Capital punishment

[JHE]

I'm not sure how Che's actions in Cuba during the 1950s relate to whether our society in 2009 should have the death penalty.

I haven't really got much sympathy for people who jump into the thread insisting that the discussion be limited to some situations that they are more interested in and excludes others.

If you want a more restricted discussion, pose a more specific question - and preferably start another thread.

 

[weltweit]

1) Cruel and unusual punishment? overdose of general anasthetic would probably be my current favourite method of despatch. When we put my old cat down that was afiakt what she was given and it was over almost instantly with no suffering.

2) A punishment to fit the crime: mass murderers have strayed so far from societal norms, there is no hope of rehabilitation or eventual release. I am saying that mass / serial killers are worse than one time murderers. A capital punishment for a capital crime.

3) Sanctity of Human life: Abortion yes, old age infirmities unable to commit assisted suicide, young soldiers expected to kill in an instant without the benefit of a judge and jury, so the sancity of whose life? Not the aborted foetus, nor the unfortunate Iraqi who happens to be in the way of the invading British forces. Neither the foetus nor the Iraqi have the benefit of trial by jury. I argue that mass / serial killers give up their right to life when they start their killing sprees.

4) Injustice & wrongful conviction: I would only return the death penalty to cases of serial killers, I think it is likely that given resources put onto these cases, the number of wrongful convictions should be very low or non existant. Nevertheless the usual appeals would apply before execution was carried out.

From the USA, as reported on the BBC:
- There are no definite cases of innocent people having been executed since executions started again in the USA in 1977.
- 95 people have been released from death row in the USA since 1973. They were found to have been wrongly convicted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/t...areas/human_rights/newsid_1863000/1863027.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/t...areas/human_rights/newsid_1863000/1863030.stm

 

[Santino]

If detection and punishment were certain and were the death penalty I fail to see how that might encourage "more" crime.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Detection isn't certain. And corruption is possible.

 

[ohmyliver]

I think with modern DNA and such there is more chance now that murderers will be caught. They must think at least a moment about it.

right ok, I'd agree with you better crime detection/investigation does act as a deterant. But, this has little relation to penalty. It doesn't matter if it's a life sentance, or the death penalty, it's due to the fact that they are more likely to be caught that acts as a deterant

*eta* surely it's a net benefit to society to not kill serial killers, but study them so that pre-cursor behaviour can be spotted etc

 

[Santino]

I haven't really got much sympathy for people who jump into the thread insisting that the discussion be limited to some situations that they are more interested in and excludes others.

If you want a more restricted discussion, pose a more specific question - and preferably start another thread.

Your question is vague and uninteresting. Am I in favour of the death penalty? Well, if I was living in a small group of hunter-gatherers in the neolithic era, I probably would be, because my society wouldn't have the resources to imprison people. In 2009 in this society I am not in favour of the death penalty.

What question are you asking? 'Is there some theoretical situation in which I might support the killing of someone by someone else in authority?' Probably, if you set up the situation in the right way. But that's not very interesting. Are you interested in whether I support the death penalty here and now, in this society, or not?

 

[pogofish]

I think we should just kill everyone .

How about just people who post yet another capital punishment thread - It must be all of what, a few weeks since the last one?

 

[weltweit]

*eta* surely it's a net benefit to society to not kill serial killers, but study them so that pre-cursor behaviour can be spotted etc

Study them as they go through the appeals process

 

[Streathamite]

I voted 'd', but if I could I'd change that to 'c'. If your free society is at war, and if its' cause is 100% just (eg fighting a potentially mortal threat or act of aggression/oppression a la hitler), you are entitled to execute traitors, spies, mutineers etc to defend the state.
Equally, if its' a seriously ongoing rebvolution, tyhe revolutionaries are allowed to defend the revolution by shooting those trying to kill it and the revolutionaries.

 

[maomao]

4) I don't accept that there is NO deterrent effect, the deterrent effect may not be massive but I think it is very likely that some murderers would be put off killing if they would face the death sentence rather than life imprisonment and yes I know that in the USA where they have the death sentence they still have murders. In life the prospect or risk of an early death does deter people from doing lots of things, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the death penalty would have SOME deterrent effect.

Death penalty tends to raise the murder rate because people feel the need to kill witnesses too.

 

[maomao]

How about just people who post yet another capital punishment thread - It must be all of what, a few weeks since the last one?

Fuck off.

 

[gosub]

It is never reasonable to assume anything so straightforward about human motivation.

Punishment might just as well encourage more crime than it deters. Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. How do you determine which effect is more pronounced?

You look at crime stats in countries which have either adopted or dropped the death penalty, though I accept you will have a lot other variables that get in the way, thinking Russia where it happened with its old ""empire" was throws of economic collapse, though that checker board serial killer was almost as annoyed at having a life sentence as he was about having murders unaccredited so he didn't beat the record.

Read up around that JS Mills pro capital punishment speech. He was involved in stopping people getting hung for nicking sheep or lambs to reference your example, and it was the subsequent rise in that type of crime that caused him to drift from his reasoned and still relevant critique of why you don't want the state murdering people in On Liberty. He was n't like MPs in the modern sense (whipped blaggards) he made his own decisions based on what was going on around.
Place him the modern era I think he would revert to On Liberty anti, later Parliaments having done the deed and switched deterrence from worrying about crime rises, to purely is what is lost worth the crime reduction.

Mind you I think as it isn't being debated in Parliament, what JS Mills would do now would be resign as an MP to preserve his honour from being associated with a club of ill repute

 

[ohmyliver]

Study them as they go through the appeals process

what about my other point?

 

[Das Uberdog]

There's a difference between killing for a higher political goal and 'revenge' killing. In effect, the jury system by necessity takes on the role of doling out 'retribution'; moralistic bullshit about 'life' and totally subjective.

The role of the justice system shouldn't be to indulge the population's blood-lust. It should be renamed and simply concern itself with preventing further damage to individuals. If you're in a sitaution where death is the only method by which the population at large would be safe from a would-be killer, then execution is permissable. In revolutionary situations, this is obviously the case. If you're in a situation where, infact, you could actually keep them locked up or otherwise impaired from attacking people/things, then that's always preferable.

But I'll also say I think there's a difference between 'condemning' someone to death and killing them in the heat of the moment:- I don't necessairly think that some 'revenge' killings should be treated in the same way as murder per se - crimes of passion if you will, and sometimes even permissable (if not tactful).

 

[weltweit]

right ok, I'd agree with you better crime detection/investigation does act as a deterant. But, this has little relation to penalty. It doesn't matter if it's a life sentance, or the death penalty, it's due to the fact that they are more likely to be caught that acts as a deterant

what about my other point?

If people are more likely to be caught all well and good and if that is what the deterrent is derived from thats fine.

I favour the death penalty for serial killers when there is no doubt that they did it. The Fred Wests or Ian Brady or Ian Huntley or Harold Shipmans of this world. I would not lose a wink of sleep over them.

 

[weltweit]

1) Is the killing of many young lives, as in the cases of Ian Brady, Fred West and Ian Huntley, a worse crime than the killing of many older lives as in the case of Dr Harold Shipman?

2) Is the killing of multiple people a worse crime than the murdering of one person?

If you answer yes to [2] then that can be a basis to decide who gets the injection.

 

[tbaldwin]

I voted yes but only in for certain murders. I was thinking of crimes of aggravated murder usually serial. I think very few people should be terminated for murder. But some should. Some people are like sick dogs and need to be humanely put out of their misery. I think keeping them alive is inhumane and just plain stupid..Somebody mentioned that it costs more to have the death penalty. That is just propaganda based on death row in the US where people can sit thru appeal after appeal for 20 years... In other countries it is not such a long drawn out process.
And some people have argued against it on the basis that revenge killing is wrong..All very well in theory but in practice for some truly horrific murders i think most of us would want revenge for our loved ones....Some will say that is overemotional but humanity is supposed to be emotional.

 

[ericjarvis]

From the USA, as reported on the BBC:
- There are no definite cases of innocent people having been executed since executions started again in the USA in 1977.
- 95 people have been released from death row in the USA since 1973. They were found to have been wrongly convicted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/t...areas/human_rights/newsid_1863000/1863027.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/t...areas/human_rights/newsid_1863000/1863030.stm

Now give the figures for the number of appeals that continued after the appelant was executed. As I understand it there has not been a single one. So there can be no definite cases of innocent people being executed regardless of how many there actually are in reality. However the number released from death row strongly implies the possibility that if there were a legal mechanism for continuing an appeal after execution the picture might be somewhat different.

 

[weltweit]

so tbaldwin?

Ian Brady Y/N?
Fred West Y/N?
Ian Huntley Y/N?
Harold Shipman Y/N?

 

[weltweit]

Now give the figures for the number of appeals that continued after the appelant was executed. As I understand it there has not been a single one. So there can be no definite cases of innocent people being executed regardless of how many there actually are in reality. However the number released from death row strongly implies the possibility that if there were a legal mechanism for continuing an appeal after execution the picture might be somewhat different.

I accept your point!

 

[Wolveryeti]

The awfulness of killing just one innocent person vastly outweighs the 'benefits', which seem mostly concentrated around satisfying a public desire for revenge. AFAIK it is not even more cost effective the way it is done in e.g. the US.

 

[tbaldwin]

so tbaldwin?

Ian Brady Y/N?
Fred West Y/N?
Ian Huntley Y/N?
Harold Shipman Y/N?

Yes to all 4. To keep them alive is cruel and pointless.

 

[dylans]

Three more words

THE GUILDFORD FOUR

 

[tbaldwin]

Three more words

THE GUILDFORD 4

No.
The proof was never there to justify their imprisonment let alone their execution.
It is not an arguement against capital punishment it is an argeument against the British justice system at that time and now to some extent.

 

[dylans]

No.
The proof was never there to justify their imprisonment let alone their execution.
It is not an arguement against capital punishment it is an argeument against the British justice system at that time and now to some extent.

That's utterly ridiculous, they WERE imprisoned, and for how many years?

The judge at the time said if the death penalty was available to him he wouldn't hesitate to use it.

They would have been executed, so would the Birmingham 6. Timothy Evans WAS.

As far as I am concerned, unless you are prepared to be the innocent person who is executed by mistake, you have to oppose the death penalty.

 

[tbaldwin]

That's utterly ridiculous, they WERE imprisoned, and for how many years?

The judge at the time said if the death penalty was available to him he wouldn't hesitate to use it.

They would have been executed, so would the Birmingham 6. Timothy Evans WAS.

As far as I am concerned, unless you are prepared to be the innocent person who is executed by mistake you have to oppose the death penalty.

Utter utter wank...I oppose the class system and criminal justice system.
Judges saying stupid things, isnt an arguement against capital punishement its an arguement against the ridiculous and undemocratic way our criminal justice system works.

 

[ohmyliver]

Somebody mentioned that it costs more to have the death penalty. That is just propaganda based on death row in the US where people can sit thru appeal after appeal for 20 years... In other countries it is not such a long drawn out process.

that someone is me, so this fact is actually 'propaganda'? What other countries are you looking at that don't have such a long drawn out process? Zimbabwe? Afghanistan? China? North Korea? Saudi? Iran?

 

[tbaldwin]

that someone is me, so this fact is actually 'propaganda'? What other countries are you looking at that don't have such a long drawn out process? Zimbabwe? Afghanistan? China? North Korea? Saudi? Iran?

Not sure how many countries have the death penalty but i suspect its a lot more than those specially handpicked 6.
And yes of course its propaganda cos its not actually true is it? Having the death penalty does not neccesarilly mean more expense, so why say it does? Just to suit your prejudice.

 

[ohmyliver]

Not sure how many countries have the death penalty but i suspect its a lot more than those specially handpicked 6.
And yes of course its propaganda cos its not actually true is it? Having the death penalty does not neccesarilly mean more expense, so why say it does? Just to suit your prejudice.

No, it is actually true in the US*, and I suspect also in places like Japan where Hakamada Iwao has been on death row for 40 years now. Provide me with evidence that it isn't?

The death penalty means more expense in a legal system with the right of appeal. This is compounded by the additional cost of having a 'death row' within your prison system. End of.


*take California for example “The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”
taken from the Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice

or Maryland
"A new study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 forecasted that the lifetime expenses of capitally-prosecuted cases since 1978 will cost Maryland taxpayers $186 million. That translates into at least $37.2 million That translates into at least $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since the state reenacted the death penalty. The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case"
from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

 

[dylans]

Utter utter wank...I oppose the class system and criminal justice system.
Judges saying stupid things, isnt an arguement against capital punishement its an arguement against the ridiculous and undemocratic way our criminal justice system works.

Are you thick?

They were innocent and, if the death penalty had been an option, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXECUTED. Today they would be dead.

What part of that statement do you fail to understand?

Innocent people were imprisoned for decades for a crime they didn't commit. If the death penalty had been an option they would now be dead.

End of story. If the death penalty is an option then the innocent will hang.

Are you prepared to be an innocent man on the end of a rope? Are you?

To argue for the death penalty, knowing that innocent people will die is disgusting and morally bankrupt.

 

[Zapata]

Death penalty for premeditated murder.

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.