Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Durden
I would like to address the pro crowd in asking this question. What do you feel is the most important reason for having laws and subsequently punishment for perpetrators of breaking those laws in a civilized society?

Maintain order. Without rules society breaks down and we revert to anarchy.

And what would you say would be the optimal outcome of a society being successful in maintaing order?

[edit on 26-8-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
And what would you say would be the optimal outcome of a society being successful in maintaing order?

How about you just cut to the chase with the point you are belaboring to make here?

Originally posted by jezebel

Originally posted by jdster

I would really like someone who is against the death penalty to
elaborate on thier opinion of the rights of surviving relatives and
friends.

They have the same rights as anyone else who has been the victim of a crime:
1. participate in the criminal justice system;
2. obtain benefits from a fund established by the state to compensate crime victims;
3. receive restitution ordered by the criminal court;
4. recover a judgment for damages in a civil action against the criminal, accessories, or negligent third-party defendants;
5. be free of intimidation;
6. share in profits from exploitation of the criminal's version of the crime;
7. seek alternative dispute resolution
They also have the right to grieve, be angry, hate the responsible party, and, hopefully, heal over time.
If you are implying that they have the right to exact revenge against the person who caused the death of their loved one, no, according to the law they don't. They are not legally allowed to hunt down and kill the person they think is responsible for their loved one's death, even if they know for a fact who the guilty party is.

But on an existential basis a remorseless murderer never feels the loss. If we consider
what murder really is, I think justice is only served by the death of the murderer. Otherwise, the murderer continues to have what has been so callously denied another (or others)

Also, if someone has been proved guilty of murder, I would
like to see them explain to the survivors why the murderer does
not deserve to die.

The murderer may very well deserve to die, but that doesn't mean that we are justified in carrying out that sentence.

Why not? who is justified?

What reason would you give to someone who's wife and child was killed by a drunk driver, when they want him to pay for the lives he took with his own, but instead he gets 3-5 years for manslaughter? Shouldn't the death penalty be applied to anyone who takes the life of another, whether it was intentional or not?

No. Not in a case where there no criminal negligence nor contempt. In those cases, a person should be held financially responsible for the well-being of the survivors in direct
proportion to the financial damage me may have caused the survivors. If there can be no direct financial compensation, then perhaps a period of servitude is in order. Otherwise,
we must accept the fact that life is a risky proposition.

Who should be held accountable for the wrongful death of an inmate, when he is executed but later it's proven that he was innocent? What do you tell his family? "Oops, sorry! I guess we goofed."

The judges and lawyers who put him there. There should be absolutely no doubt about a person's guilt.

If he were executed for taking the life of an innocent person, but he wasn't guilty, shouldn't someone else be executed for taking his innocent life?

Perhaps. Maybe then more care would be taken when a person is sentenced to die.

What about the doctor who, due to negligence, causes the death of his/her patient?
If the victim's family wants him to pay for his negligence with his life, shouldn't he be given the death penalty?

I have never heard of such a case, but I suppose it's possible.
If there ever were a case of such a vindictive family and if criminal negligence were to be shown on the doctor's part, I would say yes, but on the condition that the family perform the execution.

Where do you draw the line and who should make that decision?

If there is absolutely
no doubt, then the judge should leave the decision in the hands of the family.

Should it be made based on an emotional reaction to a traumatic experience, or should it be based on rationality and objectivity by someone who is not consumed with the desire for revenge?

Well, as your argument seems to imply that murder is part of human nature and that that fact ought to be accepted by survivors as they "heal over time," then I would suggest that if a murderer is allowed to satisfy his bloodlust or to take his callous disregard or contempt for human life out on others, then revenge ought to be
satisfied as well.

[edit on 8/27/2004 by jdster]

[edit on 8/27/2004 by jdster]

[edit on 8/27/2004 by jdster]

Originally posted by FredT
How about you just cut to the chase with the point you are belaboring to make here?

There, there - patience is a virtue . If the ultimate goal is to maintain order, would you agree that if for example the amount of homicides didn't decrease - despite a severe punishment as a result of such crimes - it could be considered a sign of failure?

EDIT: clarification

[edit on 28-8-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
There, there - patience is a virtue

. If the ultimate goal is to maintain order, would you agree that if for example the amount of homicides didn't decrease - despite a severe punishment as a result of such crimes - it could be considered a sign of failure?

That would be an overly simplistic look at population trends. The trend of violent crime has a variety of causes and threat of punismment is but one of the multitude of factors. Crime statistics often bear this out. Not to mention the fact that the death penalty can only be asked in certain circumstances and only if the DA chooses to do so even if thie is overwhelming evidence. The Gov we page that has alot of theses stats is down, but I will try to put up some once it is up

Originally posted by Durden

There, there - patience is a virtue

. If the ultimate goal is to maintain order, would you agree that if for example the amount of homicides didn't decrease - despite a severe punishment as a result of such crimes - it could be considered a sign of failure?

[edit on 28-8-2004 by Durden]

No, this goes to show the criminal has no concious, no regard for the law despite the consequences, goes ahead and committs his/her crime anyway based on having no self control.

Now let me ask you anti death penalty people. Would you want these "rehabilitated" murderers living next to you? If so please be my guest, I certailnly would not want them near my house. Just imagine:


Bob(convicted murder):Hi (your name)
You:Uhhh (you shake nervously), hi bob
Bob: mind if I come inside for some lemonade?
Youthink about your 12 year old daughter), ummm ok.

Haha, why dont you anti-death penalty people take them into your own house and give them a nice home. First and foremost they stole someones life and deserve to be beaten to death very painfully.

TACHYON - Actually, you have a point... they deserve to be beaten to death very painfully... NOT executed. In some cases where the crime is proven beyond doubt and horrid in nature, 20 seconds of an injection is not enough.

Let me exemplify... in Ontario, Canada, a guy named Paul Bernardo was convicted in 1995 of abducting, torturing and killing three teenage girls, ages no higher than 15. His wife filmed him sexually assaulting the girls, and after a few days he strangled them to death. In this case, there was no doubt that he was guilty... the videos proved it. He was sentenced to life. And the beauty of it is... he has to be kept in isolation, because the other prisoners would love to get their hands on him, and the guards would let him... so the rest of his life will be like that.

That's one reason why I'm against the death penalty. Sometimes, keeping the guy in jail without possibility of reprieve or parole, knowing that the other prisoners are only looking for a chance to get to him, is better punishment than death.

Second reason... again, with the death penalty comes a terrible price to pay if ever there was a mistake and the convict is proven posthumously innocent. How do you tell a widow and her kids "Sorry, we killed your husband, but he was innocent... oops." ?

In this scenario, how would the locals feel if this character escaped from prison? These people are in jail and have nothing to do for 24 hours a day except think and plan stuff. The staff are only there for perhaps 8-12 hour shifts, then they go home to their own lives.

The system isn't perfect and although you'd like to believe this guy is in total isolation 24/7, you can bet there are times when either staffing issues, fire drills, sick call, visitation or some other situation, will allow this man to be in contact with the population of the facility.

Inmates attempt to pass stuff to each other all the time in books, notes~ whatever. Nothing is infallible.

Someone serving life, or several life sentences is always going to be an escape risk and requires maximum security. He has nothing to "live for" and it doesn't matter who he harms to get out of the facility.

mako - excellent point. However - I can only speak for my province of Ontario - I know that people like Bernardo are special cases and have special surveillance attached to them, if only to protect them from other prisoners. However, it's true that in such a scenario, more security must be planned for.

Do you know what type of sentence the freako wife received?

(Were the murders also on video tape?)

Here, you have not one sicko, but two, putting their maggot minds together and ruining three young girls lives and the lives of their families.

All for what? To get a nut.

I can't help but wonder what priors he had. B@stard.

Originally posted by FredT
That would be an overly simplistic look at population trends. The trend of violent crime has a variety of causes and threat of punismment is but one of the multitude of factors. Crime statistics often bear this out. Not to mention the fact that the death penalty can only be asked in certain circumstances and only if the DA chooses to do so even if thie is overwhelming evidence.

Originally posted by mako0956
No, this goes to show the criminal has no concious, no regard for the law despite the consequences, goes ahead and committs his/her crime anyway based on having no self control.

So am I to understand your opinion to be that there really is no significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?

Originally posted by Durden
So am I to understand your opinion to be that there really is no significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?

No. That's not my opinion.

You and I have gone around and around in this thread on this very aspect. I will once more list for you the the 4 goals of punishment:



Criminal sanctions in the United States have four goals:


1: Retribution: Focuses on the harmful act of the offender. Deserved punishment, offender's must "pay their debts".

2: Deterence: 2 types= general and special. In general deterence, this is used to impress upon the general public if they committ a crime, they will be caught, prosecuted and given a specific punishment. In special deterence this type of punishment is used by the courts to deter the offender from repeating the offense.

3: Incapacitation: Focuses on the potential future acts of the offender. Any sentence which restricts the offender and are future oriented. An offender is placed in a secure facility and prevented from inflicting additional harm to society for the duration of their sentence. Capital punishment is the ultimate method of incapacitation.

4: Rehabilitation: The goal is restoring a convicted offender to a constructive place in society by vocational or educational training or therapy. Here, offenders are treated, not punished, and they will return to society when "cured". The focus is on the offender.


Your question is, despite having this system in place, do I not see a significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?


What kind of question is that?

Crime rates fluctuate like everything else.

Originally posted by jdster
But on an existential basis a remorseless murderer never feels the loss. If we consider what murder really is, I think justice is only served by the death of the murderer. Otherwise, the murderer continues to have what has been so callously denied another (or others)

Why not? who is justified?

For one, I think that there is a greater chance for murderers to gain a sense of remorse for their crimes, as a result of sitting in prison without any hope for freedom in this lifetime, than there is for those who are executed, since they are no longer forced to live with the consequences of their actions.
Not only that, but the killing of another family's child/spouse/father would only serve to multiply the amount of suffering that has already been caused. Killing somebody else's loved one, to get revenge, won't bring back the life that was taken. It won't take away the feelings of loss and sadness felt by the victim's family.

Another voice among victims' families was that of New Hampshire State Representative Robert Renny Cushing. He spoke before his colleagues in the New Hampshire House on March 12, 1998. As an opponent of the death penalty and the son of a murder victim, Representative Cushing told the horrifying story of his father's murder, his family's pain and his own unwavering beliefs."If we let those who murder turn us to murder, it gives over more power to those who do evil. We become what we abhor." Representative Cushing emphasized the need of victims for healing and forgiveness, asking his colleagues to abolish the death penalty "because if the state kills them, that forever forecloses the possibility that those of us who are victims might be able to figure out how to forgive." www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

All humans are fallible, therefore none of us have the right to decide whether someone should live or die. We are all serving a death sentence and we will all meet our fate, whatever it may be. When one person intentionally kills another, they have made a decision that wasn't theirs to make, and they should lose their freedoms as a result. They should lose all the rights and perks of living within a free society, and be incarcerated in a prison that places their very existence squarely on their own shoulders. If they want to eat they better grow some food; if they want to have electricity, they'd better learn how to generate it.
They have done something that can never be fixed or reversed, and they should not be allowed to sit around playing games and watching t.v. in a prison that is funded by the very people who they have wronged. That does not mean, however, that we have the right to be hypocrites. If we condemn someone for killing, only to then turn around, and in the name of justice, kill them, how can we say that it is wrong for one man to kill another?
We have taken something that should never be condoned, and declared that, as long as someone is killed by the hands of "Justice and The Law", it's good for society.

by Jezebel
What reason would you give to someone who's wife and child was killed by a drunk driver, when they want him to pay for the lives he took with his own, but instead he gets 3-5 years for manslaughter? Shouldn't the death penalty be applied to anyone who takes the life of another, whether it was intentional or not?

by jdster
No. Not in a case where there no criminal negligence nor contempt. In those cases, a person should be held financially responsible for the well-being of the survivors in direct proportion to the financial damage he may have caused the survivors. If there can be no direct financial compensation, then perhaps a period of servitude is in order. Otherwise,
we must accept the fact that life is a risky proposition.

So what amount of money or service, would you say, is equivalent to the lives of your loved ones? Would any price or service make you forget the fact that they were dead or cause you to miss them any less?
p.s. Drunk driving IS criminal negligence

The judges and lawyers who put him there. There should be absolutely no doubt about a person's guilt.

How can we ever be sure, beyond any doubt, that we will not execute someone who was not-guilty by mistake? Is that a chance you feel justified in taking? There are 115 people sentenced to die, who were exonerated, since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. That's 115 innocent lives which were almost taken by mistake, in just the last 30 years! Lucky for them, the truth was discovered in time! How many more do you think have been wrongfully executed in that time?

I have never heard of such a case, but I suppose it's possible.
If there ever were a case of such a vindictive family and if criminal negligence were to be shown on the doctor's part, I would say yes, but on the condition that the family perform the execution.

Why shouldn't the families of the victims always by expected to perform the executions? Wouldn't that be the best way satisfy their need for revenge? It doesn't seem right for us to expect someone else, who wasn't even hurt by the condemned, to do the dirty work, does it?

Well, as your argument seems to imply that murder is part of human nature and that that fact ought to be accepted by survivors as they "heal over time," then I would suggest that if a murderer is allowed to satisfy his bloodlust or to take his callous disregard or contempt for human life out on others, then revenge ought to be satisfied as well.

What did I say that gave you the impression I think anyone, let alone the families of murder victims, should just accept the fact that mankind has always killed its own kind, and nothing will ever change.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe mankind has the ability to be a peaceful species, if we really wanted to. If we started fighting suffering with compassion; hate with love; predjudice with tolerance, etc., I think we might actually make the world into a place worth living in. I know that is just a bunch of bleeding heart liberal b.s. to some, but since the current strategy (fighting for peace; killing for killing; hate for hate...) hasn't really been too successful thus far, maybe we should consider a different game plan.

Here is what some family members of murdered victims think about all this: www.mvfr.org...
Other relevant links:
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...:%20%20The%20Danger%20of%20Mistaken%20Executions

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me. -Marquis de Lafayette



[edit on 29-8-2004 by jezebel]

[edit on 29-8-2004 by jezebel]

Originally posted by mako0956

Originally posted by Durden
So am I to understand your opinion to be that there really is no significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?

No. That's not my opinion.

So you do believe there's a significant correlation between the two?

Your question is, despite having this system in place, do I not see a significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?

What kind of question is that?

What kind of question is it? Well, below is one of the four justifications you presented for the use of capital punishment, or as you chose to put it; goals of criminal sanctions. I can only suppose this involves captial punishment as well.

In general deterence, this is used to impress upon the general public if they committ a crime, they will be caught, prosecuted and given a specific punishment.

How are you supposed to properly argue that a specific punishment is effective as a deterrent unless you can show a significant correlation between crime rate and the manner of punishment used?

Crime rates fluctuate like everything else.

So you don't believe there's a significant correlation between the two?

[edit on 30-8-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by mako0956

Originally posted by Durden
So am I to understand your opinion to be that there really is no significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?

No. That's not my opinion.

So you do believe there's a significant correlation between the two?

Your question is, despite having this system in place, do I not see a significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?

What kind of question is that?

What kind of question is it? Well, below is one of the four justifications you presented for the use of capital punishment, or as you chose to put it; goals of criminal sanctions. I can only suppose this involves captial punishment as well.

In general deterence, this is used to impress upon the general public if they committ a crime, they will be caught, prosecuted and given a specific punishment.

How are you supposed to properly argue that a specific punishment is effective as a deterrent unless you can show a significant correlation between crime rate and the manner of punishment used?

Crime rates fluctuate like everything else.

So you don't believe there's a significant correlation between the two?

[edit on 30-8-2004 by Durden]

Durden~

Quit trying to twist my words around. I don't have to "properly argue" anything. These four goals of the justice system are in practice today. This is the way it is with or without my illustrating it to you or not.

If actually read my post, which it's obvious you did not, you would see where capital punishment fits into the justice system.

Basically, you are attacking the messenger because you don't agree with the system.

Originally posted by jezebel

Originally posted by jdster
But on an existential basis a remorseless murderer never feels the loss. If we consider what murder really is, I think justice is only served by the death of the murderer. Otherwise, the murderer continues to have what has been so callously denied another (or others)

Why not? who is justified?

For one, I think that there is a greater chance for murderers to gain a sense of remorse for their crimes, as a result of sitting in prison without any hope for freedom in this lifetime, than there is for those who are executed, since they are no longer forced to live with the consequences of their actions.
Not only that, but the killing of another family's child/spouse/father would only serve to multiply the amount of suffering that has already been caused. Killing somebody else's loved one, to get revenge, won't bring back the life that was taken. It won't take away the feelings of loss and sadness felt by the victim's family.

Another voice among victims' families was that of New Hampshire State Representative Robert Renny Cushing. He spoke before his colleagues in the New Hampshire House on March 12, 1998. As an opponent of the death penalty and the son of a murder victim, Representative Cushing told the horrifying story of his father's murder, his family's pain and his own unwavering beliefs."If we let those who murder turn us to murder, it gives over more power to those who do evil. We become what we abhor." Representative Cushing emphasized the need of victims for healing and forgiveness, asking his colleagues to abolish the death penalty "because if the state kills them, that forever forecloses the possibility that those of us who are victims might be able to figure out how to forgive." www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

I have provided a couple of examples of the effects of criminal rehabilitation
for you:

Carl Panzram
Aliases: Jefferson Baldwin, Jeffrey Rhodes, John King, John O'Leary.

"In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings, I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 100 male human beings. For all these things I am not in the least bit sorry."

"I sat down to think things over a bit. While I was sitting there, a little kid about eleven or twelve years old came bumming around. He was looking for something. He found it too. I took him out to a gravel pit about one quarter mile away. I left him there, but first committed sodomy on him and then killed him. His brains were coming out of his ears when I left him, and he will never be any deader."


Richard Speck
Slaughtered eight nurses in July 1966 because it "just wasn't their night". Speck lived for the next 25 years in prison where he adapted quite well: got himself a big beautiful black boyfriend, grew a pair of tits from a steady regimen of hormone injections. "If they only knew how much fun I was having in here, they would turn me loose." He died of natural causes in 1991, his ass quite a bit looser than it was back in '66.

www....-------------------------/library/bio/crime/

What about those guys? Should taxpayers have fed them?


All humans are fallible, therefore none of us have the right to decide whether someone should live or die.

But a murderer seems to have that right !!!


We are all serving a death sentence and we will all meet our fate, whatever it may be.

Truer words were never written.


When one person intentionally kills another, they have made a decision that wasn't theirs to make, and they should lose their freedoms as a result. They should lose all the rights and perks of living within a free society, and be incarcerated in a prison that places their very existence squarely on their own shoulders. If they want to eat they better grow some food; if they want to have electricity, they'd better learn how to generate it.
They have done something that can never be fixed or reversed, and they should not be allowed to sit around playing games and watching t.v. in a prison that is funded by the very people who they have wronged. That does not mean, however, that we have the right to be hypocrites. If we condemn someone for killing, only to then turn around, and in the name of justice, kill them, how can we say that it is wrong for one man to kill another?
We have taken something that should never be condoned, and declared that, as long as someone is killed by the hands of "Justice and The Law", it's good for society.

by Jezebel
What reason would you give to someone who's wife and child was killed by a drunk driver, when they want him to pay for the lives he took with his own, but instead he gets 3-5 years for manslaughter? Shouldn't the death penalty be applied to anyone who takes the life of another, whether it was intentional or not?

by jdster
No. Not in a case where there no criminal negligence nor contempt. In those cases, a person should be held financially responsible for the well-being of the survivors in direct proportion to the financial damage he may have caused the survivors. If there can be no direct financial compensation, then perhaps a period of servitude is in order. Otherwise,
we must accept the fact that life is a risky proposition.

So what amount of money or service, would you say, is equivalent to the lives of your loved ones? Would any price or service make you forget the fact that they were dead or cause you to miss them any less?
p.s. Drunk driving IS criminal negligence

I guess the death penalty applies to drunk drivers as well.

The judges and lawyers who put him there. There should be absolutely no doubt about a person's guilt.

How can we ever be sure, beyond any doubt, that we will not execute someone who was not-guilty by mistake? Is that a chance you feel justified in taking? There are 115 people sentenced to die, who were exonerated, since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. That's 115 innocent lives which were almost taken by mistake, in just the last 30 years! Lucky for them, the truth was discovered in time! How many more do you think have been wrongfully executed in that time?

As I said there must be certainty. That's where forensic science comes in. If there is
still doubt, then there's no execution. I am certainly no advocate of "kill 'em all and
let God sort 'em out" justice.

I have never heard of such a case, but I suppose it's possible.
If there ever were a case of such a vindictive family and if criminal negligence were to be shown on the doctor's part, I would say yes, but on the condition that the family perform the execution.

Why shouldn't the families of the victims always by expected to perform the executions?

Perhaps they should.

Wouldn't that be the best way satisfy their need for revenge? It doesn't seem right for us to expect someone else, who wasn't even hurt by the condemned, to do the dirty work, does it?

No, it doesn't.

Well, as your argument seems to imply that murder is part of human nature and that that fact ought to be accepted by survivors as they "heal over time," then I would suggest that if a murderer is allowed to satisfy his bloodlust or to take his callous disregard or contempt for human life out on others, then revenge ought to be satisfied as well.

What did I say that gave you the impression I think anyone, let alone the families of murder victims, should just accept the fact that mankind has always killed its own kind, and nothing will ever change.

That seems to me to be implicit in any argument against the death penalty.


Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe mankind has the ability to be a peaceful species, if we really wanted to. If we started fighting suffering with compassion; hate with love; predjudice with tolerance, etc., I think we might actually make the world into a place worth living in. I know that is just a bunch of bleeding heart liberal b.s. to some, but since the current strategy (fighting for peace; killing for killing; hate for hate...) hasn't really been too successful thus far, maybe we should consider a different game plan.

I don't think mankind has the ability to be a peaceful species. I think that this is
born out by our unfortunate legacy.. Savagery never has gone away. It is instead
always manifesting itself in new and interesting ways. Your utopian vision of
a perfect world is a lovely one, but it fails to address the complex reality of humanity.
Since you seem to be a bleedin'� heart liberal

I imagine that you also must believe
in evolution, which recognizes humans as primates whose closest living relatives
are chimps. Chimps are often shown as being intelligent and compassionate, but
also occasionally quite brutal as well. We are often just like our generally much
uglier cousins. There is no species whose inclinations are
guided by moral principles. Those are a human invention. They are convenient
rules and not absolutes. To obey them is considered "civilized". I happen to think most
of them actually are good ideas. I also think that those who choose to not play by
the rules and who think they ought to be able to kill others just because it suits them
have no place in any society in which I might care to live, nor should they be subsidized by that society. I prefer to live in peace. I think there is enough information out now that anyone knows that murder is a bad thing. Yet it remains a popular pasttime. Why?

I think we have to examine intelligence. Considering the potential inconveniences and
discomforts that we all know would come from a murder conviction, why do people
still do it? I think the short answer is: stupidity.


New game plan: Minimize the negative impacts that the
stupid may have on the intelligent.



Here is what some family members of murdered victims think about all this: www.mvfr.org...
Other relevant links:
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...:%20%20The%20Danger%20of%20Mistaken%20Executions

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me. -Marquis de Lafayette



[edit on 29-8-2004 by jezebel]

[edit on 29-8-2004 by jezebel]

[edit on 8/30/2004 by jdster]

[edit on 8/30/2004 by jdster]

Originally posted by mako0956
Quit trying to twist my words around.

I'm merely trying to understand your reasoning. In what way am I twisting your words?

I don't have to "properly argue" anything.

If you think it's asking too much to inquire as to your reasoning, then obviously you have the right not to answer. It doesn't help your argument much though. IMO.

These four goals of the justice system are in practice today. This is the way it is with or without my illustrating it to you or not.

True; the four goals are in practice. However, looking at different states, the interpretation of those goals differs though doesn't it?

If actually read my post, which it's obvious you did not, you would see where capital punishment fits into the justice system.

In those four goals, there is not a single word about using capital punishment as penalty. So even though I may agree with the four goals, I disagree with the way the pro crowd would like to interpret the manner in which they should be executed; involving the use of murder in the name of the law.

Considering that deterrence have long been recognized by the courts as one of the main purposes of criminal punishment - is it not logical to have an interest in whether the evidence support the effectiveness of a certain penalty as a deterrent?

Originally posted by Durden
In those four goals, there is not a single word about using capital punishment as penalty. So even though I may agree with the four goals, I disagree with the way the pro crowd would like to interpret the manner in which they should be executed; involving the use of murder in the name of the law.
Considering that deterrence have long been recognized by the courts as one of the main purposes of criminal punishment - is it not logical to have an interest in whether the evidence support the effectiveness of a certain penalty as a deterrent?

As mako has tried to point out crime rates fluctuate over time. The Bureau of Justice statistical database on homcide bears this out

The homicide rate doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's. In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1985. It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000. Since then, the rate has declined sharply, reaching 5.5 per 100,000 by 2000.

You will note that based on the trends a peak started and carried during the years the death penalty was unconstitutional (1972-1977) and during the reinstitution period 1977 to 1980 the numbers continued up. Remember that the number of executions were limited during this period as there simply were not enough people ready to be executed at that time. That being said as Mako pointed out crime varies over time.

I also take exception to refering to the death penalty as being state sponsored murder. The death penalty is a punishment that is reserved for only the most heinous crimes. By your logic, every soldier in every war is a murderer as they have killed for the state.

Bit by bit, we have chopped away at the main points of the anti argument. The death penalty is NOT biased for minorites. The death penalty statistics did show a peak after it was ruled unconstitutional in 1972. The second peak in the 1990's can be explained by the fact that because the appeals process in death penalties has gotten out of hand. If people think they will be pushing up daisies in a few years versus 10-15 it can make a difference in wheather or not they may comit the crime.

Originally posted by Durden

In those four goals, there is not a single word about using capital punishment as penalty.

Dude:

Are you reading my posts or just skimming through them?

#3 clearly states:

3: Incapacitation: Focuses on the potential future acts of the offender. Any sentence which restricts the offender and are future oriented. An offender is placed in a secure facility and prevented from inflicting additional harm to society for the duration of their sentence.

Capital punishment is the ultimate method of incapacitation.







[edit on 30-8-2004 by mako0956]

[edit on 30-8-2004 by mako0956]