The Death Penalty: Yes or No?

[MBuzzy]

Innocent men have been put to death under the Death Penalty. Therefore, man's judgement process is fallible at some level and I cannot condone it.
Of course, I also think that the "War on Drugs" is ridiculous. Someone that I was talking to the other day actually thought that a huge amount of people would be out bootin' black tar heroin right after all drugs were made legal. I personally don't see it. Who actually thinks that people are prevented from doing drugs because they are illegal? Not very many. The percentage that would "experiment" with newly legal drugs would be infinitesimal.
Kinda like the percentage of people that are prevented from committing crimes because they are illegal.
What is the point of prison, in our 21st Century civilization? Punishment, or Rehabilitation? Some prisons have good voc-tec programs and education, and the rest are pretty much just Crime University.

I think you are giving people a little bit too much credit. The Death Penalty also serves a huge deterrant. Think of the converse - how many crimes of passion are prevented by fear of punishment? Is there any data or studies to support that people are prevented from doing crimes because they are illegal? That would be extremely hard to research.

I do agree that man's judgement is fallible and that prisons serve as nothing more than a place for criminals to learn how to commit crime better. The rehabilitation process really doesn't work - except because people don't want to go back!

People's moral compasses really aren't that strong. The basis of human nature is to satisfy our own needs and desires - law is what deters the vast majority of people from doing that. Try to think of it in an objective manner and by extension. If there were no laws, what boundaries would you start to push? It would start with speed limits probably, then the occassional robbery...but just when you need it, eventually, people would be killing each other.

 

[cdunn]

IMHO, these criminals are treated far too kindly and should be forced to work to earn their keep. The Thirteenth Amendment specifically allows this: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Thus, convicts can be used as slaves and or as involuntary servants(although, I don't really grasp the difference...)

Slaves are objects. Involuntary servants are humans, and have most of the rights held by such. Be careful of the path you walk down.

On the other front - I cannot approve of the death penalty. Those whose deeds are foul enough to be considered for death do not deserve a punishment that merciful.

 

[Big Don]

Slaves are objects. Involuntary servants are humans, and have most of the rights held by such. Be careful of the path you walk down.

I'd say that the criminals are responsible for the paths they walk, too.

On the other front - I cannot approve of the death penalty. Those whose deeds are foul enough to be considered for death do not deserve a punishment that merciful.

 

[CoryKS]

I'm reminded of the words of a Marine captain in reference to bin Laden and his cohort: "It's God's job to forgive them. Our job is to arrange the meeting."

Some crimes are too horrible to delay the meeting.

 

[MJS]

Nice replies everyone. Its interesting actually, because right here in my state, they have put all probation/early release/parole programs on hold, due to the home invasion that took place here, in which 3 of the 4 people were killed. The men in question were on parole at the time of the killings.

Of course, there were mixed thoughts on this, with some saying it is a good thing that this happened, and others saying that not everyone who is up for parole is a violent killer, so now they suffer because of the others actions. Well, that old saying, "One bad apple spoils the bunch" somes to mind here. So now people are reviewing the process, seeing what changes need to be made, and yes, even the thought of more prisons has come up. Of course, like always, people don't want to give something to get something. In other words, people don't want another prison, yet they cry when things like I mention above happen. Go figure.

So...here are the options...keep the system as is, but be prepared to hear people complain the next time a violent crime happens and the accused is on parole or...build more prisons to handle the over crowding and execute these people that have been sitting on death row for years. Is it fair for the inmates to have appeal after appeal, causing the families to suffer the process over and over?

If people don't want it anymore, then they need to accept the fact that more prisons need to be built. Of course, the cost of keeping them alive vs. killing them is something I'm not sure of.

IMO though, if the crime falls into the category that warrants the death penalty, and every other option has been exhausted and every bit of proof is pointing to the fact that they're guilty, then go thru with it.

 

[michaeledward]

People's moral compasses really aren't that strong. The basis of human nature is to satisfy our own needs and desires - law is what deters the vast majority of people from doing that. Try to think of it in an objective manner and by extension. If there were no laws, what boundaries would you start to push? It would start with speed limits probably, then the occassional robbery...but just when you need it, eventually, people would be killing each other.

I just don't buy this. Not at all. There are plenty of examples of other primates behaving in a very moral way within their group. As the groups of homo sapiens expanded legal systems were created. We are a small group mammal. Put us in groups of forty to a hundred and there will be very little amoral behavior.

I think we can't really see the morality of the individual, because of the pressures that society creates; if it is not the law, it is religion, if it is not religion, it is patriotism. Remove the constructs of modern society, and I think you would find that our moral codes rapidly become apparent and that it is much more in line with good behavior than bad behavior.

 

[Big Don]

The probation and parole systems are FUBAR. No one convicted of a violent crime should ever be released early. The idea of early release due to "good behavior" is ludicrous, bad behavior is what caused their imprisonment, no amount of "good behavior" should shorten their stay in prison. Likewise, the entire concept of ruling someone "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an affront to justice. Look at Andrea Yates anyone insane enough to kill her five children shouldn't be allowed another breath. John Hinkley shot THE PRESIDENT and is now allowed long weekends at his parent's with no supervision. He crippled James Brady and shot the President and he gets vacations? I bet Brady would love a vacation from his wheel chair.

 

[Empty Hands]

Likewise, the entire concept of ruling someone "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an affront to justice.

I doubt you really believe this. If you did, you would have to entirely abandon the requirement of mens rea for a crime. Only the actual effect of your actions would define a crime, not your state of mind or intent. Thus, if you killed someone, you would be guilty full stop - self defense would no longer be an affirmative defense. If you accidentally kicked your wife in bed while you were asleep, you would be guilty of assault and the fact that you were asleep would be no defense. There would no longer be any 2nd or 1st degree murder, no manslaughter - everything would be a murder charge. If you accidentally tripped someone in sparring class and in a freak accident they managed to break their neck, you would be guilty of murder even though their death was an accident.

These sorts of outcomes are what would happen if there were no requirement for mens rea, out of which the insanity plea stems.

 

[Big Don]

I doubt you really believe this. If you did, you would have to entirely abandon the requirement of mens rea for a crime. Only the actual effect of your actions would define a crime, not your state of mind or intent. Thus, if you killed someone, you would be guilty full stop - self defense would no longer be an affirmative defense. If you accidentally kicked your wife in bed while you were asleep, you would be guilty of assault and the fact that you were asleep would be no defense. There would no longer be any 2nd or 1st degree murder, no manslaughter - everything would be a murder charge. If you accidentally tripped someone in sparring class and in a freak accident they managed to break their neck, you would be guilty of murder even though their death was an accident.

These sorts of outcomes are what would happen if there were no requirement for mens rea, out of which the insanity plea stems.

Not at all. Someone who claims self defense doesn't claim to not be responsible for his actions.

 

[Empty Hands]

Not at all. Someone who claims self defense doesn't claim to not be responsible for his actions.

And for the rest?

 

[crushing]

And what if you believe that by killing them, you're helping to prevent them racking up still more bad karma? :idunno:

Not only will it keep them from racking up more bad karma, but someone else will need to step in to deliver that 'future earned bad karma' to those that will deserve it. This only serves to create more criminals.

 

[MJS]

The probation and parole systems are FUBAR. No one convicted of a violent crime should ever be released early. The idea of early release due to "good behavior" is ludicrous, bad behavior is what caused their imprisonment, no amount of "good behavior" should shorten their stay in prison. Likewise, the entire concept of ruling someone "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an affront to justice. Look at Andrea Yates anyone insane enough to kill her five children shouldn't be allowed another breath. John Hinkley shot THE PRESIDENT and is now allowed long weekends at his parent's with no supervision. He crippled James Brady and shot the President and he gets vacations? I bet Brady would love a vacation from his wheel chair.

Not sure if you've ever seen this or not. Talk about a messed up system.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52812&highlight=cheshire

 

[Ping898]

isn't it funny how if a person commits a henious crime and asks to be put to death all these red flags are raised that he/she is mentally ill and thus should not be put to death...at least that is the way it seems to me...

I have to admit I am not really for the death penalty, I think there are too many errors in the system....but i admit that my opinion is not set in stone and somethine may occur one day to change it....

 

[heretic888]

Your thoughts?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22222241/

Hi MJS,

Many posters have brought up numerous points about things such as criminal deterrence, certainty of guilt, social inequality, cost scenarios, relational bias, and so on. To me, these are auxiliary or secondary issues that, while important considerations in and of themselves, sidestep the real moral concern of state executions.

State executions rests upon an extremist ethical premise that Two Wrongs Make A Right; that, namely, by implementing an equivalent violent behavior upon a violent criminal that the original act of violence is somehow equivocated or neutralized.

That, to me, is morally repugnant. Just as I would chastise the child who believes it is acceptable to strike another child because "he hit me first", I will likewise criticize adults who advocate state executions. The moral logic behind both behaviors is equivocal.

 

[Grenadier]

Moderator's Note:

Posts that dealt with the discussion of drugs and imprisonment have been split off into this new thread.

Please post such material in the new thread, while keeping the discussion in this thread relevant to the death penalty.

Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator

 

[CoryKS]

That, to me, is morally repugnant. Just as I would chastise the child who believes it is acceptable to strike another child because "he hit me first", I will likewise criticize adults who advocate state executions. The moral logic behind both behaviors is equivocal.

Only if you believe that serial murder, for example, is equivalent to a slapfight among children. To me, that is morally repugnant.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Right. You should not kill them, but lock them up somewhere where they can no longer kill anyone else. Then, everyone out here is safe.

Because if you believe in G-d, then, you see, you have to let the person live out their life, so that you will maximize the chance that they will see the error of their ways, and make peace with the Higher Power before they die!

I support the above with the following conditions.

Send them to South America First Class even.

Maximum security costs about $3000 USD a year. Life expectency is about 3 years. It is cheaper than medium security in the states.

I support the Death Penalty.

People need to understand that certain actions are not allowed in soceity. Those actions are defined as a group usually stated in writing as laws.

Just my opinion. I respect yours. That is the great thing in this country, we can disagree and in the end we can elect people to represent us or we can even vote on the issue. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

Only if you believe that serial murder, for example, is equivalent to a slapfight among children. To me, that is morally repugnant.

Hi CoryKS,

I'm glad you find your Straw Man morally repugnant. Unfortunately, it has little to do with the analogy in my previous post.

The point I was trying to make is that the moral reasoning underlying both state executions and juvenile reciprocal violence is equivocal, not that the behaviors themselves are ethically equivocal. In both cases, the rationalization for the respective behaviors rests upon the premise that Two Wrongs Make A Right (i.e., it is acceptable for the State to enact violence upon criminals because the criminals "did it first").

Incidentally, you do bring up an interesting point I had not considered. If held to the same criterion as individuals, it is possible to see the State (as the initiator of numerous executions) as a socially acceptable serial killer.

 

[heretic888]

I support the Death Penalty.

People need to understand that certain actions are not allowed in soceity. Those actions are defined as a group usually stated in writing as laws.

Hi Rich,

I find this line of argumentation fascinating.

The vast majority of crimes, even violent crimes, are not punishable by execution in our society. Are you therefore suggesting that these actions are "allowed" in society by lack of threat of the death penalty??

Of course, if you really mean (as I think you do, but correct me if I am mistaken) that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to future crimes, I am afraid this assumption is not borne out by any consistent statistical data (in fact, there is usually a slight negative correlation, albeit it is fairly weak).

 

[Doc_Jude]

I think you are giving people a little bit too much credit. The Death Penalty also serves a huge deterrant. Think of the converse - how many crimes of passion are prevented by fear of punishment? Is there any data or studies to support that people are prevented from doing crimes because they are illegal? That would be extremely hard to research.

I don't think that Crimes of Passion are ever rationalized. It's emotion-driven behavior, not rational, therefore no fear of punishment.
If people aren't deterred because there are laws against criminal behavior, then what are the laws there for?

I do agree that man's judgement is fallible and that prisons serve as nothing more than a place for criminals to learn how to commit crime better. The rehabilitation process really doesn't work - except because people don't want to go back!

Agreed.

People's moral compasses really aren't that strong. The basis of human nature is to satisfy our own needs and desires - law is what deters the vast majority of people from doing that. Try to think of it in an objective manner and by extension. If there were no laws, what boundaries would you start to push? It would start with speed limits probably, then the occassional robbery...but just when you need it, eventually, people would be killing each other.

Damn it, people. We need more ol' school Greek Philosophy. More Ethics, less Morals. People need to know WHY certain behaviors are preferable, not simply that they'll be punished in this life or the next if they're naughty.