Do You Support Capital Punishment?

[user1991]

No. The state should not have the power to decide who lives and who dies.

[venomai]

Understand how few people recieve the punishment of being incarcerated for life (read: never having the opportunity to come out). I could use your argument that imprisoning someone for life is just the same as 'brushing the problem under the carpet', but hopefully by now you can see that it's a technicality which renders your original idea redundant. If someone is sentanced to, say 30 years imprisonment, then let them serve it, what they do when they come out is of no relevance in this discussion. The death penalty is currently used as an alternative for life imprisonment.

 

My post was directed at Zierro's statements. Zierro argued that it is safer for society to eliminate such convicts (murderers, etc) rather than let them "go free" (i.e. be released) as to ensure that they can no longer re-offend in a way that directly harms society.

 

 

 

Obviously, if Zierro was referring only to true life in prison, there would be no problem of recividism (except in the extremely rare cases of escape) and thus his argument would be moot.

 

 

 

Show me what you can do to deter someone who is so far out of it that they're willing to kill another person, and I'll show you a redundant measure.

 

What?

[Sam]

For : Murder someone, we'll murder you :twisted:

 

 

 

Seriously, I am for. You get back what you did to someone, or have the event you cause happen to you.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Seriously, I am for. You get back what you did to someone, or have the event you cause happen to you.

 

Isn't that kind of retribution supposed to be designed to teach someone a lesson by mimicking experiences? On a similar note, like telling someone to pay back all that they stole from someone during a house break-in?

 

 

 

It's just I'm struggling to understand the point of teaching someone if death is a part of the lesson...

[Zonorhc]

No. The state should not have the power to decide who lives and who dies.

 

Which is why the defendant is tried by their peers.

[3rkid]

Why don't we ban the death penalty and just put a noose in every jail cell and have them decide on their own.

 

 

 

Wonder how many would choose death...

[Marco]

Understand how few people recieve the punishment of being incarcerated for life (read: never having the opportunity to come out). I could use your argument that imprisoning someone for life is just the same as 'brushing the problem under the carpet', but hopefully by now you can see that it's a technicality which renders your original idea redundant. If someone is sentanced to, say 30 years imprisonment, then let them serve it, what they do when they come out is of no relevance in this discussion. The death penalty is currently used as an alternative for life imprisonment.

 

My post was directed at Zierro's statements. Zierro argued that it is safer for society to eliminate such convicts (murderers, etc) rather than let them "go free" (i.e. be released) as to ensure that they can no longer re-offend in a way that directly harms society.

 

 

 

Obviously, if Zierro was referring only to true life in prison, there would be no problem of recividism (except in the extremely rare cases of escape) and thus his argument would be moot.

 

 

 

Fair enough. I'm not going to interpret & speak for Zierro so I don't know if he meant that either. Could you try to address the person you're directing a comment towards, so we don't end up rebutting the wrong arguments unnecessarily #-o

 

 

 

Show me what you can do to deter someone who is so far out of it that they're willing to kill another person, and I'll show you a redundant measure.

 

What?

 

 

 

It's a phrase used to basically say; You show me [X], and I'll show you what I think [X] is. An example, from an old Garfield comic strip:

 

"Show me a good mouser, and I'll show you a cat with bad breath ."

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. The state should not have the power to decide who lives and who dies.

 

 

 

Which is why the defendant is tried by their peers.

 

 

 

Not meaning to be pedantic as I know what you mean, but it is a defendant's peers that will give his actions a label (Murder, Volunt. Manslaughter, Gross Neg. Manslaughter etc), and it is the judicary (different, [almost indifferent] to the state)which pass sentence.

 

 

 

@ TheTrueNoob: It'd be nice if you would read more than just the title of a topic before posting, otherwise why bother; it's not a vote. Although I get the impression that you probably wont even look into this thread again anyway..

[venomai]

Show me what you can do to deter someone who is so far out of it that they're willing to kill another person, and I'll show you a redundant measure.

 

If you are suggesting that the death penalty is an unnecessary measure, then I agree. If neither the threat of life in prison nor the death penalty is enough to deter these people, then using the irreversible punishment of death as punishment exceeds what is necessary.

[Marco]

Show me what you can do to deter someone who is so far out of it that they're willing to kill another person, and I'll show you a redundant measure.

 

If you are suggesting that the death penalty is an unnecessary measure, then I agree. If neither the threat of life in prison nor the death penalty is enough to deter these people, then using the irreversible punishment of death as punishment exceeds what is necessary.

 

 

 

Yep. Which is why I said that a death penalty is pretty much exactly the same as life imprisonment. No better. No worse. I disagree that death (/=/life imprisonment also) exeeds what is necessary because that implies that there is a lesser measure which would work. The aim of both is to stop the person from ever harming society again. As far as I can see, there is no lesser measure which would achieve the same effect.

[warri0r45]

Show me what you can do to deter someone who is so far out of it that they're willing to kill another person, and I'll show you a redundant measure.

 

If you are suggesting that the death penalty is an unnecessary measure, then I agree. If neither the threat of life in prison nor the death penalty is enough to deter these people, then using the irreversible punishment of death as punishment exceeds what is necessary.

 

 

 

Yep. Which is why I said that a death penalty is pretty much exactly the same as life imprisonment. No better. No worse. I disagree that death (/=/life imprisonment also) exeeds what is necessary because that implies that there is a lesser measure which would work. The aim of both is to stop the person from ever harming society again. As far as I can see, there is no lesser measure which would achieve the same effect.

 

 

 

The role of prison isn't only to separate the criminal from harming society; it's also to try and rehabilitate the person to give them a second chance at fitting in. It's not going to be possible in every case, but regardless, sometimes it is.

[Zierro]

After releasing any serious offender, whether it be a murderer or a simple car thief, there is always the possibility that they will re-offend. Killing these convicts to ensure that they do not re-offend, however, is not a very reasonable solution to the problem of recidivism. This is a blunt and primitive tool; it brushes the problem under the carpet. We would inevitably end up killing hundreds of thousands of people who would not have otherwise re-offended.

 

 

 

We're not talking about killing car thieves. Carjacking isn't nearly as big of a problem as murder. And besides, I thought the only people with the true intention to kill are premeditated murderers? When I talk about keeping people from harming society any further, I'm talking about the murderers with no sense of morality. The deranged murderers who appear to have a very good chance of re-offending if they were ever given the chance. Those are the ones that are an enormous detriment to society.

 

 

 

If you are suggesting that the death penalty is an unnecessary measure, then I agree. If neither the threat of life in prison nor the death penalty is enough to deter these people, then using the irreversible punishment of death as punishment exceeds what is necessary.

 

 

 

If the idea of the death penalty doesn't stop them, then the actually death penalty itself ultimately will.

 

 

 

Obviously, if Zierro was referring only to true life in prison, there would be no problem of recividism (except in the extremely rare cases of escape) and thus his argument would be moot.

 

 

 

You call it extremely rare - I call it more than enough.

 

 

 

 

 

The role of prison isn't only to separate the criminal from harming society; it's also to try and rehabilitate the person to give them a second chance at fitting in. It's not going to be possible in every case, but regardless, sometimes it is.

 

 

 

I think this is when we stop to think for what it's all worth. Sure, some people can change for the better. But the same criminals sometimes end back up in prison time after time again. It's a chance. And in the case of a deranged murderer, I don't think society - the people in danger here - would consider taking that chance over someone who is a major threat to them.

[warri0r45]

The role of prison isn't only to separate the criminal from harming society; it's also to try and rehabilitate the person to give them a second chance at fitting in. It's not going to be possible in every case, but regardless, sometimes it is.

 

 

 

I think this is when we stop to think for what it's all worth. Sure, some people can change for the better. But the same criminals sometimes end back up in prison time after time again. It's a chance. And in the case of a deranged murderer, I don't think society - the people in danger here - would consider taking that chance over someone who is a major threat to them.

 

 

 

Obviously you judge people on a case-by-case basis. I'm not suggesting to give people like the deranged murderer a second chance if it means there's a risk of re-offending.

[venomai]

I disagree that death (/=/life imprisonment also) exeeds what is necessary because that implies that there is a lesser measure which would work. The aim of both is to stop the person from ever harming society again. As far as I can see, there is no lesser measure which would achieve the same effect.

 

Life in prison is "lesser" in the sense that it does not result in an irreversible human death.

 

 

 

I agree that, in ideal situations, the death penalty is sometimes a better alternative to life without parole. However, I strongly disagree with life without parole to begin with, and so I do not support either punishment. In fact, I'm beginning to see life without parole as yet another way of brushing the problem under the carpet. I strongly support rehabilitation rather than permanent removal.

 

 

 

Obviously, there are exceptional cases where, say, an psychotic child rapist may never be rehabilitated, and in such a situation, 'permanent removal' may be a viable option. However, it is idealistic and ignorant to assume that all those serving such severe punishments were convicted of equally as heinous crimes.

 

 

 

An interesting report by the New York Times:

 

[hide=]... A survey by The New York Times found that about 132,000 of the nation's prisoners, or almost 1 in 10, are serving life sentences ... In 1993, the Times survey found, about 20 percent of all lifers had no chance of parole. Last year, the number rose to 28 percent.

 

 

 

... some critics of life sentences say they are overused, pointing to people like Jerald Sanders, who is serving a life sentence in Alabama. He was a small-time burglar and had never been convicted of a violent crime. Under the state's habitual offender law, he was sent away after stealing a $60 bicycle.

 

 

 

Fewer than two-thirds of the 70,000 people sentenced to life from 1988 to 2001 are in for murder, the Times analysis found. Other lifers - more than 25,000 of them - were convicted of crimes like rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, assault, extortion, burglary and arson. People convicted of drug trafficking account for 16 percent of all lifers.

 

 

 

... Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group that issued a report on life sentences last year, said that about a fifth of released lifers were arrested again, compared with two-thirds of all released prisoners.

 

 

 

"Many lifers," Mr. Mauer said, "are kept in prison long after they represent a public safety threat."[/hide]

 

Source: To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars

 

 

 

Another interesting report on lifers in general, this one well worth a read:

 

[hide=]... Research suggests that the vast majority of lifers opt to avoid trouble and to make the most of the opportunities for work, education and rehabilitative programs in prison (see Johnson, 2002). Recent ethnographic books by lifers reinforce this body of work (see Paluch, 2004; Santos, 2004; Carceral, 2004).

 

 

 

... The ability to make choices, even choices that offer only the illusion of control, is a fundamental human need that counters institutional dependency and fosters autonomous thinking (Toch, 1998). Research suggests that inmates with a sense of control over their lives adjust better to prison and to life on the outside (Johnson, 2002). Though the evidence is limited, it would appear that such inmates are reincarcerated at lower levels than other inmates (Zambie, 1990).

 

 

 

... Inmates with mature coping skills address problems "without resorting to deception or violence, except when necessary for self-defense" (Johnson, 2002).

 

 

 

... Lifers have very low rates of infractions and are generally very well-behaved inmates (Flanagan, 1981 ; Sorenson and Wrinkle, 1998). ... Lifers stay out of trouble because trouble, and especially trouble featuring violence, jeopardizes the narrow but nominally rewarding lives they have built for themselves, often with great effort.

 

 

 

... Lifers age and, hence, mature in prison, often developing better self-control in the process. They see other inmates, and especially short-term inmates, as impulsive, disruptive and even dangerous, as rowdy "tourists" who make prison life hard for the long-term residents who care about the conditions and quality of daily prison life (Flanagan, 1981; DeRosia, 1998). As one lifer observed in his book about prison adjustment, touching on a theme developed in the study's interviews: "Lifers are the stabilizing force for prison management and for creating a more livable atmosphere ... [W]e are the ones who want to make certain that the conditions of our confinement are less stressful and more pleasant for inmates and staff alike" (Paluch, 2004).

 

 

 

... Indeed, most people appear to survive prison with little or no lasting psychological damage (Bonta and Gendreau, 1990), and many are likely to experience an increase in pro-social attitudes as well as improved psychological profiles (Wormith, 1984; Zambie and Porporino, 1984; Zambie, 1992).

 

 

 

... Some lifers are eventually released from prison, these days after serving about 30 years behind bars (Mauer, King and Young, 2004). Recidivism rates for these offenders are quite low (Sorenson and Marquait, 2003).6

 

 

 

... [6] Mauer et al. (2004) report that: "Four out of every five (79.4 percent) lifers released in 1994 had no arrests for a new crime in the three years after their release. This compares to an arrest-free rate of just one-third (32.5 percent) for all offenders released from prison."[/hide]

 

Source: Mature Coping Among Life-Sentenced Inmates: An Exploratory Study of Adjustment Dynamics

[venomai]

um_bong0:

 

I just stumbled on your earlier post, and it seems that we are mostly in agreement.

 

"My argument is that, as it stands, neither of the two options (life in prison/death) are any good."

 

 

 

As far as I am aware, no one who has been sentenced to death has been later found innocent since 1910.

 

This notion has been heavily criticized in recent years.

 

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfu ... ginnocent/

[dsavi]

After releasing any serious offender, whether it be a murderer or a simple car thief, there is always the possibility that they will re-offend. Killing these convicts to ensure that they do not re-offend, however, is not a very reasonable solution to the problem of recidivism. This is a blunt and primitive tool; it brushes the problem under the carpet. We would inevitably end up killing hundreds of thousands of people who would not have otherwise re-offended.

 

Wait, you're saying that either you execute the offender or let them free? Doesn't make much sense to me. Why would you release someone that is, by your standards, worthy of death?

[venomai]

Wait, you're saying that either you execute the offender or let them free? Doesn't make much sense to me. Why would you release someone that is, by your standards, worthy of death?

 

Obviously, this is not what I am suggesting. The alternative, according to Zierro, is to let criminals "go free," presumably after they had served their time. In other words, Zierro implied that, instead of allowing a criminal to be released after serving time (which creates the possibility that they will re-offend), we ought to kill them to ensure that they can not re-offend.

 

 

 

And where exactly did I suggest that these convicts are worthy of death?

 

 

 

We're not talking about killing car thieves. Carjacking isn't nearly as big of a problem as murder.

 

As you were apparently talking about life in prison with the possibility of parole (hence the question of recidivism after release from jail), it is reasonable to assume that many of the criminals we are talking about are in fact mere thieves, drug runners, etc.

[dsavi]

And where exactly did I suggest that these convicts are worthy of death?

 

Ah, I read your post wrong. :|

 

 

 

But I would also say that "Preventative execution" wouldn't work at all. If their offense is bad enough, why not give them life imprisonment? Or if they are let free and they reoffend, give them life imprisonment.

[Laura]

It's either one of two things then: They sit for the rest of their lives in jail, with free food, shelter, and an orderly schedule while taking away the tax payer's money. Or they can be given capital punishment. I prefer the latter. Though I am aware that not everyone has the same views as me, but I think I'd rather die than be placed in jail for the remainder of my life.

[Zierro]

As you were apparently talking about life in prison with the possibility of parole (hence the question of recidivism after release from jail), it is reasonable to assume that many of the criminals we are talking about are in fact mere thieves, drug runners, etc.

 

 

 

If you're trying to tell me a thief's crime is just as bad for society as a serial killer's, I disagree.

[venomai]

If their offense is bad enough, why not give them life imprisonment? Or if they are let free and they reoffend, give them life imprisonment.

 

With or without the possibility of parole? Life without parole is often an unnecessary and expensive punishment. And how "bad" are we talking about?

 

 

 

It's either one of two things then: They sit for the rest of their lives in jail, with free food, shelter, and an orderly schedule while taking away the tax payer's money. Or they can be given capital punishment.

 

There are other options, such as life with the possibility of parole (i.e. rehabilitation), or labour camps.

 

 

 

If you're trying to tell me a thief's crime is just as bad for society as a serial killer's

 

I'm not saying this.

[Zierro]

I don't get your point then:

 

 

 

After releasing any serious offender, whether it be a murderer or a simple car thief, there is always the possibility that they will re-offend. Killing these convicts to ensure that they do not re-offend, however, is not a very reasonable solution to the problem of recidivism.

 

 

 

That sounds like you're trying to equate thieves and murderers by saying they have the possibility of committing their crime again, but that doesn't mean we should kill them. Obviously not, when a car thief isn't that much of a threat to society.

[Laura]

There are other options, such as life with the possibility of parole (i.e. rehabilitation), or labour camps.

 

If capitol punishment is even a viable option, then parole and other forms of rehabilitation are slim or excluded. I support it for those who have life in prison without these options.

[venomai]

After releasing any serious offender, whether it be a murderer or a simple car thief, there is always the possibility that they will re-offend. Killing these convicts to ensure that they do not re-offend, however, is not a very reasonable solution to the problem of recidivism.

 

 

 

That sounds like you're trying to equate thieves and murderers by saying they have the possibility of committing their crime again, but that doesn't mean we should kill them. Obviously not, when a car thief isn't that much of a threat to society.

 

I am not equating the two crimes. I am suggesting that the death penalty is a poor solution to the problem of recidivism.

 

 

 

With that said, I would argue that a murderer isn't that much of a threat to society after having been rehabilitated. This is something that can be gathered from their very low recidivism rates. As society advances, so too will our ability to reduce recidivism rates (through improved psychology, education, etc). Enacting the death penalty would effectively be throwing this progress out the window.

[Dizzle229]

Let's see. We can't have the death penalty because some people may not reoffend. But they shouldn't get a life sentence because then the government is still supporting them with taxpayer money.

 

 

 

Why not exile? On some island or something? They don't have to be executed, and they essentially get a life sentence at very little to no cost.

[Riku3220]

Let's see. We can't have the death penalty because some people may not reoffend. But they shouldn't get a life sentence because then the government is still supporting them with taxpayer money.

 

 

 

Why not exile? On some island or something? They don't have to be executed, and they essentially get a life sentence at very little to no cost.

 

 

 

We tried that once. It ended up becoming a country (Australia).