Capital punishment, Thoughts?

[WAB]

A few minutes ago I made a post hereabouts in a word association thread. A few minutes later I posted this to Facebook:

Dominoes.

Reading at a discussion forum I'm a member of, I go to a word association thread. Last post was 'galoshes'. First thing that pops into my head is Peter Tosh. I know precious little about the man, and am confusing him with many other reggae acts in my mind. To do the man honor, I go to Wiki, and sadly learn that he was shot in the head and killed by a gunman who was trying to rob him. Dead, aged 42. Because of some asshole.

At the bottom of the Wiki page I learn that the killer's death sentence - which he deserved - was commuted. Good people are paying taxes to make sure this cold blooded killer has three hots and a cot for the rest of his days. If I shot an innocent person and killed them, for nothing more than my own immediate gratification, I'd like to think I'd do the decent thing and obliviate myself with the next bullet. I'm not crazy about capital punishment, or the death penalty— in fact I find the whole thing depressing and deeply disturbing— but sometimes I think some people have it coming. Requiescat in pace, Peter Tosh.

I'll probably edit and what not when reason overpowers my emotion. Or not.

 

[DBT]

The ethical principle of not killing for any purpose except self defense in a situation of an immediate threat to one's life applies across the board, the upholders of justice, the judicial system, included. A convict in custody is no longer a threat to society. Killing him or her when they are no longer a threat is more to satisfy revenge than an act of ethical justice.

 

[Tigers!]

The ethical principle of not killing for any purpose except self defense in a situation of an immediate threat to one's life applies across the board, the upholders of justice, the judicial system, included. A convict in custody is no longer a threat to society. Killing him or her when they are no longer a threat is more to satisfy revenge than an act of ethical justice.

So we wait until they are released before we kill them?

 

[Togo]

Why kill them?

Almost any reason articulated on this subject turns out to have serious flaws. While I can see why killing someone might make you feel better, it doesn't generally help the situation any.

 

[untermensche]

If we want to let people who were directly harmed by the murders do the killing, and do it on live television, then I am all for it.

Real revenge is something I understand. And if we want deterrence then let's try to maximize the effect.

To allow some faceless agent of the state to do it in relative secrecy is something I won't condone however.

 

[Bomb#20]

The ethical principle of not killing for any purpose except self defense in a situation of an immediate threat to one's life applies across the board, the upholders of justice, the judicial system, included. A convict in custody is no longer a threat to society. Killing him or her when they are no longer a threat is more to satisfy revenge than an act of ethical justice.

Christopher J. Scarver
Joseph L. Druce
Michael Cain
Jasper Rushing
Michael Parr and Nathan Mann
Matthew Gerrard MacDonald
Robert Stewart

Those are the names I got just from the first page of Google results. (And several of the pages only included the name of the victim, so I skipped those rather than trying to find out whether what his killer was already doing time for was murder.) Hey, I voted to abolish capital punishment too; but can everyone please stop repeating the ridiculous canard that a murderer is no longer a threat to society when he's in prison? Or does a guy sentenced to 90 days in jail for shoplifting six pounds worth of merchandise no longer count as "society"?

 

[Angry Floof]

Note: tax payers also pay for death sentences, which are more expensive due to the appeals process.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have no real problem with the notion that people deserve to die for certain crimes. What I have a problem with is the fallibility of the court system and the lack of recourse after someone is dead. Mistakes happen and corruption happens and there's not a 1:1 relationship between conviction and guilt. I was reading recently of a guy who was exonerated of murder in China 18 years after the fact, which really didn't do anyone any good because he'd already been executed. If that had happened here in Canada where we don't kill people, it would have just been more of an oops moment and we could have given him a $20 gift card at Tim Hortons to make up for the trouble.

If you can't be certain of guilt (and you pretty much can't), then you need to leave yourself a recourse in the event of error.

 

[Angry Floof]

I also oppose the death penalty because we use it kill too many innocent people, not because I have a moral objection to ridding the world of people who commit certain crimes. I don't.

We do not have the wherewithal to administer the punishment justly. Our whole system is riddled with weak links from police with tunnel vision to incompetent attorneys and judges to crap media coverage to stupid, prejudiced juries. Bias and emotion run the show in death penalty cases.

 

[Valjean]

1) It's irrevocable. Since the advent of DNA technology countless inmates have been exonerated, sometimes after decades behind bars.
2) It's barbaric -- not compitable with the values we purport to hold sacred.

Good people are paying taxes to make sure this cold blooded killer has three hots and a cot for the rest of his days.

See Hylidae's post. The death penalty costs taxpayers more than life in prison (I thought everyone knew that).

 

[credoconsolans]

I'm all for capital punishment.

Execute the heinous murderers. They have it coming and will never endanger anyone ever again. That's what executing them does.

I don't care that it costs taxpayers more money than incarcerating them. I don't care how long it takes. Let the appeals process take as long as it needs.

Murder must be shown to be so heinous that society is willing to step out of bounds of decency to deal with the perps, otherwise we cheapen the lives of innocent people by treating their murder the same as a property crime:

i.e.
Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

 

[Valjean]

Capital punishment doesn't deter killers, Credo (I thought everybody knew that, too). You're advocating capital punishment for the type of criminal least likely to reoffend.

Most murders are impulsive. The murderers don't stop to consider the cost-benefit potential before pulling the trigger.
Moreover, unlike robbers or shoplifters, murder has a low recidivism rate. It tends to be an impulsive outburst, not a habitual behavior.

Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

I get the impression you're motivated more by retribution than by any larger social good. What are you trying to accomplish by executing these offenders -- besides assuaging your own ire?

 

[Wiploc]

If you believe that it's important to have the better lawyer, then you believe that courts don't do justice.

If you believe that courts don't do justice, then you shouldn't believe in the death penalty.

Ask any lawyer you know whether he knows of judges who, for reasons of temperament or incompetence, shouldn't be on the bench. Even when a judge's misbehavior is well known, it's almost impossible to get her removed from the bench.

Until the judicial system cleans up its act, it shouldn't have the big gun.

I had a judge turn down a motion because, "I don't do Constitutional law." A friend had a judge tell his client, "Now, don't let me catch you whining to some higher court." I had a judge tell me he had a general policy of holding people without bail. Same judge told the court of appeals that they didn't have jurisdiction over him.

 

[Angry Floof]

Capital punishment doesn't deter killers, Credo (I thought everybody knew that, too). You're advocating capital punishment for the type of criminal least likely to reoffend.

Most murders are impulsive. The murderers don't stop to consider the cost-benefit potential before pulling the trigger.
Moreover, unlike robbers or shoplifters, murder has a low recidivism rate. It tends to be an impulsive outburst, not a habitual behavior.

Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

I get the impression you're motivated more by retribution than by any larger social good. What are you trying to accomplish by executing these offenders -- besides assuaging your own ire?

Inspector Javert does not approve of this post.

 

[Valjean]

Je m'en moque de son opinion.

 

[Angry Floof]

Je m'en moque de son opinion.

 

[WAB]

I'm all for capital punishment.

i.e.
Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

This is a strong point. I try and put myself in the shoes of someone who's had a loved one senselessly killed. If someone blew one of my sons' brains out, for the outrageous reason that he didn't have money available for the thug to steal, I would have precious little moral qualms over such a person being terminated. I still don't know if I'd want to sit and watch it, however. Then again, how do I know? My boys are safe and sound, now. If I saw one of them in a morgue, with half of his skull blown away, I imagine I would think differently.

That being said, I find the whole subject of execution terribly difficult to think about. When I dwell on it, I find myself being dead-set against it. It seems patently barbaric.

I know I'm contradicting myself.

 

[DBT]

The ethical principle of not killing for any purpose except self defense in a situation of an immediate threat to one's life applies across the board, the upholders of justice, the judicial system, included. A convict in custody is no longer a threat to society. Killing him or her when they are no longer a threat is more to satisfy revenge than an act of ethical justice.

Christopher J. Scarver
Joseph L. Druce
Michael Cain
Jasper Rushing
Michael Parr and Nathan Mann
Matthew Gerrard MacDonald
Robert Stewart

Those are the names I got just from the first page of Google results. (And several of the pages only included the name of the victim, so I skipped those rather than trying to find out whether what his killer was already doing time for was murder.) Hey, I voted to abolish capital punishment too; but can everyone please stop repeating the ridiculous canard that a murderer is no longer a threat to society when he's in prison? Or does a guy sentenced to 90 days in jail for shoplifting six pounds worth of merchandise no longer count as "society"?

Simply claiming that it is a canard doesn't make it a canard.

If someone poses a threat while in custody, that is a problem for prison security to deal with.

Prisoners do not have superhuman abilities, they are human and any threat they pose can be dealt with by prison authorities.

They don't need to be killed as a solution to a perceived threat. Killing them as a matter of expediency is not justice. Killing them because it happens to feel satisfying is not justice.

And if someone is deemed to be a lifelong threat to society, they should never be released.

There certainly are those who fall in that category.

 

[credoconsolans]

Capital punishment doesn't deter killers, Credo (I thought everybody knew that, too). You're advocating capital punishment for the type of criminal least likely to reoffend.

Where did I say it did?

Most murders are impulsive. The murderers don't stop to consider the cost-benefit potential before pulling the trigger.
Moreover, unlike robbers or shoplifters, murder has a low recidivism rate. It tends to be an impulsive outburst, not a habitual behavior.

Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

I get the impression you're motivated more by retribution than by any larger social good. What are you trying to accomplish by executing these offenders -- besides assuaging your own ire?

Nope.

I'm not talking about some drunken brawl where someone pulls a gun and kills someone.

I'm talking truly heinous crimes.

 

[Bomb#20]

...A convict in custody is no longer a threat to society....

... Hey, I voted to abolish capital punishment too; but can everyone please stop repeating the ridiculous canard that a murderer is no longer a threat to society when he's in prison? Or does a guy sentenced to 90 days in jail for shoplifting six pounds worth of merchandise no longer count as "society"?

Simply claiming that it is a canard doesn't make it a canard.

If someone poses a threat while in custody, that is a problem for prison security to deal with.

It isn't the claim that makes it a canard; what makes it a canard is the fact that people repeat it all the time plus the fact that it isn't true. If someone poses a threat while in custody, that is a problem for prison security to deal with, yes; and if that is a problem for prison security to deal with, whose problem it is does not imply that the person does not pose a threat.

Prisoners do not have superhuman abilities, they are human and any threat they pose can be dealt with by prison authorities.

What kind of argument is that? Prison guards do not have superhuman abilities either. Guards get careless. A lot of guards really don't give a damn if prisoners attack one another -- sometimes they'll even set up the situations themselves, to make up for no longer being personally allowed to beat up prisoners. And most of the inmates killed by the murderers on my list would be perceived by a fair fraction of the population as having it coming, so good riddance; this limits the effort that will be put into protecting them.

They don't need to be killed as a solution to a perceived threat.

Who said they do? Did you miss the "Hey, I voted to abolish capital punishment too"? So what? The fact that they don't need to be killed as a solution to a perceived threat is not a reason to make believe that the perceived threat isn't real. Claiming imprisoned murderers are not a threat to society dehumanizes the very real victims of our decisions not to execute them, and cruelly insults the family of the 19-year-old shoplifter beaten to death with a table leg by Robert Stewart five hours before he was to be released.