Capital Punishment

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fonceai To hop into the topic... Capital Punishment is appropriate. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. For those who challenge the perceived legitimacy of the punishment, I also believe that by committing a crime you forgo the protection of that right you violated. Kill a person and you are no longer entitled to having your right to life protected.

Why should the punishment fit the crime?

What would be the advantage of intentionally stripping the rights of criminals from them? Do you believe it acts as a deterrent?

[Fonceai]

It serves multiple purposes.

It shows consistency in punishment which is a potential deterrent.

And it also removes a criminal from society.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fonceai It serves multiple purposes. It shows consistency in punishment which is a potential deterrent. And it also removes a criminal from society.

Why is consistency in punishment a deterrent? I would think that consistency in conviction would be a deterrent, as people tend to think they won't get caught for their crimes, not that they will get off with a light punishment after they are caught.

Life in prison also removes a criminal from society. What is the advantage of killing that criminal?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Coffee Why is consistency in punishment a deterrent? I would think that consistency in conviction would be a deterrent, as people tend to think they won't get caught for their crimes, not that they will get off with a light punishment after they are caught.

Here is an example of why I believe that the consistency of punishment is more of a deterrent than getting caught. You may not agree with the example itself, but try to bear with the concept I'm illustrating.

Speeding.

Sometimes you speed, sometimes you don't.
When you are, you usually get away with it. There is no consistency in getting caught.

But consider that most people accept the chance of getting caught because even then there is a chance that they will be let of with a warning. Or the cop/trooper will write a lesser violation. Or the person can bring the speeding ticket to a lawyer to gets it dropped to a non-moving violation.

There is no consistency in punishment.

If you knew that the penalty for speeding was, for example, $20 for every mile over the speed limit, and there were no exceptions... radar gun reading says 62, you're in a 40, that's a ticket for $440... would you still risk speeding?

In nearly every aspect of disobedience-apprehension-punishment, from adults to even little kids, there is the realization that the punishment might not be so bad. Or even inconsistent.

Quote by: Coffee Life in prison also removes a criminal from society. What is the advantage of killing that criminal?

That's a tough question.

Some might believe that life in prison isn't as bad as death... you live for free in a structured and highly regulated environment where you need to be physically and emotionally tough.

On the other hand, some might believe that life in prison is worse than death... they might be smaller, weaker, slower, or even worse... have a "purty mouth". They might rather die.

Regardless, and considering the costs and over-crowding of prisons today, giving death to those who want it... and using death as a deterrent for those that don't... still serves to be consistent.

[shawmutt]

I'm against capital punishment for reasons stated in previous posts. However, some have cited "cost" and "prison crowding" as reasons to enforce capital punishment.

So what's my suggestion? I say legalize pot. There are about one million people in prison right now for non-violent marijuana offenses. One million. That's a lot of three square meals and room and board to be paying. Legalize pot, and these people will be freed. Take the courts and the cops off pot cases and put them on hard drug cases, and even more money will be saved and they will be more effective at stopping hard drug use, which will make people happy. Tax pot like we tax cigs and booze, and a lot of money can be made.

Resources are freed up and/or put to better use, revenue is increased, and we can afford to keep the people who belong in prison there for the rest of their lives, because we aren't keeping a million non-violent potheads in there.

Here's the kicker. How many people have killed in a drunken rage? OK, keep that figure in mind. Now, how many people have killed in a pot-induced daze (laced-in drugs don't count)? NONE! OK, one, because I'm sure one of you will chime in with "well I knew this one dude..." Anyway, if pot was legal, a pissed off dude would go to his local smoke shop, buy some bud, and chill the **** out. However, since pot is illegal, the pissed off dude goes into a bar, gets drunk, and beats/shoots/stabs/shovels to death any dude that looks at him crossways, and winds up on death row.

As a disclaimer--No, I don't smoke pot. However, if it was legal I'd probably light up every now and then.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fonceai Here is an example of why I believe that the consistency of punishment is more of a deterrent than getting caught. You may not agree with the example itself, but try to bear with the concept I'm illustrating. Speeding. Sometimes you speed, sometimes you don't. When you are, you usually get away with it. There is no consistency in getting caught. But consider that most people accept the chance of getting caught because even then there is a chance that they will be let of with a warning. Or the cop/trooper will write a lesser violation. Or the person can bring the speeding ticket to a lawyer to gets it dropped to a non-moving violation. There is no consistency in punishment. If you knew that the penalty for speeding was, for example, $20 for every mile over the speed limit, and there were no exceptions... radar gun reading says 62, you're in a 40, that's a ticket for $440... would you still risk speeding? In nearly every aspect of disobedience-apprehension-punishment, from adults to even little kids, there is the realization that the punishment might not be so bad. Or even inconsistent.

I see your point (though it is a bad analogy for me -- I drive like a grandmother in a Model T:) ), but I also think that consistent apprehension would be effective as well. People speed because they don't think they'll get caught for it; in those areas where there are known speed traps, people generally slow down, even with the whole "possible warning/no ticket" consideration. So it might be more effective to try to improve our ability to catch and convict criminals, rather than concentrating on sentencing.

More to the point, consistency in sentencing doesn't require capital punishment; life without parole, actually enforced as life WITHOUT parole, would have the same consistent deterrent effect.

Quote by: Fonceai That's a tough question. Some might believe that life in prison isn't as bad as death... you live for free in a structured and highly regulated environment where you need to be physically and emotionally tough. On the other hand, some might believe that life in prison is worse than death... they might be smaller, weaker, slower, or even worse... have a "purty mouth". They might rather die. Regardless, and considering the costs and over-crowding of prisons today, giving death to those who want it... and using death as a deterrent for those that don't... still serves to be consistent.

I am utterly indifferent to which is harder for the prisoner to deal with, because suffering is subjective. Some people fear death, some fear prison; some might change their minds part way through. I also feel indifference simply because I think the penal system has one purpose: to try to ensure that the criminal does not commit the crime again. I think there are far better methods of preventing crime than deterrence through draconian penalties -- better education, economic programs, anti-drug programs, etc. -- and I think justice is an illusion, and also a subjective ideal. Some victims may want their attacker killed, some might want him forgiven; which is justice? In moral terms, we should let karma or god or what have you deal with the balancing of the scales. In practical terms, all that matters is that this criminal does not commit this crime again. If jail can accomplish that, and it seems it can, then there is no reason to use the death penalty and several reasons not to -- not the least of which is the fact that capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment. The main reason for me is the simple fact that the death penalty cannot be taken back, and as long as the justice system is fallible, we should not be imposing irrevocable penalties. A man can be released from prison.

[sevendogs]

Capital punishment is ethical, or not, it depends on your personal view, but it is a practical necessity for a very diverse and free society. A lot of lives had been saved, when serial killers were caught and executed. Execution is important, because death penalty is a deterrent for many would be killers. I always support capital punishment for certain kind of crimes.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: sevendogs Capital punishment is ethical, or not, it depends on your personal view, but it is a practical necessity for a very diverse and free society. A lot of lives had been saved, when serial killers were caught and executed. Execution is important, because death penalty is a deterrent for many would be killers. I always support capital punishment for certain kind of crimes.

I don't believe that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than life in prison. I'm not sure that any prison sentence acts as a deterrent; effective police forces act as deterrents. As for saving lives, Charles Manson and David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam) haven't killed anyone since they were caught -- and they're still alive. In prison.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Exactly, I'm not sure how death is much more secure than high security prison, short of a national catastrophe, they're not getting out.

[sevendogs]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I don't believe that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than life in prison. I'm not sure that any prison sentence acts as a deterrent; effective police forces act as deterrents. As for saving lives, Charles Manson and David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam) haven't killed anyone since they were caught -- and they're still alive. In prison.

I know that in some rural communities far away from the law, crime is non-existent, because of vigilante style activity. The same was in some places in the wild West. Criminals run away form there. Killing at the spot was the best way of crime control. but they made their own mistakes, too. Capital pubishment survives purely by practical reason. Majorty favors it. Mee too. Life in American jails is like in the country club. People who commited horrible crimes enjoy sex with willing women seeking extra excitement, watch TV, spend time in libraries. I was surprized watching some progams about this in TV shows.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not for those convicted of heinous crimes, restriction of such privleges is easy. By the way, how many country clubs have you been to where the golfers rape each other.

[sevendogs]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Not for those convicted of heinous crimes, restriction of such privleges is easy. By the way, how many country clubs have you been to where the golfers rape each other.

Understand, those have to be "coutry clubs" for homosexuals. I am no in this and cannot comment further.

[Gods_Mercenary]

That's not the point, prison is by no means a nice thing, especially if you have no hope of leaving.

[RULE 1]

I Am Against The Death Penalty....first Of All Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right And If Someone Has Taught You Differently Then They Need A Reality Check. Yes We Do Use Some Of The Teachings Of The Bible In The Criminal Justice System, Such As "an Eye For An Eye" But We Can't Always Use Those Ethics In Certain Situations Because It May Cause More Friction. Have You Ever Thought About Where Our Tax Money Goes? We Are Paying For Inmates Who Are Sentenced To The Death Penalty And They Are Living Comfortable Off Of Our Money. To Me It Doesn't Make Sense To Sentence A Person To Death When It Takes About 20- 30 Yrs Just To Go Through With The Process. If You Want A Person Dead That Much Then Why In The Hell Does It Take So Long When All It Takes Is 5-10 Minutes For The Person To Die.

[RULE 1]

When We Sentence A Person To The Death Penalty, I Do Feel That You Are Making Their Life Easier Because Then They Don't Have To Suffer Anymore. You're Giving Them The Satisfaction Pf Death. I Also Think That There Are Many Innocent People On Death Row Being The Simple Fact That Years Ago Dna Could Not Prove Their Innocence And Now Those Inmates That Have Already Deceased We May Never Know Whether They Were Really Innocent Or Guilty

[Mozart1220]

Think of the three most heinious crimes you can.

Charles Manson

Jeffery Dahmer

Susan Smith

What is the common denominator?

NO DEATH PENALTY.

Manson and his girls got the death penalty, but it was eliminated in california and al the sentences were commuted to life.


Dahmer committed his crimes in Wisconsin which has no death penalty.


Susan Smith escaped the needle by ASKING FOR IT.



I think there should be a national death penalty, but only in cases of absolute certainty like the ones above. Had OJ been found guilty it wouldn't have been on the table because there was so much doubt.


Why NOT kill the prisinor instead of the "worse" punishment of life in prison?


Well, my brother and my step-Dad were both prison guards for many years. They both talk about how it costs about the same to keep a guy in prison for a year as it would to send him to Harvard.

A lethal injection is much cheaper, and if we are gouing to keep many of these people inprison for the rest of their lives, what's the point? They are notheing more then, then a burdon on the taxpayer, and the only advantage is to our consience. (sorry, bad spelling)


Now if we took away the cable TV, the wieght rooms and the free lawyers, and put them to work making little rocks out of big ones again, MAYBE prison would be a deterrent, but as it stands now, prison is "criminal college" and is a badge of honor, NOT a deterrent.

Besides, the constituin bans "cruel AND unusual" punishment. That "AND" is important, because we can punish anyone any way we want as long as it's consistant. It can be "cruel" but as long as it's not "unusual" the constitution is served. Likewise, the punishment can be "unusual" as long as it's not "cruel".

See the logic?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Besides, the constituin bans "cruel AND unusual" punishment. That "AND" is important, because we can punish anyone any way we want as long as it's consistant. It can be "cruel" but as long as it's not "unusual" the constitution is served. Likewise, the punishment can be "unusual" as long as it's not "cruel". See the logic?

The "AND" thing is interesting.

However, undoubtedly people in this thread have raised the issue that killing someone costs much more than putting him in prison: legal costs, court appeals, etc.
No citation though.