Capital Punishment

[Duality]

As the title says folks, what do you think of Capital Punishment? I'm asking for two sorts of answers here.

(1) In theory, if we could know who was guilty of what crime, is it morally right to kill someone for this crime?
(2) In practice, is it still okay to use capital punishment? Given the fact that the justice system is flawed/imperfect.

For myself, in practice, capital punishment is not an option. If we make one mistake, and kill one innocent person, that makes the justice system guilty of first degree murder. However, I think there must be certain evidence which allows for it, such as video evidence of the crime. Or guilty plea (which I doubt would ever happen). Or...I'm not sure what else would suffice...any ideas?

In theory, well, yes. It makes me sick to hear of people getting raped, ruthlessly murdered, tortured, and so forth. I don't want people who commit such crimes walking the streets again.

 

[violent_anger]

on another note, what do you people think about the last meal they give?

 

[Jopari]

If we know for sure that we have the right person then I say that lethal injection is probably too tame. I believe that sometimes a simple execution is too kind. Should a mass murdering psycho who caused massive amounts of pain and suffering be allowed to die in a way that's just like falling asleep? I don't think so, I think the punishment should equal the crime.

I know that sometimes the justice system gets the wrong person but, statistically, how often does that happen?

Lastly, some people say capital punishment is lowering the justice system to the criminal's level. I don't think this is true unless you taunt and degrade the person who is being executed. As such, Saddam's "execution" was more like a lynching and lowered the executioners and the crowd to his level.

That's my opinion.

 

[Xemanexus]

Personnaly, I feel that, providing the proper person is convicted, the punishment should fit the crime. However, as an aspiring lawyer, I feel that those who commit murder, or anything like that, should get a life sentence without parole. Exicution, no matter how intense, is nothing but mercy to the criminal.

However, God once said "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Abiding by that, I feel that capitol punishment is reasonable.

 

[Square Ninja]

What's old is new evidently. I remember when he had a thread like this when I first started lurking Intel. That thing stretched onto who knows how many pages.

 

[Relliks Ban]

I would have to be against it. To kill a person for comiting a crime, no matter how major the crime, isn't right. Two wrongs don't make a right, unless your lalking about algebra, but were not. We should make them rot in prison, in a cell that's not accecable to humans...

 

[Square Ninja]

on another note, what do you people think about the last meal they give?

It needs more gravy.

l______

 

[Duality]

What's old is new evidently. I remember when he had a thread like this when I first started lurking Intel. That thing stretched onto who knows how many pages.

Sorry, I looked for a thread on Capital Punishment, but I guess they deleted it?

 

[Phoenix]

If two wrongs don't make a right, then pray tell what do a wrong and a right make.

 

[violent_anger]

a lesser wrong, mebbe??????

 

[Phoenix]

Maintaining someone detrimental to society alive with money that could be better spent on other things is a lesser wrong how exactly?

 

[violent_anger]

and killing a killer leaves us better off, how?

 

[Duality]

I know that sometimes the justice system gets the wrong person but, statistically, how often does that happen?

Suppose you were on trial for first-degree murder. Suppose you were found guilty. No appeal. Death. How is that fair in any way? Practically, I think we cannot just bank on that fact.\
Wrongful execution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are some examples of people who were killed/convicted and later acquitted. That is a close call, or it's too late. Either way, it's unfair, and they have to pay the ultimate price. That is nothing less than murder.

Maintaining someone detrimental to society alive with money that could be better spent on other things is a lesser wrong how exactly?

I am not actually sure as to which costs more...a huge number of proceedings for death penalty... or lifetime in prison... I'll check this out. But in theory, to counter violent_anger, removing a killer from society brings justice to those who were family of the victim. And it keeps society that much safer. And hopefully deters criminals from committing such terrible crimes.

 

[Phoenix]

The money that would be used to feed him for 50 years could be used for other means. School, hospitals, take your pick. Also, a significantly reduced chance of the killer killing someone again.

I am not actually sure as to which costs more...a huge number of proceedings for death penalty... or lifetime in prison... I'll check this out. But in theory, to counter violent_anger, removing a killer from society brings justice to those who were family of the victim. And it keeps society that much safer. And hopefully deters criminals from committing such terrible crimes.

Bureaucracy. How much do a gun and a bullet cost?

 

[snowdog]

I think I started the last one. It's called "Death Penalty" or something.

I'm not sure on the issue, to be honest.

 

[Kiss Of Death]

Arguments for the death penalty.​

Incapacitation of the criminal.
Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much cheaper and safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or being released from it.

Cost.
Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the state may very well better spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick rather than the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc.
Anti-capital punishment campaigners in America cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this (whilst true for America) has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the American legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 11 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was less than 8 weeks and there was only one appeal.

Retribution.
Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment, the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Although whether there is a place in a modern society for the old fashioned principal of "lex talens" (an eye for an eye), is a matter of personal opinion. Retribution is seen by many as an acceptable reason for the death penalty according to my survey results.

Deterrence.
Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would, however, seem that in those countries (ex, Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is generally far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is an absolute certainty.
Anti-death penalty campaigners always argue that death is not a deterrent and usually site studies based upon American states to prove their point. This is, in my view, flawed and probably chosen to be deliberately misleading.

~​

KoD​

 

[Duality]

Bureaucracy. How much do a gun and a bullet cost?

Well evidently, if the death penalty only required shooting someone, it would be much cheaper. Bureaucracy, although extremely annoying sometimes, is difficult to solely pinpoint. I mean, we are dealing with someone's life here. Again, I would like to clarify that if the evidence is extremely definitive (i.e. video evidence, etc.) then there is no need for this. But when it comes down to witnesses and such, it is hard as a society to just kill whomever we think may be guilty. ONE mistake is all it takes. Are you willing to do that? See my previous post in regards to this.

Does it really cost more for a lifetime in prison? Logically, it should. But does it? I will check this out and get back to you.

Arguments for the death penalty.
Incapacitation of the criminal....This is, in my view, flawed and probably chosen to be deliberately misleading.

Seriously, Kiss of Death, the least you could do is credit this argument to someone who has actually done the work:
The pros and cons of capital punishment
Next time, bring your own genuine argument, and reference someone else's.

 

[Phoenix]

Well evidently, if the death penalty only required shooting someone, it would be much cheaper. Bureaucracy, although extremely annoying sometimes, is difficult to solely pinpoint. I mean, we are dealing with someone's life here. Again, I would like to clarify that if the evidence is extremely definitive (i.e. video evidence, etc.) then there is no need for this. But when it comes down to witnesses and such, it is hard as a society to just kill whomever we think may be guilty. ONE mistake is all it takes. Are you willing to do that? See my previous post in regards to this.

Does it really cost more for a lifetime in prison? Logically, it should. But does it? I will check this out and get back to you.

The judgment itself has nothing to do with the death penalty. The guy is still to be judged normally. Why should this change?

 

[violent_anger]

uh...because the jury isn't always right?

 

[Kiss Of Death]

Seriously, Kiss of Death, the least you could do is credit this argument to someone who has actually done the work:
The pros and cons of capital punishment
Next time, bring your own genuine argument, and reference someone else's.

Sorry. I meant to put it on there. Oops.


~KoD