How do you feel about Capital Punishment (ie. the death penalty)!!

[Atrea]

On a fundamental level, I oppose the death penalty. I also oppose "life without parole", because that in itself is a death sentence.

The death penalty (and again, life without parole) operates on a single, faulty assumption; that a person is incapable of change.
I don't believe that one bit. All other concerns regarding the death penalty become moot at that point, at least to me.

(Although I will say, killing to 'avenge' a death is not justice, it's just revenge, no matter how you slice it.)

[ambigiouslynamed]

I am for it but only in the extremest of cases (example, Bin Laden) and only when there is absolutely no shadow of a doubt. In any other case, if there is a shred of doubt or the man won't be a danger if he's kept in maximum security prison, then I prefer life in prison.

I do think we use capital punishment too much.

do you always do everything knowing %100 of everything involved and are thus omniscient or are you going to admit that you can never be %100 sure

[Ambush]

I find that most of the arguments in favor of capital punishment fall into one of three categories:

1. Emotional ("how can you let this monster live???")
2. Religious roots ("Eye for an Eye")
3. Based on false information (for example, many people think it's a deterrent, yet the general consensus among social scientists is that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is at best unproven. In 1988 a survey was conducted for the UN to determine the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates. This was then updated in 1996. It concluded:

...research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis. The key to real and true deterrence is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction. The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.

Statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalisation of society and an increase in murder rate. In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2003, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.10 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.91 per cent. These calculations are based on figures from the FBI. The gap between death penalty states and non-death penalty states rose considerably from 4 per cent difference in 1990 to 44 per cent in 2003.

[smrund]

We shouldn't listen to pleas from victims... that's the stupidest thing ever. The criminal isn't being punished for the pleasure of the victim. He's being sent away to prison to protect society.

There are a variety of ways to punish people aside from locking them up.

Can you please state your logical, rational, evidence-based argument for why an anger-based justice system might do any good for society?

As it isn't my position, I'm not interested in defending it.

You don't see how those are different? How asking someone be treated lightly is different than asking they have their rights be deprived for longer?

They are the same, only one is "prettier" to accept. Makes people go "dawww, how nice of them!" instead of "Wow, what an asshole." You are asking the court to take your personal opinion on the criminal into consideration. You CAN be a character witness for your own assailant.

Its not my opinion, its the basis for a western justice system. Emotion has no place in determining a sentence.

Objectivity is a valid line of reasoning, though a lot of modern theory, particularly most of feminist theory, thinks that the personal opinions of those involved are highly relevant.

[ambigiouslynamed]

On a fundamental level, I oppose the death penalty. I also oppose "life without parole", because that in itself is a death sentence.

The death penalty (and again, life without parole) operates on a single, faulty assumption; that a person is incapable of change.
I don't believe that one bit. All other concerns regarding the death penalty become moot at that point, at least to me.

(Although I will say, killing to 'avenge' a death is not justice, it's just revenge, no matter how you slice it.)

most criminals are repeat offenders http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

[Atrea]

Objectivity is a valid line of reasoning, though a lot of modern theory, particularly most of feminist theory, thinks that the personal opinions of those involved are highly relevant.

They are highly relevant, but in regards to what? Demonstrating impact? Absolutely. Determining sentencing? Not so much.

Most victims of crime would see their perpetrator dealt with excessively harsh. Many people believe it's fair to shoot someone for stealing.

[ambigiouslynamed]

[QUOTE=Ambush;15606563]I find that most of the arguments in favor of capital punishment fall into one of three categories:

1. Emotional ("how can you let this monster live???")
2. Religious roots ("Eye for an Eye")
3. Based on false information (for example, many people think it's a deterrent, yet the general consensus among social scientists is that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is at best unproven. In 1988 a survey was conducted for the UN to determine the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates. This was then updated in 1996. It concluded:

or you think killing murders and rapists is a good idea so they will never do it again and saying putting criminals in prison for life and saying that is better is laughable

[Atrea]

most criminals are repeat offenders http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

Most criminals are also 'petty criminals'; murderers and the like, for example, have a low recidivism rate.
This points to a more sociological root cause for their crimes, like poverty. Locking them in jail repeatedly adds to this, by making sure they'll never lead a normal life.

It should be a human rights violation to discriminate against someone based on their criminal history. If they've paid their debt to society, they should be clear to pursue a normal life. The absence of this opportunity makes recidivism almost a sure bet.

[Ambush]

or you think killing murders and rapists is a good idea so they will never do it again and saying putting criminals in prison for life and saying that is better is laughable

Say that again, sorry?

[Wells]

They are the same, only one is "prettier" to accept. Makes people go "dawww, how nice of them!" instead of "Wow, what an asshole." You are asking the court to take your personal opinion on the criminal into consideration. You CAN be a character witness for your own assailant.

No they're not. You're making the fundamental assumption that letting someone go earlier is equitable to detaining them longer.

Objectivity is a valid line of reasoning, though a lot of modern theory, particularly most of feminist theory, thinks that the personal opinions of those involved are highly relevant.

Bully for them.

[ambigiouslynamed]

Say that again, sorry?

Or someone who supports the death penatly/capital punishment thinks killing murders and rapists is a good idea so that those individuals who commit such acts will never have a chance to do it again
Claiming that putting criminals in jail for life and that such a fate is better than execution amuses me

[smrund]

They are highly relevant, but in regards to what? Demonstrating impact? Absolutely. Determining sentencing? Not so much.

Most victims of crime would see their perpetrator dealt with excessively harsh. Many people believe it's fair to shoot someone for stealing.

If personal testimony demonstrates that the impact was less than other similar crimes, shouldn't the sentence be adjusted to fit a lessened version of the crime?

Sure, the punishment should fit the crime, but taking an "average" of the crime and giving them the "average" punishment doesn't really accomplish that.

No they're not. You're making the fundamental assumption that letting someone go earlier is equitable to detaining them longer.

And you're assuming that they're not.

Bully for them.

Uh huh, lets just stop progressing society because we've found a single way to solve problems.

[Schattenlied]

Completely against it in every way, shape and form. If you take a life when a life has been taken, that's not justice, it's just revenge.

Going to let Ian Hislop do the talking for me anyway:

An act can only be classified as revenge or vengeance if the person taking the killer's life knew the victim personally. Since the people issuing and carrying out these kinds of things aren't, it is not revenge, it is justice.

[Atrea]

If personal testimony demonstrates that the impact was less than other similar crimes, shouldn't the sentence be adjusted to fit a lessened version of the crime?

Sure, the punishment should fit the crime, but taking an "average" of the crime and giving them the "average" punishment doesn't really accomplish that.

I see what you're getting at. My reticence comes from it being used to go the other way, though.

[smrund]

I see what you're getting at. My reticence comes from it being used to go the other way, though.

Well that's the thing. The punishment should fit the crime, if you feel that you were harmed more greatly by your attacker than normal, that should be taken into consideration. Now mind you these sentiments one way or the other should have minimal impact(<10% IMO), as a more vicious attack can often be demonstrated through the evidence(such as torture before rape/murder, assault before theft, ect...). A lighter attack? Not so much, hence why it's easier for people to be more lenient than it is for them to be harsher.

[ambigiouslynamed]

If personal testimony demonstrates that the impact was less than other similar crimes, shouldn't the sentence be adjusted to fit a lessened version of the crime?

Sure, the punishment should fit the crime, but taking an "average" of the crime and giving them the "average" punishment doesn't really accomplish that.


And you're assuming that they're not.


Uh huh, lets just stop progressing society because we've found a single way to solve problems.

if aint broke dont fix it?

---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 11:09 PM ----------

An act can only be classified as revenge or vengeance if the person taking the killer's life knew the victim personally. Since the people issuing and carrying out these kinds of things aren't, it is not revenge, it is justice.

what IS justice?

[Irishman]

These threads on capital punishment always eventually devolve into some sort of argument where idealists or optimists or devil's advocates or whatever you'd like to call them start arguing about "PROOF" of a crime being committed. Even video tape, of which there are trillions of minutes recorded every year around the globe, isn't good enough for these people.

I'd like to direct you to the case of Byrd and Melanie Billings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd_Billings.

Sometimes you don't need some sort of Divine finger pointed at the perpetrator to prove he did it.

When a red van full of masked men are videotaped pulling into a driveway and then the home's occupants are found murdered, I don't need to listen to 5 months worth of testimony and lawyering to determine who should be punished by death.

Some of you act as if nothing can be proven absolutely and therefore death is too harsh a punishment. In the study of philosophy, we call these people Pyrrhonian or Academic skeptics and they are viewed as laughable and good for nothing more than a brief look or exercise into nihilism.

I love how this comment was so gleefully brushed under the carpet; it reminds me of the old joke about 'proof' where there's 3 people in a Mansion, one in the living room and the others elsewhere. A scream is heard by the man in the living room, and one of the other two people in the mansion is dead; the remaining individual is holding a blood-stained blade, but since the man in the living room didn't see what happened he proudly boasts that anyone could have killed the third person, and that the blood on the blade could be anyone's blood. Reminiscing aside, Slummish' post pretty much renders the thread dealt with. Move along people.

[tommypilgrim]

I'm from the UK. I disagree with capital punishment simply because I believe the alternative (locking them in a 6x8 cell for the rest of their lives) is a far better punishment. Prisons should be tough. I would much rather die than spend 50 years looking at the same four walls.

[Atrea]

Well that's the thing. The punishment should fit the crime, if you feel that you were harmed more greatly by your attacker than normal, that should be taken into consideration. Now mind you these sentiments one way or the other should have minimal impact(<10% IMO), as a more vicious attack can often be demonstrated through the evidence(such as torture before rape/murder, assault before theft, ect...). A lighter attack? Not so much, hence why it's easier for people to be more lenient than it is for them to be harsher.

I can only see that system ever being used for revenge. Many people would plead their case that they were harmed more than the next person just to get even with the perpetrator.

That's not what justice is about. It doesn't right any wrongs, it just lets people perpetuate hate.

[Ambush]

Reminiscing aside, Slummish' post pretty much renders the thread dealt with. Move along people.

Fact is: innocent people are killed by capital punishment.

How the hell does Slummish' post address this?