Capital Punishment

[Original Alear]

it should be concerned with crime prevention.

So, police state?

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?

It would help to have a citation on that claim about victims preferences for punishment, since in the admittedly limited number of cases I have heard about the victims have demanded the death penalty as the more severe option. In addition, if the death penalty is a lighter punishment, why doesn't this website talk about how death row inmates given clemency in broad commutations by governors demanded they keep the death penalty in the place of a long or indefinite period of time spent in prison? I actually emailed the people who run this site to ask if they have statistics on how many death row inmates file for clemency, if they respond and have some idea that should give us an idea of whether it is reasonable to conclude that people on death row would rather die than spend their lives in prison.

http://www.deathpena...fo.org/clemency

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.

Considering BBPA has shown himself to be a competitive douchebag who breaks people's arms over sports, there actually is a benefit to the other players in preventing him from playing again, which is that they don't risk injury by playing sports with him and possibly raising his ire. Those baseball players are members of society, therefore I don't think it's irrelevant to society. You might be making his life a hell of a lot harder, but if he's so invested in baseball that losing it ruins his life for him, then he should have played according to the rules of the game he was so invested in (aside from pumping steroids of course). Of course, society might be sad to see a baseball player permanently leave the field before his time, so there is a balance (because, for reasons I can't fathom Revan, people in society actually do enjoy watching professional baseball).

Edited February 11, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner

[Defeatist Elitist]

Considering BBPA has shown himself to be a competitive douchebag who breaks people's arms over sports, there actually is a benefit to the other players in preventing him from playing again, which is that they don't risk injury by playing sports with him and possibly raising his ire. Those baseball players are members of society, therefore I don't think it's irrelevant to society.

Sorry if I was unclear, I meant to include that in my second part about preventing that type of thing from happening again. But again, regular prison sentences accomplish that.

[Second Pronoun]

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

What about those convicted of rape who were wrongly convicted of rape. Many people are convicted because of many's needs for a person to blame. It is called scapegoating. The American law system is not perfect so we should not be killing people for their crimes. And about the whole Pro-Life thing. Its not just about fetuses because they like keeping incurable vegetables on life support. To be truly Pro-Life you must be Anti-Death and the Death Penalty is not Anti-Death.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Second Pronoun

[Original Alear]

And about the whole Pro-Life thing. Its not just about fetuses because they like keeping incurable vegetables on life support. To be truly Pro-Life you must be Anti-Death and the Death Penalty is not Anti-Death.

While I agree that your criticism holds in terms of removing the label "pro-life" from these people's political agendas, I also suspect that a label wouldn't matter that much to them compared to the actual issues they stand for. My earlier objection to your point - that killing a fetus innocent of any crime and a person found guilty of a crime are two entirely different things - holds just as well with people on life support who have not been charged with any crime.

[Second Pronoun]

While I agree that your criticism holds in terms of removing the label "pro-life" from these people's political agendas.

Then just call it what it is anti-abortion. I have a problem with this false label from those like the governor of Texas who has sent upwards of 50 people to their death on death row.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Second Pronoun

[Original Alear]

Then just call it what it is anti-abortion. I have a problem with this false label from those like the governor of Texas who has sent upwards of 50 people to their death on death row.

So it isn't good enough to focus on eliminating the death penalty, we have to make sure that people who support the death penalty can't call themselves some irrelevant label? Personally, I have exactly the same degree of disrespect for someone who sends 50 people to death without calling themselves "pro-life" as I do for someone who calls themselves "pro-life" and sends 50 people to death (holding all other factors constant). Honest wrongdoing doesn't demand more respect in my eyes.

[Blademaster!]

Completely irrelevent to society.

Something that we have probably all forgotten, myself included, is that the justice system isn't just about society. It's primarily about the victim and the accused. If someone robs you, rapes you, or assaults you, you don't have to press charges and you can let the accused get off with nothing happening to them. If something happens to you, you're going to want to see justice done in return, and that's probably why the death penalty exists.

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.

If I was to think of the best reason to possibly still keep the death penalty, it would be this: It has been shown that homeless people commit crimes to get thrown in jail to improve their living conditions. Let's say I'm a homeless person with no future, family, etc. I want to go to jail for life since that would be the only way I could live a better life than the one I have now. The easiest way to do this is to kill someone, but if there was a chance that I would get the death penalty for committing this crime, then I would be less likely to do so, if at all, since I still want to live out my life as I want to an extent.

It would help to have a citation on that claim about victims preferences for punishment

I learned about it in lecture from my criminal justice teacher so I can't really "cite" it.

[Esau of Isaac]

Never said it was, just that it is probably more humane than a life sentence

I'm sure that's why prisoners are always just jumping for the death penalty.

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.

Is that how you think punishment works? Just do the opposite of what they like until they behave in a way you like?

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.

Why? If the person truly repents and never commits that crime again, then they are rehabilitated. What is the point in going out of your way to make them miserable? It's not going to do anything.

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.

That's why there was no crime back in the days of brutal torture for the most minor of transgressions, right?

[Anouleth]

If I was to think of the best reason to possibly still keep the death penalty, it would be this: It has been shown that homeless people commit crimes to get thrown in jail to improve their living conditions. Let's say I'm a homeless person with no future, family, etc. I want to go to jail for life since that would be the only way I could live a better life than the one I have now. The easiest way to do this is to kill someone, but if there was a chance that I would get the death penalty for committing this crime, then I would be less likely to do so, if at all, since I still want to live out my life as I want to an extent.

You don't need to commit a murder or rape someone to get thrown in prison. Unless you think the death penalty should be brought in for petty theft, I don't see this problem stopping.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Something that we have probably all forgotten, myself included, is that the justice system isn't just about society. It's primarily about the victim and the accused. If someone robs you, rapes you, or assaults you, you don't have to press charges and you can let the accused get off with nothing happening to them. If something happens to you, you're going to want to see justice done in return, and that's probably why the death penalty exists.

But that's a silly illogical way to do things. As I said before, killing people for emotional satisfaction is exactly what we accuse criminals of doing, and if you're killing people to fulfill some artificial sense of justice, you're doing just that.

If I was to think of the best reason to possibly still keep the death penalty, it would be this: It has been shown that homeless people commit crimes to get thrown in jail to improve their living conditions. Let's say I'm a homeless person with no future, family, etc. I want to go to jail for life since that would be the only way I could live a better life than the one I have now. The easiest way to do this is to kill someone, but if there was a chance that I would get the death penalty for committing this crime, then I would be less likely to do so, if at all, since I still want to live out my life as I want to an extent.

That seems to be more of an argument for why we should have a better social safety net, but whatever. Regardless, most people who do that do something like rob a bank for one dollar or something. I mean, in Norway criminals get treated fucking amazingly, and you don't have people committing crimes just to be sent to their jail equivalent. Fuck, they have really low crime rates in general.

[Narga_Rocks]

You don't need to commit a murder or rape someone to get thrown in prison. Unless you think the death penalty should be brought in for petty theft, I don't see this problem stopping.

He said to do something that can get you a life sentence. Life sentence. I don't imagine petty theft, even a dozen times, will get you a life sentence ever. Granted, you could just keep doing the same crime over and over until you die of old age, but maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

[Defeatist Elitist]

He said to do something that can get you a life sentence. Life sentence. I don't imagine petty theft, even a dozen times, will get you a life sentence ever. Granted, you could just keep doing the same crime over and over until you die of old age, but maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

Commit armed robbery for very little money, then give yourself up. If necessary do it a second time.

[Parrhesia]

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

Rape is terrible. Nobody is arguing with this. But if the government is killing people who aren't even murderers, it has too much fucking power.

And yeah, again, the law isn't infallible. And as for deterrence, well, murder is a crime of emotion, not of risk/reward.

Besides, I'm moderately certain that as western law in general stands the death penalty is more expensive. It just seems... really, really stupid in every way.

[Defeatist Elitist]

And as for deterrence, well, murder is a crime of emotion, not of risk/reward.

Yeah, I've also heard it put like this: To kill someone in a fit of passion might be understandable, but to kill someone after sober deliberation before a panel of their peers is unthinkable. It's not an incredible argument, but I think it does hold a little merit.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Defeatist Elitist

[Darros]

He said to do something that can get you a life sentence. Life sentence. I don't imagine petty theft, even a dozen times, will get you a life sentence ever. Granted, you could just keep doing the same crime over and over until you die of old age, but maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

IIRC armed robbery can give you a life sentence in Canada (in more extreme cases, the minimum I think is below that).

[Original Alear]

Something that we have probably all forgotten, myself included, is that the justice system isn't just about society. It's primarily about the victim and the accused. If someone robs you, rapes you, or assaults you, you don't have to press charges and you can let the accused get off with nothing happening to them. If something happens to you, you're going to want to see justice done in return, and that's probably why the death penalty exists.

Kind of missed the point though. In a murder case, the state presents charges because the dead are the dead.

The death penalty in the United States is used almost exclusively for the crime of murder. Although state and federal statutes contain various capital crimes other than those involving the death of the victim, only two people were on death row for a non-murder offense (Patrick Kennedy and Richard Davis in Louisiana). No one has been executed for such a crime since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, held that the death penalty for the rape of an adult was "grossly disproportionate" and an "excessive punishment," and hence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The Court looked at the relatively few states that allowed the death penalty for rape and the few death sentences that had been handed down.

Some states passed new laws allowing the death penalty for the rape of a child. In 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for Patrick Kennedy for the rape of his step-daughter, STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PATRICK KENNEDY (No. 05-KA-1981, May 22, 2007). Kennedy was convicted in 2003. However, Louisiana's law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2008. See Kennedy v. Louisiana for more information. This decision also held that the death penalty would be disproportionate for any offense against an individual that did not involve death of the victim.

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-offenses-other-murder

So the idea you just posited that the death penalty exists for victims to get vengeance or restitution is true less than 1% of the time, and it's actually considered unconstitutional for such a thing to occur!

Also, I would argue that the justice system by a third party, which replaced blood feuds between families, was really about getting away from simply creating restitution for the victims or kin of victims in the event of a violent crime.

The President's Commission defined the criminal justice system as the means for society to "enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community."

(That was from the wikipedia article on criminal justice)

That sounds like it's about society to me!

I learned about it in lecture from my criminal justice teacher so I can't really "cite" it.

Actually, if you provide where you got it from then you did cite it, so thanks. Personally, I'd want to know more than that in order to have some idea if I believe it, but it's still better than nothing.

The easiest way to do this is to kill someone, but if there was a chance that I would get the death penalty for committing this crime, then I would be less likely to do so, if at all, since I still want to live out my life as I want to an extent.

How would killing someone be easier than assaulting them but not killing them? There was a guy in NY who got at least 10 years for a "three strike" rule when, on the third strike, he shoved a store worker in the process of stealing a donut. That sounds a lot easier to do than killing someone.

He said to do something that can get you a life sentence. Life sentence. I don't imagine petty theft, even a dozen times, will get you a life sentence ever. Granted, you could just keep doing the same crime over and over until you die of old age, but maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

Sorry, looks like it was in California, not New York!

Edited February 12, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner

[Blademaster!]

I'm sure that's why prisoners are always just jumping for the death penalty.

It's a matter of opinion. When you think about it, a life sentence and the death penalty are the same thing. In both cases, you spend the rest of your life in jail, the only difference being with one situation you know when you are going to die, and in another you don't, meaning that your suffering could potentially last even longer and make you wish you died. And even then, you can get killed in jail before you get your sentence served.

Is that how you think punishment works? Just do the opposite of what they like until they behave in a way you like?

pun·ish·ment

   /ˈpʌnɪʃmənt/ Show Spelled[puhn-ish-muhnt] Show IPA

noun

1.

the act of punishing.

2.

the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.

3.

a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.

4.

severe handling or treatment.

pun·ish

   /ˈpʌnɪʃ/ Show Spelled[puhn-ish] Show IPA

verb (used with object)

1.

to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.

2.

to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.

3.

to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight.

4.

to put to painful exertion, as a horse in racing.

5.

Informal . to make a heavy inroad on; deplete: to punish a quart of whiskey.

pun·ish·ing

   /ˈpʌnɪʃɪŋ/ Show Spelled[puhn-i-shing] Show IPA

adjective

causing or characterized by harsh or injurious treatment; severe; brutal: The storm was accompanied by punishing winds.

Considering that is what it means to be punished, and that is how society pretty much works whether you like it or not, yes.

Why? If the person truly repents and never commits that crime again, then they are rehabilitated. What is the point in going out of your way to make them miserable? It's not going to do anything.

A murder kills someone. The person that they killed will now never be able to smile again, be happy again, love again, and bring happiness to the people around them. But the murder can still do all these things. He goes to jail for a while, he "repents", and then he gets released back into society able to do everything the person he killed can no longer ever do by your logic. You are honestly going to tell me that it is completely fair that this murder will be allowed back into society because he has been "rehabilitated"? Am I really the only one who sees how cruel this is to the dead person and their family/friends? The subject isn't theft or assault. It's murder, and there should only be two punishments that result from it: death or a life sentence, both of which translate to removal from society. Why should this be the case? Because it sends a very clear message: if you are going to purposely make it so that someone can never ever do something again, then the same will be done to you in return for your cruel and unnecessary actions. And you know what? I think it does do something for this very reason; because it sends this message. And considering U.S. homicide rates have been on a significant decline since 1991, I'd this message is working pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

That's why there was no crime back in the days of brutal torture for the most minor of transgressions, right?

Did you even read what you responded to? If you can think of a better deterrent, then by all means, please express your opinion on the matter.

But that's a silly illogical way to do things. As I said before, killing people for emotional satisfaction is exactly what we accuse criminals of doing, and if you're killing people to fulfill some artificial sense of justice, you're doing just that.

It can't be helped then. As sad as it is to say, there is no denying that this kind of thing happens. Oh, and I found an example of someone who actually wished for death rather than a life sentence in case you ever needed to use one again for something or maybe to add to the discussion, I dunno just thought it would be slightly interesting since you brought it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer#Trial "The court found Dahmer sane and guilty on 15 counts of murder and sentenced him to 15 life terms,[44] totaling 957 years in prison.[45] At his sentencing hearing, Dahmer expressed remorse for his actions, and said that he wished for his own death."

but maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

My thought process wasn't really "too much work" but rather "what would be easiest", which is kind of the same thing in a way.

Kind of missed the point though. In a murder case, the state presents charges because the dead are the dead.

True

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-offenses-other-murder

So the idea you just posited that the death penalty exists for victims to get vengeance or restitution is true less than 1% of the time, and it's actually considered unconstitutional for such a thing to occur!

Could you point out where you interpreted that from? All I really got from reading that was that rape is to excessive of a crime to allow someone to be murdered for it...

(That was from the wikipedia article on criminal justice)

That sounds like it's about society to me!

Never said it wasn't, just that society isn't the only focus of the justice system. I mean, if one person sues another person, does that really affect society, or just those two people? Or do those two people make up a society? But such thinking may go off topic.

Actually, if you provide where you got it from then you did cite it, so thanks. Personally, I'd want to know more than that in order to have some idea if I believe it, but it's still better than nothing.

Well, I just didn't have an article to show for it, hence why I said I couldn't "cite" it.

How would killing someone be easier than assaulting them but not killing them? There was a guy in NY who got at least 10 years for a "three strike" rule when, on the third strike, he shoved a store worker in the process of stealing a donut. That sounds a lot easier to do than killing someone.

I guess that is just a matter of opinion too, but as Narga kinda said, committing one crime is probably easier to do than committing three. Probably not the best thing to start thinking about how to get thrown in jail though...

[Original Alear]

Could you point out where you interpreted that from? All I really got from reading that was that rape is to excessive of a crime to allow someone to be murdered for it...

Sure. The passage specifically says:

The death penalty in the United States is used almost exclusively for the crime of murder. Although state and federal statutes contain various capital crimes other than those involving the death of the victim, only two people were on death row for a non-murder offense (Patrick Kennedy and Richard Davis in Louisiana). No one has been executed for such a crime since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976.

In 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for Patrick Kennedy for the rape of his step-daughter, STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PATRICK KENNEDY (No. 05-KA-1981, May 22, 2007). Kennedy was convicted in 2003. However, Louisiana's law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2008.

So there were two people put on death row for non-murder offenses, and one of them wasn't even executed for the offense and his situation became a precedent case against executing people for non-murder offenses.

[Narga_Rocks]

Commit armed robbery for very little money, then give yourself up. If necessary do it a second time.

maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

It would probably take more than twice to live most of your life in jail. What's the penalty for armed robbery? 10 years or something?

IIRC armed robbery can give you a life sentence in Canada (in more extreme cases, the minimum I think is below that).

that just seems extreme. Wow.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Original Alear]

It would probably take more than twice to live most of your life in jail. What's the penalty for armed robbery? 10 years or something?

that just seems extreme. Wow.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know how common it is but a guy was at least up for a life sentence for unarmed robbery in California due to a "three strikes" rule. Not sure if he actually got it or not, I tried to follow the story but wasn't successful.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner

[Narga_Rocks]

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know how common it is but a guy was at least up for a life sentence for unarmed robbery in California due to a "three strikes" rule. Not sure if he actually got it or not, I tried to follow the story but wasn't successful.

Three strikes means you have to have committed the crime twice before, right? Blademaster's idea was based on

"My thought process wasn't really "too much work" but rather "what would be easiest", which is kind of the same thing in a way."

so not sure if that would be the "easiest" way to get a life sentence.

[Original Alear]

Three strikes means you have to have committed the crime twice before, right? Blademaster's idea was based on

"My thought process wasn't really "too much work" but rather "what would be easiest", which is kind of the same thing in a way."

so not sure if that would be the "easiest" way to get a life sentence.

Personally, I don't assume that most homeless people completely lack a conscience, so it just doesn't seem to me like it would be "easier" for them to kill someone than it would be for them to commit a slew of relatively minor offenses.

[Celice]

Three strikes actually applies to any crime that's a felony, if memory serves. Serious criminal offenses also count. Any three crimes, no matter what the nature, if convicted, will land you in a life sentence--so long as things proceed automatically without any intervention.

There's nuances about it, but hey, California's own people voted for the idea, and it passed. So now they get to enjoy their own punishments.

[Blademaster!]

Sure. The passage specifically says:

So there were two people put on death row for non-murder offenses, and one of them wasn't even executed for the offense and his situation became a precedent case against executing people for non-murder offenses.

Ah, I see what the problem is now. I made it seem like I was being too broad, and then I got a bit thrown off by what you said. I didn't mean to say that any crime should allow for someone to be executed as a result, as that would be stupid. Good thing that precedent exists then.

[Original Alear]

Ah, I see what the problem is now. I made it seem like I was being too broad, and then I got a bit thrown off by what you said. I didn't mean to say that any crime should allow for someone to be executed as a result, as that would be stupid. Good thing that precedent exists then.

Just to clarify, the point I was challenging was essentially

If something happens to you, you're going to want to see justice done in return, and that's probably why the death penalty exists.

With the precedent the way it is, there is practically no room for the death penalty to exist as a form of recourse for victims, since the state presses the charges. I have never heard of a victims family's testimony being used in order to get the death penalty as a sentence, although I have heard of the family of the accused giving testimony in order to lighten the sentence (note: I'm pretty sure that it's the judge, not the jury, who decides sentencing). In fact:

Prosecutors planned to end their two-day case with more testimony from family, including widow Robin Stephens. Witnesses were allowed to speak about their loss but could not express an opinion about whether O'Reilly should die or get a life sentence.

http://www.mlive.com..._testimony.html

I'm not sure if this case is representative of the whole, but it looks like family testimony is actually looked down on as a form of argument for sentencing someone to death. The loss is taken into account in sentencing regardless of the family's views on what should happen to the accused.

I wasn't saying what I think you thought I was saying about your post.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner