Death penalty: Are you for or against it?

[Deidre]

What crime can a dead man commit?

It doesn't lessen crimes in society, it doesn't serve as a deterrent. If it doesn't serve as a deterrent, and it doesn't bring justice, what's the point of it? It also diminishes life to not having intrinsic value, but to only having value based on one's actions. Every one has value, even the worst of us all. Self defense, if your life is truly in danger, or a country is in danger and is in need of dire protection...that is somewhat different. In many ways, that is reactive and instinctive. But, the DP is a deliberate, calculated act of punishment.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I also don't think animal abuse or drug dealing are grounds for capitol punishment. We'll just let those guys do Life in Prison, with mandatory work with drug addicts or at an animal shelter. LOL

Would you have a child rapist do work at a pre-school?

 

[columbus]

Hmm, that is not true. Did you read my earlier posts? I fail to see how those were emotion based.

They sorta got mashed up with Frank and Penguin and Thorbjorn and Carlita et al. So I went back and reread the first few. It seems this post covers them. So I will just respond to this one. I'll have to break it up because my phone gets difficult on long posts.
Hopefully I will also respond to a post from @suncowiam .

Recap: a retributive aspect of our penal system exists. This allows criminals to pay debt or make ammends with society, one way to do this is forfeiture of life.

I disagree that the perp is paying any debt or amends by being killed.
If I burn down your house, taking mine and giving it to you is paying the debt. But there is no amends for the destruction of a life. It is just not the same. It's just getting some irrational emotional satisfaction. Very understandable, given human psychology. But the only way it would be paying a debt is if it brought the victim back. Since that is impossible, talking of paying debts or making amends is irrational. It is attempting to make an irrational, if understandable, emotional feeling seem rational.
Tom

Like I said, I must break up this reply.

 

[Curious George]

It doesn't lessen crimes in society, it doesn't serve as a deterrent. If it doesn't serve as a deterrent, and it doesn't bring justice, what's the point of it? It also diminishes life to not having intrinsic value, but to only having value based on one's actions. Every one has value, even the worst of us all. Self defense, if your life is truly in danger, or a country is in danger and is in need of dire protection...that is somewhat different. In many ways, that is reactive and instinctive. But, the DP is a deliberate, calculated act of punishment.

There are two types of deterrence: General deterrence and specific deterrence. Are you sure you want to argue no deterrence whatsoever?

 

[Deidre]

There are two types of deterrence: General deterrence and specific deterrence. Are you sure you want to argue no deterrence whatsoever?

I'm not arguing anything. I know that the DP doesn't deter society from committing violent crimes in the U.S. But, you can argue against it if you like, it won't change facts.

BUT...even if it did, it's still ethically wrong in my opinion. For the reasons I list in my above post.

 

[Curious George]

They sorta got mashed up with Frank and Penguin and Thorbjorn and Carlita et al. So I went back and reread the first few. It seems this post covers them. So I will just respond to this one. I'll have to break it up because my phone gets difficult on long posts.
Hopefully I will also respond to a post from @suncowiam .

I disagree that the perp is paying any debt or amends by being killed.
If I burn down your house, taking mine and giving it to you is paying the debt. But there is no amends for the destruction of a life. It is just not the same. It's just getting some irrational emotional satisfaction. Very understandable, given human psychology. But the only way it would be paying a debt is if it brought the victim back. Since that is impossible, talking of paying debts or making amends is irrational. It is attempting to make an irrational, if understandable, emotional feeling seem rational.
Tom

Like I said, I must break up this reply.

Interesting, yet the concept of sacrifice is strong. The process of fasting etc. Are all seen and recognized as having meaning. An apology itself does nothing. Yet we recognize it as making ammends. You seem to acknowledge that this is understandable given our psychology. So, sacrificing life to atone for mistakes can have meaning to the life sacrificed and those aware of the sacrifice. If we attribute meaning to this, how is that not a means of making amends or paying debt? That the meaning is rooted in emotions or psychology does not negate the value of it or make it an emotional response.

If a someone is sad and I give them a hug, the sadness is emotional, the amelioration from the hug is emotional and psychological, but the choice to give the hug is not.

It seems, to me, you are confusing the aspects of arguments.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not arguing anything. I know that the DP doesn't deter society from committing violent crimes in the U.S. But, you can argue against it if you like, it won't change facts.

BUT...even if it did, it's still ethically wrong in my opinion. For the reasons I list in my above post.

Your statement was "it doesn't serve as a deterrent." And, I know you are wrong. But you can try to argue for your original position if you want, it won't change the facts .

But thank you for not so subtly shifting your argument to "doesn't deter society." I think people forget about specific deterrence sometimes.

 

[Deidre]

Your statement was "it doesn't serve as a deterrent." And, I know you are wrong. But you can try to argue for your original position if you want, it won't change the facts .

But thank you for not so subtly shifting your argument to "doesn't deter society." I think people forget about specific deterrence sometimes.

There was no shifting, silly goose. lol Perhaps I didn't articulate it properly the first time.

It doesn't deter others from committing violent crimes in society, at least in the U.S. Maybe in countries where the DP is immediate and swift, it might deter it some. But, again...AGAIN....my main issue with it, is ethically it's wrong. It's wrong to use the DP as a form of punishment as it has a revenge type of connotation to it, and every life has intrinsic value. Prisons in general need to become more rehabilitative, imo. But, that's a whole other topic for another thread.

 

[columbus]

Pragmatically if the death penalty was cheaper, it would offer another reason. Currently this is not the case, but it may be possible to make it cheaper.

It is vastly cheaper to keep someone locked up for decades than to use the death penalty. And the only way to change that is dramatically reduce the standards for justice. If all the prosecution had to do was get the perp convicted the trial itself would be a lot cheaper. Doing everything to a standard that will survive every possible appeal makes them pricey. But until you get lawyers to work, and I mean work not just sign a paper, for minimum wage it will stay vastly cheaper to take the death penalty off the table at the beginning.
The difference is actually more than one might think. The average cost of incarceration per inmate per year is a lot more than the marginal cost. Housing a hundred and housing a hundred and one is not very different. So while the average tops 25k, the marginal cost is a few k. You can pay a lot of years for what a law firm charges to defend a capital case.

Lastly, if someone devalues life to such an extreme then as long as that person lives others will be in danger. This includes, psychologists, other inmates, prison officers, etc. I would agree that with these individuals we are dealing with an assumption of risk implicit in job choices, however to think that locking someone up makes everything safe is not true.

Again, this is a matter of cost, and not that much. Without guns and knives, plus some armed guards, there just isn't much risk of the prisoners doing much damage if the guards are actually working and the protocol is done correctly.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

There was no shifting, silly goose. lol Perhaps I didn't articulate it properly the first time.

It doesn't deter others from committing violent crimes in society, at least in the U.S. Maybe in countries where the DP is immediate and swift, it might deter it some. But, again...AGAIN....my main issue with it, is ethically it's wrong. It's wrong to use the DP as a form of punishment as it has a revenge type of connotation to it, and every life has intrinsic value. Prisons in general need to become more rehabilitative, imo. But, that's a whole other topic for another thread.

I agree that there is not general deterrence because I can't imagine anyone thinking hey, I really want to kill this person but I won't because of the death penalty. I am not even sure how much general deterrence there is for major crimes like murder. I don't imagine most murderers think about that. And if they did, I can't imagine the death penalty causing any more deterrence than a threat of life sentence.

 

[Curious George]

It is vastly cheaper to keep someone locked up for decades than to use the death penalty. And the only way to change that is dramatically reduce the standards for justice. If all the prosecution had to do was get the perp convicted the trial itself would be a lot cheaper. Doing everything to a standard that will survive every possible appeal makes them pricey. But until you get lawyers to work, and I mean work not just sign a paper, for minimum wage it will stay vastly cheaper to take the death penalty off the table at the beginning.
The difference is actually more than one might think. The average cost of incarceration per inmate per year is a lot more than the marginal cost. Housing a hundred and housing a hundred and one is not very different. So while the average tops 25k, the marginal cost is a few k. You can pay a lot of years for what a law firm charges to defend a capital case.

Again, this is a matter of cost, and not that much. Without guns and knives, plus some armed guards, there just isn't much risk of the prisoners doing much damage if the guards are actually working and the protocol is done correctly.
Tom

I recognize the current cost, I don't think reduction would require min. wage lawyers.

And re prison safety: I am not so sure following protocol is as perfect as you believe.

 

[Deidre]

I agree that there is not general deterrence because I can't imagine anyone thinking hey, I really want to kill this person but I won't because of the death penalty. I am not even sure how much general deterrence there is for major crimes like murder. I don't imagine most murderers think about that. And if they did, I can't imagine the death penalty causing any more deterrence than a threat of life sentence.

are you for or against it? if you are 'for' it, why?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Reminded me of the punker on the bus in Star Trek The Voyage Home.

I should look that up. Not familiar with it.

 

[columbus]

Next death can provide a psychological closure for individuals in society which were tormented by the fear that a individual engaging in such heinous crimes roamed and lives.

Well, here we have another understandable, but irrational emotional response. If the perp is in jail he is not roaming. He is not a danger to anybody on the outside.
Killing a few isn't providing any real closure or safety.

Tom

 

[Curious George]

are you for or against it? if you are 'for' it, why?

I am for the death penalty in certain circumstances. Namely, I think that it should be an available choice for those facing life in prison. I also support it in instances where non existence is better than permanent incarceration.

 

[Curious George]

Well, here we have another understandable, but irrational emotional response. If the perp is in jail he is not roaming. He is not a danger to anybody on the outside.
Killing a few isn't providing any real closure or safety.

Tom

Hmm, here we have another instance of misinterpreting handling an emotional response with the emotional response itself.

That it works because of an emotional response does not make the catering to the emotional response irrational or emotional.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am hereby declaring the phrase "emotional response" banned from this thread!

 

[SkylarHunter]

As for me, I'm for it and think it should be expanded for certain crimes. I've seen enough to know that some people are really just evil and some of things that they do to humans or animals is just unspeakable, and they should be removed from the earth for justice's sake. I don't even care about the deterrence argument. It's about justice, to me.

These are the things I think it should be expanded to include:

Violent rape
Sadistic animal abuse and torture
Pimping
Human trafficking
Poaching (especially of endangered/protected species)
Drug lords
Child molestation and rape
Knowingly taking part in and facilitating human rights abuses
Knowingly causing or facilitating financial disasters (that would clear out Wall Street and many politicians pretty quick, lol)

Completely agree with all of the above. People who do those things shouldn't be entitle to exist, pure and simple.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am hereby declaring the phrase "emotional response" banned from this thread!

Wow, that really shut you all up, eh?

 

[columbus]

Lastly, to engage in any philosophical discussion that would deal with rational thoughts on the value of a serial killers life, would need to define what we value in life. I am not sure that we will find agreement, but I would hold that it is possible for one to have qualities that negate and indeed overwhelm any justification for valuing that individual's life in the same manner we value human life in general.

Well, here is where we are getting into the subjective territory. I value all life. But this is not the same as valuing all individuals, much less equally. I don't like killing mice, but if they get in my kitchen they're goners. Too bad a cow has to die, but I want my burgers. I generally don't value animals as individuals, but as species. Then there's my doggy Belle, mess with her and I'll respond quite irrationally. But I'll feel badly afterwards.

Humans are different, call me a pro life specieist if you want. I value humans as individuals, no matter how much I despise their personality or behavior.

So, no it is not possible for anyone to have no value at all. If they are not still a credible threat in some way, I want the tiny chance that they will improve to remain. What I don't want is to kill somebody to satisfy the emotional response that vengeance is. And I especially resent being stuck with a six figure bill to pay for it.

Tom