Politics Capital Punishment/Death Penalties Debate

[blai]

Capital Punishment/Death penalties.

Do you accept it, or are you against it?

To be clearer: Can you see good or bad outcomes of this? Both? Also, if you're pro capital punishment, where do you draw the line between lifelong sentence and DP, and if you're against, what should happen with the prosecuted instead?

I have my own opinion in this matter but I rather wait for a debate to start before getting involved because it's easier for me to express myself in that way, therefore I apologize for not posting my personal thoughts regarding this in my topic.

 

[Charlie]

Well, I received summons for jury duty several times and twice it involved a case where the defendant killed someone. The Judge asked, If anyone was against handing out capital punishment (Death Penalty). I raised my hand because I was against it.

I don't really have anything against those who are for it, but for me... I don't want to have the death of someone hanging over my head forever.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

First, some logical points against Death Sentence:
-The monetary costs of a death sentence is higher than of an average life imprisonment
-misjudgements are unreversable from a certain point on
-huge moral issue, necessary debate all the time if death sentence exists
-it's a huge burden for judges and executors

My personal point:
I've a favorite example why I think that such punishment is absolutely wrong:
I guess most of you know a (usually fictional) story of a person with a full amnesia. The main character doesn't remember anything and starts living without prejudices and is a helpful, friendly member of society.
Then, some day, he is identified as having commited a murder (or other major crime) before the amnesia.
Usually everyone reading this story will have the opinion that the person does not deserve punishment at all, since his mind is totally unrelated to the crime because it's been "reset" since the amnesia. There is no guilt to that person's mind, which would suffer from the punishment, only his "body" commited the crime but bodys don't get punished. Punishing the body would be like attempting to punish a fallen tree for having smashed a car.

Ok, now usually criminals don't get amnesias like that and I don't mean to suggest to attempt to delete their minds. What I wanted to show is only the most extreme case of getting rid of guilt.
However, our society and legal system (speaking of Germany here though it's the same for most countries) is based on the logical assumption that the human mind is possible to change. Someone beeing always told "Every foreigner is our enemy and deserves to die" since birth can easily be influenced, but can change as well, for example. That person's character is formed by one-sided information and might change once he gains more information.
Final punishment (death sentence) would denie any possibility of changing for some.

A murderer who truly changed might regret his crime and become a different character than the one commiting the murder, just like the person with an amnesia. Punishment would be futile then because it wouldn't be a punishment for the character commiting the crime anymore.
So the assumption of people beeing able to change is closely related to the need of offering every criminal the possibility of changing and redeeming themselves. Death sentence would be a direct accusation to a person that it would be absolutely unable to change.

My opinion also bases on the thought that people are beeing shaped by their background and social surroundings and do not choose their own character and way of thinking. Social drama defines the thug as a sick person, made ill by his social background. People in an environment where trust is seen as weakness will easily become people who don't trust others anymore for example, what can easily result in a wicked character and twist the person's way of thinking in a way that he won't be able to seperate right and wrong anymore.

Well, I know that this mentality allone can't result in a working legal system since it's impossible to totally understand a person's mind and things like regret aren't measurable but fakeable. Still, death sentence totally clashes with those ideas I just listed and is totally wrong in my mind.
I rather stick to the idea "I'ld rather let go of a hundred criminals than punishing one innocent", short version of the presumption of innocence which is base for legal systems compatible to human rights.

 

[redcometfm]

How is the monetary expense greater than letting them live?
And please provide sources.

 

[Charlie]

These situation are not always easy to judge from an outsiders point of view, dealing with crimes or the resulting punishment's like death penalties, that stem from the cause of that, etc.

Although circumstance and situations may vary with various incidents, deciding to take someone life or being involved in ( deciding - like in a jury ) it is a huge deal. At least for me. Again I'm not against capital punishment, I just dont want to be involved in deciding or a deciding party in such an ordeal.

Different people will give different opinions, thats how society works.

 

[Drmke]

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty. I hate the idea of killing someone regardless of their crimes. The thought of someone's life ending, especially if I was on the jury that convicted the person, almost makes me sick to my stomach, however, I do see beneficial aspects to it.

I really, REALLY hate to be this guy, but the most beneficial aspect to a state (or country) using the death penalty is simply cost. When people are sentence to life in prison, they almost always deserve to spend their life in those (hopefully) awful conditions BUT it is murder on tax payers, especially when the prisons are filled with people serving similar sentences. If someone has willfully taken another's life and has received life in prison without parole, it only makes sense to just put them on death row. I hate the idea like I stated, but, especially in America with how far in debt we are, the benefits of the government paying less money to support criminals who are never gonna get out anyway just makes the death penalty seem like the proper course of action.

Again, I too hate the idea of killing someone else, and I'm sure many of you will disagree but that's just how I feel about it.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

How is the monetary expense greater than letting them live?
And please provide sources.

Source German Wikipedia:

Spoiler

They themselves state this as their source: http://www.deathrow-usa.us/FaktenTodesstrafeUSA.pdf
"In states such as the USA, where there is a constitutionial requirement for capital crimes as well, the real costs of a death penality process are higher than those of a life imprisonment in average. Main reason are the duration of the lawsuit and process costs in case of succesfull defense of capital criminals. For example there is special care in examination of demands on death penalty. Also there are special appellate bodies and possibilities of retrials for death penalty trials to avoid missjudgement"
(and, to add this freely, there still are known missjudgements although there are special instances to examine every case more precisely)
Makes sense to me and I heard it from different sources already. Costs of the process simply are much higher since there are special instances required to minimize chances of missjudgement. Also, of course, it requires special staff and "tools" to execute the punishment.

Source http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 (found via english wikipedia entry):
Actually they have quite an interesting text there as they partially referr to official studies.
This one isn't official but I guess LA Times isn't a bad source:

Los Angeles Times Study Finds California Spends $250 Million per Execution (2005)
-The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.)
-It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.

For rough comparison, imprisonment in germany costs around 30.000$ a year, guess the expenses here shouldn't be too far away from US standards. The number is approximately as old as that report.
With additional costs of 90.000$ per inmate in death row, it's four times as expansive as a usual inmate regarding to those LA Times numbers. Given that inmates in death row often are imprisoned for a long long time, they will most likely often be at least imprisoned 1/4 of the time of someone with a life imprisonment what would equalize the costs of imprisonment only... not to mention all those additional things like extra trials and instances and so on.

 

[steelwingcrash1]

I really like to watch crime-fighting hosting channels in TV. I like the portions where forensic investigators discover the killer/perpetrator of a certain crime (like murder). Most often than not, when the judge's verdict sentences the killer to death penalty, I feel a little glee deep within me - probably the contentment of seeing a murderer be brought to justice.

I don't know... but I feel glad whenever the judge declares a death penalty. My God, am I a sadist? I guess that gives away my point - I am in favor of death penalties.

Why? Because we want to "teach" future perpetrators a lesson not to commit any more crimes in the land. I know its harsh, but only through punishment will those kinds of stubborn people learn.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

I don't know... but I feel glad whenever the judge declares a death penalty. My God, am I a sadist? I guess that gives away my point - I am in favor of death penalties.

Why? Because we want to "teach" future perpetrators a lesson not to commit any more crimes in the land. I know its harsh, but only through punishment will those kinds of stubborn people learn.

However, especially for capital crimes deterrence does not work.
A murderer doesn't think about it like "for 20 years I'll kill him, for 25 years maybe, and for death penality I won't", that's not how a crime works. It's not about logics at all.

Also, I thought most people would've gotten that information from the genre of the social drama already, it's not like a criminal choses his character, rather most can be seen as "degenerated" by their circumstances imo. They rather need a treatment than beeing killed.

My opinion on this still is, that the goal should be to give even criminals the chance to change themselves. As I posted in an earlier post here, I'm absolutely sure that it is the best way.
At the same time, I can understand vigilante justice as well as long as it hits the right person. It's a totally different thing if someone takes direct revenge or if an overpowering governmental body orders a punishment.

Furthermore I guess that all those demands for death penalty actually only are made to achieve revenge. Nothing else than that. And I don't think that revenge has a good place in society, just look what it turned the middle east into, and Afghanistan, and Iraq. It doesn't work well, it doesn't improve the situation. It's an immature, obsolete and archaic concept these days in my opinion.

 

[steelwingcrash1]

My opinion on this still is, that the goal should be to give even criminals the chance to change themselves. As I posted in an earlier post here, I'm absolutely sure that it is the best way.
At the same time, I can understand vigilante justice as well as long as it hits the right person. It's a totally different thing if someone takes direct revenge or if an overpowering governmental body orders a punishment.

It's not like I totally disagree with you; but, should the opportunity to change still be given when it's already too late? In my opinion, the chance for a change has already been given to them beforehand. They once had a chance - or a choice - to commit a crime or not.

By the way, crimes which are punishable by death penalty are heavy crimes (like murder, for instance). Of course, minor crimes like stealing and are not to be punished by such (that's wrong for me.) I am referring to heavy crimes.

For me, the government is only doing its part to ensure a crime-free community. I know, capital punishment is killing someone, but the grounds for killing that someone is a justifiable act. If this is the means for warning future criminals to step back and know their place, then I agree with the government's decision.

 

[k-dom]

I think that it's been proven by many studies that death penalty does not help in reducing crimes. Murder and awfull crimes will always occur whatever the sanction is. Hence I rather see the suppression of death penalty as a demonstration of the evolution of a society wrt moral issue.
nowadays, most of us consider slavery or torture immoral whereas they where not a few hundred years ago. The same think will happen with Death penalty

PS : I didn't do it on purpose but Robert Badinter (the minister of justice when France abolished death penalty) used the same argument

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Reminds me of a point I derivated from this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOCUH7TxHRI

It's about the ability of emphathy, how it developes in growing children, where empathy is located in our brain and how it affects our judgements.
So, it contains a study:

Spoiler

Scenario: Grace and her husband visit a factory. She makes a coffee for her husband, and:
Situation 1: She finds a white powder labelled "Sugar" next to the coffee machine and puts it into her husband's coffee. The powder is sugar.
Situation 2: She finds a white powder labelled "Sugar" next to the coffee machine and puts it into her husband's coffee. The powder is poison, and he dies.
Situation 3: She finds a white powder labelled "Poison" next to the coffee machine and puts it into her husband's coffee. The powder is sugar, so he isn't harmed.

People were supposed to vote how much blame Grace deserves in each case, on a scale of 1 (little) to 7 (a lot), the average results were:
Scenario 1 (she thinks it's sugar and it is sugar): 1
Scenario 2 (accidentially kills him): 3
Scenario 3 (attempts to kill him, but fails): 6

During the tests of scenario 2 (Grace thinks she puts sugar into her husband's coffee, but it is poison), a special region of the brain associated with empathy was checked for activity (the region is called RTPJ). That graph showing the coherence of RTPJ activity and judgement how much grace should be blamed, is shown at 10:45:
People with low RTPJ response said that Grace should be blamed more in average. The higher the RTPJ response, the less the person blamed Grace for the accident.

This means: High RTPJ activity means, that the person judges an action more based on the intention of the action, and less on the outcome.
Low RTPJ activity means, that the person judges an action more based on the outcome, and less on the intention behind it.

Also, another test was done. This time, a strong magnetic pulse disrupted the probands' RTPJ. The average results (How much blame does Grace deserve, on a scale of 1-7):
Scenario 1 (Everything is fine): 1
Scenario 2 (Accidentially kills him): 4
Scenario 3 (failed attempt to kill him): 5

So, when the RTPJ is disrupted, people indeed do pay less attention to Grace's intention, but more on the outcome of her actions, when asked for how much they blame her

So, to bring in a link to the discussion about death penalty:
I have the feeling that people pro death penalty rather judge a crime on the outcome. They will say things like "Such a disgusting crime has to have suitable consequences" and so on.
On the other hand, contra death sentence rather argues focussed on the criminal: "There might be a motive/reason behind this" for example.
There have been quite a few cases of questionable death sentences in the past, where it seemed like the criminal's motives or other reasons were left out.

However, my point: Could it be that people pro death sentence -in average- lack empathy, and possibly have an underdeveloped brain region (RTPJ) for this?

 

[steelwingcrash1]

Well, it's not like we have underdeveloped brains for this. For me, it's a matter of regulating the society into what is right. I know it contradicts my belief of life preservation as a Christian, but I can't help think that no matter how many times we put their cases off, they'll always commit the same crime over and over again.

For me, the government (in my country, that is) should pursue its law of capital punishment. In that way, at least a small number of crimes would be lessened.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Just recently there was a huge article about norwegian prisons and their extremely liberal penal system - which produces terrific results!

So, the concept is: There are camps made to accustom criminals to a normal live, for example on an island (Bastøy) which served as a prime example in the article. The Island looks like this:
-Prisoners from normal prisons can apply to go to the camp after they were in prison for a while alredy
-There are approx. 100 prisoners
-There are some guardians, too, but they don't wear uniforms and are completely unarmed
-The prisoners may do as they please, or rather: Have to. There is no force to them. They can work normally, have a supermarket, a gym and stuff, but have to organize themselve themselves completely.
-There is no fence or something like that. The island is extremely close to the coast and escaping would be absolutely no problem. There even is a ferry bringing prisoners to the coast when they for example have to buy something which isn't available on the island. The ferry itself is also operated by prisoners.

Results: Not a single prisoner has tryed escaping so far - and there were really extreme guys on there, like racist murderers and so. A noteworthy amount of prisoners gave up on living there and wanted to get back to prison actually! Simply because they were absolutely unable to lead a normal life...

1/3rd of all Norwegian prisons follow a similar open concept like Bastøy. Of prisoners who spend the rest of their punishment in Bastøy, only 16% commited another crime after serving their sentence. In all of Norway the average quota is 20%. In Germany, as a comparison, the quota is 50%!

 

[Day]

@steelwingcrash1 I somehow doubt that it would decrease the number of crimes - maybe slightly, but only just.

I've recently read a newspaper article regarding this and the cost that goes into keeping prisons running. To be honest, I'm divided on the subject. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of killing someone (i.e. death penalties) no matter what they have done - jail for life to me, seems more fit. But if I put my shoes into a victim's family, I can't even imagine how they must feel. Perhaps the feeling of wanting a death penalty for the murderer would exist, who knows. At the same time, I think a person's life shouldn't be decided by some monetary value or what society believes to be 'Justice'. Divided.​

 

[HegemonKhan]

Unfortunately, I can't remember the authors' names, but they were on C-span quite some time ago now, lol.

(I'm going off of memory as best I can so much of this may be incorrect)

the husband was convicted of murder and served a very long sentence on death row, his wife went to law school, and eventually got him freed, though both were quite old by then. the husband learned law as well while being imprisoned, and after he got out, they both write this book together that explored the science and history of the death penalty and especially Americans' love of the death penalty.

I can't remember the book title, or their/the authors names, unfortunately, grrr. they were on c-span though for like the book tv program c-span does on sat-sun.

----

anyways, they found that the science of it goes all the way back to animals and their social groups. if an animal deviates from the group/pack, the group/pack of animals literally tears it to shreds (kills it) or banishes it/chases it out of the group/pack.

we see the same thing with us humans, with our society, those who deviate from our group (society), are ruthlessly attacked by society, branded as criminals and severly punished or killed.

and Americans (as a country) really enjoy/believe in the death penalty. but i can't remember what they said on why if they said why, as they want you to buy and read their book, lol.

they of course argue that since humans are no longer a small group/pack of animals desperately trying to survive, that we should do away with the death penalty, as why do we feel the need to kill, especially when they could be wrongly convicted/innocent, especially with all the prosecutors and/or cops who don't care about truth, and just want to get re-elected (Mike Nifong) or their own glory/fame/reputation/status/etc.

----------------

for me personally, *IF* the person is guilty of a crime that merits death, I got no problem with it, as nature ain't forgiving either, you mess up with nature and it kills you, the world and nature has no problems handing out "death penalties" when you mess up with it, so dishing out death doesn't bother me, as long as the person *IS* actually guilty of the heinous crime.

and also, I feel that imprisonment is completely inhumane (not that I have an alternative solution though). Diablo game: "No man should ever be caged". All life is about freedom, freedom of movement, caging life is the most evil thing you can do to life, be it animal* or human.

*if the animal is going extinct and you're trying to reverse/save it, than zoos/caging is acceptible, obviously as your trying to save it.

 

[faintsmile1992]

The death penalty is useful as long as its used responsibly, which its less likely to be when the media are involved in a publicised case.

I do however feel contempt for the sort of hypocritical fuckers who jump on the bandwagon of executing murderers, they're just an undignified lynch mob IMO. Anyone who calls for the blood of someone else who hasn't done any harm to them or their loved ones, usually before they're found guilty don't forget, is no different to a murderer themselves. And when people televise this shit like they do in America, the good people at home get the thrill of taking part in a murder by proxy, like people play sports by proxy if they watch sports on television.

Quoth Ayn Rand, before she started writing that stupid libertarian stuff:

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...

This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."

 

[Josef]

It is all to satisfy the majority, the sheer blood lust which dates from out primitive mind, I agree with Rand here to a degree, that primitive instinct is one thing but there is also the way they will appear to the others, generally you would think a man asking for the death of a serious criminal or murderer is a good man, a kind man, a good person, it's that "fame" that these people who are called the majority get, their social status, their role in society is greater. All those "The people vs (insert random name here)" are there for that goal, to gang up on someone who is a social outcast with making themselves look good.

Actually that does not prove that they are good, it does prove they are just as "guilty" as the murderer/criminal calling for the murder of another man, but it does not matter, as this is just one way to keep the fear floating, dangerous looking people on TV, it causes fear into a "normal" household or to a "normal" person, in actuality if these people are "moral" such a thing would not even be of interest to them. It's just a way to distract from other things that matter.

Well I also look at this form another perspective as well, that way I form my opinion, what is the goal of killing a person who has killed? Killing will only lead to more killing. If he is locked on an island somewhere, no chance to swim to dry land, plus he is in the basement or somewhere totally isolated within the prison (count of Monte Cristo) what are are the chances for him to escape? Seriously that is the worst thing that would happen if they do not kill the person, him to escape and repeat the act, it just shows how "safe" and "secure" the prisons are.

 

[Zeltrax]

Well..there's always the pros and the cons.
In singapore, murder always results in a dead sentence unless it is not deliberate.

What I think are the pros:
-Paying for their crime...they took someone's life..a life can never brought back.
-An example for the rest.
-Useful for people that will never change, even after serving sentence, after release they still will be sick.

The cons:
-Never get to repent even if wanted to.
-Never get the chance to change.
-Guilt that will follow maybe even after death.
-Pain and sadness of friends and family.
-It costs more.

Obviously there's more cons than there are pros. But can we say the same for people who are sick in the mind and who really, really does not deserve to live? But then.. who decides whether that person standing there deserves to live? No one can really say.
You guys are right about the judge and the jury and the burden.
Makes me think whether judges walk out of courtroom thinking that they carried out justice and rightfully sent a person to be executed and in doing so, they feel superior.

Anyway, went off topic. I side against "a long sentence" instead of "execution".
But it's not enough. Counselling, psychological counselling, etc must be given. Their mindset must change. They must really learn and repent.

 

[k-dom]

Obviously there's more cons than there are pros. But can we say the same for people who are sick in the mind and who really, really does not deserve to live? But then.. who decides whether that person standing there deserves to live? No one can really say.

Actually that was a huge debat recently in France, can we consider a person mentally sick guilty. Currently, the law discharge you and you are put in a mental institute instead. Following some terrible news items, Sarkozy wanted to change the law so that even mad people can be considered guilty (ie go to prison). I'm not sure if it was followed in the end.

Note : by mentally sick i mean real disease like schizophrenia or similar