Capital Punishment

[Darros]

So, Capital Punishment, aka the Death Penalty. It's controversial, some countries have it throughout, others don't have it anywhere. Some (Like the U.S.A.) have selective Capital Punishment, where it's implemented in certain areas but not others.

I think that Capital Punishment is not a great thing, because there are people out there who get thrown in jail despite being innocent, and as long as this has the potential of happening (basically forever), I don't think Capital Punishment is a good idea.

So, SF. I ask you, what's your take on Capital Punishment?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I believe this is more suited for Serious Discussion. Moved.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Sirius

[Lord Raven]

I don't like capital punishment because I imagine what it's like to be dead- my religious beliefs as they are, I can't fathom it at all- and I have no heaven or hell or afterlife to fall back on. It *really* scares me. I believe in removal from society if they're dangerous, and not death (death only if they're really *that* dangerous). I could never wish that on another human being.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Othin]

The threat of spending the rest of your life in prison sounds to me like a good way of discouraging people from committing the worst crimes. Cutting that time short so that they get punished for less time instead of more is simply foolish; it's a pointless way of reducing the effectiveness of such a deterrent.

Now, I won't say the system doesn't need work in other ways. But the death penalty is not one of those ways.

[X-Naut]

Here's my take on how it should operate:

1. You have absolute proof that they are guilty of the crime.

2. Their punishment is "the worse option."

I'll elaborate on that second point a bit. When receiving capital punishment, there are two possible venues: a life sentence or the death penalty. After capital punishment is assigned, the convict will undergo an evaluation to determine which would be worse for them. If they clearly afraid to die, then send them to the chopping block. But if they would face death with dignity or even want to die, give them life in prison. If you've committed a crime serious enough to warrant capital punishment, then you deserve the worst.

[Zanarkin]

Being sent to die because you are scared to die is not the worst. The fear ends after you are dead, and if something like christianity/judaism/muslim is true they might (emphasis on might) even go to heaven. Life in prison is definately worst, and can be made worst depending on how you handle it. I doubt anyone would like to live in a cell for the rest of their life.

[Othin]

Here's my take on how it should operate:

1. You have absolute proof that they are guilty of the crime.

2. Their punishment is "the worse option."

I'll elaborate on that second point a bit. When receiving capital punishment, there are two possible venues: a life sentence or the death penalty. After capital punishment is assigned, the convict will undergo an evaluation to determine which would be worse for them. If they clearly afraid to die, then send them to the chopping block. But if they would face death with dignity or even want to die, give them life in prison. If you've committed a crime serious enough to warrant capital punishment, then you deserve the worst.

Sounds highly expensive to work out satisfactorily, enough to question the need to even bother having the possibility of a death penalty at all.

[Original Alear]

The threat of spending the rest of your life in prison sounds to me like a good way of discouraging people from committing the worst crimes. Cutting that time short so that they get punished for less time instead of more is simply foolish; it's a pointless way of reducing the effectiveness of such a deterrent.

Now, I won't say the system doesn't need work in other ways. But the death penalty is not one of those ways.

But why assume everyone has the same outlook as you on the death penalty? There was a recent Herzog movie called Into the Abyss which focused on a death row inmate and a guy with a life sentence in prison in Texas (both in for the same crime) which I think contradicts your outlook. The one inmate sentenced to death busied himself pleading for life and clemency and claiming innocence despite having bragged about committing the crime in a bar earlier. He had depression as a result of his upcoming punishment he was trying so hard to desperately avoid, even if it meant spending his life in prison. Of course, life in prison is even more preferable when you have the potential, no matter how farfetched, of being released - there is no going back from death. And from the other side, the guy who was pardoned from the death penalty was only pardoned because of the pleadings of his father, another convicted felon, which had nothing to do with the crime in question. This guy was in much better spirits than the one convicted of death, and was also fighting for a release I kinder hope he does not get. The fact that he and his lawyer based their case around getting a life sentence instead of the death penalty shows that it weighed on his mind and that he had a clear preference against dying - not exactly a surprise, really.

And I think that your reasoning is flawed on another level. If the death penalty was a less serious punishment than a life spent in prison, then it would also be the more humane option and would deserve more consideration than it really does. In reality, most people do not want to die, and the death penalty is more inhumane than putting people in prison.

I'll elaborate on that second point a bit. When receiving capital punishment, there are two possible venues: a life sentence or the death penalty. After capital punishment is assigned, the convict will undergo an evaluation to determine which would be worse for them. If they clearly afraid to die, then send them to the chopping block. But if they would face death with dignity or even want to die, give them life in prison. If you've committed a crime serious enough to warrant capital punishment, then you deserve the worst.

I wish you were joking. What is the point in making sure that people who made others suffer suffer in turn? If it does anything to gratify the souls of the dead, assuming such things exist, then it is an impugning mark on their souls that they are so cruel as to seek revenge. If it does anything to gratify you, it is an impugning mark on yourself.

Oh and for my part...I think society has the right and a good reason to execute criminals who have killed or raped other members of society, because it effectively gets rid of them as a problem for good (except for the fact that getting them to the point of execution costs tons) - I just wish it wouldn't.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner

[Second Pronoun]

My problem is with "Pro-Life" People who are for the death penalty. I mean look around you can't be pro-life and for the death penalty. It doesn't make any God damn sense. Also I feel that Capital punishment fits right under cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is very stupid, as many are wrongly convicted because of community's wants for closure and not the truth. Police and District attorneys only work to convict as quickly as possible. Especially District Attorneys, as they are elected by the people. The death penalty gives the prisoners who are wrongly convicted and then sentenced to death no way to defend themselves after they die. If you look at a book like The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town, the defendant was nearly killed because of lie detector tests taken under false pretenses and a shoddy lawyer. Death gives no chance for those who are wrongly convicted to disprove themselves.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Here's my take on how it should operate:

1. You have absolute proof that they are guilty of the crime.

2. Their punishment is "the worse option."

I'll elaborate on that second point a bit. When receiving capital punishment, there are two possible venues: a life sentence or the death penalty. After capital punishment is assigned, the convict will undergo an evaluation to determine which would be worse for them. If they clearly afraid to die, then send them to the chopping block. But if they would face death with dignity or even want to die, give them life in prison. If you've committed a crime serious enough to warrant capital punishment, then you deserve the worst.

1. is physically impossible, and 2. is rather absurd. The point of a criminal justice system should be to prevent crime, not to punish criminals, so unless you can demonstrate that this would actually prevent crime (PROTIP: it's been pretty well proven that it doesn't) I'd suggest it not be recommended. Honestly, even from a moral point of view I'd take the complete opposite stance, if the criminal wants to die, I would let them, but killing them just because they don't want to die is completely fucking absurd.

So yeah, I oppose the death penalty on two grounds, the first being that it's wasteful and pointless because it doesn't actually produce results, and the second (significantly less important) being that it is the height of hypocrisy.

[Original Alear]

My problem is with "Pro-Life" People who are for the death penalty. I mean look around you can't be pro-life and for the death penalty. It doesn't make any God damn sense.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. Pro-life people often stress the innocence of the unborn fetus as a factor in their decision. While I'm sure that some of the death row inmates are innocent as you say, I think there is some claim for difference between advocating the death of a convicted criminal and advocating the death of an unborn fetus. Though personally I am the other way around (kill the fetus if you want, but preserve the life of the adult).

[Celice]

Capital Punishment Your take on it

It's a sanctified crime which is excused from being a crime.

[I.M. Gei]

Does it seem almost counter-intuitive that the South, which carries out the most executions, also has the nation's highest crime rate?

[Darros]

Does it seem almost counter-intuitive that the South, which carries out the most executions, also has the nation's highest crime rate?

Yeah, we talked about that in law class. It seems that the death penalty isn't scaring people into not committing crime.

[I.M. Gei]

In addition to that, hasn't Canada's crime rate dropped a shitton since they abolished the death penalty?

[Darros]

In addition to that, hasn't Canada's crime rate dropped a shitton since they abolished the death penalty?

Well, the murder rates have gone from 3 people murdered/100000 people in the mid-70s when it was abolished to 1.81 people murdered/100000 people according to 2007 data.

Can't speak for other crime though.

Source

[Original Alear]

Does it seem almost counter-intuitive that the South, which carries out the most executions, also has the nation's highest crime rate?

Yeah, we talked about that in law class. It seems that the death penalty isn't scaring people into not committing crime.

While it is true that one might be disappointed regarding the lack of negative feedback in the form of reduced crime in response to harsher punishments, it is also true that one would expect positive feedback in the form of more punishments in a region with high crime if the crime rate is being contributed to by other factors (high crime means high punishment, not high punishment means high crime). I'm not going to claim to be an expert on those factors or say anything decisive, but it is possible that the south being the poorest region in America (see this for a more up to date report) is a factor in it having the highest crime rate. After all, while this is anecdotal, the man I mentioned earlier who was executed committed murder in the process of stealing a car - a crime for financial gain. I think Becker, a nobel laureate in economics, was one of the more noted thinkers who pointed out the correlation between crime and poverty, so this isn't exactly new.

(By the by, I believe the West still has higher unemployment than the South)

Someone seeking to promote capital punishment could look at the numbers and conclude that with only 1280 executions from 1976-2012, and 18000 murders committed in 1976 alone, the problem is that capital punishment is not a sufficient deterrent to murder because we don't kill murderers frequently enough because it costs too much.

Put simply: instead of saying we shouldn't kill people because it isn't effective, maybe we should just say we shouldn't kill people.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner

[Rehab]

I happened to take a law class in HS that had me read a book on the subject called Capital Punishment, it was very interesting.

I see whether the death penalty is useful as it is (in America, at least) as very close to not worth debating; as Ian hinted, death penalty cases here rack up colossal costs nationwide (whether due to legal fees or the materials necessary to carry out an execution, on average it costs far less to incarcerate somebody for life than it does to kill them), they clog the system, and it's an understatement to say they don't serve as very good deterrent- some people argue they make things worse, and cause a kind of 'brutalization effect.' It's also not hard to make the argument that the death penalty is racist- the other day I think I heard that the percentage of minorities being executed out of everybody sentenced to death in America is upwards of 70%, IIRC.

Also, it can be a slippery slope deciding what offenses to make punishable by death and where to stop, and it can be very different from state to state. Just murder? Rape? Torture? A combination of lesser crimes, or repeat offenses? More than once, somebody who's arguably committed a more malicious and/or harmful crime can escape the death penalty while somebody with lesser crimes can be executed. It's all very ick.

I also plain think there's just something odd with a nation that considers itself free allowing its government to kill its own people.

That (and probably more I'm forgetting) said, there are some people with records so amazingly awful, say people responsible for dozens of rape+murders or killings that only continue while incarcerated, that make me wonder. But I think I would rather take chances with them than see anybody wrongfully executed.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Rehab

[Blademaster!]

It's also not hard to make the argument that the death penalty is racist- the other day I think I heard that the percentage of minorities being executed out of everybody sentenced to death in America is upwards of 70%

In that case, why don't we just call the whole justice department racist given how many minorities get thrown in jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Ethnicity

The death penalty is probably the most humane way to completely remove someone from society, as is what should be done to those who kill others. The only other alternative to it that I can think of at the moment is keeping someone in solitary confinement for life, which is essentially just a much crueler version of the death penalty, assuming we think of jail house life as it's own society, which it kind of is, and that we want to completely remove such people from jail house society too.

[Blitz]

I think rapists SHOULD get the capital punishment, no questions asked.

[Esau of Isaac]

I think rapists SHOULD get the capital punishment, no questions asked.

Why? I want to extend this to everyone that believes in the use of capital punishment in this topic. What crimes do you believe qualify for this, and why them? Why not everything else?

Edited February 11, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Defeatist Elitist]

The death penalty is probably the most humane way to completely remove someone from society, as is what should be done to those who kill others. The only other alternative to it that I can think of at the moment is keeping someone in solitary confinement for life, which is essentially just a much crueler version of the death penalty, assuming we think of jail house life as it's own society, which it kind of is, and that we want to completely remove such people from jail house society too.

Killing somebody isn't humane. It's a pointless punishment through and through. Now, if it is the individual's preferred outcome, then I guess I'd be okay with it. We don't want to remove murderers from society, we want to prevent them from murdering people. I'll say it again, a criminal justice system should not be concerned with punishing criminals, it should be concerned with crime prevention. It is quite possibly true that some forms of punishment work as deterrents to crime, in which case I can accept them, the death penalty simple is not one of those.

I think rapists SHOULD get the capital punishment, no questions asked.

Why? What about being a rapist merits being murdered? What about it ensures their guilt? Killing people for emotional satisfaction is what we accuse criminals of doing.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Defeatist Elitist

[Blademaster!]

Killing somebody isn't humane.

Never said it was, just that it is probably more humane than a life sentence (In fact, some victims actually prefer for criminals to get a life sentence over the death penalty since they believe it is a more cruel option). Also, just curious, but would you say the same about euthanasia? Based on what you have described below, I guess you are slightly okay with it depending on the circumstance?

Now, if it is the individual's preferred outcome, then I guess I'd be okay with it.

I don't think we should be giving criminals any kind of "reward" for what they have done. Everything that happens to them should be things that they don't prefer, otherwise there would be no point to punishing someone.

We don't want to remove murderers from society

If someone has killed someone, they should be removed from society. They themselves have gone and removed someone else from society with their own hands, and it would be unjust to allow them to continue to roam free in any society after such a point, let alone give them a second chance at a happy future since they have gone and removed any chance of a happy future from the person they have killed can have. To put a spin on this, let's say that you have two baseball players A (BBPA) and B (BBPB). BBPA is jealous of BBPB and goes and breaks his arm on purpose. BBPB can now never play baseball again, which was BBPA's intent for his action. Should BBPA be allowed to continue to play baseball, or should he just get a suspension and be allowed to play again later?

we want to prevent them from murdering people. I'll say it again, a criminal justice system should not be concerned with punishing criminals, it should be concerned with crime prevention. It is quite possibly true that some forms of punishment work as deterrents to crime, in which case I can accept them, the death penalty simple is not one of those.

For preventing crime though, there really isn't all that much that can really be done. Unless someone is there to stop a crime before hand, which rarely ever happens, the fear of punishment is really the best deterrent against crime we have given how society works. The criminal justice system even revolves around the fact that we can't be there beforehand to stop the crime from happening; we are only there afterwords.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Blademaster!

[Rehab]

Wait, fuck, it wasn't titled Capital Punishment, it was Ultimate punishment. Hur.

In that case, why don't we just call the whole justice department racist given how many minorities get thrown in jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Ethnicity

That, too!

I admit, on reflection, that it was kind of a weasel-words way of phrasing it, but I've heard people make the argument, and don't really know how to explain it away completely myself. Poverty level could easily play in, but it's a bit much either way. Cases like Troy Davis' make me wonder, too.

The death penalty is probably the most humane way to completely remove someone from society, as is what should be done to those who kill others. The only other alternative to it that I can think of at the moment is keeping someone in solitary confinement for life, which is essentially just a much crueler version of the death penalty, assuming we think of jail house life as it's own society, which it kind of is, and that we want to completely remove such people from jail house society too.

Speaking only for myself, I think it would be more interesting and possibly beneficial if a) instead of killing them, the government conducted focused studies on their psychology and whatever situation ended up giving them a motive for murder, so as to try to understand how to lessen the chances of the same thing happening again, and b) to have the convicted somehow work towards repaying the victims (restorative justice). There are people, innocent or not, who have written books and done good things even while in prison and/or on death row, after all.

edit:

For preventing crime though, there really isn't all that much that can really be done. Unless someone is there to stop a crime before hand, which rarely ever happens, the fear of punishment is really the best deterrent against crime we have given how society works. The criminal justice system even revolves around the fact that we can't be there beforehand to stop the crime from happening; we are only there afterwords

Maybe it was a killing in the midst of some kind of theft born out of poverty, maybe the killer had mental problems, or felt they were doing justice for a perceived wrong as in a revenge killing or killing somebody responsible for a hate crime, maybe it was a hate crime. The killer could have been born into such horrible conditions and had so much misanthropy instilled and continuously reinforced from an early age that it would be difficult to hold them to the same standards as we would anybody else, or have felt otherwise forced into the crime by peer/social pressure. The possibilities go on. I don't think it's possible we know everything there is to know about the origins of every motive for every violent crime out there, and I think it's even less likely that societies can't do anything to positively affect the conditions they take place in.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Rehab

[Defeatist Elitist]

Never said it was, just that it is probably more humane than a life sentence (In fact, some victims actually prefer for criminals to get a life sentence over the death penalty since they believe it is a more cruel option). Also, just curious, but would you say the same about euthanasia? Based on what you have described below, I guess you are slightly okay with it depending on the circumstance?

I believe people have the right to die if they actually want to, yeah.

I don't think we should be giving criminals any kind of "reward" for what they have done. Everything that happens to them should be things that they don't prefer, otherwise there would be no point to punishing someone.

We're not "rewarding" them, there simply is no benefit to actively trying to make things as shitty as possible for them.

If someone has killed someone, they should be removed from society. They themselves have gone and removed someone else from society with their own hands, and it would be unjust to allow them to continue to roam free in any society after such a point, let alone give them a second chance at a happy future since they have gone and removed any chance of a happy future from the person they have killed can have. To put a spin on this, let's say that you have two baseball players A (BBPA) and B (BBPB). BBPA is jealous of BBPB and goes and breaks his arm on purpose. BBPB can now never play baseball again, which was BBPA's intent for his action. Should BBPA be allowed to continue to play baseball, or should he just get a suspension and be allowed to play again later?

Completely irrelevent to society. The only reason ANY punishment should be given to BBPA is to try to prevent that type of thing from happening. Punishing him in an attempt to somehow bring equality of outcome or shit into it is utterly pointless. Nothing we can do will make BBPB be able to play again, so by preventing BBPA from ever playing again you're ruining his life for literally no reason, because there is no net gain. Now, if you could demonstrate that having that as the official punishment for such a thing would produce a demonstrable reduction in further instances of this, then I would agree that we could consider it as a punishment, but considering the death penalty doesn't even reduce crime rates, it's an absolutely absurd system to use.

For preventing crime though, there really isn't all that much that can really be done. Unless someone is there to stop a crime before hand, which rarely ever happens, the fear of punishment is really the best deterrent against crime we have given how society works. The criminal justice system even revolves around the fact that we can't be there beforehand to stop the crime from happening; we are only there afterwords.

Sure, it's difficult to prevent crime from occuring at the actual scene, etc, and yeah, deterrents are one of the most effective methods. But the death penalty doesn't work like that. There isn't even a correlation between nations having the death penalty and crime rate, let alone a causal relationship, so there is absolutely no reason for anybody to think that the death penalty is at all effective as a deterrent.