamlined, meaning that if it potentially applied to less people, it would be much less expensive to execute a criminal than to keep the criminal alive for 40+ years.

Here's how I'd do it. In a potential capital case, the prosecutor can support an execution. Then it's up to the judge to decide. Create a high evidentiary bar for when, as a matter of law, executions can be carried out.

Examples of evidence that would meet the higher evidentiary bar: confession + identifying location of bodies + correctly identifying how the victims were killed; defendant has 30 missing people buried in his backyard, confesses that he killed them; defendant captured on tape murdering victim, with DNA evidence coroborating that it was in fact him murdering the victim on the tape. Other factors considered would be severity of the crime (is there evidence that D raped and/or tortured victims prior to murdering them, is there evidence of cannibalism) and victim's class (was the victim particualarly vulnerable because victim was a child, was elderly, was handicapped, was a family member). If a case is completely or almost completely decided by circumstantial evidence, then there can be no death penalty for that defendant.

Judge has to strictly scrutinize evidence before allowing the death penalty sentence. If the evidence doesn't meet the high bar, then the criminal cannot be executed as a matter of law. If bar is satisfied, then the defendant's case is automatically appealed to the state's supreme court. Supreme court reviews all aspects of trial (whether evidentiary bar was satisfactorily met, whether trial was fair, whether defendant's counsel was competant). If the supreme court is not satisfied, then the death penalty is vacated and his case is remanded for sentencing. If the supreme court is satisfied that the defendant qualifies for execution, then the defendant has one month (30 days) to try to come up with a new legal theory. If he cannot, he is executed at the end of the 30 day period.

This system would make a death penalty rare, yet still availiable in the most deserving cases. It would also ensure that the murderer used as little state resources as possible, as the state wouldn't have to keep the defendant alive for decades.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Again, unsubstantiated opinion. What does having a death penalty for certain egregious situations have anything to do with "evolving." You have a different opinion, so of course your opinion is the "evolved" one, right?

In 18th century England they boiled people in oil as a punishment, or put them in the iron maiden or... They don´t anymore. That´s evolving. The views on human rights and punishment has changed as we try to understand why people do the things they do. They have evolved. We no longer treat the insane as people posessed by evil spirits or put them in insane asylums to rot. We try to treat them. That´s evolving... Are you with me so far?

Why put people in prison at all? After all, that's just getting revenge, and it doesn't change the fact that a crime was commited.

I have nothing against punishment, as long as it isn´t capital punishment. if you do a crime, you do the time. as simple as that. But since all criminals are socially maladjusted and/or suffer from mental illness they need proper care to be rehabilitated and reintroduced into society. If you kill a man you take away all that he´s´ever been and all that he ever will be. Granted that some criminals are to ****ed up to ever function in society and they must be put away to protect the rest of us. But again, killing them is no solution. A civilized society must learn to deal even with really disturbed people without resorting to killing. But I speak no universal truths here, just my own views.

Actually, it is. If you can prove self defense, it is an affirmative defense that serves as a bar to punishment. You don't have to serve any jail time.

Even if you could´ve solved the situation otherwise?

I was waiting for this. The inevitable Godwinization of the thread. Couldn't you also say that giving the state the power to punish criminals puts you on the slippery slope to Fascism? These murderers have revoked thier own right to life by their actions. No one took it from them. They did so themselves. That's the difference.

I see no difference, people who commit murder are criminals and should be punished. There´s no argument there. But society as a whole must rise above the actions of criminals. The eye for an eye approach to justice is wrong IMO. By killing people in the name of justice we are demeaning ourselves as human beings.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wycoff
It's good that he didn't kill anyone while in prison, but it's offensive to me that he's getting government food and shelter for 14 years.

We should kill someone because you're offended? I'm offended we spend more on prisons than on schools. That doesn't give me the right to execute our politicians, and people do die because of the decisions they make.

The point of prison is to keep people from harming us. As long as people are in prison, they aren't hurting us. I don't want people killing in my name, with my government's money. I just want to be protected.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Not even then I´d say. If the law says you forfeit your life then the law is wrong and must be changed.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right, despite what President Jefferson might have written. Rights are socially determined and society can elect to take them away. I think the DP is pointless and barbaric. I don't think, however, that it is immoral. We have a right to vengence. I think we'd be better people if we decided not to excercise it, and instead really tried to rehabilitate people (as opposed to the half assed trying we did). Society gains more from people who come out of prison as model citizens than from people who come out of prison enraged at the world.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Besides, 100% certainty does exist. There was no doubt that John Wayne Gacy commited his crimes.

This is not a good argument. If there were any reasonable doubt as to whether or not someone was guilty, they shouldn't be in prison at all, let alone on death row. Everyone who is sentenced to die is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of whether or not they actually did it.

If you "reserve" the DP only for those cases where you are absolutely sure, every case will have to be a DP case, or the state would be admitting they aren't 100% sure, wich means they shouldn't be convicted.

[Atahualpa]

This is the case to start banning DP...
Forcing them to work for their whole live and no pay is way more effective

[Heresson]

Capital punishment is almost always definitely wrong

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Heresson
Capital punishment is almost always definitely wrong

WHen is it not?


Like, say, if someone assassinated the pope or something?

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
This is the case to start banning DP...
Forcing them to work for their whole live and no pay is way more effective

Look! Someone want to bring back slavery!!!

[chequita guevara]

Slavery for conviction is not only legal, it is practiced widely in the U.S.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
But society as a whole must rise above the actions of criminals. The eye for an eye approach to justice is wrong IMO. By killing people in the name of justice we are demeaning ourselves as human beings.

You must have an awfully high opinon of society. Either that or a very naive one.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Slavery for conviction is not only legal, it is practiced widely in the U.S.

Where?

[chequita guevara]

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


This "loophole" allowed Southern states to almost immediately re-enslave Blacks, as they immediately began arresting them for vagrancy, spitting, whatever, and sentencing them to work. Even up to the 1950s, in some Souterhn jurisdictions, when someone needed men for a job, they simply went to the local Democratic Party boss, who then had the sheriff go out and round up some folks, try them, and sentence them to penal work.

Today, companies like Microsoft, TWA, and Starbucks all use convict labor (not exclusively).

[Donegeal]

Hmmm.... Cool. Thanks.

Now where is it practiced?