It's cases like this that make me support the death penalty...

by Elsewhere 149 Replies latest jw friends

Abaddon
Robyn
So, you yourself are harsh? You have the right to be judge, jury and executioner? But the people of the state do not. I see...It's alright if YOU kill but not if others do so.
The term "hypocrit" comes to mind. I see all I care to see.
Discussion is over.
My discussion with you was really over ages ago when you failed to respond to any of my points and got pissy.
You still contend you have a magic detection system which means you would know if any one you met would at any point secretly commit a criminal act and thus be able to refrain from becoming friends with them.
How can anyone with a petty delusion like that take part in a discussion?
If all you can do is lie about what I said and make ludicrous comparisons and assertions, yes, indeed the discussion is over. Pity I decided to humour you when you started this thread up again; I'd initially decided it wasn't worth continuing the discussion with you and bwoy, was I right.
You get the long s l o w handclap....
However, this isn't about you. There are other people in the discussion and I don't see why they should stop just because you're unwilling to answer questions like 'why does the US have the death penalty when countries at ideological removes from it also have the death penalty whereas those most similar to it don't have the death penalty?'
I mean, if you were an alien and observed two of the greatest violators of human rights on the planet executed most people, what would you assume about the country that executed the third highest number of people if the 4th and 5th place judicial killers were also persistent human rights violators? The list is;
China
Iran
USA
Vietnam
Saudi Arabia
Add that to the fact most democracies don't have the death penalty, and what looks odd and out-of-place?
And IT DOESN'T WORK;
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capital-punishment.html
But you've not responded to anything like that before (nor has anyone else tried to prove the death penalty is logical and effective), so why you would now I don't know.
Don't let the cyberdoor slam your cyberbutt on the way out, eh?
LittleToe

Gyles:
Seems not many want to take this debate through to it's conclusion, but I'm game. Besides, I have no personal axe to grind.
I would only feel 'terminal incarceration' was appropriate if there was a risk of re-offending.
But does it work? That seemed to be your strongest argument against the death penalty. Does terminal incarceration deter? Is it a more effective deterant? Is there evidence for this, that isn't contributable to other social improvements?
It's about killing people is bad unless it stops them killing someone.
I assure you, it stops them reoffending!
Bars do that too.
They do? Don't you mean that they "potentially" do, as the convict is still breathing, and whilst there's breath in their lungs the "potential" for them to be released/escape/reoffend remains. In addition any victims (in which I include the families) have no closure, especially from the fear of said "potential".
What are the statistics on prevention rates associated with terminal incarceration compared to termination?
...we would cut the dog up and study its disease; why is the study of the criminally insane wrong? (As long as it is bound by medical ethics.)
So we don't rule out a sentence of being handed over to medical science to have their brains disected in a medically ethical manner? I suspect some could agree with that one...
No, because we would deprive them of their humanity in a way far more final, brutal and pervasive than four walls can.
Setting aside the fact that they likely deprived their victim of the same, wouldn't they at least be making a contribution back to society, whilst ensuring they don't reoffend? What's the advantage in merely locking them up for 23 hours a day?
Of course the dog didn't want putting down. First of all it would not be capable of contemplating such a concept. It is a dog. It might not like needles as they are sharp and hurt, but a dog isn't aware their life is being terminated.
No? You've not seen a dog piss itself in fear when being taken to a vet for termination?
Every animal instinctively tries to evade death! Dog's are intelligent enough to see the writing on the wall, hence I chose that example.
It is a rabid dog; it's a mercy to kill it and an act to preserve public safety.
So it's gone beyond normal parameters and deserves to be put out of commission for the safety of other animals, and particularly humankind.
And a human animal is different, how?
But when is it a mercy to kill a human who is physically healthy?
When is it mercy to kill a dog that's physically healthy, but for whatever reason has "turned" on it's owner?
Is killing someone who presents a future threat to public safety more likely to preserve public safety than permanent incarceration?
Is terminal incarceration more likely to preserve public safety that termination?
Basically you appear to be advocating locking them up and throwing away the key, so that they can rot to death, as a more humane way of terminating them...
I, personally, cannot justify judicial execution as it fails at every test I put it to.
I have no issues with personal morality. That's a fair answer. You find it unconsciounable... however others do not.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I've seen the way that life is viewed differently in parts of Africa (for example) and know (firsthand) how this affects decisions. Some things appear worse and some things better, to our European eyes. I've also seen (firsthand) that there are cultural difference in the USA. This is bound to affect everything, from the views of the populace through to the actions of the judiciary.
Narkissos

The high level of crime in retentionist countries (those who still apply the capital penalty) at least shows that the obvious "deterrent" factor of the CP (or, more radically, of any "punishment") was never, and will never be, the "solution to crime".
On the other hand there is a good case (although somewhat counter-intuitive) that on a symbolical level "official State violence" actually warrants "violence" as an socially admissible possibility.
Punishment is ingrained in our mental and social structure. But what is it really worth? It covers (and mixes up) at least two distinct "needs" which, imo, have to be considered separately: (1) vengeance or retaliation, from a sense of "justice"; (2) social protection and safety.
(1) Whatever the "punishment", it takes time and education in the deepest sense, which includes both psychological and philosophical work in self-understanding, to outgrow one's natural claim for vengeance, which is not actually "satisfied" by any punishment. The death of the killer will no way help the victim or his/her family. The social emphasis on punishing could be shifted on helping the victims to work it out.
(2) Dangerous people (whether convicts or not: a number of murderers are not likely at all to commit murder again, and some of the most dangerous people around have not yet killed anybody) should be identified, isolated from potential victims and (if possible) helped to work it out too.
Whatever, no social system will ever eradicate crime. But the very process of civilisation implies overcoming violence, and this cannot be done without stepping out of the "obvious" -- including the age-old myths of "justice", "punishment", "individual responsibility" and so on. I think the European countries in the 2nd part of the 20th century have made a decisive step in that direction by abolishing the CP -- and as a result they are globally a safer place to live in.
One completely different question is whether death should be given to anyone (convict or not) who really asks for it. I think in some cases, after exploring all other possibilities, it should.
LittleToe

Didier:Is that a vote against terminal incarceration, too?
On the other hand there is a good case (although somewhat counter-intuitive) that on a symbolical level "official State violence" actually warrants "violence" as an socially admissible possibility.
That's an interesting one. Do you suppose that's increased when CP is a regular feature of violent crime sentencing, as compared to the half-hearted attempts that appear to be the case in the USA?
Abaddon

Hi Ross,
Permenant incarceration for those liable to reoffend is put forward by people as a better alternative than a death penalty because of the way people feel about the death penalty.

In the current situation (the death penalty being applied even in cases where there is not absolute proof with subsequent uncorrectable errors (well, actually, isn't killing an innocent person murder?)), there is little difference between the consequences of errors in the system by the state in accidentally killing an innocent person through a miscarriage of justice or releasing a murderer accidentally believed to be at no risk of re offending who kills again.
Either way a mistake is made, and someone dies.
Add in the people who weren't convicted by mistake, but died because they couldn't afford a decent lawyer and got the death penalty instead of other punishment, and judicial killing looks far less judicial and more like killing.
Assuming a "more enlightened" system where decent representation was available to all (thus helping reduce differences in sentencing outcomes) and the dp being ONLY allowed when there was absolute proof, and it is obvious that killing mean a person cannot offend again.
However, I am making a moral argument; killing is wrong because killing is wrong.
The sliding-slope fallacy of 'well, sometimes people breakout of jail and kill/kill prisoners/kill warders/are released in error and kill' (which you could only use in a "more enlightened system") in no way reduces the weight of the moral argument I am making; killing is wrong because killing is wrong.
If there was a large risk of murderers in general re-offending (I've already cited information in this thread showing on average there is not), or if the numbers of people needing to be incarcerated permanently for murder on grounds they as individuals might re-offend was high, then I might be interested in a pragmatic argument along the lines of 'it is too risky' or 'it is too expensive'. I would rather we kill killers than live in a violent society or close hospitals to pay for prisons (might not make sense to you, but it does to me 8-).
But, as has also been shown through cited material http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capital-punishment.html there is no difference in murder rates detectable as a result of the death penalty.
One can argue it might stop Sid from killing again, but that even if you kill Sid, all the murders that would take place take place anyway, other than any he might not be able to commit.
So, although my argument is a moral one, there is no pragmatic reason not to find it suitable. Lives will not be saved in a meaningful way by the death penalty.
If a murderer is likely to re-offend, then don't release him - but as (from my view) killing is wrong because killing is wrong, to decide to kill him on the off-chance a mistake means he kills again is still wrong as (I think you get the idea) killing is wrong because killing is wrong.
So we don't rule out a sentence of being handed over to medical science to have their brains disected in a medically ethical manner? I suspect some could agree with that one...
Now Ross, I already did rule out brain dissections (lobotomy), and such a thing WOULD be against medical ethics.
Setting aside the fact that they likely deprived their victim of the same, wouldn't they at least be making a contribution back to society, whilst ensuring they don't reoffend? What's the advantage in merely locking them up for 23 hours a day?
We study them. Just as murderers who are not a risk to society get released, get jobs, return to some normality and maybe even contribute to society, so too does the study of the criminally insane who are a risk to society benefit society.
As to the depriving of humanity; if the goal of sentencing is revenge, retribution, or some Mosaic blow-for-blow principle, then this would be a viable argument from that point of view, but not one I could agree with because killing is...
No? You've not seen a dog piss itself in fear when being taken to a vet for termination?
Okay Ross; how did the dog know? Maybe it pissed itself because it had negative experiences with vets? Maybe it was old and incontinent? Maybe the owner's distress spooked the dog? Maybe it smelt 'doggy death' smell from another dog when entering the vets? I doubt the dog overheard the conversation and was filled with fear. Anthropomorphism ahoy!
So it's gone beyond normal parameters and deserves to be put out of commission for the safety of other animals, and particularly humankind.
And a human animal is different, how?
Err, you know perfectly well Rabies is an agonising disease for the creature with it. The animal will die anyway after needless pain, and as it will die anyway and would suffer in the meantime AND it is a definite risk to others killing it is a no brainer; kinder than a cage.
I think you'd be better off choosing another example, as trying to defend that one is going nowhere.
If I was in the middle of nowhere with no hope of medical help, and someone was bitten by a rabid dog, I would advise them they should decide whether they wanted to be killed kindly when the disease entered the stage where you lose your marbles forever, or be bound and left to die somewhere comfy.
A criminally insane person is not going to be killed by their illness. The same effect (protection of public good) can be achieved without killing, and I feel humans have more rights than dogs.
When is it mercy to kill a dog that's physically healthy, but for whatever reason has "turned" on it's owner
Because a dog that does that might next rip off a child's face; its death to prevent recurrence when the trigger for the occurrence is not know is a safe and sensible thing.
Obviously unless one knew the trigger for a murder, one would not know if it was safe to release the murderer, yet incarceration would serve to protect public safety as well as killing. Death penalty would be a result of reasons OTHER than public safety.
Is terminal incarceration more likely to preserve public safety that termination?
No difference; see the survey above.
Basically you appear to be advocating locking them up and throwing away the key, so that they can rot to death, as a more humane way of terminating them...
Oh, if someone faced with 'being detained until found safe' decides to 'off' themselves, that is their right.
However, most murders are for easily definable reasons and don't even fall under the concept of permanent incarceration. But if the criminally insane can be brought to a point where they can return to society and maybe in some way contribute to society through their rehabilitation and re-entry into everyday life, without real risk to society, great.
I'm all for a legal system which seeks to rehabilitate and solve, as distinct one which seeks to punish and dispose.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I've seen the way that life is viewed differently in parts of Africa (for example) and know (firsthand) how this affects decisions. Some things appear worse and some things better, to our European eyes. I've also seen (firsthand) that there are cultural difference in the USA. This is bound to affect everything, from the views of the populace through to the actions of the judiciary.
Well, as you've gathered, I see the DP as being entirely cultural (although it is used by the more immoral of politicians as a vote winner -and they do their job well as people vote for the pro-killing lobby even though killing murderers doesn't reduce murders). As it doesn't make any difference to the murder rate, its acceptance has to be due to cultural values in the societies that use it.
Unless someone can come up with an argument not seen on this thread so far...
Some (societies) feel it's okay to kill in such circumstances. Others, who used to think it was okay to kill, now no longer feel that way.
Nobody has yet entered an argument that shows the death penalty to be a characteristic of humanitarian or peaceful cultures, so my basic assertion that it is a mark of countries sociological development stands.
Still no one interested in explaining how the USA and a bunch of totalitarian Commies and Fundies happen to share the death penalty...
*sigh*
Pity, I could do with a laugh...
Country Girl

Abbadon:
I'm sure the intention of Justice is equality, although it is questionable in some demographic areas whether this is practically applied. However, one of my questions would be: in inner-city urban areas, where the majority of the peers called for a jury pool would be of the same racial distinction as the defendant, what accounts for the high conviction rates for death penalty cases in those areas? Most Death Penalty cases, at least in Texas, come out of Harris County (Houston) and the juries there are either very racially mixed, or at least a majority of the jurors are black (coming from the same judicial district as the defendant)?
Look at the case in Jasper, Texas not too very long ago. The case that shocked the world: Mr. Byrd was dragged to his death behind the truck of three neo-supremicists. The death penalty was applied. The victim was *black* and the jury, I believe, racially mixed. Was it because of the high level of media attention that the white man got the death penalty? In this case, I believe the Death Penalty was fairly applied. It was a crime so heinous and inhuman as to deserve such a radical disposition. Its' defendants confessed, the evidence was solid, and they deserved what they got for such a terrifying and painful last night for Mr. Byrd.
I can only speak for Texas. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has the following statistics for Death Row inmates:
White males: 136
Black males: 173
Hispanic males: 123
I don't know. This doesn't strike me as such a radical disparity of the races. In fact, there are more white males on Death Row than Hispanics, and Hispanics account for a very large portion of Texas residents.
Eye-witness evidence is usually seen as a very important aspect of a prosecutor's case. However many studies have concluded that eye-witness testimony is very subjective and fleeting. Of such studies, this one, I think, sums it up:
http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/%7eeebbesen/prejvprob.html
Alot of these Death Row cases are based on eye-witness testimony. You usually don't find someone in Death Row that has taken a plea deal. Could some of these cases be based on faulty evidence? You bet! However, Texas recently instituted a law that an inmate can file a form demanding DNA analysis as another tool for discovery on appeal, which I think is very fair and progressive, and shows an attempt to fine-tune a system that has gone awry.
It may not be perfect, but I think there are many growing grass-root movements and watch-dog groups that area really making headway into the injustices in our system of justice around the country. I am very encouraged in some ways, and others not so encouraged.
But, as I said before... I believe in the Death Penalty, as long as it is 100% a sure thing, and it is only used for crimes that are particularly heinous, gruesome, and offensive to the majority of the culture in which they take place. I believe that it, in fact, presents example to, and protects, the community.
However, until that 100% surety can be achieved, I think a moratorium should be issued, until all these issues can be worked out. That may never be.
Country Girl
Narkissos

Ross,
What I basically question is the very concepts of "punishment" and "justice". To be honest, I understand vengeance, revenge or retaliation (on the victim's part) far better than those metaphysical concepts.
As for "terminal incarceration", once you leave "punishment" aside, I think it is a nonsense. If a 20 y.o. commits a heinous crime, how can you possibly know who the same biological individual will be 15 or 20 years later? Maybe he can become not only harmless, but very helpful to the society.
As for systematicity in the application of CP, or the lack thereof, I don't know. I think the "official warrant to the possibility of killing" remains about the same. True, perhaps the obviously unfair application adds a "lottery" parameter (depends on which State, which jury, etc.). But I sincerely doubt many people who do resort to killing actually bet on the consequences. It is always a personal disaster, still it happens. Killing is most often an attempted suicide. Still many suicidal people can heal.
under74

"I don't know. This doesn't strike me as such a radical disparity of the races. In fact, there are more white males on Death Row than Hispanics, and Hispanics account for a very large portion of Texas residents."
I think you should look at the overall statistics for states that abide by CP in the US. You can get those statistics at the Southern Law Poverty Center website. It's not equal. You also need to take into consideration the stats of African Americans who have killed whites vs. killing other African Americans. You'll find many more African Americans that have committed crimes against whites more likely to suffer the death penalty for murder or much harsher penalties for lesser crrimes. Compare it to whites that do the same things....you'll find an overwhelming disparity
LittleToe

Gyles:
...isn't killing an innocent person murder?

I agree.
...there is little difference between the consequences of errors in the system by the state in accidentally killing an innocent person through a miscarriage of justice or releasing a murderer accidentally believed to be at no risk of re offending who kills again.
I disagree.in the latter case someone who is a known offender has been released back into the community. They have already offended.
If CP was limited to mass-murderers or psychopaths, would that help? After all, it's expected that a dog which has "turned" is now broken.
Add in the people who weren't convicted by mistake...
I wonder what the proportion of mistaken sentences leading to CP compared to reoffending murderers, is?
However, I am making a moral argument; killing is wrong because killing is wrong.
But one that only extends to the human animal?
I would rather we kill killers than live in a violent society or close hospitals to pay for prisons (might not make sense to you, but it does to me 8-).
So there are circumstances where you see CP as being viable, then?
Whilst I appreciate your stance is from personally held moral ethics, it seems that there is a limit somewhere
But, as has also been shown through cited material http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capital-punishment.html there is no difference in murder rates detectable as a result of the death penalty.
Has it similarly been shown that there is a difference in murder rates as a result of terminal incarceration?
Now Ross, I already did rule out brain dissections (lobotomy), and such a thing WOULD be against medical ethics.
No, I actually meant slicing them up, even if this is done in a none invasive manner, such as CAT scans. I suspect that our court-systems would overrule in the favour of the prisoner if one decided they didn't want to submit to it.
We study them.
What are you suggesting? Electronically tagging them and releasing them back into the wild, or setting up an artificial habitat behind plexiglass, where they can scratch their arses?
I would suggest that depending on your outlook these options (in addition to terminal incarceration) aren't all that humane for the recipient, either.
how did the dog know? ... Anthropomorphism ahoy!
I expected that rebuttal.
Again I chose my example carefully. The dog had been to the vets several times for shots, etc., but had experienced no undue discomfort, nor such a reaction, nor was it incontinent prior to being taken. The incontinence started at the house, just prior to being taken.
Did the animal "read" the owner's emotions? (it was my brother's dog - an incredibly intelligent working collie). Nonetheless, it had a reaction to being taken, including trying to escape.
I think you'd be better off choosing another example, as trying to defend that one is going nowhere
I did - my original argument, and one that I returned to, was of an dog that had "turned" (e.g.Alsastian/German Shepherd). I regret, for the sake of the argument, changing my analogy
.A criminally insane person is not going to be killed by their illness. The same effect (protection of public good) can be achieved without killing...
But surely, if the main issue is public safety, it doesn't matter which of these options we choose?
...and I feel humans have more rights than dogs.
On what grounds? Life is life, surely?
I thought it was "killing" that you objected to?
Because a dog that does that might next rip off a child's face; its death to prevent recurrence when the trigger for the occurrence is not know is a safe and sensible thing.
Is there any attempt to find out? Usually they are just put down, aren't they? Similarly are there any studies on convicts, such as you mentioned earlier? They are put down, too, just it takes a few decades longer for them to expire under the circumstances of terminal incarceration.
Obviously unless one knew the trigger for a murder, one would not know if it was safe to release the murderer, yet incarceration would serve to protect public safety as well as killing.
And yet we also need to add something to the melting pot at this point. You've mentioned a legal system that isn't equitous, but what about a medical system that recommends the release of "patients" who then go on to reoffend? We can't guarantee that from happening, either.
Oh, if someone faced with 'being detained until found safe' decides to 'off' themselves, that is their right.
So we're happy for them to rot to death, and we're happy for them to off themselves. So far the only thing we take issue with is the system intervening in a medically safe and relatively pain-free manner (though I don't see the idea of someone hanging themselves with torn off strips of bedlinen being all that humane, either...)?
I'm all for a legal system which seeks to rehabilitate and solve, as distinct one which seeks to punish and dispose.
Do you believe our overcrowded jail system succeeds in that?
Same question: in particular for murderers?
although it is used by the more immoral of politicians as a vote winner
I confess that I find that obscene, too.
As it doesn't make any difference to the murder rate, its acceptance has to be due to cultural values in the societies that use it.
But we've already agreed that the culture is different in the USA, both socially and judicially. It seems that a majority of the US citizens prefer CP. Is that not their right?
Some (societies) feel it's okay to kill in such circumstances. Others, who used to think it was okay to kill, now no longer feel that way.
Is it not also true to say that in such reformed countries there is still a proportion of the populace that agrees with the concept of CP?
Nobody has yet entered an argument that shows the death penalty to be a characteristic of humanitarian or peaceful cultures, so my basic assertion that it is a mark of countries sociological development stands.
You don't really have a particularly large pool of evidence to construct a theory from, though, do you?
How far do we go back? Do we decide that we can only judge people by today's standards? How long has Britain been CP-free, for example? Long enough to be sure of the outcome? Or can we go back to some of the so-called ancient civilizations, such as Rome and Greece?
Still no one interested in explaining how the USA and a bunch of totalitarian Commies and Fundies happen to share the death penalty...
You already offered an explanation, which gave everyone a laugh
LittleToe

Didier:
As for "terminal incarceration", once you leave "punishment" aside, I think it is a nonsense.

I'm of that opinion, myself, I think.
We had a case here, in the 60's with a couple of mass murderers (I think they killed nine children between them) - Ian Brady and Myra Hindley (known as the Moors murderers). Myra finally died in 2003, after appealing on numerous occasions. The media made it look like she was being kept in because of the political effects releasing her might have. I don't know what efforts were gone to to find out if she had reformed.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/moors/epilogue_8.html?sect=5

It's cases like this that make me support the death penalty...

Share this