The Death Penalty

[Joseph27]

Whilst reading the straights times this morning I noticed that a certain gentleman has been sentenced to be hanged for his role in the murder of his wife.  Got me thinking about the right of the state to put a citizen to death.

My take – I used to be anti death penalty – used all the standard arguments about the cruelty and inhuman notion of state sanctioned executions.  I remember the first time I watched Dead Man Walking I was upset at the idea that he was executed but frankly now I like the fact that he was.  Indeed the idea of him living after doing what he did now is sickening.

Is it justifiable for a State to execute a citizen – and if so – for what crimes?

[Burbage]

Many people there are who deserve to die, but there are many people who have died that deserve to live. Can you give life to them? Then don't be so hasty to mete out death as punishment.

A slightly paraphrased JRR Tolkien, from LOTR. Was in the  first film too. I think it sums up my position pretty well.

[Manc Man]

Justifiable? How?

Deterrent? The US has the most blood thirsty judicial system of the "civilized" nations yet has the highest serious crime rate.

Cost? It certainly is cheaper to kill somone than to hold them for life. So you do what? A NPV calculation of incarceration vs. execution and kill anyone when it presents the cheaper option? Seems improbable.

Blood lust. Death penalty above all seems to be driven by revenge, biblical blood lust and the desire of politicians to be "hard". Acceptable? Not so sure.

I can't think of a logically supportable reason for the death penalty in a civilized country, but someone kills a family member I'll happily flip the switch on them myself.

But is this primitive blood lust a good basis for a legal system? I don't think so.

[nosy]

Even if there is a slight chance of giving an innocent person the death penalty, then the system is not going to work. We all know that the justice system in no country works well whether it be adeversary or inquisitorial. And that is in countries where we see the law as being fair. There are many innocent people who are convicted due to the lack of evidence or the court's perseption of things. As a result, how can we gamble with someone's life?

On another note, think about why somebody is prosecuted? It is because they have done soemthing wrong. Right or wrong is what we have defined in our societies. We have every right to enforce that and remove those who choose not to abide by them. If someone chooses to live in our society, then they should follow the law. That is fair. If they choose not to follow the law, then they should be removed away from society. But and this is a big but, do we in fact have the right to take someone's life because they have not followed the rules. If we take the life of a murderer, are we not in fact murderers too?

[Sue C]

Agree PhilM, the slight chance of executing an innocent far outweighs the injustice of not executing someone who is guilty.

If it wasn't for the above I too would be a supporter of the death penalty.  If someone knows that the punishment for a crime is the death penalty and they still choose to commit the crime, then haven't they chosen the death penalty?

[Joseph27]

It is indeed ironic however that the death penalty can serve as a vehicle to assess the true guilt or innocence of a person. There have been a number of instances of people being tried to a crime - convicted and sent to prison for the next 30 years without having done anything. In other cases the death penalty has sharpended the defence in the countless appeals.

I personally dont have a moral objection to state sanctioned executions but as you say phil unless the system is flay proof it is hard to condone.  That being said - if there is proof beyond a shadow of doubt - ie 100 people saw them do it - then i have little regard the criminal.  Do it Chinese style and put a bullet in the back of their head - however only after you implement the lashings first

[expat1]

People argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent.  I disagree.  I believe that violet crime and drug dealing in SG are low because "justice" here is swift and harsh.  One reason the death penalty is not a deterrent in the US is because very few criminals are actually put to death and then only decades after they have committed their crime.  

[Burbage]

Hmm... PhilM,

Hardly a moot point in a thread about the death penalty, but disturbing nonetheless. Or perhaps you are suggesting that executing all the petty criminals would solve the problem?

I think that jails are way too soft on criminals. And it costs taxpayers a fortune to keep them that way. Personally I recommend the "iso-cube" system from the Judge Dredd stories. A 4ftx4ft box to live in, completely alone for the duration of the sentence. Sentences could be reduced, and more criminals could be banged up.

They have to not want to go to jail! Otherwise, where is the punishment?

Also, as long as there is no death penalty, the occassional miscarriage of justice must be considered acceptable, but only as long as the judicial system otherwise delivers a safer society.

[Bruno]

The state has no right to take the life of its citizens, especially when the decision-making process is far from perfect. Life-long incarceration, and I mean life, is more preferable. It's even cheaper, considering the cost of Death Row appeals.

Lastly, the US may have the highest gun crime rate in the western world, but it has many equals in serious crime. The crime rate in New York, for example, is quite less than that in London.

[tinky winky]

In THEORY, I'm all for the death penalty for vicious crimes.  Some of the crimes one reads about are mind boggling and could only be committed by monsters.  Give the death penalty to anyone who kills a police officer since this is not just an assault on an individual. They attack society and social order.  Also drug dealers who destroy lives and communities en mass.  Kill them all.  

The idea that if the judicial system makes even one mistake and an innocent person is put to death is a little weak given the number of depraved criminals and the scale of the tragedy they inflict on the world.

That said, the problem in the United States is not that once in a great while an innocent person is put to death.  Although the percentage of innocent people actually executed is vanishingly small, there is a real possiblity that many more innocents will be executed as funding for public defense continues to be cut.  People accused of capital crimes get WORSE representation than other defendants since public defenders know they will be poorly compensated for a long trial that will carry immense expenses.  The problem is obviously at its worst in Texas which as the whole world knows has an exceedingly "law and order" culture.  This concern has lead the governor of one state (was it Illinois?) to halt all executions until the situation is remedied.

Expat1 makes an excellent point about Singapore's death penalty detering drug traffic, however studies in the United States have shown no correlation between states with the death penalty and a reduction in violent crime, Texas being the obvious example.  NYC's reduction in violent crime correlates not with their reintroduction of the death penalty but with two factors: 1. A drop in the percentage of the population that is young and male.  (This is temporary as another boomlet will mature soon.)  2. Former Mayor Giuliani's controversial "broken windows" law enforcement policy where even minor infractions were punished fully and swiftly.  This provided both a deterrent and potential violent offenders were jailed for relatively minor crimes.  They were not free to commit more violent crimes.

Finally, the death penalty has got to be more humane than a 4' by 4' box for x years!  Or was this a joke?  If prison produces criminals, than what does that produce??!!!

[Joseph27]

Maybe Singapore is correct in their policies - kill them quick - and thoroughly.
If someone is put into prison then they should be forced to work for their living - in other words manual labour for the duration of their sentence with the ability for study to those who show potential to be reformed.  

Otherwise work 15 hours a day splitting rocks for 25 years - should make people think twice if that was the best case scenario for a serious crime. If they are less fortunate they get hanged straight up.  Now that is how things should work.  Its better than going into prison to become somebodies bitch for the duration

[Babettes Feast]

There are those who say that dangerous prisoners with life sentences are only wasting taxpayers' dollars, but there is no judiciary system in the world that is infallible. Innocent people are still being sentenced to death. Besides, an eye for an eye is not the way to go.

I can't support something that makes some innocent people pay the ultimate price.

The justice system is imperfect, but there's nothing imperfect about an execution. When you're dead, you're dead, and I can't believe we take death penalty convictions so lightly.

None of us should endorse homicide as an official policy of any state/country.

[tinky winky]

Babette's Feast,  your concern with innocent people being sentenced to death suggests that you are opposed to innocent people dying.  However: 1. What about recidivists?  In the US, convicted killers who were not sentenced to death have been released on parole and then killed again.  Their victims were innocent.  Should society accept the death of these many innocent people in the interests of sparing the few people wrongly convicted? Maybe this isn't fair, but it's the least unfair.

2.  "Locking them up for life" sounds good, but implies a cost-benefit decision.  No one likes to put a price on human life, but that's de facto what you do when you make priorities for public spending.  Should we spend $100,000/yr/convict (a LOW figure) on keeping alive all killers (with an occaisional innocent), or should we spend that money keeping alive hundreds of poor children in third world countries?  Or should we institute universal health care in the US?  Or should we buy aids drugs for Africans?  Should we eliminate malaria in India?  Should we...?  Of all these lofty goals, why do you chose to spend millions of dollars keeping alive hundreds of killers on the chance that one of them is innocent?

3.  Re state sanctioned killing.  Do you think there is ever a justification for war?  How about against Hitler during WWII?  Innocent soldiers on both sides, not to mentioned non-combatant bystanders, were killed.  How about Bosnia?  Should we have gone into Rwanda and stopped the mass slaughter there?  One could argue that in certain cases, the state MUST kill.  As in 1. , this may not be fair, but it's a lot more fair than allowing Hitler to take over Europe (and the world?) because we didn't want to kill.  Where would the Jews, the gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped be now were it not for the Allies' willingness to kill?

I say, fix the criminal justice system so that people accused of capital crimes have a VIGOROUS defense and hence, access to Justice.  Then, if they are convicted, kill them.  And accept that this is Earth not Utopia.  Some poor unfortunates will be executed unfairly by the state.  They will be far fewer in number than those unfortunates killed by the accused.

[kes]

Sister Prejean spoke at my brother's commencement back in 1999.  She is the nun from 'Dead Man's Walking.'  It was very interesting listening to her speaking at a commencement at a Catholic university.

She still believes that the death penalty does not solve society's problems and that prisoners still have the ability to repent for their crimes and that families should seek forgiveness.

I really have no opinion on the death penalty.  However, I do want to ask, in the case of Timothy McVeigh, aside from US law on murdering US citizens which carries the death penalty, was it justified for the US government to execute him for what he did?  Is it justifiable to execute someone for killing hundreds?

[Babettes Feast]

tinky winky, of course I’m opposed to innocent people dying.

1. As for recidivists, I think a convicted killer should not be paroled if there is even the slightest doubt that he might kill again. Research has shown that recidivists generally fit a certain profile: poor social supports, antisocial lifestyles, poor self-management strategies and difficulties cooperating with community supervision. Such people should not be released.

2. Where is this ‘altruistic’ government that will kill “ALL” convicted killers, then use the money that would have otherwise been spent keeping them incarcerated to help third world nations? I don’t think any government slices up the pie like that.

I think prisoners should be put to work in prison, regardless of the crime they have committed. Prison is supposed to be a punishment, but there are some people out on the streets who are having a tougher time than some inmates. The money earned by prisoners can then be used to defray some of the costs of keeping them inside.

3. War? I think this point is not relevant to this thread. Perhaps you might consider posting it as an independent thread