Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[DanP]

As you said, the State carries out the execution. Your statement is self-contradictory.

So what ? The government has no power to execute anyone, lacking a definite death sentence. So they are merely an executor. The authority to sentence someone to death is not government's. They are compeled to carry out the jury's sentences, the will of your peers.

If we want to remain purely ideological, the people on that jury are the State. All the more reason to eliminate the death penalty altogether. How would you like your life to be in the hands of Jerry Springer fans?

The prosecution represents the state, not the jury.

How can people on this forum [not you in particular] complain about how stupid the average American is, and then give these same Americans the power of life and death?

I don't think Americans are any more stupid or more smart in average than any other members of a civilized nation.

 

[drankin]

As you said, the State carries out the execution. Your statement is self-contradictory.

If we want to remain purely ideological, the people on that jury are the State. All the more reason to eliminate the death penalty altogether. How would you like your life to be in the hands of Jerry Springer fans?

How can people on this forum [not you in particular] complain about how stupid the average American is, and then give these same Americans the power of life and death?

After the state calls in the candidates, the jury is selected by the suspects lawyer if he/she chooses counsel. The jury is ultimately selected by both the prosecuter and the suspects attorney, not at random.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The prosecution represents the state, not the jury.

As far as I know, this is correct. The jury represents the people. If the jury could not act independently of the state then what would its purpose be?

 

[nismaratwork]

Personally I have no issue with dangerous individuals who can remain a threat even in prison being killed, but I do believe that the process of incarceration with a "ticking clock" to one's death is cruel. I believe that the process of dragging someone out of their cell, strapping them down and executing them, however brief or quiet, is cruel as well. I don't think it's worth it, in the end, unless it's materially necessary such as in cases where a gang leader, mob boss, terrorist, or traitor can continue their activities through proxies even when incarcerated.

The actual killing doesn't phase me at all, but wrapping this up with the notion that "cut and dry" can ever be a universal standard is just wrong. A handful of cases certainly are as close to certain as one can scientifically get, but that is rarely going to apply to a majority.

 

[vertices]

I don't think Americans are any more stupid or more smart in average than any other members of a civilized nation.

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

It may be inhumane, but killing people is very human.

 

[DanP]

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

Says who ? Really sometimes some of you guys manage to amaze me. So lost in idealism that you became oblivious you live in a world where killings, rapes, theft, corruption and a whole plethora of other serious crimes are quotidian events.

There is nothing inhuman and degrading in the death penalty. If someone behaves like a rabid dog, it deserves to be put down.

 

[lisab]

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

And you define "norms of civilzed behavior" to be the norms of your culture, by chance?

Just fyi, I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I am in favor of trying to be more accepting and tolerent of others' cultural beliefs, though.

 

[arildno]

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman

Assertion, not argument.
Read, for example, how John Stuart Mill argues.

 

[vertices]

And you define "norms of civilzed behavior" to be the norms of your culture, by chance?

It has been very clearly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (google it). Note the word universal.

Just fyi, I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I am in favor of trying to be more accepting and tolerent of others' cultural beliefs, though.

It's hard to be tolerant when they have no respect for human rights...

 

[skeptic2]

I am an adept of the retributivist principle. This means, the punishment does not necessarily have to serve any other purpose , such as a deterrent effect, a coercive effect or a rehab effect.

From: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/retributivism.php which suggests that the purpose of retributive punishment may be for reform or deterrence.

This is another good source but long.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment/

Again, punishment has no deterrence for one who does not believe he will be caught nor does punishment reform those who believe they were justified in committing their act.

 

[arildno]

It has been very clearly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (google it). Note the word universal.

Here, you commit the logic fallacy known as ad authoritam

 

[Evo]

It has been very clearly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (google it). Note the word universal.

And the victim's were deprived of these rights at the hands of their torturers/killers.

It's hard to be tolerant when they have no respect for human rights...

These criminals had zero respect for human rights. What is the punishment for these people?

Not to mention that the UN is not addressing individuals as torturers/criminals.

 

[arildno]

skeptic2:

Rights are reciprocal affairs, not unilateral entities.

You keep rights to the extent to which you respect others' rights.

If you do not respect others' rights, in a legally relevant way, then your own rights vanish.


Meaning that you are left with fewer rights than the non-offender...

 

[DanP]

From: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/retributivism.php which suggests that the purpose of retributive punishment may be for reform or deterrence.

How exactly did you arrived to this conclusion ? The text you link explicitly suggests independence :P

... pain or disadvantage on an offender which is in some sense commensurate with his offence and which is inflicted independently of reform or deterrence.

Again, punishment has no deterrence for one who does not believe he will be caught nor does punishment reform those who believe they were justified in committing their act.

I don't care of punishment as a deterrence or rehab measure. I though I made this clear.

The best deterrent IMO is a solid education.

 

[Evo]

Again, punishment has no deterrence for one who does not believe he will be caught nor does punishment reform those who believe they were justified in committing their act.

So, is your argument to just release these people or not even prosecute them since incarceration is a form of punishment?

 

[skeptic2]

So, is your argument to just release these people or not even prosecute them since incarceration is a form of punishment?

If punishment is ineffective against criminals as a deterrent, thus the crime, then shouldn't the intent of the law be to either rehabilitate the criminal or isolate the criminal from society as a preventive measure instead of a punitive one?

No, as I said above in post #12 society needs to be protected from dangerous people. Although rehabilitation is a noble goal we still are far from realizing it.

 

[skeptic2]

How exactly did you arrived to this conclusion ? The text you link explicitly suggests independence :P

The best deterrent IMO is a solid education.

I was referring to this part:
"For a weak theory the commensurate amount need not be inflicted but may be, and a limit is placed up to which reformative or deterrent punishment may go but beyond which it may not."

I agree with you about a solid education.

 

[skeptic2]

skeptic2:

Rights are reciprocal affairs, not unilateral entities.

You keep rights to the extent to which you respect others' rights.

If you do not respect others' rights, in a legally relevant way, then your own rights vanish.


Meaning that you are left with fewer rights than the non-offender...

I believe incarceration restricts one's rights rather substantially, don't you?

 

[Evo]

No, as I said above in post #12 society needs to be protected from dangerous people. Although rehabilitation is a noble goal we still are far from realizing it.

I agree with removing them from society. However, where we part is that I don't think I should pay for them to be housed, clothed, fed, and entertained (tv, libraries, playing games).

In the case of ANY doubt of guilt, I am not for an immediate death penalty. But there are cases, like this, where there is no doubt, and justice should be swift.

 

[arildno]

I believe incarceration restricts one's rights rather substantially, don't you?

Incorrect understanding.

Incarceration (or any other just punishment) doesn't "restrict" any rights the criminal might have.
He doesn't have the right to begin with, i.e, after his violation of others' rights, some of his rights no longer exists.

Thus, others are entitled to, and in some cases, obliged to, perform actions upon the criminal that would constitute a violation of some right a law-abiding citizen has, if performed upon such a person.
The criminal doesn't have that right any longer, so his rights (whatever that is left of them) aren't restricted by the just punishment.

The actual restriction or reduction of the criminal's rights occurred at the moment of the crime, not at the moment of his conviction.

 

[skeptic2]

I also think that to the extent possible and certainly more than is done now, a criminal should make restitution to the victim or the victim's family. To me it makes no sense that the criminal must pay a fine for some crimes to the state but owes the victim nothing. Of course I'm not suggesting that there is a just restitution for all crimes.

Second, punishments must remain in place for mostly law abiding citizens, for whom they are a deterrence. In fact it may be that it is the getting away with petty crimes that creates the belief of the perpetrator that he won't get caught and causes him to progress to increasingly serious crimes.

I doubt the gang members in the example were weighing the risk of getting caught and the potential punishment at the time of the attack. And this is my point, at the moment of the crime, particularly a violent crime, the criminals are not thinking about whether they'll get the death penalty or only 20 years, thus the punishment is not a deterrent.

I'm also not saying that if a member of my family were killed that I wouldn't want the death penalty. I probably would. But I recognize that to be an emotional response not a rational one.

 

[brainstorm]

Why not just allow judges/juries to forgive acts of murder in cases of legitimate retribution? In other words, if someone kills someone, but they can prove it was in response to something else that warranted it, the perpetrator could be let off the hook.

I remember once hearing that in Europe, doctors who performed euthanasia (euthaneurope maybe I should say) had to report their "killing" to the authorities and wait to be exonerated by a judge. In this way, doctors were supposedly held to the absolute highest standards of legitimacy in performing euthanasia, as any act of euthanasia contested could potentially result in loss of license and criminal punishment.

Why should retaliation by killing be the same? If you didn't want to kill the person you felt entitled to, you could hire someone else to do it and then deduct the bill from your taxes. Is this not something that can be privatized?

 

[ginru]

Leaving somebody to rot away in prison or just killing them quickly both seem like wasteful ways of dealing with human life. There must be more productive options available; perhaps turning the prison system into a haven for social and medical research whereby prisoners can sell their participation, bodies, organs, etc. to the benefit of society. It could be a way for prisoners to support their relatives on the outside, pay restitution to those they’ve harmed, or simply purchase luxury privileges while in jail. Revenue generated could help cover the cost of their incarceration and a percentage can go towards education funds for underclass youth so as to combat the cycles of poverty/crime.

Regardless, I feel the focus should be on how to maximize the usefulness and overall social contribution of hardened criminals, rather than on just throwing them away as a form of punishment/revenge/deterrence.

 

[humanino]

thus the punishment is not a deterrent.

This aspect I must I have never understood. Although France abolished death penalty, up to 1977 (I think it was abolished in 1981) we did it on the public place with a guillotine, everybody was invited and many would come, and it made the headlines of newspaper and television. Otherwise, what's the use ?

 

[loseyourname]

I think the mission of any criminal justice system is pretty straightforwardly to reduce crime. Whether this is accomplished by deterrence, rehabilitation, or simply by removing criminals from free communities doesn't really matter, although deterrence is probably best accomplished by law enforcement and education agencies more than by criminal justice agencies.

The deterrence effect of death sentences is probably minimal, just because murder tends to be a crime of passion more than rational calculation, and even when it is not, like in this case, it's often perpetrated by nihilistic gang bangers that don't expect to live past 25 anyway and don't particularly care if they're executed (you don't join a violent gang if you're afraid of getting killed).

The "removing criminals from free communities" function is pretty well carried out by execution, however.

As for the expense in keeping people imprisoned, I'd imagine death row inmates constitute a very, very, almost vanishingly small proportion of prison expenses. Drug offenders are probably the largest category. And they already perform labor; I'm not sure how much something like conducting medical research on prisoners would offset prison expenses. They're expensive for a reason. Corrections officers are very highly paid and have terrific benefits and pension plans because they're asked to move to the middle of the desert and be prison guards. It's a miserable existence that they're well-compensated for.

 

[Pinu7]

The central question about the death penalty debate is "does our government reserve the right to execute private citizens?"

 

[loseyourname]

Well, the government clearly does reserve that right, since it currently executes private citizens, but I guess the question is should the government reserve that right?

We could always start from a consideration of cases in which agents of the government are straightforwardly justified in killing, such as law enforcement officers responding to a direct threat of loss of life or during military conflicts, drawing out the reasons these are considered justified actions, and see if they do or not adequately apply to the execution of criminals.

 

[DanP]

I also think that to the extent possible and certainly more than is done now, a criminal should make restitution to the victim or the victim's family. To me it makes no sense that the criminal must pay a fine for some crimes to the state but owes the victim nothing. Of course I'm not suggesting that there is a just restitution for all crimes.

An action in civil law can be launched by the interested parties in addition to the action in criminal law. It provides means for the victim (or victim family) to get compensated.

Second, punishments must remain in place for mostly law abiding citizens, for whom they are a deterrence. In fact it may be that it is the getting away with petty crimes that creates the belief of the perpetrator that he won't get caught and causes him to progress to increasingly serious crimes.

I doubt the gang members in the example were weighing the risk of getting caught and the potential punishment at the time of the attack. And this is my point, at the moment of the crime, particularly a violent crime, the criminals are not thinking about whether they'll get the death penalty or only 20 years, thus the punishment is not a deterrent.

This makes no sense. First you say punishments are deterrents for law abiding citizens , then you say for gang members punishments are not a deterrent. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Second I don't know why you insist on the point that "punishment is not a deterrent". What good does it makes ? DO you propose not to punish anyone because the deterrent effect is minimal ? Let criminals roam free ?

 

[DanP]

The central question about the death penalty debate is "does our government reserve the right to execute private citizens?"

It was responded long ago. It DOES NOT. The death sentence is applied by a jury of your peers (i.e, the ppl, not the state)

 

[DanP]

We could always start from a consideration of cases in which agents of the government are straightforwardly justified in killing, such as law enforcement officers responding to a direct threat of loss of life ...

Actually, any human has the right to kill in self defense, not only law enforcement officers. Their mandate may be a bit larger, and may get away with murder easier (when limits of self defense are exceeded) but yeah, technically, if your life is threatened you can kill the person threathening.

Fortunately, the lawmakers seen the right of a human to kill when his life is endangered by another human.

And self defense is the main reason I am a supporter of the right of any human to keep and bear arms. I consider it a natural right. Any citizen must be able to protect his life and weapons are essential to the exercise of this right.

 

[vertices]

Here, you commit the logic fallacy known as ad authoritam

I wasn't making an 'argument'?

I was simply pointing out that no one 'culture' claims to have their own 'definition' of, as I put it, 'norms of civilised behaviour'. Many countries have ratified Human rights treaties which are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (drafted by a number of nations including Iran and the US)...

 

[vertices]

skeptic2:

Rights are reciprocal affairs, not unilateral entities.

You keep rights to the extent to which you respect others' rights.

If you do not respect others' rights, in a legally relevant way, then your own rights vanish.


Meaning that you are left with fewer rights than the non-offender...

This is not true.

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, any human has the right to kill in self defense, not only law enforcement officers.

That wasn't the point, though. Only law enforcement officers are acting as agents of the state. I was proposing we explore when and why agents of the state are justified in killing, not when private citizens are justified in killing.

 

[arildno]

I think the mission of any criminal justice system is pretty straightforwardly to reduce crime.

Mission or not, it cannot be the primary justification for punishing crime.

Not the least because there is no reason to suppose limiting punishment to those actually guilty is more effective in crime reduction than punishing a few non-guilties along with them.

To take an example:

Around 50 AD, there was a sordid murder of a Roman senator by one of his household slaves (if I remember my Tacitus right, the murderer became insanely jealous of his master for appropriating the sexual favours of a young slave in the household, a co-slave the murderer wanted for himself).

Anyway, Roman law was very harsh on this point:
The ENTIRE household of slaves should be put to death if anyone them killed their master.

The Senate debated whether this archaic law, that covered a crime they had hardly known an actual, previous instance of, should be implemented.

They chose to do so, in order to deter rebellion amongst slaves against their master.


This law, which punishes guilty and non-guilty alike must be regarded as spectacularly successful in detterring the crime covered, since it cannot have been that unusual for slaves to harbour murderous feelings towards their masters.

The law in question basically forced slaves to inform upon each other, in order to ensure their individual safety.

To punish guilty&non-guilty alike can be perfectly rational in a deterrence perspective, and has its analogue in earlier logic of war: It is better to kill off the families of rebels as well, in order to prevent bereaved, aggrieved family members from plotting revenge in the future...



Whatever "mission" we want our justice system to have, the primary justification of it must lie within a principle in which it is clear that only the guilty ones are to be punished.