Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
I know. But let's call on a new tax that allows citizens that oppose the death penalty to pay upkeep for prisoner serving life sentences. That way I am not paying for them.

And you are right. Cases have shown that there are innocents that are serving death sentences. We need to improve the judicial system in the US. Just saying that this system is better than the other countries is no longer a good enough reason NOT to improve. But a death penalty should still be considered for the most blatant, most heinous of crimes.

</font>

Actually under the current system when all is said and done it is more expensive to execute someone in the US than it is to keep them in proison for life.

Again that's an argument against they system that imposes the penalty, not the penalty itself.



------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Diamond]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Personally, I believe that anyone who is against the death penalty should surrender a portion of their income to upkeep the criminals currently serving a life sentence</font>

Except for one thing. It is CHEAPER to have them serve a life sentance than to go through the legal fees of killing them. Perhaps you death-penalty believers would like to surrender a portion of YOUR income to pay for the extra legal fees?

I can anticiapte the next posts now: "well, we can fix that by reducing the legal hoops you have to jump through to execute someone." Of course, those legal hoops are attempts to reduce the number of innocent wrongly executed. Eliminating them would definetly increase the number wrongly executed. What else? You have to pay lawyers and judges.

There's no easy answer if you want to execute people. Save your money AND avoid being complicit in state-sponsored killings of both the innocent and the guilty by being against the death penalty.

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Phantom:


I should say before someone mis-reads what I have posted here. I do fully and whole heartedly believe that everyone of those Nazi bastards got what was owed them. I simply believe that the laws of the land are what separate us from the beasts of the fields, they should not be over-ridden no matter what the case.

I have my asbestos armour on, let the flamage begin.

</font>

I've done some reading in the Nuremberg Trials, including two books by US judges who sat on the tibunals, one a US Supreme Court judge.

While not perfect, the trials actually were remarkably fair all things considered.

Remember that they were carried out under the laws of Germany, not the US, so some rights and procedures were different from what Americans are used to.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[mactavish]

Okay, for those of you that support the death penalty, what is the primary reason for that support? Do you support it for economic reasons (i.e. cheaper to kill than imprison for life), vengence (i.e. "an eye for an eye"), or some other reason?

If you are supportive for economic reasons, consider this: both Mexico and Turkey have offered to house American criminals for a mere $5/day apiece. Considering that the cost of such imprisonment would be about $2000 annually. Would that be more viable to you monetarily?

If you're in it for vengence, wouldn't you prefer something heinous for the execution? Like feeding them feet first into a meat grinder or letting them be eaten alive by starving animals? If the point is to reap vengence for their victims, why not do something equally debased and cruel?

The whole money argument, while a valid point, doesn't wash with me. It is not about money. If that's the concern, sentence them to hard labor and force them to clothe and feed themselves via 16-18 hours of gruelling, backbreaking labor every day.

If you're in it for vengence, the Mexican/Turkish imprisonment should satiate you. Believe me, death is preferable to a Turkish prison. Besides which, the only way to truly acquire absolute vengence is to murder the criminal in the same way he (in this instance) murdered his victims. Otherwise you're not getting revenge, you're just killing somebody for commiting an equally despicable act.

We should not kill convicted criminals - regardless of their crimes - because it is a base, twisted, unenlightened act. It supports all who claim that mankind is merely a bunch of animals instead of an enlightened, civilized species. I would certainly grieve and suffer unimaginably if a friend or family member was raped, murdered, or otherwise defiled, but I would not desire mortal retribution. That smacks too much of religious indignation as opposed to justice under the laws of man, and I'll have no part of it.

Truly it is completely incomprehensible that a person could take the life of an innocent; I cannot imagine anything worse than such a crime (like rape, murder, etc.). Nevertheless, execution - state-sanctioned murder - is not the answer.

mactavish out.

[LCM]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mactavish:
I would certainly grieve and suffer unimaginably if a friend or family member was raped, murdered, or otherwise defiled, but I would not desire mortal retribution. </font>

You are, in the above statement, assuming you can predict with reliability how you would react in such an extreme situation. I challenge that. How do you know you wouldn't be filled with a murderous rage and desire for vengeance? While I can acknowledge and endorse your desire not to react in such a fashion, and admire your commitment to the ideals of civilization and enlightenment, to say you wouldn't desire mortal retribution is clearly presumptuous until, God forbid, you experience such a situation.

Of course, if you have faced this terrible happenstance, then your statement is a far more valid one.



[This message has been edited by LCM (edited 08-23-2001).]

[mactavish]

Regardless of whether I have suffered such a travesty in my life - it's not your business so I'm not telling - is not relevant to the situation.

I cannot honestly imagine a set of circumstances that would cause me to endorse the state-sanctioned murder of another human. I didn't say that I wouldn't want retribution, only that I would not want that person to die. I'd much rather see a criminal incarcerated and, in a perfect world, rehabilitatedto the degree that they could eventually reenter society.

There are programs that actually work for this sort of criminal. California has had great success in many of their penal facilities in rehabilitating domestically-abusive men, rapists, and even murderers. And the recitivism rate is less than 10%.

There are some that cannot be rehabilitated, and it is my belief that these individuals should be locked away in either a supermax prison or kept under near-permanent sedation at a mental health care facility. Some things are broken too badly for meaningful repair.

When a body has a cancer, you remove it from the otherwise healthy body. Some may use this analogy to suggest that capital punishment is the "cutting out" of a cancerous individual from an otherwise healthy society. I see it as the suggestion that the root of the criminal behavior can be determined and excised via psychological testing and therapy.

While it's true that some are animals that will never be rehabilitated, it is also a documented fact that the majority of American executions take place on poor, under-educated individuals from bad environments, often with a history of behavioral or mental problems. Therapy and rehabilitation would certainly prove more humane and beneficial to society in the long run, as opposed to killing the convicted.

If there is even a glimmer of hope regarding rehabilitation, shouldn't that be the goal?

mactavish out.

[Traska]

Okay, for those of you that support the death penalty, what is the primary reason for that support? Do you support it for economic reasons (i.e. cheaper to kill than imprison for life), vengence (i.e. "an eye for an eye"), or some other reason?

-----------

Some other reason.

Specifically, I find it highly dubious that we shoudl warehouse criminals. By warehousing, I refer to people who are in for Life Without Parole (heretofore referred to as "Lifers"). It's not just about cost, it's about practicality. We have no intention of ever letting these people back into soceity, so rehabilitation is a moot point.

Instead, we pack them away in a prison, and then that prison fills up, and we build more prisons, and those fill up... At this rate, we should co-opt one of our less populous states (Alaska would do nicely), fence the whole damn thing off and make it a prison. Or maybe in that regard I watch too much John Carpenter. =)

Is execution an ideal punishment? No no NO! But, given the means of rehabilitation we have now, it makes far more sense than just packing them away.

China's politics aren't the best int he world, but even faulty governments usually do -something- right. In this case, it's that China, when it executes people, harvests them for organs. That to me makes a hell of as lot of sense. They tok from soceity, let them give back. Add to that the severe shortage of donated organs in this country...



------------------
"You got your Star Trek Trek in my roleplaying game!"
"You got your roleplaying game in my Star Trek!"
LUGTrek, two great tastes that taste great together

[REG]

<font color="orange">If you are supportive for economic reasons, consider this: both Mexico and Turkey have offered to house American criminals for a mere $5/day apiece. Considering that the cost of such imprisonment would be about $2000 annually. Would that be more viable to you monetarily?</font>

But can they be accorded the same basic civil rights as a US citizen in a prison in another country with its own set of laws, despite the fact that he is a convicted criminal? (Funny, how I still support both the death penalty and the basic civil rights of a criminal.) Just because you give the criminal a life sentence in another country's prison does not mean it's better than a death sentence, especially when they may treat criminals inhumanely.

Granted, Hawaii have sent criminals to privately-owned prisons in the mainland to alleviating the overcrowding here, but there have been cases of discriminations against them being outsiders.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[REG]

Even the rehabilitation program has to be improved.

Here's a twist. Should we spend our taxpayer's money on rehabilitating "lifers." They have no possibility for parole, and therefore will not be introduced back into society. Shouldn't they concentrate their effort to rehabilitate those who have that possibility of parole?

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[REG]

<font color="orange">Except for one thing. It is CHEAPER to have them serve a life sentance than to go through the legal fees of killing them. Perhaps you death-penalty believers would like to surrender a portion of YOUR income to pay for the extra legal fees?</font>

Why? Since they got a life sentence they don't need to further challenge the court? They're still alive, right? They still can see their family members who visits them, even gain conjugal visits (whether he is already someone's "wife" or not inside the prison).

And what of the survivors of the deceased victim?

If I have to pay extra tax to ensure that criminal charged with a blatant crime and have more than sufficient evidence (non circumstial) beyond the reasonable doubt to convict him, then by all means, I would. The criminal have as much right to appeal whether the punishment for him carries a death penalty or a life sentence.

But once all legal matters have exhausted and criminal gets a life sentence instead, then my tax money should stop there.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Diamond]

No, Reg. People facing life in prison DO have as much right to appeal as those facing the death penalty. But for some reason those facing the death penalty keep on fighting the legal battle as if their life depended on it. Can't imagine why.

The hard fact is, as much as you obfuscate, with our current (USA) system it simply is more expensive to kill them off. Costs more money. By your argument, you should pay more.

Now, in response to Mactavish, the economic reason is not the reason I personally am against it. But it makes it hard for me to understand the arguments of those who are for it. If for the sake of argument it was cheaper to kill criminals (and occasional innocents) off, I would still disagree with the practice but I could *understand* their arguement. Or alternatively if it worked as a deterrent (instead of states having the death penalty having higher crime rates as is actually the case [although granted it is not clear if that fact is causative or correlative]) then I could understand their argument even if I had moral reasons for disagreeing.

But as it is, it seems killing criminals is more a matter of faith than conclusion. It hurts our society in materiel, pragmatic ways. You might disagree on the philosophy, but saying we have to do it to protect society or save money is just ignoring the uncomfortable facts.

[Traska]

Destroying individuals who take, take, take from soceity without giving back, have no chance at redemption, and will never live beyond prison walls again hurts our soceity? No offense, but how, praytell?



------------------
"You got your Star Trek Trek in my roleplaying game!"
"You got your roleplaying game in my Star Trek!"
LUGTrek, two great tastes that taste great together

[Diamond]

Think about what you just said:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">and will never live beyond prison walls again</font>

If they're in prison, they don't harm society any more. It costs more money to kill them. That's a cost to society. I think there's also a moral cost, but not everyone agrees and I understand that part.

That's not even counting the cost that innocents are also killed. Of course no one is in favor of killing innocent people. It is impossible to ONLY "Destroy[]individuals who take, take, take from soceity without giving back". Because of inevitable human fallability, we can only "destroy individuals who take, take, take from society and ALSO destroy a few people who give, give, give to society." That too is a cost to society.

[This message has been edited by Diamond (edited 08-24-2001).]

[REG]

<font color="orange">No, but who cares? If you're going to kill them anyway, why not keep them alive and make them suffer?</font>

Because as you or someone else said, there are those who may have been wrongfully convicted.

As for imprisoning criminals in another area, I don't mind but what island prison are we going to find that is infested with deep water and sharks?

And again, there is the prisoner's civil rights as well as the civil rights of his loved ones that want to visit him.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[calguard66]

There are only two attitudes to take.

1. Even though we realize that some who are convicted are actually innocent, we are going to punish everyone as their conviction deserves.

2. Because we realize that some who are convicted are actually innocent, we are not going to punish anyone as their conviction deserves.

The second position is the one currently taken by US society, and many of the posters on this board.

As individuals we can agonize over the individual cases, however the state must view the system as a whole. It must attempt to convict as many guilty, and exhonorate as many innocent, as it can within reasonable cost.

In the US because of our beliefs we bias our system so that more guilty get away than innocent are convicted. However, any human system is inherantly imperfect... some innocent will always be convicted, no matter how much effort is expended... unless we don't convict anyone at all.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain