Capital punishment
- Thread starter Einion
- Start date
Einion
New member
It wasn\'t taken out of context, it was the context! I quoted the relevant portion of your reply to what I\'d asked about.
A reminder of what prompted the question (and a broader selection of your thoughts on the subject):
I read that to mean make serious offenders live out their natural lives in solitary rather than kill them.
As for your criticism/critique, general forum conduct in a nutshell: one tends to pick the point we want to disagree with and argue that, essentially ignoring the rest of what someone said. You do the same yourself.
That\'s a fair point and a good indicator of the level (past \"beyond a reasonable doubt\") that it is probably best to set the burden of proof at.
It\'s not a deterrent for murder, no, that\'s been established a couple of times historically and is actually considered a given in some circles.
From the Columbia Law School page:
If it\'s applied differently, as I outlined on the foot of page 1, these become much less of an issue.
That doesn\'t have to be fixed (unalterable).
I think that\'s unquestionable.
Do bear in mind that the US studies focus on what are capital offences in America. This does not speak to the deterrent value for other crimes.
I bet people think long and hard about whether they choose to commit a number of the death-penalty crimes in places like Thailand and China.
Einion
Infidel Castro
New member
Ooooh, he\'s back 
Pertinent points, agree to disagree somewhat, respect, etc...
:beer:
Pertinent points, agree to disagree somewhat, respect, etc...
:beer:
Orb
procrastinator
I suspect that the lack of a fair trial, poor access to lawyers , no presumption of innocence, possibility of confessions extracted under torture may well keep the population in China in a state of fear so they try not to commit any crimes, let alone the 68 crimes that can result in a death sentence.....
Micha
Member
I am clearly for YES and I can explain it. Here in Germany, as in the whole of the EU capitol punishment is gone for more then half a century. A sad development.
The thing here is: the aim of any system of laws is the state´s and sociaty´s well-being. For this, all destructive elements have to be removed from society so it does not plunge into anarchy (something which you can see well in those regions where there is no government and no laws, like somalia). The capital punishment is the ultimate means to remover dangerous elements from society, much more efficient then prison sentences - no escape, no release, no parole. Therefore it must be applied where there is no doubt the person poses such a great threat to society that his merest physical existance becomes intolorable. Death penalty is no deterrent - an offender, be it a buglar or a terrorist, can not be deterred from a crime, he does not expect to be caught. Neither is it revenge - the state is an impersonal construct, it is incapable of emotions like hate or fear, so it does not know revenge. Death penalty is simply a means of removing dangerous elements from the social body. In my opinion, murder, rape, military espionage, memebership in a terrorost organization and mass production of illegal drugs are capital offences. Individial who are capable of such unspeakably evil crimes deserve to be disposed of as quickly as possible. Their merest existancy can already put a sociaty at the verge of collapse.
Micha
The thing here is: the aim of any system of laws is the state´s and sociaty´s well-being. For this, all destructive elements have to be removed from society so it does not plunge into anarchy (something which you can see well in those regions where there is no government and no laws, like somalia). The capital punishment is the ultimate means to remover dangerous elements from society, much more efficient then prison sentences - no escape, no release, no parole. Therefore it must be applied where there is no doubt the person poses such a great threat to society that his merest physical existance becomes intolorable. Death penalty is no deterrent - an offender, be it a buglar or a terrorist, can not be deterred from a crime, he does not expect to be caught. Neither is it revenge - the state is an impersonal construct, it is incapable of emotions like hate or fear, so it does not know revenge. Death penalty is simply a means of removing dangerous elements from the social body. In my opinion, murder, rape, military espionage, memebership in a terrorost organization and mass production of illegal drugs are capital offences. Individial who are capable of such unspeakably evil crimes deserve to be disposed of as quickly as possible. Their merest existancy can already put a sociaty at the verge of collapse.
Micha
ScottRadom
Shogun of Saskatchewan
Hey, here we go! Some excellent conversation here!
Prophet- Nice post, clearly you put some thought and time into that. Thanks, nice to read. I still support the Death penalty and feel that your information is great but it proves only that the Death Penalty as practiced in those States in the US is clearly inefficient, and perhaps as you argue ineffective. If the system there was fixed and reduced tax payers cost to perhaps 1% of the current cost would that affect your opinion? eMail can be tricky in situations like this but I assure you my tone is inquisitive and not at all accusatory. I liked your post and would like to hear more! As someone who learned everything about the American legal system from \"Law and Order\" re-runs it is interesting to hear such an infromed and intelligent post.
Micha-I hear what you\'re saying and mostly agree with you. I DO however believe that a government is completely capable of acting as a personal construct an enacting revenge etc. You have to feel that at least some government sponsored actions are made out of a feeling from someone involved for pure revenge. Maybe at least a little?
Also talking about China. Who is really going to use China as an example of what we SHOULD be doing in other parts of the world? I hope to any God who\'ll listen my government doesn\'t start taking legal or human rights advice from them. I hear they\'re getting better though...
I liked more of the conversation centered on the moral question of \"Is it right to take a life as legal action in response to criminal activity?\". I still vote yes it is baby! I like to use extreme examples in discussion like these, and I\'ll go ahead and silly it up some. If you had an opportunity to legally execute someone like the Red Skull or the Joker (I\'m a Marvel fan, but I\'ll throw something in for the other side of the super hero world. You know, so DC fans can understand too!) would you feel any moral obligation not too? Would you be upset if they were found guilty and executed by your government? Sorry, I just felt I had gone to the well once to many times with Saddam Hussein as an example.
I agree that the death penalty is almost certainly not a detterent to the mind of the potential capital offence commiting criminal. Most people who do these things are far to gone to care whether they get caught or what the punishment would be if they did.
So my question.... What if they Death Penalty could be carried out in response to white collar crime? I am NOT condoning this or suggesting it seriously but I have to think a good many of those type of offenders (Enron etc.) aren\'t that worried about being prosecuted as they know they are likely to not even face hard labor as they are not considered threatening to society or whatever. Imagine how these current banking crisis\' would be avoided if people involved faced the possibility of death for their often criminal activities? I bet THAT WOULD serve as a detterent. Again, not seriously suggesting that, I\'m really not a whacko or anything.
I just happen to believe that we need to take permanent action on this Red Skull character and kill him once and for all. Every time he comes back, too.
Prophet- Nice post, clearly you put some thought and time into that. Thanks, nice to read. I still support the Death penalty and feel that your information is great but it proves only that the Death Penalty as practiced in those States in the US is clearly inefficient, and perhaps as you argue ineffective. If the system there was fixed and reduced tax payers cost to perhaps 1% of the current cost would that affect your opinion? eMail can be tricky in situations like this but I assure you my tone is inquisitive and not at all accusatory. I liked your post and would like to hear more! As someone who learned everything about the American legal system from \"Law and Order\" re-runs it is interesting to hear such an infromed and intelligent post.
Micha-I hear what you\'re saying and mostly agree with you. I DO however believe that a government is completely capable of acting as a personal construct an enacting revenge etc. You have to feel that at least some government sponsored actions are made out of a feeling from someone involved for pure revenge. Maybe at least a little?
Also talking about China. Who is really going to use China as an example of what we SHOULD be doing in other parts of the world? I hope to any God who\'ll listen my government doesn\'t start taking legal or human rights advice from them. I hear they\'re getting better though...
I liked more of the conversation centered on the moral question of \"Is it right to take a life as legal action in response to criminal activity?\". I still vote yes it is baby! I like to use extreme examples in discussion like these, and I\'ll go ahead and silly it up some. If you had an opportunity to legally execute someone like the Red Skull or the Joker (I\'m a Marvel fan, but I\'ll throw something in for the other side of the super hero world. You know, so DC fans can understand too!) would you feel any moral obligation not too? Would you be upset if they were found guilty and executed by your government? Sorry, I just felt I had gone to the well once to many times with Saddam Hussein as an example.
I agree that the death penalty is almost certainly not a detterent to the mind of the potential capital offence commiting criminal. Most people who do these things are far to gone to care whether they get caught or what the punishment would be if they did.
So my question.... What if they Death Penalty could be carried out in response to white collar crime? I am NOT condoning this or suggesting it seriously but I have to think a good many of those type of offenders (Enron etc.) aren\'t that worried about being prosecuted as they know they are likely to not even face hard labor as they are not considered threatening to society or whatever. Imagine how these current banking crisis\' would be avoided if people involved faced the possibility of death for their often criminal activities? I bet THAT WOULD serve as a detterent. Again, not seriously suggesting that, I\'m really not a whacko or anything.
I just happen to believe that we need to take permanent action on this Red Skull character and kill him once and for all. Every time he comes back, too.
Yes, with reservations.
Serial offenders with no doubt as to their guilt would be the most appropriate recipients of capital punishment.
I think life imprisonment is a costly, though viable alternative. I can\'t imagine it costs more to execute a prisoner, but I don\'t know how the previously posted number were arrived at. I also agree it should be less \"comfy\" for prisoners.
What about offering the convict a choice? You can either take life imprisonment or death by lethal injection/hanging/firing squad/whatever... I suspect that there would be a fair number that would choose death rather than life imprisonment with no hope for parole.
Another question about the psychological impact of taking another\'s life: would people have the same problems with it in the setting of euthanasia? We had a brief thread on that topic awhile back, and my recollection was that most were in favor of it, despite it too revolving around the taking of another\'s life.
Serial offenders with no doubt as to their guilt would be the most appropriate recipients of capital punishment.
I think life imprisonment is a costly, though viable alternative. I can\'t imagine it costs more to execute a prisoner, but I don\'t know how the previously posted number were arrived at. I also agree it should be less \"comfy\" for prisoners.
What about offering the convict a choice? You can either take life imprisonment or death by lethal injection/hanging/firing squad/whatever... I suspect that there would be a fair number that would choose death rather than life imprisonment with no hope for parole.
Another question about the psychological impact of taking another\'s life: would people have the same problems with it in the setting of euthanasia? We had a brief thread on that topic awhile back, and my recollection was that most were in favor of it, despite it too revolving around the taking of another\'s life.
Einion
New member
Imprisonment alone acts as a partial deterrent, so clearly a possible death sentence could act as a deterrent as well.
Yep, that\'s one good example. Why waste resources on someone like that?
From the Columbia Law page.
That\'s largely a moot point anyway - obviously it\'ll affect some people badly and others not much, just as line-of-duty shootings and combat do. Whether it does negatively affect some individuals is not a reason not to have it, it\'s more about having a better selection process I would have thought.
Einion
In reponse to treide, a death penalty murder trial, if the numbers I read were correct, is about 10 times the duration of a non-death penalty murder trial. In addition the appeal process is generally about 8 steps and takes over a decade to exhaust. That\'s ten years of appeals, briefs, courts being clogged up, etc. To tie this in with Einion\'s comment, if you shorten the process to cut expenses, you lose oversight and increase the risk of wrongful execution. Neither one is particularly desirable in my opinion. The state I live in, California, would save $200 million per year by abolishing the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment and is currently considering building a $400 million dollar death row facility. There\'s no way you can argue that this is the best use of these funds.
BTW, I was reading through some pro-death penalty websites and they have some very different statistics. I found three different dates given (1900, 1954, 1975) at which no innocent person had supposedly been executed. I\'m not digging through each case.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Appeals.htm
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/06/its_official_-_1.html
Einion
New member
Not necessarily. Take it off the table for single homicides - where it\'s widely accepted there is no deterrent value anyway - and already things are looking better.
If it\'s for repeat offences then far less chance of being railroaded or having a travesty of justice take place, ergo less need of oversight. You could shorten or remove the appeals process then.
I\'m presuming that those involved in the decision making interpret the numbers differently or are working with different numbers. They might be basing the decision on the wrong reasons though, like with Prohibition.
Einion
Legacy Account
Active member
This isn\'t meant as a personal attack (or indeed an attack on Germany) but have a read of those comments and try to put them into some sort of historical perspective. They sound very wrong.
An unreserved \'NO\' from me.
Legacy Account
Active member
Stick around Chief! There\'re some good discussions about all sorts of things around here.
Ideology beats pragmatism. Any politician who comes out as being anti-death penalty is construed as being \"soft on crime\" and more interested in criminals\' rights than those of the victims. Most voters seem to be satisfied with soundbyte politics rather than delving into the nuance of any issue. The less you know, the easier it is to be sure.
Micha
Member
Hello again.
@Spacemunkie: well I know what you hint at, and I still think that what I said is correct, and i am ready to stand by it not only in the anonymity of the internet, but also in an open and personal discussion (which I have done in the past). The right things do not become wrong if uttered by the wrong people. I am well aware that phrases abour \'removing harmful elemets\' have been uttered in a terrible context and have lead to the most dreadful consequences in facist italy, nazi germany, marxist russia, china, cambodia and so on. The concept of cleaning harmful components out of a healthy and stable society is a correct one nevertheless. The difference between our moder societies and these dreadful regimes is the fact that we do not base our judgement on a class or race ideology but on a set of democratic laws. You will not argue, I hope, that those elements I named in my last posts (murderers, rapists, terrorists) as worthy of the capitol punishment are truly dangerous and destructive for any society. I hope I made my piont clear.
Micha
@Spacemunkie: well I know what you hint at, and I still think that what I said is correct, and i am ready to stand by it not only in the anonymity of the internet, but also in an open and personal discussion (which I have done in the past). The right things do not become wrong if uttered by the wrong people. I am well aware that phrases abour \'removing harmful elemets\' have been uttered in a terrible context and have lead to the most dreadful consequences in facist italy, nazi germany, marxist russia, china, cambodia and so on. The concept of cleaning harmful components out of a healthy and stable society is a correct one nevertheless. The difference between our moder societies and these dreadful regimes is the fact that we do not base our judgement on a class or race ideology but on a set of democratic laws. You will not argue, I hope, that those elements I named in my last posts (murderers, rapists, terrorists) as worthy of the capitol punishment are truly dangerous and destructive for any society. I hope I made my piont clear.
Micha
