Are people who believe in the Death Penalty by definition Evil?

[Agathon]

The only reasonable question is: "Does it work to deter crime?"

The answer is no. It's a waste of time.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Agathon
The only reasonable question is: "Does it work to deter crime?"

The answer is no. It's a waste of time.

I don't care if it is a deterent or not.

It's punishment.

Life in prison certainly isn't any more of a deterent than the death penalty.

So stop giving people life in prison then...

Let's follow your line of reasoning to it's inevitable conclusion...

NO PRISONS AT ALL



Another BS anti-DP argument... the "it's not a deterent" argument.

[snoopy369]

The death penalty does not need to deter crime.

It prevents them quite effectively.

My mother is a prosecutor of violent crimes, and she's several times had to prosecute a convicted murderer who got out and killed or committed some other violent crime again.

Perhaps we need to limit the death penalty to murders that tend to be associated with recidivism - ie, murders during robberies - rather than scott peterson-type murders, which is although horrible, he's not particularly likely to murder again i'd think.

Fact: in a study by the US Dept. of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40% of state prisoners convicted of Homicide and released in the year 1994 were re-arrested (spreadsheet as of 2002). What's particularly interesting to this for me, is that this is the lowest rate among all violent crimes; however, that may be related to various factors such as murderers having a harder time getting out (thus 'better', or less likely to commit a crime, prisoners are released), and murderers being older when released (thus less likely to commit a crime, possibly?), as well as the fact that a decent number of people who wouldn't commit any other crime (such as robbery or burglary) do commit murder (for reasons of passion, typically).

Regardless, a 40% recidivism rate is still pretty darn high as far as I'm concerned. To prevent recidivism, I'm all for executions of a) deserving and b) likely recidivist murderers (both, not either). Yes, life-without-parole sounds good, but it's a) expensive and b) doesn't actually mean the murderer won't get out. Frankly, if you commit murder in either a heinous way, or while committing another violent crime (such as robbery), I have no respect for your life any more than you had respect for others'.

[Sava]

snoopy

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


In other words... yes.

I'm here. Who's runnin', again?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
The only reasonable question is: "Does it work to deter crime?"

The answer is no. It's a waste of time.

At this particular point in my life, there's a few people I could see removing from the planet, but even if there was no prospect of punishment, I have more use for them alive than dead. The "deterrent" aspect of any punishment is irrelevant to me, even with these few prime bastards.

People don't generally kill with the idea of getting caught and convicted, so deterence is the most ridiculous possible public policy basis for criminal punishment in the western world. Sharia, on the other hand... (no pun intended )

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

At this particular point in my life, there's a few people I could see removing from the planet, but even if there was no prospect of punishment, I have more use for them alive than dead. The "deterrent" aspect of any punishment is irrelevant to me, even with these few prime bastards.

And what other aspect are you going to provide a justification for? I see lots of emotive language and macho posturing, but no reasons. NB: "I like it" or "I just feel that way" is not an acceptable reason for a social policy.

Do you think we should have punishments to make victims feel better? In that case, if I am a victim of crime, I request that the perpetrator not be punished, but that the state make me feel better by providing me with six months of state-funded oral sex from a hot looking girl.

People don't generally kill with the idea of getting caught and convicted, so deterence is the most ridiculous possible public policy basis for criminal punishment in the western world. Sharia, on the other hand... (no pun intended )

Remove all punishments for murder then, and see what happens.

[Agathon]

Regardless, a 40% recidivism rate is still pretty darn high as far as I'm concerned. To prevent recidivism, I'm all for executions of a) deserving and b) likely recidivist murderers (both, not either). Yes, life-without-parole sounds good, but it's a) expensive and b) doesn't actually mean the murderer won't get out

It's a lot less expensive than the extensive series of legal appeals that the US death penalty system has resulted in.

Some murderers are worth letting out, some not. Most murders are committed by young men. Once men get over the age of 30 or so, they are much less likely to commit a violent crime. The high profile cases of murder are the ones involving sociopaths. I agree that such people should never be let out, and the legal community is slowly coming to the same conclusion (it's called preventive detention).

With LWP you also at least have the option of releasing the prisoner if there was a wrongful conviction, and that happens more often than people think, even though once is too often. I always find it strange how people who go on about the sanctity of fetal life are quite willing to accept executions of innocent people.

Still as usual your side is bereft of reasons.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Umm what about the notion that the state has no right to legally persue avenues that will murder innocent people, when there are easily workable alternatives?

as I said in the first post - people persueing DP are not evil but either

a) ignorant or

b) culturally conditioned

Just to get to Snoopys argument which is a good one, however practically when you have either

a) deserving and b) likely recidivist murderers (both, not either)

the state might have a good % of those correct however a certain % will be incorrect due to either slopiness, various biases, or downright corruption. Thus it is not acceptable to kill innocents along with the guilty.

A good example would Gary Conlon who under DP system would very likely be executed in the meantime, and there are plenty of those miscarriages of justice withing the system that do happen in DP countries I am sure. All other considerations "like why would murderers live on you taxpayer monyey" (well Death row is said to be more expensive than life in prison), or "punishment fits the crime" (not when a person is wrongly convicted), or "justice needs to be served" (It is with life in prison too)... are not really relevant, as they could be interpreted one way or another. However it is a fact that state does miscarriage justice and that alone is enough reason to create a system which will not allow it to be fatal for the people it is done against.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
And what other aspect are you going to provide a justification for? I see lots of emotive language and macho posturing, but no reasons. NB: "I like it" or "I just feel that way" is not an acceptable reason for a social policy.

The fundamental reason for the social policy of punishing murder is to protect society from the murderer.

In some cases, there may be a possibility of future parole if the appropriate officials conclude the convict is no longer a danger to society.

In some cases, the conclusion may be that the crime is too heinous, and/or that the possibility of reoffense is sufficient that parole may not be granted, and the convict spends his life in prison and dies there, with or without a little assistance from the state in shortening the duration of that life.

Your position appears to be that the state is obligated to provide for and sustain the life of even the most callous, extreme and heinous violators of the most fundamental rule of society.

Do you think we should have punishments to make victims feel better? In that case, if I am a victim of crime, I request that the perpetrator not be punished, but that the state make me feel better by providing me with six months of state-funded oral sex from a hot looking girl.

So you're admitting that the state paying for it is the only way you're going to get it?

Remove all punishments for murder then, and see what happens.

I doubt there would be significantly more murderers than there are now. The only problem would be with those already inclined to commit murder regardless of the existing punishment scheme.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
the state might have a good % of those correct however a certain % will be incorrect due to either slopiness, various biases, or downright corruption. Thus it is not acceptable to kill innocents along with the guilty.

Nor is it acceptable to falsely imprison them and take years from their lives.

The issue isn't the penalty in those cases, it's the integrity and thoroughness of the entire judicial process. I'm in favor of commuting death sentences when there is any plausible doubt, or when the evidence may have been sufficient to convict, but (in my view, at least) isn't sufficient to justify a capital sentence.

IMO, Stanley "Tookie" Williams shouldn't have been executed here in California last month, because the only evidence related to the crime was shotgun ballistic evidence and the testimony of participants in the crimes, who received favorable consideration from the state in return for their testimony.

I never got into the whole "he's reformed" argument, because IMO the trial evidence should not be considered adequate to support a capital sentence.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The fundamental reason for the social policy of punishing murder is to protect society from the murderer.

In some cases, there may be a possibility of future parole if the appropriate officials conclude the convict is no longer a danger to society.

In some cases, the conclusion may be that the crime is too heinous, and/or that the possibility of reoffense is sufficient that parole may not be granted, and the convict spends his life in prison and dies there, with or without a little assistance from the state in shortening the duration of that life.

Your position appears to be that the state is obligated to provide for and sustain the life of even the most callous, extreme and heinous violators of the most fundamental rule of society.

Why would the state be justified in doing anything more than what is sufficient to "protect society from the murderer"? We already know that the DP is more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life, and we also know that killing someone is morally worse than imprisoning them, and has the additional feature of making it impossible to make any correction at all if we turn out to be wrong.

Your argument does not support the death penalty, unless you can come up with some reason why we must do more than is necessary to protect the public from certain individuals (and a lot of murderers... particularly those guilty of domestic murders [the majority in many societies] pose no danger to the public at all).

So you're admitting that the state paying for it is the only way you're going to get it?

The negotiations would be easier...

I doubt there would be significantly more murderers than there are now. The only problem would be with those already inclined to commit murder regardless of the existing punishment scheme.

Go look at a society where murderers are not punished or basically escape censure. Haiti for example. Or look at inter tribal murders in primitive societies. We are actually a peaceable bunch compared to them.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Agathon
I request that the perpetrator not be punished, but that the state make me feel better by providing me with six months of state-funded oral sex from a hot looking girl.

That would be cruel and unusual punishment...

...For the girl.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why would the state be justified in doing anything more than what is sufficient to "protect society from the murderer"?

Why is the state obligated to support and sustain the life of these murderers? The state would be justified on the basis of its legal and judicial systems and social norms. Some states in the US don't have the death penalty, and that's their prerogative.

We already know that the DP is more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life,

That's at least a partial fallacy - in California, where the courts drag their feet and favor multiple stages of appeals, even frivolous appeals, yes. In other states, no. The incarceration costs and judicial process costs (and delays which increase incarcerations costs) are separate issues.

and we also know that killing someone is morally worse than imprisoning them,

So you're a moral absolutist now? Where did those morals come from, and who defines them?

and has the additional feature of making it impossible to make any correction at all if we turn out to be wrong.

That's why you need a responsive and effective judicial system to work prior to carrying out punishment, or you need to limit the DP to cases in which the evidence is absolutely clear that there is no mistake.

Your argument does not support the death penalty, unless you can come up with some reason why we must do more than is necessary to protect the public from certain individuals

Why should the criteria be "must do?" as opposed to "must be prohibited from doing more than the minimum?" Who or what exactly defines these supposed "obligations" of society? I'm not advocating that the DP be mandated, but that a state has a right to choose whether it is appropriate for certain offenses, in view of the social mores and reliability of judicial safeguards and due process. You seem to be arguing that some form of moral prohibition exists, so tell me, where does that "moral" prohibition come from, and whose set of "morals" is to be imposed on the state?

(and a lot of murderers... particularly those guilty of domestic murders [the majority in many societies] pose no danger to the public at all).

And the vast majority of them don't get the DP in the US - even in Texas, a majority of murders don't get the DP. In California, it's about one percent. Some domestic murderers may not be dangerous to the public, but only that portion of the public who might be their next spouse, kid, or whatever.

Go look at a society where murderers are not punished or basically escape censure. Haiti for example. Or look at inter tribal murders in primitive societies. We are actually a peaceable bunch compared to them.

In Haiti, you have virtual anarchy, extreme poverty, hopelessness, and yet most murders are still committed by criminal gangs or pseudoparamilitary thugs.

Intertribal killings in primitive societies are also often "justified" by tradition and social mores. Those situations do not apply to any western industrialized society of which I'm aware, or is your local patch of Canada a bit different?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
My mother is a prosecutor of violent crimes, and she's several times had to prosecute a convicted murderer who got out and killed or committed some other violent crime again

You ought to look at how your prison system works, then. We've never had a convicted murderer who was released and proceeded to kill again. And we haven't executed anybody in 43 years.