Capital Punishment

[Maedar]

Can I prove otherwise?

I was a patient in a juvenile psychiatric ward when I was fourteen. Not a prison, of course - I was better off, or so they said. In fact, despite the fact that I wasn't allowed to leave, I was constantly reminded it was NOT a prison.

The food was downright terrible, as was everything else.

I'd hate to think that the stuff in actual prisons is better.

 

[LDSman]

Can I prove otherwise?

I was a patient in a juvenile psychiatric ward when I was fourteen. Not a prison, of course - I was better off, or so they said. In fact, despite the fact that I wasn't allowed to leave, I was constantly reminded it was NOT a prison.

The food was downright terrible, as was everything else.

I'd hate to think that the stuff in actual prisons is better.

The food is meant to be nutritious. Flavor is a distant second.

 

[LDSman]

Out of mild curiosity, in your opinion, would Ariel Castro qualify for the Death Penalty?
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9131613

Is there any doubt in your mind that he did the things he is accused of? What kind of restitution could he make for these crimes?

 

[Maedar]

Let me just say, that personally, I think that Ariel Castro is a despicable, horrible excuse for a human being, who I would love to see dragged through the street and strung up by his intestines.

And I personally will not shed any tears if he is, indeed, sentenced to death.

However... My overall opinion of the policy itself does not change. If you are asking me if I would make an exception in his case, I will not.

People who do that are hypocrites, and I am not such a person. However, having him rot in jail for the rest of his life, then die alone and miserable after it all... I may consider that punishment enough.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I believe in the death penalty on principle, not practical application. The U.S. executes less than 1% of it's murderers, so fat chance there's going to be any "deterrence effect" when the chances of you getting executed after murdering someone are about the same as lightning striking you twice on a sunny day. There's also the problem that the state is not infallible, and I'm sure innocent people have been executed, and there will be more innocent people that are going to be executed in the future. This is unacceptable. However, I believe this can be solved with a set standard that's required in death penalty cases. If it's not met, no death penalty. With the advent of DNA testing, there have been trials where the chances of the defendant being innocent in the face of overwhelming forensic evidence were seriously about the same likelihood as a meteor falling to the earth. I can't remember the exact statistic in the case, but it was 1 out of a number followed by a whole lot of zeros, I can tell you that. So, if you can set the standard of evidence in death penalty cases to be this stringent, what's the problem? The only obstacle I see left is the messy philosophical discussion regarding which rights are and are not inalieble, which is always what these pesky death penalty debates eventually boil down to when people run out of studies and statistics to support their position.

 

[LDSman]

I believe in the death penalty on principle, not practical application. The U.S. executes less than 1% of it's murderers, so fat chance there's going to be any "deterrence effect" when the chances of you getting executed after murdering someone are about the same as lightning striking you twice on a sunny day.

I'm all for executing more murderers to see if there is a deterrence effect. But the DP is not meant to be a deterence but a harsh punishment for harch crimes.

There's also the problem that the state is not infallible, and I'm sure innocent people have been executed, and there will be more innocent people that are going to be executed in the future. This is unacceptable.

There is no proof that any of the people executed since 1971, when the DP was reinstated, have been innocent.

However, I believe this can be solved with a set standard that's required in death penalty cases. If it's not met, no death penalty. With the advent of DNA testing, there have been trials where the chances of the defendant being innocent in the face of overwhelming forensic evidence were seriously about the same likelihood as a meteor falling to the earth. I can't remember the exact statistic in the case, but it was 1 out of a number followed by a whole lot of zeros, I can tell you that. So, if you can set the standard of evidence in death penalty cases to be this stringent, what's the problem?

This already happens. If a case does not meet certain criteria, a DP is not attempted.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I'm all for executing more murderers to see if there is a deterrence effect. But the DP is not meant to be a deterence but a harsh punishment for harch crimes.

That could have been it's original purpose, but that's irrelevant considering that death penalty supporters continuously cite deterrence in an effort to justify its continued usage. That being the case, we cannot divorce deterrence from the discussion.

There is no proof that any of the people executed since 1971, when the DP was reinstated, have been innocent.

There doesn't need to be proof. The defense has a less stringent standard than the prosecution. All the defense needs to do is convince one juror that the person in question could be innocent. That's it. They're done. There are currently 23 (As I last remember it, the number could have increased by then) challenged death penalty cases. Meaning potentially, 23 people would have been found innocent under different circumstances. Less biased jurors, better lawyers, absence of police misconduct, etc. That's not good.

This already happens. If a case does not meet certain criteria, a DP is not attempted.

Well yeah sure, but the standard sucks.

http://usali-dp.org/chapters/standards-of-proof/

 

[LDSman]

There are studies that show that the DP is a deterrent. Links were provided earlier in thread.

Just because a DP case was challenged does not mean the conviction was wrong. It's a challenge, similar to an appeal. If you are citing innocents executed as a reason to stop the DP, then you need to prove it. If you can't, then your reason has no basis in fact and is invalid.
Feel free to give me a synopsis of what the standards for a DP trial are.

 

[Baba Yaga]

There are studies that show that the DP is a deterrent. Links were provided earlier in thread.

Except the studies are bogus and have tons of errors. In fact the most famous study showing deterrence that I can think of was by the economist Isaac Erlich. It was even influential in the supreme courts decision to reinstate the death penalty. Except now, it's been rejected by the scientific community. Debunked in fact.

Here are some pages going over some of the common flaws in studies that claim to show deterrence.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FaganTestimony.pdf

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume4_1/Fagan.pdf

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1613&context=llr

In other words, studies that show a deterrence effect simply do not hold up to the scrutiny of peer review.

Just because a DP case was challenged does not mean the conviction was wrong. It's a challenge, similar to an appeal. If you are citing innocents executed as a reason to stop the DP, then you need to prove it. If you can't, then your reason has no basis in fact and is invalid.

Groups like the ACLU aren't campaigning to stop death penalty cases where they think the person/know the person is not innocent. If 23 cases have been challenged, reasonably so (Since you can't compare it to an appeal. Obviously any convicted killer is going to try to appeal his conviction if death is ruled as the punishment) by credible groups where it's their profession to understand how the legal system works, it stands to reason that at the very least a sizable chunk of that 23 figure were wrongly sentenced. I think it's a bit naïve of you to need all of these cases proven in order to show you that the death penalty has been executing innocent people. Especially considering we absolutely have proven that innocent people have been waiting on death row. In fact there's a controversy in Florida regarding legislation to speed up death penalty cases, because there was a prisoner on death row that was just recently exonerated. Had the legislation been in place, there wouldn't have been enough time. There are tons of cases like this one that I can point to where innocent people on death row have been exonerated. Are you really to tell me that you have so much faith in the system that it catches every innocent person on death row and sets them free just before they make it to the electric chair? Come on.

 

[LDSman]

Okay, so some anti DP people claim that it's not a deterrent. I still don't care. The DP is a valid punishment for heinous crimes.
The ACLU gets around that by challenging the DP itself. They aren't arguing innocence at all. I'd bet those challenges are based on the punishment, not the sentencing or guilt.
I don't need them all. Prove that one innocent person was executed.
Do you have a link to this recent exonareation?
An earlier link showed that not every person who was removed from death row was innocent. The anti DP groups lie about that. If you can't prove an innocent person was executed, then yes, I have faith in the system. And it's lethal injection, no the electric chair.

 

[JDavidC]

The DP is a valid punishment for heinous crimes.

Prove it. I don't believe a word of that. Forcing prisoners to do hard labour for the rest of their lives is a vastly superior punishment. Make their life harsh and unpleasant, and force them to pay back to society instead of leeching off it. LWOP is something that should be rightly feared.

 

[LDSman]

Too bad many groups in the US see hard labour for prisoners as in inhuman and a form of legalized slavery. That and the people who abused it are why they don't use hard labour anymore.


Edit: what is the value of human life? Of a person's suffering? How much labour does it take to pay back a rape? A murder? Are some people higher valued than others?

 

[fitzy909]

Too bad many groups in the US see hard labour for prisoners as in inhuman and a form of legalized slavery. That and the people who abused it are why they don't use hard labour anymore.


Edit: what is the value of human life? Of a person's suffering? How much labour does it take to pay back a rape? A murder? Are some people higher valued than others?

i don't have an answer to most of those questions. people say a human life is invaluable, but does that change if they commit a crime? i don't know. in terms of paying back through labour that changes depending on who's point of view you take. if you take the view of the victim or their friends and family then they will say that no matter how much they have to work it will never be enough, whereas a judge could see it as a set amount.

are some people higher valued than others? this will always be true. there will always be people who are viewed as more important, but to have a functioning society you need everyone to contribute. as always, the criminals will be viewed as the least valuable and some people will believe this. i on the other hand see them as being equal. you would be reluctant to put an mp or a member of the royal family to death, so why are you willing to put these people to death if they are also equal?

 

[LDSman]

are some people higher valued than others? this will always be true. there will always be people who are viewed as more important, but to have a functioning society you need everyone to contribute. as always, the criminals will be viewed as the least valuable and some people will believe this. i on the other hand see them as being equal. you would be reluctant to put an mp or a member of the royal family to death, so why are you willing to put these people to death if they are also equal?

I wouldn't be reluctant at all. I'd apply the death penalty equally. I don't care if the murderer was the President, the Queen, the PM, whoever. I don't care if they were killing the homeless or some other percieved lower calls/dregs of society. (I'm not saying that there are lower class/dregs. Just saying perception.) If they committed a horrible crime and the DP was applicable in that case, then it should be pursued.

 

[Maedar]

Idsman, given the way you spell "labor" and given the fact that you mentioned the Queen and the PM along with the President, I'm starting to suspect you may be from Great Britain, where the DP isn't even legal.

So why are you even IN this debate. I doubt that anyone is EVER going to convince the House of Commons to even discuss changing that law.

 

[LDSman]

Idsman, given the way you spell "labor" and given the fact that you mentioned the Queen and the PM along with the President, I'm starting to suspect you may be from Great Britain, where the DP isn't even legal.

So why are you even IN this debate. I doubt that anyone is EVER going to convince the House of Commons to even discuss changing that law.

Labour/labor is valid spelling and can be interchangable.
So you think that if I live in Great Britain, then I can't be in this debate? Are you not an American? Do you not believe in free speech for all?

If you read the quoted section in my last reply, you'll notice that I was replying to someone else who mentioned the "mp and the royal family."

 

[Maedar]

I don't know of anyone in America who spells it that way. It's the British way of spelling it.

 

[LDSman]

So you know everyone in America then? Primarily most Americans spell it labor, but some spell it labour. Just like color, colour, and a few others. Either spelling is valid. I spell it either way depending on my mood.

Edit: Spelling variations do not detract from my point.

 

[JDavidC]

I fail to see what a debater's country of origin has to do with this debate. TBH, it sounds like this... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

BTW, I'm from the UK, and I don't see how that would invalidate any of the points I make in this debate. Whether the DP ultimately saves more lives than it takes is sadly unknown, even though I may want to believe it ultimately causes more loss in life, and I can't say I know that even beyond a reasonable doubt. As for labo(u)r, the u comes in only when using English English, rather than American English. People use both of those languages here. I use English English as I come from the UK.

 

[Iceberg]

Perhaps I could grit my teeth and put up with the death penalty if it served some sort of practical purpose, but alas, it does not. Absolutely nothing is accomplished, except for revenge,

I believe you are wrong. While using the death penalty as a means of revenge has no practical purpose. It has a very practical purpose when it comes to recidivism (the act of recommitting a crime). According to the BBC, almost 50% of criminals reoffend. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it is only petty criminals and thieves who re-offend. As reported by the Bureau of Justice 60% of criminals convicted of a violent crime were re-convicted of another violent crime withing 3 years. If we were to execute these criminals, they couldn't re-offend now could they? If you would like a specific example of a man who ruined another person's life after being released from prison search up William French. He raped a woman, went to prison, was released, and raped again. It isn't fair that another woman had her life ruined because we decided to let this man walk.

Recidivism also destroys the argument that the death penalty is more expensive than keeping someone alive for the rest of their life. Costs related to recidivism cost the English tax payer 10 billion £ a year. Not only does the criminal have to be proven guilty just as a death penalty criminal would, they also have to be tended to for years, and as these statistics show, likely have to go through the whole process again.

Before you say that a fear of someone re-offending isn't good reason to justify executing someone, consider the possible of it being someone you love who is needlessly hurt.