Rationalizing the Death Penalty

The visceral, animalistic part of me says "Rrrrrawwwr! Kill bad people". The rational, cynical part of me says "Yeah, but what if they get the wrong guy?"

On a purely philosophical level, I keep running into the conundrum that if it's wrong for an individual to kill an individual how can it be acceptable for a society to kill an individual? Isn't that just mob rule? Simply because we have a uniform and an anthem and a flag, we can kill people - that seems odd and contrary to me.

There's also the issue that you get escalation of crimes. Take the argument that "all pedophiles should get the death sentence". This incentivises pedophiles to kill their victims, and claim it was an accident - unless you also have the death penalty for manslaughter. The whole area of "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" comes into play. Knowing that murder will get me hanged, I may as well murder lots of people.

Finally, there's the concern that people make mistakes.

I would support the death sentence under the following situations:

1) Only for the most severe crimes imaginable.
2) Only for people what cannot possibly be rehabilitated.
3) Only in cases where there is totally unimpeachable proof that the crime was committed and that the criminal was certainly the prime mover in the crime.

And finally, the rules should only come into play after there has been a ten year period where no court of appeal has overturned a single guilty verdict for any crime that would get the death sentence under the new rules.

 

The death penalty is a ritual to cleanse the public from the evil of the morally worst crimes

I wouldn't support hanging being mandatory for crimes like murder as it used to be, and on balance I wouldnt support the death penalty at all even if I do understand its value

If someone like Ian Huntley or rose west was killed would I care? Not really. But I do not want the state to make a killer of me, even if the killed "deserve it"

 

I fully support the death penalty when a competent, objective person (not persons) decrees that the offender is no longer worthy of living, no matter what the crime was. There ARE worse crimes than murder, and those should be included.

An exhaustive of competent, objective people in the world would include ME. And only me. And since I'm not inclined to spend all my time deciding every one of these cases, the death penalty becomes arbitrary, and as such unacceptable. Sorry fans, but it simply has got to go.

 

Did Ruth Ellis deserve to die?

Ruth Ellis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She was unquestionably a murderer, but I wouldnt have wanted to be the one to drop the hatch. The problem with making murder a capital crime is that there are degree's of blame, and some people dont seem to "deserve" to die.

And if you say "well, murder wont always be a capital crime, only in the most disgusting cases" then the problem is as others have stated above, who decides which cases are disgusting enough, and how can we rely on them to be right in this judgment?

And I think you should ask yourself that question honestly. If you deserve the death penalty, would you be willing to put the noose around the man's neck and drop the hatch? (or tie him down and flip the switch if your an American)?

If you have a chance to, I would really recomend this movie/show

The Execution of Gary Glitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right from the start, I'll tell you it isnt unbiased, and the agenda behind it is broadly anti-death penalty, but its not heavy handed in getting the message across (or denying that the guy is a revolting deviant) and it really made me think. A lot of people will say off hand down the pub "oh, I think paedophiles are the scum of the earth and should be killed" - but it actually makes you look at what that looks like.

 

I have no moral issue with the death penalty. I simply have no faith in our judicial system to get it right 100% of the time.

I'd prefer that 100 Chuck Mansons die of old age, than a single innocent person get murdered on my behalf.

 

No big surprise that I don't support the death penalty.
It's not cheaper. It's not just. And, as has been pointed out, it is not infallible.
Ritual cleansing, my ass. It's revenge. That's not the way I operate and it's not the way I prefer the society I live in to operate.

 

I have no problem with the death penalty because I see prison as an institution of dual purpose: incapacitation for those that cannot reenter society and "rehabilitation" for those that can. I also fail to see how expense really relates to capital punishment because the entire Adult Daycare industry is a money pit, much like law enforcement or anything else that is for The Greater Good. If you want to talk about the justice system and money, you're largely wanking at the wind unless you're going to go all Stalin and start issuing $.47 sentences. Correct me if I'm wrong, but society doesn't have these things because they make sense in a black/red world, society has them because society needs them to maintain order in society and because society feels that the appropriate level of order is humanely attained by putting found-dangerous men in tiny little concrete cages for decades at a time.

Me? I'd rather take a bullet to the temple than be locked in a box by myself for twenty years. You guys have this really weird idea of what is humane.

 

If everyone sentenced to death is so willing to die, why do you suppose that nearly every death penalty conviction goes into multiple appeals? When was the last time you heard a person on death row say that they were ready to be strapped to a table and be killed? Once, twice, maybe?

What you would rather do in your fantasy has nothing to do with reality.

 

This is the biggest problem I have.

If people dont want to look up Ruth Ellis, just think of two examples.

An emotionally volatile woman who is beaten up by and has a miscarriage after being punched in the stomach by her violent lover who then shoots him when he takes up with another woman...

Is not the same as a woman who brutally totures, rapes and kills children in partnership with her equally deranged husband, who video tapes the murders (which include her own step daughter and children) for later enjoyment, and who kills from sheer sadism.

Ruth Ellis is not the same as Rose West.

I cannot accept murder in itself being a capital crime, because some murders are so much worse than others. I do not trust any existing mechanism of the state to judge the difference.

_

All I would say also is that I find the American methods of execution especially cruel and bizzare. That people are kept on death row for years while appeal after appeal fails, constantly at fear for their life, is more sadistic and barbaric than the Roman's throwing people to the lions or crucifying them. It is this more than the act itself which outrages me.

After the sentence they should be hanged within a week maximum. One appeal for clemency to whatever authority makes that call, then hang them - and not in public and not with buffoons cavorting around outside the prison gates celebrating the killing. People sitting on death row are being tortured.
--- merged: Apr 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM ---

For a start over half the people in prison in the UK or US are either mentally ill or drug addicts. The costs of prison could be dramatically reduced if these people were helped rather than dumped in jail. Jail should be for professional cheats or genuinely violent criminals.

And inmates should be encourages to work. Not forced, and not degrading tasks like breaking rocks. Everyone in prison should be given three meals a day, a bed, shelter, toilet and washing facilities, and and 1 hour outside a day.

Every other privilege (ie playstations, tv's, books, gym equipment, going to church, etc) they should have to work for, doing real and meaningful work that will give them self respect and real skills they can use on the outside. They should be taxed as a top rate earner, and where possible some of what they earn should go back to victim.

_

But unfortunately society would rather just lock them up and not think about it,

And because we cut back so much on staff, we give them playstations, nintendo's, tv's, etc to keep them quiet.

(and before people tell me I dont know what its like in prison... my sister is prison warden, so I have a better idea than most who havent been inside themselves)

 

Really? We're arguing personal opinions as reality now? Damn, you're good. What about my "Well, if it happened to me..." statement was confusing? I'm writing at a 7th grade level here. Please, tell me how I should feel about your particular flavor of justice, Middle Class White Woman from Town.

/Middle Class White Guy from Town

The "reality" is quite obvious from the history of the capital punishment appeals process in the US. No "we cracked a book" shit, Sherlock.

I wasn't debating that.

Are you asking for my opinion? I say: Why not? Makes a helluva lot more sense than killing a troubled black guy for busting a cap in a 7-11 clerk way back in 1985. But here's the thing: we can't rationalize that because it's like trying to get a handle on Pol Pot. And because the dude is a college'd white.

We kill rapists and murderers left and right. A white guy can ruin thousands of lives by writing a check or moving some meta-money, gets nothin'.

Interpersonal crimes are somehow more offensive than "pushing the button." We get that.

 

I know of a few current and former death row inmates who either requested or actively sought out execution. One man in Washington state rejected all appeals and requested to be hanged ASAP (in that state anyone on death row can choose between hanging and the needle.) He was executed rather quickly if memory serve me correctly. A man in Oregon is, or was, currently suing the state to carry out his sentence. The Governor of Oregon has place a halt to all executions while he's in office.

Do I care if an inmate prefers death over a life in custody? Fuck no. They lost their right to an opinion on the matter when they committed their crimes.

I don't favor the death penalty for many reason but it mainly boils down, for me, to killing is wrong regardless of who's doing the killing.

 

I think it is exceptionally worrying and dangerous slope you stand on the precipice of when you say that someone can lose their human rights by certain acts.

I am conscious you don't explicitly say this, but it seems to me to be at the crux of this view.

Under the American constitution citizens have the right not be given "cruel" punishments, and being forced to languish with an axe hanging over your head for 20 years, taken again and again to the point of death and then given a temporary reprieve... this is as cruel as I could imagine.

I also don't support the death penalty, but if you are going to do it, do it straight away, without all of this messing around and psychological torture.

I also think the only acceptable to do it, if you are going to do it, is hanging.

Electrocution, gassing, poisoning, again are all needlessly cruel and inhuman.

 

Careful with your ideas of reality now.

The thread. This topic. Tilted Politics. Sweet Mother of Hasselhoff. Somebody kill me. All this has happened before and all this will happen again.

In comparison to hanging? Arguing seconds of pain is a little ridiculous of us when we're killing someone.

A bullet to the credit card area of the human head is a painless death albeit not very politically correct.

I find it funny when those that argue in favor of barbaric acts (killing someone) want cuddly methods.