[finally17]

I'm 100% against, for a variety of reasons.

1) I apparently stand with Phil on the sanctity of life, right down to the personally but not legally against abortion.

2) As long as they're alive, I don't believe anyone is beyond redemption (regardless of your stance on what redemption means). It's only when they're dead that they are irredeemable.

3) In the US anyway, our prisons are (supposedly) for: correction, prevention & public safety, deterrence, and punishment I think there's a fundamental conflict between the first two and the last. I know of nothing that demonstrates the the death penalty is effective for the third.
i. When punishment is the goal, we end up valuing some lives over others (both among the victims and the perpetrators). That's unacceptable to me.
ii. Argue that it's preventative all you want, I think you'd be wrong. We're very effective at locking up the most violent in a manner that prevents them from hurting their peers. The death penalty is purely punishment.

[mikeh]

Any meaningful discussion of capital punishment would take up far more space than even all of the posts on the topic combined. However, there are a few points that seem to me to be relevant to the discussion.

1. It is a mistake, according to people who know far more than do I, to think that we can 'solve' the conditions that give rise to people who kill. Pinker's The Blank Slate is a useful starting point. Not only are the social conditions unlikely to ever change in a manner that will eliminate triggers for murder, but, more importantly, it seems impossible to conclude that murder is simply a response to social conditions.

2. Most criminals, and this includes most murderers, are either mentally/emotionally disturbed at the time of the crime or are sociopaths. The former includes individuals with drug/alcohol induced deficits, whether because they were high/drunk at the time of the crime or were the victims of fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. Others were brutalized as children. Some may have brain injury from a variety of sources, leading to poor impulse control. People in these categories are physically incapable of the reasoning that allows deterrence to operate at the time of the crime.

3. There is, at the current time, an unavoidable risk, in many cases, of a wrongful conviction. There would appear to be many cases, however, in which the guilt of the individual has been demonstrated beyond the rational (not just the reasonable) possibility of error. I might, just might, support a capital punishment regime for the latter, if someone could assure me that we would always, infallibly, be able to draw the line between the categories... but I doubt that that could really be done.

4. The desire for revenge, expressed by family and friends of the victim, is not a rational reason for killing the killer. Some family and friends profess a forgiveness of the killer... not an approval or a desire to see him/her go free... but a willingness to forgo the age-old eye for an eye. It seems irrational to me that the fate of the killer would depend, not on the state's interests in prosecuting the crime, but the randomness of the attitude of the survivers. And, what if, say, the mother of the victim said 'don't execute' while the father or spouse said 'hang the bastard'?

5. With respect to people who have been abused as kids, or are children of drug-addicted or alcoholic mothers, or who have developed mental or physical problems that deprive them of the ability to conform to societal norms, can it be morally 'right' to kill them for actions beyond their ability to control? If not, where do we draw the line on the continuum between conscious, rational actions by a criminal (say a hitman) and someone who has had a complete psychotic break? Yes, we have 'rules' that allow a defence of insanity, but it is not exactly perfect. And the line has to be drawn somewhere: there will be killers who escape punishment because they are just over the line in one direction and others who face a stiff sanction who, to most of us, would seem to be indistinguishable, but their jury or judge found them just over the line in the opposite direction. I suppose this element of chance is unavoidable in any reasonably-implementable method, but should it really mean the difference between life and death or, as is now sometimes the case, only a difference between being in prison or being in a mental institution?

6. To me, if we can overcome the horrific problems of wrongful conviction and the moral issues of whether our killer has or had free will, the strongest argument in favour of capital punishment is economic. Of course, the US has enormous problems with the appeal process and the high cost of maintaining a death row inmate, but China demonstrates that capital punishment can be carried out very efficiently

7. As against that, as others have posted, the risk of death upon conviction may give some criminals a sense of nothing to lose. In the US, kidnapping used to be and may still be punishable by death.... which always struck me as silly. If I were kidnapped, I'd surely want my captors to have a reason to keep me alive after the ransom was paid. If I were a policeman trying to capture an armed killer, who already knows that if he surrenders, he dies, I might like to be able to hold out to the suspect the prospect of living. Now, in reality, I doubt that these factors apply with any real force to any criminal. Given the choice of killing the cop and maybe escaping or surrendering and facing life in prison, I suspect most killers would shoot. But it might be a factor once in a while. And the point about controlling prisoners already serving life is valid. Of course, most western countries don't usually mean 'life' when sentencing most criminals, including murderers, to 'life'. The US practice of imprisoning individuals for hundreds or even thousands of years (6 consecutive life terms, or 399 years are not unheard of, as examples) is silly. If the state preserved the possibility of release for all but the most deranged, then the state would preserve a carrot to dangle over prisoners in addition to whatever disciplinary sticks it may have.

All told, I am against the death penalty but would reconsider my position if my concerns could be met... which I don't think is within our power now or over my lifetime.

[finally17]

mikeh, on Feb 19 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

6. To me, if we can overcome the horrific problems of wrongful conviction and the moral issues of whether our killer has or had free will, the strongest argument in favour of capital punishment is economic. Of course, the US has enormous problems with the appeal process and the high cost of maintaining a death row inmate, but China demonstrates that capital punishment can be carried out very efficiently

Or the weakest. I guess it's all just a matter of perspective.

And you know, I always hold the Chinese government up as the gold standard.

[kenberg]

I think there are people who are monsters. They will not change. If you give them the opportunity, they will do enormous harm to other people. What shall we do?

1. Deny that such people exist. OK, but refusing to accept reality carries a price tag.
2. Kill them. OK, but deciding, and being certain, which person belongs to this category is often not so simple. Although sometimes it's clear. But it's hard to write laws that take this certainty/uncertainty into account.
3. Put them in prison for life. I'm not so sure this is as simple as it sounds.

As I said, all in all I go with 3, but it is not because I have any real reluctance to kill monsters. With some of these criminals I could easily push in the needle and I wouldn't lose any sleep at all. Or so I think. If I get the job... Well, I'll get back to you on that.

[luke warm]

if i took the job (king of the world), which i wouldn't for this and other reasons, i'd have to take it seriously enough to know that my own personal beliefs might sometimes have to take a back seat to what i perceive or have been convinced is good for my subjects...

i don't believe in capital punishment for reasons others have stated, but as king i'd have to use it... the difference would be, if a person is found guilty of a capital offense he has an automatic appeal (unless he decides he doesn't want it)... the appeal is 1 month from the day of conviction... if found guilty again, he is shot

[sceptic]

han, on Feb 19 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 19 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

Not in favor.

For me it isn't a matter of a politics, or deterrence, or executing an innocent person, or whatever. I simply believe in the sanctity of life.

This is why I'm against abortions (not on a legal level, but on a personal level). I know nearly all of you find this repugnant, but that's tough *****.

No Phil, I don't find anything repugnant in your post.

sounds like you have a good opinion on the subject, I don't find it repugnant either

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Feb 19 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

As most of you can guess, I strongly oppose capital punishment

1.  I've seen no evidence that Capital Punishment has any deterrent effect

2.  If you execute someone by mistake there aren't any "take backs"

3.  Its abundantly clear that the US applies Capital Punishment in a discriminatory manner

4.  This is just my gut feeling, but I think that a lot of the Capital Punishment proponents are much more interested in posturing than costs and benefits

I understand that the family of victims want an "Eye for and Eye".  However, I like to think that we've out grown that sort of thing...

1. It certainly deters the one executed.
2. Yes, this is a problem. See below.
3. What the US does or does not do in applying the death penalty is not, in itself, a reason to support or oppose it.
4. With your #4, I can't agree more.

We (the human race) have unfortunately not outgrown "an eye for an eye", and it's looking like it'll be a long time before we do. That, of course, is also not in itself a reason to support or oppose the death penalty.

My own position arises thusly: No one has a right to take another human life, save in self-defense or defense of others. No group (including a government or a society) has rights beyond the rights of the individuals that comprise the group. Therefore no government has a right to execute anyone for any crime whatsoever.

There is a dilemma though. How do you prevent someone who has shown such disregard for the rights of others as to commit this most serious of crimes from doing it again? In the olden days of small isolated communities (and thus, small isolated groups), you could just drive him out. These days that just means he becomes someone else's problem - and that's not a very good solution. The only viable alternative, so far as I can see, is to isolate him permanently from the rest of humanity. That means solitary confinement until the day he dies. It's expensive - and why should we ask the members of our society to (voluntarily, mind you - taking money by force is just as wrong as taking a life, even for the government) pay to keep the son of a bitch alive? OTOH, it does solve problem 2 - if you make a mistake, you can "take it back", sort of. At least you can set him free with an "oops, sorry about that" in his pocket.

[Impact]

If you take out the concept of revenge - the reason for imprisoning people is protection of society from actions which that society has determined to be antithetical to the society.

Imprisonment comes at a very considerable economic cost in a humane society.

In a real sense the "strongest" argument for capital punishment is economic: if it costs more per prisoner than social welfare is it justifiable?

Of course, the next step takes you into moral territory: how much is any life worth?

Put simply, there is a myriad of arguments against capital punishment, including inter alia,:-

1. certainty in terms of the conviction of the offender (if you got it wrong there is no coming back unless you are either a believer in reincarnation or a messiah and the latter have been a trifle rare and non-recurring);

2. lack of evidence that it leads to deterrence (most studies I have seen suggest the reverse or at least a coincidental relationship between crime and capital punishment but of course if you want to be cynical you can reflect on the nature of the authors of such learned works and the likelihood that they proceeded with their research from a predetermined position);

3. reluctance in our Western societies to take life other than by way of self-defence (note this does not extend to all societies and suggests alternative mindsets which offer alternative solutions based on the nature of the society or its prevailing mores, so Western answers are not universal);

4. aligned with each of the above the importance of the individual and his (generic) unique quality - which gives rise to individual rights and the importance of the individual - again something which is not shared by all societies.

I am amused to reflect that those who frequently support capital punishment are also theoretically in favour of individual rights, while many of those who oppose capital punishment base their arguments on a "social basis".

In my view it is all about the extent to which freedom of an individual is sacrificed to the requirements of the society.

My pact with society is for it to offer me protection but to make minimal invasive moves to restrict my personal freedoms.

Where any individual draws his line or what is to be regarded as antithetical to any society will always occasion great debate as it is rare for many to draw the line in the same place.

While a society can afford to maintain a utopian view it should...but is or should even a simple majority be sufficient to change the position?

If not, where do you draw the line?

If the society "cannot afford" to maintain the position do they reduce the conditions of the imprisoned to reduce the economic burden or resort to capital punishment?

If the former, is it for all those imprisoned (the harsher conditions)?

Of such things is philosophy composed....

mid-script: mikeh has composed a number of similar arguments above since I commenced this note (but was so rudely interrupted by work, a 4 letter word)

[helene_t]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 19 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

we could become humane and spend the same time and money on determining why they do these things and figuring out how to avoid these tragic eventualities. I

Sorry to say it Al but this is psychobable. Mikeh's reference to The Blank Slate is the realistic answer.

[Al_U_Card]

Fortunately, Helene, the sad truth will not stop me from seeing and expressing what is clearly the right thing to do.

[Winstonm]

To me the overwhelming argument against capital punishment is the finality - after the execution, it is too late to reverse course when the executed is found to have been innocent of the original crime.

As for taking a life, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough.

[jdonn]

sceptic, on Feb 19 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

Quote

So if it was a 20 year old he battered then he wouldn't deserve to die? And if it was only 2 days of abuse? And more importantly, who is judging these things! I hope it's not you.

That is not what I am saying and you well know it

Quite the opposite, it still seems like exactly what you were saying. You said the guy deserves to die because his victim was so young and was abused for so long. That is the same as saying other killers would not deserve to die if they had older victims who hadn't been abused as long, and would also mean we need people to decide what is young enough and how long (and bad) of abuse is enough.

Don't post something then try to hide from it! Your emotional response do your very claim about this killer (get real, the bastard deserves to die) makes it evident exactly what you meant.

sceptic, on Feb 19 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

Quote

And I don't want to hear we don't need it

well that is what I call openminded discussion

You're right, I should stick to more open minded tidbits like "you think [blah blah blah]? get real the bastard deserves to die" and "shall we leave it all to GOD? BS". Sorry but I could care less about the thoughts on this entire topic from the person who made the most despicable post in forums history which was also about killing people, a rather disgusting 'solution' to world overpopulation that thankfully the moderators quickly removed.

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 19 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

Fortunately, Helene, the sad truth will not stop me from seeing and expressing what is clearly the right thing to do.

If your view is that the nature of man (sorry, no gender bias intended) is mutable... that a better social environment, better schooling, equitable treatment of all children etc can equip all children with the ability to prefer non-violent action, then you are falling into the same trap that led the Bolsheviks into Stalinism, the Chinese into the Cultural revolution, and many other unfortunate human experiments.

I learned (and I don't think it was rote learning) of some of the fallacies of utopian philosophies years ago, but The Blank Slate to which I have earlier referred widened my understanding of the science that proves the fallacies. Human nature is NOT merely a product of environment, no matter how fervently one might wish it were. There are evolutionary explanations for character traits and behavourial patterns that sometimes end in physical violence, including murder. And this is leaving out the consequences of mental and emotional damage resulting from genetic or other damage in the womb, or from exposure to substance or emotional abuse after birth, etc.

And it is worse than naive to stubbornly persist in holding true to a belief which, when put into practice, wreaks havoc on its subjects.

While I have not read the book 'As Nature Made Him', I have read enough about the book, and, elsewhere, about the subject of the book to understand that his experience was merely one tragic example of what happens when people with power put into practice the 'blank slate' theory of human nature.

'Doing the right thing' is NOT a justification for being intentionally ignorant of the truth.

[matmat]

there is only one thing wrong with capital punishment, and that is that we do not eat the deceased afterward. I don't mind killing, so long as it is to satisfy one of the basic needs, such as feeding ourselves.

[helene_t]

I'll mention that option in my organ-donor file, Mat. Tx for reminding me.

[Al_U_Card]

mikeh, on Feb 19 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 19 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

Fortunately, Helene, the sad truth will not stop me from seeing and expressing what is clearly the right thing to do. 

'Doing the right thing' is NOT a justification for being intentionally ignorant of the truth.

Well, ignoring the "truth" is not the same as being ignorant of the truth, as you well know, Mike.

That I choose a stand based on personal preference is certainly my prerogative, as long as I am willing to live with the consequences...

[kenrexford]

matmat, on Feb 19 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

there is only one thing wrong with capital punishment, and that is that we do not eat the deceased afterward. I don't mind killing, so long as it is to satisfy one of the basic needs, such as feeding ourselves.

Soylent Green? Weird.

On a different note...

Although I find the issue of capital punishment to be interesting, I find it annoying that people have such very strong opinions on a topic that concerns so very little numbers of people, most of whom fail to qualify as "people" in any way that is worthy of that term, but fail to get as excited by the failings of criminal justice in hundreds of thousands of cases where the damage is so much more profound.

I'd be willing to venture that for every one person wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death (in twenty-odd years or so), you will be able to fill a courtroom with people wrongfully convicted of non-capital offenses and incarcerated for the same twenty years, deprived of the most sacred aspects of life that make life worth living. For every single individual negatively impacted by disparate treatment in the handing out of death sentences you will find a millenium of time served beyond that which is fair and equitable by folks who were treated in a disparate manner as to their sentence. For every misunderstood animal who slips through the cracks and ends up eating the flesh of his slaughtered prostitutes you will find thousands of lost dreams and ruined chances caused by young adults not yet equipped to make rational life choices.

Imagine an enormous field. To the West, you see a thousand rabid animals waiting to be put to death. To the East, you see a hundred thousand men who have hope and dreams and potential but who are shackled by disproportionate reaction to juvenile indiscretions and socio-economic failings. What do you do?

I'll try to stop the animals being put down, but only after I have saved the men.

[sceptic]

Jdonn, you are trying to twist what I say, I do think in my example that the bastard deserved to die


You said "So if it was a 20 year old he battered then he wouldn't deserve to die? And if it was only 2 days of abuse?"

I said "that is not what I am saying and you well know it"

You said "Quite the opposite, it still seems like exactly what you were saying. You said the guy deserves to die because his victim was so young and was abused for so long. That is the same as saying other killers would not deserve to die if they had older victims who hadn't been abused as long, and would also mean we need people to decide what is young enough and how long (and bad) of abuse is enough."



You see, I do agree in my example, that the bastard deserves to die, I did not say what you are assuming I said that a greater age or lesser time being abused is basis for not killing someone

I find your posts as a personal attack on me and I am not offended as I realise that on the forums, people like yourself can hide behind a screen and attack what you disagree with

I answered gwnn's question, I do believe there should e capital punishment, you have a different opinion from me

Jdonn, I doubt we are in any way similar, please dont post remarks, like I am trying to hide from the truth, you would if you ever met me find, I really do not hide behide anyone else, I am my own man and I am happy with my own opinions about things,

as for my removed post, it was probably only removed as it offended a few people who complained, I can say catorgorically, quite a few posters in here thought it amusing andthat I was just making a point about Al's post which remained

please dont judge me by your own low standards double standards

[P_Marlowe]

sceptic, on Feb 19 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

<snip>
How can you outgrow a desire for vengance if someone has raped and mutilated your baby...
<snip>

There is a reason, why victims are not allowed
to be the judge in a criminal case.

[sceptic]

yup thats true, but the world would be a better place if they were allowed to put forward a case for the sentancer to take into consideration