Don't let the door hitcha in the ass on the way out! (Death penalty)

[Seshat]

He's pure psycho. There is something seriously wrong with his psyche.

And that's why I call it euthanasia in these cases. He's too severely ill for any currently known treatment to help him, much less cure him.

I don't know if he's suffering, but his illness causes great suffering. For society's sake, I believe that such people should be euthanised if untreatable.


NOTE: someone who is equally psychotic but in a harmless way need not be euthanised. In their case, provided their suffering isn't too great, there is no harm to anyone in keeping them somewhere where they're safe and waiting for research to provide effective treatment.

[Ree]

It's easy to say that a criminal deserves the death penalty if it has been proved beyond all doubt that they are guilty.

The problem is, it's a very fine line. In every case, in order to render a guilty verdict, the jury has to feel that the prosecution has made their case, beyond all reasonable doubt. Juries are human and mistakes happen, however.

Just ask Steven Truscott (who was sentenced to death, but had that sentence overturned)
David Milgaard or Donald Marshall Jr or any of a number of people wrongfully convicted.
Canada no longer has the death penalty, and in those cases, it's a good thing.

Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime.


In fact, statistics have shown that, in the first year following the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, murder rates actually decreased. Over the next 20 or so years, the rates varied, but they never rose above the rate at the time of abolition, and in 1995, the rate was the lowest it had ever been.

Capital punishment is vengeance.
I realize it's easy for me to sit back and spout these opinions and statistics when I have been fortunate enough to have never lost anyone dear to me to a violent crime, but I honestly don't think that it would have changed my feelings.

Killing another person does not bring back the loved one. It merely lowers us to that level.

[DesignFox]

Seshat, I agree that in those cases it would be like euthanasia.

I had some stronger words to use though, and didn't want to risk offending anyone. You put it quite nicely for me.

[Seshat]

You're welcome, Design Fox.

I've given this sort of issue serious thought over the years. I do believe that some people are simply lacking some key traits. These traits include the ability to perceive that others are separate from oneself, the understanding that others are feeling beings, the understanding that they're capable of suffering, and the belief that that suffering matters.

I think it's pointless to try to punish someone for lacking an ability. We don't punish the one-legged person for being unable to walk, after all. I honestly think that there is a portion of the populace which is as unable to be empathic towards others as a one-legged person is to walk.

All we can do for these people is compassionately euthanise the dangerous ones, and compassionately do our best for the ones who aren't dangerous.

[Boozy]

All we can do for these people is compassionately euthanise the dangerous ones, and compassionately do our best for the ones who aren't dangerous.

You can call it euthanasia if you'd like, but its still the death penalty.

I think you're cheating a bit - trying to dress up a foul concept in humanitarian terms.

[Seshat]

Of course it is. But the motivation is different. At least in my head, it's not punishment.

In my head, it's the same sort of thing as an animal rescue putting down a dog that's been so badly mistreated it can never be safely homed with a family.

In both cases, there's a being (animal or human person) who is so twisted up in the head he/she can never be part of society. You can lock the being up for the rest of his/her life, or you can gently put him/her to sleep.

That said, I know that if a dog has bitten a child or killed a farmer's livestock, the child's parents or the farmer will look on the euthanasia of the dog as punishment. And the majority of society would look on the euthanasia of a serial killer as punishment. There's no escaping that. It's human nature. It's just not how I, as an individual, see it.

I also think that if the executioner can think of themselves as a medical specialist, euthanising incurably twisted people, it will help keep the executioner more sane.

[DesignFox]

Thank you Seshat! That's the analogy I would have used. I guess I should have just gone ahead and said it...

Like I said earlier, I don't think the death penalty is anything that should be considered lightly. But in some cases I believe it is necessary- maybe even kinder than letting that person exist in such a twisted state.

[BlackIronCrown]

1. impusle - you had a real sucky day, your spouse is found in bed with your best friend and you kill them both, you had no control, you where too angry to think and did the first thing to come to your mind. I don't care how in control you are we are all at risk of doing this, some more then others of course. How is the death penalty going to deter that one?

2. Forced too - like in a war, or another form of self defence since the other person might kill you. Cops do this all the time, should we send them to the chair? How about the boys and girls forced to go to war? Should they get the gas chamber?

3. Too messed up to care - Ted Bundy, BTK killer, Jeffery Dhamer, Jack the Ripper.... need I go on?

Addressing your points one by one:

1) This is what's generally known as a "crime of passion" or in the example that you provided "murder in the 2nd degree". Crimes of passion have never gotten the death penalty by default.

2) Self-defence never incurs the death penalty either. Killing in order to defend your own life (and being able to prove it) is not a crime. Neither is war considered to be murder; war is the death of an enemy as sanctioned by the state.

3) The only reason why some of these never received the death penalty is because they were judged insane and therefore not culpable for their actions. Ted Bundy is an interesting case; there is much evidence available that if he had not been put to the death, he would have been released in 20-40 years back into the population. His intelligence and talent for dissimulation were unparalelled; he was perfect for getting people to assume that he was "rehabilitated".

The point of execution is not to provide a merciful end for a person who has committed a crime. It is in order to protect society; to prevent that person from ever committing their crime again in cold blood. Execution is reserved for those whom the state thinks cannot be rehabilitated.

My solution, keep them locked up, give them gruel to eat and a slab to sleep on, and if they want to take their own lives, let them. Thank you good night!

I consider this to be the less humane option. You have murdered someone; now we shall lock you up in a cage, keep you fed and clothed for the rest of your natural lfie, locked in a zoo with the other wild animals. Cruel and unusual punishment, really.

1. God (if he exists) can judge on earth too last time I checked
2. I never said parole, lock them up for good, but don't kill them, use them for medical research or something, get some use!
3. Normally, we vote for the people in charge, Bush is a messed up and special case, but we are usually responsible, and people did vote for him
4. If I had the answer to the impeachment question, I would given it years ago

Just a note here: We cannot use prisoners for medical research. We cannot force them into any situation that is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment, as it is not constitutional. Even hard labor is considered to be under fire these days - cruel and unusual.

I have no problem with permanent incarceration (provided it is permanent), but if you are going to suggest it, we need to find something to do with them that will not violate caselaw on the subject.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412

128 people have been released from death row since 1973; 119 of these have been completely exonerated.

Nice statistic.
However, let's put this into real perspective.

From the same website you are using, I gathered the information that from 1993-2007, 3349 people have been sentenced to Death Row.

In that same time period, 78 people have been exonerated.

So, of the people that have been convicted from 1993-2007, 2.33% of the people that were convicted were innocent. That indicates that, so far as we know, the remaining 97.67% are guilty of their crimes.

That's a fairly high success rate for guilty.
Commentary?

[Ree]

Is the loss of one innocent person worth it to exterminate another ten guilty people?

Doesn't that make us just as bad as those we are executing?

[Boozy]

So, of the people that have been convicted from 1993-2007, 2.33% of the people that were convicted were innocent. That indicates that, so far as we know, the remaining 97.67% are guilty of their crimes.

That's a fairly high success rate for guilty.

You've got to be kidding me.

You're really think there is an acceptable number of innocent citizens killed by their own government?

[ebonyknight]

That's a fairly high success rate for guilty.
Commentary?

For me, it could be 99.99999% and I would still be against it. Even ONE is one too many.

[Sylvia727]

So, of the people that have been convicted from 1993-2007, 2.33% of the people that were convicted were innocent. That indicates that, so far as we know, the remaining 97.67% are guilty of their crimes.

That's a fairly high success rate for guilty.
Commentary?

97.67% is a fairly high success rate for a process of this magnitude. Obviously, I'd like it to be much higher, but it's still pretty good when one considers all the things that can go wrong. But, if we sentence them to life without parole, they'll have 20 - 60 years to prove their innocence. If we kill them, that's the end of the line. We can't take that back.

Let me ask you something: if I handed you a gun with 98 empty chambers and two loaded chambers, would you play Russian Roulette with it? Or you want to find a better and safer alternative?

That's why I support the death penalty in a utopeian society, where the success rate is absolutely 100%. Until then, it's not a risk we can in good conscience take. Although I do think Seshat has a good point about euthanasia. It would have to be heavily researched and verified that the criminal was unrehabilitable, of course, but that is the safest and humanest option.

[BlackIronCrown]

You've got to be kidding me.

You're really think there is an acceptable number of innocent citizens killed by their own government?

Ah. Here is where I must state things very carefully to avoid being misunderstood.

I believe that, in accordance with human nature and the nature of the universe, that there is no such thing as a perfect system of any kind.

I also recognize that while individual life is valuable, it is not as valuable as the health of a human society/nation/government as a whole. Cancers develop in the body politic and must be surgically removed. Inevitably, there will be collateral damage in the operation.

Since a perfect system can never be instituted and since incarceration on a permanent basis is more prone to eventual failure rather than execution (simply due to time span involved), I take a different tact. Those who are innocent but who are executed wrongly are martyrs for society. They are heroes who have given their lives to protect society. While regrettable and deplorable, those martyrs will always exist since we can never have a perfect system. We will make constant improvements to make it more perfect, but we must be resigned to never being able to achieve 100%.

So, yes, I would consider that percentage to be an acceptable casualty rate, just as one would have acceptable casualty rates in conducting a war.

97.67% is a fairly high success rate for a process of this magnitude. Obviously, I'd like it to be much higher, but it's still pretty good when one considers all the things that can go wrong. But, if we sentence them to life without parole, they'll have 20 - 60 years to prove their innocence. If we kill them, that's the end of the line. We can't take that back.

Let me ask you something: if I handed you a gun with 98 empty chambers and two loaded chambers, would you play Russian Roulette with it? Or you want to find a better and safer alternative?

First, see my reply to Boozy. It covers the 1st paragraph.

As for your Russian Roulette question, if that is the highest number of chambers we can build into the revolver, than yes.

If finding a better and safer alternative is not playing Russian Roulette at all, then I would take that (in terms of the analogy) to mean abandoning the current legal system altogether and determining another method.

[Sylvia727]

As for your Russian Roulette question, if that is the highest number of chambers we can build into the revolver, than yes.

If finding a better and safer alternative is not playing Russian Roulette at all, then I would take that (in terms of the analogy) to mean abandoning the current legal system altogether and determining another method.

I wouldn't want to participate in a system where there was a 2% chance of me or my fellow citizens dying wrongfully. I'd rather have life without parole incarceration.

As far as your martyr analogy, I can understand what you mean, and I think you have a point. But I think you're thinking too nobly, too abstract, for the concrete and dirty realities. If I'm convicted and executed for a crime I did not commit, I won't be thinking "Yay, my chance to die for the greater good." Nor will my family be proud of me for "taking one for the team." I will be seen and treated as a heinous criminal who deserves to be punished for terrible crimes, and that's how I will die: wrongfully murdered by the people who are sworn to protect me. Post-humous exoneration is not going to bring any relief to my family, except perhaps a measure of vindication, and further anger against the government and its legal system.

(Also, do you know you can multiquote? It's the cream button with a " and a + next to the regular quote button. Press multiquote on the first few, and then quote on the last one or reply at the bottom of the page.)

[Ree]

(Also, do you know you can multiquote? It's the cream button with a " and a + next to the regular quote button. Press multiquote on the first few, and then quote on the last one or reply at the bottom of the page.)

Thanks for providing BlackIronCrown with the multi-quoting tip, Sylvia.
All multiple, consecutive posts have been merged.