See the poll. What do you think?

Because all murderers, thieves, rapists, and terrorists alike have plenty of energetic potential for free labor, they CAN be utilized.

So I don't support the death penalty.

I support the death penalty when someone else has unjustly (which can be defined many ways) killed another. However, I only support it if it's only going to be enforced. If the system becomes a joke where there's thousands of inmates on death row yet only 1 gets executed a year, there's better ways to put them to good use as Facial mentioned.

- N

I only came here because I thought we were voting on which forum members we wanted disposed of.

For the record, I voted None of the Above. I am opposed to death penalty because of the significant probability of executing the wrong person. [As an example, one of the last persons executed in the UK was recently granted a full pardon for wrongful conviction. Just forty years too late.]

However, I only support it if it's only going to be enforced. If the system becomes a joke where there's thousands of inmates on death row yet only 1 gets executed a year, ....

I agree! The way it the death penalty is carried out now (or not!) is a joke!! If we're going to reinstitue the death penalty, it should be carried out within one year to give the legal defense time for appeals. At that time, execute the bastard!

Baron Max

Totally against the death penalty - The fact innocent people have been and will be executed is (in this day and age) incredible. Even if caught red handed, why put them to death? Does it help reduce crime levels? Lets have a bit of sense here, instead of this "may God have mercy on your soul" attitude...

The fact innocent people have been and will be executed is (in this day and age) incredible.

People are killed in terrible accidents every single day by the thousands, not even mentioning criminal activity. The death of one more ain't gonna' be no big deal ...except perhaps their own family members and KennyJC. Do you mourn as much for those killed in accidents? Do you mourn as much for the victims of violent crime as you do for the criminals? If so, you must be in mourning every single minute of your life ...kinda' tough to have fun if you mourn that much, ain't it?

Even if caught red handed, why put them to death?

Because many people (most?? ...the majority??) don't want to feed them and house them and pay for them in prisons forever! We, society, do not need people like that ...even if they're in a large cage somewhere ...we don't need them, so we shouldn't pay to keep them in a cage!!

Lets have a bit of sense here, instead of this "may God have mercy on your soul" attitude...

Perhaps you should teach that to the criminals who commit the violent crimes and murder??? But once they've shown that they don't give a shit about other people's lives, why should we care about their life? FRY 'EM!

Baron Max

That's what I was gonna say. You're against the death penalty because of the possibility of an innocent being wrongly executed? Hell, man, how many people have been wrongly executed? Not many. So a person gets wrongly executed, oh no. That person could have been killed in a car crash or some other unfortunate event. This is just the same -- an unfortunate accident.

This basically all comes down to the similar argument of "could you kill one innocent baby to cure cancer for everyone in the world". Sure, it's not as beneficial as curing cancer for everyone, but it still has the same problem of many people vs one innocent. I'd much rather all the killers on death row ceasing to exist. That's less space wasted in this world. For the innocent person, their life has already gone to hell and is changed forever. Having that innocent person in jail all those years has caused more harm to us taxpayers and that poor person than if they were dead. Sure, it sounds cold-hearted, but hey, I'm merely dealing with reality here.

Keeping a person on death row for 40 years before finally being executed is a complete waste of time and is more harmful to that innocent person than death. We shouldn't be putting off thousands of killers for that long all for the sake of a few unlucky innocent people. We all make decisions that affect others in a bad way that we don't know. We don't know if a person is innocent or not. Killing that innocent person is no different than making a decision at work to fire some people that could result in them being homeless, which you wouldn't know what happened to that worker, or whatever else you can think of. Shit happens. Deal with it. Just be fortunate that you haven't been unlucky in those ways. And hey, if you truly care about those innocents behind bars, have the state take your life instead of theirs. That's having the power to save their life. If you don't do so, you're not better than the next person, even us cold-hearted folk, because the end result in the same; the innocent person died when you had the power to stop it.

- N

I'm not debating the topic. I am not open to a change of view on this point. Nor, I suspect, are you. I posted my opinion to meet the request of the thread opener.

My wild guess is that about 10% of people covicted did not do the crime for which they were covicted. Reasonable doubt = a ratio between guilty people out free and innocent people in Jail.

The death penalty makes mistakes unfixable.

The death penalty makes mistakes unfixable.

Well, leaving them on death row for umpty-eleven years is "unfixable", too!

Being killed crossing the street is "unfixable". So what's the big deal? Mistakes, accidents happen all the time ...and innocent people die. And it's "unfixable" ....so what? We send the family a Hallmark card expressing our sympathy for the mistake, and be done with it!

Baron Max

Your compassion, as always, is an example to us all, Bronx Ama.

Your compassion, as always, is an example to us all, Bronx Ama.

Thank you, Ophiolite, I appreciate the compliment.

Although, ya' know, I often wonder just what "compassion" means? I mean, if a person is "compassionate" for, say, the people that he knows, is he "compassionate"? Or is a person "compassionate" only when he CLAIMS to feel "compassion" for everyone on Earth? ...including the most vicious rapists and serial killers?

Baron Max

Well Moan Barx, it was the innocent persons who are executed who I was feeling compassion for. My compassion does not extend those who murder, whether the act is committed in a back alley, or from the comfort of a governer's mansion.....with a pen.

My feeling is this. If there is unquestionable doubt that the person did the crime, ie: caught on tape, the guy admits to it, etc. then they should be put to death for murdering someone in a reasonable amount of time. Likes Baron said, none of this keeping them in prison for 20 years letting him leech off the system.

Now, with that said, if there is any doubt as to whether or not the person did it, then those in charge of figuring out the evidence for or against him should be given the needed amount of time to figure it out so that the charge can be proved or disproved.

This reminds me of the co founder of the Crips who is getting ready to be put to death. It was proven that he killed a FAMILY, father, wife/mother, daughter, should he be allowed to live the rest of his life? Fuck no. He deserves to be put down like a rabid dog.

For those that don't know the Crips are a (pretty much) nation wide gang here in the states. Arch enemies of the Bloods.

My compassion does not extend those who murder, whether the act is committed in a back alley, or from the comfort of a governer's mansion.....with a pen.

So your compassion is selective, just like mine, huh?

But what I want to know is, of the people who are convicted and sentenced to death, how can YOU know which ones to feel compassion for and which ones to NOT feel compassion for? I.e., they're all convicted in a court of law! Yet, here you are proclaiming to be against the death penalty, when THAT is not what you should be concerned about ...you should be concerned about the justice system and the courts and juries. So, see, your compassion AND your concern is misplaced.

Baron Max

IMO, the idea that it is OK to deliberately kill any person is morally bankrupt. Therefore, I oppose the death penalty.

I was just listening to a dead man talking. Stanley Tookie Williams. Dies in a few hours, but gave a radio interview by phone.

See the poll. What do you think?
Only for multimurder. Minimum of 10 victims.

About Tookie Williams: We've been discussing it in school, and our humanities teacher and us students are pissed that they are killing him. Tookie really turned his life around, from killer to nobel peace prize-nominee. Day-amm.
Plus, the Crips kick ass. East Side, bitch!

James R, your poll is missing 'treason'. I believe treason is a crime where the death penalty is deserved.

Baron Max:

Although, ya' know, I often wonder just what "compassion" means? I mean, if a person is "compassionate" for, say, the people that he knows, is he "compassionate"? Or is a person "compassionate" only when he CLAIMS to feel "compassion" for everyone on Earth? ...including the most vicious rapists and serial killers?

Interesting point. I find it amusing how 'compassionate' liberals harp on about the starving children in Africa, or the bums in the slums, feigning compassion. Obviously they don't feel ENOUGH compassion to actually motivate them into getting off their asses and doing something about it. Far easier to bitch and whine, giving the illusion of 'caring'.

About Tookie Williams: We've been discussing it in school, and our humanities teacher and us students are pissed that they are killing him. Tookie really turned his life around, from killer to nobel peace prize-nominee. Day-amm.

Anyone can be nominated for a NPP. It's easy to do so. As for him turning his life around, yeah right. He's tried to escape prison, been in numerous fights, yadda yadda. Not only that, but if he's turned his life around and cared about others, why doesn't he help the police and let em know all he knows about the Crips? A couple children's books don't mean shit. He doesn't care.

You've been brainwashed by the liberals. I guess "all of Hollywood" such as Jaimie Foxx who played Tookie Williams in a movie and Snoop Dog who's connected with the Crips really fooled ya.

The ONLY reason why I wouldn't care if Tookie received clemency is only because the death system is a joke. One person dies each year, big wow. How many are on death row? Hundreds, thousands. Surely there's a worse person out there than him. Those children's books bought him a brownie point or two, and that's the only thing that puts him above those worse killers on death row. That doesn't mean he shouldn't die, just that the system is a joke. I'd rather all death row inmates be put to death ASAP, but since they won't, eh.

This is why I didn't mind when that whole thing about underage kids that are trialed as adults being eligable for the death penalty. Liberals were up in arms over it. Big whoop. Not like that kid will ever be put to death with the rate of 1 inmate a year being put to death, heh.

- N

I support the death penalty if the person did it on purpose. This doesn't include revenge, craziness or some kind of mental illness. But people be real if you're trying to execute someone do him in a week not 26 years latter. I feel bad in Tookie Williams case. After a month every human being fells guilty for what he don. When you fell guilty you have all rights to stay alive, the same as any other human. If you ask me, today's judging system sucks they are all stupid non thinkers. I think that the most of judges and lawyers should flash their diplomas down the toilets. But who will judge them they are trap in the money laundry system. Let's have him in a jail for 26 years and make a lot of money from a tax payers than we will kill him to make our job don. Who is a multiple murderer here?

After a month every human being fells guilty for what he don. When you fell guilty you have all rights to stay alive, the same as any other human.

And just how does one measure this feeling of "guilt"? And how do you know that the prisoner isn't just faking it and lying about it? And why wouldn't every prisoner condemned to death just fake it to have the sentence commuted?

Baron Max

I cannot support the death penalty for any reason during peacetime (in war civilization has been paused for a while and therefore not the same rules apply).

One reason would already be that we can't afford as a society to kill innocent people. And if you look at the US it is clear that innocent people are being send to their deaths because of the death penalty.

Is it worth it to fry 10 innocent people to be able to fry 90 guilty ones? Or even just 1 innocent person and 99 guilty ones?

No.

Is it worth it to fry...... Or even just 1 innocent person and 99 guilty ones?

Yes.

Baron Max

What if they fry you tomorrow. Or your daughter/son?

You know all of the before mentioned are innocent. Is it still worth it?


I've noticed that ethics and morals can swing really quickly with americans the minute they are at the wrong end of the stick. One minute they are all pro-war and patriotic, the next minute they lose their son in Iraq and make a 180 degree turn.

I have a feeling you might do the same.

if you have never murdered anyone how would you know if the death penalty was fair?

About Tookie Williams: We've been discussing it in school, and our humanities teacher and us students are pissed that they are killing him. Tookie really turned his life around, from killer to Nobel peace prize-nominee...

Yes... about Stan "Tookie" Williams;

Not only was he not a founder of the "Crips", as he always claimed but everyone else refuted... he was a media created anti-hero of the n-th degree. Reginald Washington was the founder of the "Crips" and he was killed by gang violence in 1979. "Tookie" took over because he was ruthless, violent, and motivated to do crime. But this story is created by the bleeding heart liberals as some sort of a "bad guy gone good", but in reality it's quite a big fat lie. The nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were an elaborate lie as well, and once the judges figured out what was going on, and just how bad this guy was... they denied it to him. Five times.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-12T205344Z_01_DIT275214_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&related=true

The factor here was, there was overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that this man killed at least 4 people. Two of them elderly immigrants and their visiting daughter, all of them completely defenceless and one of them while the man (of 24) was lying face down on the floor begging for his life. Tookie shot him in the back of the head for $120. There are hosts of witnesses. There is a ton of forensic evidence. He has been through the entire appeals process where they have gone over the evidence and testimony multiple times at great expense to the tax payer. He never admitted guilt, never had remorse, never said he was sorry. They've been trying to "prove" his innocence for over 25 years, and all of the courts have denied this last ditch effort because they've already exhausted every other angle.

Stan "Tookie" Williams was not a hero. He was a master manipulator until the very end. He made no atonement, he made no apologies and he used people to get what he could get. The bottom line is that men like Mr. Williams have been bringing down the African-American communities for decades. They make no excuses for their transgressions and they are not sorry for single-handedly creating a community based on fear, crime and violence. This is not a man to be admired, he was a man to be pitied. Pitied for his assumption that the world could be lied to, and not see him for what he really was, a criminal, a liar, and a murderer.

That's funny. I think I saw a movie made of his life. He was quite the hero in it. Well, he came accross as a cross between a wise man and a reborn saint. He basically committed his earlier crimes because he was forced by the envrionment.

Hollywood can make anything glamourous is seems.

edit: yes it was about him:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002B14UC/qid=1134492392/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-7108437-0087316?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

That's the thing about Hollywood.

It's all make believe.

Here is another article on the nice things Tookie did and continued to do.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47647

I plucked it from one of the customer reviews on amazon. Reading the customer reviews on amazon is quite fun, a bit like watching monkeys in a zoo:

Jamie Foxx is brilliant in his portrayal as `Tookie," capturing the essence of the man and providing a glimpse of what it must have been like to be Williams

obviously he didn't manage to capture the real essence of this man.

But it is the director Vondie Curtis-Hall who deserves a round of applause for bringing forth such a tragic and encouraging story about Williams who is now only a part of history. My only criticism on the film would be the fact that the evidence and crime that convicted "Tookie" were not really dealt with...for that we have court documents which are questionable at best.

Yes, he must be innocent (insert sarcasm)

This is a really good film that will really make you think, yes this man committed horrible crimes but did he somehow redeem himself? Should he be back in society?

Well, the actor is a good actor, but he isn't tookie is he?

It seems that "Tookie" became a real man in the process of his life by overcoming a life of violence and external living and emerging a deeply reflective human being.

Deeply reflective...nice touch.

But there seem to be also people who actually base their opinion on more than a movie:

Mr. Williams has never confessed, never expressed remorse, and never apologized for the murders he committed. How is that "Redemption"?

If Mr. Williams had truly been redeemed, he would have renounced his own personal violent acts, apologized for them, and cooperated with police to take more violent criminals off the streets. He is not interested in anything but saving his own life at this point, PR campaign notwithstanding. This film is a piece of propaganda masquerading as a biopic.

Aren’t we all under the death penalty?

Life is…unto death.

What if they fry you tomorrow. Or your daughter/son? You know all of the before mentioned are innocent. Is it still worth it?

When one begins to use personal and emotional arguments for which to decide important social/societal issues, the logic and rationality of that decision is no longer possible.

Baron Max

When one begins to use personal and emotional arguments for which to decide important social/societal issues, the logic and rationality of that decision is no longer possible.

Baron Max

Isn't that what you are doing? You are in favour of the death penalty because you fear murderers.

I am neither for or against. I am a fence-sitter. I think there are probably some cases where people would be better off dead then in solitary for the remainder of their natural life... but I'm a buddhist, so I believe in the notion of non-violence. It's a very thin grey line, and I am not going to fool you into thinking I am one way or the other.

However, here are some other Nobel Peace Nominees;

Mussolini (1935, by a French law professor, and by the law faculty at a German university);

Stalin (1948, by a Czech professor)(also, 1945 by a former Norweign foreign minister, although the minister only wrote that Stalin was qualified for the prize, and did not formally nominate him);

Kaiser Wilhelm II (1911, by the President of UC Berkeley; 1917, by a German professor and by a Turkish law faculty);

Adolf Hitler (1939, by a member of the Swedish parliament, although the nomination was withdrawn before the Committee considered it);

Alfred Ploetz (the founder of racial hygiene in Germany; 1936 by a Norwegian parliamentarian, for warning that war would harm biological reproduction);

Neville Chamberlin (somewhat plausibly in 1926 for his role in the Locarno Pact; less so in 1939, with 9 nominations for his role in the Munich Agreement).

--So I am not sure why anyone would think that a Nobel Peace nomination is anywhere near actually having won it.

Spurious,

I think that most pro-deathpenalty people think that these people should die so that they never harm anyone again, inside or outside of prison, and to not have to support them with our tax dollars. At least those are the honest arguments I've heard. No one thinks it's really for justice or deterrment. Those we know aren't the case.

Only for multimurder. Minimum of 10 victims.

About Tookie Williams: We've been discussing it in school, and our humanities teacher and us students are pissed that they are killing him. Tookie really turned his life around, from killer to nobel peace prize-nominee. Day-amm.
Plus, the Crips kick ass. East Side, bitch!

So one child doesn't matter? 5 children, women or men don't matter? Interesting.

Ya know, that's great that he "saw the light" and turned his life around, IN PRISON. Had he stayed on the streets how many more would he have killed? Do you think he would have turned his life around then? Had he killed another 2 families and officers, would that then justify putting him down? What if one of those he killed was part of your family? Would you still feel that he shouldn't die?

Also, he didn't turn his life around until over a decade after he was sentenced. Seems like quite a long time to realize what he did was wrong.

Tookie (http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2001/03/tookie_williams.html)

You are in favour of the death penalty because you fear murderers.

Well, for fuck's sake .....of course I fear murderers!!! Anyone with even the tiniest of brains would fear murderers! I know this is gonna' come as a shock to you, Spurious, but most murderers ARE murderers because they ....hold on now, take a deep breath, ........because they murder people!

Baron Max

I don't think Tookie deserved lethal injection. He did deserve some buckshot to the face.

Well, for fuck's sake .....of course I fear murderers!!! Anyone with even the tiniest of brains would fear murderers!

Over 80% of murders are committed by persons personally known to the victim. The idea that there are many psychotic people out there who kill at random is a myth.

I think that most pro-deathpenalty people think that these people should die so that they never harm anyone again, inside or outside of prison, and to not have to support them with our tax dollars. At least those are the honest arguments I've heard. No one thinks it's really for justice or deterrment. Those we know aren't the case.

Actually, it costs more to carry out a death sentence than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives, at least in Western countries. The extra scrutiny and appeals afforded to death sentences incur massive court costs. Plus you're holding them in jail throughout that process, which can literally last for decades.

What's wrong with justice? Is death not a just penalty for certain crimes? There was a guy in my city a few years ago who kidnapped his neighbor's 8-year-old daughter, did God-knows-what-all to her, and then killed her. He was sentenced to die for it. Is that not justice?

Not clear on how it doesn't work as a deterrent either...

Why wasn't arson on the list? Last I checked, there were as many laws penalizing arson with death as there were for murder...

And just how does one measure this feeling of "guilt"? And how do you know that the prisoner isn't just faking it and lying about it? And why wouldn't every prisoner condemned to death just fake it to have the sentence commuted?

Baron Max

1) Any human pure in heart could measure felling of guilt. 2) The same. 3) You could be proven guilty in a month, not a year latter. Most of prisoners change themselves but some of them become crazier than before they went to jail, because freedom was taken from them. Only strong ones survive like Tookie Williams who even wrote some books. Believe me or not he become smarter than a regular human. In jail you become a perfect thinker.

Over 80% of murders are committed by persons personally known to the victim. The idea that there are many psychotic people out there who kill at random is a myth.

It only takes one, James, and your life is over! ...whether he knows you or not.

Baron Max

What's wrong with justice? Is death not a just penalty for certain crimes? There was a guy in my city a few years ago who kidnapped his neighbor's 8-year-old daughter, did God-knows-what-all to her, and then killed her. He was sentenced to die for it. Is that not justice?

You use God with a capital so I imagine you might be a christian like so many americans for instance who support the death penalty. It clearly states in the commandments that you are not allowed to kill someone. And obviously God will punish a murderer in the afterlife since like you say God-knows-what-all. Hence I don't think Christians are allowed to use this kind of pro-argument. After all you condem the people involved with putting the inmate to death also to an eternal life in hell. Some might even argue that you sentence yourself to an eternal life in hell for supporting the death penalty.

As for the rational viewpoint: there is no way we can be sure only guilty people are sentenced to death. Murder rates are not lowest in countries with death penalty. Indeed other factors seem more important. Conclusion: death penalty is immoral and therefore unacceptable.

It only takes one, James, and your life is over! ...whether he knows you or not.

Baron Max

This is exaclty what I meant with fear.

Actually, it costs more to carry out a death sentence than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives, at least in Western countries. The extra scrutiny and appeals afforded to death sentences incur massive court costs. Plus you're holding them in jail throughout that process, which can literally last for decades.

Actually, that is a myth propagated by the anti-DP crowd. What figures they are comparing are actually the costs of trials of people who are tried for the death penalty vs. people who are tried for life. It has nothing to do with the actual imprisonment, and they don't quote those figures because it is much more expensive to keep someone locked up for life than for 8.7 years (average time someone spends on death row). In total, if you add the trials and the costs of incarceration on average the figure is about 280,000 more expensive to keep them for life. Negligible amount really, when you are trying to put a number figure on someone's life.

So it's the trials for the death penalty that are more expensive. Almost 4 times the cost actually, but lets really break that down...

We spend more on deciding whether or not someone should be put to death.
We spend less on people who are going to end up costing the system more.
The number of people actually exonerated later by evidence or testimony, or by incorrect court procedures are .06% on death row inmates.
The number of people exonerated later by evidence or testimony or by incorrect court procedures are 13% on murder convictions not including those who are given the death penalty.

So where is the real problem when we put murderers to trial? Are we spending too much on death penalty cases, or are we spending far too little on murder cases that are not eligible for the death penalty? Given the wide error margin, I think we spend far too little on murder trials. Their punishment isn't less severe... they still spend the rest of their life locked away.

Be very wary of what the anti-dp and pro-dp websites tell you. They both skew the numbers to fit their purpose. If you take a step back and analyze all the numbers, you'll find the truth hidden in there somewhere.

You use God with a capital so I imagine you might be a christian like so many americans for instance who support the death penalty.

Dude, it's just a turn of phrase. I'm an atheist. I also capitalize "Jesus," "Buddha" and "Allah," and celebrate Christmas, but so what?

There are plenty of issues with some of the pro-death-penalty arguments coming from some of the Christian groups in America, but I don't subscribe to any of them, so...


As for the rational viewpoint: there is no way we can be sure only guilty people are sentenced to death.

There is no way we can be sure only guilty people are sentenced to *anything*.


Murder rates are not lowest in countries with death penalty.

Perhaps those countries instituted the death penalty because their murder rates were out of control. Perhaps the countries with low murder rates don't need strong deterrents, as they already have peaceful, harmonious societies. You need further evidence explaining the causational relationship between the two statistics (i.e., a control group; one could examine countries that changed their death penalty policies and compare murder rates before and after). But the above statistic, on its own, doesn't seem to me to have a clear-cut application to death penalty policy.


Conclusion: death penalty is immoral and therefore unacceptable.

I don't see how that would follow from your arguments. Your second argument relates to the *effectiveness* of the death penalty, which is a very different issue from the morality of it. There are plenty of very effective punishments that are immoral (collective punishment, for example), and plenty of moral ones that may not be effective.

Your first point has more bearing on the conclusion, but you need to flesh it out. Why is the possibility of executing innocent people unacceptable while life imprisonment for those same people is okay? What is the ethical principle that distinguishes the two?

There is no way we can be sure only guilty people are sentenced to *anything*.

So why murder people?



Perhaps those countries instituted the death penalty because their murder rates were out of control. Perhaps the countries with low murder rates don't need strong deterrents, as they already have peaceful, harmonious societies.

Ironically you wrote down the solution without noticing it: Build a peaceful, harmonious society. Obviously this is not done by murdering people.

What makes a peaceful society. Look around. Guns for everybody, individualism, inequality etc aren't usually very effective ingredients.

So why murder people?

So why put people in jail? Obviously any real penal system is going to have to cope with uncertainty; that fact on its own doesn't say much about the death penalty. You need an additional argument showing why the death penalty is incompatible with uncertainty, but life imprisonment is not.


Ironically you wrote down the solution without noticing it: Build a peaceful, harmonious society. Obviously this is not done by murdering people.

I think everyone is aware that the ultimate purpose of any penal system is to contribute to a peaceful, harmonious society. But that's not a "solution" to any of the practical problems faced by said penal system. Also, your usage of the word "murder" here is needlessly inflamatory. The word usually connotes not just any homicide, but a criminal homicide carried out with malice. Which doesn't really apply to an application of the death penalty. A better word would be "killing."

A good editorial appeared yesterday in the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1214/p09s01-coop.html

It's by Joanna Shephard, a law professor and researcher in the area of death penalty policy, and discusses both deterrence and brutalization (meaning the effect on society of a government that solves problems through killing). Please note that I am not a Christian Scientist nor, as far as I know, is Joanna Shephard. Her conclusions (and she's run multiple studies on the topic) is that the deterrent effects can outweigh the brutalization effects, but only when a sufficient number of convicts are executed per year. So it turns out that California, which hands out a lot of death sentences but carries out very few, doesn't get much deterrent effect, in contrast to, say, Texas.

I support the death penalty for kidnapping as well sexually assualting young children

So why put people in jail? Obviously any real penal system is going to have to cope with uncertainty; that fact on its own doesn't say much about the death penalty. You need an additional argument showing why the death penalty is incompatible with uncertainty, but life imprisonment is not.

That's very simple. If you sentence sombody to life imprisonment, then discover they are actually innocent, you can free them, hopefully with some compensation for lost time.

But if you've killed a person for a crime they didn't commit...

So it turns out that California, which hands out a lot of death sentences but carries out very few, doesn't get much deterrent effect, in contrast to, say, Texas.

If the death penalty is so effective as a deterrent in Texas, why is the rate of imprisonment and the rate of sentencing to death still so high there? Do you expect the deterrent effect to show up in the statistics at some unspecified future time?

That's very simple. If you sentence sombody to life imprisonment, then discover they are actually innocent, you can free them, hopefully with some compensation for lost time.

But if you've killed a person for a crime they didn't commit...

Yeah, hypothetically, you have the chance to fix the mistake, should you detect it. But that's a very rare occurance. More often, the wrongly accused man ends up serving a life sentence and dying in jail. Even the ones that end up being freed are often held for decades; how can you possibly compensate them for that? You can't give them back their youth, or their health (which inevitably suffers in the penal system). What dollar figure would you place on the next 20 years of your life? The death penalty is certainly irrevocable, but I think people are too glib about the reversability of decades in prison. You're destroying people's lives in either case; I think the difference is fairly minor.


If the death penalty is so effective as a deterrent in Texas, why is the rate of imprisonment and the rate of sentencing to death still so high there? Do you expect the deterrent effect to show up in the statistics at some unspecified future time?

The effects have shown up. The rates of capital offenses have gone down since the death penalty was re-instituted. Just because it hasn't turned Texas into Switzerland doesn't mean it's not working as a deterrent. Texas had a very high rate of capital crimes back when the death penalty was outlawed, which was a big factor motivating people to bring it back. Now they have a lower rate of capital crimes; what exactly is the problem again?

The solution is improving our forensic and judicial system, so that accidental executions of innocent people do not take place, not to completely end the death penalty.

We need to improve our criminal/forensic science capabilities to eliminate error which would lead to the death of innocent people, based on circumstantial evidence.

Ending the death penalty would not solve anything, it would not lower our fatalities, society cannot afford to keep these killers in perpetual care of the government.

Why not just put the convict in a small rubber raft far offshore? Why do we have life in prison, and the death penalty, but no option for banishment?

Why not just put the convict in a small rubber raft far offshore? Why do we have life in prison, and the death penalty, but no option for banishment?

Hmm, isn't that like sending our "un-sociables" to some other country where they can murder and commit other violent crimes against THOSE people? That wouldn't be very nice, would it?

Baron Max

Hmm, isn't that like sending our "un-sociables" to some other country where they can murder and commit other violent crimes against THOSE people? That wouldn't be very nice, would it?


I don't know, Australia didn't turn out SO badly...

I don't know, Australia didn't turn out SO badly...

As I understand it, there were few, if any, violent criminals in the groups that were banned to Australia. Most were simple and common thieves, but not murderers or violent rapists or serial killers, etc. Those types were hanged or executed, not sent to the Land of Oz!

And just to be controversial ....how well do you think the native Aborigines liked all those criminals thrust upon their land and societies?

Baron Max

As I understand it, there were few, if any, violent criminals in the groups that were banned to Australia. Most were simple and common thieves, but not murderers or violent rapists or serial killers, etc. Those types were hanged or executed, not sent to the Land of Oz!

Right, right, I was only joking. And we all know that America received far more convicts from the Old World than Australia ever did anyway...

Yeah, hypothetically, you have the chance to fix the mistake, should you detect it. But that's a very rare occurance.

Perhaps, but it's an occurrence which is becoming more and more common. Hundreds of people on death row have been proven innocent in recent years. In fact, only last week I was talking to somebody who was about to head over to America (from Australia) to assist a legal team with exactly these kinds of cases.

Even the ones that end up being freed are often held for decades; how can you possibly compensate them for that?

Nelson Mandela was held in prison for years, but look what he did with his life when he was finally released.

If he'd just been killed, where would South Africa be now?

The death penalty is certainly irrevocable, but I think people are too glib about the reversability of decades in prison. You're destroying people's lives in either case; I think the difference is fairly minor.

I completely disagree. Would you personally rather be alive and in prison, or dead? I assume you'd rather be dead, but I imagine most people would opt for prison.

Perhaps, but it's an occurrence which is becoming more and more common. Hundreds of people on death row have been proven innocent in recent years. In fact, only last week I was talking to somebody who was about to head over to America (from Australia) to assist a legal team with exactly these kinds of cases.

It's true that there have been a lot of false convictions, but I'd wager there are even more false convictions for non-capital offenses. I say this because huge amounts of effort are directed towards ensuring the fairness of death penalty convictions (mandatory appeals, etc.). Likewise, there's something about death convictions that motivates third party groups to lend a hand and search for wrongful convictions. What I'm getting at is that for every wrongful death penalty conviction, there are probably 20 people serving long sentences for crimes they didn't commit. Keep in mind that America has like 3 Million people in prison, so a few hundred isn't actually all that significant...


Nelson Mandela was held in prison for years, but look what he did with his life when he was finally released.

Well, that's something of an exceptional case. Hardly the sort of thing one bases policy on. Do you really think that the vast majority of long-term convicts don't have their lives and families torn apart by it?


I completely disagree. Would you personally rather be alive and in prison, or dead? I assume you'd rather be dead, but I imagine most people would opt for prison.

I'm not saying that there isn't a qualitative difference between the two, and I'd probably go for life in prison as well. Indeed, there would be no deterrent value to the death penalty if a majority of people didn't feel the same way. But it's still not clear to me that it's any more tolerable to hand out wrongful 20-year sentences than it is to hand out wrongful death sentences. In both cases your taking things from people that can never be returned. The point this leads to is that a better response to the phenomenon of wrongful conviction is not to avoid giving out strong penalties (when justified), but to build a better trial process to prevent wrongful convictions.

Let's come at it from another direction. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the death penalty has a deterrent value, what rate of wrongful executions would be acceptable? Presumably, a really low rate (1 in a billion, say) would be acceptable, provided it would prevent, say, 100 murders. On the other hand, it's obviously a bad idea to execute 100 innocent people in the name of preventing 100 murders. It follows that the acceptable rate of wrongful life sentences would be higher; it might be okay to wrongfully imprison, say, 25 people to prevent 100 murders. But I don't see where it's unacceptable to execute even one innocent man to save hundreds, but okay to send him to prison for his entire life.

There is a qualitative difference between death and life in prison, but I don't think the "he could be exhonerated years later" argument really encapsulates it. If we could assume that, given enough time, all wrongful convictions would be overturned, then that would translate into a good policy argument. But it seems to me that the majority of wrongful convictions are never overturned. Thus, I think the possibility of eventual exhoneration is a side-issue. In the vast majority of cases, the convict is either guilty or will never be exhonerated. So the salient ethical issue from a policy standpoint is balancing the inevitable wrongful convictions against the deterrent value of the punishment in question. The only way that the "one wrongful execution is too many" argument stands on its own is if one also believes that the death penalty has zero deterrent value. However, it seems to me to be well established that it does have measurable deterrent value in most of the places that it's used today.

It could certainly be argued that states/countries that don't have a sufficiently low false conviction rate should refrain from using the death penalty, as it will not justify the deterrent value. But this is, again, an argument for improving the reliability of trial processes, not against the death penalty as such. It would likewise apply to life sentences to a lesser degree.

I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons.

But even more than that, I oppose the use of the death penalty for crimes other than murder with every fiber in my body.

I agree! The way it the death penalty is carried out now (or not!) is a joke!! If we're going to reinstitue the death penalty, it should be carried out within one year to give the legal defense time for appeals. At that time, execute the bastard!

Weren't you the one who said to take them out back and put a bullet in their head?

Weren't you the one who said to take them out back and put a bullet in their head?

Geez, why waste an expensive bullet? Just drop 'em down a very deep fuckin' hole in the ground! But if ye're gonna' insist on using bullets, then the least you could do is set them up on a shooting range and let people practice shooting at them ...hell, don't waste the bullets ...keep score. :)

Baron Max

Wait baron i'm confused. You said to just put a bullet in "suspected" murderers heads? Then came a rare logical statement from you, about having an appeals process. And now you just say drop them in a deep hole? I'm confused????

Wait baron i'm confused. You said to just put a bullet in "suspected" murderers heads?

Where'd I say that? It's no wonder ye're confused, you either can't read or you read INTO other's posts things that they didn't say.

Then came a rare logical statement from you, about having an appeals process.

Yeah, I believe I said they should have a one year appeals time limit ...then if nothing further is proven, execute them per the sentence.

I'm confused????

Take two aspirin with plenty of fluids, rest in bed, then go back and read this thread all over again. If ye're still confused, ....??

Baron Max