The Death Sentence

[Sage of Earth]

Should it be used? If so, when? If not, why not?

Personally I believe that people who commit serious crimes, such as murder or rape, repeatedly, or are arrested on multiple charges of either, should suffer the wrath of the death penalty. Not in terms of punishment, but because quite simply the fact that they have committed these serious crimes more than once, sometimes without indication of stopping, means they are a danger to society, and imprisonment would be a waste of money and completely ineffective in suppressing the threat. Plus keeping them alive in prison may give them a sense of importance that we don't want to give them. We do not approve, and we should not give them the satisfaction.

Discuss.

[Latex Glove]

I hold the belief that it is no one's place to say whether or not a person can or cannot continue to live. Yes, I realize that murderers have effectively done this already to this victims, but there is little to gain in plucking the eye from another if he has taken yours.

These are heinous crimes, but I cannot stand by the death penalty in good conscience.

[The Great Panda]

I believe that in some cases, death is a necessity if society hopes to survive. When you have people like this guy running around and committing such heinous, the only real way to silence them is to dispose of them. After all, punishment isn't supposed to be enjoyable.

[Latex Glove]

How much like the monster must we become to slay it?

[The Great Panda]

If removing a threat to other people is a bad thing, then we're all monsters. In my eyes, people who take their obsessions to such extreme lengths and perform such acts should no longer be considered people. In fact, I'd go as far as labeling them as vermin. There's a time when politics and therapy and any other method could have its time in the sun, but when it comes down to it, some people just cannot be helped, and it is best to remove them before they do something even worse.

So yes, I am a monster. I'm a monster because I feel that people like this do not deserve life if they hold the lives of others in such small regard.

[Tazryl]

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

I believe that in some cases, death is a necessity if society hopes to survive. When you have people like this guy running around and committing such heinous, the only real way to silence them is to dispose of them. After all, punishment isn't supposed to be enjoyable.

That is disgusting and such a terrible thing to do.


I believe it should only be used if the person has commited several acts of murder and shows no signs of remorse other then that of getting caught.

Only in the most brutal cases should it be allowed, otherwise I say let them rot in jail.

[Latex Glove]

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

If removing a threat to other people is a bad thing, then we're all monsters. In my eyes, people who take their obsessions to such extreme lengths and perform such acts should no longer be considered people. In fact, I'd go as far as labeling them as vermin. There's a time when politics and therapy and any other method could have its time in the sun, but when it comes down to it, some people just cannot be helped, and it is best to remove them before they do something even worse.

So yes, I am a monster. I'm a monster because I feel that people like this do not deserve life if they hold the lives of others in such small regard.

By placing someone with the jail cell, however, it is possible to retain their life and also keep them away from others.

[lord-of-shadow]

The death penalty should be used more liberally. I'd argue that almost any time someone gets a life sentence, they should be getting the death penalty instead. With a grace period of ten or fifteen years, in case further evidence comes to light.

There's no point in keeping a criminal alive in jail indefinitely if you don't plan on releasing them; they get better health care and food than many people who aren't criminals, and it's paid for with tax dollars. It makes no sense.

And the "eye for an eye is bad" argument holds no water with me. It's not an eye for an eye, it's logic, justice, and not wanting to waste the taxes of good citizens caring for the worthless lives of serious criminals.

[Sage of Earth]

Originally Posted by Latex Glove

By placing someone with the jail cell, however, it is possible to retain their life and also keep them away from others.

But if he's such a monster for imprisoning someone, then we're doing the same to him. Just because we're justified to imprison doesn't mean it's any less wrong than what he did.

Also many countries insist that the people within prison have rights, and so he'd have to have a certain amount of time spent in the company of other people. And there's nothing to say that a total psycho would kill those people as well. As I pointed out, it's also a waste of money, and gives them a sense of worth that they are undeserving of.

As The Great Panda quite rightly put it (awesome name by the way), many of the people I'm referring to would be vermin. We don't catch rats and imprison them for being generally disgusting and persistent threats to our household or our health. We exterminate them.

Lord-of-Shadow, I disagree with killing anyone who's just getting a single life sentence, because for one thing life isn't necessarily life, it could be 15 or 25 years and they may eventually get out on parole. If you're referring to the kind of person who will never leave jail and will never get parole, they may sometimes feel remorse if it was just for a single murder, and so it may be worth keeping them alive for the punishment value. I agree that they may become a waste of money however, and so probably shouldn't be kept alive if they're NEVER coming out.

Also justice is giving each their due, and giving somebody what they deserve. A crime deserves punishment, but of equal value to the crime committed. Not necessarily have the crime done to them. Using the death penalty on a murderer is not a case of "a life for a life", it's a case of simple punishment, eliminating the costs of keeping someone who won't ever be leaving prison alive, and eliminating a threat to public safety.

[TakatoGuil]

Further, keeping a criminal alive in jail indefinitely doesn't necessarily stop them. If they don't have any hope of getting out, then they have nothing to lose. I've spoken to people who've worked on parole boards, and one of them recounted how, with one man, he said, "Keep denying him parole, so he can't get out, but always promise it'll be considered next time his case comes up. If we don't keep considering it, we're putting the guards and other prisoners at risk."

Killing the repeat offenders, and not holing them up where they have nothing to lose, is a justice to the people, and to the killers, most of whom aren't so much evil and malicious as mentally ill, and permanently unable to function in society.

I hate the idea of using the death sentence myself, but it's a necessary tool to protect the people.

[Aralith]

Most of the posts on here that support the death penalty say that those who are just going to never leave prison ought to be executed. Here's the thing though. If someone knows that when they commit an atrocious act that they'll get maybe five years of waiting on death row and then getting killed themselves, they may be more inclined to commit the crime if they don't care about their lives, whereas if the punishment is spending the rest of your life (and if you're 30, that's a lot of time) in a prison. To me, if the punishment were the latter, I would definitely rethink committing a crime. Now, while this only applies in crimes with pre-meditation, I think the point still stands. We may be spending money to keep this one man alive for 40 years in prison, but how many other people is that one man stopping from committing crimes for fear of the same punishment?

[Igna]

I don't think you're going to find many people who would care about the difference, Aralith. Generally, the people who are inclined enough to murder will do so whichever way, and all of them have the unspoken option of committing suicide after the crime (which many take). So really, no one has to spend a life in prison. All they have to do is commit suicide.

Anyway, I'm a bit surprised that so many people here are for it, but I do agree with it. I think the government does have the authority to end an extreme criminal's life. Our jails are busting at the seams, it seems, with people who will be there for their entire lives without any hope of improving or any hope of actually giving back to society.

[GDwarf]

I'm opposed to it.


Death should really only be an alternative if there is no other way. (Say the guy's got a gun and the police need to arrest him, I'm fine with them shooting him in that case, provided that he is likely to kill someone else.)

There are a few reasons for this. First off, you can never be certain that someone did, in fact, commit a crime. You can be well over 99% sure, but that's not the same thing. (If, let's say, 1 000 people are killed every decade, all of whom you are 99% sure are guilty that's still 100 innocent people killed. Fun.)

Secondly, it doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on crime. Countries that had the death penalty and got rid of it didn't have a sudden rise (or, admittedly, fall) in crime rates. Why? Because criminals assume they won't be caught. They don't do a cost-benefit analysis before they kill someone in anger.

Thirdly, the point of laws is to keep society running smoothly, that's it. Killing people doesn't make it run any more smoothly than putting them in jail does.

Finally, according to pro-death penalty people in past threads people tend to spend 25 years on death row before they're killed. Which means that they cost more (need to have a much more thorough investigation before you can give the death penalty) than simply having people in for life.


...So, it apparently has no benefits, gives the law far too much power, is morally questionable, and can kill innocent people.

What, exactly, is the upside?

[Fox McCloud]

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

But if he's such a monster for imprisoning someone, then we're doing the same to him. Just because we're justified to imprison doesn't mean it's any less wrong than what he did.

What you're saying in this is: Let's COMPLETELY remove the factors that surround the crime this man committed and the parties involved. Let's ignore the fact there was someone INNOCENT being abused and raped and unjustly wronged and imprisoned for 24 years? We should forget all this and merely equate the locking up factor?

Are you equating someone who is innocent to someone who has committed a heinous crime?

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Also justice is giving each their due, and giving somebody what they deserve. A crime deserves punishment, but of equal value to the crime committed. Not necessarily have the crime done to them. Using the death penalty on a murderer is not a case of "a life for a life", it's a case of simple punishment, eliminating the costs of keeping someone who won't ever be leaving prison alive, and eliminating a threat to public safety.

The costs of keeping someone alive is a secondary point. By going against a BASIC human value of killing an innocent life, you have forfeited your right to be treated or expecting to be treated as a normal human being. I seriously don't understand why it is the victim's taxpaying relatives/loved ones who are forced to pay to keep the killer alive.

Originally Posted by Tazryl

That is disgusting and such a terrible thing to do.


I believe it should only be used if the person has committed several acts of murder and shows no signs of remorse other then that of getting caught.

Only in the most brutal cases should it be allowed, otherwise I say let them rot in jail.

Several acts?

You most definitely speak through the eyes of an observer. Why don't we change the scenario a little. How many members of your family and loved ones must a person kill before you would feel they deserve to be killed? Because from what I understand, the word "several" means three or more. So in your case, for a person to kill your mother AND father would still not suffice for them to be considered worthy of death.

Why don't we all stop thinking about this issue from an observer's standpoint, and think about it in terms of the people we love and hold dear to our heart if they were murdered?

Originally Posted by Latex Glove

By placing someone with the jail cell, however, it is possible to retain their life and also keep them away from others.

It would sicken me if I knew that my tax money was going towards feeding, clothing and medically caring for the person who killed my mother. Wouldn't it sicken you?

I'd like to look at the next one slowly:

Originally Posted by Aralith

If someone knows that when they commit an atrocious act that they'll get maybe five years of waiting on death row and then getting killed themselves, they may be more inclined to commit the crime if they don't care about their lives,whereas if the punishment is spending the rest of your life (and if you're 30, that's a lot of time) in a prison. To me, if the punishment were the latter, I would definitely rethink committing a crime. Now, while this only applies in crimes with pre-meditation, I think the point still stands. We may be spending money to keep this one man alive for 40 years in prison, but how many other people is that one man stopping from committing crimes for fear of the same punishment?

You're very confusing and very misleading in the way you presented your argument. At first, you start off by saying that "if they don't care about their lives" they'd be more inclined to commit the crime if they knew they'd be disposed of quickly. But then you quickly switch to the "and if they DO care about their lives, then the other option - long term imprisonment - is more of a punishment"; as though there is only one option for each scenario. You need to be more clear and credible: If someone cares for their life, what is worse, to have that life taken away from them? Or, to sit for a while in prison knowing that they'll be out at some point? which is more of a deterrent?

The issue of someone not caring for their life is irrelevant; merely for the fact that the killer in question did not kill themselves after committing the crime. The mere fact that they're still there means they care. So your point fails in that aspect. And to conclude, the prospect of losing this life that they care about, is much more of a deterrent than to know that they have hope in coming out after they've finished their "time-out"/grounding stage.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I'm opposed to it.

There are a few reasons for this. First off, you can never be certain that someone did, in fact, commit a crime. You can be well over 99% sure, but that's not the same thing. (If, let's say, 1 000 people are killed every decade, all of whom you are 99% sure are guilty that's still 100 innocent people killed. Fun.)

Secondly, it doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on crime. Countries that had the death penalty and got rid of it didn't have a sudden rise (or, admittedly, fall) in crime rates. Why? Because criminals assume they won't be caught. They don't do a cost-benefit analysis before they kill someone in anger.

You're saying that even the hardest of hard evidence and unquestionable testimonies that you can NEVER ever be 100% certain? I can't accept that. I do agree with you that as humans, we do err, but I don't agree that it's an impossibility to reach a 100% conclusion in every case.

And then why did you limit the killings to moments of anger? Why not expand to the wider aspect which involves planned and thought-out killings? Why not talk about serial killers? Repeat offenders?

Thirdly, the point of laws is to keep society running smoothly, that's it. Killing people doesn't make it run any more smoothly than putting them in jail does.

Actually, the current system isn't keeping society running smoothly. Here in the UK, rapists and violent criminals are being let out after 6 months simply because the "jailing" system isn't working properly. People actually find it easier these days to commit crimes because they realise the current situation, and that the punishment will not be extended to its full amount.

Finally, according to pro-death penalty people in past threads people tend to spend 25 years on death row before they're killed. Which means that they cost more (need to have a much more thorough investigation before you can give the death penalty) than simply having people in for life.

In which country?

...So, it apparently has no benefits, gives the law far too much power, is morally questionable, and can kill innocent people.

What, exactly, is the upside?

Again, I think your opinion would be different if you were afflicted personally.

[Sage of Earth]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I'm opposed to it.


Death should really only be an alternative if there is no other way. (Say the guy's got a gun and the police need to arrest him, I'm fine with them shooting him in that case, provided that he is likely to kill someone else.)

There are a few reasons for this. First off, you can never be certain that someone did, in fact, commit a crime. You can be well over 99% sure, but that's not the same thing. (If, let's say, 1 000 people are killed every decade, all of whom you are 99% sure are guilty that's still 100 innocent people killed. Fun.)

Secondly, it doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on crime. Countries that had the death penalty and got rid of it didn't have a sudden rise (or, admittedly, fall) in crime rates. Why? Because criminals assume they won't be caught. They don't do a cost-benefit analysis before they kill someone in anger.

Thirdly, the point of laws is to keep society running smoothly, that's it. Killing people doesn't make it run any more smoothly than putting them in jail does.

Finally, according to pro-death penalty people in past threads people tend to spend 25 years on death row before they're killed. Which means that they cost more (need to have a much more thorough investigation before you can give the death penalty) than simply having people in for life.


...So, it apparently has no benefits, gives the law far too much power, is morally questionable, and can kill innocent people.

What, exactly, is the upside?

Well, four arguments I have to your post. Firstly that you say we can't be sure the person committed the crime in question. Usually mass-murderers will either confess to it, or there's overwhelming evidence to prove it's them. The death penalty would have to be a discretionary punishment, not "you have committed X crime, therefore I sentence you to death". Only in particular circumstances at the judge's discretion. Also, this still applies for imprisonment. If a person is put away for life, they still may not have committed the crime, and instead they spend their whole life insisting that they're innocent. The Birmingham Six spent 16 years in prison before their convictions were quashed, and the Bridgewater Three spent 18 years in prison before new evidence came to light. They used to be the Bridgewater Four, one of them died while in prison. Couldn't handle it.

They were convicted in days where evidence-gathering techniques weren't very advanced, and there weren't any measures in place to prevent the police from using brutal techniques to obtain a confession. Nowadays we're much more likely to find decent evidence.

Secondly you say most people spend far too much time on death row anyway. That, I reckon, is partially because the death penalty in America is a case of "you have committed X crime, therefore I sentence you to death", and so there's more than the system can handle needing to be executed. Plus repeated appeals, but that's fair enough. In the long run, killing someone after 25 years is still cheaper than keeping them in for 40 or 50, also.

Thirdly, as Fox stated, the prison system here is bollocks. A lot of the time people can get away with a crime without imprisonment (though not in the serious cases as far as I'm aware, rapists getting out after six months? I'd like to see some evidence for that), because judges and magistrates are pretty much specifically instructed to consider alternate punishments to prison. It seems in many cases that beauracracy and cutting costs has overriden the priority of justice.

Lastly you say that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent. I for one think it may in some cases, but since I have no evidence for this and you probably do, I won't argue that. But I don't think the death penalty should be a deterrent anyway. It's a punishment, and a measure taken to prevent a serious criminal from committing further offences.

You say there's no upside, but since you claim the death penalty doesn't really have an effect anyway, where's the downside? (In light of what I've said, and disregarding the possibility of an innocent being executed).

Originally Posted by Fox McCloud

What you're saying in this is: Let's COMPLETELY remove the factors that surround the crime this man committed and the parties involved. Let's ignore the fact there was someone INNOCENT being abused and raped and unjustly wronged and imprisoned for 24 years? We should forget all this and merely equate the locking up factor?

Are you equating someone who is innocent to someone who has committed a heinous crime?

I see what you're saying, but imprisonment is, after all, the equivalent of a crime committed by the state. You can't deny that. I in no way say she deserved what she got, I was simply making an argument against the person I was quoting who had made a similar argument against the death penalty (that since murder is a crime, the state has no right to commit it). If execution is state murder, then imprisonment is state kidnapping.

If he had just killed the girl instead of imprisoning her, what would be your view? Should he die? Or, by saying he deserves to live, are you equating someone who has committed a heinous crime to someone who is innocent?

EDIT: Clearly you're pro-death penalty but by criticizing what I was saying you seemed not to be, hence why I wrote that.

The costs of keeping someone alive is a secondary point. By going against a BASIC human value of killing an innocent life, you have forfeited your right to be treated or expecting to be treated as a normal human being. I seriously don't understand why it is the victim's taxpaying relatives/loved ones who are forced to pay to keep the killer alive.

You seem to be agreeing with me, but it's written in such a way that you disagree with me. Are you saying that the punishment factor is the important point, and not the ones I'm listing?

You most definitely speak through the eyes of an observer. Why don't we change the scenario a little. How many members of your family and loved ones must a person kill before you would feel they deserve to be killed? Because from what I understand, the word "several" means three or more. So in your case, for a person to kill your mother AND father would still not suffice for them to be considered worthy of death.

Why don't we all stop thinking about this issue from an observer's standpoint, and think about it in terms of the people we love and hold dear to our heart if they were murdered?

If my dad got into a fight after a night out, and got killed, and the other guy shows remorse, I know I'm only speaking about a hypothetical situation but provided he hasn't done it multiple times and probably wouldn't do it again, I don't think I'd be baying for his blood. I wouldn't forgive him, I don't pretend to be a saint. Besides, this would probably be a case of voluntary manslaughter by virtue of provocation rather than murder, which admittedly might set me going, but I probably wouldn't be after his life for it.

If someone had been planning for weeks, then suddenly brutalized a member of my family, then sure. If there's proof to say he'd been planning it for weeks, then surely there'd be enough proof to confirm that he's the one who did it. And surely he should therefore be punished for this malicious act.

However I'm a utilitarian, and so I personally believe that only people who may be a future danger to others should be executed. I'm not so much a retributionist because there is no way we can actually equate the punishment to the crime they've committed. That'd just make us as bad as them. Someone who's demented enough to pre-meditate a crime weeks in advance for a perceived slight (since my parents have wronged no one), and shows no remorse whatsoever, is clearly a danger to society, and so we have a duty to deal with them. Perhaps, if the death penalty would be implemented as a blanket punishment for murder (which I disagree with since it should only be at the judge's discretion), we could have a system whereby a person who shows remorse (perhaps get some psychologists in to evaluate this) would be spared the death penalty. Repeat murderers would probably not be given this mercy, since if you showed remorse for killing you wouldn't have done it again, quite simply.

[Latex Glove]

It would seem that there is no true method of knowing exactly what is the morally best choice in this particular situation... and yet a decision must be made, for we cannot simply place thousands of individuals and cases in limbo. This sort of grey is a very interesting one indeed.

Neither one seems to show that it is a deterrent of various crimes, so why bother with taking the more final measure if it allows too much for human error?

But there is a certain validity in the statement that some people simply wish to never change their ways. They are, as far as anyone can tell, absurdly ill, and seem to be unreachable. But how do we, with as erroneous as we sometimes are, judge who is redeemable and is not? Craft a template of sorts in order to quickly judge these individuals, or take into full account the relative nature of all humans and human thought? Whatever the case, there is room for error, and within the nature of these arguments, such errors will cost time and possibly an innocent's life.

None of us are to be termed as perfect, that much is clear, and I doubt any of us will ever claim to be. But I find difficulty in seeing how with given the two choices within a very, very grey area - in terms of moral choice - one would take the measure that would be much, much more final.

And yet, having said that, I find that knowing that Adolf Hitler now lies dead, I am given a measure of relief. So even in all my idealistic talk, I also buy into some portions of the seemingly moral choice of death's judgment.

It's difficult for me to say how exactly I feel. Ideally, I would suggest that we ought not to pass judgment through death, but I sometimes allow such thoughts within my own mind.

[Aralith]

Originally Posted by Fox McCloud

You're very confusing and very misleading in the way you presented your argument. At first, you start off by saying that "if they don't care about their lives" they'd be more inclined to commit the crime if they knew they'd be disposed of quickly. But then you quickly switch to the "and if they DO care about their lives, then the other option - long term imprisonment - is more of a punishment"; as though there is only one option for each scenario. You need to be more clear and credible: If someone cares for their life, what is worse, to have that life taken away from them? Or, to sit for a while in prison knowing that they'll be out at some point? which is more of a deterrent?

The issue of someone not caring for their life is irrelevant; merely for the fact that the killer in question did not kill themselves after committing the crime. The mere fact that they're still there means they care. So your point fails in that aspect. And to conclude, the prospect of losing this life that they care about, is much more of a deterrent than to know that they have hope in coming out after they've finished their "time-out"/grounding stage

Yeah, reading back on it now, I can see how it would be confusing. It was just something I typed up hastily as I was busy with something else at the time. Let me try to elaborate and explain a little better what I was saying. Admittedly this argument falls short in that it fails to take into account crimes of passion. What this argument addresses is those crimes that are pre-meditated. Now, I think it would be a bit easier with an example, so I'll use me.

I care very much about my life. If it ended of anything other than natural causes I would be most unhappy, of course I'm not even particularly happy with that scenario. Now, if I were to commit a pre-meditated crime, there would be lots of things to think about. Probably the biggest would be how not to get caught. The obvious reason for not wanting to get caught is the punishment, so of course I would have to at least have an idea of what the punishment for my crime would be (at the very least it would be a good idea to know) before I could begin to plan how to avoid it. If I was faced with the option of death penalty or life in prison (assuming my crime is heinous enough to get that sentence) or even just 20 years, death penalty would honestly start looking pretty good.

This is assuming of course that whatever country you're in can perform death penalty swiftly, but since that's not the case in America where I live, it might become a little different. But then again, a couple of years waiting for death would be nothing compared to 40 years of your life. So to at least me, the fact that the death penalty is not an option would make me seriously rethink committing the crime, because regardless of how thought out it was, there's always the potential that I could get caught. And yes you could try to commit suicide in prison, but then again you could mess up and spend the rest of your life on life support.

I don't know, the more that I type, the more I realize this argument is a little weak and far too specific to get a law changed. Most of the reason I even posted that argument was because there was only one person that was opposed to the Death Penalty in the whole thread. To be honest, I'm not really sure how I feel about it. I think in most cases that it shouldn't be done, but then again when you've got absolute atrocities like rape or imprisonment and torture being committed, maybe it should be used more.

[Igna]

...gives the law far too much power, is morally questionable, and can kill innocent people.

The only argument I find valid is the third.

I don't personally see how it gives the law too much power.

I'm sure it's morally questionable, but that isn't really a good reason by itself, is it? Abortion is morally questionable, yet I know you support it, at least to a degree.

I do agree that the possibility of killing innocent people is a huge downside. However, I wouldn't say that it's actually impossible to tell whether or not someone is guilty, though very difficult.

All but one of your major arguments are about how the death sentence does not help, as opposed to why it should not be used, so for right now I'm just sticking with this.