The death penalty. It's time for another look.

a reply to: charles1952
Thanks for the comments and your experience/perspective, I will check out the link. I think as you have pointed out the concept of some mistakes being made is fact of a system run by people no matter how well meaning. There have been capital mistakes made and that is unacceptable..its too big of a mistake. I dont know that its worth the risk of killing an innocent man..even if its a small risk. I think there are a few good reasons to avoid the death penalty.
Just mho
Cheers

a reply to: thesmokingman

this is an extremely primitive way of thinking.

I suppose you would also argue that answer to the genocide going on in the middle east is more genocide?

This kind of logic is exactly what's gotten us into such a disharmonic state globally.

WE have to shift the way in which we delegate such authorative powers...

we should also consider how the death penalty degrades the relative value of human life...

a reply to: th3dudeabides



You imply that you are somehow better then those of us who SUPPORT the death penalty. Let me guess, you are against the second amendment, have an Obamaphone in your pocket, and long term unemployment checks from the government?

I agree with some of the other posters here: the death should be made public. Put it on PBS and charge $5 a head to get in. You could make a little $$ for the bullets or to sharpen the blade or buy new rope..... And at the same time you show criminals there ARE consiquenses for their actions.

a reply to: charles1952

Hello Charles, To me, vengeance is revenge with no concern for justice.
The never ending battles in the Middle East, for instance, are fueled by an increasing cycle of vengeance. This makes justice that much difficult.
More later.

a reply to: charles1952

"If it became a deterrent, perhaps you'd approve?"

If I saw it as a deterrent, then its harm to society would decrease. But I am still convinced of its failure as a deterrent to future crimes.

"You also seem to be saying that you're willing to dispense with justice if you believe it results in more harm than good."

Let me say that I am never willing to dispense with justice. Any measure that results in more harm than good is inherently unjust. Now by justice I don't mean the specific code of law as it is legislated. I mean a personal moral standard of right from wrong. A law that is morally compromised is unjust.

My belief is that no man should have the right to take anothers life.

a reply to: charles1952

Hello again Charles,

"So, at least in these expert's minds, talking about the death penalty and deterrence doesn't have any scientific backing. Maybe it does deter, maybe it doesn't, maybe it does neither. If the argument is that the death penalty should be opposed because it doesn't deter, then the argument is wrong. Same with the death penalty does deter."

The death penalty is often presented by its supporters as being a deterrent to crime. Since that is not the case, at least in these experts' minds (one way or the other), then this claim should be abandoned. After all, I have not made the case that it is a stimulant to crime.

One more point. Take a country like the Netherlands, for example. I am guessing that you would agree that their rejection of the death penalty is reasonable, just, and appropriate for their society. Now is our embrace of the death penalty equally just for us? How can such a dichotomy be perfectly balanced?

a reply to: mwood

"5. Where do you get your figures for this statement? Data I found states that since 1977 there have been 1,385 executions in the USA, no record of how many had something go wrong."

In 2014 alone there have been 5-6 executions by lethal injection that have been problematic. Last year the drug that had been used routinely was removed from availability by the British drug maker when they discovered what we were using it for. Then the states sought alternative, less effective drugs, which were soon removed for the same reason. Then the states sought U.S. combining pharmacies to concoct new regimens. The last three executions have used similar cocktails
of questionable drugs that were developed for therapeutic reasons. The most recent execution took almost 2 hours for death occur.
And the year is only half over.

originally posted by: lonweld
I agree with some of the other posters here: the death should be made public. Put it on PBS and charge $5 a head to get in. You could make a little $$ for the bullets or to sharpen the blade or buy new rope..... And at the same time you show criminals there ARE consiquenses for their actions.

You and anyone else who thinks like this is a Sadist and the last people in the world that should ever have any authority over other People's Lives. You are not only trying to make a "Just" argument for having the State Murder it's own people but want to broadcast it, profit off of it and take pleasure from it too.

Capital Punishment has been shown over and over to NOT reduce capital crimes at all and depending upon the data may even increase them.

Our Justice System is flawed in more ways than one and is incredibly biased. It is also not applied equally for everyone and is also corrupt and influenced heavily by money and changing political agenda.

Our Justice System is also not about Justice but about Law and Order, which are not the same.

It is against the Idea of having a Government which was established to Protect the People and ensure their Liberty to have that same Government also tasked with Murdering it's own People.

Once captured and removed from society a person is no longer a threat to the populous and therefore Murdering them is not needed. The argument about the cost to the taxpayer is not an issue, unless you agree that the price of Human life is also something that can be decided by the State as well. That too would also fly in the face of having a Government that Protects it's people and ensures their Liberty as well.

Emotionally and philosophically someone convicted of a horrible crime may deserve capital punishment from the victims or other peoples perspective. However The State shouldn't be governed by Emotions such as Remorse, Anger, Hate, Love, etc. It should be ruled by Reason and Logic from a neutral position. If not neutral then leaning in favor of the protection of Human Rights, but never the opposite.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Dear Mr. Smoker, I believe that nothing surpasses justice. And to me justice means deterrence. No sanction is worthwhile if it does not reduce crime. Otherwise, please tell me how to reduce bloodshed and suffering.

a reply to: Diderot

No "justice" reduces crime.

The only thing that reduces crime is to raise children differently.

"Justice" is the peace of mind given to the victims so they may move on. Some call it vengeance, but in reality it is simply a balancing of the scale. It has nothing to do with preventing future crimes. It has everything to do with giving a peace of mind to the victims so they feel confident in the fairness of the system they exist in.

If a punishment does nothing for the victim nor future crime rates then it is most certainly in need of change.

originally posted by: Diderot

Today, 60% of Americans support the death penalty, and I know that very many of you here at ATS fervently support it. I just have a few points that I would like you to consider.

1. The death penalty is a poor deterrent of capital crimes. This applies not to a repeat capital crime by the candidate for execution, but to a general deterrent to others who might contemplate a capital crime.
2. The death penalty is extremely expensive compared to a sentence of life without parole.
3. The death penalty has shown to be increasingly cruel, which is a constitutional prohibition. In 2014, states are seeking a viable (pardon the pun) access to drugs for lethal injection. The latest execution in Arizona lasted almost two hours.
4. The USA is in a very select club, along with China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Belarus (the only European nation that executes its prisoners.
5. Our death penalty has a long history of mistakes and miscarriages of justice.

My question to the true believers: In your mind, is this perfect justice?

#1: Not really, most sane people know that if they flip out, or kill someone, they are gonna die. It's just the psychos who do not care. It is a deterrent for sane people.

#2: Then solve it by using 1 bullet.

#3: A criminal has way too many rights, and it's the wrong road to go down, in my book.

#4: And...?

#5: This is the only thing I'll agree on...as it is indeed horrible that people are falsely accused. It is, however, a vast minority of inmates.

a reply to: OrphanApology

"The only thing that reduces crime is to raise children differently."

But do you not see that this change is the essence of justice?

"If a punishment does nothing for the victim nor future crime rates then it is most certainly in need of change."

Wiser words have never been spoken. We must nurture our children to succeed where we have failed.

It's just a matter of time, and hope. Just imagine what we can be!

a reply to: Catacomb

Dear Catacomb, You are the resting place of souls from the past, a macabre display of skulls and bones.
After all, we are all nothing more than a grimace caught in the throes of our mortality.
Death and desolation will shroud the relevance of our existence, but we live, and have lived.
We are no more than dust, but we aspire to be gods. We are formidable.

a reply to: Diderot

Dear Diederot,

Please forgive me if I am misjudging you, but you seem to be having a very good time. I can almost hear the chuckles from here.

Just as the simplest of examples, I ran across a state sentencing study which claimed that half of the people sentenced were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their offence (assault, robbery, murder, etc.). They were not deterred by punishments which had been handed out for similar crimes before, so those punishments had no deterrent effect.

Since they had no deterrent effect, and deterrence is your only basis for declaring something just, then any punishment for assault, robbery, or murder, is unjust as it doesn't deter.

Alternatively, say that I know that the penalty for burning a house is 10 years in prison. I burn down the house anyway. The punishments handed down in the past did not deter me, therefore, they are unjust. This leads us to the conclusion that all punishment is unjust since it doesn't deter.

Is that why I think I hear you laughing?

I think you're going to have to accept at least one additional basis for justice besides deterrence (if you're serious).

With respect,
Charles1952