For or against capital punishment?

[Edge]

I admit, if someone killed my darling son, I'd want him dead in the most horrible way, but I like to think that my passionate feeling wouldn't be the basis for action. No kind of punishment would ever change the fact that an unredressable wrong had been done to me and my family.

Semantics aside, the point of capital 'punishment' is not to 'punish wrongdoers' nor to provide vengeance for grieving families.

It's to prevent other families from experiencing an 'unredressable wrong' at the hands of the criminal - i.e., to protect society.

That's also why, in theory, execution is carried out as humanely as possible. If the point was punishment or vengeance, we still be 'drawing and quartering' the condemned.

[onewyteduck]

For it in certain cases.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm against it. As I just said yesterday in another thread, in the Batman movie, Katie Holmes said that we are defined by our actions. I don't want to be defined as someone who kills, no matter what the reason. I don't want our country to be "the country that kills their criminals." I want us all to be defined as people who try their damnedest to find a better answer, no matter how difficult it is.

But that's a personal choice for me, and it's entirely theoretical. I'm pretty sure that if someone killed one of my kids, if possible, I'd cause him the longest-lasting, most painful death I could manage. So I won't argue against cp. But I think the person who wants it to happen should be the one throwing the switch. If I wasn't willing to kill my child's murderer, then I shouldn't expect anyone else to. Who's got more motivation?

[Prebe]

Sorry Ur-bane. It was mainly the idea of CP that interested me. Although I am also interested in why people support it as the system works now.

It's to prevent other families from experiencing an 'unredressable wrong' at the hands of the criminal - i.e., to protect society.

Which is why we lock them up for life. Killing them doesn't make a difference to the protection of our loved ones. And I believe that Ur-bane even disqualified the economic incentive.

[sgt.null]

against. State Sanctioned Murder is still murder. aside from the way it is handled, and how many innocents have been executed.

[Prebe]

I'm pretty sure that if someone killed one of my kids, if possible, I'd cause him the longest-lasting, most painful death I could manage.

And permit me to make Cho's words my own "But I would be counting on more sensible people to stop me."

[Avatar]

Always a pleasure to see these re-treaded, as I said before. (The previous thread on this lurks in the bottom of the 'Tank. )

That said, I'm ambivelant about it. The only effect of capital punishment is, as Cail mentioned, that the person executed will never re-offend.

That is the only point in its favour. Generally, the inefficiency of the justice system puts me off, if only for the reason that Creator mentioned: Establishing undeniable guilt.

Is it alright to execute an innocent in the process of "making everybody else safe?"

Generally, I'm in favour of that Heinleinian (thanks Syl) system of lex talonis, literally, the law of the claw. An eye for an eye sort of thing. If there is no doubt that the person is guilty.

And I'd support executing rapists with that same condition. Certainly I think that they're more likely to offend than the majority of murderers.

For me, everything is circumstantial, and precedent is a dangerous argument. It all depends on the merits of each individual case.

I'm not in favour of the government deciding these things on the whole, because I don't trust government.

I'm not in favour of "the people" deciding either, because I don't particularly trust them. When it comes down to it, I think the peolpe are more motivated by the idea of vengeance than the state is.

Finding and executing somebody is all very well, but as has been pointed out, mistakes are made with depressing frequency. And what we want to hear often weighs heavier than what we should hear.

Just had a case here where a guy was sentenced (to life) for killing a young girl. The Judge disallowed four eyewitness testimonies for the defence, on the basis that the polices case, while circumstantial made sense when taken as a whole.

Now if he's guilty, and it can be proven, by all means lock him up, even execute him. But he left court protesting his innocence, at a trial where his only defense was disallowed. Too many questions.

How often have people been found innocent after years spent in jail? If we simply imprison them, it allows some small room for error. Execution doesn't.

So yeah. Ambivelant. Some cases I could be for, some cases I could be against. And I think Alynna's suggestion in some other thread about the victims family having to be the executioners is an excellent one.

--Avatar

[Prebe]

Good to see you here Avatar

And I'd support executing rapists with that same condition.

Executing a rapist is not an eye for an eye. If anything, he should be raped (se above). And rape is not always the same. It is NOT always a minor gang-raped in a shrubbery and left to bleed to death. In my line of work I see all different sorts. The most common being, the girl going home with the guy after a night out on town. Both are drunk. He wants base three, she doesn’t. He goes at it anyway. Yes, it is rape, but hardly meriting CP. Another one that occurs with a depressingly high frequency is the false accusation. If we find traces of the mans sperm and DNA, and the girl says she was raped, she has a pretty good case, no matter if the sex was in mutual consent at the time.

So, as Ur-bane said: Rape is another thread.

[Avatar]

All threads are one thread, and I'm always here.

You're right of course. The circumstances dictate (or should dictate) all responses.

And all of those reasons you cite are good arguments why that should be so.

The false accusation is a prime example of the problem of irrefutable guilt, my main condition in terms of any capital punishment.

"My word against his" scarcely qualifies as irrefutable, even with circumstantial evidence such as the presence of DNA (circumstantial for exactly the reason you mention).

And of course, the opposite applies as well in cases where it is true. It's a slippery bloody slope at best.

--A

[ur-bane]

Always a pleasure to see these re-treaded, as I said before. (The previous thread on this lurks in the bottom of the 'Tank. )

I've gotta find that one and read through it. Thanks, Av.

That said, I'm ambivelant about it. The only effect of capital punishment is, as Cail mentioned, that the person executed will never re-offend.

Exactly. No chance at parole, or a reduced sentence for "good behavior."

Generally, the inefficiency of the justice system puts me off, if only for the reason that Creator mentioned: Establishing undeniable guilt.

Is it alright to execute an innocent in the process of "making everybody else safe?"

That is the crux of the issue for me. I am for CP, but at the same time, beyond a reasonable doubt isn't enough. There must be NO doubt.

Generally, I'm in favour of that Heinleinian (thanks Syl) system of lex talonis, literally, the law of the claw. An eye for an eye sort of thing. If there is no doubt that the person is guilty.

And I'd support executing rapists with that same condition. Certainly I think that they're more likely to offend than the majority of murderers.

For me, everything is circumstantial, and precedent is a dangerous argument. It all depends on the merits of each individual case.

Well said, Avatar.

I'm not in favour of the government deciding these things on the whole, because I don't trust government.

I'm not in favour of "the people" deciding either, because I don't particularly trust them. When it comes down to it, I think the peolpe are more motivated by the idea of vengeance than the state is.
Then whom should decide.

That disqualifies everyone from making that decision. Maybe we need the Old Testament God to return to us to pass judgement in all cases.

How often have people been found innocent after years spent in jail? If we simply imprison them, it allows some small room for error. Execution doesn't.

A good point. But again, I cite Creator's statement:

In my opinion, where guilt is unquestionable, kill him and kill him quickly...

So yeah. Ambivelant. Some cases I could be for, some cases I could be against. And I think Alynna's suggestion in some other thread about the victims family having to be the executioners is an excellent one.

I think, as is the case with me, that even a supporter of CP would still judge on a case by case basis.
And yes, let the victim's family be the executioners, and see if they could do it. It's easy to say "Kill him!" if your hand is not on the button. I know I would press that button, but I never want to have to.

--Avatar[/quote]

[Avatar]

I'm not in favour of the government deciding these things on the whole, because I don't trust government.

I'm not in favour of "the people" deciding either, because I don't particularly trust them. When it comes down to it, I think the people are more motivated by the idea of vengeance than the state is.
Then whom should decide.

That disqualifies everyone from making that decision. Maybe we need the Old Testament God to return to us to pass judgement in all cases.

Well, I'm not disqualified by those statements at least. Unite and help me form my benevolent dictatorship.

Anyway, back on topic, it's hell of a hard to prove unquestionable guilt in the absence the crime being witnessed by a priest, a rabbi, and a security camera.

IIRC, my original stance in the other thread was something along the lines of first offense gets fine/therapy/etc (depending on the crime) and second offense gets automatic and speedy execution. No appeal, no nothing.

We can't go around killing everyone we believe is guilty, for the very simple reason that its all too easy to be wrong.

A terrible dilemma really. Am I reduced to Dennis' injunction to err on the side of life? At least, for everybody where there isn't unquestionable proof that they're guilty?

Very tough.

--Avatar

(EDIT: For Ur-Bane, and anyone else interested, the other thread: kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4601)

[SalotHSaR]

I'm against it.

If someone raped my daughter, let's say she's 8, then why would I want to let the guy off the hook?

What's worse? To die & be done with prison, or to live in constant fear in prison for the rest of your natural life?

[Cail]

What's worse, knowing a guy's in prison who could some day get out, either through parole, a change in the law, or a paperwork screw-up, or knowing he's pushing up daisys and can never harm your daughter again?

Simple choice for me.

[Avatar]

In a personal situation, of the type which you describe, the answer is the same for me. If there is incontrovertible proof.

--A

[Prebe]

That's a novel approach Saloth. You are against the death penalty, because you think it is to MILD a sentence?

[Avatar]

--A

[sgt.null]

i would want a chance to handle justice on a one to one basis. it doesn't effect us all if i cripple the bastard who hurts a family member, does it?

[Avatar]

In essence, Dennis, I think that it's not a bad idea. My worry is that the desire for vengeance, (because that is what it would be), will blind people to the chance that the person is not guilty.

If he's indisputably guilty, I'd say go for it.

--Avatar

[The Somberlain]

Absolutely against, in all cases. Ever.

Most of my reasons have already been put forward here.

But my main beef with the idea of capital punishment is just that... a society which executes its criminals is effectively sanctioning murder. Okay, so it has a supposedly justified reason for it, but it's still implying that the killing of a person whose actions you disagree with is fine. The state demands control over that decision, yes, but the concept is there.

To my mind, anyone who commits a crime like rape, or murder... is not evil. They're mentally ill. By most definitions of mental normality (and certainly those within Western society), wishing to harm other people makes you abnormal. Why, then, does carrying it out make you suddenly sane?

Definitions of mental stability are always going to be variable, of course. It's a never-ending debate in psychological circles. And personally, I don't believe in some absolute version of morality. I probably won't be popular for this statement, but intrinsically, there's nothing "wrong" with killing. I say that because I can't believe in concepts of "right" and "wrong". Personally, I think that murder is unacceptable, but that's a purely personal decision. If someone else thinks it's right, I'd be disgusted at them, but who am I to say that the way they think is worse than the way I think?

However, I'll agree that for a society to function properly, you can't just let people do whatever they want. So your definitions of normality are going to basically be based on the majority opinion of the population. Thus, laws. But those laws ought to be there to uphold the principles of the society. If the majority of its population disagree with something, like murder, then it implies that murder does have various drawbacks to the society itself. And it obviously does. So by all means, outlaw murder. It's not a 'helpful' act.

But why punish it with death? Like I said, I don't believe in "evil". No one is irretrievably sociopathic. Surely a better way to remove the problem from society is to treat them. To reform them until they have a more socially acceptable character. The only reason for executing them is to cater for the bloodlust of those "wronged". The families and friends of victims are obviously going to be angry and may wish death upon the killer. That's the very reason that their wishes shouldn't be listened to. They're grieving. Their wishes are going to be subjective, not objective. Which is fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to take matters into their own hands, or to influence the actions that the state takes.

What's more, by killing the murderers, you're not solving anything. It's just a quick-fix answer to a problem that's not going away. Capital punishment has been going on for centuries, and I don't think anyone could defend the idea that it's an effective deterrent.

Sorry for the rambling nature of the post. It's something I feel pretty strongly about (that whole absolute morality concept. It got me fairly ostracised by some of my teachers and peers in school)... but I'm not very coherent at getting my point across.

[sgt.null]

the whole guilt question is one of reasons i oppose the death penalty. a story shall reveal another...

my stepson has a brother who at/around age 17 was drunk and speeding one night when he lost control of his vehicle and crashed. two teen girls in the car with him were killed. another boy was unharmed.

the boy went to a juvenile detention center to serve until he was 18.

the boys mother, my wife's exhusband's now exwife
had the gall to say : 'at least **** is saved now.'

i was furious, all i could think about was the two dead girls. were they saved? where was their chance? well that got me thinking about criminals in general. don't they deserve the same chance that was denied (maybe) the two dead girls?

and there you have it.