Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[dudleysharp]

Racial injustice

Bear in mind that Shirley Sherrod's father was shot in the back by a white farmer when she was just 17, and the all-white GA jury didn't see that murder as rising to the level of a crime. We have come a long way since the Jim Crow days, but there is still plenty of racial injustice to go around.

I think racial injustice, or what I call otherism, will always exist, simply because it has always been part of the bad side of human experience.

But, things are getting better, in some locations.

"Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html

 

[dudleysharp]

which suggests that the purpose of retributive punishment may be for 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 think it logical to find that retributive justice does have and inescapable reformative and deterrent effect, at least for some.

The deterrence can be a product of a thoughtful or instinctive process, conscious or subconscious, so a belief system may or may not come into play.

All active or prospective criminals do consider the probability of being caught and the sanction to come, that is why most of them to not rob police station of commit rapes in broad daylight while being videotaped by the toy store surveillance camera. Their behavior is effected to some degree and not infrequently to the point of not committing a crime.

 

[dudleysharp]

The most civilized death penalty

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.

Or, it is more civilized to have it.

7. C. S. Lewis: "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "

"I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal."

"The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."

"My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being."

"Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .".

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "

"The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment."

"But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image."

"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "

" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis

8) C. S. Lewis: "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. " "The Complete C.S. Lewis", Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002

 

[dudleysharp]

Citing bad authority is not authoritative

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

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

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice, not protection

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.

The moral purpose of sanction is that criminals deserve it for the crimes they have committed. Protection is a secondary and necesary by product of that purpose.

The death penalty, as all other criminal sanctions, are given because they are just and deserved.

 

[arildno]

But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."

Personally, I'd keep to the maxim of Roman law, "to each his due", without accepting the horrid duenesses the Romans thought fit to impose.

Essentially, the criminal act itself initiates a double loss, a loss for the victim, and a loss in legal status for the criminal, so that some actions that would be a violation of a non-criminal's rights, are NOT the violation of the criminal's rights, since he possesses fewer rights, due to performing the criminal action.

This, of course, is in the abstract, jurisprudence must figure out precisely how, and in what manner, rights are lost (and thus, what actions can be called just punishments).

There is never a violation of a criminal's rights in the just punishment, he just has fewer such rights than non-criminals.

 

[dudleysharp]

passion and deterrence

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).

In the US, when it comes to capital murders, most are of the more premeditated type.

Based upon some recent deterrence studies, even "heat of the moment" murders can be prevented by deterrence.

No matter how excited or enraged, most of us bring ourselves back from that abyss, to a more sensible approach. One reason for that is deterrence, either thoughtful or instinctive.

 

[arildno]

Quoting John Stuart Mill on the deterrence aspect of the death penalty for pre-meditated murder:

7) My hon. Friend says that it does not inspire terror, and that experience proves it to be a failure.

But the influence of a punishment is not to be estimated by its effect on hardened criminals. Those whose habitual way of life keeps them, so to speak, at all times within sight of the gallows, do grow to care less about it; as, to compare good things with bad, an old soldier is not much affected by the chance of dying in battle. I can afford to admit all that is often said about the indifference of professional criminals to the gallows. Though of that indifference one-third is probably bravado and another third confidence that they shall have the luck to escape, it is quite probable that the remaining third is real. But the efficacy of a punishment which acts principally through the imagination, is chiefly to be measured by the impression it makes on those who are still innocent; by the horror with which it surrounds the first promptings of guilt; the restraining influence it exercises over the beginning of the thought which, if indulged, would become a temptation; the check which it exerts over the graded declension towards the state--never suddenly attained--in which crime no longer revolts, and punishment no longer terrifies.

8) As for what is called the failure of death punishment, who is able to judge of that? We partly know who those are whom it has not deterred; but who is there who knows whom it has deterred, or how many human beings it has saved who would have lived to be murderers if that awful association had not been thrown round the idea of murder from their earliest infancy? Let us not forget that the most imposing fact loses its power over the imagination if it is made too cheap. When a punishment fit only for the most atrocious crimes is lavished on small offences until human feeling recoils from it, then, indeed, it ceases to intimidate, because it ceases to be believed in.

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course...th_penalty.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

all rights alienable

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

Both morally and immorally, all rights are alienable.

See Hitler and Jesus.

Yes, I know, I am stretching your point, which is that some rights have been established, morally, as inalienable, even if immorally, they are taken away.

I simply do not find that such has ever been established.

Both freedom and life may be taken away for moral reasons. There are many examples, such as just incarceration, killing in self defense or a just war, or execution of our worse criminals.

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice vs deterrence

SO?
Deterrence does NOT constitute the justification for punishment!

Precisely.

Justice does and a secondary benefit of just sanction is deterrence.

 

[arildno]

"Taking away" (justly) is not the same as "alienate", dudley sharp!

For example, properties held in mortmain (i.e, where the owner cannot sell it) can, as far as I know, be expropriated by the state, in the same manner that other properties can be expropriated.

Thus, you can have "inalienable rights" that you YOURSELF have no power to alienate to another (some would say this is the barrier against de-criminalizing euthanasia), but that OTHERS (i.e, the state authority) CAN remove those rights from you.

 

[dudleysharp]

Purposes of Punishment

We disagree. Without a purpose, punishment is merely cruel.

I agree. Punishment has many purposes, some of which are:

Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution), that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior, that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

In other words, the retributive model, by definition, has within it, restoration, rehabiitation, deterrence, example, upholding of the social contract, and many more.

 

[arildno]

I'd rather say that if punishment does not have a purpose, then it is an automaton inflicting it, rather than a human being.

We have, by our nature, purposes for everything we do, but those purposes do not necessarily form the the basis of legitimacy for the given action (that would be an end jusifying the means situation)

 

[nismaratwork]

Dudelysharp, you can quote multiple times in ONE post... please.

DanP: Harsher prison terms can keep rapists from raping, and drunk drivers from driving; that doesn't require death. For the "treatment", in the US, that would have to occur after a crime, but given the repeated crimes such people commit, it would save a lot of lives and property. I'm not getting into a debate about Minority Report -esque "justice", just an alternative after the fact. Part of life is the reality that everyone isn't going to behave properly, and that's a risk built into it all. It's terrible, but not as much as a system which could be so easily abused as "treating" those who are yet to commit a crime.

 

[Office_Shredder]

And only in those cases. This would actually drastically reduce the number of people sentenced to death.

How many cases have every base covered, including the admission of guilt that can't be disputed? Sure, people have falsely confessed, but their confessions were dismissed because they didn't know all of the facts.

If an admission of guilt is required, don't you think it odd that if two people commit the same crime, only the person who admits to it during interrogation is killed?

You're no longer killing murderers, you're killing people for the crime of confessing

 

[dudleysharp]

don't you think it odd that if two people commit the same crime, only the person who admits to it during interrogation is killed?

You're no longer killing murderers, you're killing people for the crime of confessing

Unequal justice is inevitable, as in all human endeavors.

The confession doesn't get you executed, even if it is a death penalty crime. Many confessions are attached to plea bargains which result in lesser sanctions.

Even in those cases when there is a confession, without a prior agreement, most death penalty eligible trials (2/3) result in a punishment less than death.

 

[nismaratwork]

Unequal justice is inevitable, as in all human endeavors.

The confession doesn't get you executed, even if it is a death penalty crime. Many confessions are attached to plea bargains which result in lesser sanctions.

Even in those cases when there is a confession, without a prior agreement, most death penalty eligible trials (2/3) result in a punishment less than death.

Do you have a link for that 2/3rds and the "lesser sanctions" bit? Either way, forced confession are often the sign of a system that is failing at a basic level, so why trust it at the ultimate level? You've done more to dissuade than persuade. Finally, the inevitability of injustice is not an excuse to stop seeking perfection. In the attempt, you get closer to your goal, even while accepting that human endeavors are necessarily imperfect. Your arguments, while plentiful, are factitious.

 

[dudleysharp]

Do you have a link for that 2/3rds and the "lesser sanctions" bit? Either way, forced confession are often the sign of a system that is failing at a basic level, so why trust it at the ultimate level? You've done more to dissuade than persuade. Finally, the inevitability of injustice is not an excuse to stop seeking perfection.

the 2/3rds figure is from "Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty" By Mark Costanzo.

He's email is online if you wish to verify.

I am not sure what you want with regard to "lesser sanctions"

On the topic of erros and improving the system, we agree, as we do on forced confessions.

 

[dudleysharp]

show me

Your arguments, while plentiful, are factitious.

They have been well tested and survived.

If you would like to test them, again, in this forum, I would be more than happy to reply.

 

[nismaratwork]

They have been well tested and survived.

If you would like to test them, again, in this forum, I would be more than happy to reply.

You said that many confessions are attached to pleas which lead to lesser sanctions... what is "many"? Thank you for the reference for the 2/3rds figure, I'll have to snag that book from the library, or google-books if that portion is there.

 

[dudleysharp]

You said that many confessions are attached to pleas which lead to lesser sanctions... what is "many"? Thank you for the reference for the 2/3rds figure, I'll have to snag that book from the library, or google-books if that portion is there.

I have no idea of what the actual number might be. About 95% of all cases are plea bargained. And many capital cases are plea bargained down to life. Plea bargains do not exist without a confession of guilt.

 

[mheslep]

Quoting John Stuart Mill on the deterrence aspect of the death penalty for pre-meditated murder:


http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course...th_penalty.htm

But the efficacy of a punishment which acts principally through the imagination, is chiefly to be measured by the impression it makes on those who are still innocent; by the horror with which it surrounds the first promptings of guilt; the restraining influence it exercises over the beginning of the thought which, if indulged, would become a temptation; the check which it exerts over the graded declension towards the state--never suddenly attained--in which crime no longer revolts, and punishment no longer terrifies.

That's a lot of punch for one sentence. This, the impact on those that abide by society's rules, is so often left out of the criminal punishment discussion and is the most important, most relevant part IMO. I'll add that a system of punishment deters not only the innocent from declining into temptation, but also deters the innocent victim from extra legal retribution because there is a system. I'f I'm cut off in traffic, or I suffer a late night house invasion I know that there is a legal system in place that we as a civilization have agreed on ('the social contract') to administer punishment for the offender. Even absent the fear that I myself may get caught for personal retribution, there remains the knowledge that I abandoned the civilized system to do so.

 

[arildno]

Another aspect of having a sufficiently just system of justice is that having such a system, the inhabitants will feel a stronger sense of belonging to that society, and thus regard it as worthy of "fighting for", against internal and external attacks.

Having a system of justice most inhabitants regard as a bad joke, even if few of them commit criminalized actions, will drastically reduce the system's resilience, it it will wither away with a whimper in the face of an attack (political, ideological or whatever else).

Note that regarding your justice system as a bad joke doesn't necessarily just mean an over-lenient system of laws, a draconian system can look equally bad, or even worse.

This was actually the case when John Stuart Mill lived, when thefts of objects above the value of 30 shillings could lead to a death penalty.

This led to an exceedingly arbitrary system of pardoning, so that the ACTUAL practice of justice was a complete mess, with some speedy, "hanging judges" pushing through executions for crimes that in other districts were just waived away, or that pardon was easily gained (formally, from the King).

 

[DanP]

I'f I'm cut off in traffic, or I suffer a late night house invasion I know that there is a legal system in place that we as a civilization have agreed on ('the social contract') to administer punishment for the offender.

There was a high profile case here. In a nutshell ... A thief entered the house of a couple, the women was pregnant. The thief somehow managed to wake up her and scared her to death, then the husband got up, the thief became violent. He shoot the thief killing him instantly. Note that the thief did not poses a firearm.

The case was labeled self defense, and rightly so, I would add. He who invades your manor, threatens your women, tries to steal your possessions for which you worked hard, deserves to die. In this case, the law would have been more merciful with the criminal, should he just run away from the home when the owners got up, and apprehended later. But he decided to threaten their well being, in addition to their property. The thief got what he deserved.

Sure there where here as well a lot of soft hearts beings crying after the life of the criminal, his right to life, the sanctity of life and other platitudes, calling the husband a murderer.

Shooting dead the one(s) who performs a late night home invasion is not punishment, is self defense. The legal system in place should never deter self defense, and should even make the institution more permissive, in that that it should even allow disproportionate force to protect your property, your life and the life of your family.

 

[arildno]

Shooting dead the one(s) who performs a late night home invasion is not punishment, is self defense. The legal system in place should never deter self defense, and should even make the institution more permissive, in that that it should even allow disproportionate force to protect your property, your life and the life of your family.

Well, where do you draw your line?

Should people allow to kill others, claiming they did so in order to protect their honour?

For example, as among the Romans, that a father who caught his married daghter in flagrante in his own home, he had the right to kill the adulterous daughter and her lover? (The husband did NOT have this right, although the jurist Ulpian urges leniency in cases of men killing their adulterous wives)

 

[DanP]

Well, where do you draw your line?

Defense of life , well being (self or any 3rd party for both) , and of the "manor" in its totality. At least this is my view.

For example, as among the Romans, that a father who caught his married daghter in flagrante in his own home, he had the right to kill the adulterous daughter and her lover? (The husband did NOT have this right, although the jurist Ulpian urges leniency in cases of men killing their adulterous wives)

Pater familias was indeed a very important institution in the roman society. As far as I know, the Right of life and death over the members of the extended family was quite seldom exercised, but I might be mistaken.

 

[arildno]

Defense of life , well being (self or any 3rd party for both) , and of the "manor" in its totality. At least this is my view.

What does "well being" mean?

Is to be "dishonoured" sufficient grounds for undermining "well being" in such a degree that it is right and proper to kill, either in order to protect honour, or, by killing, reclaiming it?

 

[DanP]

What does "well being" mean?

Is to be "dishonoured" sufficient grounds for undermining "well being" in such a degree that it is right and proper to kill, either in order to protect honour, or, by killing, reclaiming it?

Depends who you ask. If you ask an American man coming from a southern culture of honor the answer would probably be yes. I do not believe so.

 

[arildno]

Pater familias was indeed a very important institution in the roman society. As far as I know, the Right of life and death over the members of the extended family was quite seldom exercised, but I might be mistaken.

You are, in the sense that because the exercise of potestas patriae ("father's might") was a private family matter, actual cases of such exercise wouldn't be matters of public discussion, and hence, the knowledge of them would remain extremely localized, hardly ever to be written about by historians, since:
a) They probably didn't know about most such cases that were committed
b) Whatever cases they did know of, it is likely they approved of them, and didn't bother to spill ink over them
c) That cases they knew of, but didn't personally approve of weren't written about, either, since this was "family business", rather than "public business" and "politics", which were the main topic for history writing.


Due to these features, the extreme paucity of sources on these issues is unsurprising, and cannot be seen as implying the rarity of occurence of these types of actions.


In a similar vein, you won't found much discussion over the actual treatment or slaves, within slave societies, nor will you find much written material on husband/wife-violence, since this, in most societies, ALSO was a private family business.

 

[vertices]

I agree. Punishment has many purposes, some of which are:

Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

Children should NEVER be punished - senseless violence teaches them nothing, and to have to resort to this only shows terrible parenting. No explain to them why their actions are wrong.

In other words, the retributive model, by definition, has within it, restoration, rehabiitation, deterrence, example, upholding of the social contract, and many more.

this is false.

Erm, how by definition is it possible to have restoration and rehabilitation, if there's capital punishment?

I've had a quick read of your other posts. What I am arguing is that the DP doesn't undo the crime and the finality of it means it is inherently cruel. There is simply no humane way to take a life.

Crimes like murder, etc are symptomatic of a culture of violence - this is what we, as a society, need to address.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I have no idea of what the actual number might be. About 95% of all cases are plea bargained. And many capital cases are plea bargained down to life. Plea bargains do not exist without a confession of guilt.

Evo suggested that a clear cut case of murder should allow a swift execution. At some point it seemed to be decided that for the case to be clear cut the accused has to confess. I wasn't arguing that the current system kills people for confessing, I was stating that the proposed new system would be killing people for confessing

 

[skeptic2]

Referring to Skeptic2's assertion that: "People who commit crimes have at least one of two beliefs that people who do not commit crimes don't have. They are:

1. They won't get caught.
2. They are justified in committing the crime."

I think some criminals hold those beliefs, but not all.

A deterrent, to be effective, only needs to deters some.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

Another truism is that it is not a deterrent for those who commit crimes, not even "The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions". Why not? Why doesn't the most severe of criminal sanctions deter the crimes it was intended for?

Yes, punishments do deter some crimes as I have already said. The issue is why doesn't it deter all crimes? This was the issue I was addressing.

Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of punishment. Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including capital murderers, act in such a fashion. Fear of capture does not exist without an expectation of punishment.

This doesn't mean that they sit down before every crime, most crimes or even their first crime, and contemplate a cost to benefit analysis of a criminal action. Weighing negative consequences may be conscious or subconscious, thoughtful or instinctive. And we instinctively know the potential negative consequences of some actions. Even pathetically stupid or irrational criminals will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection. And there is only one reason for that -- fear of punishment.

When dealing with less marginalized personalities, those who choose not to murder, such is a more reasoned group. It would be illogical to assume that a more reasoned group would be less responsive to the potential for negative consequences. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that some potential murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe punishment of execution.

As legal writer and death penalty critic Stuart Taylor observes: "All criminal penalties are based on the incontestable theory that most (or at least many) criminals are somewhat rational actors who try so hard not to get caught because they would prefer not to be imprisoned. And most are even keener about staying alive than about avoiding incarceration."

Based upon the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential of negative consequences, reason supports that executions deter and that they are an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

This is all so obvious and simplistic that it hardly deserves a response, except for the statement "Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of punishment." I never said criminals don't fear punishment, I said they believe they won't get caught. The reason for for concealing their crime is precisely so they won't get caught. If you dispute my claim that most criminals believe they won't get caught (excepting those who commit crimes believing they are justified in their actions), why then would someone commit a crime with a possibility of a death sentence believing he will be caught?

 

[Evo]

Evo suggested that a clear cut case of murder should allow a swift execution. At some point it seemed to be decided that for the case to be clear cut the accused has to confess. I wasn't arguing that the current system kills people for confessing, I was stating that the proposed new system would be killing people for confessing

People already get the death penalty for my scenario. I think you're saying that people would avoid the death penalty by not confessing. So I'll retract the need for a confession if the evidence is strong enough. This particular case met all of the criteria, including a confession.

 

[DanP]

R
Yes, punishments do deter some crimes as I have already said. The issue is why doesn't it deter all crimes? This was the issue I was addressing.

This is a non-issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a non-issue.

Agreed, I think we've gone into personal and moral areas, not false assertions of deterrence. This about fundamentally different viewpoints, across a spectrum from Vertices' through those such as myself who don't abhor killing, but believe that the process of holding someone for execution is cruel and unusual, into Evo and DanP. I can't, as a moral relativist claim a high-ground here, just that I personally can imagine being dragged to my certain death, and that level of terror is not something I wish to inflict on another human being. For me, I'd rather see the practice abolished, not because killing some people would not be expedient, but because it shouldn't be necessary to inflict psychological torture to do it. There is no way I can imagine to avoid that element of the death penalty that fits in US law, and if it can't be made to fit, it should be banned.

DanP, you strike me as the most "Old Testament" of the group, and I respect that. I simply cannot wholeheartedly agree on some elements of it. Evo has a good point too, but I don't believe in "cut and dried" and I my other points have already been made. It's kind of refreshing to have a debate that isn't just polarized to opposing views, but represents an overlapping spectrum.