Death penality agree/disagree?

[jameslikespie]

Do you agree or disagree? I've always advocated no death penality but recently i've been having second thoughts...

 

[Ex-User (4771)]

its costs something like 20,000 a year to keep a prisoner alive in prison. Why should i fork out tax money to pay to keep some scumbag murderer alive?

 

[jameslikespie]

its costs something like 20,000 a year to keep a prisoner alive in prison. Why should i fork out tax money to pay to keep some scumbag murderer alive?

Really? I heard somewhere it was cheaper to keep them alive but i'm not sure.

 

[Sosekopp]

My argument goes as follows: Laws are crafted by men; men are imperfect; punishment must be reversible.

It's also expensive and efficient, and only serves to satisfy people's lust for revenge.

 

[snafupants]

Even if DNA evidence did not posthumously exonerate a disconcerting number of prisoners murdered by the state, the colosseum type justice system is fundamentally brutal and its use seems basically random. That would be a no/disagree for the record.

 

[A22]

I voted "Disagree" because I think "Agree in some cases" refers to rape or other hate crimes. I agree with the constitution of my country that says "Unless in times of war, death penalty is strictly forbidden.". And that's a federal law. For a lot of reasons, but mainly because it doesn't solve any problems and because the government does not have the right to take ones live.

its costs something like 20,000 a year to keep a prisoner alive in prison. Why should i fork out tax money to pay to keep some scumbag murderer alive?

Prisoners should work / study. The present criminal system sucks. It punishes instead of educating/preparing the prisoner so he can get back to society. Also, just because the system is not a good answer to the "problem" it doesn't mean we should get rid of the "problem". We should work in a better system so if crimes are committed in that better system, the offenders get re-educated into society or work for paying their debt to society.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I haven't really updated my opinion in a while which is: I disagree with the death penalty because I don't think any one man has the right to neither decide nor end another's life(I specifically disagree with the authorization part, it takes an insane amount of arrogance to authorize someone's death). And even collectively, it's inhumane, in my opinion, to consider the death penalty justified because of consensus, which would ignore subjectivity - the person's own internal life. It's a little solipsistic, but consider your own figments of your imagination sentencing you to death, absurd isn't it?


Anyway, I think all prisoners should be pushed toward help and rehabilitation, though I do think it's possible that in the case of some prisoners, helping them may be futile.

 

[snafupants]

I voted "Disagree" because I think "Agree in some cases" refers to rape or other hate crimes. I agree with the constitution of my country that says "Unless in times of war, death penalty is strictly forbidden.". And that's a federal law. For a lot of reasons, but mainly because it doesn't solve any problems and because the government does not have the right to take ones live.



Prisoners should work / study. The present criminal system sucks. It punishes instead of educating/preparing the prisoner so he can get back to society. Also, just because the system is not a good answer to the "problem" it doesn't mean we should get rid of the "problem". We should work in a better system so if crimes are committed in that better system, the offenders get re-educated into society or work for paying their debt to society.

Prison is treated more as punishment than rehabilitation, which is part of the reason recidivism is so high.

Without changing the individual, why would you expect s/he would behave differently?
If anything, s/he is more pissed off, has deeper connections, and is physically stronger and criminally smarter from being behind bars.

What do you think would be an effective way of mentally reforming people who commit crimes? Is there some telltale marker that red flags these folks? Something we can correct before it turns into a bigger problem?

Not exactly PreCrime from Minority Report, but like that?

 

[A22]

IDK about Minority Report but I think that for "simple" crimes such as robbery, obligating the offender to study and work (not hard work, something like making tools or painting) is a good start. By studying he'll get opportunities and will (hopefully) be reeducated when he gets out and by working he is paying for both the knowledge he gets and for his stay in prison, and his debt with society so to speak. For hate crimes such as rape and murder I think the offender should get a psychological analysis to decide what is best for him.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I think the Death Penalty should be an option for every prisoner. Ie, if a prisoner would rather be dead than serve the rest of their sentence, I believe they should have that option. Having death forced upon them is troubling though, because prosecutor misconduct is rampant is today's "Justice" system, and killing an innocent person is murder.

 

[Roni]

My argument goes as follows: Laws are crafted by men; men are imperfect; punishment must be reversible.

I've argued the same but never so elegantly! *steals*

I also have a gut-level objection I've never been able to articulate properly... it relates to how disturbing I find the bloodlust of mobs gathered outside courtrooms with homemade nooses and murderous chants; and to the sympathy I feel for the 'decent' people required to care for death row prisoners or perform the actual execution. There's a hypocricy here I can't quite define.

 

[Words]

I think prisoners are similar to ethnic groups in that they are a minority. Expression of extremity in one case translates into other aspects of society. In addition, disbelief in human cooperation leads to an actual lessening of cooperation. Likewise, belief in cooperation promotes an actual cooperative environment.

So, for the creation of a life-valuing social system, I prefer no death as much as possible. And seeing the current rate of increase in possibilities through technology, I think it's better to view things more ideally.

 

[Vrecknidj]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

And, their fact sheet:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Let me ask this question "Unless you believe that the criminal justice system is 100% accurate, you had to admit the possibility that some people convicted of crimes for which there is the death penalty could end up being executed despite being innocent of the crime for which they're convicted. How many of those, per how many guilty, do you accept as a fair ratio you can live with?"

One innocent per one million guilty?
One innocent per one thousand guilty?
One innocent per one hundred guilty?

Since the criminal justice system is not 100% accurate, there is some ratio. What do you think that ratio should be?

Better question: what is that ratio in your state?

Dave

 

[Ex-User (4771)]

Prisoners should work / study. The present criminal system sucks. It punishes instead of educating/preparing the prisoner so he can get back to society. Also, just because the system is not a good answer to the "problem" it doesn't mean we should get rid of the "problem". We should work in a better system so if crimes are committed in that better system, the offenders get re-educated into society or work for paying their debt to society.

Assuming that such education would "fix" the problem and rehabilitate the prisoner? No from what i have read about some murderers, they can not be fixed. Some are born or made to be killers, such as those with an abusive past or medical defect. Although they are not all like this. I look at it this way "If someone did this to me or my family, what would i think would be the proper recourse?" I, for one, would not want to see someone who wiped out my family walk free or even be alive in prison.

As far as the money issues, all that cost come from the ridicules things they do such as the area they keep death row prisoners and the methods of execution. A 9mm bullet costs something like 20 cents and will do the trick perfectly.

It also comes down to the question "Is it better to execute a innocent or let a guilty man walk free?"

 

[Jesse]

Never.

 

[smithcommajohn]

Killing someone in cold blood seems most cruel, no matter what their previous actions. I used to be a proponent of the death penalty, but now I am inclined to believe there must be a better way.

 

[A22]

Assuming that such education would "fix" the problem and rehabilitate the prisoner? No from what i have read about some murderers, they can not be fixed. Some are born or made to be killers, such as those with an abusive past or medical defect. Although they are not all like this. I look at it this way "If someone did this to me or my family, what would i think would be the proper recourse?" I, for one, would not want to see someone who wiped out my family walk free or even be alive in prison.

As far as the money issues, all that cost come from the ridicules things they do such as the area they keep death row prisoners and the methods of execution. A 9mm bullet costs something like 20 cents and will do the trick perfectly.

It also comes down to the question "Is it better to execute a innocent or let a guilty man walk free?"

Perhaps I misspoke there. I quote my other post in response to yours

IDK about Minority Report but I think that for "simple" crimes such as robbery, obligating the offender to study and work (not hard work, something like making tools or painting) is a good start. By studying he'll get opportunities and will (hopefully) be reeducated when he gets out and by working he is paying for both the knowledge he gets and for his stay in prison, and his debt with society so to speak. For hate crimes such as rape and murder I think the offender should get a psychological analysis to decide what is best for him.

 

[Roni]

..for "simple" crimes such as robbery, obligating the offender to study and work (not hard work, something like making tools or painting) is a good start.
.. For hate crimes such as rape and murder I think the offender should get a psychological analysis to decide what is best for him.

Prison is treated more as punishment than rehabilitation, which is part of the reason recidivism is so high. ..
..What do you think would be an effective way of mentally reforming people who commit crimes? Is there some telltale marker that red flags these folks?

I think part of the reason this issue never goes away is because we* tend to over-generalise about crime and mental illness - most laws (including unsexy ones like company law & tax law) are written for the rational while the criminals that disturb us the most are usually irrational.

If we could split the context of these discussions we might get further. Eg:

Punishing rational lawbreakers-
Prison (as a loss of the social privelege of freedom) is a good consequence for failing to abide by society's codified rules. There is no need to rehabilitate a tax cheat - they knew the rules and made a rational choice to risk the specified punishment. From here we might discuss the length of the sentence, the cost efficiency and alternatives to incarceration, and prisoners' comforts, rights to vote or obligations to work. We would expect comments like

Why should i fork out tax money to pay to keep some scumbag murderer alive?

The death penalty in this context would be a matter of final loss of privelege.


Punishing irrational lawbreakers-
Prison is a terrible place for a decent society to 'treat' the mentally ill - not only are they unlikely to improve in that environment, they are only held there for the length of the sentence attached to the particular law they happened to break. From here we might discuss mental health funding, indefinite psychiatric confinement, early intervention strategies and effective rehabilitation. We would expect comments like

I do think it's possible that in the case of some prisoners, helping them may be futile.

The death penalty in this context would be a matter of euthanasia.


The grey area between rational and irrational behaviour contains scope for interesting/contoversial ideas like castrating the violent or alternative treatment for young (<25) offenders, but until we can make sense of the extremes we're not ready to deal with the shades of grey.

*by 'we' I mean humanity in general, not just this forum

 

[Bryson]

I agree in certain cases
Why should I be sponsoring sociopaths? Beside human beings, every other living being would agree with me, if they could, that supporting parasites is basically not wise.

 

[Ex-User (4771)]

Perhaps I misspoke there. I quote my other post in response to yours

Ah i didn't have time to read all posts, my bad

 

[AlteramPartem]

Allow me to rent. It's going to be super vague.

Just like the symbol of justice implies (scales), our theory of what the justice system should be tends to be divisive and dichotomous:
crime-punishment
victim-culprit etc.

What is it divisive of? I'd say the social fabric. Death penalty implies that the justice system can actually tear apart the disturbing patch and throw it away. I do not believe that this sends the right message out there, whatsoever. It's non-cohesive and irresponsible, as in that case the justice system just gives up on people and the reconstruction of the social fabric caused by a crime. I wish that the justice system was founded under other kinds of symbol. Like that of the wheel of an old sewing machine or something. I wish our justice systems were only about reinsertion, reparation, reunions and so forth, in order to build or rebuild a cohesive society. Answering violence by violence can only speed up the vicious circle and we'll never get out of it without making amends on one side, and forgiving on the other. That should be our responsability as a "higher species", and it should also be that of our justice system. Mind you I know that this is idealist, "unfeasable" (It will stay that way if you let the structure inform your ideas and hopes and never try to reverse the trend!!!) I still think it's true.

 

[ophelia]

I think it depends on the situation definitely.

 

[Jah]

The perpetual question that should haunt every judge, jury and lawyer:

"What if you're wrong ? "



This alone is reason to refuse Death Sentences.


What if you are wrong ?




If I'm wrong, the prisoner is given monetary reimbursement, released and preferably given an official apology, with consequent aid in the re-introduction into society.



If the prisoner is dead ?

Then what ?






There's also the case with what Death Sentence really is.

All of you in the USA:

Know the name Troy Davis ?
Death sentence, 18 years he's been held, there is no evidence against him and seven out of nine witnesses have retracted their statements.

Basically there is just two people saying he killed a cop.

His sentence was based entirely on the statements from the witnesses, (out of 9 there is now just 2. )

So the case is now; He has to prove he is innocent. (how the fuck to you prove a negative anyway ? )


http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis?id=1011343

 

[Jordan~]

I just don't think that it's ever right to kill or that anyone deserves to die. More killing's not going to solve any problems. Address the causes of crime instead. Plus, I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society where the state can consign people to death. Can anyone be trusted with that power? Nor am I comfortable with living in a society that sanctions killing. And even if it were the case that some people deserve to die, as has been said by others, what if it turns out that they were innocent? It's not effective as a deterrent, either; even if it reduced premedtiated crime, it would have no impact on the rates of crimes of passion. Killing people vindictively is just as bad as a murder committed out of passion, and killing people because it's cheaper than keeping them incarcerated is just as bad as a premeditated murder for personal advantage. The only necessary difference is that the death penalty is approved by the state - if a vigilante killed someone who would have gotten the death penalty, anyway, they'd end up on death row; if an executioner killed them they get a paycheck. Which is another issue; someone has to live with the knowledge that they kill people for a living. Even the Romans, bloodthirsty as they may have been, made the death penalty exclusive to treason (for citizens) - a Roman citizen, unless they were found guilty of treason, could not be killed, and under no circumstances could they be tortured or flogged. Citizenship seems sort of worthless unless it confers that very basic right.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Sometimes someone just simply needs to die. I can't claim I think it's a good idea specifically as a punishment for a crime, but when someone has shown themselves capable of killing to the point they will probably do it again, and we need to eliminate that threat. Serial Killers are a prime example of the sort of person I mean. Sure, prison is to keep them from our society, but they may escape. Why take that risk with someone who's proven to be a real threat? Prison as a punishment is an unnecessary risk, and prison as an attempt to "cure" the person of their blood-lust, or whatever, is uncertain at best. How many people have really been rehabilitated? And what's the point if they have a life sentence anyhow?

 

[ummidk]

^^ I think there is still an issue of what if you're wrong, there is no way to make up for it. As for prison being good for rehabilitation, I'd argue it does the opposite. I bet if you put perfectly law abiding citizens in prison a lot of times they'd come out criminals.

 

[GYX_Kid]

Increase the ratio of non-SJ judges to SJ ones, and amend the system to make the best possible individual decisions.

its costs something like 20,000 a year to keep a prisoner alive in prison. Why should i fork out tax money to pay to keep some scumbag murderer alive?

This- economics is something that exists, money is going to indirectly carry more value of life than one individual's life in many cases. If money that could be spent increasing life is instead used to fuel someone who might decrease it (yeah, utilitarianism).

Agree in certain cases

 

[digital angel]

Assuming that such education would "fix" the problem and rehabilitate the prisoner? No from what i have read about some murderers, they can not be fixed. Some are born or made to be killers, such as those with an abusive past or medical defect. Although they are not all like this. I look at it this way "If someone did this to me or my family, what would i think would be the proper recourse?" I, for one, would not want to see someone who wiped out my family walk free or even be alive in prison.

As far as the money issues, all that cost come from the ridicules things they do such as the area they keep death row prisoners and the methods of execution. A 9mm bullet costs something like 20 cents and will do the trick perfectly.

It also comes down to the question "Is it better to execute a innocent or let a guilty man walk free?"

Good points; is a convicted person's issue nature or nurture? If execution is legal, then execution of an innocent person can be an issue.

With respect to the money issues, it's important to remember that prisoners still have rights under the law.

 

[ZombieAtomico]

Against.

As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), there's never been any long-term decrease in crime rates in places that utilize capital punishment. As mentioned before in this thread, the actual monetary burden on the public is also less than executions. As far as I can tell, capital punishment serves no purpose other than an attempt to satiate people's emotional response to the moral outrage triggered by serious crimes. Without question, people are justified in reacting this way to many of these heinous crimes, but executing people (guilty or not) offers neither closure to the victims of these crimes, nor an effective deterrent for future crimes.

The intent is noble, but the result is barbaric and senseless.