NationStates Jolt Archive

i noticed a lack of disussions about the im/morality of the death penalty & capital punishment on this forum, since i've been here. wondering what people think. good or bad; fair or wrong; deterrent or just cruel?


i would argue that capital punishment is entirely wrong. i don't think any person(s) - judge, govenor, president, jury or whatever - has the right to decide what to do with someone else's life.

thoughts?


edit:
US execution data. linky (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm)

In 2004, 59 inmates were executed, 6 fewer than in 2003

In 2003, 65 persons in 11 States and the Federal system were executed -- 24 in Texas; 14 in Oklahoma, 7 in North Carolina; 3 each in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio; 2 each in Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia; and 1 each in Arkansas and the Federal system.

Of persons executed in 2003:
-- 41 were white
-- 20 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 American Indian

Of those executed in 2003:
-- 65 were men

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/exe.gif

I think it is a deterrent, and deterrents work (why dont u drive on the wrong side of the road? cos u will get hit and injured) but i think that even if one innocent person is killed then its too many so until there is a full proof method of obtaining guilt i dissagree with it

will there ever be a fool-proof method of determining someone's guilt?

why not incarcerate these people - why must they be put to death? is (life) imprisonment not enough of a deterrent?

Can I go with both the third and fourth choices? I guess not, alas - and since I've been able to vote on it as being a practice that should be stopped, I will go with choice 3: it is misunderstood.

As I just learned when I was listening to a professor's talk this weekend (about, among other things, the work of social psychologist, John Darley of Princeton University - google him if you're curious!), when sentencing decisions are tested in order to find out the reasons behind them (e.g., deterrance? incapacitation - preventing future harm? or people wanting "just desserts"?), most people actually are motivated by a Kantian view of morality (just desserts), even as they say that they are worried most about deterrence.

To be honest death is much more of a deterrant than life in prison.
Im not really that scared of prison (although i admit ive never been there)
International Info (http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/overview.html)

I'm not sure whether criminals would contemplate the consequences of their actions. If a junky wanted a fix but the dealer wouldn't give the drugs to him would the junky think "My gosh, I'd better not kill him or I could receive the death penalty," or would he think "GIMME THE DRUGS OR I'LL BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT!"

Similarly if somebody killed one of your close relatives, would you even care about getting caught, or just want bloody revenge? I doubt most people even think they'll get caught, they think they're smart enough to cover it up.

To be honest death is much more of a deterrant than life in prison.
Im not really that scared of prison (although i admit ive never been there)
International Info (http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/overview.html)
Not too many "civilized" countries on that link. :eek:

The death penalty is NOT a deterrent:

Cost, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Brutalization and the Death Penalty
The Scientific Evidence

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html

1. The death penalty has no deterrent value to society. No evidence supporting either a general deterrent or a specific deterrent impact exists and no evidence supporting an incapacitation impact exists. The death penalty performs no crime control function whatsoever.

2. The death penalty, in fact, not only does not deter homicide and other crimes, but through a brutalization effect actually increases both homicide and violent crime markedly, seriously increasing the danger to society in states where it is used with any degree of frequency whatsoever.

3. The death penalty, even as constructed in post-Furman statutes, is arbitrary, discriminatory and capricious in its application. The death penalty, in every jurisdiction, discriminates on the basis of race of offender, race of victim, gender, age, and socio-economic status.

4. The death penalty, as currently structured and administered, results in jury confusion and misinterpretation of the law at every stage of the process. This confusion seriously prejudices the defendant and results in both reversals on appeal and in a large number of wrongful convictions.

5. The death penalty, as currently structured and administered, results in the wrongful conviction and execution of the innocent at a level totally unacceptable in any civilized society.

6. The death penalty is enormously costly, strains the budgets of both state and local governments and diverts funds from more effective crime control strategies and victim assistance programs. This is true in all jurisdictions regardless of state statute. The cost of executions exceeds the cost of life imprisonment by a factor of better than two to one in every jurisdiction studied. And this enormous cost is borne by the taxpayers for a crime control policy that only makes violent crime worse.

No matter how many times I post this, the fact remains that others seem to want to try and refute the evidence presented. Personally, I think they just want to maintain the death penalty, against all reasoning.

The death penalty is barbaric and should be abolished.

Instead of execution they should just put the person in prison untill they die..... and decompose for awhile maybe.

To be honest death is much more of a deterrant than life in prison.
Im not really that scared of prison (although i admit ive never been there)

what of the problems you'll face in life after having been in prison? i'm not sure how it works in the US, but in the UK a prison record is (seemingly - no 1st hand experience) a major problem; you can't get credit (ie credit cards or mortgages) and few employers will take you on.
this however may not be an issue for many criminals

but for me, that's more of a deterrent than death. if i'm dead, i'm dead - so what? its the easy way out. i don't particularily fear death, just pain ;) , so being released from prison and being forced to live a miserable life, due to my record, afterward - perhaps being unable to provdie for myself and/or my family - is a greater deterent for me than capital punishment. that, and, if the person is guilty, they should have to live with the guilt of their crime (if they feel any of course) - this could be more torturous than facing death.

I picked "other". The death penalty is unacceptable because innocent people have been put to death because of it. Justice is blind, and therefore not always right, and it should be possible to rectify at least part of a wrong sentence given to someone. When the innocent person is dead, this is impossible.

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

No. The death penalty is never justified in any circumstance. And if revenge is used as justification, that's even more wrong. Should the victims lower themselves to the level of the killer because it might give them some short-term satisfaction?

Furthermore, is it right to give a government the power to kill its own citizens? Particularly for crimes such as "treason". How do you define that?

I understand what it is attempting to do, but we're wrong too much of the time. Aside from that, in some states they put the mentally challanged to death. When one man, who had an IQ below 70 (I believe, it may have been as high as 75) was asked to wave his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present when they began questioning him. When his lawyer finally did get there he asked the man if he understood what it meant to wave his right. The man started waving his right hand. Despite the fact that the way the evidence was obtained the man was put to death. I think that's criminal.

I don't believe the state should have the power to take a human life as punishment, and there's also the chance the death row inmate is actually innocent.

Oh, and I think that for those who are truly guilty, I don't believe it's cruel enough - I'd rather those inmates be kept alive, their thoughts of what they did and their bleak future will torment them and they will be their own worst enemy

I am completely opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as I think it is brutal and barbaric and has no place in modern society. I feel that the aim of the justice system must always be rehabilitation which the death penalty allows no possibility of and I am also opposed to life imprisonment for this reason.

I am completely opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as I think it is brutal and barbaric and has no place in modern society. I feel that the aim of the justice system must always be rehabilitation which the death penalty allows no possibility of and I am also opposed to life imprisonment for this reason.


While I think that there are those who you must realize are simply not candidates for rehabilitation (the Jeffrey Dalhmers of the world), I still maintain that sinking to the level of murder cheapens a country as it proves itself no better than those they convict.

I am completely opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as I think it is brutal and barbaric and has no place in modern society. I feel that the aim of the justice system must always be rehabilitation which the death penalty allows no possibility of and I am also opposed to life imprisonment for this reason.

I agree. I think there are actually very very few who can't be rehabilitated, sentencing someone to life imprisonment will give them no motivation to engage in the rehabilitation process.

The death penalty is abhorrant and doesn't belong in moderntimes. It reflects very badly on the society that conducts it with regards to base motives associated with revenge. It is effectively the action of the state endorsing killing.

I find it offensive that a certain prime country that is always highlighting other countries' human rights abuses is in fact one of the primary abusers itself. The fact is that when it comes to human rights, USA is in the bottom class category as Saudi Arabia, North Korea and China. It's made all the worse by the fact that USA is quite happy to saction the murder of offendants that were children when they committed an offence and also the mentally handicapped. One does not expect this of a country that claims to be the world's beacon of freedom and democracy.

The same faith and logic that leads me to be anti-abortion, also compels me to be opposed to the death penalty. The taking of life, any life, is wrong and immoral. What right do we have to answer murder with further death? Even in prison, some of these people have provided a positive benefit to society. Look at the dramatic change in the life of David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) and the positive influence he has had on countless lives.

http://www.forgivenforlife.com/

How would the void left by his death have been filled?

i noticed a lack of disussions about the im/morality of the death penalty & capital punishment on this forum, since i've been here. wondering what people think. good or bad; fair or wrong; deterrent or just cruel?

i don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent, because the numbers say it's not, but i also don't believe it is cruel. i believe there are several offenses for which a sentence of death would be just and fair. however, i also believe that modern legal systems are not yet accurate and fool-proof enough to use the death penalty.

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

No. The death penalty is never justified in any circumstance. And if revenge is used as justification, that's even more wrong. Should the victims lower themselves to the level of the killer because it might give them some short-term satisfaction?

I was just about to use that quote myself. So true.

And basically I agree with the rest of what you said aswell.

Though I'm not Catholic, I'm with the pope on this issue. The death penalty is only moral when a.) There is a strong chance of the person doing a crime again and b.) There is no prison system or the prison system is so ineffective that escape is imminent. In other words, if incarceration will not keep him from repeating his crime. A.) Happens a bit in America, but with our prison system, b.) never happens in America and rarely happens anywhere.

People who parrot "deterrence" are really simply covering up their real pernicious motives for supporting the death penalty. We all know why the death penalty is there: vengeance. People coul;dn't give a damn if the death penalty stopped a few crimes, they just want to see others suffer. Well, we have a word for that: sadism. Wasn't Jesus's teachings a complete rebuke of the concept of vengenace? Isn't America supposedly the most Christian country in the world? Why then does America perform the most executions of almost any country? So much for our christian moral high ground.

I believe that the death penalty would be less well suported if our sentencing and parole practices were overhauled. As it stands, a murderer given a life sentence in the US, could become eligible for parole within a few years, in some cases as few as 12. If a victim's family could be assured that "life" meant "life", they might not support death in order to assure themselves the killer would never regain his/her freedom.

I believe that the death penalty would be less well suported if our sentencing and parole practices were overhauled. As it stands, a murderer given a life sentence in the US, could become eligible for parole within a few years, in some cases as few as 12. If a victim's family could be assured that "life" meant "life", they might not support death in order to assure themselves the killer would never regain his/her freedom.
Now that I like.
I'm surprised I hadn't heard anyone suggest that before.

I am completely opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as I think it is brutal and barbaric and has no place in modern society. I feel that the aim of the justice system must always be rehabilitation which the death penalty allows no possibility of and I am also opposed to life imprisonment for this reason.
"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

No. The death penalty is never justified in any circumstance. And if revenge is used as justification, that's even more wrong. Should the victims lower themselves to the level of the killer because it might give them some short-term satisfaction?

Furthermore, is it right to give a government the power to kill its own citizens? Particularly for crimes such as "treason". How do you define that?
yay! we think alike :p

As a Christian I oppose the death penalty only for one reason: If someone has committed a crime severe enough to deserve death, then killing them without rehabiliting them would surely send them straight to hell. Whereas all of us deserve death from the very day we are born, God wishes to save everybody from imminent death and therefore killing someone who has killed someone else further short-circuits the intended schematic of the world.

Nevertheless murder is a very serious thing and I believe that even Christians who have killed someone in the life before they converted will have a lot to answer to God for in the afterlife, as a murderer is potentially sending someone to hell too.

Now that I like.
I'm surprised I hadn't heard anyone suggest that before.

It's logical if you observe our court and penal systems. If you haven't checked it out already, visit the link I provided to David Berkowitz's site. There is a link on there to the letters he wrote to officials and victims' families to turn down parole. He took special care to assure the family of one of the victims that he did not seek parole and felt he deserved to spend the rest of his life in jail. I can't say from first hand experience, but, were I in their position, the knowledge that he would be locked up forever would go a long way towards comforting me.

I am against the death penalty I believe killing another human with the sole intent of killing them is morally wrong. I do not believe that killing someone is justice.

I'm against the death penalty, because it will not bring the murderer's victims back to life if you kill the murderers too.
Also I think that it is morally wrong in common to take anyone's life against his will. And when a murderer behaves morally wrong, this doesn't give me the right to do the same, because then I would be a murderer too.

Now, it would be interesting to read the point of view of a christian who thinks that the death penalty is justified.

I am FOR the death penalty. Especially for very very very very henious crimes, where the defendent gets double,triple life sentences without any possible parol.

Might as well execute him. Unless our convicts do labour work in jail. :p

Now, it would be interesting to read the point of view of a christian who thinks that the death penalty is justified.

IMO, a true Christian appreciates the sanctity of life and wouldn't support the death penalty any more than they would support abortion. The OT prescribes execution for a number of offenses. The NT, however, gives conflicting views.

Genesis 4:11-15.

And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;...a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. (KJV)

Genesis 9:6:

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (KJV)

Here are some interesting numbers on the acceptability of the death penalty among various religions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm

hmm i wonder how many americans support the death penalty. its mostly Europeans on here at the mo, and its 63% against. will this change when (more of) the americans vote this eve?

hmm i wonder how many americans support the death penalty. its mostly Europeans on here at the mo, and its 63% against. will this change when (more of) the americans vote this eve?

I don't think so. When an execution is scheduled here in the US, the media and most people react with distaste. I have wondered why the issue of abolishing the death penalty hasn't appeared for vote in recent years and if it wouldn't succeed.

On the other hand, though, if given the option of the death penalty for Osama, I believe an overwhelming majority of Americans would be in favor of it. Crimes against children also seems to incite a blood lust in this country. I've even wished I could personally inflict a painful death on people who have hurt children. It's an issue complicated by emotions.

I don't think so. When an execution is scheduled here in the US, the media and most people react with distaste. I have wondered why the issue of abolishing the death penalty hasn't appeared for vote in recent years and if it wouldn't succeed.
Most polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm#Death) consistently show support for the death penalty inside the US. (Also one from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3649303)

I think that in certain cases, where guilt is undeniable, I support the use of the death penalty. The system and implementation needs to be reformed, though.

Most polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm#Death) consistently show support for the death penalty inside the US. (Also one from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3649303)

I think that in certain cases, where guilt is undeniable, I support the use of the death penalty. The system and implementation needs to be reformed, though.
hmm that Economist one is very interesting

Most polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm#Death) consistently show support for the death penalty inside the US. (Also one from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3649303)

I think that in certain cases, where guilt is undeniable, I support the use of the death penalty. The system and implementation needs to be reformed, though.

The results of that poll really surprised me. I would have expected a vastly different response. For myself, I can't accept that anyone has the right to impose death on another person. But, as I've stated, emotions, in some cases, lead me to a much less reasoned response.

I'm against the death penalty. Completely and totally. I even wrote an essay on the subject for my english class a few years ago: http://www.fictionpress.com/read.php?storyid=1732322

The death penalty takes you to the same level as the murderer (or worse since you recognise and care that killing is wrong) and I think life imprisonment is better. So long as life means life.

Let them rot in jail for the rest of their natural lives and don't let them escape what they've done. Also this means that if there's a chance they're innocent, they're still alive to benefit from that verdict. In my mind, the risk of executing an innocent person is nearly enough to make the death penalty immoral all on its own.

Plus Life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty, if you want to put prices on life.

I'm against the death penalty for two main reasons, i am a pacifist and i think life in prison is a bigger punishment. As has been mentioned, i think if someone commits a heinous crime they should have to spend the rest of their lives in little 5 by 8 cell forever living with what it is they did. They should have to go to bed every night and wake up every morning, knowing and remembering. I think killing them is giving them the easy way out in the sense that they don't have to stay here and deal with the consequences of their actions.

why not incarcerate these people - why must they be put to death? is (life) imprisonment not enough of a deterrent?

The death sentence is not a deterrent, but a punishment. Hence the latter half of the term "Capital Punishment."

Sorry if this has already been addressed but I haven't read the entire thread.

Capital punishment is an absolute moral travesty that should be banned globally.

I'm an American and totally and absolutely against the death penalty. It's immoral, barbaric, ineffective and discriminatory. My home state is no.1 and my current home is no. 2 in executions.

There are criminals that I don't think can be rehabilitated. Most sex offenders can't. Serial killers can't. But most others should be given this chance. The death penalty is about revenge, and the government has no business in satisfying the baser emotions of the populace.

I think imprisonment is too lax.Those that commit heinous crimes should be put in cells and not be allowed to leave except for showers.All their meals are eaten in the cell with their hands and they should get absolutely no privileges what so ever...no visits,books,rec times,lighting etc.

This might be a bigger deterrent than the death penalty as I would go crazy if I had to spend 23.5 hrs.a day in a cell with no stimulation.

Peace

I think imprisonment is too lax.Those that commit heinous crimes should be put in cells and not be allowed to leave except for showers.All their meals are eaten in the cell with their hands and they should get absolutely no privileges what so ever...no visits,books,rec times,lighting etc.

This might be a bigger deterrent than the death penalty as I would go crazy if I had to spend 23.5 hrs.a day in a cell with no stimulation.

Peace

That's just as inhumane as the death penalty. Besides, if they're innocent, they're now psychiatric basket cases.

I'm for the death penalty, even though I realize it's not a deterrent. I don't give a damn that it isn't; I support the death penalty because it is the only punishment worthy of the crime. If they are given life in prison, they can still think, feel, be happy, be sad, have fun, and simply enjoy life. Their victim can't.

The death penalty takes you to the same level as the murderer (or worse since you recognise and care that killing is wrong) and I think life imprisonment is better. So long as life means life.

Couldn't you also argue the same thing about kidnappers? We're falling to the same level as the kidnappers by putting them in prison. Imprisonment is wrong whether it's by a private citizen or the government.

BTW, I support the death penalty.

Criminals are the cancer you cut from the body of humanity, the virus you remove from the computer, the broken pieces you remove so that they can be replaced by new life.

Wasting resources on the wasted is pointless and stupid. At most, they'll become a functioning member of society... and then die. This could esily have been accomplished by starting anew with an innocent who has done no wrong.

The only exception is if you get an Einstein who is a serial killer. For them, and effort should be made to reform.

Unfortunately, capital punishment is not always sure that it kills the right person, and ergo, can't be used unless absolutely sure.

The arguement of killing people being wrong, however, is just stupid, as history clearly tells us.

I am opposed to the death penalty, because a) there is no foolproof way to establish guilt and b) I do not want to give the state the power to execute people under any circumstances.

The deterrent effect does not matter very much, either way, although I believe it exists.

That said, I think it is perfectly fair that people who are actually guilty of the crimes that would get you a death penality should be killed, for example to stop them when they are in the middle of commiting such a crime.

will there ever be a fool-proof method of determining someone's guilt?

why not incarcerate these people - why must they be put to death? is (life) imprisonment not enough of a deterrent?

The idea of life imprisionment works against the core ideal of what prision is suppose to represent, essentially, reform.. The reason why we incarserate criminals for extend periods of time, is because we are suppose to be reforming them.. if we realize an undeniable threat to society, which cannot be reformed, is it not more logical to terminate the threat, rather then spend exorbinant amounts of money to hid that threat away somewhere in a dark hole ?

Capital punishment does work as a deturrent, but should only be used for those cases in which reform is impossible.. HOWEVER, the system is SOO inefficent we spend more money trying to execute someone then we do imprisioning them for life.. And there is no 100% garantee they are guilty despite 20 years of appeal opprotunities.. To this note, capital punishment is improper.. unless the system was streamlined to attain a more cost effective process, and a more reasonably accurate trial process could be concoted, i dont see any justification for Capital punishment

Okay, here's what I think; call me crazy if you like.

I think the function of a system of punishment should be the same function as any other in a governement. The punishment system, the healthcare system, the tax system, the defense system, etc should all have the same purpose: the greatest good to the most and the least harm to the fewest.

Therefore, a criminal justice system should seek to rehabilitate criminals into productive members of society. In my opinion an effectively run and organized rehabilitation system should be able to cure anyone who is curable in 5 years. A prison sentence greater than this only serves to isolate people from society and turn them into career criminals and soceopaths.

Using prisons as a deterrent is not effective as it does not adress the social causes of crime and is not an effective deterrent to career criminals, those who are most dangerous to society.

Using prisons as "cold storage" i.e. putting people in for life sentences is pure hypocrisy. It is more cruel than the death penalty, fabulously expensive, and necessitates a prison system focused on containment rather than rehabilitation, all in service of blind idealism and semantics.

For those who are beyond rehabilitation (which with an effective prison system would be few) need to be removed from society as humanely as possible, capital punishment.

What if it is later discovered that a condemned person was innocent? Oops, that's a failure of the justice system not the penal system. It's a terrible tragedy but not a convincing argument against capital punishment.

The practice of capital punishment is not in itself barbaric. The reasons behind it have the potential to be barbaric or not. Executing felons out of revenge for their crimes (eye for an eye) is barbaric. Executing curable or not essentially sociopathic individuals is unneccessary and barbaric. Executing people without a fair and impartial trial is barbaric. Protecting society as a whole in the most humane and efficient way possible by executing incurable sociopaths is the most civilized, effective, and least hypocritical solution.

That being said, I am against the death penalty in the majority of the situations it is employed in the United States, as the US does not have a rehabilitation oriented penal system and executes felons on an eye-for-an-eye.

That's just my two-cents, feel free to disagree, but back up your reasons.

If it were a deterrent, people should have learned something out of it over the last centuries?

And - how many times a trial went wrong and the wrong person went to prison or was executed?


The death penalty is an incentive to kill witnesses.

I consider Freedom to be a greater (more cardinal) right than the right to life. I therefore consider the death penalty to be the more humane option as compared to life imprisonment (or even, any extremely extended imprisonment, I.E. effective life imprisonment).

If given the choice between never having a life of my own, and living in the conditions of a serious prison or taking a quick and painless injection and having it be all over with, I would gladly take the latter. Especially if I were innocent. The added anguish of being innocent and being punished constantly for many years (and living with that punishment til death, even if later freed) vs being punished once and it being over makes me even more supportive of it.

I think it's very important for the courts to do their job. I would be in support of a law that gave all violent offenders facing life the option of taking the death penalty instead.

Unfortunately, capital punishment is not always sure that it kills the right person, and ergo, can't be used unless absolutely sure.
And since absolute certainty is impossible, capital punishment should never be used.