Capital Punishment

[CycloWizard]

This is probably the one issue that hasn't been beat to death in this forum, so I thought I'd bring it up.

Punishment may only be considered just if it is focused towards at least one of three ends:

1. Retribution
2. Rehabilitation
3. Deterrence

Retribution:
1 : recompense, reward
2 : the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter
3 : something given or exacted in recompense; especially : punishment

Capital punishment, by definition, denies a man the right to life. Even if a criminal has infringed on another's right to life, this does not give officials the right to infringe on his right to life. Therefore, using capital punishment as a means for retribution is self-defeating and self-perpetuating. If a family seeks retribution for the loss of a loved one, the same argument holds, as they put their own right to the pursuit of happiness above the right to lfe of another. Thus, retribution by the infringement on the perpetrator's right to life is unjust.

Rehabilitation
1 a : to restore to a former capacity : REINSTATE b : to restore to good repute : reestablish the good name of
2 a : to restore to a former state (as of efficiency, good management, or solvency)

Obviously, someone who has been through capital punishment cannot be considered rehabilitated.

Deterrence:
the act or process of deterring : as a : the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment b : the maintenance of military power for the purpose of discouraging attack

Part b would seem to be one possible justification for the use of capital punishment. However, the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in England states that

...capital punishment has obviously failed as a deterrent when a murder is committed. We can number its failures. But we cannot number its successes. No one can ever know how many people have refrained from murder because of the fear of being hanged. For that we have to rely on indirect and inconclusive evidence. (Sellin 80)

Other studies have concluded universally that capital punishment is not an effective deterrant, with some indicating that capital punishment actually increases the murder rate in areas where it is enforced. "It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital punishment are not the opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed the same kind." ~George Bernard

A good reference addressing these issues may be found here.

Others would argue that society should not have to pay to keep such dastardly criminals alive for the remainder of their lives. However, this does not hold up to examination, as it has been shown many times that the appeals and process leading to an execution is much more costly than life-long imprisonment. A good summary of such studies may be found here. Here is one excerpt that is a good summary:

From this; the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life. This is just the dollar cost, the externalities will be discussed in a moment.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I've spent too much time working in the criminal justice system to entrust it with the ability to take lives.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I've spent too much time working in the criminal justice system to entrust it with the ability to take lives.

:thumbsup:

As Justice Harry Blackmun famously said in 1973, "The death penalty experiment has failed. I shall no
longer tinker with the machinery of death.".

 

[CycloWizard]

All these votes and no one agrees with Kerry so far?

 

[Kibbo]

I think that your analysis is flawed.

Capital Punishment has little Deterrence effect. Simple "Economic" theory would show this. If the murderer is acting rationally, then his decision is evaluated in the context of his risk. He likely thinks that he will get away with it, based on his perception of how easy it is to get away with crime. He will act based on his expected cost, which is a very small decimal times either a) a 25+ of anal rape or b) 10 years of anal rape and a gas chamber. I would say that the difference in magnitude would almost completely disappear when multiplied by a very low decimal. Any muderer who thinks rationally will do so based on the premise that they will get away with it.

If they are not acting rationally, then no deterrence will dissuade them from that course of action.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Capital punishment, by definition, denies a man the right to life. Even if a criminal has infringed on another's right to life, this does not give officials the right to infringe on his right to life. Therefore, using capital punishment as a means for retribution is self-defeating and self-perpetuating.

First of all, you conclusion (after the therefore) does not follow from your premises. Your second premise is a conclusion in itself which would require validation. You could build an ethical argument supporting this, but I doubt it would convince anyone who felt differently. And I can defeat this by analogy:

Even if a criminal has infringed on another's right to (free movement), this does not give officials the right to infringe on his right to (free movement).

You could defend yourself by saying that the right to life is a qualitatively different right, but it would be a tough sell.

Whether or not Capital Punishment is self-perpetuating is something that I would need evidence to agree with. I really don't think that many people go and kill the families of the victems of their loved ones in retribution for the actions of the state. And I also don't think that the example set by the state enters into the motivations of killers.

If a family seeks retribution for the loss of a loved one, the same argument holds, as they put their own right to the pursuit of happiness above the right to lfe of another. Thus, retribution by the infringement on the perpetrator's right to life is unjust.

This argument is essentially the same as the one above, and falls by the same axe.

My opposition to capital punishment rests on two premises, given that empirical evidence does not support either the cost or the deterrence argument.

1) It is not the state's role to mete out retribution. That should be left up to God or whatever objective ethical fabric you believe permeates the universe. This principle is pretty much axiomatic to me, and I realize that some will disagree.

2) Read Don Vito's post. Even DNA evidence can be misleading, depending on how it got there. Cops do lie. People do have sex with people who end up dead. There is no system in the world made by man that is fool proof. It will make mistakes. We always need to keep the ability to reverse our mistakes to the best of our abilities.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: DonVito
I've spent too much time working in the criminal justice system to entrust it with the ability to take lives.

:thumbsup:

As Justice Harry Blackmun famously said in 1973, "The death penalty experiment has failed. I shall no
longer tinker with the machinery of death.".

Yes, but both of you are (somewhat) ducking the real question - is capital punishment moral? Too many capital punishment debates get sidetracked with the issue of error - yes, it's egregious when people are wrongfully sent to death row. However, what if there's not an issue of guilt? What if the accused is quilty beyond all possible doubt (such as Timothy McVeigh)? Is the death sentence proper then?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
All these votes and no one agrees with Kerry so far?

I guess so. Considering how completely DoJ has hosed its terrorist prosecutions, one wonders whether he would still favor the death penalty in those cases.

When President Bush was serving as Governor of Texas, he was certainly adamantly pro-death penalty, and indeed made fun of female executee Karla Faye Tucker, whose life Pat Robertson lobbied to spare (because she, like President Bush, was a born-again Christian), in an interview with Talk magazine:

" `Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don't kill me,' "

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
I think that your analysis is flawed.

Capital Punishment has little Deterrence effect. Simple "Economic" theory would show this. If the murderer is acting rationally, then his decision is evaluated in the context of his risk. He likely thinks that he will get away with it, based on his perception of how easy it is to get away with crime. He will act based on his expected cost, which is a very small decimal times either a) a 25+ of anal rape or b) 10 years of anal rape and a gas chamber. I would say that the difference in magnitude would almost completely disappear when multiplied by a very low decimal. Any muderer who thinks rationally will do so based on the premise that they will get away with it.

Actually, that's exactly what I was trying to argue. I'm sick and I think my brain is broken, so maybe it wasn't very clear. As usual, very nice post. You said what I was trying to say better than I did, hands down. :beer:

Hopefully my brain will turn back on in a couple days.

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Yes, but both of you are (somewhat) ducking the real question - is capital punishment moral? Too many capital punishment debates get sidetracked with the issue of error - yes, it's egregious when people are wrongfully sent to death row. However, what if there's not an issue of guilt? What if the accused is quilty beyond all possible doubt (such as Timothy McVeigh)? Is the death sentence proper then?

Which is why I posted what I did, though I would refer you to Kibbo's post, as he said it much more clearly.

DV: this is one issue that I definitely disagree with Bush on. I also think that Kerry's position is laughable though.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
All these votes and no one agrees with Kerry so far?

I guess so. Considering how completely DoJ has hosed its terrorist prosecutions, one wonders whether he would still favor the death penalty in those cases.

When President Bush was serving as Governor of Texas, he was certainly adamantly pro-death penalty, and indeed made fun of female executee Karla Faye Tucker in an interview with Talk magazine, whose life Pat Robertson lobbied to spare (because she, like President Bush, was a born-again Christian):

" `Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don't kill me,' "

That is deplorable. Even if he was a supporter of the execution, it didn't deserve mockery. Really that does say a lot about his character.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Yes, but both of you are (somewhat) ducking the real question - is capital punishment moral? Too many capital punishment debates get sidetracked with the issue of error - yes, it's egregious when people are wrongfully sent to death row. However, what if there's not an issue of guilt? What if the accused is quilty beyond all possible doubt (such as Timothy McVeigh)? Is the death sentence proper then?

From my perspective the moral issue is the smaller one. If, hypothetically, the court were omniscient, and somehow KNEW a Ted Bundy, say, were guilty, I would not be opposed to having medical experiments performed on him, or seeing him executed on any moral basis.

The reality, though, is never that clear, and indeed a comparatively large number of death-penalty inmates have been subsequently proved to be innocent through the use of DNA evidence. This was why the governor of Illinois commuted the death sentences of all death-row inmates in that state a few years ago. A careful look at some of these cases reveals shocking prosecutorial misconduct, and/or incompetence by defense attorneys (and I have worked as both).

I don't know that it's 100% clear Timothy McVeigh was guilty (though I think he was). He agreed to largely waive his appeals, but it appeared he substantially did so to further his image as a martyr among his militia counterparts.

I'll also say that even DNA evidence is not bulletproof (no pun intended). It can be, and sometimes is, mishandled within a given lab, it can be planted, and there is also the possibility of completely false testimony by lab "experts" (I'm reminded of the Oklahoma City Medical Examiner who was found to have fabricated evidence and perjured herself in literally hundreds of cases).

From my perspective, the justice system is a human enterprise, and just as many people disagree with the acquittal in the OJ Simpson case, there are many cases in which innocent people are convicted of serious crimes, including rape and murder. Even if the prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney are on their best behavior (and that's not always the case), we sometimes see bad/inaccurate outcomes.

Ultimately, the death penalty has NO demonstrable deterrent effect, and costs more. The sole argument I can see for it is that it provides "closure" for the families of victims, but frankly I think this brand of closure is worthless and often even harmful. This is simply not the way for these people to get past what's happened.

I will also observe that, to the extent the death penalty makes sense (and it doesn't to me), we are arguably mis-applying it. Murder is not a crime with a particularly high rate of recidivism, and as tragic as it is, the victim's suffering ends when he or she dies. It doesn't tend to lead to more crime, since the victim is dead. Rape and child molestation lead to lifetime suffering, and perpetuate a hideous cycle of crime, in that molestation victims are far likelier to commit crimes themselves.

In November 2002 I sent a man, SSgt Kelly Erickson, to prison for life for serial child molestation. As far as I'm concerned he is more dangerous than a serial killer, but one day he will be free. If we must have the death penalty, and I don't think we must, he deserves it 100 times more than some shlub who shoots a gas-station attendant.

 

[daveshel]

>Open the big can of worms that spills down the slippery slope.

Starting out, I am opposed to capital punishment. >But then maybe it should be available for the absolute-worst crimes committed by people with no remorse. >So the worst of thse offenders would be terrorists who are on a jihad that calls them to blow up a bus filled with schoolchildren. >An enemy to whom death means glory is not somebody that can be rehabilitated. >Retribution adds fuel to the fire and creates martyrs anyways. >Deterrence means defiance to those who love your death more than their lives. >But wait a minute, aren't these the same values we instill in our soldiers, to be selfless in defense against the enemy? >And so maybe we are really dealing with soldiers here, even if they don't play by the conventional rules of warfare. (Those rules are part of the purview of the United Nations, which we defied to go into Iraq, but I digress.) >But don't we just deal with soldiers on the battlefield, rather than in the courts? >So while I don't believe in capital punsihment, maybe I believe in summary judgement in the battlefield in the case of enemy combatants. *Now, there's a definition on which I can hang my hat!

And it turns into an M.C. Escher drawing.

 

[nageov3t]

no, under any circumstances.

I do support life sentences for serious offenders who have proven themselves to be beyond rehabilitation, but that's about it.

 

[DealMonkey]

No, because it brings us (as a society) down to the same knuckle-dragging barbaric level of the killers we're executing. Life in federal (pound you in the ass) prison seems like a far worse punishment . . .

 

[caivoma]

vote no.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I voted no for two reasons:

1) money; I t costs 3 times more to pay for the death penalty (due to retrials, etc) then simply giving life without parole.

2) OK, I was for the death penalty before a comedian straightened me out. The following quote kinda puts things in perspective: "We arn't raping rapists, are we?". Seems a little extreme to kill someone as punishment doesn't it?

Overanalyzing this subject just creates headaches. Just remember the quote!

-------
OT: ABORTION: Keep it simple. If politicaian making a law to ban abortion, remember this quote: "You said we had to have them, you #$%^ing raise them!"

 

[PatboyX]

i agree with the unhappy worker above. money cost is too much and i dont see death as a solution. in my eyes, death isnt really a punishment anyway. however, i dont ever want to grow comfortable with the idea of a being able to put someone to death.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: DonVito
[
From my perspective the moral issue is the smaller one. If, hypothetically, the court were omniscient, and somehow KNEW a Ted Bundy, say, were guilty, I would not be opposed to having medical experiments performed on him, or seeing him executed on any moral basis.

Don Vito, you just firmed up the moral grounds of my opposition. Just by mentioning medical experiments.

I instinctively find that disgusting. No matter how sick or evil a person is, they do not deserve to be subjected to a modern-day Mengele. That is a purely inhuman act. Regardless of whatever utilitarian rationalization you can come up with. It follows that even Mengele doesn't deserve that. I'm comfortable with that.

We should not do anything to another human that robs them of their humanity. We should not do so because of what that makes us. It makes us no better than them. To do so casts aside the moral legitimacy that allows us to sit in judgement of these people. We would have no right to declare any act immoral, if we were guilty of those same acts. Medical experimentation is one of those things. And maybe killing is also one of these things.

In my prior post, I mentioned that any purely moral position on Capital Punishment would require you to demonstrate unequivocably that the right to life is different in kind with the right to free movement. Maybe dehumanization is that quality. A prisoner is still a human. A corpse isn't.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: loki8481
no, under any circumstances.

I do support life sentences for serious offenders who have proven themselves to be beyond rehabilitation, but that's about it.

YES, under all confirmed circumstances.

Why should Tax payers provide room and board for the rest of scum's lives???

Where's the justice for the victims in that???

and the Neocons on here call me a bleeding heart Liberal (pffft).


PS - I've been with Murderers up close face to face, there is no "Rehabilitating" these scum.

You can't ever let them out to kill again and they will because it gets easier for them.

 

[Chodaboy]

Yes, for aggravated sexual crimes (rape w/ weapon, child molestation etc) and murder with extenuating circumstances (multiple, sexual, political, etc).

However, I have to agree with that drunk guy from Blue Collar Comedy about Osama. Paraphrased, Osama is prepared to die for what he's done. However, he is not prepared to lick jelly out of Bubba's buttcrack.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I used to be against it, but after I dated a woman who's husband murdered their child, I've goten more hard hearted.

This particular POS had the good sense to off himself after he killed their child,.

She told me that she'd been to many support groups for survivors/family members of murder victims & that the family members/victims were scared to death of retaliation etc from the bad guy and that their execution gave them a sense of closure & safety.

Guess I live in the right state for that kind of attitude, "Texas, the execution assembly line state."

 

[Darkhawk28]

If one innocent man gets sentenced to the death penalty, then it's a failure.

Edit: Btw, I have a personal connection to this argument.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Deterrence means defiance to those who love your death more than their lives.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
YES, under all confirmed circumstances.

Why should Tax payers provide room and board for the rest of scum's lives???

Where's the justice for the victims in that???

and the Neocons on here call me a bleeding heart Liberal (pffft).

PS - I've been with Murderers up close face to face, there is no "Rehabilitating" these scum.

You can't ever let them out to kill again and they will because it gets easier for them.

That's not borne out by the facts. It's been demonstrated time and again that execution costs much more than lifetime incarceration.

Originally posted by: Chodaboy
Yes, for aggravated sexual crimes (rape w/ weapon, child molestation etc) and murder with extenuating circumstances (multiple, sexual, political, etc).

However, I have to agree with that drunk guy from Blue Collar Comedy about Osama. Paraphrased, Osama is prepared to die for what he's done. However, he is not prepared to lick jelly out of Bubba's buttcrack.

Something about Thunderdick? "It's not a nah nah, there I did it."
Ron White - also the guy that brags about Texas putting in the express lane for executions in heinous cases.