Support NeoGAF

[Pinzer]

Again, costs do not matter. It is very easy to make the death penalty cheap. besides, the cost should not have anything to do with the justice of it and killing a murderer is very easy to justify...if you're sure.

Making it cheaper will only may it more error prone. Capital cases cost so much partly because they get many appeals. Also, a shorter death row will result in more innocents being put to death.

Even if you may like the "ideal" of it, the reality isn't even close. It's better just to stick to something safer, cheaper and just as effective.

 

[Something Wicked]

To those against the death penalty, I'm assuming most of you are "for" arbitrarily defining life before birth. Then, why is it absolutely wrong to for a collective population to arbitrarily define parameters in which they can end life after birth?

Does a clump of human developing cells constitute as human life? Does a serial killer deserve death? Both can invoke legitimate debates; however I think the latter question is much easier to achieve a reasonable and moral solution than the former.

How is murder a better option?

Every decently civilized country has given up death penalty. There is probably a good reason for that, don't you think?

Then perhaps the US should send of all their murderers and rapists to those countries and their governments can deal with rehabilitating them. Surely, it would be more ethical to accept such poor criminals than for them to face the horrors of the evil American prison system.

I think ideally, we should strive to achieve a society where the idea of rehabilitation has taken over the idea of punishment completely.
Practically speaking i don't know how feasible that is, but i think it should be the goal.

I was actually surprised by the reaction of almost.. disappointment, in that guy from the VICE video on Norwegian prisons.

Norway has a very small, very homogeneous, and quite wealthy population. What works in Norway is probably not a good indication of what would work in most of the world.

My guess is that if the US instituted a Norwegian-like penal system, murder rates would soar 10-fold.

There are a lot of countries with harsh punishments and very low crime rates. Also a lot of US states have greatly reduced crime with stricter laws and harsher sentencing.

And over the last decade, violent crimes in most US cities have declined, while violent crimes in many European cities have risen. Though, I'll say the decline in crime in the US is not exactly even across the country.

 

[Pinzer]

The very rise of DNA testing is why I think capital punishment is more appropriate than ever, in cases where the evidence against the plaintiff is undeniable (I'm talking DNA, eyewitnesses, the whole shebang). As I said, I have no problem saying that the state should have the right to put the Ted Bundys and Unabombers of the world to death.

I know this isn't the whole point of your post but eyewitnesses are VERY unreliable. They are sometimes considered the worst form of evidence.

It's still a jury deciding how undeniable it is though, which I don't trust with the death penalty.

 

[faceless007]

Anyone who thinks juries can be entrusted to decide who deserves the death penalty needs to watch this movie.

 

[TheHeretic]

To those against the death penalty, I'm assuming most of you are "for" arbitrarily defining life before birth. Then, why is it absolutely wrong to for a collective population to arbitrarily define parameters in which they can end life after birth?

So someone who is for the death penalty should support abortion up to the moment of birth? Did you even read what you just wrote?

 

[DanteFox]

The US justice imprisonment system isn't just about rehabilitation. It's about rehabilitation and punishment.

 

[Pinzer]

The countries that used the death penalty in 2011:

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Taiwan, UAE, and the United States.

Very reasonable people-oh wait

 

[Emerson]

Making it cheaper will only may it more error prone. Capital cases cost so much partly because they get many appeals. Also, a shorter death row will result in more innocents being put to death.

Even if you may like the "ideal" of it, the reality isn't even close. It's better just to stick to something safer, cheaper and just as effective.

This is what I don't understand. Why do death penalty cases get more appeals than life without parole cases? There is little to no practical difference between the two punishments.

EDIT: To rephrase, taking someone's life away from them, whether literally killing them or locking them away forever, should be treated with equal gravity in my opinion. I recognize that you could argue a practical difference from the inmate's perspective.

 

[Stet]

To those against the death penalty, I'm assuming most of you are "for" arbitrarily defining life before birth. Then, why is it absolutely wrong to for a collective population to arbitrarily define parameters in which they can end life after birth?

You assume funny things.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The countries that used the death penalty in 2011:

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Taiwan, UAE, and the United States.

Very reasonable people-oh wait

So we're moving to the "guilt by association" thing, now? Great argumentation.

Yes, those in favor of limited application of the death penalty in instances where the case is not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt, understand that the death penalty is no longer practiced in any other industrialized country. We do not, however, agree that that means that it's necessarily the more moral choice, just the more current one.

Of course, that seems to be the way that things are heading, so what we think doesn't particularly matter, anyway.

 

[TheHeretic]

The countries that used the death penalty in 2011:

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Taiwan, UAE, and the United States.

Very reasonable people-oh wait

Human sacrifice doesn't have any logical connection to justice, so it becomes a tool of oppressive, totalitarian (and/or theocratic) states. The fact that the US continues with the practice to the day is pretty extraordinary.

 

[Kosmo]

The purpose of the life sentence is that certain companies 'employ' prisoners for slave wage labor on the orde order of cents an hour.

 

[CornBurrito]

To those against the death penalty, I'm assuming most of you are "for" arbitrarily defining life before birth.

Nope.

I am against the death penalty because of errors in the justice system.

 

[The Technomancer]

This is what I don't understand. Why do death penalty cases get more appeals than life without parole cases? There is little to no practical difference between the two punishments.

EDIT: To rephrase, taking someone's life away from them, whether literally killing them or locking them away forever, should be treated with equal gravity in my opinion. I recognize that you could argue a practical difference from the inmate's perspective.

Because life without parole can still be rescinded if later on something really egregious comes to light.

 

[Pinzer]

So we're moving to the "guilt by association" thing, now? Great argumentation.

Yes, those in favor of limited application of the death penalty in instances where the case is not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt, understand that the death penalty is no longer practiced in any other industrialized country. We do not, however, agree that that means that it's necessarily the more moral choice, just the more current one.

Of course, that seems to be the way that things are heading, so what we think doesn't particularly matter, anyway.

It's not an argument by itself but it may be an indication that we should reconsider.

 

[Emerson]

Because life without parole can still be rescinded if later on something really egregious comes to light.

I don't really find this to be a convincing argument. So what if you "only" spent twenty years behind bars before they recognized a mistake and freed you? Your life is ruined. My argument is that life without parole should be treated just as seriously as death, and I stand by it.

 

[Pinzer]

I don't really find this to be a convincing argument. So what if you "only" spent twenty years behind bars before they recognized a mistake and freed you? Your life is ruined. My argument is that life without parole should be treated just as seriously as death, and I stand by it.

but you get MILLIONS!

 

[JGS]

Making it cheaper will only may it more error prone. Capital cases cost so much partly because they get many appeals. Also, a shorter death row will result in more innocents being put to death.

Even if you may like the "ideal" of it, the reality isn't even close. It's better just to stick to something safer, cheaper and just as effective.

I agree. I was just saying it's easy to do. Cost shouldn't be factored into doing the right or wrong thing just like telling people that killing a murderer is right wrong.

Neither gets the crucial point- the death penalty is flawed to the point that it simply can't be fixed until telepathy is the norm.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

But punishment as a form of deterrence does work. Again, that's why all these countries with harsh punishments have lower crime rates, and that's why when states start introducing harsher punishments, crime rates in those states go down. Harsher punishments is part of the reason for the big decrease in crime rates since the seventies. (Although there are other reasons for this decrease, such as legalizing abortion). And the evidence I'm talking about is not acedotal. At worst, the evidence I'm talking about just proves that there is a correlation between harsh punishment and crime rates, and, of course, correlation doesn't prove causation.

There are a lot of countries with harsh punishments and very low crime rates. Also a lot of US states have greatly reduced crime with stricter laws and harsher sentencing.

I am sure this is true, but then again crimes the state commits (executing/imprisoning the innocent) probably aren't counted, and it's reasonable to assume the rate of wrongful execution/imprisonment shoots up with more draconian measures. My point being that a low crime rate as an isolated metric doesn't say much about a society.

Regarding the death penalty, I suspect it is *not* much of a deterrent for the crimes in which it is currently applicable, because those crimes are so heinous that they likely arise from some compulsion or diseased mind. I don't think serial killers, for example, are "worried" about being put to death. On the other hand, applying the death penalty to shoplifting, for example, would probably drop the rate of shoplifting to near-zero except for some extremely unfortunate kleptomaniacs. But then that raises my earlier question about whether that's the kind of society one wants to live in.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't really find this to be a convincing argument. So what if you "only" spent twenty years behind bars before they recognized a mistake and freed you? Your life is ruined. My argument is that life without parole should be treated just as seriously as death, and I stand by it.

Eh, okay, we're coming at this from two different angles then. My point isn't that life without parole isn't horrible, but that death is the final irreversible end so you should be really really really super duper sure before you kill someone.

 

[TheHeretic]

I don't really find this to be a convincing argument. So what if you "only" spent twenty years behind bars before they recognized a mistake and freed you? Your life is ruined. My argument is that life without parole should be treated just as seriously as death, and I stand by it.

I'd rather have my life ruined than be executed by the state. At least after the fact there can be some form of compensation.

This is very sinister logic you are running with.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Because life without parole can still be rescinded if later on something really egregious comes to light.

Ya, I'm not sure how people are being so ignorant to not know the difference between the two punishments. How you can say there is no difference is outrageous.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

I'm against the death penalty for two reasons:

1) Argument for left-wingers: Primarily, it's because there's always that slight chance that the system screwed up. If something comes to light later, you can't raise someone from the dead.

2) Argument for right-wingers: Death penalty cases are a huge burden to the taxpayer because of the (necessary) appeals process.

This leaves life terms as the only other viable solution.

That's not to say that there aren't people who genuinely deserve the death penalty. But the possibility of getting it wrong should make us pause.

 

[Emerson]

Eh, okay, we're coming at this from two different angles then. My point isn't that life without parole isn't horrible, but that death is the final irreversible end so you should be really really really super duper sure before you kill someone.

I agree, I just think we should apply that same logic to life without parole. It's really serious.

I'd rather have my life ruined than be executed by the state. At least after the fact there can be some form of compensation.

This is very sinister logic you are running with.

Sinister? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Fantastical]

This is what I don't understand. Why do death penalty cases get more appeals than life without parole cases? There is little to no practical difference between the two punishments.

EDIT: To rephrase, taking someone's life away from them, whether literally killing them or locking them away forever, should be treated with equal gravity in my opinion. I recognize that you could argue a practical difference from the inmate's perspective.

Because there is a definite deadline with the death penalty. I agree with your argument, though.

 

[Something Wicked]

Nope.

I am against the death penalty because of errors in the justice system.

And I can this see as a legitimate point of concern.


However, how many of these errors were before DNA testing? Most overturned cases I've heard had involved crimes and convictions in the 70s and early 80s. I think crime investigation technology has improved quite a bit in the last few decades. Not to mention, convictions based on racial/ethnic presumptions are significantly less likely today than decades ago.

 

[UrbanRats]

Norway has a very small, very homogeneous, and quite wealthy population. What works in Norway is probably not a good indication of what would work in most of the world.

My guess is that if the US instituted a Norwegian-like penal system, murder rates would soar 10-fold.

Sure, that's why i didn't say that everybody should simply adopt that method right now.
That's beyond my point though, because the disappointment the VICE guy expressed (that i perceived, anyway) wasn't relative to the impossibility of implementing such system in a much bigger and more complex country (such as the US), but more at the lack of the "punishment" notion in the application of the sentence.
Which can be an understandable positions, but that i disagree with.
Aside from all the economic and practical points, the fundamental discussion rests on (arbitrary) personal concepts of "justice".
I think the "death penalty is barbaric" argument can be as subjective and as empty as the "x offender deserves death, cause it's scum!".
Personally i don't see a point to death penalty, i don't think we should calculate justice on a simple 1:1 parameter of: "you kill, you die; you torture, you get tortured."
And although i am sure that, if someone should happen to hurt or kill someone close to me, i'd be more than happy to see him die, i don't think that has really any weight into the matter of how society should treat criminals, big or small.

 

[PBalfredo]

My ideal way to handle the death penalty is that normally getting Life is the highest sentence given. But if the convict sentenced to life shanks someone while in prison, then the death sentence should be administered. At that point the inmate has proven that taking him away from society is not enough to keep others safe from him, therefore the only alternate is to remove him from Earth.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

And I can this see as a legitimate point of concern.


However, how many of these errors were before DNA testing? Most overturned cases I've heard had involved crimes and convictions in the 70s and early 80s. I think crime investigation technology has improved quite a bit in the last few decades. Not to mention, convictions based on racial/ethnic presumptions are significantly less likely today than decades ago.

That is an extremely optimistic assumption, but regardless, even a measurable reduction of wrongful executions from "a lot" to "not many" is unacceptable. Killing people as a function of the state is not a fact of life, and if the system is never going to be perfect--and it isn't--then it shouldn't be used at all.

 

[CommonSense]

Hello, GAF. Conversation came up today among friends regarding the death penalty, for and against, what have you. Generally, my stance has always been "for", because the only alternative to a death sentence tends to be life imprisonment, which I've never understood. Keep in mind that I live in the USA. Problem is, as a nation we've always stated "rehabilitation" is the purpose of our criminal justice system, where it's applicable. Those who are put to death are, for some reason or another, deemed resistant to rehabilitation, right? So what of the lifers? Why do we keep them around? What ends are we serving by locking people up for the rest of their lives, feeding them, clothing them, etc. when we've essentially admitted they're a lost cause?

I don't mean to present this as a thread discussing the death penalty - it's not. My question is this: in a system devoted to the rehabilitation of some and the grave punishment of those who cannot be rehabilitated, what purpose does the life sentence serve? Or any absurdly long sentence, for that matter? Is it somehow more humane to deprive someone of their life by locking them in a cage until death than out-right killing them? What are your thoughts?

In it's simplest form a "life sentence" removes a (hopefully) proven dangerous person from society while allowing him to continue to live and socialize in a controlled environment. That's about as simple as it can get.

 

[Derwind]

I remember having this argument in a debate class in high school... apparently even people who were on my team actually condoned the death sentence. I couldn't win...

As it stands though the prison system isn't doing a very good job of rehabilitation.

You know whats great, I just finished re watching the Shawshank Redemption(one of my favourite movies of all time).

 

[CornBurrito]

And I can this see as a legitimate point of concern.


However, how many of these errors were before DNA testing? Most overturned cases I've heard had involved crimes and convictions in the 70s and early 80s. I think crime investigation technology has improved quite a bit in the last few decades. Not to mention, convictions based on racial/ethnic presumptions are significantly less likely today than decades ago.

It is improved, and if it were 100% error free I'd reconsider my stance on the death penalty.

I'll admit I'm not sure about the number of false convictions overturned in cases after DNA testing. Though wasn't there recently some case in Georgia where the guy was still sentenced to death on flimsy evidence?

edit: Troy Davis case.

Also "significantly less" is not comforting at all.

 

[DEO3]

The death penalty is simply a way for politicians to get re-elected by being 'tough on crime', and usually involves killing people who are too poor to provide for a proper defense in court. The fact that a number of those sentenced are later exonerated (due to forced confessions, witnesses recanting, and/or DNA evidence) makes it inexcusable.

 

[cutmeamango]

Austria
Japan
Germany
Denmark
Italy
Netherlands
Sweden
Australia
United Kingdom
Ireland
Chile
Morocco
Canada
Czech Republic
New Zealand

*Countries like Norway and Iceland are missing from the 2010 data.

All have life sentences, and the minimum time for parole is 10 years in 3 countries.
Only Japan have death sentence. And it is interesting to note that Japan is the only country that exceeds 100.000.000 habitants, with Germany as the closest to reach such number.
Only Japan and Netherlands exceed 300habs per km².
Only Chile (44) and Morocco (90)are not in the top 30 HDI.

What this means? Nothing probably. But it was interesting looking for it.
---

I'd say I lean towards 'pro death penalty' as by Snowman Prophet of Doom's questionings, but I find Obsessed and The_Technomancer's arguments the ones that I can get behind in current situation of justice.

Now give me CSI-level forensics and robo-judges, and we are ready to off with some heads.

 

[UrbanRats]

^^^
Ofcourse crime and homicide rates are not solely related to the type of punishment/justice system the country adopt.
Infact, different countries have different types of crimes going strong.

 

[KingK]

This is a large part of it. Also, I believe that the primary purpose of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, and that life sentences should be used only for those who are repeatedly evaluated (probably while in prison) to be "un-rehabilitatable". While this is similar to the death penalty in that, in both cases, the sentencee basically loses the rest of their life, the difference is that the life sentence can be reversed if a miscarriage of justice is discovered.

This is really all that needs to be said.

 

[ReBurn]

In every case?

In a kill or be killed scenario you have to do what you have to do. It's not ok to me to kill someone if you don't absolutely have to, however it could be necessary to protect yourself or your family. But when it comes to the death penalty I can't think of a justifiable reason. There's always a chance that the person is not guilty.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

Society should be better than the killers it passes judgement on, imo.

For me, life should mean life for premeditated murderers, and serious reoffenders. Aside from that, I'm fine with the theory of the system we have right now in the UK, just gotta tighten up the net to prevent those cases where justice is simply not done

 

[Kola]

For me, Victor Hugo summed it up just perfectly a hundred years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Day_of_a_Condemned_Man
Just read the intro, which is like 15 pages long.

 

[JGS]

Society should be better than the killers it passes judgement on, imo.

If it could be truly proven that they are killers, society is still better than them for killing them. It's literally improved by their lack of existence.

 

[Subprime]

Hello, GAF. Conversation came up today among friends regarding the death penalty, for and against, what have you. Generally, my stance has always been "for", because the only alternative to a death sentence tends to be life imprisonment, which I've never understood. Keep in mind that I live in the USA. Problem is, as a nation we've always stated "rehabilitation" is the purpose of our criminal justice system, where it's applicable. Those who are put to death are, for some reason or another, deemed resistant to rehabilitation, right? So what of the lifers? Why do we keep them around? What ends are we serving by locking people up for the rest of their lives, feeding them, clothing them, etc. when we've essentially admitted they're a lost cause?

I don't mean to present this as a thread discussing the death penalty - it's not. My question is this: in a system devoted to the rehabilitation of some and the grave punishment of those who cannot be rehabilitated, what purpose does the life sentence serve? Or any absurdly long sentence, for that matter? Is it somehow more humane to deprive someone of their life by locking them in a cage until death than out-right killing them? What are your thoughts?

Its cheaper to keep someone for life than to execute them. Arguments that life in prison is actually worse than death penalty are bullshit. Unless it is permanent solitary confinement I will take prison over death every time. That argument is used disengenuously to make the life sentence seem harsher.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

If it could be truly proven that they are killers, society is still better than them for killing them. It's literally improved by their lack of existence.

Not in my opinion. Society is no different with them dead or behind bars. It has however dragged itself down to their level when it encourages, accepts and carries out murder sentences

 

[Grakl]

Quite simple: a person can still be found innocent after being convicted, and this only matters if they're still alive.

 

[Subprime]

If it could be truly proven that they are killers, society is still better than them for killing them. It's literally improved by their lack of existence.

You ignore the fact that people can be rehabilitated. Barring psychopaths, most people are products of their environment. You can reform a criminal, you just need a better system. There is a reason there is such a low recurrence rate in places like norway.

 

[JGS]

You ignore the fact that people can be rehabilitated. Barring psychopaths, most people are products of their environment. You can reform a criminal, you just need a better system. There is a reason there is such a low recurrence rate in places like norway.

I'm not ignoring that, I just don't think rehab is the point of punishment. It's a secondary component of prison since one should assume that most prisoners will have the chance to get out eventually. That's a big downside to not having a death penalty just not enough of one to trump the downside of having it.

Lesser crimes afford you the opportunity to change. There's no reason to rehab a person who killed someone who likely didn't need any kind of rehab- an innocent. I think it's worse to kill someone who is forced into war than it is to kill someone who killed out of selfishness.

Not in my opinion. Society is no different with them dead or behind bars. It has however dragged itself down to their level when it encourages, accepts and carries out murder sentences

It's not dragging down to their level. It makes it level.

If it doesn't matter to society at all than there's no way it can have an impact on how low society can go. That will only matter when they start killing for lesser things. Killing someone for murder is at worst fair- especially when it's done humanely (The same way they do a cow maybe).

 

[The_Hitcher89]

The death penalty is normally fair, I agree. I'll never think its right though. (Barring some insane turn of events)

 

[Subprime]

I'm not ignoring that, I just don't think rehab is the point of punishment. It's a secondary component of prison since one should assume that most prisoners will have the chance to get out eventually. That's a big downside to not having a death penalty just not enough of one to trump the downside of having it.

Lesser crimes afford you the opportunity to change. There's no reason to rehab a person who killed someone who likely didn't need any kind of rehab- an innocent. I think it's worse to kill someone who is forced into war than it is to kill someone who killed out of selfishness.It's not dragging down to their level. It makes it level.

If it doesn't matter to society at all than there's no way it can have an impact on how low society can go. That will only matter when they start killing for lesser things. Killing someone for murder is at worst fair- especially when it's done humanely (The same way they do a cow maybe).

People can and have been "rehabilitated" after committing murder. you can't draw a clear line. Beyond that, the chance of executing an innocent is too high. Atleast with life inprisonment they have some meagre chance of clearing their name, and theyre not dead.

also: this isn't really ideological. you can look at statistics for whether or not this is an effective way to reduce crime rates.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

What is the point of death sentence, apart from saving money as you imply in your post?

Prevent those prisoners from harming others in prison. Obviously, it should only be reserved for the most violent sociopaths.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

My wife's a C.O. and the way it was explained to me ( at least in the state of illinois) is that it's technically cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to execute them because of bureaucratic red tape/paper work filing that comes with trying to execute someone.

 

[squidyj]

I'd rather have my life ruined than be executed by the state. At least after the fact there can be some form of compensation.

This is very sinister logic you are running with.

Don't worry, if you're innocent you'll just go to heaven and it will be awesome.