Kvalhion

Obviously severe punishment will LIMIT the behavior it is trying to limit. It will NEVER prevent it.

Severely punishing people for doing things that are a part of human nature is not a viable solution. This is what I meant that the more and more laws that seek to control behavior, the less it is an effective solution for doing so. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

beachbum

As I have mentioned I have written on this topic and have an opinion. As to religious support of the death penalty I did some research. I know that statistics can be manipulated as you want and I have manipulated these to fit what I want (hahahaha)

In countries (primarily third world) that are predominantly Muslim the death pnealty is used

In countries (primarily third world) that are predominantly Catholic, the death penalty is outlawed or not used.

In countries (primarily third world) that are predominantly Protestant the death penalty is used.


As Albert Camus said in "Reflections on the Guillotine"

“For there to be equivalence, the death
would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict
a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for
months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."

joshack

I'm not sure about the definition of atheism used on this board, so I hesitate to identify myself as such, but I am not opposed to the death penalty. Further, I would like to hear more arguments concerning the inherent negatives of the DP. So far, the majority of reponses can be summed up as follows:

1. not cost-effective
2. not immune to wrongly convicted people

These are legitimate issues. But they are also procedural - they can be solved. Therefore I don't consider them arguments against the DP in principle. What about deterrance? It may be true that the DP does not deter others from committing similar crimes (although it may in fact deter the murder from future murders, a legitimate concern). But is that really the point of the DP? I don't believe so. If we can clearly identify a murderer who shows no remorse and is highly likely to commit more such crimes, why should that person not be removed from society? Personally, I would favor banishment to some isolated island, but seeing as how that probably won't happen, why not the DP? One could surely make the case that there is substantial harm coming from keeping such a person in prison (to the other prisoners, physically and to their rehabilitation).

kookiejar

I think that it is a travesty that so many innocent people are put in jail (and even death row) just because the police, lawyers and judges are ashamed that they didn't do their jobs correctly.

Having said that, however, my 20-year-old cousin had a flat tire driving from Lincoln to Omaha in the mid 80s. Two men stopped and asked if she needed help changing her tire. Instead of helping her they dragged her into the tall grass by the side of the highway, raped and killed her. These two animals were never caught. My family grieves daily for Stephanie. If any of us knew for certain who these men were, the death penalty would be the only option.

Call it a barbaric need for revenge if you like, but that's how I feel.

free12thinker

I'll call it a need for revenge, but I'll also call it natural. People say things and believe things out of emotion and anger, even when those same beliefs would not extend to similar circumstances, and that's nature.

That said, I disagree with your take on why innocent people are put in jail. Innocent people may be put in jail because of police/judge/attorney errors, but when you state that it's because they are ashamed of it--I think you go too far. That would be saying that they knew they did something wrong and still kept the case going--just to save face. This may happen at times, but that doesn't make it the norm--and your wording make it seem like the norm. I am pro-death penalty and I also believe cops and prosecutors don't have enough rights, and criminals have way too many rights.

Alonzo Fyfe

I wrote my views on capital punishment in an article I got published in 1997. The text of that article follows:


Murder is unjustified intentional killing. It is not sufficient that there be justification (a sound reason) to kill somebody, the person doing the killing must kill for that reason. Thus, if I should shoot some random person, only to have it discovered later that, quite by coincidence, this was somebody who deserved to die, this would not mitigate against the fact that I committed murder.

The three most common reasons offered for capital punishment do not justify killing. Thus, people killed for these three reasons are murdered.


1. Specific deterrence: capital punishment is justified to prevent the commission of a future crime.

Objection 1: Imagine a psychological test for high school students whereby it is shown that those who fail are as likely to commit a future crime as are those arrested for having committed that crime in the past. The ability to prevent a future crime would be the same in both cases. If it is permissible to kill to prevent a future crime, than we are just as justified in killing those highschool students who fail this test as we are those who have committed murder. Or, in other words, if preventing a future crime does not justify killing these high-school students, it does notjustify capital punishment for murderers.

Objection 2: (This is actually a way of rephrasing above), a person being executed to prevent a future crime is, in effect, being punished for a crime that he did not commit. Not only is he being presumed guilty (rather than being presumed innocent unless proved to be guilty), he is being presumed guilty of crime that does not exist.

Thus, killing to prevent a future crime counts as murder.


2. Retributive justice: Justice requires a punishment that fits the crime.

Objection 1: There is no such thing as "justice." If it does exist, what is it? What type of instrument can detect how much "justice" is contained within a particular action? Justice is a myth of our own design, and mythological properties can not justify a real-world execution.

Objection 2: I have demonstrated above that executions done in the name of preventing a future crime count as murder. If there is a "justice" that insists on a punishment fitting of a crime, than this "justice" is going to require the execution of a great many people. The absurdity of these types of conclusions argues against any notion that we may kill to serve justice.

Thus, killing to serve justice counts as murder.


3. General deterrence. Capital punishment is justified as a means of preserving social order.

Objection 1: There are orderly societies that do not have capital punishment.

Objection 2: There is no statistical evidence that capital punishment is a deterrence.

Objection 3: If capital punishment is really a deterrence, then why are most capital crimes committed by young males (those who have more of a life to lose through execution), rather than older individuals who will only lose a couple of years of their life? The fact that younger people commit more capital crimes than older people argues against the notion that capital punishment is a deterrent.

Objection 4: General deterrence effectively holds a person accountable for the actions of others. "We are not killing you because of what you did, we are killing you as a way of keeping these other people from doing the same thing." To which a response: "Why is it my fault that others might do the same thing?" is quite reasonable.

Thus, execution as a means of general deterrence counts as murder.

One last argument against the death penalty.

Most criminal acts involve rationalization; that is, reconceptualizing the action so that it conforms with society's moral standards. This is most often illustrated in rape cases, where the offender reconceptualizes his act as one carried out in the name of justice (she deserved it) or charity (really, she wanted it). Murderers also rationalize their actions. An attitude that killing another is never justified should have the effect of reducing the number of murders by cutting off this mental component that makes it possible for a person to commit murder -- the belief that killing is sometimes justified. This may well be why societies that reject the death penalty tend to have lower murder rates.

Gar

Personally I don't think that killing people for commiting certain crimes is wrong. Under a social contract people have rights and responsibilities, and if you don't live up to the responsibilities you don't get the rights. If someone kills someone else intentionally, they forfeit the right to live.

Now, whether it is an effective detterent is another question. I always felt it would be a good idea to donate the really heinous ones to science, dead or alive. I'll bet that would deter them, and we would also get human subjects for experiments. Mind you, this is for only the worst of the worst.

free12thinker

I don't think it's effectiveness should even play into it. I think that putting someone to death for First Degree murder is justified reason enough. I don't want to see statistics or reports regarding its effectiveness or it's social impact. Removing someones life for removing someone else's, is justfication enough, under the Social Contract theory, or otherwise.

joshack

Alonzo,

Thanks for your reply. I would like to address point 2. The others may be important but I think they do not necessarily address the usefulness of the death penalty. Deterrance is not a necessary justification for the DP - it can have other uses.

2. Retributive justice: Justice requires a punishment that fits the crime.
Objection 1: There is no such thing as "justice." If it does exist, what is it? What type of instrument can detect how much "justice" is contained within a particular action? Justice is a myth of our own design, and mythological properties can not justify a real-world execution.

I believe that there is such a thing as justice, aside from the fact that our "justice system" defines it into being. Retribution is a natural human desire - it is present in all societies. Justice may be defined as that which causes a person to feel that wrongs against them have been "paid for" or evened out. Therefore, each individual has their own conception of justice. In our society, we do not practice eye for an eye - we allow our social system to set the standards of justice. This is not always ideal for the victim, but it can be rationalized. But what sort of justice makes up for the special case of intentional murder? There really is none. Often, family members of murder victims report desires to torture the perpetrator, physically or mentally. In this case, it may seem that the DP is more humane. But it's also true that not everyone supports the DP. Perhaps one option, to get a better handle on justice, would be to let family members, spouses or whomever decide a convicted murderer's fate - a life sentence or the DP.

On a side note - even if you can make the argument that the DP is murder, it is a VERY different kind of murder than the "regular." A murder victim was killed in response to no particular actions of their own. A DP victim was killed because they decided to disobey a social mandate, for which they knew they could be killed.

Jamie_L

As I've said, I don't disagree with the death penalty in principal. Yes, if someone killed my wife or children, I would very much want to kill them. However, I once heard a great quote (from whom I don't remember) that went something like: Our laws should strive to be better than we are.

Before you scoff at that, think about it. The simplest solution to justice is to just alow people to engage in vigilante justice as they see fit. You kill my kids. I kill you. Fair enough. Why is that outlawed? Simple - as a society we do not trust people to go around meeting out their own justice. We rightly fear the consequences - especially with regard to innocent people getting hurt. So, although I may feel strongly that I would want to kill someone who killed my family, I accept that I do not have that right - because accepting that protects all of us.

This is also how I feel about the death penalty. Yes, some people deserve to die for their crimes. However, the existence of the death penalty puts innocents at risk. I accept the fact that this means people who deserve to die will get to live, because this is what ensures safety for us all - what ensures that the government will never kill my wife or children for a crime they did not commit.

Someone said procedural modifications can prevent the innocent from being wrongly convicted. I say nay. Certainly improvements can reduce the chance of executing innocents, but it can NEVER eliminate that possiblity. Cops, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, and defendants are all human. There are enough people in the loop that there will ALWAYS be room for error. This isn't about corruption or intentional misconduct. Winess identification alone is fraught with problems because of human nature alone. It is the least reliable form of evidence, but the evidence most believed by jurors. People have been executed on the testimony of one eye-witness alone, with many strong alibi winesses. That in and of itself is reason to fear the death penalty.

The other half of the equation is: what is lost by having no death penalty. I make the assumption that if the DP is gone, then all people who would currently be on death row will have life in prison without parole instead. So, what negative effects would this situation produce:

1) Cost - due to long encarcerations of death row inmates and automatic appeals (which are necessary to protect the innocent), I don't think you would pay any more to keep these prisoners alive for the rest of their lives as oppposed to executing them.

2) Potential future harm - Is society protected as well if these people are alive? Well, they can escape from death row as easily as from another prison. They just have more time to try if they get life instead of DP. But this is a sort of "procedural" problem in and of itself. Prisons for these people must be made as escape-proof as possible. Furthermore, what's the relative risk? In the DP, the risk is escape + executing an innocent. In LWOP (life without parole), the risk is a slightly (very slightly) gerater chance of escape. It seems to me that at worst this is a wash. And it seems wrong to me to say it's better to put innocents to death than try to increase prison security.

3) Closure for victims - An arguement often made is the need for execution to provide closure to victims and families of victims. Again, it seems wrong to say innocents can be executed occasionally so that other innocents can get closure. And what about the families of victims of wrongful execution? They get no closure. In fact, it's worse for them - their attacker can't even be put in prison. It's the government - it just says "Oops. Sorry." Maybe it gives them a little money. IF they every prove it was wrong.

No one has ever given me a convincing argument of why LWOP is significantly worse for society than the DP. If they are dead equal, then in my mind LWOP wins by default, because innocents aren't executed. To me, executing an innocent man is one of the most horrible offences our government can perform. We are outraged when cops break down the wrong door and accidently shoot an innocent home-owner. Why aren't we equally outraged at the prospect of the justice system executing an innocent person. It is simple to remove this possibility: end the DP. LWOP can serve the same function. On a personal level, it does not put my family at any more risk from crime, and it completely eliminates the risk of someone in my family being wrongly executed.

Jamie