Death penalty: For or against?

[Balog]

Let me put it to you this way.

If the system is so messed up it's a crapshoot whether the convicted is innocnet or guilty, how come you are only opposed to the death penalty?

The basic argument is "We have no idea if you're actually guilty, so we'll just sentence you to a lifetime in a cell dodging gang rape." How humanitarian.

[BridgeRunner]

but I WILL say that, generally speaking, I'd value the life of a child over my own(your description fits me to a t, oddly enough).

Of course.  But is it just for a panel of impartial third parties to do so?  I'd give my life for kid's in the space of half a heartbeat, but I object to a jury deciding that someone else's life is worth more than mine, especially since my life is worth the world to my kid.

As for the racial discrimination, I believe that studies have shown that blacks, controlled for the proportion of crime they commit and economic conditions, are within statistical boundries for convictions.

But not, I believe, for executions.

Still, even if you accept this as true, I think it calls for fixing the system - not necessarily throwing it out.  After all, blacks also end up in prison more for other things.  There are so few executions in the USA each year that a person can individually review each case.

I'll quote another poster: "Insistence on perfection is a sign of utopianism and a start down the path to dystopia."

Of course we should work on fixing the system.  But the system cannot be perfect (see my halacha based arguments) and therefore it should not mete out the ultimate punishment.

Again, fix the system.  Most death row inmates, even if commuted to LiP, are more expensive than the average inmate.  Add in the extra lifespan and medical costs...

How do you fix the system to make even more safeguards against unjust executions and simultaneously fix the system to make prosecutions and appeals cheaper?  

And executing klllers can qualify under your points - an executed murderer isn't going to kill again.  There IS a murder rate in prison, so even LiP doesn't guarentee that they won't get 'lucky' and kill a prison guard.  Or escape and kill again.

True, and valid points.  And those were the points that were the foundation of my belief in the death penalty.  I weigh things differently now, appealing primarily to my first three points, with the fourth as a mere afterthought.

Doesn't it?  I believe I've seen studies that go either way.  In any case, going by psychological references, the very slowness of our justice system in executing robs the executions of much of their power.  Executing a man in his fifties for crimes he committed as a teen, means that his crimes have long passed public memory - you have people working who weren't even born when the crimes were committed.

Again: "Insistence on perfection is a sign of utopianism and a start down the path to dystopia."

You cannot make it more perfect by making it faster while also making it more perfect by making it less frequently imposed incorrectly.  The only way I can see of doing that is expediting evidentiary processes, in implementing systems that create more evidence in the first place (like general surveilence), and other dystopian measures.  

I think it is a mistake to insist on perfection in a government process.  However, that particular process warrants perfection.  Therefore, that process should be eliminated.

[Firethorn]

The basic argument is "We have no idea if you're actually guilty, so we'll just sentence you to a lifetime in a cell dodging gang rape." How humanitarian.

The way I look at it.  If you're actually innocent you're far more likely to have that discovered in a DP trial than a LiP trial.

But not, I believe, for executions.

Them too, however, the conviction rate for them are so low as to be statistically unreliable.  In addition, given the multi-decade gap, we DO have issues with people having been convicted back in the days before DNA evidence and the clearing out of all the jim crow laws still being around waiting for execution.

How do you fix the system to make even more safeguards against unjust executions and simultaneously fix the system to make prosecutions and appeals cheaper?

Primarily make it faster.  Have a dedicated defense team to mount a *good* defense in capital cases - whether they be DP or LiP in nature.  The extra expense now will save money in the future.  Really stress the integrity of police - that means getting rid of any, and having a history of getting rid of any that show a willingness to lie, especially in court.

I'm not insisting on perfection - if a prosecuter can't assemble a DP worthy slam-dunk case he can always fall back and punt for a LiP one. 

It's going to be expensive either way - because I don't support sentencing innocents to LiP any less than I do executing them.  In many/most cases, like I said, they're denied resources the DP convictee would have to help prove their innocence.

edit:  Can I change my vote?  I noticed that the poll's been edited, Now that it's changed from DNA evidence to 'utterly compelling', I'd go for the second option.

[BridgeRunner]

If the system is so messed up it's a crapshoot whether the convicted is innocnet or guilty, how come you are only opposed to the death penalty?

Public safety.  We generally have a very, very good idea of who is guilty and who is innocent, and when there is a significant good to be weighed against the possibility of an error, we have to go with public safety.

There is no significant public good to weight against the death penalty.

The basic argument is "We have no idea if you're actually guilty, so we'll just sentence you to a lifetime in a cell dodging gang rape." How humanitarian.

My point is not to be humanitarian.  My point is to be just.  I don't, personally, give a damn about every Tom, Dick, and Harriet on death row.  I care about me.  I think it is better for me to belong to a culture that doesn't impose death as a punishment.

And I think that we'll greatly reduce prison rape when we stop demanding it.  This is actually the third thread (I think) in which I've almost randomly mentioned my opposition to prison rape.  I have a tendency to talk about the problem of our culture demanding/expecting prison rape whenever I can reasonably work it into conversation.  It's my small way of working to change what many people take for granted as a normal expectation of what the penal system has in store for certain categories of prisoners.  The penal system will never be perfect, just like life isn't perfect.  The problem there is the widespread expectation/demand that it does/should occur.  That can be rectified.  

In the meantime, I think that current statistic is that 10% of women will be raped at some point.  I'd rather live with the risk of rape than be killed by the state.  Heck, I'd even rather up my odds by going running at night than stay home and keep the odds lower.  Life is risky.  Life is riskier in prison.  We don't kill people to make their lives less risky.

[BlueStarLizzard]

i have no moral issue with killing a person who has been proven beyond all resonable doubt to have murdered or raped someone in cold blood.

and to top it off, prisons should bring back hard physical labor. i don't get the whole idea of rehibilitation among the hard core criminal element. if you break the law knowingly, then you should go break rocks with bigger rocks. honestly, i think never wanting to go back is a better determent for criminal activity.

[BridgeRunner]

Primarily make it faster.  Have a dedicated defense team to mount a *good* defense in capital cases - whether they be DP or LiP in nature.  The extra expense now will save money in the future.  Really stress the integrity of police - that means getting rid of any, and having a history of getting rid of any that show a willingness to lie, especially in court.

The former would be a good approach, although there does yet need to be the possibility of appeals.  I agree that those appeals should be expedited.  The latter seems impractical.  I'm not sure that there's a good way of ensuring that every cop with have integrity.  I'm all in favor of booting any cop who tells a lie, but who would be left?  The human element mucks up the evidentiary process, and the human element can't be made utterly reliable and pure. 

[Firethorn]

and to top it off, prisons should bring back hard physical labor. i don't get the whole idea of rehibilitation among the hard core criminal element. if you break the law knowingly, then you should go break rocks with bigger rocks. honestly, i think never wanting to go back is a better determent for criminal activity.

Who says that making big rocks into little rocks isn't a rehabilitation process? 
A: It's a deterent.
B: Keeps the convicts healthy but tired out(cause less trouble)
C: You can sell the gravel

I'd also offer option B: Learn & practice a trade.  Leatherworking, welding, weaving, basketry, whatever.  If it pays more than rock breaking, and is useful on the outside world, bonus.

The former would be a good approach, although there does yet need to be the possibility of appeals.  I agree that those appeals should be expedited.

I agree, have the appeals - but they shouldn't be for major things, not little procedural nits.

The latter seems impractical.  I'm not sure that there's a good way of ensuring that every cop with have integrity.  I'm all in favor of booting any cop who tells a lie, but who would be left?  The human element mucks up the evidentiary process, and the human element can't be made utterly reliable and pure.

They can't be made utterly reliable, but I was talking about those caught deliberately lying, not those that simply make a mis-statement.  Looking at overturned DP cases, all shared deceptive, not just deficient or mistaken, police work - that's what I'm utterly against. 

[41magsnub]

I put yes, with compelling evidence but i want to add one caveat...  as long as it is cheaper than life imprisonment.  As far as I know (without looking it up) it is more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to imprison them for life because of the lengthy appeal process and costs of death row.  I would also support anything that would bring the costs and effort of the death penalty down so that A:  it is cheaper than just housing the person and B:  Is executed (pun intended) in a timely manner.  Sentence to be performed inside of a year instead of the cases where the person dies of old age on death row waiting to be executed.

edit..  I'm not the first person to say this on here it seems.

I am also in favor of strong job training/GED resources for the folks that will get out of jail at some point.  If they have the skills to get a real job upon release I have to think they would be much less likely to end up back in prison.  There are exceptions to this of course but for the kid who hung out with the bad crowd and never learned how to do anything an opportunity to have a real life would be huge and ultimately less expensive for the state.

[Balog]

Can anyone find Ed Koch's article on the subject? All I can find are websites trying to sell me term papers about his essay.

[K Frame]

"as long as it is cheaper than life imprisonment."

I don't care if it's 10 times more expensive than keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life.

There are some instances where the perpetrator should, and MUST, die to be punished for his crimes.

[roo_ster]

My position in favor of the DP is a change from that of my callow youth.  Back then, I made many of the same arguments the anti-DP folks are making here.  Since then, I have a better understanding of human imperfection, institutional capability, and am more certain that evil exists and walks the land.

Huh.  My anti-DP position is a change from my pro-DP position in my callow(er) youth(er).  I hope I still qualify as vaguely youthful. 

The foundations of my anti approach are of talmudic and canon law origin.  I hope that neither the institutions of Jewish law or the Vatican can be accused of youthful callowness! 
...
I'll stick with appealing to authority.  That at least allows me make informed choices on issues at some point before I'm ten years from dead.

I have no problem with appeals to authority, given relevance to the issue.

The talmud and RC* canon law mean diddly to me, concerning the Constitutionality and appropriateness of the DP.  Neither is youthful or callow, just nearly as irrelevant as the Koran.  I'll appeal to secular authority (COTUS) and call it good. 

* As a non-RC, I would hope that it would one day again be true to Augustine and get right again, vis a vis Just War doctrine and the relation of the church to the state.

[BridgeRunner]

I have no problem with appeals to authority, given relevance to the issue.

They are relevant to the issue of whether I am for or against the death penalty and why.

Neither is youthful or callow, just nearly as irrelevant as the Koran.  I'll appeal to secular authority (COTUS) and call it good.

The constitution is a document that frames a government and that limits certain government actions.  I agree that the death penalty is legal under the constitution.  Still, that don't necessarily make it right. 

My explanation of how and I was using those particular authorities was not to demand that anyone else find them relevant to their own positions.  It was to take exception to your implication that holding a position other than your is somehow indicative of youthful callowness.

* As a non-RC, I would hope that it would one day again be true to Augustine and get right again, vis a vis Just War doctrine and the relation of the church to the state.

[MechAg94]

I am for it since I didn't say that before.  I think being able to eliminate violent felons is the right thing to do and the best way to provide justice to the victims and their families. 

I don't particularly understand why people think life in prison is somehow more humane or better.  I just think it appeals to the mushiness of people who don't like making hard decisions.  That concerns me in that I really hope people are not accepting a lower standard of evidence just because no Death Penalty is involved.  Beyond a reasonable doubt applies to all criminal cases. 

In Texas at least, appeals in DP cases are automatic.  The judge doesn't decide if DP is applied, the jurors do.  The state only decides if they will try to prosecute for it. 

Sure, the state is not perfect, but any system created and run by humans is not perfect and never will be.  You try, but to expect perfect results in reality is foolish.  You just have to build in the reviews and checks to allow the best opportunity for mistakes to be found. 

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Yes, but when a mistake is found, you can release a live innocent person from prison.  You can't un-kill someone.

[MechAg94]

But you can't give them those years back and others have pointed out that prison isn't a free ride and kill or maim you despite intentions.  You really aren't talking about anything much better, you would just feel less guilty since you could release him.  Would you feel the same guilt if someone who should have been executed escaped and killed more people? 

I just don't agree with your viewpoint.  You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims? 

[ilbob]

I am generally in favor of the death penalty.

I think all criminal convictions should hold to the same standard for conviction.

I also understand the reluctance of some to trust that government will get it right when there are a number of fairly recent cases where government got it wrong. Granted, most of those cases where cases where they knew the truth and for whatever reason chose to try and execute someone they knew was not guilty, or at least knew there was a lot of doubt.

[Balog]

I also support giving prosecutors who wilfully convict an innocent the same or harsher penalty as that which was suffered by the convicted. See: Mike Nifong.

[BridgeRunner]

You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims? 

I don't see how an execution fixes anything.  Also, vengeance =/= justice.

And, I wasn't remotely focused on "what if we're wrong".  

[MechAg94]

You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims? 

I don't see how an execution fixes anything.  Also, vengeance =/= justice.

And, I wasn't remotely focused on "what if we're wrong".  

court conviction =/= vengeance

I was referring to dasmi's post.  No system is perfect.  I find it unusual that people would accept a flawed system if it only put people in prison, but would not if it actually meant the death penalty.  Throwing people in prison is no big deal apparently. 

If there are flaws in the system, then they affect all cases, not just DP cases.  They need to be corrected.  I would hope that none of you would get rid of DP because the system isn't perfect and then go home happy that we are not killing innocent people, only throwing them in prison. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I also support giving prosecutors who wilfully convict an innocent the same or harsher penalty as that which was suffered by the convicted. See: Mike Nifong.

Absolutely.

[Lennyjoe]

Yes as long as the evidence supports it. Also support it for deserters during a time of war.

[Perd Hapley]

"as long as it is cheaper than life imprisonment."

I don't care if it's 10 times more expensive than keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life.

There are some instances where the perpetrator should, and MUST, die to be punished for his crimes.

Indeed.  Murder is such an instance.  We are always reminded of the danger of convicting the innocent.  We are seldom reminded of the danger of failing to deliver justice to the guilty.

You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims? 

I don't see how an execution fixes anything.

God disagrees with you.  See his commandments to Noah.  While it could be argued that the Bible does not demand the death penalty for murder, it most certainly authorizes it. 

Also, vengeance =/= justice. 

It is curious to me that the death penalty is frequently described as vengeance, while other common punishments (imprisonments or fines) are rarely so described.  Even though exacting stolen money from a thief could fit the notion of vengeance just as well as killing a murderer.  In other words, the death penalty is not vengeance any more than a fine for littering is. 

[PTK]

As long as there is any failure rate in convicting the proper person, there's a chance of killing the wrong person. I'm happier with lifetime jailing (ZERO chance of parole except in cases where they were wrongly convicted and the actual criminal is later found) than killing criminals after the fact.

[MechAg94]

We are always reminded of the danger of convicting the innocent.  We are seldom reminded of the danger of failing to deliver justice to the guilty.

That sums up part of what I wanted to say very well.  Thanks. 

[Waitone]

Lots and lots of muddled thinking on this thread. 

Let's just say I think the death penalty is justified and should be implemented even though the system delivering that penalty is far from perfect.

The value a society places on human life is defined by how that society punishes attacks on that human life.

The death penalty will continue long after the state abandons its implementation.  The only issue is who will implement it and under what conditions.