Kevin's Watch

I have seen this subject being introduced more or less obliquely into different threads. I thought I would give it its own. Inlcuding a poll.

I am totally against it.

For.

Depends on the circumstances. Also, I have issues with the whole "revenge for our slain loved one" thing. Will elaborate if anyone really wants to hear it.

For - I accept that there are some things so heinous to warrant death. Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?) anyone!

Creator,

Punishing a killer like Dahmer by killing him doesn't make any sense at all to me.

At the very least, CP guarantees that there are no repeat offenders.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Creator,

Punishing a killer like Dahmer by killing him doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I guess it depends on what prisons are for; punishment, rehabilitation, justice for the victims. [Do we believe in "eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek."]

A killer like Dahmer is beyond rehabilitation (let's take that as a given - interesting issues if you assume he can be rehabilitated). Should we support him for the rest of his life - or teminate his existence? In my opinion, where guilt is unquestionable, kill him and kill him quickly (I think our US capital processes taking decades to conclude is inefficient - and the waiting is cruel.) Doing so addresses punishment, justice for the victims, and eliminates Dahmer (and those like him) as a tax burden.

How many released inmates, sex offenders, etc. have repeat offenses, ruining other lives. Too many. Why should my tax dollars (and yours - in the US) support their continued existence?

I am known as a "gentle soul", but I have no mercy for predatory monsters in human form!

Well put Creator.

Against, simply because so many people on death row have been found to actually be innocent. Thirteen people on death row in the state of Illinois were proven to be innocent, leading to a moratorium on executions in that state.

For. And, yes, well put Creator...except one thing....as it stands now, capital punishment in states that use it costs more tax dollars per offender per capita than housing that same prisoner for life.

In Texas alone, the average DR inmate's stay is 10.43 years (through 1998). Add the appeal dollars onto DR prisoner housing...and the cost far exceeds the cost of life imprisonment.

A re-vamp of the system, as you suggested, is a must to lower costs.

I am against it for a few reasons:

As LM said:
1: It just doesn't make sense, punishing people for taking lives by killing them. I don't suppose anyone would advocate that a rapist should be raped for his crime? If so, would they volunteer to be the executioner?

2: Even if I was for, in principle, the chance of killing an innocent person is there. If a person is put to jail for life, there is always the chance that new evidence will show his innocence.

3: Sentencing is arbitrary. One court might give a man the death penalty while another would give him life in prison. There is not sufficient objectivity to justify the ultimate punishment.

I am not even going to bring economics into this. Killing a guy, just because we think it is too expensive to lock him up, is callous at best.

I didn't see any Ambivalents Alynna?

Good points, Prebe.

Prebe wrote:I am against it for a few reasons:

As LM said:
1: It just doesn't make sense, punishing people for taking lives by killing them. I don't suppose anyone would advocate that a rapist should be raped for his crime? If so, would they volunteer to be the executioner?

Where's the guarantee that the rapist, even punished by rape (which he might actually like , won't repeat the offense?

Prebe wrote: 2: Even if I was for, in principle, the chance of killing an innocent person is there. If a person is put to jail for life, there is always the chance that new evidence will show his innocence.

That's why Creator said

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

Prebe wrote: 3: Sentencing is arbitrary. One court might give a man the death penalty while another would give him life in prison. There is not sufficient objectivity to justify the ultimate punishment.

Here I agree. It all depends on which side has the better jury selection techniques.

Prebe wrote: I am not even going to bring economics into this. Killing a guy, just because we think it is too expensive to lock him up, is callous at best.

Not just because we think it too expensive to lock him up.
And here, too, Creator has summed it up well:

Creator wrote:How many released inmates, sex offenders, etc. have repeat offenses, ruining other lives. Too many. Why should my tax dollars (and yours - in the US) support their continued existence?

Ur-bane:
Re 1: It was a principal question: Do you think it would be right to punish rape with rape?

Re 2: I overlooked that in Creators post. But the fact that it can happen should be reason enough to be principally against it. When you are convicted you guilt is absolute untill someone re-opens the case. There is no such thing as "Ok, lets not fry him. He might be innocent. Well just put him in jail in stead".

Re 3: I am glad you agree. Agreeing to this would be enough to be against it in my book. But if you think it is cool, that the guy with the big wallet gets off with life, while Joe Sixpack with his pro bono defence gets the gas I suppose thats fair enough.

Prebe wrote:Ur-bane:
Re 1: It was a principal question: Do you think it would be right to punish rape with rape?

Right? No. Only because it would do nothing to protect society from that same rapist.

Prebe wrote: Re 2: I overlooked that in Creators post. But the fact that it can happen should be reason enough to be principally against it. When you are convicted you guilt is absolute untill someone re-opens the case. There is no such thing as "Ok, lets not fry him. He might be innocent. Well just put him in jail in stead".

If we want to qualify capital punishment with as the system currently operates I would agree with you that it would be reason enough. I was not commenting on whether our system was efficient, but rather in the idea of capital punishment itself.

Prebe wrote: Re 3: I am glad you agree. Agreeing to this would be enough to be against it in my book. But if you think it is cool, that the guy with the big wallet gets off with life, while Joe Sixpack with his pro bono defence gets the gas I suppose thats fair enough.

Again, you are talking not about capital punishment itself, but how it is effected in the current system. These are different issues, therefore I can agree although I support capital punishment.

No. Only because it would do nothing to protect society from that same rapist.

So we execute them too?

If we want to qualify capital punishment with as the system currently operates

(Emphasis mine)
How else would you qualify it? I understand that you are for the principle, but if you support it as the system currently operates, guilty rich people will get of the hook, and eventually innocent people will be executed.

Thank you for taking my post seriously and answering exhaustively. There is not to much of that about at the moment.

I don't believe that the government is who I want deciding life and death in that context. I find it really interesting that quite often it is people who believe that the evil are punished eternally in hell who seem to love this "earthly vengeance" scenario.

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.

Prebe wrote: So we execute them too?

I am so tempted to answer "yes" to that query. While the victim of a rape may not be dead, I think punishment in rape cases is not strict enough. Rehabilitation attempts more often than not fail, and the rapist is released from prison only to rape again.
I don't know the perfect solution, but capital punishment in rape cases certainly would prevent the rapist from attacking again, and could be a deterrent as well.

But I think there is another thread on rape somewhere which may be a better place to address that particular subject.

In capital punishment cases, IIRC, there seems to be thought among experts that it is not an effective deterrent. But I say at least one offender has been "deterred."

Prebe wrote:

If we want to qualify capital punishment with as the system currently operates

(Emphasis mine)
How else would you qualify it? I understand that you are for the principle, but if you support it as the system currently operates, guilty rich people will get of the hook, and eventually innocent people will be executed.

I am not saying that we shouldn't qualify capital punishment as the system currently operates, but I was (in error?) under the impression that you were more interested in discussing the idea of capital punishment itself rather than the shortcomings of the sytems which employ it.