Capital punishment

[MCMXCIX]

One of the many pressing isssues that faces America today is the issue of Capital punishment. I want to know what your guys thoughts are on Capital punishment.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

I don't agree with it, but I live in Australia where it isn't practiced so I come from a different background. I believe in rehabilitation of criminals as far as possible.

The fact that inmates have been executed only to later find evidence casting doubt on their initial guilt should be enough for anyone to see the approach is flawed.

 

[twocows]

If it can be scientifically demonstrated with a high degree of certainty that someone is incapable of empathy and can't be reformed as a result, I would have to say that I'm not opposed to it. I don't like to dehumanize people, but someone who is incapable of empathy lacks one of the central factors that make us human: the ability to care about the well-being of others. They may technically be a member of our species, but I wouldn't consider someone like that human, at least not in the sense that they have inherent value as most of us do.

I would give them two choices: live in the service of humanity or be put to death.

 

[Kanzler]

If it can be scientifically demonstrated with a high degree of certainty that someone is incapable of empathy and can't be reformed as a result, I would have to say that I'm not opposed to it. I don't like to dehumanize people, but someone who is incapable of empathy lacks one of the central factors that make us human: the ability to care about the well-being of others. They may technically be a member of our species, but I wouldn't consider someone like that human, at least not in the sense that they have inherent value as most of us do.

I would give them two choices: live in the service of humanity or be put to death.

I think that's a great debate in and of itself, whether people can be "incapable" of empathy, let alone having to demonstrate that scientifically. And even then, should they be treated as less than human? It could be seen as a disability.

 

[twocows]

I think that's a great debate in and of itself, whether people can be "incapable" of empathy, let alone having to demonstrate that scientifically. And even then, should they be treated as less than human? It could be seen as a disability.

Disability or not, if they've done something bad enough to land on death row and are at risk of doing it again, it doesn't matter what you call it, they need to be dealt with in some way. Since rehabilitation isn't an option, I think the two alternatives I offered were reasonable given the circumstances.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

If you were caught with dead body parts in your fridge, I hate to tell you this but you've won a date with an icy cold machine from which you'll never wake up.

Personally, I think the penalties should once again be designed to instill fear and terror. Killed your neighbor's family? Looks like you're going to be burnt alive, congrats. Maybe next time you won't be a dumb dink. The wait time also needs to be reduced dramatically, as well as more resources poured into evidence handling training and digging up every stone. not saying to kill them all at once, but weed through the beyond reasonable doubt cases and put them through the grinder.

I don't agree that it's inhumane to have a murderer that raped his way through his victims and later killed them die in a horribly excruciating way. These days you can kill as many people as you want with at least solace in the fact that you're just going to 'fall asleep'.

 

[Lawandorder]

^
That barbaric attitude does not work, it has been proved statistically that capital punishment as a fear inducing measure does nothing to deter crimes from being commited, why do you think interrogators are trained on psychological techniques instead of training them to be torture specialists? Because fear doesn't work, you can train a dog through fear, but you can't completely dominate a human being through it, and thinking that you can is simplistic and ignorant at the same time; you can't shape the population of a country through fear of punishment, the solution to crime is simple enough (and that much complicated at the same time), is to solve the social discrepancies among the social classes, to create stability for the middle clases and through that eliminate the poor class, wich sounds real simple and yet it's the single most complicated thing to do in a country.
That being said, I'm not against the death penalty, I do firmly believe there are offenses that should cost you your life, bit I'm against people that think the way to improve the system is to be more barbaric and those people usually start by arguing that it is okay for the state to not only take the life of a felón, but insist on the fact that it should be taken in the most horrible way possible; that's not only stupid but is overly simplistic.

 

[Pendraflare]

While there are people who deserve to take it for some of the crimes they've dealt, I think that being sentenced to death is something that might be on the extreme side for most bad acts out there. As Lotus mentioned near the top of this page, rehabilitation can be more suitable for more generic, overdone offenses.

Although I can't think of a lot of arrest-worthy offenses at this very moment, it's not arguable that killing is something that warrants the death penalty overall, however. Why do you think the gunmen from the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook shootings killed themselves afterward?

 

[Kameken]

If it can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that someone places no value in, and is willing to take innocent human lives, they deserve no value to be placed on their life, and as far as I'm concerned, the government can do whatever they want with them.

I don't ever care if it's painless or not at the point where they definitely think it's okay to kill people whenever they want. They've caused great pain to others, if the government wants to do the same to them, so be it.

 

[Livewire]

Sentencing someone to death in an attempt to teach them that killing is morally wrong is not how you get the point across. That makes no sense to me. Justice isn't about revenge, and capital punishment is just that, revenge - "an eye for an eye". Criminals should be rehabilitated, if possible. If they can't, then they rot in prison for the rest of their lives, and sacrifice their individual freedoms.

 

[Kameken]

Sentencing someone to death in an attempt to teach them that killing is morally wrong is not how you get the point across. That makes no sense to me. Justice isn't about revenge, and capital punishment is just that, revenge - "an eye for an eye". Criminals should be rehabilitated, if possible. If they can't, then they rot in prison for the rest of their lives, and sacrifice their individual freedoms.

It's not about teaching them. Unless the killer is a child or insane, they know that killing is wrong. In my eyes, there's two reasons for a death penalty.

One, it sends a message to people who may consider killing that it won't be tolerated. It's unlikely to prevent many murders, but it may prevent some.

Two, it removes the threat of the murderer, permanently. You may say that a life sentence will do the same, but a prison can be escaped, and if that happens, there's a killer on the loose just because we decided to keep him/her in jail on the off chance that he/she can be rehabilitated.

You say that it's not about revenge, this is true. But what's more vengeful; to quickly end a life that's taken others, or to keep it in a cage with minimal living conditions and dangerous people until they're either killed by age, sickness, or some other guy strangling him?

Besides, the whole, "Anything resembling revenge is evil," thing is a fantasy. It won't cause anyone to turn evil or start slaughtering people left and right. Sometimes, people prove they don't deserve life, and putting them in jail can't always solve that.

 

[Livewire]

It's not about teaching them. Unless the killer is a child or insane, they know that killing is wrong. In my eyes, there's two reasons for a death penalty.

One, it sends a message to people who may consider killing that it won't be tolerated. It's unlikely to prevent many murders, but it may prevent some.

Two, it removes the threat of the murderer, permanently. You may say that a life sentence will do the same, but a prison can be escaped, and if that happens, there's a killer on the loose just because we decided to keep him/her in jail on the off chance that he/she can be rehabilitated.

You say that it's not about revenge, this is true. But what's more vengeful; to quickly end a life that's taken others, or to keep it in a cage with minimal living conditions and dangerous people until they're either killed by age, sickness, or some other guy strangling him?

Besides, the whole, "Anything resembling revenge is evil," thing is a fantasy. It won't cause anyone to turn evil or start slaughtering people left and right. Sometimes, people prove they don't deserve life, and putting them in jail can't always solve that.

The reason why we, as a society, have laws against murder is because society views it as morally reprehensible - taking a life is one of the worst crimes someone can commit. How can society view taking a life as immoral if society's punishment for taking a life is to take the murder's?

Look at Texas, a state that has the most executions of any state in the country, and regularly performs them, and has been doing so since the early 70's. They executed 4 people in 1990, and 40 in 2000. Doesn't strike me as much of a deterrent, if your # of executions increased tenfold in 10 years. [[Source]] Now granted, that does account for a population uptick and their execution rate has dwindled in recent years.

Revenge is about getting even, a life for a life. Granted, living out your days in a hellish prison might not be much better, but at least they have their life. Revenge isn't always an act of evil, but it usually isn't justice either.

 

[Kameken]

The reason why we, as a society, have laws against murder is because society views it as morally reprehensible - taking a life is one of the worst crimes someone can commit. How can society view taking a life as immoral if society's punishment for taking a life is to take the murder's?

Because there's a huge difference between killing a man for no reason and killing him because he killed multiple others.

Is it not okay for someone who's dying of starvation to steal food in order to live? It must not be, because apparently all actions have the exact same moral implications regardless of context.

Look at Texas, a state that has the most executions of any state in the country, and regularly performs them, and has been doing so since the early 70's. They executed 4 people in 1990, and 40 in 2000. Doesn't strike me as much of a deterrent, if your # of executions increased tenfold in 10 years. [[Source]] Now granted, that does account for a population uptick and their execution rate has dwindled in recent years.

This doesn't support your case. Sure, 1990 and 2000 appear to have a steep upward slope in executions, but that's only accounting for two points, and doesn't account for the years between them, where the execution rate is erratic, rather than steadily rising. in fact, every year is rather inconsistent. Not to mention it doesn't account for political changes or things like that. Sometimes different people come into power, officially or not, and change who is or isn't executed.

 

[Tek]

It's not about teaching them. Unless the killer is a child or insane, they know that killing is wrong. In my eyes, there's two reasons for a death penalty.

One, it sends a message to people who may consider killing that it won't be tolerated. It's unlikely to prevent many murders, but it may prevent some.

Once again, an understanding of human ego development sheds a lot of light on this discussion.

People at an early stage - and not generic people, but members of my extended family - know that society says that certain things are wrong, so they'd sure as hell better not get caught. For such individuals, killing criminals only reinforces how important it is not to caught. It does nothing to move them to a later stage of development where more empathy and greater morality are possible.

 

[Kameken]

Once again, an understanding of human ego development sheds a lot of light on this discussion.

People at an early stage - and not generic people, but members of my extended family - know that society says that certain things are wrong, so they'd sure as hell better not get caught. For such individuals, killing criminals only reinforces how important it is not to caught. It does nothing to move them to a later stage of development where more empathy and greater morality are possible.

Maybe not, but it still removes a single threat, and while it may not prevent most murders that would happen anyway, it could prevent some from those who truly fear death; they would decide it's not worth the risk. It'd be a rarity, yes, but if it happens even jus once or twice and prevents further deaths, is it not worth it?

 

[Livewire]

Because there's a huge difference between killing a man for no reason and killing him because he killed multiple others.

Is it not okay for someone who's dying of starvation to steal food in order to live? It must not be, because apparently all actions have the exact same moral implications regardless of context.



This doesn't support your case. Sure, 1990 and 2000 appear to have a steep upward slope in executions, but that's only accounting for two points, and doesn't account for the years between them, where the execution rate is erratic, rather than steadily rising. in fact, every year is rather inconsistent. Not to mention it doesn't account for political changes or things like that. Sometimes different people come into power, officially or not, and change who is or isn't executed.

Stealing to survive isn't the same, morally, as killing someone. Obviously, context matters here, and not every case is the same. But society does't have much to gain if we condone some killings and some are deplorable - "it's ok because he killed somebody first, and he deserves it" doesn't strike me as the appropriate response.

Right, but if executions were a true deterrent, then there shouldn't be any anomalies at all. There should be a steady, gradual, downward trend in executions there, if people were truly deterred by the death penalty as it is supposedly intended to do. Texas is a red state and has a throughly Conservative legislature and governor; Both of which usually support the death penalty, so there wasn't any political change there of note.

 

[Kameken]

Stealing to survive isn't the same, morally, as killing someone. Obviously, context matters here, and not every case is the same. But society does't have much to gain if we condone some killings and some are deplorable - "it's ok because he killed somebody first, and he deserves it" doesn't strike me as the appropriate response.

Right, but if executions were a true deterrent, then there shouldn't be any anomalies at all. There should be a steady downward trend in executions there, if people were truly deterred by the death penalty.

Why not? We don't live in a world where everyone is able to be saved, why should people be able to kill others for no reason and not get the same in return? All you've been able to cite is some idealistic moral where any killing is bad on principal of being killing, regardless of its meaning or cause. People who kill for reasons other than self defense or other necessary actions and aren't mentally sick do deserve to die, because they've shown disregard for the value of human life. By not recognizing this, we say that it's okay to kill if you're not afraid of prison, because we're afraid to punish people who do so in a manner as severely as they do others.

"No anomalies"? How would that work? That's like saying that all experiments need to have all the same data at the end, or else their data is meaningless.

 

[obZen]

My issues with Caiptal Punishment:
It's literally punishment- it's not rehabilitation.
Does it send a message? No. Nobody stops themseves from murdering someone because they fear the death penalty.
There's a mountain of examples of people getting convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. If someone was framed for murder, got the death penalty, then law enforcement realized their mistake, there's no turning back.
I don't see the point in capital punishment.

 

[Tek]

Why not? We don't live in a world where everyone is able to be saved, why should people be able to kill others for no reason and not get the same in return? All you've been able to cite is some idealistic moral where any killing is bad on principal of being killing, regardless of its meaning or cause. People who kill for reasons other than self defense or other necessary actions and aren't mentally sick do deserve to die, because they've shown disregard for the value of human life. By not recognizing this, we say that it's okay to kill if you're not afraid of prison, because we're afraid to punish people who do so in a manner as severely as they do others.

"No anomalies"? How would that work? That's like saying that all experiments need to have all the same data at the end, or else their data is meaningless.

Okay, give a little, get a little. All you've done is cite a moral imperative that we came up with before A.D. was a thing. But in all seriousness, I don't think we're going to agree here. Perhaps we don't need to, since we aren't policy makers yet.

I'm not certain that criminals deserve to die. Honestly, I don't even know that death is a punishment, we have very little data on what comes next.

When I think about human potential, I see no limits. I don't think we live in a world where everyone can be saved. But I know in my bones that we can create that world, we can allow that world to exist. At the moment, I don't really see capital punishment as helpful towards that goal, for the reason I outlined earlier.

I do have to wonder though, how I'd feel if someone close to me were raped and stabbed to death. I probably wouldn't expect the death sentence to solve the country's crime problem, but it would probably make me feel better anyway. Perhaps helping victims cope is a better argument for killing a killer... perhaps.

 

[Livewire]

Why not? We don't live in a world where everyone is able to be saved, why should people be able to kill others for no reason and not get the same in return? All you've been able to cite is some idealistic moral where any killing is bad on principal of being killing, regardless of its meaning or cause. People who kill for reasons other than self defense or other necessary actions and aren't mentally sick do deserve to die, because they've shown disregard for the value of human life. By not recognizing this, we say that it's okay to kill if you're not afraid of prison, because we're afraid to punish people who do so in a manner as severely as they do others.

"No anomalies"? How would that work? That's like saying that all experiments need to have all the same data at the end, or else their data is meaningless.

People who kill for reasons other than self defense or other necessary actions and aren't mentally sick do deserve to die, because they've shown disregard for the value of human life.

Deserve is a pretty strong word, and if anything, your argument of a life for a life (which is what it essentially boils down to) is just as supposedly black and white and devoid of context as mine is - so if you kill someone, not in self-defense or in another viable way, you automatically deserve to die then? Where's the context there?

Like I said, if the claim is that "The death penalty deters people from killing other people", then you should see a steady downward trend since they started issuing capital punishment. Since Texas instituted the death penalty, there has been an upward trend in executions by year, with a recent decline. So you mean to tell me it took nearly two and a half decades of capital punishment, with dozens upon dozens of executions, before it became a deterrent to murder? It is not one, in Texas at least.

An eye for an eye is not a model we should be basing a modern, 2015 justice system around, as we don't live in the middle ages anymore. And if the death penalty were truly a "deterrent" as it's claimed to be, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because there would be no murders and no need for a death penalty in the first place. But it isn't.

Plus, we haven't even mentioned any other objections than a moral one. For starters:

• 
  *Executions, specifically the drug cocktails for the injection are incredibly expensive to taxpayers
  *Studies show it doesn't act as a deterrent
  *Lack of consistent application - the penalty's usage can wildly vary, depending on the quality of your legal counsel, and where you happen to be, jurisdiction wise. I could be executed or imprisoned or neither of those things depending on where I am and who my lawyer is.
  *Race plays a large part in who and who isn't executed, and there exists a large racial disparity - minorities are much more likely be on death row that whites, when committing and being charged with the same crimes.
  *States don't reveal where or from whom they obtained the drugs for the injections
  *They also botch executions, which constitutes negligence and cruel and unusual punishment, as well as violation of 8th and 14th Amendment rights.
  *States have inmates who have been on death row for years, sometimes decades, which also can be argued as cruel and unusual punishment. Ones on death row before the advent of DNA testing to prove their guilt have been exonerated by the tests.
  *Religious arguments against it

1 https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/justice/us-lethal-injection/
2 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/a-paradoxical-reaction-in-oklahoma/384487/
3 https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/dna-testing-and-death-penalty
4 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/race-and-the-death-penalty/373081/
5 https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

Capital Punishment is a lot like the War on Drugs, where it doesn't really combat what it's designed to stop, it's also arbitrary enforced, and it too often disproportionately targets minorities and even the innocent in the process. We're no closer to winning the war on drugs in 2015 than we were in 1971 when Nixon started it all, much like the death penalty is no closer to being a deterrent now than it was for the previous six or so thousand of years of human civilization. It's a relic of the past and it should be left in the past.