Rationalizing the Death Penalty

First, let me apologize for the Hitler comparison. Hitler was the embodiment of deviancy, fear and paranoia. Understanding that he was psychologically damaged, to put it mildly, allows me to at least logically understand why someone so disturbed would behave the way he did. There have been few people who I would compare to him. I don't know you but odds are, you don't belong on that list.

What I don't understand, is how otherwise rational and "normal" people can write off another human being because they commit a crime. Now I didn't bring up the mentally ill aspect here, you did. And I do feel that it's appropriate to respond as the OP has laid out specific incidences where the death penalty, in his opinion, is inappropriate. Though I can't agree with him on the death penalty, overall, I can come to terms with his opinions as it appears he's at least applied some introspection to them. If you have as well, it's not evident in your posts.

We obviously disagree entirely about the issue, but I find it stunning that you would so easily condemn to death anyone who has committed an act of murder, regardless of the circumstances or their mental ability to function normally. "A crime is a crime" Sounds as if you wouldn't mind seeing lesser crimes fall under the death penalty umbrella (maybe not a fair assumption, but there it is) This sort of cavalier attitude towards your fellow human beings and whether they should live or die sends chills up my spine.

I'm sort of hoping you're just trying to be cute.

I was raped when I was 30. A year and half ago my 20 yr old daughter was robbed and terrorized while a gun was held to her forehead. There's more. I'm no stranger to violence. None of it drove me to the place you are. I can't imagine the devastating violence you've obviously been subjected to.

An average of 16 family members for each of the 30 victims? Where did you come up with that number?

 

If the criminal is a proven threat to society, what difference does it make how many people he killed? Is there a threshold we need to be dealing with here?

If a criminal rapes and kills 1 young woman, is he less unsavory because he didn't rape and kill 20?

At what point is there no hope for redemption or rehabilitation?

If there is no hope for redemption or rehabilitation, would you not consider the possibility that the killer might be insane?

What is the purpose of the death penalty?

 

Obvious to whom? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be making that judgment without a crystal ball to tell me what the future held for that person. What qualifies any of us to decide that someone is beyond redemption? And I'm not speaking about religious redemption though it's certainly a path some take. I've lived long enough to know that people change as they get older. I'm not the same person now that I was in my twenties. I'm not even the same person I was 5 years ago. The only barrier to change is non-treatable mental illnesses and can you justify capital punishment for crimes committed by the mentally ill? Life imprisonment will at least allow the murderer the opportunity to one day redeem himself, if not in the eyes of society, at least in own eyes. It's not impossible. Hardened criminals, guilty of the worst crimes, do it all the time, provided they aren't put to death before they get the opportunity.

Your response indicates that you did not get my point, at all.

My point is - You seem to suggest that mass murder and serial style murder is somehow more deserving of the death penalty than a single murder. So I made the assumption that it's a numbers game for you. The bigger the kill, the worse the punishment. If the punishment for a single murder is based on the malicious taking of a life, it boils down to nothing more than revenge-seeking to up the punishment for the taking of more than one life. An unsavory mass murderer is no more or less unsavory than an equally unsavory single murderer.

As offensive as that is to our sensibilities, what is gained by killing him? My guess is, you believe in evil, attribute such behavior to evil, deem it irreversible, and see no recourse but to destroy it. Modern day witch-hunting. Burn what you can't understand. Better to take advantage of his imprisonment. Study his psychology over an extended period of time. But I went into all this in an earlier post.

I would try. In this particular case, the killer is obviously very mentally disturbed. I would hope to be able to find a way to treat that, either pharmacologically or therapeutically.

If I felt he was completely rehabilitated and he'd spent 20 - 30 years in prison? Possibly. But there are many other factors to consider - how will conform to life on the outside? Does he have any job skills? Does he have family or a support network? Would his own life be in danger, if he were released? I wouldn't want to see him denied parole simply on the basis that 30 years earlier he had committed a horrendous crime. I think of Charles Mason. Televised interviews over the years have revealed that his mental illness has not improved, though I highly doubt much has been done to treat it. But I just don't know. In his case, in his current state of mind, I don't ever see him getting paroled and wouldn't want him to.

Then there's the three woman who were convicted with him. Susan Atkins (died in prison 2009) who was repeatedly denied parole despite psychiatric reports confirming that she did not pose a threat to society. The same story with Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie Van Houten. Completely rehabilitated, both having earned bachelor's degrees and both very involved with rehabilitation programs for other prisoners, no threat to society, yet denied parole for crimes they committed while under the influence of drugs and a very disturbed psychopath. It's not only a numbers thing, punishment is doled out and reinforced in direct relation to our reaction to it. The more we're abhorred by it, the greater the punishment. Justice by gut reaction. And the gut does not forgive.

The death penalty is an act of mercy.
No, it's an act of killing.
Assisted suicide is an act of mercy.
The euthanasia of dying or suffering pets is an act of mercy.

 

I don't understand why I would want to rationalise the death penalty. I see it as barbaric.

Isn't the meaning of "rationalise" as follows? Why would I want to do that?

..to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable andvalid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

 

Exactly. It is how the right habitually co-opts the terminology of the left in perverted ways. diversity=racism. war=peace. capital punishment=human rights.
it's sociopathic.

 

​

I prefer to believe the underlying causes for such opinions are subconscious rather than unconscious and those who rationalize are capable of overcoming their "seemingly reasonable and valid" justifications with some willingness to delve deeper into themselves for the honest truth behind their superficial opinions.

Unconscious causes indicates to me that they cannot be held responsible for their beliefs and opinions. I can't and don't accept that.

 

You contradict yourself, Rogue.

You talk a good game of death as the merciful alternative to the "inhumanity" of life in prison and offer up a lot of irrelevant nonsense about how we all have to die sometime, but your final few lines reveal your true reasons for being a death penalty supporter.

You hate the bastards, regard them as sub-human, and from your god perch on high, judge them unfit to live. The most honest statement you've made in this entire thread.

I don't need to justify my position. I don't arrive at it reactively. I've applied logic and can find no reasonable purpose for the death penalty. It doesn't make anyone safer. It doesn't deter others from murdering. It's not doled out consistently or fairly. It allows innocent men, woman and children to die for crimes they never committed. It claims to have regard for the mentally challenged but puts them to death as well. It's uncivilized and unbecoming of a fair, humane and judicial society.


It's an act of revenge and a show of might, plain and simple.

 

I can give some reasons that I am against the death penalty.

* I don't believe that a state should indulge in the premeditated killing of human beings and that doing so, I believe, brutalises a society.
* It doesn't work as a deterrent
* Mistakes are made (even in "obvious" cases)
* It is often applied unfairly
* It clogs up the legal system

Might I want to seek vengeance if (for example) my daughter was brutally murdered? Yes, I'm almost sure I would - and I'd probably want to mete it out myself.

That doesn't change my position, though.

 

I thought this was an interesting read for this subject.

Connecticut becomes 17th state to abolish death penalty

 

I agree with much of what you said, but I have one dispute and I will state it one line if you can answer it one or two lines.

Who decides and how to they decide who are the "most unsavoury" murderers who are worthy of death?

 

I have mixed feelings on the subject.
I'm not adverse to putting a bullet in the head of someone who has committed mass killings but I have an issue with the criminal justice system.
Blackstone's formulation tends to make sense to me.
"Better that ten innocent men go free than that one innocent man suffer."

This article pretty much proves that the death penalty is a dangerous thing and needs to end.

Shocking Number Of Innocent People Sentenced To Death, Study Finds