Against the Death Penalty

[bilby]

I think they deserved death. Maybe lots of people do.

Don't worry, they all get it eventually.

 

[unapologetic]

I feel the same way about Donald Trump. I am confident that he will continue to inspire treasonous violence as long as he's alive. I'd be fine with him being helped into his afterlife, by whatever means necessary.

Why do many posters it seems, immediately think of vengeance or revenge whenever talk of imprisonment or possible death penalty is mentioned?

Because reform/rehabilitation is a joke.

Life sentence without parole does all you need to remove them from society.

But killing them is more 'cost effective', and 'law enforcement' needs the space for the drug users. /s

 

[DBT]

Expediency over ethics, problem solved, just kill and bury the worst of us?

 

[Jarhyn]

You never use the term justice for the injured, bereaved etc .

There is no such thing. The past is the past and it cannot be unmade by perpetuating revenge. Your own book has some things to say about "eye for an eye" being over and radical love even for those you hate, and it's not a "mystery" or a "revelation"...

Revenge is a pre-civilized concept. It is an artifact of the times when we couldn't effectively identify when someone was likely to offend again, nor effectively and humanely prevent those who would from actualizing on their impulses.

The only reason they want what they lie about and call "justice" is to stroke that ancient revenge boner.

For the injured and the bereaved, the most they have any entitlement to is knowing that the offender will not be given an opportunity to offend again until we are reasonably sure they won't take it.

 

[Rhea]

It would be very hard to tell if they are truly rehabilitated. They could be very convincing, patient actors.
we would differ as to where the line between trying to rehabilitate or not is drawn

Then advocate for no early release and no parole.
You still don’t need to kill them.

Its an option but not the only one.
I can advocate for no parole but that decision sadly is out of my hands.

So instead kill people in a way that is KNOWN to also kill innocent people?
You are so ready to join the ranks of being a killer?

I am not.
The death penalty does not deter crime, the data shows that.
So “saving innocents” is not an outcome of the death penalty.
The only outcome is that we, as a State, end up ALSO killing innocents.

And I just see no pragmatic, emotional or “justice” need to join those ranks.

What other purpose apart from removing a threat would the death penalty achieve?

Revenge, Tigers. Retribution. “I’ll make them pay with their life” and “let’s see how they feel when it happens to them!”

You never use the term justice for the injured, bereaved etc .
If you cannot see the difference between justice, revenge, retribution etc. then I cannot help that.
Why is life imprisonment better than executed? Is it more noble or merciful? If so, how or why?

Life sentence without parole does all you need to remove them from society.

How does the statement below follow from the statement above

And leaves you opne (demonstrably, as I kleep saying) to being willing to kill innocent people to get revenge.

I follows when you don’t cut out the middle that clarifies. Let me add it back in for you, and edit to make it more unambigious:

What other purpose apart from removing a threat would the death penalty achieve?

Revenge, Tigers. Retribution. The death penalty is sought by those who want to say “I’ll make them pay with their life” and “let’s see how they feel when it happens to them!”

Life sentence without parole does all you need to remove them (the threats) from society. Killing them only adds revenge, not justice. And killing them leaves you open (demonstrably, as I keep saying) to being willing to kill innocent people to get revenge.

Killing them onloy adds revenge, not justice.

We will have to disagree about that.

Actually, I think it is objective, not a matter of opinion.
Life imprisonment removes the threat from society. The threat is wholly removed. Death penalty is not required to achieve this. You even said this yourself, that you wish there was life without parole, but you don’t think it exists.

So the death penalty, objectively, is only needed if you are seeking retribution or revenge on top of a desire to remove the threat from society.

The death penalty is objectively unnecessary. Many countries have life without parole. The United States has managed to keep a large number of prisoners behind bars until they die. So objectively that does exist. Making the death penalty unnecessary.

 

[Rhea]

You never use the term justice for the injured, bereaved etc .

Justice is usually used in the context of making things right. The bank pays up, the employee gets re-hired, the songwriter finally gets credited. I do use the term justice for the injured. Justice was served when the recording studio gave the artist back pay. JUstice was served when the Voting Rights Act forced the states to treat voters equally.

But Justice has no place in crimes that cannot be made right. We can’t do justice by making the woman un-raped or the victim un-killed. So Justice in those cases becomes preventing a repeat. Justice was done when the killer was removed from ever being able to harm again.

If you cannot see the difference between justice, revenge, retribution etc. then I cannot help that.

You think “justice” means hurting them the way they hurt you. But that is not Justice. That is the definition of retribution or vengeance.

And you think it’s a problem that you can’t help me with that I can see the difference between Justice and retribution? It’s not a problem. I can see the difference. And I am willing to be party to one of those, but not the other.

I do not believe in retribution or punishment. I believe those CREATE crime, not deter it.

Why is life imprisonment better than executed? Is it more noble or merciful? If so, how or why?

Because when (not if, WHEN) you convict an innocent person, there is a chance for justice to reverse it.
I don’t advocate that it should be done because it is noble. I advocate that life imprisonment should be chosen over the death penalty because it is pragmatically more likely to benefit society. And I said this already before.

When society declares that it is okay to kill someone, as long as you truly believe they have wronged you, you make killers feel that society supports those urges.

This is the same phenomenon that results in the children of abuser becoming abusers. It’s the same thing.
You see the antisocial behavior advocated by society, you feel right in doing it.

Try to understand why the children of abusers are more likely to be abusers, and you will understand why I believe that the death penalty creates killers. It removes the social inhibition against it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

If people pose danger to others, I say control them to prevent that kind of harm.

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 would have imprisoned Hitler for the rest of his life.

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.

Nah. Life in prison for such individuals.

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.

Would there be a death penalty if we all faced it?

But of course we all do face the death penalty. Our crime is living. Life is a terminal illness.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The death penalty for the likes of Ariel Castro, Chris Watts or serial killers like Bundy and Dahmer is entirely appropriate.

What is the point? Are we teaching people that we will kill to let them know that killing is wrong?

 

[TSwizzle]

The death penalty for the likes of Ariel Castro, Chris Watts or serial killers like Bundy and Dahmer is entirely appropriate.

What is the point?

The point would be expediency and economics.

Are we teaching people that we will kill to let them know that killing is wrong?

No. People know murder is against the law.

 

[DBT]

The death penalty for the likes of Ariel Castro, Chris Watts or serial killers like Bundy and Dahmer is entirely appropriate.

What is the point?

The point would be expediency and economics.

Are we teaching people that we will kill to let them know that killing is wrong?

No. People know murder is against the law.

Expediency places no value on morality, setting an example, human life or building a better society, the callous disregard of expediency makes you no better than those you deem to be disposable.

 

[bilby]

The point would be expediency and economics.

It's a good deal cheaper and easier to keep a person in prison for life without parole than it is to execute them.

Largely because of the very rigourous appeals process in death penalty cases.

Despite which, innocent people do get executed. So clearly, it's not rigorous enough.

 

[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.

If people pose danger to others, I say control them to prevent that kind of harm.

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 would have imprisoned Hitler for the rest of his life.

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.

Nah. Life in prison for such individuals.

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.

Would there be a death penalty if we all faced it?

But of course we all do face the death penalty. Our crime is living. Life is a terminal illness.

Here is what it comes down to:

(1) Morally: does the value of one life outweigh others? In extreme cases such as Hitler, he poses a risk of ordering deaths or being broken out or being released to then murder people, millions of people. Or similarly Osama bin Laden would also be ordering murders and terrorism from behind bars. These very rare individuals are not that different than a self defense argument. It is morally acceptable to kill in self-defense. The primary difference is that in the case of these very rare individuals is that one has to make an inference of future behaviors. This type of future prediction may look cold and calculating, but when an individual has already murdered hundreds of people and it is certain that they have they have, we _should_ be methodical in protecting future lives. Letting them order murders, terrorism, or being set free by fascist paramilitaries is not acceptable morally. Their individual life does not outweigh multiple future lives and when their past murders are certain, they've lost the right to a benefit of doubt.
(2) Politically: there are many valid questions about laws, judicial implementation, or more generally about how this could actually work in practice. I view the theory of comparing one life to many as a moral question, but actual implementation of a death penalty as a political question. We observe many problems with the justice system. As brought up, with expert testimony, too. Even juries... they are given to biases and emotion...and judges who are super pro-death penalty. How do you actually implement a system where you have to be certain of guilt and certain of future risk but the persons doing the assessment are very flawed in a system with systemic biases and other problems? I am not claiming to be an expert or to fix all problems. I do think reducing the death penalty considerably would be an improvement. Next, as I wrote, only in instances where we have more assurance of guilt, like dna or unedited video...and only when there would be significant future risk of lives lost.

Someone asked what about Putin, Bush, and Obama. Using the criteria I have outlined:

Putin: yes, try in court. Sentence to death when found guilty. Why? He is responsible for thousands of thousands of murders. That seems certain but let a court prove it. If imprisoned he would continue to order deaths because he is that powerful and tyrannical. Let a court prove it.
Bush: no, try in court. He ought to be found guilty of lies that ended up killing too many people in Iraq and don't forget his policy of torture etc. That is at least prison. He poses no threat of death to other people at this point in his life. No execution needed to save lives.
Obama: Obama was handed the war on terror, including the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question of legitimacy of military occupations and continuing them versus destabilization and how many lives would be lost if removing troops or keeping them present was thrust upon him. He recognized Iraq occupation was illegitimate but saw risk in removing troops. He removed troops from Iraq and ISIS formed. He took out bin Laden which I think was moral to do. He increased troop presence in Afghanistan. Overall, it seems like a mixed bag in trying to navigate what were the best options to save lives and get bin Laden and these seem more like political questions. I don't see an obvious need for prison. What would it be? He poses no imminent threat to future lives. Should not have the death penalty.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

If people pose danger to others, I say control them to prevent that kind of harm.

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 would have imprisoned Hitler for the rest of his life.

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.

Nah. Life in prison for such individuals.

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.

Would there be a death penalty if we all faced it?

But of course we all do face the death penalty. Our crime is living. Life is a terminal illness.

Here is what it comes down to:

(1) Morally: does the value of one life outweigh others? In extreme cases such as Hitler, he poses a risk of ordering deaths or being broken out or being released to then murder people, millions of people. Or similarly Osama bin Laden would also be ordering murders and terrorism from behind bars. These very rare individuals are not that different than a self defense argument. It is morally acceptable to kill in self-defense. The primary difference is that in the case of these very rare individuals is that one has to make an inference of future behaviors. This type of future prediction may look cold and calculating, but when an individual has already murdered hundreds of people and it is certain that they have they have, we _should_ be methodical in protecting future lives. Letting them order murders, terrorism, or being set free by fascist paramilitaries is not acceptable morally. Their individual life does not outweigh multiple future lives and when their past murders are certain, they've lost the right to a benefit of doubt.
(2) Politically: there are many valid questions about laws, judicial implementation, or more generally about how this could actually work in practice. I view the theory of comparing one life to many as a moral question, but actual implementation of a death penalty as a political question. We observe many problems with the justice system. As brought up, with expert testimony, too. Even juries... they are given to biases and emotion...and judges who are super pro-death penalty. How do you actually implement a system where you have to be certain of guilt and certain of future risk but the persons doing the assessment are very flawed in a system with systemic biases and other problems? I am not claiming to be an expert or to fix all problems. I do think reducing the death penalty considerably would be an improvement. Next, as I wrote, only in instances where we have more assurance of guilt, like dna or unedited video...and only when there would be significant future risk of lives lost.

Someone asked what about Putin, Bush, and Obama. Using the criteria I have outlined:

Putin: yes, try in court. Sentence to death when found guilty. Why? He is responsible for thousands of thousands of murders. That seems certain but let a court prove it. If imprisoned he would continue to order deaths because he is that powerful and tyrannical. Let a court prove it.
Bush: no, try in court. He ought to be found guilty of lies that ended up killing too many people in Iraq and don't forget his policy of torture etc. That is at least prison. He poses no threat of death to other people at this point in his life. No execution needed to save lives.
Obama: Obama was handed the war on terror, including the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question of legitimacy of military occupations and continuing them versus destabilization and how many lives would be lost if removing troops or keeping them present was thrust upon him. He recognized Iraq occupation was illegitimate but saw risk in removing troops. He removed troops from Iraq and ISIS formed. He took out bin Laden which I think was moral to do. He increased troop presence in Afghanistan. Overall, it seems like a mixed bag in trying to navigate what were the best options to save lives and get bin Laden and these seem more like political questions. I don't see an obvious need for prison. What would it be? He poses no imminent threat to future lives. Should not have the death penalty.

I would much rather put such people in a place where they cannot communicate effectively with the outside, but are well cared for in their isolation.

I don't think this is an insurmountable hurdle, however it's one that would take a fair bit of effort to attain from where we are now.

I would much rather make the worst of the worst something far less useful than the martyr that would produce: they would represent a completely useless and ineffective parasitical figurehead to their movement; it is a many-years-long emasculation of their entire manifesto to put them in a box, and then prevent any opportunity they have to theatrically suffer.

They would, however, have the means to kill themselves. So that again, they could not become a martyr.

 

[TSwizzle]

The death penalty for the likes of Ariel Castro, Chris Watts or serial killers like Bundy and Dahmer is entirely appropriate.

What is the point?

The point would be expediency and economics.

Are we teaching people that we will kill to let them know that killing is wrong?

No. People know murder is against the law.

Expediency places no value on morality, setting an example, human life or building a better society, the callous disregard of expediency makes you no better than those you deem to be disposable.

Morality need not come into it when dealing with monsters. They have no sense of morality.

 

[ideologyhunter]

In the mid-90s, two professors at Northwestern (Lawrence Marshall and David Protess) assigned their journalism students the project of investigating capital murder convictions (mainly from Cook County) where there was alleged error. In 1996, they got two men exonerated on a murder charge (two others with life sentences from the same case were also exonerated.) A few years later, a convict named Anthony Porter was exonerated two days before he was scheduled to be executed. The students often investigated cases in which there never had been a shred of physical evidence, prosecutors relying instead on witness statements (some of them proven to be perjury by the students) or incriminating accusations made by felons. The calculated error rate in capital convictions in Illinois since the resumption of the death penalty in, I think, 1973: 6%. And if it is "only" 6%, then one out of every 16 people on death row was innocent. That statistic was so outrageous that Gov. Ryan declared a moratorium on executions in Illinois in 2000. Just imagine the cases that never had the attention of a class of college students -- and imagine the standard of prosecutorial fairness and diligence if college undergrads can find proof of false conviction. If you're convicted and put on Death Row, your fate also depends on the temperament of your state's governor. Bush II as Texas governor was notoriously cavalier about clemency appeals -- he had a boilerplate response which was that the convicts had already had fair access to the Texas justice system, and he wasn't going to intervene.

 

[TSwizzle]

In the mid-90s, two professors at Northwestern (Lawrence Marshall and David Protess) assigned their journalism students the project of investigating capital murder convictions (mainly from Cook County) where there was alleged error. In 1996, they got two men exonerated on a murder charge (two others with life sentences from the same case were also exonerated.) A few years later, a convict named Anthony Porter was exonerated two days before he was scheduled to be executed. The students often investigated cases in which there never had been a shred of physical evidence, prosecutors relying instead on witness statements (some of them proven to be perjury by the students) or incriminating accusations made by felons. The calculated error rate in capital convictions in Illinois since the resumption of the death penalty in, I think, 1973: 6%. And if it is "only" 6%, then one out of every 16 people on death row was innocent. That statistic was so outrageous that Gov. Ryan declared a moratorium on executions in Illinois in 2000. Just imagine the cases that never had the attention of a class of college students -- and imagine the standard of prosecutorial fairness and diligence if college undergrads can find proof of false conviction. If you're convicted and put on Death Row, your fate also depends on the temperament of your state's governor. Bush II as Texas governor was notoriously cavalier about clemency appeals -- he had a boilerplate response which was that the convicts had already had fair access to the Texas justice system, and he wasn't going to intervene.

Indeed, which is why the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases where innocence is impossible.

 

[unapologetic]

If society condones killing the enemy in wars,
Why don't we conscript serial killers?

There is a myth that if you are drafted, you could go to your draft board shouting
"Take me, I want to kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." and they will reject you.
I've seen it in movies, so it must be true.

 

[TomC]

If society condones killing the enemy in wars,
Why don't we conscript serial killers?

There is a myth that if you are drafted, you could go to your draft board shouting
"Take me, I want to kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." and they will reject you.
I've seen it in movies, so it must be true.

Try googling "Catch-22".

Tom

 

[DBT]

The death penalty for the likes of Ariel Castro, Chris Watts or serial killers like Bundy and Dahmer is entirely appropriate.

What is the point?

The point would be expediency and economics.

Are we teaching people that we will kill to let them know that killing is wrong?

No. People know murder is against the law.

Expediency places no value on morality, setting an example, human life or building a better society, the callous disregard of expediency makes you no better than those you deem to be disposable.

Morality need not come into it when dealing with monsters. They have no sense of morality.

Yet, in principle, you become the monster. You kill not out of self defence, but mere expediency. You kill because it suits you. You kill because you think it solves a problem and you find that satisfying.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yet, in principle, you become the monster. You kill not out of self defence, but mere expediency.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

You kill because it suits you. You kill because you think it solves a problem and you find that satisfying.

The execution of these monsters gets them out of the way and they are not going to be a burden on the prison system. I don't get any satisfaction or gratification from the death of these monsters. They have proved to be a grave danger to society and always will be. The most efficient way of dealing with them is to off them. If you are squeamish about it, provide them with the means to kill themselves. I am sure a decent number of them would opt for suicide rather than sit in prison for decades.