I still don't get the logic of people supporting killing people for killing people...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

....and the more painful the death and closer it is to the original crime, all the more reason to cheer.

If we have the duty to promote right over wrong, what type of message does killing people in a painful manner, and excusing it because they themselves killed people, send?

I'm sorry, this makes zero sense to me. I don't think it will ever make any sense to me.

It's barbaric, medieval, primitive and backwards thinking.

Someone can feel free to try to explain it to me, but I don't know if I'll ever understand the thought process behind the death penalty.

[hlthe2b]

1. Never has made sense to me.... n/t

[raccoon]

2. I think it's revenge, pure and simple. nt

[Lex]

57. It is because it does absolutely zero to thwart crime. nt

[Sheldon Cooper]

3. Some of the scenarios that have been put forward here sound like

masturbation material.

[arely staircase]

4. or locking people up for locking people up or taking people's money for taking people's money?

I am ambivalent about the DP and your point about the recent prolonged nature of recent rapist/murderer's death is well taken. but the "killing people who kill people" bumper sticker philosophy is weak sauce. we hold kidnappers against their will and we fine thieves. society gives all sorts of power to governments that are crimes when done by individuals.

[redqueen]

7. It's irrevocable, though.

If you jail someone but they are later proved innocent, you can let them go. If you fine someone you can refund the money. You can't give back someone's life.

[arely staircase]

8. true, and that is probably the most powerful argument against the DP imo

We have undoubtedly executed innocent people here in Texas. and executing the innocent, particularly when there is prosecutorial misconduct like withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense, is morally equivalent to the crime itself. mine is a broader philosophical/moral point that I don't see killing Ted Bundy as the moral equivalent of the murders Bundy committed. That said I would have no problem with doing away with the DP simply because of the possibility of executing the innocent. Another possibility would be creating a higher burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt for DP penalty phases of trials. I just don't see hanging Adolph Eichmann as barbaric.

[redqueen]

9. I agree.

In the cases of the worst offenders - those proudly guilty of the most heinous, evil crimes - I don't think actual torture would be wrong. I know it is, intellectually. Emotionally? I ... I'll stop there.

But like you said, we have to have equal treatment under the law. It's just not worth the risk of executing an innocent. I'm in Texas too, where we execute the mentally disabled. I don't know how anyone in this state can support the DP, but when I was active in the local democratic party, I met TONS of them. It was quite disappointingly revealing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. Thus my personal objection to capital punishment.

If the criminal justice system were 100% accurate, I might have a different opinion...but it's not.

[Major Nikon]

13. The intent of locking people up is to segregate them from society until they are no longer a threat

It's not really an 'eye for an eye' even though some people look at it that way. Capital punishment was and is used extensively in developing countries that don't have the means to segregate those who are a threat. Beyond that it has no moral purpose and only serves the cause of revenge which should never be the intent of justice.

[arely staircase]

14. incarceration serves more than one purpose

yes, protecting society is one, and reforming the offender is another. but punishment is very much one as well as in "he has to pay for his crime" or "paying one's debt to society, etc." you can argue it shouldn't be but punishment is very much a widely accepted reason for prisons in America. in fact I would venture to guess that if you polled Americans "punishment" would top the list of answers to 'what are prisons for?" granted 'to protect society' might come in first but "both would beat "making criminals better people" and 'some combination of all those things" would probably lead the pack.

again, one can argue that the purpose of prison should be solely reform and or protecting the innocent but that just isn't the reality.

[Major Nikon]

15. Punishment is part and parcel to removing the threat

The idea of punishment is to keep the offender from reoffending by removing the motivation to commit the crime in the first place. Keeping a prisoner past this point is counterproductive to society because of the cost involved for incarceration. The idea is that revenge is a piss poor motive for any corrective action because it doesn't serve the needs of society because the costs exceed any real benefit.

[arely staircase]

16. revenge may be arguably counter-productive but

but causing the guilty to suffer for what they have done, be it a loss of freedom or property or life is very much a purpose sentencing. It even plays a part in civil cases in the form of punitive monetary damages.

[Major Nikon]

17. The difference is between addressing the problem or the symptom of the problem

If you take any educational problem solving, the first step in problem solving is identifying the problem. Revenge only addresses the symptom of the problem. In the case of the death penalty it doesn't even do that effectively.

[arely staircase]

20. I don't necessarily disagree with any of that.

But I think there is a deep rooted anthropological need/desire to see "bad" people suffer. Therefore punishment for criminals will always have revenge aspect. The pendulum will swing back and forth between reform and punishment, but punishment will always be part of it.

[Major Nikon]

22. I differentiate between revenge and punishment

Punishment serves a useful purpose. Revenge does not. Most of the advanced world seems to have figured that much out.

Death penalty map

[arely staircase]

24. that may be were we are getting hung up

I don't see them as synonymous but as definitely overlapping substantially on a Venn Diagram. Let's say I destroy your lawn furniture on purpose, for the thrill of it. I am caught and the court orders me to pay you restitution for the damage I caused to your house. But in the eyes of the law the crime I have committed really isn't against you but against society so she also says "fuck you arely staircase, that will cost you an additional thousand dollar fine (which doesn't go to you the victim) and 30 days in jail." So separate from the restitution I pay you (arguably punishment but not revenge) I am punishedby being made to suffer because society wants to see me suffer for destroying your lawn furniture because society through its courts wants to deliver a big "fuck you" to people who destroy lawn furniture. that is revenge.

[Major Nikon]

26. I don't see that as revenge

It's kinda like if you take away the kid's TV time for not cleaning their room. Revenge should have nothing to do with it. Revenge is punishment with malicious intent and should never be public policy anymore than it should be parental policy.

[arely staircase]

35. ok

then we don't really disagree.

thanks for the discussion.

[Major Nikon]

37. Perhaps the only point of contention is I see the DP as revenge rather than punishment

If there is no benefit to society, the only other plausible reason is revenge.

[arely staircase]

38. correct, definitely

I would eliminate the DP, especially as it is carried out in America today (execution of innocents, unevenly applied, etc) Whereas you (correct me if I am wrong) see it as pure revenge and lacking in legitimate other justifications for judicial punishment; deterrence, reformation, societal protection.) But I don't oppose the death penalty in the abstract or has it has at times been carried out: Eichmann, Bundy, etc. But I would be fine with the DP taken off the table for those people if it meant no innocent person would ever be executed. So yeah, we do have a fundamental disagreement in that I have no problem with the two people I mentioned being executed. In fact I am glad they were. But I do not possess some sort of blood lust desire for revenge that I wouldn't be able to accept life in prison for them if that meant no more Todd Willinghams.

[morningfog]

46. We lock people up and fine people for hundreds of reasons.

We don't shoot someone who shot another. We don't rape those convicted of rape.

We shouldn't kill convicted murderers either.

Of course, my position is absolute when it comes to the death penalty. Never, ever, under any circumstances. Actually, I am against incarceration for nearly every type of conviction. I don't believe that punishment is effective, efficient or humane. I support treatment and rehabilitation.

[arely staircase]

49. logical and humane answer nt

[ZombieHorde]

51. Interesting point.

we hold kidnappers against their will and we fine thieves.

Good rebuttal, in my opinion.

[sabrina 1]

5. According to George Bush when asked that question by Bill O'Reilly:

Well, Bill, you have to kill them to stop the killing

And who better to explain killing than the man with his impressive experience with killing?

[redqueen]

6. Happy to be the 10th rec.

I'd love to move away from this barbaric, hypocritical practice.

[hunter]

10. It's an authoritarian thing.

Like a dad who hits his kid for hitting his brother.

In an authoritarian state only Big Brother has the right to kill people.

In a non-authoritarian state nobody has the right to kill anyone else.

The death penalty in the U.S.A. is more evidence we are not a true "first world" nation.

[arely staircase]

11. wouldn't incarcerating kidnappers fall into that category?

and if not, why not?

I am no huge fan of the DP, I just find that moral equivalency argument to be unsupportable unless one is a pure anarchist who believes government should have no ability to coerce anyone to do anything ever. again, I am not making an argument in favor of the DP.

[hunter]

18. There is nothing good about the U.S.A. prison system.

It is cruel and unusual punishment, often for corporate and political profit.

People who are dangerous to others who need to be isolated from society don't need to be kept in cruel conditions. They just need to be kept off the streets.

People who need help with addictions should get help.

People who have committed non-violent crimes need to be taught how to get along in civil society, within a supervised situation for as long as they need that.

Punishment doesn't work if you want a good dog, and it's even less effective on people.

[arely staircase]

21. so no prisons at all then?

not even for the most violent offenders who are sane and free of addiction?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Are you for real?

"There is nothing good about the U.S.A. prison system."

Not even the fact that it deters people from murder, rape, theft etc? The most important reason to have a system of punishing criminals is not to avenge crimes, or even to prevent reoffence, it's to deter potential criminals.

"People who have committed non-violent crimes need to be taught how to get along in civil society, within a supervised situation for as long as they need that."

Most thieves, fraudsters, flashers, meth pushers, people who give and take bribes, conmen, etc, etc, *know* how to get along in civil society, and *choose* not to; they need to be punished - not for their own good, or just for reasons of abstract justice or revenge, but to deter other people from making similar choices.

"Punishment doesn't work if you want a good dog, and it's even less effective on people."

I'm not qualified to talk about dogs, but your claim about humans is bilge. People, unlike dogs, are able to understand why they are being punished, and what steps to take to avoid it in future.



Yes, conditions in US prisons are appalling and need to be improved. But associating that, sensible claim with this kind of bilge weakens it, it doesn't strengthen it. A system of punishing people who do bad things is vital for a society to function.

[hunter]

29. Um...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

I was never taught to appreciate punishment or respect authority that wasn't worth respecting.

Never, ever have I thought, "Oh, I better not do that because I might get punished!"

I don't accept punishment of any sort either, it just goes into the "shit happens" bin of my mind. I do things to avoid trouble with authority, I don't argue with asshole cops, etc., but it's not fear of punishment that keeps me from murdering, raping, or assaulting people, it's not fear of punishment that prevents me from stealing other people's stuff or any other crime you might think of.

Mostly I believe my own ethical system is more finely tuned than that enforced by our legal system, and I'm keenly aware of my own ethical lapses and strive not to repeat them.

Progress is not made by people who respect authority, it is made by people who question authority and resist unjust authority.

If punishment or threat of punishment deters you from any sort of behavior, that's just sad.



Life is much simpler when one understands why certain sorts of behavior are harmful, and for those reasons alone one avoids those harmful behaviors. It's easier to live by a few general ethical principles then it is to remember a bunch of specific rules that one must follow to avoid punishment.

Kids who grow up in authoritarian environments simply learn how to get away with stuff, and sometimes "getting away with stuff" becomes their ultimate thrill.

[morningfog]

47. Prison does not deter crime.

When states have added prisons and increased sentences, the crime rates have not gone down.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. And when states have abolished the punitive/deterrent aspect of the legal system entirely?

Obviously, there's no data there, because no-one's ever been mad enough to try it, but do you really think crime wouldn't go up?

What does and doesn't work to reduce crime is a complicated area of study.

One piece of data is that when the ACLU has won cases against prison overcrowding and large numbers of prisoners have been released in a particular area as a result, crime rates in those areas have gone up significantly compared to the national average.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittTheEffectOfPrison1996.pdf

[morningfog]

54. That says nothing on deterrence.

It actually supports the conclusion that prisons as they are now increases recidivism.

Look to the Scandinavian justice systems for examples of shorter sentences, better prison conditions, greater focus on rehabilitation and diversion from prisons towards real treatment. The result is crime rates a fraction of those found in the US.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. This is either very stupid, or very disingenuous.

"It is OK to kill murderers, but not to kill innocent people" is a message that makes perfect sense. It's not one I'm wholly sold on - I think there's a case to be made that it's not OK to kill murderers - but it's certainly not hypocritical or illogical.

The strong argument against the death penalty is that, because it's applied by fallible mortals, it's not possible to execute anyone without sometimes getting it wrong and executing innocent people.

Pretending not to understand the difference between killing people who have killed innocent people, and killing people who haven't (or genuinely not understanding that difference) just makes opponents of the death penalty look bad.

[pnwmom]

23. There's another strong argument against the death penalty.

There's no way to prevent prosecutors from using the fear of the death penalty as a way to get defendants to take a plea agreement -- whether they are guilty or innocent.

How many innocent defendants would be brave enough AND have the financial resources to take a chance on a trial leading to a death penalty?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Is that unique to the DP, though?

Doesn't the threat of life in prison have something of the same weight?

The thing that's unique to the DP is that you can't take it back when you get it wrong.

[pnwmom]

32. Yes, it is uniquely awful and uniquely permanent.

An innocent person, not already hardened to violence and death, would be especially susceptible to the threat. Especially an innocent person with children who would be devastated if he were put to death. Yes, the death penalty poses a uniquely weighty threat. (Though of course innocent people cop to lower charges with shortened sentences every day.)

This actually happened to someone I know. His wife died in a terrible accident while on vacation and the state charged him with first degree murder and held the possibility of death over him for six months, as he sat in jail. They finally dropped the death penalty after he continued to insist on a trial. (They probably knew no jury would risk a conviction on their shaky case if the death penalty was a possibility.) The first jury was hung, 11 to 1 for not guilty, but they put him through another trial anyway. Another hung jury. Then they kept him waiting for several more months before they finally acknowledged that they didn't have enough of a case to obtain a conviction. No witnesses, no motive, no evidence of an argument or fight, no other real evidence (other than things like his "affect" was either too lacking or too excited after the death) -- and all her relatives and friends, including her parents, testified on the husband's behalf.

BUT they put a terrible pressure on him before they took the death penalty off the table. His teenage and young adult children were terrified. What if he hadn't been so brave? What if he hadn't been a business owner with enough assets to sell to pay for attorneys and experts?

After seeing what he went through, I will never support the death penalty for anyone, no matter how heinous the crime. Because they take the existence of the death penalty and use it to coerce innocent people into plea bargaining -- and it has a force far beyond any sentence measured in years, even beyond a life sentence.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

41. No, I think it's very ingenuous.

We're taught that it's not right to kill another human being unless that person is an imminent and real danger to your or to another person (i.e. self-defense/defense of others).

Vigilante killing is illegal, and for good measure.

And yet, the government--as arbiter of law and justice--will see fit to kill someone who has already been locked away from society and is of no imminent danger to the lives of other human beings.

Why? For what reason?

Why do we prohibit vigilantism yet condone the death penalty?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. For the same reason we prohibit vigilante imprisonment, of course.

None of what you say has anything specifically to do with the death penalty; it all applies uniformly to any form of "doing something bad to someone against their will".

We trust the legal system, with all its checks and balances, an expensive fact-determining apparatus behind it, and a set of values agreed upon by society through the democratic process to enforce, to only punish a small number of innocent people for each guilty person it punishes.

We don't trust vigilantes not to get it wrong much more often, and we also don't want each individual vigilante imposing their own version of morality rather than a consensus one.


That all applies to all punishments - fines and imprisonment just as much as to the death penalty.

The reason the DP is unique is that it's irreversible. I'm willing to accept the small risk of being wrongfully imprisoned, and the moral hazard of a small number of people being wrongfully imprisoned on my behalf, in exchange for the massive gain in security that locking up thieves and rapists gives me, because I know that there's a good chance that a wrongful punishment can be reversed. I'm not willing to accept the additional risk and hazard of people being executed, because the additional gain to my security is comparatively small and because when we get it wrong we're stuck with it, and so is the victim.

But that *doesn't* mean that I'm in any way certain that there aren't people it would be both just (because they've done such evil things) and utilitarian (because it would discourage others) for the state to kill. It just means that I don't trust the state to identify such people infallibly, and I don't think executing innocent people is a price worth paying for it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. But those checks and balances of which you speak don't extend to the actual taking of lives.

We do want to ensure fair and just trials, and if proof be beyond a reasonable doubt and the crime severe enough, it is also just to forfeit one's right to participate in a public society and enjoy of its benefits. Perhaps for a limited amount of time, or perhaps--on certain occasions where the offender poses a serious enough risk to the public--for the rest of one's natural life.

But nothing in those concepts of justice and fairness, utilitarianism, or protection of society, supports the asinine proposition that the state has the ability to premature end someone's natural life when that person is not an imminent threat to others. And incarcerated individuals are not an imminent threat to anyone.

[ailsagirl]

19. There is none

[Theodis]

28. Unfortunately, there are some people who can't, won't and don't play well with others

There are people in society who do harm to others, many times with no real clear motive.
If the prison system is a sham and killing them is wrong, then what is to be done with them?
The third alternative is to release them to wreak havoc upon the weak and the meek. Can we or do we support that?

[hunter]

31. I've no problem removing murderers, child rapists, torturers, and the sort from society...

... and keeping them isolated in some place where they are treated humanely.

That's what makes us different from them. We don't abuse or kill anyone.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

60. Who here is arguing we don't need prisons?

I'm certainly not arguing that. I don't see anyone in this post arguing that. You're making a false premise here.

[Theodis]

71. Post #18 There is nothing good about the U.S.A. prison system.

I wasn't arguing against more prisons either.
But at what cost?

[Rex]

30. What else are you supposed to do with a person that kills people for enjoyment?

I mean, okay despite the total hypocrisy of giving someone a medal for killing the RIGHT people. Why do you expect humans do be upset about killing a person that killed other people; when they are perfectly okay with going to another country (personally or by proxy) and killing A LOT of those people...sometimes even without warrant or oversight? With unbelievable firepower sometimes and total overkill.

You expect too much out of humans.

The death penalty is to make sure some humans feel better about life, while another sacrifices his or hers for that benefit. Call it justice, revenge or barbarism - it will be a topic long talked about after we are all dead and buried. Hopefully from natural causes.

[dem in texas]

34. People who prey on other people don't deserve to live

I will only comment on what I know. We had a case here in Lancaster, Texas where a woman killed her elderly neighbor. She got the old lady to open the door by asking to borrow a cup of sugar. Once inside, she killed the lady and even cut off her finger to get her ring. Then she stole her car and that is how they caught her. She was sentenced to death. It said in the paper that she had done the same thing to a least two other elderly ladies, but because she was already sentenced to death, the other cases would not be prosecuted. The killer was a woman in her forties who had plenty of time to learn the difference between right and wrong. She was clearly preying on weak, fraile people. If I had been on her jury, I too would have sentenced her to death.

If a person repeatedly kills people to enrich himself, he or she is like a killer tiger and needs to be found and eliminated so that society is safe.

That said, I was once eliminated from a jury pool because I was hesitant to send a young man to prison for life for driving the get away car in a robbery-murder. He had no criminal record and was 16 years old. I feel he should have been punished, but not prison for life.

[Theodis]

40. Agreed.

When you take a life, you give up the right to have a life.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. So under this rationale, anyone responsible for a homicide should be given the death penalty?

Including drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. How is society not safe if that person is locked away for life?

What purpose does the killing serve that life in prison does not?

[Theodis]

43. What purpose does life in prison serve?

How does giving killers better healthcare and services than the working poor have make this a better place?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

44. Those "benefits" are nominal, if best.

People aren't exactly clamoring for prison food, housing and medical care if you know what I mean.

And not acting like barbarians, IMHO, would make this world a better place.

[Theodis]

50. No?

Then why do so many cons go back to prison?

Have you ever worked with cons?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

59. Personality flaws, psychological issues, sometimes substance abuse issues.

Sadly, some people become addicted to crime, and it becomes a vicious cycle for them.

And yes, perhaps for indigent folks, in a twisted way, prison creates a sense of stability.

But no one in their right mind would view anything about prison life as constituting any type of "benefit."

[morningfog]

48. I am anti-life in prison.

I don't believe anyone should be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. I think that life with the possibility of parole should only be in rare and extreme cases.

[Eleanors38]

70. Life sentences may be a bargaining chip to rid us of the DP.

The politics of this are real. You might be able to eliminate the DP in some states by assuring the public that a heinous criminal who would otherwise be subject to the DP would in fact never leave prison. I'd go with that. No Charlie Manson skidmarks on the outside.

[Quayblue]

36. I think this way too

[JI7]

39. it's not that difficult to understand when you consider the horrible things these people do

but that doesn't mean it's right.

this is why we have to have laws in place to deal with it rather than letting emotions take over and deciding after something happens .

[sendero]

55. Sure..

... compare the anal rape and slit throat of an innocent pregnant victim to an execution carried out after due process using the most humane method available.

And you want to talk about "logic".

[Tommy_Carcetti]

62. They both are death. Utterly permanent.

The former everyone can agree was wrong. But the latter is just as permanent. And to what ends does it serve? What's the logic of killing another person to send a message that killing is wrong?

It is extremely illogical once you really think about it.

[Yo_Mama]

56. Ah, so imprisoning Ariel Castro is just the same as what he did to his victims?

I think there is an obvious flaw in your logic here.

Some people are so dangerous to the average person on the street that they can't be allowed to wander around. It's certainly possible to remove them from society with a life sentence. Argue that route - that penal sentences should be in defense of society.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. Incarceration serves an actual purpose, which you yourself recognize.

But condemned people are already incarcerated and kept away from society. What further purpose does killing them serve?

[sibelian]

63. There isn't any logic to it.

Nor is there really that much logic to the accepted standards of punishment in Western society.

It's pretty much an open secret that punishment of crimes should be seen to be symmetrical with the scale of society's emotional response to the crime committed. Who would deny this? It's not got much to do with the consequences of the crime itself or the circumstances under which it takes place or the actual personality of the criminal, these factors become incremental or decremental bonuses or penalities of small consequence in the grand sceme of sentencing. The grand scheme of sentencing is to make the criminal feel as bad as he's made society feel. It is to perturb him emotionally. "WE HATE YOU TOO, SO THERE, NER."

It's all like some sort of weird mirror.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

64. It's more evidence of cowboy culture.

"I'm right, you're wrong, so fuck you."

[Silent3]

65. I don't support the death penalty, but I don't see how the logic is hard to see.

You mention the "duty to promote right over wrong", but what you do to promote that depends on how you define "right" and "wrong".

While I don't support the death penalty, that's not because I find any and all killing abhorrent, but because I'd rather the government not have that power. The proper business of the state is protection of the public and deterrence of crime, not revenge. What we allow the state to do in our name needs to be looked at with cooler heads than the emotions stirred up by heinous crimes.

At an emotional level, however -- which for me is a very different thing than what I'd actually want to see enacted as government policy -- I have absolutely no trouble understanding why, say, a parent whose children had been brutally killed would want the killer to die, and suffer before dying. When I think about the people who jumped out of the WTC on 9/11, forced to chose between falling to their deaths and burning to death, I find it very easy to wish their killers had to face that kind of death instead.

To me it's the killing of innocent people which is wrong, not just killing in and of itself. By that standard, there is no contradiction whatsoever in wanting a murderer to die. When a person decides to kill another person because of greed or selfishness, because he considers some mere slight against his own feelings of such great importance that someone else should die for the offense, that person has (by my standards, at least) lowered the value of his own life, has reduced (if not negated) the value his own life has to others.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. Except aren't we taught that killing another person is never right unless....

.....there is an imminent threat to yourself or others.

Once an offender is locked up, they cease to be an imminent threat of harm to others.


So how does that jive with what we are taught as it relates to killing people?

[Silent3]

69. "We" are taught lots of different things by different people

There is no single agreed upon ethics of killing.

People who read the Bible and take it literally are told quite a few things are worthy of death, by methods like public stoning, with no consideration of imminent threat. I'd join you in calling such thinking barbaric, but people are nevertheless taught such things.

Even with extremes like Biblical literalism aside, we receive a wide variety of conflicting messages on when it's appropriate to use deadly force, and on the value of human life.

[RedCappedBandit]

66. That's because it's not logical.

It's an emotional reaction.

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. My objection to capital punishment lies largely in the lack of a "do over" button.

Our criminal justice system makes mistakes, and those mistakes are fairly common. A long stint in prison for an innocent person is an awful thing, but it can be ended. An execution? Not so much.