Death penalty for serious criminal offenders

[Julius Caesar]

This punishment being applied to dangerous criminals who have not shown any respect whatsoever to society and could be accused of high treason to humanity. For instance, war criminals, pederasts, heads of drug traffic cartels, kidnappers, rapists, serial killers, grave cases of corruption (e.g. politicians), etc.
------

These criminals can still pose a danger while imprisioned, not to mention that their death would protect society from further crimes that they might commit. Also, it is the people who have suffered their attrocities who have to pay their food and water while being in prision.
Furthermore, they have lost their rights by their grave violations to the rights of their victims.

This punishment would make justice to their crimes comitted - something that law does not always seek.

It is important to notice that for this punishment to work efectively we need a fairer criminal justice system where the facts of the crime matter more than the quality of legal representation.

What do you think?

[hive_king]

I am against capital punishment. For one thing, it hasn't been shown to be an effective deterrent. States without the death penalty have just as high murder rates as states without.

These criminals can still pose a danger while imprisioned, not to mention that their death would protect society from further crimes that they might commit.

So would locking them up for life. The chance of a prison break is very small, especially with modern prisons. I've been on tours of the infamous Folsom Prison, and there is no way in hell someone's getting out. And they can harm other inmates, but there's solitary for people like that. Also, its cheaper to lock them up for life. In our court system, there's a ton of appeals and systems in place to make sure an innocent person isn't executed. The appeals and whatnot end up more expensive than feeding them for life.

This brings me to another problem with execution. There is a chance that an innocent person could be executed. This would be an amazing failing of the justice system. There have been cases of new evidence coming up and people being let off of death row.

[Julius Caesar]

The chance of a prison break is very small, especially with modern prisons.

That is in the US. Here we have had several drug dealers who have been able to escape. Besides, I am not talking about the death penalty as a deterrent, but as a way to get rid once and for all of some very undesireable people.

Regarding the execution of an innocent people:
There are many drug dealers and leaders of organized crime who are very well known, but because of a lousy criminal justice system they are not even arrested! Also, it is true that with the ineptitude and corruption that exists in the courts (at least here and in many other countries worldwide) innocent people could be executed.
But what if all the evidence points towards the person being guilty? For example, here there is a famous case of a pederast called Succar Kuri very well known thanks to the journalist Lydia Cacho who wrote a book about his crimes (he is now in jail, but she is being prosecuted for difamation!)

EDIT: grammar

[Rei]

You would need to lower the caution of the courts that an innocent might be executed, however unlikely their innocence is. Until you can do that, it will still be not economically feasible and money could be better placed elsewhere. It comes down to what will cost more: chancing the prisoner will escape and commit further crimes (more cases, time lost, looking into the escape, et cetera), or going through the appeals process for every single situation where the death penalty might likey be pushed for.

[Eaquae Legit]

State-sanctioned murder is still murder. We do not have the right to kill people, no matter what they have done to deserve it.

Then there's the practical issues:
The cost of an execution exceeding the cost of life imprisonment.
The possibility of wrongful conviction.
The racism prevalent in sentencing (a black muderer is more likely to be executed than a white murderer).

I'll also add in here my depression over the erosion of judicial safeguards and requists in the States. I don't have any certainty that any trial will proceed with due process, which makes me even more leery of applying a death sentence to anyone convicted.

[lyons24000]

The chance of a prison break is very small, especially with modern prisons.

Hive_King, you are so narrow-minded. Is the USA the only country on earth?

[mr_thebrain]

the only one that matters.

[Rei]

Actually, that is probably true of all first-world countries. So methinks 'tis thee, lyons, who is the narrow-minded one

[VelvetElvis]

Is the USA the only country on earth?

Of course not. Kings must have a kingdom, you know.

[AnthonyByakko]

The Death Penalty

Oooh, what an important topic! Capital punishment! Wow!

Here's the lowdown: the Death Penalty is a non-issue. Seriously. Who. Cares.

Do you know how many people were executed last year?

60.

That's right people. More people die from alcohol each year than execution. As many people who die by the hands of the state die by the cruel hand of Zeus's mighty lightning bolts. BEES AND HORNETS AND WASPS kills as many people as the executioner. And yet, every year we have the same monstrous argument about the execution of convicted murderers and rapists. More innocent American soldiers died in Iraq LAST MONTH than in a whole year of executions. Methinks we should probably get our priorities straight before getting involved in capital punishment.

[jotabe]

Again, "innocent soldiers". I cringe every time i see that.

A person who dies is called innocent if that death is brought upon them unfairly or undeservedly.
A soldier's death is probably undeserved. But you can hardly say it is unfair that a soldier dies in a war. That's why they enroll: do die for their country if needed.
And specially in the case of America, where serving the army is completely voluntary.
And specially coming from a person who doesn't consider civilian victims to be innocent at all (strawman anyone?).

[AnthonyByakko]

Again, "innocent soldiers". I cringe every time i see that.

A person who dies is called innocent if that death is brought upon them unfairly or undeservedly.
A soldier's death is probably undeserved. But you can hardly say it is unfair that a soldier dies in a war. That's why they enroll: do die for their country if needed.
And specially in the case of America, where serving the army is completely voluntary.
And specially coming from a person who doesn't consider civilian victims to be innocent at all (strawman anyone?).

WOAH, WAIT. When in the hell did I say civilian victims weren't innocent? I vehemently protest your assumption that I think that, or ever said it.

SECONDLY, your post has abso-f***ing-lutely nothing to do with the topic.

[Eaquae Legit]

I'm arguing it because someone brought it up. And because I believe that just because there are other ways people die or are killed it doesn't mean I can't care about those who are executed.

Life to me should be protected, even if it's just a single solitary life. I think it's Schindler's List wherein one of the characters says "to save one life is to save the world entire." So if even just one person was executed last year, I'd still think it's wrong.

If you want to argue that capital punishment is a legitimate sentence for certain crimes, we can argue that. But I just want to clarify my motives here.

[AnthonyByakko]

I believe capital punishment to be wrong. For differing reasons, but still wrong. Right now, unfortunately, we have much bigger problems to deal with than execution.

Edit: Additionally, the amount of space given in the public debate to the topic is unwarranted IMO. Until we can keep people who have done nothing wrong from dying, I won't spend my time trying to keep murderers and rapists from being put to death - even if they shouldn't be killed anymore than anyone else.

[jotabe]

In discussions about Palestine-Israel conflict, or the Hamas-Israel war in Lebanon. You said that civilians were given plenty of warning, and that if they died it was their fault.

[Eaquae Legit]

Just out of curiosity, what are your reasons?

[AnthonyByakko]

In discussions about Palestine-Israel conflict, or the Hamas-Israel war in Lebanon. You said that civilians were given plenty of warning, and that if they died it was their fault.

WHAT? I don't even remember a discussion about the Palestinian-Isreali conflict!

[AnthonyByakko]

Just out of curiosity, what are your reasons?

1. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent (which is its only possible goal.) 2. It is not cost-effective. 3. It disproportionately affects racial minorities. 4. It gives power over the human life to the states, which is an egregious breach of human rights.

[Eaquae Legit]

I just need to check and make sure the end of the world hasn't started. What is with this sudden spate of agreeing with each other? This is really amusing me.

[jotabe]

WHAT? I don't even remember a discussion about the Palestinian-Isreali conflict!

humm... are you sure of that?
I am certain i have argued about that with you...

[AnthonyByakko]

Hell has not frozen over just yet. I still have yet to particpate in the "hugs" thread.

And jota, perhaps then you should start a thread about the conflict so we can argue it now (since I'm almost positive we haven't done so here.)

[jotabe]

uh... so you are not bc_hornet or hawkblaze?

[AnthonyByakko]

uh... so you are not bc_hornet or hawkblaze?

Neither. The two "extra" usernames I use here are probably already known to the mods - but just a warning, I am not the only person using either of them.

[Eaquae Legit]

bc's got a totally different style.

My suspicion is that Miguel Ardevaas is bc. The style is closer. I got no proof either way, though.

[jotabe]

Ok. Sorry, my mistake.

[Julius Caesar]

EL,

We do not have the right to kill people, no matter what they have done to deserve it.

But in the case of those villains you may treat it as self-defence, because you are trying to protect society from their crimes, as well as doing justice for what they did. Not to mention that some of them can barely be considered human, if at all.
Although I admit I do get confused about the issue of the "right to live".

The possibility of wrongful conviction.
The racism prevalent in sentencing (a black muderer is more likely to be executed than a white murderer).

I agree. But hypothetically, if those who are in charge of the sentence are really fair and objective and there is clear evidence to support the person's guilt, would it then be right to execute him? Again, I think the bottom line is if we have the right to take the life of another.

AnthonyB,

1. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent (which is its only possible goal.)

What about seeking for justice, and protecting society from them?

[Rei]

Locking someone away for life is still less expensive and will deter people just as much as the death penalty.

As for your barely human argument, you are treading on VERY thin ice here. As soon as one person has less value than another, you are just begging for trouble. It is far safer to assume that everyone is equally human and that some people simply choose to do more wicked things than others. There is an intrinsic value to human life which can not be altered by their actions. And if this intrinsic value exists, it is equally wrong to kill a prisoner as it is to kill others who can not defend themselves. (And let me warn you now, anything suggesting that some humans have lesser value than others, especially when it comes to a general societal perspective, implies that the mentally disabled are worth less than others and you do NOT want to suggest that anywhere where it might get back to EL. Trust me on this. It is not worth your life.)

[Eaquae Legit]

EL,

We do not have the right to kill people, no matter what they have done to deserve it.

But in the case of those villains you may treat it as self-defence, because you are trying to protect society from their crimes, as well as doing justice for what they did. Not to mention that some of them can barely be considered human, if at all.
Although I admit I do get confused about the issue of the "right to live".

Self defence only applies when there is immediate and severe danger. If you attack me with a knife, I will defend myself. I won't try to kill you, because I still don't have the right to, but you might die anyway. I won't be guilty of murder, but I still had no right to kill you.

If there is no immediate and severe danger, you cannot use the excuse of "self-defence." You can protect society just as well by locking them away.

A criminal is human. They do not suddenly become animals. They are not animals. Denying someone's humanity only displays your own lack. We are the most human, the most civilised and ethical, when we resist the urge to treat other human beings like animals.

The possibility of wrongful conviction.
The racism prevalent in sentencing (a black muderer is more likely to be executed than a white murderer).

I agree. But hypothetically, if those who are in charge of the sentence are really fair and objective and there is clear evidence to support the person's guilt, would it then be right to execute him? Again, I think the bottom line is if we have the right to take the life of another.

Problem is, that doesn't happen. There's no way to ensure it, and there is never going to be a zero probability of an innocent man being killed. So your argument is moot. We do not have the means to ensure an innocent man isn't killed, so we have no business killing anyone.

AnthonyB,

1. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent (which is its only possible goal.)

What about seeking for justice, and protecting society from them?

As many people have said, society is amply protected by putting criminals in jail. Murder, even state-sanctioned, is never just. The justice system isn't here so you can get your rocks off by killing someone.

[Julius Caesar]

Rei,

(And let me warn you now, anything suggesting that some humans have lesser value than others, especially when it comes to a general societal perspective, implies that the mentally disabled are worth less than others and you do NOT want to suggest that anywhere where it might get back to EL. Trust me on this. It is not worth your life.)

Ok, but do not put words in my mouth, the idea of the mentally disabled had not even crossed my mind. And just to clarify, I am not someone who does not care for the lives of others - it is precisely those lives which I'm talking about protecting from harm.
And I have aknowledged your arguments (both yours and EL's), and agree with most, although I'm still trying to rearange my thoughts.

I liked what EL said: "We are the most human, the most civilised and ethical, when we resist the urge to treat other human beings like animals. " You are right.

However:

The justice system isn't here so you can get your rocks off by killing someone.

OK, but let's also notice that sometimes it seems that the justice system is not there at all. Getting back to the example of the pederast - the journalist is being prosecuted for difamation!!! I mean, most of the time the law is on the side of the person who has power and money and a good legal representation. Law does not always equals justice.
So even when you argue that an innocent might be executed, what about all the innocents that are now in jail? The law has dishonored them and robbed them of their reputation, which for some it does not matter, and for others (like the Orientals) it is the most important thing they have - honour.

Edit: spelling

[Eaquae Legit]

What about all the innocents in jail? They're in jail. They aren't dead. They have hope of being exonerated and compensated.

[Rei]

Ok, but do not put words in my mouth, the idea of the mentally disabled had not even crossed my mind. And just to clarify, I am not someone who does not care for the lives of others - it is precisely those lives which I'm talking about protecting from harm.

I did not think you had thought of that, but I thought I ought to warn you just in case, because they are treated as sub-human or even animals. And when a scale of human value is introduced, this becomes assumed. We've done very well at trying to make equal both race and sex, but there are groups that are still seen as less than human and when one group is pointed out as such, my first concern is that the others may be seen that way. I am glad that you do take concern for them.

[hive_king]

An innocent person in jail can be let free. They can be given a pardon if evidence comes up in the future to show they're innocent. If someone's dead, and evidence comes up, all you can do is say "oh wow, we fowled up. sorry!" Also, you can reclaim your honor, earn it back like that watergate guy or tookie williams (a former gangmember who ended up writing books warning kids to stay out of gangs, before the state of California executed him) did. If you're dead, all you can do is decompose.

[Eaquae Legit]

If someone's dead, and evidence comes up, all you can do is say "oh wow, we fowled up. sorry!"

Where's the chicken smilie when I need him?

[Julius Caesar]

Yeah...that's true...although when it is the powerful and rich who blame an innocent, it will be difficult for him to get out...

[ti_ama]

. It is far safer to assume that everyone is equally human and that some people simply choose to do more wicked things than others. There is an intrinsic value to human life which can not be altered by their actions.

I have to disagree that with the assumption that everyone is equally human. Throughout history people have proved exactly the opposite. There are many people who deserve the death penalty. Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Pickton, the terrorists of 911.. IMO anyone who takes away the rights of others for their own motives instantly strips themselves of any rights guaranteed by their government.

On a moral note, disregarding money, innocence, etc; I think that EVERY serial killer/rapist/pedophile deserves nothing more than a long fall on the end of a short rope. Bottom line. You can discuss how much it would cost, debate the innocence of the convicted, question if racism was involved; but the fact remains that those animals who commited these crimes should be executed.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth.