Capital Punishment

[Avatar]

Interested to hear your opinions on this.

At the moment, my own coutry has no death penalty, but there is a significant campaign to re-introduce it, in the assumption that it will act as a deterrent to the large amount of crime we are experiencing.

Does it/will it/could it work?
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

[Revan]

No... for several reasons; first, we can't be sure the person who is convicted of being guiltly is in fact guiltly. I mean if we had this in England, plenty of innocent people would have died.

Secondly, And I feel strongly about this, no-one has the right to decide whether someone lives or dies... that a persons life hangs upon decisions of others astonishes me; how can anyone be so closed minded?

[Avatar]

You make an excellent point there Darth, in asking how we can be sure. I think it's probably one of the most important aspects in terms of not having a Death Penalty.

However, do you mean that there is nothing that a person can do that would justify the state killing them?

Surely a person who takes the life of another doesn't deserve to keep his own?

--Avatar
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

[Revan]

Depends how he takes it... I mean look at the The US and British army, they're paid to kill people in wars. (And before you all say, I know that they're not actually paid to kill people, but to do the jobs that they're sent, but regardless, they kill people) Should they be killed Avatar? Should much of the US army be killed by the State?

[aTOMiC]

I have mixed feelings about DP. Considering what people are capable of these days I’d have to confess that there are instances where I couldn’t imagine running the risk of letting certain people loose in the streets to re commit heinous crimes. I think the rules regarding use of DP should be restricted to cases where the crime has incontrovertible evidence (catching some jerk red handed or some other instance where it is obvious to everyone that the crime has indeed be committed by the individual). In other cases where there is strong evidence but still some doubt I can’t justify the use of DP. At the end of the day I wish that there were no crimes to inspire the use of such extreme measures. How about we put the worst convicted criminals into a persistent but reversible coma just in case we screwed up and it is found later that we nabbed the wrong guy. How about a penal island in the south Pacific that is prone to typhoons and earthquakes? What about a moon prison? Banishment to the Negative zone? I know, cruel and unusual punishment. Surely there is imagination and intellect available to solve the problem of how to protect the population at large from homicidal sociopaths without the use of capital punishment. Unfortunately I don’t know of a good answer and that may be one of the reasons we still employ DP.
_________________

[Revan]

[aTOMiC]

[[Syl]]

I'm against the death penalty, except in extreme cases like war crimes. For one, this would put the US in line with the Geneva Conventions.

If the death penalty is used, I believe it should only be when there is absolutely no doubt of the crime and only if there is no hope of reform.
_________________
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner

[duchess of malfi]

Caer just expressed my own views well. It should be reserved for the most heinous of war crimes (mass murder of civilians, death camp atrocities and the like), and then only with great amounts of evidence...though even then, I wonder if it would be a deterrent. Would Nazi guards have acted any differently if they had known they would someday be put to death for their participation in killing of so many innocent people? After all, genocide, sadly, still goes on today.

The state of Illinois put a moratorium on executions, as so many of the inmates on death row were found to be innocent of the crimes they had been convicted.
_________________
Love as thou wilt.

[taraswizard]

I selected wast of time, cause it was the only choice that fit my POV. Contrary to what most might think, I am not philosophically opposed to capital punishment. However, it's a very imperfect rememdy to horrofic circumstances (that's not quite what I am thinking but it's best I have right now). As long as the administration of justice remains tied to political processes, and I do not just mean where judges stand for elections, cause even where judges are solely appointed to the bench, their selection is based on a political process, all justice will be imperfect.

Furthermore, the potential miscarriage in capital cases has to horrify almost anyone. Thanks Duchess for identifying the situation in the state where I currently reside. Illinois most famous case is Rolando Cruz. Trip down history lane. In the very early 1980s Jeanette Nicario, 11 yr. old staying home sick from school alone in her own home, was sexually assaulted in her own home and murdered. Her home was in the overwhelming white suburbs of Naperville, Ill. Subsequent a young Latino man, Rolando Cruz of Aurora, Ill., was arrested for petty vandalism (I think), using the testimony of a professional jail house snitch, the States Attorney for DuPage County (the county for both Naperville and Aurora), obtained a conviction for Ms Nicario's murder on Mr. Cruz after several retrials and oncovering evidence which is fairly unambiguous, Mr. Cruz obtained his freedom in 1998. During the rehearings of the case egrigous misconduct on the part of the case investigators and the state's prosecutors was revealed.
_________________
Allan Rosewarne
taraswizard Essence of Amber
Buffy fans Chicago
W/T they are forever

[Creator]

I know this is an emotional issue to many. I think it can be justified in certain situations. And while I might not have the moral right to judge - I know if someone attacked and tortured / killed my children or wife or others that I love - I'd want them DEAD!
_________________
He/She who dies with the most toys wins! Wait a minute ... I can't die!!!

[The Leper Fairy]

I'm not sure I could justify the taking of a life...
_________________


Pie and Cake

[Baradakas]

If the evidence was irrefutable, and the person in question had committed murder, I believe they should die. However, if any reasonable doubt exists, I believe that being dropped off on a deserted island would be fair, with the understanding that if they escaped alive, thier crime would be forgiven. (Said island should be at least 25 miles out to sea)


Just my opinion.
_________________
"Fortunate circumstances do not equate to high ideals."

"Mostly muffins sir."- My answer in response to the question posed by the officer, "Son, do you have anything on you I should know about?"

His response: "Holy $&!^. He's not kidding! Look at all these muffins!"

[matrixman]

This is an extremely emotional issue, and it has to be, when we're dealing with death, or having the legal power to order the death of another human being. I basically agree with the view that the death penalty should only be invoked when there is no question of the guilt of the individual and there is no hope of reform.

To put it another way: why should my taxes be used by the state to feed, clothe and shelter a cold-blooded killer who shows no remorse for his crime? This killer would in essence be taking advantage of finite state resources that should be better spent--and urgently spent--on those who can be rehabilitated.

Having said that, could I stand face to face with a person about to be executed? I don't honestly know. But in the case of a truly remorseless murderer, perhaps it's only fitting that such cold contempt for human life should be answered by dispassionate justice.

[Avatar]

Interesting responses folks, and many valid points. As you may have noticed, I never got around to explaining my own position on the question.

On the whole, I think that, as many of you have said, there are certain instances where it is justified. When it serves the purpose of preventing someone from going out and doing the same thing again.

However, Duchess raised the point that is perhaps the most important to me. It is not effective as a deterrent. Nobody, when committing a crime, expects that they will be caught, let alone executed. Thus, potential punishment is not a factor when the crime is being planned. I very much doubt that anyone has said "I might be caught and executed if I do this, so I won't."

My favourite example of Capital punishment's ineffectiveness as a deterrent is taken from England, in the 19th century. Back then, pretty much anything, from stealing a loaf of bread on up could be punished by hanging. When a pick-pocket was hanged, all the other pick-pockets in London made a point of attending the execution. Not to bid a fond farewell to a compatriot, but to pick the pockets of the spectators.

However, we must note that by far the majority of murders are "once-off" killings, in the style of crimes of passion, or crimes for personal gain and the like. It's highly unlikely that these people will ever commit another crime. In my "perfect system", punishment would consist of denying any personal gain from this sort of crime, carrying out restitution, in the style of the old concept of "Blood-Price", and perhaps counselling, monitoring, and community service. A second offence however, would mean exectution, with no possibility of appeal after guilt has been established.

I agree that evidence would have to be overwhelming, but on the other hand, I couldn't accept any "legal trickery" to free people who were patently guilty.

Crimes which did not stem from these "once-off" motives though, and which have a resultantly higher chance of repeats, (obviously assuming that they are the "horrific" sort, like rape, etc.) should also be punishable by death.

I pretty much like Baradakas's idea, although the island should be far more remote, and as MatrixMan said, we wouldn't be spending our taxes on them, and our prisons would be less crowded.

I will always dispute the right of the state to kill people, but on the other hand, there are people who do not deserve life, and how can we tacitly condone allowing someone to live who has deliberately "stolen" the life of someone else?

It's a tough question.

--Avatar
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

[Revan]

[Avatar]

[Revan]

Exactly. Why the double standard? It seems we only punish when it suits us...we don't stick by our laws.

[Avatar]

The laws only exist for the people who follow them. The people who make them don't particularly care about it.

Privilege=Private Law

--A
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

[Revan]

Exactly. I mean there's this hostage in Iraq right now begging to be freed... Asking the prime-minister personally... but the Government doesn't care.