Against the Death Penalty

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm opposed to the death penalty. I think it's barbaric and constitutes murder on the part of the state. Also, although we can release prisoners from jail if we discover they are innocent of the crime we found them guilty of, nobody can be released from death and that includes alleged criminals who were unjustly killed by the government.

One popular objection to my stance here is that anybody who has had children murdered would want the murderer to pay the ultimate price by forfeiting his life. But I would ask: What if the accused murderer were one of your children? Would you then be so enthusiastic about him or her facing execution? I think not. So the lesson here is that we all oppose the death penalty if we are to be on the receiving end.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I straight up agree. It's about time we left the company of China and the Islamic states and just abolished it. It can only happen state by state with our present SCOTUS.
I met and talked with several "exonerees" at a speaking event several years back. They had been on death row before successful appeals got them out. Their stories showed the various ways this can happen to the innocent (police taking the say-so of the actual killer to implicate someone else; innaccurate eyewitness testimony; prosecutors withholding crucial information). This is not a marginal occurrence, and you can only wonder how many condemned inmates never got their cases re-examined.
We don't allow victims to do the trying and sentencing of the accused -- that's pretty much the foundation of the jury system.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I straight up agree. It's about time we left the company of China and the Islamic states and just abolished it. It can only happen state by state with our present SCOTUS.
I met and talked with several "exonerees" at a speaking event several years back. They had been on death row before successful appeals got them out. Their stories showed the various ways this can happen to the innocent (police taking the say-so of the actual killer to implicate someone else; innaccurate eyewitness testimony; prosecutors withholding crucial information). This is not a marginal occurrence, and you can only wonder how many condemned inmates never got their cases re-examined.
We don't allow victims to do the trying and sentencing of the accused -- that's pretty much the foundation of the jury system.

Am I doing something wrong? I'm not used to agreement.

Anyway, yes, the death penalty is a dark and evil relic of the past that needs to be abolished everywhere forever. We can't be truly civilized as long as we practice it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You're doing something exactly right!
I recommend two books (both out of print and possibly hard to find) that cover wrongful convictions on capital murder. Both are seared into my memory.
Adams V. Texas by Randall Adams
White Lies by Nick Davies
Anyone who reads White Lies will never forget how an entire courthouse of officials conspired to put a man on death row, and how the largely unrewarded work of one tireless lawyer turned the tables on them. (I visited Conroe, TX years after I read the book and briefly met the lawyer.)

 

[TomC]

Anyway, yes, the death penalty is a dark and evil relic of the past that needs to be abolished everywhere forever. We can't be truly civilized as long as we practice it.

Something I find curious is how many supposedly Pro-life Christians support state sanctioned revenge killings, AKA capital punishment.

There are a tiny number of people who could continue causing death and mayhem for innocents, even after being locked up. Drug lords and terrorist leaders come to mind. But people like that are few and far between.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm opposed to the death penalty.

I am generally against it as well, but I think it probably ought to be a thing, just very rare, much more rare than it is implemented in the US. My thoughts is that it is a matter of risk to society, i.e. rights of one individual versus the rights of others to be alive and free. So, for example, and this is truly rare someone like Ted Bundy who was extremely intelligent, an escape-artist, and psychopathic serial murderer--his existence poses a tangible continued threat to other people's lives. And he gave up his right to life to be respected once he started murdering other people and so it is ethical for the state to consider on behalf of the right of life to others how his continued existence poses lethal threat to others. Ergo, it is morally acceptable for the state to choose in favor of the lives of others versus his life.

Likewise, Hitler. I do not propose he ought to have been killed for being responsible for the deaths of millions but instead because of the threat he posed to lives of others. Even when jailed earlier in his life, he was responsible for deaths of many others, had no remorse, and was calling to action genocide and more mass deaths. The lives of those that would be impacted far outweighed his own life. So, not only would it be morally acceptable to have the state execute him, it would have been morally acceptable to do so at the earlier point of his imprisonment.

I think it's barbaric and constitutes murder on the part of the state. Also, although we can release prisoners from jail if we discover they are innocent of the crime we found them guilty of, nobody can be released from death and that includes alleged criminals who were unjustly killed by the government.

I agree with you about the question of being found innocent later on. That's why I think there ought to be some extra assurance around application of the death penalty. I am unsure what that would mean or how it would be implemented, but maybe incontrovertible physical proof, such as DNA or unedited videos or authoring a book like Mein Kampf while having a following of millions after being responsible for murdering people.

One popular objection to my stance here is that anybody who has had children murdered would want the murderer to pay the ultimate price by forfeiting his life. But I would ask: What if the accused murderer were one of your children? Would you then be so enthusiastic about him or her facing execution? I think not. So the lesson here is that we all oppose the death penalty if we are to be on the receiving end.

I think that is an illogical objection and mostly an emotional appeal.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Does Putin deserve the death penalty for attacking Ukraine? Does Bush for attacking Iraq? Does Obama for perpetuating the war in Afghanistan?

Murder seems more murderous the closer to home it strikes. It's easy picking to look to those who have been wrongly convicted but would you be this pillar of morality if murder most foul struck your family and a single juror held out on convicting? I'm sure you'd like to think so but it's one of those questions a person can hardly answer unless put in the terrible position.

How much harm should one be allowed to inflict upon society? How much should society commit to maintaining an irredeemable individual's natural life? To me, life is most precious when it is young and innocent. As it grows old, if it grows harmful, not so much.

It was easier to form an opinion when the world was a simpler place. But the death of fellow human beings and great harm to society has a greater reach now and is often done so for no other reason than greed. People of wealth and power by degrees of separation are responsible for many deaths. For example, a vehicle manufacturer calculates the cost of a recall in lives lost. Remember the Ford Bronco II that was known to be prone to rollovers? Ford executives knew of this before the vehicle ever went into production. Vehicle safety documentation disappeared and the vehicle went to market. Or the Ford Explorer with Firestone tires which shared responsibility for rollovers. That one hit home for me when my wife and young daughter got cut off on the highway and went up on two wheels. Would I have liked to have seen the death penalty for those/that executive who made the call and put this vehicle on the road with those tires? Well, the vehicle came back down on all four so we'll never know.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You're doing something exactly right!
I recommend two books (both out of print and possibly hard to find) that cover wrongful convictions on capital murder. Both are seared into my memory.
Adams V. Texas by Randall Adams
White Lies by Nick Davies

I found both of them. If you have trouble finding old books, I recommend AbeBooks.com. They sell a lot of out of print books.

Anyone who reads White Lies will never forget how an entire courthouse of officials conspired to put a man on death row, and how the largely unrewarded work of one tireless lawyer turned the tables on them. (I visited Conroe, TX years after I read the book and briefly met the lawyer.)

I like to say that in the war of good against evil, truth is often the first casualty. Evil fears the truth and is weakened by the truth. That's why evil so often twists the truth to its own advantage.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only person who should be considered as owning a life is the person who is living that life.

People's lives aren't for the state to take.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Anyway, yes, the death penalty is a dark and evil relic of the past that needs to be abolished everywhere forever. We can't be truly civilized as long as we practice it.

Something I find curious is how many supposedly Pro-life Christians support state sanctioned revenge killings, AKA capital punishment.

I suppose a person opposed to abortion who supports the death penalty would argue that the difference between abortion and the death penalty is that abortion is the killing of an innocent person while the death penalty involves killing an allegedly guilty person. So I generally avoid pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion.

One issue I think that is relevant is that of providing government funds to families with kids. Some people who oppose such benefits also oppose abortion. If they love unborn kids so much, why let those kids die after they are born?

 

[Rhea]

You're doing something exactly right!
I recommend two books (both out of print and possibly hard to find) that cover wrongful convictions on capital murder. Both are seared into my memory.
Adams V. Texas by Randall Adams
White Lies by Nick Davies
Anyone who reads White Lies will never forget how an entire courthouse of officials conspired to put a man on death row, and how the largely unrewarded work of one tireless lawyer turned the tables on them. (I visited Conroe, TX years after I read the book and briefly met the lawyer.)

There is a movie about Randall Adams called “The Thin Blue Line” and it is outstanding.

Interestingly, it was conceived because of the argument that the death penatly is valid if the person is likely to kill again (Wiki) :

Prior to the conception of The Thin Blue Line, Morris originally planned to film a documentary about prosecution psychiatrist Dr. James Grigson, known as Doctor Death,[5][6] who testified in more than 100 trials that resulted in death sentences.[7] As an expert psychiatrist, Dr. Grigson made a name for himself by giving testimony in capital cases for the prosecution. Under the law in Texas, the death penalty can only be issued if the jury is convinced that the defendant is not just guilty, but will commit violent crimes in the future if not put to death. In almost every instance, Dr. Grigson would, after examining a defendant, testify that he had found the individual in question to be an incurable sociopath, who he was "one hundred percent certain" would kill again.[8

The psychiatrist in question testified that this particular INNOCENT MAN was “100% likely to kill again.”



I am against the death penalty for several reasons:

1. Risk of mistake is demonstrably too high
2. Cost of trying to mitigate that risk (endless appeals) has no return
3. I do not believe in “punishment” as it only feeds the idea that it’s okay to kill someone if you feel they have wronged you. (I.e. not self-defense)
4. It is simply not necessary

I can think of only one or two cases in all of modern history where the risk of escape is so high that something drastic would still be considered “self defense” for the society, and they involve powerful drug lords with a lot of people willing to help them escape. But even then, the proper care to mitigate the risk of a mistake would take so long that those escape plans would still be able to happen.

 

[Tigers!]

Am I doing something wrong? I'm not used to agreement.

Keep up the good, but indeed suprising, work.

 

[Tigers!]

Anyway, yes, the death penalty is a dark and evil relic of the past that needs to be abolished everywhere forever. We can't be truly civilized as long as we practice it.

Something I find curious is how many supposedly Pro-life Christians support state sanctioned revenge killings, AKA capital punishment.

I'll put my hand up. You called it revenge killings but I prefer the term justice. Yet you are in favour of state sanctioned revenge gaoling.
The curse of definitions I suppose.

There are a tiny number of people who could continue causing death and mayhem for innocents, even after being locked up. Drug lords and terrorist leaders come to mind. But people like that are few and far between.
Tom

Provided you or one you love is not a victim of the death and mayhem then that is ok I suppose.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're doing something exactly right!
I recommend two books (both out of print and possibly hard to find) that cover wrongful convictions on capital murder. Both are seared into my memory.
Adams V. Texas by Randall Adams
White Lies by Nick Davies
Anyone who reads White Lies will never forget how an entire courthouse of officials conspired to put a man on death row, and how the largely unrewarded work of one tireless lawyer turned the tables on them. (I visited Conroe, TX years after I read the book and briefly met the lawyer.)

There is a movie about Randall Adams called “The Thin Blue Line” and it is outstanding.

Interestingly, it was conceived because of the argument that the death penatly is valid if the person is likely to kill again (Wiki) :

Prior to the conception of The Thin Blue Line, Morris originally planned to film a documentary about prosecution psychiatrist Dr. James Grigson, known as Doctor Death,[5][6] who testified in more than 100 trials that resulted in death sentences.[7] As an expert psychiatrist, Dr. Grigson made a name for himself by giving testimony in capital cases for the prosecution. Under the law in Texas, the death penalty can only be issued if the jury is convinced that the defendant is not just guilty, but will commit violent crimes in the future if not put to death. In almost every instance, Dr. Grigson would, after examining a defendant, testify that he had found the individual in question to be an incurable sociopath, who he was "one hundred percent certain" would kill again.[8

The psychiatrist in question testified that this particular INNOCENT MAN was “100% likely to kill again.”



I am against the death penalty for several reasons:

1. Risk of mistake is demonstrably too high
2. Cost of trying to mitigate that risk (endless appeals) has no return
3. I do not believe in “punishment” as it only feeds the idea that it’s okay to kill someone if you feel they have wronged you. (I.e. not self-defense)
4. It is simply not necessary

I can think of only one or two cases in all of modern history where the risk of escape is so high that something drastic would still be considered “self defense” for the society, and they involve powerful drug lords with a lot of people willing to help them escape. But even then, the proper care to mitigate the risk of a mistake would take so long that those escape plans would still be able to happen.

Yeah, let me add to this: nobody is infinitely resistant to change, either pushed from outside or originating from within.

Even if someone would go out and murder folks left and right, if there is a good life we can offer them where they still just can't do that, then I say it's our duty to offer them that, assuming it doesn't make anyone else's worse than that as a function of giving the psychopath as much.

The only time that ever changes is when the only way to provide someone with a life at least as good as their attacker's is the immediate death of the attacker.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think there is a difference between killing someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would be close to impossible to be caught and imprisoned and killing someone who is in a prison that has lots of security. As a side note, I do think we need drastic prison reform, but that's a different topic. Some, or maybe most of those who have committed mass murders are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a mental illness, as a result of damage to the frontal cortex, which currently has no effective treatment, so I don't think we should kill someone just because they suffer from psychopathy, when we have the alternative of imprisoning them to protect society from them. I think I said much earlier in this thread that I would be fine with giving someone who is obviously guilty of a brutal murder, the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison, assuming I was guilty of the crime that I was prosecuted for.

I watched an interview of Timothy McVeigh, shortly before he was executed. He said that he'd rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. In my opinion, life in prison with no chance of parole is often perceived as being more cruel than death. That would certainly explain why some prisoners commit suicide. How to deal with dangerous members of society is complicated. Not everyone has the potential to be rehabilitated.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think there is a difference between killing someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would be close to impossible to be caught and imprisoned and killing someone who is in a prison that has lots of security. As a side note, I do think we need drastic prison reform, but that's a different topic. Some, or maybe most of those who have committed mass murders are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a mental illness, as a result of damage to the frontal cortex, which currently has no effective treatment, so I don't think we should kill someone just because they suffer from psychopathy, when we have the alternative of imprisoning them to protect society from them. I think I said much earlier in this thread that I would be fine with giving someone who is obviously guilty of a brutal murder, the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison, assuming I was guilty of the crime that I was prosecuted for.

I watched an interview of Timothy McVeigh, shortly before he was executed. He said that he'd rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. In my opinion, life in prison with no chance of parole is often perceived as being more cruel than death. That would certainly explain why some prisoners commit suicide. How to deal with dangerous members of society is complicated. Not everyone has the potential to be rehabilitated.

As comes to people making the decision to die, I think we should afford that as an open option to just about everyone, with the understanding that it is gated not behind legal hurdles but psychological ones designed to isolate those who are merely cyclic or depressed from those who actually understand that their future is fucked, looked at it maturely and without duress and made that decision with sound mind.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think there is a difference between killing someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would be close to impossible to be caught and imprisoned and killing someone who is in a prison that has lots of security. As a side note, I do think we need drastic prison reform, but that's a different topic. Some, or maybe most of those who have committed mass murders are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a mental illness, as a result of damage to the frontal cortex, which currently has no effective treatment, so I don't think we should kill someone just because they suffer from psychopathy, when we have the alternative of imprisoning them to protect society from them. I think I said much earlier in this thread that I would be fine with giving someone who is obviously guilty of a brutal murder, the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison, assuming I was guilty of the crime that I was prosecuted for.

I watched an interview of Timothy McVeigh, shortly before he was executed. He said that he'd rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. In my opinion, life in prison with no chance of parole is often perceived as being more cruel than death. That would certainly explain why some prisoners commit suicide. How to deal with dangerous members of society is complicated. Not everyone has the potential to be rehabilitated.

As comes to people making the decision to die, I think we should afford that as an open option to just about everyone, with the understanding that it is gated not behind legal hurdles but psychological ones designed to isolate those who are merely cyclic or depressed from those who actually understand that their future is fucked, looked at it maturely and without duress and made that decision with sound mind.

I don't have a problem with that, as long as they are offered every available treatment first. In another thread, I mentioned that I had an uncle who suffered from the most severe depression of anyone I ever knew. He was in and out of mental hospitals over the course of his life. He had every available treatment for depression at the time he was alive, including EST, antidepressants, and talk therapy. He wrote a book about the history of our family, which I had hoped would help him cope. I don't know if it was ever published, but I thought it was a positive thing for him to do some research and write. The last time I saw him, I think I was about 19 at my grandmother's funeral. We talked briefly. He seemed a little bit better. Soon afterwards, he committed suicide. Sometimes depression is impossible to treat and perhaps he should have been offered a more pleasant way to die, other than by hanging himself. Nobody knew that he planned this. I have other family members who suffered from depression but I don't think any of them ever seriously considered suicide. That includes my late father. I know some disagree with us about this, but I believe in bodily autonomy, which includes the right for an adult to end their life if that is their choice. But, I also believe that we have failed those who suffer from brain disorders and that should be our first priority.

Suffering from depression doesn't mean that someone isn't of sound mind. it's just an overwhelming feeling that life is hopeless and there is no reason to keep on living. I just added that because after reading your post again, I think I may have misunderstood you at first or you might misunderstand my post. Basically, I think we are on the same page.

 

[Rhea]

You called it revenge killings but I prefer the term justice.

To me, “justice” is the law protecting people in society. “Justice” is stopping people from harming others. “Justice” is correcting wrongs through return of property or reinstatement at employment. “Justice” is done when inequalities are removed and people have equal access to opportunities.

If you are killing someone for a reason other than defense, that is “revenge,” or “punishment,” not “justice.”

I believe strongly in stopping people from doing harm, and I am absolutely against making people suffer to teach them or spectators a lesson.

I used to support the death penalty, mostly for pragmatic reasons; if they are harming society, get rid of them. But I have changed my stance for two reasons. One is that we are demonstrably making mistakes about who is guilty or not guilty. And the death penalty makes it impossible to correct our mistakes. And the second is that anything we want to do about protecting society for harm is adequately accomplished by incarceration and does not need death.

So, in short, the death penalty is both flawed and unnecessary.

A third reason that has become clear since my change of stance, but has gained a significant persuasiveness to me, is the message that the death penalty sends to psychopaths: that they are not alone in thinking it’s okay to kill if you feel wronged - society collectively agrees with this.

I feel this emboldens all sorts of terrible behavior, and that we would be better off never associating Justice with punishment, revenge or retribution. It emboldens thieves, killers, domestic abusers, rapists, bullies. It allows them to say, “this behavior is not wrong, I’m doing the same thing that everyone agrees our government can do.”

We must as a society always say that punishment, revenge and retribution are wrong.

As a side note, I do think we need drastic prison reform, but that's a different topic.

Agreed 100%
And this has everything to do with my conviction that punishment and revenge never work.

I would be fine with giving someone who is obviously guilty of a brutal murder, the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison, assuming I was guilty of the crime that I was prosecuted for.

I would also be fine with this. Since someone who cannot be released into society may find that incarceration is torturous, and I do not condone torture, they deserve an option. So if a prisoner wishes to choose death over lifetime incarceration, I believe that should be available to them, after rigorous and highly regulated psychiatric determination.

 

[TomC]

I'll put my hand up. You called it revenge killings but I prefer the term justice. Yet you are in favour of state sanctioned revenge gaoling.
The curse of definitions I suppose.

Here's the rub.
Justice can mean lots of things. It can be a vague term used to justify an otherwise unjustifiable position on some moral issue. Vengeance, or revenge, is much more precise.

And no, I'm not in favor of vengeance incarceration. Protecting the general public from dangerous people or rehabilitation is completely different.

And please don't expect me to justify U.S. policies concerning incarceration. I consider them commonly appalling.

Provided you or one you love is not a victim of the death and mayhem then that is ok I suppose.

No. I see the desire for vengeance a deeply ingrained instinctive feeling. I've never had to deal with an issue that bad, and I hope I never do. Closest I've been is when a friend of my sister was raped at gunpoint trying to get to her car. The perp then left her in a pile and stole her purse and her car. The drug addled idiot proceeded to wreck the car less than half mile away. It's not like there was any question about who did what. Oh yeah, I felt that twinge of revenge. Especially after the guy got less than a year in jail.

But I see vengeance as a primitive instinct. Like tribalism or impulsive sex or theft. Morality is rising above those instinctive behaviors and behaving in a rational way, instead of like an animal. Vengeance is not a rational emotion, however understandable.
Tom

 

[thebeave]

I think there is a difference between killing someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would be close to impossible to be caught and imprisoned and killing someone who is in a prison that has lots of security. As a side note, I do think we need drastic prison reform, but that's a different topic. Some, or maybe most of those who have committed mass murders are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a mental illness, as a result of damage to the frontal cortex, which currently has no effective treatment, so I don't think we should kill someone just because they suffer from psychopathy, when we have the alternative of imprisoning them to protect society from them. I think I said much earlier in this thread that I would be fine with giving someone who is obviously guilty of a brutal murder, the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison, assuming I was guilty of the crime that I was prosecuted for.

I watched an interview of Timothy McVeigh, shortly before he was executed. He said that he'd rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. In my opinion, life in prison with no chance of parole is often perceived as being more cruel than death. That would certainly explain why some prisoners commit suicide. How to deal with dangerous members of society is complicated. Not everyone has the potential to be rehabilitated.

Yep. I am pretty conflicted about the death penalty, largely because of this. I sometimes think the death penalty is too easy of a way out for some of the more heinous criminals, so for those who argue the death penalty is too cruel and barbaric I ask if rotting in prison for the rest of your life is actually less cruel and barbaic. And letting them out on parole after a more moderate sentence seems to be a slap in the face to the victims' families and maybe lacks justice. Its kind of a no-win scenario.