Death sentence : an eye for an eye

[BobTD]

What up capitol punishment thread guys. I love me a good debate but Im am willing to admit I browsed most of the ten pages up to this point to get the jist of how you guys are arguing the facts. Of course like any debate loving person the first thing I did before responding was combine my understanding of the current options with a healthy amount of research, followed by some deep introspection.

 

First I want to clear up what we are debating. The first post in the thread did nothing for setting up framework and I think that's been a problem. I see a lot of people posting under the assumption that we all live in the USA or that others understand the basic world situation. So here I am to pull you guys a step back and look at the big picture for a moment without supporting one side or the other:

 

America is only ranked 5th in estimated total executions. Totaling 46 this year. That's also 5th place in a person per million standard with about 1.5 people per million. China has a much lower person per million rating but estimates for how many people are executed are as high as 5k this year (The actual number is regarded as a state secret). And you can be killed for a wider range of crimes including tax evasion. Culture and morals actually vary quite widely in the world, and what one society deems punishable by death may not apply to others. The reason its important not to disregard politics in this matter is that in order to oppose capitol punishment that we deem unfit, we would have to be careful what we tolerate at home. For this reason I see not supporting the death penalty as a political benefit.

 

However taking into consideration the brief time when the US repealed capitol punishment, and the statistically solid rise in murder cases during the time, I would argue that as a deterrent it does serve a purpose. The severity of removing this deterrent is hard to gauge. And its hard to call it morally justified to sanctify human life when stopping the death penalty would statistically lead to more murders. The duel edged nature of capitol punishment cant be denied, you sacrifice morals either way, but it is effective when implemented. For this reason I would argue that on a law enforcement basis capitol punishment is very beneficial.

 

On a purely moral level we are looking at taking human life of course. A physically present human life. That is somewhat different than causing a death by removing a deterrent, to some people, because its easier to measure. These systems of morals tend to vary greatly based on religion, cultural background and even level of education. Imposing a system of morals on others is a rather egotistical thing in itself. If you can argue that life and death choices should be made on a system of morals you yourself believe to be "correct" you are essentially arguing your moral superiority. Almost any atrocity committed by a society has been at its root, built upon a belief of superiority. People that think like this are usually least suited to make moral decisions. (especially for a collective whole)

 

So Im going to challenge the idea that we can measure or apply any morality or religion when it comes to decided weather or not its right to take a human life, as an act of deterrence. (or as a punishment for murder as most people like to think of it)

 

From a point of view that ignores morality and takes into account what is best for an individual as well as the group (or in this case society) we have to get back to what is a natural vs what is responsible. Natural meaning what impulses we have to correct a situation that causes us or others harm, vs what we should do to benefit society as well, rather than just ourselves.

 

So the obvious first impulse we have towards violence is fight or flight. But in a defensive situation our groups/families/society can not flee so the obvious remainder is to fight. Removing a threat that wants to kill you, or members of your group, means killing them first. Thats nature. However, we should also take into account escalating violence in our group. Saying its ok to kill someone leads to saying it ok to kill someone for other things, like threatening behavior or the possibility that they could harm you or your group. For this reason, even in today's society we resist the urge to justify murder with murder because its an aspect of our social survival kit. We dont want others to justify killing members of our group lightly.

 

This social survival kit applies in today's world. If citizens of the USA are accused of terrorism they can be executed without what we consider due process in many countries. The ability to demand those prisoners over on the basis that we cant condone capitol punishment, based on their cultural beliefs or our legal precedence, is pretty flimsy and insulting. What we are doing by supporting the death penalty can actually be very damaging to relations with other countries. This level of responsibly that goes against our instinct to remove a threat from society is at conflict with out social survival kit.

 

Political positioning aside, cultural values affect the quality and health of any nation. There is the greater aspect of social decay in any society that is marked by a decline in commonly accepted morals. Im not talking about personal or religious morals right now, but rather about blood sports and their popularity in many declining societies. Whatever the truth of those connections are, its worth considering the effect of capitol punishment on moral norms. There have been many great civilizations that have risen and fallen, but all of them have had government sanctioned executions. We live in a time and place that only has 23 countries that practice capitol punishment. Will they follow the same patterns as history?

 

On a closing note, Im actually pro capitol punishment. Im just stating some of the things that I like to contemplate as I consider such a broad and important issue.

Also if you like my posts or want to invite me to other debates send me a PM, Im always looking to make new friends. Especially intellectuals who value healthy debate.

Edited April 23, 2012 by BobTD

[marharth]

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have 20 murderers get away without a execution, or have 5 innocent people killed?

 

I doubt that ratio is that good. it's more like 50 to 1......

 

I would rather that NO innocent folks were executed.... however..... I know for a fact that if we have the death penalty, it's gonna happen, just like innocent folks are convicted of assorted other crimes every day.

Okay, so would you rather have 50 murderers put in prison for life without execution, or have one innocent person killed?

 

The issue is you are going to end up killing innocent people. Putting murderers in prison for life is just as safe, and if a proper work system was put in place, more practical.

[Drakescale]

An eye for an eye. The way I see it, one must be accountable for ones actions and that's true justice. On account to the victim, it is within the victim's right to request and is therefore not unjust. Since it falls within the criteria of a just sentence, that is, it is fully deserved, then it is not unusual, since justice is not unusual for it is needed to maintain Balance and Justice is needed to achieve it. It isn't cruelty for cruelty is only when a person suffers undeservedly.

 

So a mother to a murdered son wanted justice and the murderer was given a life in prison sentence (1). Just to add some toppings and cream to that, the convicted is actually eating off the mother's dinner table (2). Injustice upon Injustice. Talk about Epic Fail of the law constitution.

 

But ofcourse forgiveness is another option, although it is a given, not taken nor forced upon by a simple twist of word in the so call court of law

 

~ Cheers

Edited April 24, 2012 by Drakescale

[dazzerfong]

OK, so about capital punishment, how about if there's beyond reasonable doubt (ie. Breivik). Do you think capital punishment is justifiable then?

[marharth]

OK, so about capital punishment, how about if there's beyond reasonable doubt (ie. Breivik). Do you think capital punishment is justifiable then?

I have trouble with most cases, and most cases won't be like Breivik. The law can't really write out individual cases like that.

 

As for Breivik, I still would not want to kill him. I understand perfectly why people would want to kill him though. I can see why people would want to do it in rare cases, but I personally would still not support it.

 

Killing people like Breivik solves the problem fast and easy, but so would killing off random humans to decrease our population. Or killing everyone with a genetic illness. Or killing anyone with a violent mental illness. Killing people might be the easiest and most sure way to solve problems, but it isn't always the best way.

[saadus]

It isn't the best way but its the only way to make sure murderers don't murder again. Even with life in prison, they are still going to kill, maim, and injure other inmates. It is better to take them out of society then allow them to commit the same atrocity over and over and over again until he is finally killed himself (by other inmates or old age)

 

No most cases aren't like Breivik, but they are still equally heinous. For me, any man that takes the life of a child should die...slowly. No greater crime can be committed then the death of a young child.

[myrmaad]

I see no evidence that even serial killers routinely kill again in prison, although I can't say I regret Christopher Scarfer's murder of one fellow inmate. I don't actively support nor am I actively against Capital Punishment.

 

My main issue against is that I don't think one innocent soul should have their life taken by the state, and in doing so the state becomes as much a murderer as those righteously accused.

 

If you think even one innocent life is justified collateral damage, I wonder if you'd still feel the same if it was your own innocent life.

 

Coming in on a long second is the extra expense incurred: it costs the state and thus, us, a lot more to put someone to death than it does to house them for life.

 

And yes, I'm speaking as a USAnian. I'll get my house in order before I start on yours.

 

By the way, I'm not seeing significant evidence that capital punishment deters crime. The statistics I'm reading do not bear that out. Proof?

[ginnyfizz]

We never took quite so long to execute someone as you do in the USA, as we don't have the complicated appellate structure that you do. It went like this - Assizes -> Court Of Appeal -> House of Lords -> Home Secretary (on behalf of the Monarch exercising or not the Royal Prerogative of mercy). From the judge donning the black cap to dropping through the trapdoor (or not) was a matter of a few weeks - and Appeals could and did succeed at times, and the RP was exercised. So the cost issue would come into it, although with that meddling lot at the EHCR these days you'd be hard put to throw the lever before they stuck their oar in.

 

And yep, I'd pull the lever on Brady, soon as you like!

[Nintii]

I have a gardener who has worked for me for the past 8 to 9 years, he's a Zulu ... he has a home in the mountainous rural area's of Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal and one here in the city where I live.

Today I asked him how they handle murderers out in the tribal villages amongst the Zulu and the Xhosa, Twsana, Sepedi, Venda etc., and his response was very simple,

"We kill the killers, we don't want them killing again", and then he continued, "but the government ...".

 

But the government ...yes indeed.

[HeyYou]

I see no evidence that even serial killers routinely kill again in prison, although I can't say I regret Christopher Scarfer's murder of one fellow inmate. I don't actively support nor am I actively against Capital Punishment.

 

My main issue against is that I don't think one innocent soul should have their life taken by the state, and in doing so the state becomes as much a murderer as those righteously accused.

 

If you think even one innocent life is justified collateral damage, I wonder if you'd still feel the same if it was your own innocent life.

 

Coming in on a long second is the extra expense incurred: it costs the state and thus, us, a lot more to put someone to death than it does to house them for life.

 

And yes, I'm speaking as a USAnian. I'll get my house in order before I start on yours.

 

By the way, I'm not seeing significant evidence that capital punishment deters crime. The statistics I'm reading do not bear that out. Proof?

 

There is a lot of debate on whether or not capital punishment costs more than life in prison..... I have read up a fair bit on this.... and the usual story is (opponents of death penalty) the convicts spend millions of taxpayer dollars on appeals..... what this neglects to mention is, so do the folks that get life in prison. After all, the convicts have nothing better to do than file appeals....... and it seems that for every killer out there in the world, there appears to be a monied following that believes him to be innocent, and will either fund lawyers, or, lawyer will take the case pro-bono, just for the publicity.

 

I agree with you though, there is very little indication that the death penalty is any kind of deterrent.