[luke warm]

if i took the job (king of the world), which i wouldn't for this and other reasons, i'd have to take it seriously enough to know that my own personal beliefs might sometimes have to take a back seat to what i perceive or have been convinced is good for my subjects...

i don't believe in capital punishment for reasons others have stated, but as king i'd have to use it... the difference would be, if a person is found guilty of a capital offense he has an automatic appeal (unless he decides he doesn't want it)... the appeal is 1 month from the day of conviction... if found guilty again, he is shot

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Feb 19 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

As most of you can guess, I strongly oppose capital punishment

1.  I've seen no evidence that Capital Punishment has any deterrent effect

2.  If you execute someone by mistake there aren't any "take backs"

3.  Its abundantly clear that the US applies Capital Punishment in a discriminatory manner

4.  This is just my gut feeling, but I think that a lot of the Capital Punishment proponents are much more interested in posturing than costs and benefits

I understand that the family of victims want an "Eye for and Eye".  However, I like to think that we've out grown that sort of thing...

1. It certainly deters the one executed.
2. Yes, this is a problem. See below.
3. What the US does or does not do in applying the death penalty is not, in itself, a reason to support or oppose it.
4. With your #4, I can't agree more.

We (the human race) have unfortunately not outgrown "an eye for an eye", and it's looking like it'll be a long time before we do. That, of course, is also not in itself a reason to support or oppose the death penalty.

My own position arises thusly: No one has a right to take another human life, save in self-defense or defense of others. No group (including a government or a society) has rights beyond the rights of the individuals that comprise the group. Therefore no government has a right to execute anyone for any crime whatsoever.

There is a dilemma though. How do you prevent someone who has shown such disregard for the rights of others as to commit this most serious of crimes from doing it again? In the olden days of small isolated communities (and thus, small isolated groups), you could just drive him out. These days that just means he becomes someone else's problem - and that's not a very good solution. The only viable alternative, so far as I can see, is to isolate him permanently from the rest of humanity. That means solitary confinement until the day he dies. It's expensive - and why should we ask the members of our society to (voluntarily, mind you - taking money by force is just as wrong as taking a life, even for the government) pay to keep the son of a bitch alive? OTOH, it does solve problem 2 - if you make a mistake, you can "take it back", sort of. At least you can set him free with an "oops, sorry about that" in his pocket.

[Impact]

If you take out the concept of revenge - the reason for imprisoning people is protection of society from actions which that society has determined to be antithetical to the society.

Imprisonment comes at a very considerable economic cost in a humane society.

In a real sense the "strongest" argument for capital punishment is economic: if it costs more per prisoner than social welfare is it justifiable?

Of course, the next step takes you into moral territory: how much is any life worth?

Put simply, there is a myriad of arguments against capital punishment, including inter alia,:-

1. certainty in terms of the conviction of the offender (if you got it wrong there is no coming back unless you are either a believer in reincarnation or a messiah and the latter have been a trifle rare and non-recurring);

2. lack of evidence that it leads to deterrence (most studies I have seen suggest the reverse or at least a coincidental relationship between crime and capital punishment but of course if you want to be cynical you can reflect on the nature of the authors of such learned works and the likelihood that they proceeded with their research from a predetermined position);

3. reluctance in our Western societies to take life other than by way of self-defence (note this does not extend to all societies and suggests alternative mindsets which offer alternative solutions based on the nature of the society or its prevailing mores, so Western answers are not universal);

4. aligned with each of the above the importance of the individual and his (generic) unique quality - which gives rise to individual rights and the importance of the individual - again something which is not shared by all societies.

I am amused to reflect that those who frequently support capital punishment are also theoretically in favour of individual rights, while many of those who oppose capital punishment base their arguments on a "social basis".

In my view it is all about the extent to which freedom of an individual is sacrificed to the requirements of the society.

My pact with society is for it to offer me protection but to make minimal invasive moves to restrict my personal freedoms.

Where any individual draws his line or what is to be regarded as antithetical to any society will always occasion great debate as it is rare for many to draw the line in the same place.

While a society can afford to maintain a utopian view it should...but is or should even a simple majority be sufficient to change the position?

If not, where do you draw the line?

If the society "cannot afford" to maintain the position do they reduce the conditions of the imprisoned to reduce the economic burden or resort to capital punishment?

If the former, is it for all those imprisoned (the harsher conditions)?

Of such things is philosophy composed....

mid-script: mikeh has composed a number of similar arguments above since I commenced this note (but was so rudely interrupted by work, a 4 letter word)

[helene_t]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 19 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

we could become humane and spend the same time and money on determining why they do these things and figuring out how to avoid these tragic eventualities. I

Sorry to say it Al but this is psychobable. Mikeh's reference to The Blank Slate is the realistic answer.

[Al_U_Card]

Fortunately, Helene, the sad truth will not stop me from seeing and expressing what is clearly the right thing to do.

[Winstonm]

To me the overwhelming argument against capital punishment is the finality - after the execution, it is too late to reverse course when the executed is found to have been innocent of the original crime.

As for taking a life, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough.

[jdonn]

sceptic, on Feb 19 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

Quote

So if it was a 20 year old he battered then he wouldn't deserve to die? And if it was only 2 days of abuse? And more importantly, who is judging these things! I hope it's not you.

That is not what I am saying and you well know it

Quite the opposite, it still seems like exactly what you were saying. You said the guy deserves to die because his victim was so young and was abused for so long. That is the same as saying other killers would not deserve to die if they had older victims who hadn't been abused as long, and would also mean we need people to decide what is young enough and how long (and bad) of abuse is enough.

Don't post something then try to hide from it! Your emotional response do your very claim about this killer (get real, the bastard deserves to die) makes it evident exactly what you meant.

sceptic, on Feb 19 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

Quote

And I don't want to hear we don't need it

well that is what I call openminded discussion

You're right, I should stick to more open minded tidbits like "you think [blah blah blah]? get real the bastard deserves to die" and "shall we leave it all to GOD? BS". Sorry but I could care less about the thoughts on this entire topic from the person who made the most despicable post in forums history which was also about killing people, a rather disgusting 'solution' to world overpopulation that thankfully the moderators quickly removed.

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 19 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

Fortunately, Helene, the sad truth will not stop me from seeing and expressing what is clearly the right thing to do.

If your view is that the nature of man (sorry, no gender bias intended) is mutable... that a better social environment, better schooling, equitable treatment of all children etc can equip all children with the ability to prefer non-violent action, then you are falling into the same trap that led the Bolsheviks into Stalinism, the Chinese into the Cultural revolution, and many other unfortunate human experiments.

I learned (and I don't think it was rote learning) of some of the fallacies of utopian philosophies years ago, but The Blank Slate to which I have earlier referred widened my understanding of the science that proves the fallacies. Human nature is NOT merely a product of environment, no matter how fervently one might wish it were. There are evolutionary explanations for character traits and behavourial patterns that sometimes end in physical violence, including murder. And this is leaving out the consequences of mental and emotional damage resulting from genetic or other damage in the womb, or from exposure to substance or emotional abuse after birth, etc.

And it is worse than naive to stubbornly persist in holding true to a belief which, when put into practice, wreaks havoc on its subjects.

While I have not read the book 'As Nature Made Him', I have read enough about the book, and, elsewhere, about the subject of the book to understand that his experience was merely one tragic example of what happens when people with power put into practice the 'blank slate' theory of human nature.

'Doing the right thing' is NOT a justification for being intentionally ignorant of the truth.

[matmat]

there is only one thing wrong with capital punishment, and that is that we do not eat the deceased afterward. I don't mind killing, so long as it is to satisfy one of the basic needs, such as feeding ourselves.

[helene_t]

I'll mention that option in my organ-donor file, Mat. Tx for reminding me.

[Al_U_Card]

mikeh, on Feb 19 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 19 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

Fortunately, Helene, the sad truth will not stop me from seeing and expressing what is clearly the right thing to do. 

'Doing the right thing' is NOT a justification for being intentionally ignorant of the truth.

Well, ignoring the "truth" is not the same as being ignorant of the truth, as you well know, Mike.

That I choose a stand based on personal preference is certainly my prerogative, as long as I am willing to live with the consequences...

[kenrexford]

matmat, on Feb 19 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

there is only one thing wrong with capital punishment, and that is that we do not eat the deceased afterward. I don't mind killing, so long as it is to satisfy one of the basic needs, such as feeding ourselves.

Soylent Green? Weird.

On a different note...

Although I find the issue of capital punishment to be interesting, I find it annoying that people have such very strong opinions on a topic that concerns so very little numbers of people, most of whom fail to qualify as "people" in any way that is worthy of that term, but fail to get as excited by the failings of criminal justice in hundreds of thousands of cases where the damage is so much more profound.

I'd be willing to venture that for every one person wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death (in twenty-odd years or so), you will be able to fill a courtroom with people wrongfully convicted of non-capital offenses and incarcerated for the same twenty years, deprived of the most sacred aspects of life that make life worth living. For every single individual negatively impacted by disparate treatment in the handing out of death sentences you will find a millenium of time served beyond that which is fair and equitable by folks who were treated in a disparate manner as to their sentence. For every misunderstood animal who slips through the cracks and ends up eating the flesh of his slaughtered prostitutes you will find thousands of lost dreams and ruined chances caused by young adults not yet equipped to make rational life choices.

Imagine an enormous field. To the West, you see a thousand rabid animals waiting to be put to death. To the East, you see a hundred thousand men who have hope and dreams and potential but who are shackled by disproportionate reaction to juvenile indiscretions and socio-economic failings. What do you do?

I'll try to stop the animals being put down, but only after I have saved the men.

[P_Marlowe]

sceptic, on Feb 19 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

<snip>
How can you outgrow a desire for vengance if someone has raped and mutilated your baby...
<snip>

There is a reason, why victims are not allowed
to be the judge in a criminal case.

[jdonn]

I haven't twisted anything, everything is there for everyone to read. If I'm twisting your words then answer this, if someone shoots me today (I'm 25 years old) without abusing me at all and I die instantly, do they deserve the death penalty? If not, why not?

You sure complain a lot about something you claim doesn't offend you.

[Apollo81]

Against. Killing is wrong. The ends don't justify the means.

[Al_U_Card]

Would I use deadly force to protect myself or my loved ones (or an innocent victim) from a homicidal (in my estimation) aggressor? Yes I would.

Would I sentence him to death after he had killed my loved (or innocent) one? No I would not.

Preservation of life trumps destruction of life, every time.

[helene_t]

sceptic, on Feb 20 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

yup thats true, but the world would be a better place if they were allowed to put forward a case for the sentancer to take into consideration

Victims can be witnesses. I don't see any reason why they would be heard beyond that, except maybe in cases such as domestic violence where the criminal may pursue so the same victim in the future.

After all, the ones who have stakes in punishment are potential future victims of the same criminal, or of other potential criminals who might be deterred from committing by the thread of punishment.

The idea that victims have an interest in revenge just for the sake of it is widespread but I think it's completely irrational. I suppose most (all?) countries' criminal codes are partially based on that idea. I would prefer that not to be the case. Richard puts this simpler: we should have grown beyond the eye-for-an-eye mentality.

[Al_U_Card]

Not quite. I am saving a life (at least) and the individual in question still has time to desist so there can be no comparison or similarity.

btw, the greatest encouragement to personal change? Having something in common with "little dick"

[kenberg]

From the discussion it seems apparent that there are quite a few of us who would take capital punishment off the list of possible penalties but who do not think "Capital punishment is bad, end of discussion".

It's possible to be comfortable with the idea of executing the truly vicious and to still think that probably the issues involved in getting it right are too daunting, so we accept life imprisonment as the better choice.

I think that it is important for the punishment to be set, and for it to stick, soon after the guilty verdict is delivered. There will of course be some who believe, quite possibly reasonably in my opinion, the the SOB should at least be shot and maybe drawn and quartered. But if the penalty is the maximum that the law provides, and it is certain and is truly life imprisonment, I think most families of victims will be prepared to accept thisI.

I feel it is important to acknowledge that as someone who has not experienced such a tragedy I may not know what I am talking about.

[Al_U_Card]

Not THAT little dick.....Cheney is Big Dick and "W" is little dick.

Did you know that G.H.W. Bush was known as Prescott's idiot son? Looks like that bloodline is headed nowhere fast...

btw self-defense is recognized as not being murder even if the attacker is killed. There is a good reason for that. Something to do with rubber and glue, I gather...