Poll: An Argument for Capital Punishment

[fix-the-spade]

I read that as far as "only 25 found innocent,"

So the lives of 25 innocent men are worth less than the cost of 7000 jail cells. Any attempt at justification beyond this is pointless, go explain it to those 25 men's families.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Thank you for your diplomatic tone. It was very much appreciated. There's no rule written rule saying that punishment has to be with ill intent. It could just be a given that certain measures made in bringing justice to criminals is an extension of law put out by that society. If your daughter was brutally dismembered and disemboweled, wouldn't you want the person responsible to pay for what he had done? More likely so than not, but then again, you are not (I presume) a member of any correctional establishment or authority, so your prejudices are not a factor in the verdict on the perp's punishment. Neutrality is key if you want avoid the "flip-flopping," as you apparently accuse me of.

True enough, but then if I had a child who was wrongly convicted of a serious crime, then burned alive in an electric chair, hanging on for 5 minutes while his blood boiled and hair caught fire, I would want the people responsible to pay for it too.

So the answer is simple - if you have capital punishment, and an innocent person is executed, the police, prosecutor, executioner, judge and jury should all be executed for being accessories in the murder of an innocent.

Well, if an innocent is executed by the state, that's not comparable to cold-blooded murder by an individual, because the authority is still intending to do something right; it's an oversight and mistake, not intentional.

Ahh. So if I perceive an injustice, and I kill someone I *think* has commited that injustice, but it turns out later that I was wrong, I should not be tried for murder or any other offence?

 

[RebelRising]

Thank you for your diplomatic tone. It was very much appreciated. There's no rule written rule saying that punishment has to be with ill intent. It could just be a given that certain measures made in bringing justice to criminals is an extension of law put out by that society. If your daughter was brutally dismembered and disemboweled, wouldn't you want the person responsible to pay for what he had done? More likely so than not, but then again, you are not (I presume) a member of any correctional establishment or authority, so your prejudices are not a factor in the verdict on the perp's punishment. Neutrality is key if you want avoid the "flip-flopping," as you apparently accuse me of.

True enough, but then if I had a child who was wrongly convicted of a serious crime, then burned alive in an electric chair, hanging on for 5 minutes while his blood boiled and hair caught fire, I would want the people responsible to pay for it too.

So the answer is simple - if you have capital punishment, and an innocent person is executed, the police, prosecutor, executioner, judge and jury should all be executed for being accessories in the murder of an innocent.

Well, if an innocent is executed by the state, that's not comparable to cold-blooded murder by an individual, because the authority is still intending to do something right; it's an oversight and mistake, not intentional.

Ahh. So if I perceive an injustice, and I kill someone I *think* has commited that injustice, but it turns out later that I was wrong, I should not be tried for murder or any other offence?

I'm not telling you what to think.

 

[Audemas]

Thank you for your diplomatic tone. It was very much appreciated. There's no rule written rule saying that punishment has to be with ill intent. It could just be a given that certain measures made in bringing justice to criminals is an extension of law put out by that society. If your daughter was brutally dismembered and disemboweled, wouldn't you want the person responsible to pay for what he had done? More likely so than not, but then again, you are not (I presume) a member of any correctional establishment or authority, so your prejudices are not a factor in the verdict on the perp's punishment. Neutrality is key if you want avoid the "flip-flopping," as you apparently accuse me of.

True enough, but then if I had a child who was wrongly convicted of a serious crime, then burned alive in an electric chair, hanging on for 5 minutes while his blood boiled and hair caught fire, I would want the people responsible to pay for it too.

So the answer is simple - if you have capital punishment, and an innocent person is executed, the police, prosecutor, executioner, judge and jury should all be executed for being accessories in the murder of an innocent.

Well, if an innocent is executed by the state, that's not comparable to cold-blooded murder by an individual, because the authority is still intending to do something right; it's an oversight and mistake, not intentional.

Ahh. So if I perceive an injustice, and I kill someone I *think* has commited that injustice, but it turns out later that I was wrong, I should not be tried for murder or any other offence?

Right there is the biggest flaw in the capital punishment argument. If you kill an innocent then what? If you followed the idea of Capital Punishment, those who were involved in the trial and execution are guilty of murder and accessory to murder. So if you think about it this would have to be made known to others. Before a jury could participate in a trial, they may have to sign a waver or something saying "oh and by the way, if the guy you find guilty is actually innocent and he/she's dead, your gonna die too." I can see this working out real well. Personally though, if my family was killed, I would take solace in know that the person will rot in jail for the rest of their life.

 

[Lord George]

Well I'm in England so its very unlikely we'll ever have capital punishment, we choose to give people the freedom to live with there mistakes for the rest of their life while encased in a concrete prison

 

[matrix3509]

Um, what happens when an innocent person gets on death row?

No the death penalty does not reduce the amount of crimes. Look at the crime rate in Texas.

Read Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic by James Gilligan. He's a prison psychiatrist that claims the punitive approach only creates more crimes.

Umm...Why don't YOU look up the crime rate in Texas. I live in Texas and I can tell you the crime rate here is pretty damn low.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Well I'm in England so its very unlikely we'll ever have capital punishment, we choose to give people the freedom to live with there mistakes for the rest of their life while encased in a concrete prison

Actually High treason and Piracy (the boating kind) carried the death penalty until 1998. Soldiers 'could' face the death penalty up until 2006. The last man in the UK to be sentenced to death was in 1994 (Anthony Teare), although the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The last man in the UK to be executed was all the way back in 1964. So we did have Capital punishment until very recently, sort of...

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Considering it also costs, some where around 15,000 dollars a year to keep some one in prison... (don't quote me on that, I think that figure is right but my memory is spotty at the moment). It's tough, should the law abiding citizen pay for murders, rapists, child molesters to be fed, cleaned, and taking care of health wise?

Yes. They should.

Factoring money into something like this is pretty fucked up to be honest. Executing people so that you can save a few bucks is about the worst motive for murder I can think of.

 

[Raregolddragon]

It far more cost efficient then letting them live.

At least till we are able to reprogram criminals minds.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Cuddly- You've got quiet a moral core, I'll give you that.

I hate to put it as "Murder to save a few bucks", but its never pragmatic to spend billions of tax payer money to keep people alive and healthy when they'll never function in society again.

For some prisoners, Prison is a free ride, three meals, a warm bed, and health care. They don't give a shit anymore, and yet people like me, I abide by the laws and pay my taxes, I still have to fed and cloth myself at the end of the day.

I'd rather 1000 child rapists die, so that 1000 kids can get money for college. As prisoner, espcially the crimes that warrent capitial punishment, have forfeited their rights when they decided to take the lives and innocents of others. So why should more innocent people pay, while Billy the Serial Killer gets to live comfortably in cell block D?

Prisoner gets cancer, he gets the best treatment avalible. That homeless guy you see on the street? Can't even afford the anti-biotic's that could save him from the staff infection growing on his leg.

Funny, it upsets you to hear of killing people to save money, but our Health industry has left thousands die every year because its cheaper to let them die then it is to give them the treatment they need. Their only crime was being poor or being terminally ill.

And in case doesn't believe me http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/arnett2.html

Bio-Ethic's is a very real issue. So I'm afriad, I rather see a few murderers die, or be left for dead... so maybe the 40 year old waitress mother of 2, can finally get that Cancer treatment that could save her life. But I think we are getting off topic.

The thing is the USA just had a huge tax cut for the super rich. If they really are cash strapped enough to be executing prisoners, that's just wrong.

If this is a prison in some third world country, where everything is a real mess and food is scarce, they can't risk letting the people behind bars go but at the same time can't realistically afford to keep them alive, that's one thing.

For a nation flooded with more wealth and resources than any country has had in the history of the world it is something else.

 

[stompy]

While I think the way the USSR dealt with the death sentence was ruthless and cold, I believe that the death sentence has it's place in society. The only people who should even be considered for the death sentence are those who have shown they cannot, or will not, be rehabilitated. These people provide nothing to society, yet society must support them. The funds spent on some prisoners could be used on health and education, even used to turn the prison system to pus for more rehabilitation of criminals.

 

[RebelRising]

Just wondering, in the interests of keeping this thread an open-ended discussion, how would those of you who oppose capital punishment work towards crime deterrence if the death sentence was not in place?

 

[Specter_]

'An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind.'

This.

Besides, I see it as a harder punishment to be locked away for life (even in germany, where "life" means 25 years you can be locked away until you die). Plus there is the chance the prisoner is innocent or comes to terms concerning violence.

Recently there was a story about a german who joined the french foreign legion. Went to Tunisia to fight the insurgents there and deserted, changing sides (that was his plan all along, he joined the foreign legion to be able to get to tunesia and fight for the insurgents cause).
But when he had the chance to get across lines, he had another soldier stationed with him. So he tried to knock him unconcious, failed and when the other guy ran away, he shot him.
Now he's not only a deserter, but also a murderer.

After the war he moved to the soviet union and was never caught.

Forward a couple of years, the french issue a general pardon on crimes comitted by soldiers in tunesia. So legally that deserter/murder is no longer a deserter/murderer.

Forward another couple of years to 1989, the collapse of the soviet union. Our culprit moves back to germany, so haunted with his guilt that he files a legal charge against himself.

But he doesn't get punished, since he was pardoned (and it's been too long anyway).

Now imagine being driven mad by guilt for over 50 years vs. being executed after 10.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Just wondering, in the interests of keeping this thread an open-ended discussion, how would those of you who oppose capital punishment work towards crime deterrence if the death sentence was not in place?

Given that it is no deterrence anyone I think that's a moot point. Nobody who commits a crime believes they are going to get caught, or they wouldn't commit that crime in the first place.

Deterrence could be achieved by removing incentives to commit these crimes. For instance - crimes involving drugs. Deal with the drug problem, you deal with the murders. For crime where money is the motivation, ensure people aren't poverty stricken. For crimes of passion and as a result of mental illness of the murderer (such as this [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.53d2fb293d708cf32571d6ab8f4b3208.211&show_article=1]) there really is no deterrence that is going to work.

But you are always going to get murderers. There is no realistic way to stop it.

I'm sorry, I fail too see whats so morally wrong about getting rid of what can only be called as a "waste".

The thing is they aren't "waste", they are human beings. Even if they have commited unspeakably horrible acts they are still human beings. Once you start thinking of certain humans as "waste" and other humans as "worthy" you run the risk of stepping onto the nastiest slippery slope that humanity has to offer - it's own monetary value.

 

[IceStar100]

You know right now I agree for cap because it really the less draining for the innocent. Now if they made them grow there own food and return the money there using. I'm all for it sadly a prisoner is nothing but a fine for the innocent as it is.