best rationale for the death penalty

[0rganism]

Poll question: best rationale for the death penalty

I've seen a lot of people in threads for a recent death penalty case post things like, "Even though I'm against the death penalty, we need to kill this guy."

What, to you, is the best possible reason for applying the death penalty? That is, if you were on a jury, what would be the most convincing argument a prosecutor could make for you to recommend a death sentence for a convicted felon?

If you like, feel free to rank the reasons in a post.

[uppityperson]

1. I voted none because I am a librul with low moral values.

Actually for a lot of other reasons, but that is the 1 I like to give. Kick.

[sam sarrha]

2. there is not proof that Death is PENALTY, it is conjecture.. they are just send'n them to Jesus to

be taken to heaven.. there are no Atheists sitting in the electric chair...

regardless of whether you think death is a penalty, which would just be an opinion... THERE IN NO PROOF..scientific or otherwise it is a penalty..

but it is a Blood Sacrafice for your vote if a Politician promices to kill prisoners in custody if elected..

[0rganism]

4. there are certainly deaths that are not penalties, wouldn't you agree?

I agree with you in principle, we don't know what (if anything) exists in the undiscovered country from which none return. As far as we know, we'll all die someday, in various degrees of pain and violence.

However, the distinguishing characteristic of a death penalty (or any other judicially-applied penalty) is that it emanates from an apparatus of the state, and (we hope) as a result of the "due process of law" -- whether one agrees with its use or not.

Your point about politicians is an interesting one -- promising swift executions for the condemned has been used more than once to garner votes. What do you suppose the voters hope to achieve through supporting capital punishment?

[sam sarrha]

20. as a Buddhist, we all return till enlightenment, and as a Mahayana, it is essentially endless

belief that death is a penalty is 'Conjecture' therefore cruel and unusual..

there are no quick sentences for death.. usually 20 years of near total isolation..

[0rganism]

62. good point -- I didn't intend to disrespect your beliefs

I meant "none return" as in return from death in *this life*, rather than post-bardo.

Anyway, yours is an interesting perspective from which to consider the question.

[sam sarrha]

74. no offence taken.. if "Buddhist" reincarnation were taken more seriously this crap wouldnt happen,

when you can be forgiven for anything.... well, that is the poison Jar.

[rwenos]

3. Read the Cal. Supreme Court Advance Sheets

After you've read in the California Supreme Court advance sheets (published regularly in legal newspapers around the state) about

(1) a guy who entered a woman's apartment through a screened window on a warm night, raped the woman repeatedly with a 12" knife, then carved her vagina out and left her to bleed to death; or

(2)another guy who entered the home of a 70 year old retired Chico State professor, tied the old guy to a chair, carved the man's legs up over 2-3 hours, sodomized the man, then raped his 65 year old wife, made her write out a check to the perpetrator for $3,000, slit her throat, left her to bleed to death on the floor of the couple's bedroom, left the scene of the crime and went straight to the bank and cashed the check;

your questions about the Death Penalty will most likely be resolved. (Both are real case summaries, by the way.)

[uppityperson]

6. 1 of my problem is that if you make it legal for someone who

may "rightly deserve it", the potential for abuse outweighs the times it would be used properly. I'd rather have some live in prison forever than have others be killed wrongly.

[0rganism]

8. so your position is that the cruelty of the crime is the determinant?

You note in (1) that the woman was "left to bleed to death." If the victim in case (1) had survived (e.g., someone heard the crime, called 911, medics arrive in time to staunch the bleeding, etc.), would you still hypothetically favor capital punishment for the perpetrator?

[rwenos]

11. All those Victims Died

Guy #1 was charged with special circumstances because he lay in wait. Guy #2 was charged with special circumstances because of multiple murders and murder for financial gain, and murder accompanied by torture.

Let's not kid ourselves, folks. Try to explain no death penalty to the families of those deceased individuals.

On edit: In answer to your question, obviously yes.

[0rganism]

19. don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing one way or another in this thread

I'm really genuinely curious about what people think of capital punishment and how those opinions are formed.

What do you believe the families of the victims gain from a death penalty?

[rwenos]

22. Vengeance and Closure

Isn't that enough? Unfortunately, the law has no other remedy to offer them, since it can't bring their loved one back.

[0rganism]

27. It might be enough

One could make a case for it on that basis alone -- and people often do. By having the state exact a nominally impersonal and detached version of "the ultimate penalty" upon the convicted and only the convicted, we might hope to avoid ongoing vendettas and maintain a higher degree of social stability. What the nature of that ultimate penalty is does seem to vary from culture to culture...

[rwenos]

37. Interesting Point about Vendettas

It's a sign of civilization, surely, to have laws which work against tribal vendetta, and for the rule of law and due process.

You've given me an interesting new prism through which to view this difficult issue.

[0rganism]

56. the system does seem structured around that idea, to some extent

there seems to be an effort to take the victims' cadre into account when selecting witnesses for execution, it's generally kept private (no more public lynching spectacles as a matter of course), and puts the onus of blame (insofar as one exists) on the state apparatus rather than the agrieved.

However, as Hippo_Tron observes, contemporary applicability is questionable.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. So you are saying that if we abolish the death penalty...

Murder victims' families will take justice into their own hands? That didn't seem to be much of a problem in the 1960's and early 1970's when we didn't have the death penalty.

[rwenos]

41. Wasn't Long Enough

In time, the old clannish vengeance would appear. Just my opinion.

[Bill McBlueState]

52. twelve US states have no death penalty

I'm not sure where you live, but here in Massachusetts there's no death penalty, and we don't have a problem with clannish vengeance. I've been to Michigan a few times, and they're free of clannish vengeance as well. I suppose West Virginia would have Hatfields and McCoys with or without a death penalty.

[LeftishBrit]

82. The UK hasn't had the death penalty in over 40 years...

and we do not have a special problem with revenge killings.

[jmowreader]

109. OTOH, Saudi Arabia has both

Saudi has one of the more infamous forms of execution known--judicial beheading. They also have revenge killings.

Revenge killings are definitely detached from execution--if Saudi Arabia didn't have execution, they'd still have revenge killing.

[0rganism]

54. no, I'm saying that might be one of the preventive goals

in 20th century western civilization, that's probably not so much the case, but maybe in earlier times it was. I don't know, I'm just putting it out there as a possibility.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. I think that in earlier times it was necessary because prison wasn't as practical

But with 20th century technology and resources it has gotten to the point where life in prison is cheaper than an execution with all of the associated legal costs.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I have no problem explaining it to them, justice isn't about murder victims' families

Justice is about what is in the best interest of society, hence the Prosecutors represent "The People". I'm sorry for the victims' families and frankly I don't blame them for feeling that the people who murdered their love ones should be executed or receive an even worse fate. I'd probably feel the same way if it happened to someone in my family. That doesn't change the fact that the death penalty doesn't benefit society as a whole.

[rwenos]

39. So Dispassionate

Your point is impeccably reasonable, dispassionate, and utterly unrealistic.

We humans have a fierce, violent need for vengeance. Isn't it better to do it with safeguards, than to consign the victim to the mercy of the victim's family?

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Again, there's no evidence that victims' families will take vengeance into their own hands

The only other industrialized nation with the death penalty is South Africa. I don't see murder victims' families taking vengeance into their own hands in Canada, France, Germany, and England.

Aristotle said that the law is reason free from passion. I agree with this notion. Laws are made largely to protect people from acting on their passions which include our violent need for vengeance. It is our ability to rationally overcome our instincts and passions that separates humans from other animals and allows us to be civilized.

[Selatius]

10. Wow, both heinous to be sure, and at first impulse, I'd want the death penalty, too, but...

again, I would still be opposed to the death penalty on principled grounds. I can't say I would not be blinded by emotion if those victims were members of my family, which is why the judicial system exists to dispassionately weigh the evidence of guilt or innocence.

[treestar]

91. The question of the death penalty is bigger than that

Of course people do horrendous things. We're talking about justice, here. Proof of who did it, and whether that is sufficient to make an irrevocable call.

[mudesi]

97. You bet they're resolved

Those people should be put in jail and never released.

Now give me a logical, rational reason to allow the death penalty. Listing horrible crimes with the purpose of invoking a primitive emotional response doesn't count.

[Selatius]

5. Societal revenge. But that's not a reason, just an observation.

If people were honest about it, then revenge would be cited as a reason for killing the convicted.

[rwenos]

13. The Doctrine of Retributivism

Actually, "retributivism" has been a valid reason for sentencing at common law for roughly a thousand years. The theory is it "balances the scales of justice."

[Selatius]

15. Well, the doctrine itself has fallen out of favor in its birthplace of Western Europe

At least, I assume you are drawing direct lineage from European common law or English common law. Of course, societal attitudes since the 1100s have changed with respect to the death penalty.

[rwenos]

17. English Common Law

. . . the foundation of American common law. Our law.

[Selatius]

18. And your point being?

Is there any other reason for having the death penalty besides revenge and English common law? (Which is just a permutation of the original descriptor "revenge")

[rwenos]

21. I Can't Think of Any Better Reason

And I think retribution (i.e., revenge) is an acceptable motive.

I've got a teenage daughter. From the day I first held her, I KNEW if someone ever killed her, I would not rest until . . . well, you know.

Got a family, friend?

[Selatius]

34. I generally don't feel revenge is a good reason at all.

I don't know what principles or morals you have, and I'm not going to get into that, but for me, I can't support it on practical grounds (the possibility of executing innocent people) or on principled/moral grounds with respect to the teachings of forgiveness. If I were to give into my impulsive half, yes, I'd support the death penalty, but I'm also a person of reason, and it is reason that should govern me, not impulse.

[rwenos]

42. I Try to Protect My Family

And live by the rules. I believe in God and education. I'm a loyal Democrat, father, husband, son and brother.

[Selatius]

58. In my eyes, it has nothing to do with protecting family

It's obvious we are not going to bridge the gap between you and I. I believe we should move towards a world built on reform and forgiveness, not revenge. I believe we could do better than that.

I don't believe I should have the power to play God with the life of another, even if that other took the life of those I loved. In my opinion, to decide if someone should die holds within it the same value judgment the criminal makes when determining if his victims should die.

This is more to do about revenge than protection or deterrence, as there is no evidence supporting a deterrent effect on crime, none that I've seen anyway, and I cannot support the death penalty as long as there is a strong possibility of innocent people being put to death. Far too many innocent people have been found on death row.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. I Don't Think It's Ever Technically Justified. But There Are Definitely Those For Which I Shall Not

blink an eye upon their demise.

[mudesi]

95. That's an emotional response

"Good riddance" is usually the first response I have when I hear some particularly heinous criminal was put to death. But then I stop myself and recognize that it's my emotions, not my rational thought that gives me such an opinion.

That is what the right wing preys on. Your emotions are not as easily controlled as your rationality, and so the people in positions of power will exploit that for their own gain. You have to watch out for that, because even though you say you don't think it's "technically" justified, if you allow your emotions to dictate things, you become at the very least an apathetic enabler.

Timothy McVeigh should not have been executed.
John Couey should not be executed.

Capital punishment is barbaric and immoral and (most importantly) dangerous. It does not prevent crime nor does it adequately punish criminals. Its sole purpose is to exploit the primitive emotions of the people in order to score political points.

[RB TexLa]

9. Because sometimes there are crimes that no amount of time incarcerated

would provide a just punishment for the act.

[0rganism]

14. I think your position is typical among Americans, so please elaborate

In particular,

- What is it about punishment that serves justice?

- How does one know if incarceration has provided a just punishment or not?

- What is the difference in justice between a life in prison without possibility of parole and the death penalty?

- Can you describe how you formed your opinions regarding justice and just punishment? (not the death penalty in particular)

[uppityperson]

24. I have heard the argument that death is too fast

That they need to suffer in prison. I have also heard the argument that someone who believes this, is against the death penalty for this reason, is instead supporting torture. I can see both sides, but do not hold firm opinion for either,just wanted to throw it out there.

[RB TexLa]

53. a little elaboration

My opinion is justice is providing a society with personal freedoms one of those being safety, it's often thought of as being the ideal society. In order to create justice or a just world or society there has to be punishment for what the society determines to be unjust behavior. Human compassion incorporates the rehabilitation aspect into the system in most societies. We set levels to unjust activity, for criminal charges we have misdemeanors and we have felonies. Through our elected represent ives we determine which category various acts fall under. We then set ranges in each. At the bottom of offenses society might require only a monetary penalty. Speeding or running a red light is such an offense, if someone commits these acts over and over, we punish them more severely, forcing them to work against their will (community service) and restricting their operations of motor vehicles. Punishment necessary to maintain justice.

The very upper end of criminal acts is what your question is regarding and as we go up the scale of crime so do the penalties. Fines, community service, local jail, probation, prison and ultimately death. The difference between life without parole and the death penalty is exactly what it is, the deference between life and death. There are some crimes that are off the scale of time in prison.

Defining a just punishment comes from two different views on it, one is rehabilitation and the other actual punishment. With the death penalty vs. LWOPP the debate over rehabilitation is out the window. So it goes back to the scale of punishment to the crime.

I respect the moral position of those who oppose the state removing people from life, I just disagree with the argument. I certainly think there are problems with the application of the death penalty, not limited to it's application based on race, gender, economic status as well as problems with the representation of people from lower economic status at the trial level. But my response to your questions already are greatly limited as to amount of content and depth of content due in no small part to my willingness for deep thought right now.

[0rganism]

65. fair enough, thanks

I think you've made a reasoned and considered case for a position shared by the majority in this country, regardless of what you deem your willingness to think deeply to be.

I would note, with some interest, that you started your scale with moving violations related to motor vehicles. I find this especially interesting, because although cars have been the norm for somewhat less than a century, they are already forming the de-facto cultural standard for petty crime. You imply, and you may be right, that we would be disinclined to obey traffic signals and speed limits without enforcement through punishment. Indeed, the thought of a $300 fine may keep one from speeding or running a red light, and the thought of losing one's drivers license might be enough to keep some drunkards from getting behind the wheel. However, you might notice that I didn't list as a supporting rationale choice for the death penalty that it acts as a deterrant -- because it isn't one, at least for those crimes to which it applies. It would be deceitful to present it as such. So at some point, we cross over from the deterrent effect to something else.

I would say that your initial statement also covers this next step: society owes its members a degree of safety, and in order to achieve this, some of its members must be isolated from the general population. Whether such isolation needs to extend all the way to imposing death on transgressors is a matter I won't take up in this thread.

[RB TexLa]

69. I don't think it acts as a deterrent either

The crime of murder is such an egregious act, there is little doubt that nothing could act as a deterrent to a person who is at the point of committing murder.

I used speeding and running a red light because I didn't think anyone could come back and say "here you go to jail for that." As opposed to other crimes that in most jurisdictions are punished by fines. Hadn't thought about the standard for petty crime aspect, but would have to agree.

[baldguy]

12. An Imminent threat to yourself or your loved ones.

[undercutter2006]

16. death penalty

here is my rationalle for not outlawing death penalty:
it's not the government that decides to execute people. it's the jury the ultimately decides whether or not this particular individual deserves to die. you take 12 randomly chosen average americans and they unanimously decide that death is the answer. isn't that democratic? if you want to know why we still have death penalty you should look at your pals to the left and the right of you

[0rganism]

23. so your position is basically, "it's okay because other folks say so?"

interesting. Did you know that in the USA people who oppose the death penalty in principle are not allowed to serve on juries in capital cases? How democratic is that?

What if the majority decides to do away with the death penalty, as has been the case in numerous other democratic nations? Is that not also democratic?

And if it is, then how is your position a reason for not "outlawing" the death penalty?

[rwenos]

26. Abolition by Majority Vote

If our elected representatives cared to, they could abolish the Death Penalty. Since about 70% of the electorate supports it, there's been no such legislative abolition. Both Congress and your state legislature have that power. You might ask yourself why they have not used it.

[undercutter2006]

32. if 70% of the people support death penalty

why would representatives of the people abolish it?

[Hippo_Tron]

60. An overwhelming majority of people at one time thought that black people shouldn't have equal rights

And they were just as wrong then as they would be today. An overwhelming majority of the people supported Bush on Iraq in 2002 and they were wrong. In certain instances representatives are supposed to ignore the popular sentiment of their constituents under the assumption that they are not as informed as they should be and will later regret their current position. That is why we have a legislature. If we wanted everything decided by popular opinion laws would be passed by ballot referendum.

[wicket]

83. Well said

:thumbsup:

[0rganism]

33. why should I ask *myself* why *they* haven't abolished it?

That seems silly, when I could ask the legislators and those who elect them instead.

Which is the purpose of this thread, by the way.

[rwenos]

35. It's a Rhetorical Question

We should all ask ourselves whether there should be a death penalty. My only point is that if a majority of people in a state, or in the United States wanted to abolish the death penalty, Congress or each state legislature could do so.

[0rganism]

44. some states have abolished the death penalty, some have reinstated it

it comes and it goes, so to speak. Again, I don't think the condition of having capital punishment or not obviously enhances the democratic aspects of our judicial process per se, nor can it be justified primarily on that premise.

[undercutter2006]

30. I did not know that

I never served on the jury, so I am fairly ignorant of many technicalities. People opposed to death penalty can't be on the jury? I'll take your word for now but I'll look into it. If that's true than it is pretty fucked up and pretty much negates my whole argument right there, lol. I would imagine some red states would have a rule like that, but I can't imagine more liberal states going along with that.

[0rganism]

40. many people don't

it's not exactly advertised.

Another major problem in general, but in capital cases in particular, is the racial composition of juries.

In any case, there are always a range of punishments from which to choose, or not to choose, depending on the crime. Having the death penalty available to a jury or not does not in itself make the process more democratic.

[undercutter2006]

45. options

The less options a voting body has, the less democratic it is, is it not ???

I still can't believe they would not let people opposed to capital punishment serve on the jury deciding death penalty, I really do wanna research it once I get sober, lol, that just makes no goddamn sense

[undercutter2006]

50. well

actually I guess you could come up with an explanation for that in a certain convoluted way, as in - if we are deciding whether or not this person should die for their crimes, and I am opposed to death penalty alltogether, then shouldn't I be able to use that as an excuse to be exempt from that jury? that is the only way I could think of that anybody would even try to begin and justify that. it's still wrong though, a jury is a voting body that should be proportinally representative of america as a whole
but I digress, good night everybody

[RB TexLa]

57. Actually people who oppose the death penalty can serve on a capital jury

It's not opposition that keeps one off, it's if they would refuse to apply the death penalty if the case warranted it under the law. No prosecutor is going to allow someone who opposes the death penalty on such a jury but it in itself doesn't not prevent them from doing so.

[peacebaby3]

63. In the real world, that means a person that is opposed to the death

penalty doesn't serve on the jury of a capital murder trial. I do death penalty work and when a jury is "death qualified" that means that you would have to be willing to give the death penalty if the aggravators outweigh the mitigators (as decided by each individual juror during the penalty phase deliberations). If someone is opposed to the death penalty, then they will not sentence anyone to death so they will be struck for cause. Anyone on trial for capital murder has a jury that is predisposed to vote for death. I've interviewed hundreds of jurors while doing post-conviction work and about 80+% of them had made up their mind to impose the death penalty before ever hearing any evidence at the penalty phase of the trial. That is the reality of a "death qualified" jury.

[Bretttido]

25. "Payment to Society"

I'm sorry sir, but you've accumulated -10000 society points and the only way to repay your debt is by sacraficing your body to the masses.

[dorkulon]

28. One reason holds water for me:

and keep in mind I am not for the death penalty, because of the very real possibility of false convictions--but, if a person murders another, they renege on the social contract we all agree upon, and therefore no longer deserve the protections of society. In other words, if you kill for no good reason, you are a waste of food.

[Lilith Velkor]

29. If they want to commit suicide, don't stop 'em, otherwise no. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

31. The only rationale for me is if the person convicted would prefer it over life in prison

As policy that would be hard to implement though and there are very few cases where it would actually happen.

Humans have bad judgment when it comes to killing other humans. Therefore we should avoid it as much as possible, particularly when we have other good options available. Life in prison is a very good and much cheaper alternative.

[bonito]

43. Looks to me we are the moral majority n/t

[0rganism]

61. DU appears to be an inverse of current American norms

70% anti-death-penalty on DU vs. 70% pro-death-penalty generally

[951-Riverside]

46. I think HIV positive rapists should get the death penalty if....

...they committed the crime while knowing full well they were infected.

[dorkulon]

47. How is this worse than any other kind of premeditated murder? (nt)

[0rganism]

73. what about HIV-positive dentists?

It has happened...

[LeftishBrit]

84. If they are HIV-positive and aware of it...

then the chances are that they will die of natural causes before the appeals process reaches its end, in any case. So, even if I believed in the death penalty, I wouldn't see the point of it in this particular situation.

[Cameron27]

48. I'm basically opposed to it for fear of killing an innocent,

but after reading through this thread, I'm wondering how I'd feel if I actually witnessed a brutal murder, or God forbid, witnessed the murder of a loved one. I just don't know. Interesting thread though, lots of good replies.

[0rganism]

71. that was kind of my goal in starting the thread

Most of the time, death penalty debates at DU get washed away in the yes/no split, and as you can see, advocates are at a numerical advantage around here. I wanted to focus on why we believe the way we do and the underlying purposes, rather than the end product of belief one way or another.

[Craftergrl]

49. What about life imprisonment

I've always felt that life imprisonment was coward's death penalty. You're taking someone's life away, you're just doing it slowly and with out the responsibility of throwing the switch. Basically you're letting them rot to death. We're going to lock you up in an 8 x 8 cell and wait for you to die.

Same difference.

People need one or two things to be civil(law abiding). 1. Something that inspires them to be better than they are. Something that inspires them to be virtuous. Or 2. Fear of the penalties attached to laws.

Since our society is mostly secular now; there is nothing in the secular world that inspires people to do or be good. There's only the law. In a secular society it's the law that dictates behavior.

I've always thought Robert Heinlein's explaination of discipline in Starship Troopers was a good model. Harsh. But I think his conclusions were accurate. Do everything public. I believe this is our biggest failing. Executions should be public and soon after sentencing.

There's no shock value because everything is hidden. People should see it and be fully aware what awaits them should they decide to kill someone.

Just my pov.

[TahitiNut]

59. If public executions were a better deterrent, why do countries with public executions have ...

... 'capital' crimes at or above the rates of countries without capital punishment? Why do states without capital punishment have capital crime rates no higher and often lower than states with capital punishment?

When I look at the choices in the OM poll, I see a list that's essentially the same as motives people have for murder. Strange, that.

[Craftergrl]

67. Because..

"... 'capital' crimes at or above the rates of countries without capital punishment?"

For my own FYI, which countries?

We don't really have capital punishment. We have capital languishment. People languish in jail for 20 years and everyone has forgotten why they were there in the first place.

What is a suitable punishment/justice for people like Couey?

[0rganism]

68. practically speaking, one virtue of life imprisonment is its reversibility

When sentencing someone to a life in prison rather than a radically foreshortened life in prison (i.e., death), we allow the possibility of rectifying an erroneous conviction -- of which there are many, every year.

A death sentence is permanent once carried out.

I would also take serious issue with your contention that "there is nothing in the secular world that inspires people to do or be good," but foundations of ethics is not the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say, if you think morality emanates solely from religion, laws dictate behavior, and Starship Troopers provides a reasonable model for social justice, you may want to rethink your position.

[Craftergrl]

77. hmmm

"When sentencing someone to a life in prison rather than a radically foreshortened life in prison (i.e., death), we allow the possibility of rectifying an erroneous conviction -- of which there are many, every year."

Bit of a strawman there. You're saying that we should eliminate the death penalty in all cases because someone may be convicted erroneously. I really doubt Charles Manson's conviction was erroneous.

"A death sentence is permanent once carried out."

I'll need to see more evidence on this. :wow: :P

"I would also take serious issue with your contention that "there is nothing in the secular world that inspires people to do or be good," but foundations of ethics is not the topic of this thread."

Our moral convictions and their root cause is the very heart of this thread. Here's my opinion and here's the reason.

Start a new thread and lets discuss the other. I'd be happy to hear your opinions on the matter. If you can find an icon or concept that causes people in a purely secular society to rise above their own selfish concerns and be better than what the law dictates...I want to see it. /shrug

Why would I rethink my position? Ever re-play a movie and hope for a different ending? You didn't give me any reason to change my opinion.

[0rganism]

85. hmm yourself

> Bit of a strawman there.

The strawman is entirely of your own construction.

> You're saying that we should eliminate the death penalty in all cases because someone may be convicted erroneously.

I didn't say this, but you did. There may indeed be some cases where guilt is absolutely and irrefutably clear, and such objections would not hold. On the other hand, you posited that life sentences are "a coward's death sentence", and death sentences should be carried out swiftly and in public, without taking into account the cases in which erroneous convictions do occur -- or perhaps in spite of them.

As to starting a thread discussing basic ethical precepts, we'll see. Following up on such discussions tends to be time-consuming, but if I have the opportunity to do so, I will.

[Evoman]

88. I completely disagree with this.

"People need one or two things to be civil(law abiding). 1. Something that inspires them to be better than they are. Something that inspires them to be virtuous. Or 2. Fear of the penalties attached to laws." Since our society is mostly secular now; there is nothing in the secular world that inspires people to do or be good.

This is ridiculous...there are plenty of things that inspire people to do or be good. We can do good because we wanted to be treated well...we want to live in a safe world where other people are happy. Its incredible to me that you actually think that the only reason we aren't killing and raping people is because we fear punishment. I don't rape and kill people because its not right..its not moral. And you don't need god to be moral. The laws don't dictate my behaviour....my moral compass does.

[Craftergrl]

99. Because you're not seeing all sides

"This is ridiculous...there are plenty of things that inspire people to do or be good. We can do good because we wanted to be treated well...we want to live in a safe world where other people are happy."

And I'm sure this happens all the time........ in The Truman Show.

"Its incredible to me that you actually think that the only reason we aren't killing and raping people is because we fear punishment."

I could write volumes on this. I'll just make a minor point..next time you see a disaster on the news and you see people running in all directions with furniture and appliances they've just looted, ask yourself why they weren't doing that before the chaos hit.

"I don't rape and kill people because its not right..its not moral. And you don't need god to be moral. The laws don't dictate my behaviour....my moral compass does."

And how did you get your moral compass? Did you have a parent teach you right from wrong? Where did their teachings come from? I bet if you trace the origins of your moral compass back far enough you will find God in the picture somewhere.

It's truly boggling to me that you think everyone will develop your morals on their own. That everyone has your belief system. Well they don't.

The secular world is a-moral. That's been the heart of the argument for the division of church and state. That the state should be a-moral (neutral to the individual choices of right and wrong).

My original statement stands, there is nothing in the secular world that inspires people to do good; and I'll add; -By design....because.....it is a-moral.

[Nikia]

104. I think that this is a problem for many "criminals"

They discovered from an early age that good behavior does not make them safe, cause them to be treated well, or make people around them happy.
Yes, I think that there can be morality apart from religion, but you have to realize how basing morality on good behavior=comfortable life causes some people to lose all faith in morality.

[mitchum]

64. According to John Stuart Mill, capital punishment is just and right...

precisely because life is precious.
Works for me.

[Booster]

66. Best reason? Samantha Runion.

[Colobo]

70. I proudly voted for the first option.

[Swamp Rat]

72. None exists as far as I am concerned.

n/t

[BoneDaddy]

75. Ted Bundy

escaped from prison and killed again. We need to acknowledge the very sad truth that there are people out there who are unredeemable and that for the good of society, they need to be killed, ensuring the one way they will never be able to harm again.

The sad reality of life is that a very very small percentage of humanity are so "damaged" or "sick" that we need to do this. We need to be absolutely certain of it and make sure it applies to the most horrific of crimes. Serial killers, serial rapists, pedophiles etc fall under this category for me.

[depakid]

76. There is only ONE rational reason- yet it wasn't listed

That's "specific deterrence," meaning that that particular individual has no chance at all to kill again.

Every other reason is either irrational (doesn't make sociological sense or is disproven by the facts) or emotional.

[Labors of Hercules]

79. would life in solitary confinement not qualify?

[0rganism]

86. Reason #3 covers that, I'd hope

I couldn't be specific about the nature of the crime to be prevented (killing, in your example), because there are situations where one might support a death penalty for non-fatal crimes -- e.g., conspiracy or treason or non-observance of the Sabbath.

[slackmaster]

78. I can't honestly answer this because I wouldn't be seated on the jury

Nor would anyone else who is opposed to the DP, for whatever reason. I note that there are about as many distinct thought processes on the subject as there are people. My opposition arises from rational rather than moral grounds.

[Labors of Hercules]

80. What is the rational opposition to the death penalty?

[slackmaster]

81. Simply that people are not capable of being absolutely sure

That they are executing the right person. Saying that during a jury selection process would result in automatic disqualification on a DP case. The "reasonable doubt" standard isn't good enough for me to take someone's life. (You are free to consider that a "moral" conviction at your own risk.)

Innocent people have been put to death. Every year you hear of one or two condemned prisoners who are exonerated by DNA evidence or the "real killer" confessing. As a student of psychology and follower of real crime stories I have seen many instances where the memory of individuals and even groups of people have been fogged, confabulated, coerced into fabrication, etc. We are not perfect recorders of events, and our ability to recall what we have recorded is subject to all kinds of errors and omissions.

I don't buy into the idea that state-sponsored killing is always morally wrong, nor do I accept the limited view that execution is only a form of revenge killing - It does serve the purpose of preventing the killer from killing again. I am not at all convinced of its value as a deterrent. People who murder people don't think the same way as normal people.

Most of us would agree, I believe, that police officers (agents of the state) are sometimes justified in killing criminal suspects in self-defense, or even to stop a dangerous person from endangering the public. I believe there is such a thing as a just war, though this country hasn't been involved in a significant one during my lifetime.

Taking the DP off the table avoids completely the problem of juries and judges getting it wrong.

[Labors of Hercules]

87. in that case, is a reasonable doubt sufficient to justify any conviction?

It seems to me this would be a moral argument against all punishments under the law. If it applies to the death penalty, why not to life inprisonment as well? There is no foolproof measure for conviction, but "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a highly defendant-biased practical standard for establishing guilt. If this is not sufficient to justify punitive action, what is?

And if the answer is that guilt is established, when does the guilty person become such a risk and burdon to humanity that eliminating them is the only (or best) viable solution?

[slackmaster]

89. Yes, it is

It seems to me this would be a moral argument against all punishments under the law. If it applies to the death penalty, why not to life inprisonment as well?

Apples and oranges, Labors of Hercules. An erroneous sentence of life imprisonment can be remedied, albeit on a decreasing scale over time.

There is no foolproof measure for conviction, but "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a highly defendant-biased practical standard for establishing guilt.

Our entire criminal justice system is defendant-biased, and rightly so.

Labors of Hercules, I hope you have the opportunity some day to serve as a juror on a felony trial. I've served on a criminal trial and two civil trials. The criminal one was by far the most interesting and enlightening. (It was also at times highly entertaining, saddening, frustrating, and anger-provoking.) Unless you are a student of the law, it's unlikely that you really understand what the "reasonable doubt" standard means. I don't mean to impugn your intelligence or insightfulness, but from my experience that term and many other things take on a new clarity when you are sitting in the jury box hearing instructions from a real judge, you've been presented with a bunch of information that seems incomplete and conflicting, and a defendant's freedom is at stake. That experience was the final straw that ended my past naive support of the death penalty. It also boosted my confidence that the system we have, while imperfect, is about the best there can be. (The case involved multiple felony burglaries; the defendant got nine years.)

Take care.

[mudesi]

96. It doesn't prevent crime

- It's morally wrong.
- It's not 100% certain
- It's used by right wing politicians to score political points
- It's barbaric and uncivilized
- It doesn't bring the victim back
- It helps foster the bloodlust/revenge culture that allows things like the Iraq war to happen

It is a political football that the right wing uses to manipulate the people to have emotional responses to political issues as opposed to rational ones.

[treestar]

90. The Death Penalty is the ultimate in hubris

We are human; we can't be sure who "deserves" to be put to death.

We are incapable of perfect and complete justice. It is possible that someone is executed when they should not have been, and recent cases clearing some people on death row prove that.

Even if we could be sure of guilt on that level, there is something wrong with the fact that the murderer who doesn't get caught doesn't get the death penalty. The worst ones still escape.

Not to mention that people with a lot of lives on their hands, like *, who don't ever face this consequence because it does not fit into a legal profile.

[spanone]

92. 'Jesus don't like killin' no matter what the reason's for'....

John Prine.

'Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore'

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

93. You forgot the Redneck Standard Reply (RSR)

"Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

94. State Sanctioned Murder Is Murder! Period. Haven't we become more evolved by now? nt

[Craftergrl]

102. Evolved to what?

Isn't your point really; taking life is murder?
The death penalty is lawful therefore it's not murder.

I honestly don't understand what you expect us (society) to do.

Why are you protecting people who kill other people? It doesn't make sense.

Like this Couey guy. He's a danger to the world. He had his shot like everyone else and he made his choices. He chose to inflict his evil on the rest of us humans. So the rest of us humans agreed that he's done. We don't want him here anymore. He can't be allowed to walk the streets of the world anymore unless you're willing to watch him kill again. He's not worth another Jessica.

And why should I be forced to pay for his up keep for decades more? Why? Hasn't he done enough to us?

Being civil doesn't mean being spineless. IMO, a civil society is one that enforces civility.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

107. No, it is murder and saying murder is ok on one level says that murder is alright. on any level.

The death penalty has never been found to be a deterrent and to say that enforcing civility is the answer is not going to root core. That is saying that it's right for parents to use violence on their children so that they will behave properly.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing that it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.

Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder the hate. So it goes. MLKing Jr.

[alarimer]

98. As long as the possibility exists that an innocent person will die

there is NO justification for the death penalty. None. I am sure they have put people to death even though they were actually not guilty.

[slackmaster]

103. One of my favorite headstones at Tombstone, AZ reads "Hanged by mistake"

'Nuff said.

[BlooInBloo]

100. Where's the "all the better to kill black folks" option? Sheesh.

[aikoaiko]

101. I chose #1, but 2 and 3 resonate as well.

There are some crimes so heinous that allowing the perpetrator to find one more day of joy in his life makes me very angry. No justice, no peace.

For example, when I think about Jessica Lunsford being raped by James Couey twice, him putting her in a garbage bag and burying her alive, I get enraged thinking about this guy having a good nights sleep, enjoying his breakfast, taking restful nap in his cell, having a tasty lunch, reading a tabloid magazine, etc.

[Nikia]

105. My only concern is the other inmates

In cases where violent murderers are given life imprisionment and there is no option for the death penalty.
Despite the fact that there are prision guards, many prisioners do get raped, badly assaulted, and even killed by other inmates. I don't know if people given life imprisionment for murder (in states where there is no death penalty) are much more likely to committ violent crimes against other inmates than other inmates who do not expect to get out for decades or longer.
I am generally against the death penalty though.

[leftofthedial]

106. repukes

reason enough to preserve the death penalty

[NashVegas]

108. Sometimes I Think It's the Most Merciful Option

For even the perpetrator. Very rare cases, but sometimes, yes.