Is the death penalty really that bad?

[YoUnG192]

Is it really that bad? I don't think its bad at all. Not only is it justice it sends a message, what do you think?

[Xvall]

Depends on who it's for.

[YoUnG192]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:12 AM
Depends on who it's for.
For what type of crime would you support it for? I would support it for rape, attempted murder, and murder.

[Xvall]

Being a Nazi (Yeah; it should be a crime.) is probably #1 on my list.

[Free Palestine]

I support putting Ariel Sharon in a woodchipper.

[WUOrevolt]

Wrong no matter what.

[YoUnG192]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:21 AM
Wrong no matter what.
Why? Post your reason.

[LSD]

The real problem with the death penalty is it's irreversibility.

Virtually any other punnishment can be reversed or at least compensated for, should a mistake be discovered to have been made.

We cannot reverse death.

Accordingly, especially in a society so unequal and hierchical as capitalism, the death penalty should not be utilized. Mistakes not only occur in the present system, they are practicall "normal".

Even in an "ideal" justice system, such as would exist in a communist society, I fear mistakes are pretty much inevitable. And so, while I don't have a viable alternative, I don't think that any society should use the death penalty, except in cases of absolute nescessity or absolute certainty.

I have, for example, absolutely no problem with the executions of various Nazi criminals after the end of the second world war. Anyone who thinks that Hermann Goering had a "right to life" is seriously delusional.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by YoUnG192+Nov 28 2005, 09:35 AM--> (YoUnG192 @ Nov 28 2005, 09:35 AM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 05:21 AM
Wrong no matter what.
Why? Post your reason. [/b]
I believe that the best reason to oppose the death penalty is that there are mistakes that inevitable, and if you wrongfully execute someone, you are creating more victims where there shouldnt be.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:08 PM
Is it really that bad? I don't think its bad at all. Not only is it justice it sends a message, what do you think?

when it comes to serious crimes like rape and murder, i never really view 'deterence' as one of the reasons to install capital punishment mainly cos, most people who are willing to commit such crimes probably don't think that they are going to get caught. so if we were comparing say a $200 fine to capital punishment, i could see the latter as being more of a deterent. but if i was considering committing murder, i don't know if thinking 'hmmm i might get the death penalty' compared to 'hmmm i might get life imprisonment' would really deter me in the first instance. then again, that's just me - and i'm sure it differs from person to person.

so in that sense, i don't really see capital punishment as 'sending a message' other than 'its bad so dont do it' - which imprisonment also conveys.

i also don't think it serves justice, rather it carries out revenge. the whole biblical idea of an eye for an eye doesn't sit well with me, mainly because except in absolute extreme circumstances, i will always put rehabilitation over retribution in my list of priorities. yes, currently the prison system doesn't offer very much chance at rehabilitation. but i don't think that that's a reason to reinstate capital punishment, and besides in a post-revolutionary world i'd hope that the prison system would be vastly different from the one we have now.

edit: wording. its still not right but, whatever.

[Ownthink]

The problem with the current death penalty is that whoever the state decides it wants to execute, it can. Not good for us Communists.

Hell, just look at Governor George Bush and how many people he executed in his time as Governor of Texas.

For Murder? Fuck no! What If I murder someone who deserves it, such as a Nazi or a racist? I should be commended, not executed, for something like that!

If you're asking me, do I believe that some people deserve to die for their crimes?

Then my answer is: FUCK YES!

[drain.you]

The death penalty really is that bad.
Why? Because strangely enough, its takes away our right to live.
Maybe I'm so against it because we don't have death penalty in the UK anymore however I doubt this.
I am strongly opposed to the death penalty for the simple reason of what it is: someone having the authority to kill another person, though i guess its more sinister as its not someone it is the state, the state has the power to kill people, because of their crimes. I mean, the state judges what a crime is, in today's world (in certain countries) you can be executed for a crime as petty as theft, I mean come on! In the UK I could steal something from a shop, get caught and get put in jail for a couple of month or I could infact just recieve a warning.
The state being able to judge what should be a crime and how to charge for such a crime is quite disturbing in my own mind as circumstances differ in every case, ie; a person could steal to feed his family and this is different from a person stealing purely to accumulate wealth.
We all have a right to live. Okay, I hear you, what if someone kills someone else, shouldn't they be killed? No. Firstly remember it should be wrong to kill someone else, therefore why back this up by in turn committing the same offence? People who commit crimes, especially those such as murder and rape (which I class as two of the worst crimes), should be removed from society, ie; put into a prison or even being a labour camp. No, not a bad labour camp where they get starved and beaten, though many would argue for this, but instead to make something valuble to society, to give back to society if you will, growing crops, assembling things, making clothes, I dunno, something productive.
Also like mentioned, its not a deterrent. If I was thinking of killing someone, I know theres a really high chance of me getting caught and locked up for life. If I get locked up, I lose my freedom, my friends, my family, my house,etc, its no different from dying. I would prefer to be killed than locked up for life. If I was prepared to go to prison as a result of killing someone, I would also be prepared to die. Also please note, many crimes considered worthy of death penalty can be spur of the moment things, not planned and therefore the so called deterrent of capital punishment would not have been considered and therefore uneffective at deterring people from committing the crime.
I don't see how anyone can say that murder is the right thing to do. Majority of people oppose it yet half of them support the death penalty, my mind cannot understand their reasoning.
'An eye for an eye' arguement is in my point of view, quite petty. I brake your toy so you break mine, what is the point? Then neither of us have a toy. Its not justice, its just a way to make people feel better about things. Sure if my mam was murdered then I would feel like I want to kill the murderer however it is pointless, locking them up and throwing away the key is better anyway, at least then the murderer can be rejected by society and feel the pain and loss of freedom, you could argue that is petty too, well, it probably is.

The 'fuck no' and 'fuck yes' in comrade ownthink's post quite amused me though I still diagree that 'some people deserve to die for their crimes'.

Heres a nice quote I stumbled upon

According to Victor Hugo: «Que dit la loi? Tu ne tueras pas! Comment le dit-elle? En tuant!» ("What does the law say? You will not kill! How does it say it? By killing!").

[Reverend]

Well... for certain crimes there shold be capital and painful punishment. For child-rape, for example; kill the asshole. For rape; no. That's because the victim could be drunk and so could the rapist. The victim just might say that it's all okay and shit, and the next morning she (or he) doesn't recall it. But there is no way in hell that the rape of a fucking 10-year old could be a MISTAKE! Is there?

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:18 AM
Well... for certain crimes there shold be capital and painful punishment. For child-rape, for example; kill the asshole. For rape; no. That's because the victim could be drunk and so could the rapist. The victim just might say that it's all okay and shit, and the next morning she (or he) doesn't recall it. But there is no way in hell that the rape of a fucking 10-year old could be a MISTAKE! Is there?
in the case, we should just forego any type of punishment for rape altogether, hey? since they could easily have been drunk.

[VonClausewitz]

I support wholly capital punishment, for certain crimes, and for a number of economically and probably morally sound reasons;

Rapists - If someone intends to and does force another to copulate, then they are a rapist, no matter what defence they cook up. If they can do it once, they can do it again, no matter how much "Education" is forced at them in "Prison". The ammout of harm, both physical and psychological that can be caused by it is also a supporting factor.

Paedophiles - Basically as above, replace another with "A Child". These people deserve to die on a number of moral levels, and because of the stresses they can cause in local communities, just by their mere prescence. And well, if you were a Father/Mother, would you want that kind of person, no matter how long they have spent watching Trisha in "Prison", near a school or nursery?

Murderers - ie - people who intend to end another's life. They go out in cold blood and kill another person, whether it be because they are a fascist, racist, whatever. POLITICS IS NOT A GOOD EXCUSE FOR KILLING SOMEONE. (beat them up a bit though ;) ). Self defence does NOT count as murder in my personal and several well know definitions, so don't drag that up.

Economic level - Execution, if done quickly (not with 10 year waits like in America), is far cheaper than sustaining someone in "Prison" for 30 years. It drains less on the society that this criminal damaged, and basically means that your tax money is not being used to keep Ian Huntley or someone like that in clothes and cable telly for the next few decades.

Also - It would keep the prison population down, (a lot of murders, rapists and paedophiles serve long sentences) and prisons (modern ones in the UK), are relatively comfortable buildings that could be re-cycled as perhaps homeless shelters of mental institutes, something for the good of society.

(If these views are those that got me restricted, I hope the added detail helps with the Mod's opinion of me)

[Capitalist Imperial]

I think the death penalty can be effective, but it needs to be reformed and accelerated.

I would say that the death penalty should be applied only in situations when DNA or hard forensic evidence proves a crime including rape, armed robbery, and murder. In these situations, death should occur the morning after conviction, sans appeal. Circumstantial evidence convictions should be limited to life imprisonment.

[Ymir]

Damn, lost my whole post due to computer crash. Here we go again:

The death penalty is obviously not effective as a deterrent, otherwise people would not commit crimes which obviously would get them executed. I'm not going to bother arguing that the death penalty allows innocents to die, as putting innocents in prison is possibly far worse than a quick execution which most countries do not have as they allow convicts to wait for 20 years on death row before executed.

No, I believe we should view the death penalty through its permanency. The death penalty, without any doubt whatsoever, incapacitates criminals from harming others in the future. But, it also does not allow them to contribute to society nor rehabilitate them to being functional members of society forever. Thus, given that certain individuals have such mental inclinations of crime, that is -harming others, stealing, etc, even when given alternate means of existence, it is only these who should be given the death penalty. Be they criminally insane or simply too inclined by former habits, individuals incapable of being rehabilitation should be executed in the most humane and non-denigrating way possible, as execution should be for incapacitation purposes only and not public spectacle, which unnecessarily makes light of violence.

Too often justice is viewed as the maintenence of some "moral balance" in which an "eye for an eye" must be taken. For a better society, one must view justice as more of a maintence of order, stability, and public welfare than a institutional means of public revenge, which does not undo harm done by criminals. This view leads to unjust actions, such as executing people based upon the moral negativity of their crimes, a view given by Mr. VonClausewitz, which does not allow one-time criminals to rehabilitate themselves, no matter how disgusting their crime may be.

The death penalty, again, must be viewed by its permanence. If we kill a man, we strip him of his ability to do good and bad actions. Before we condemn someone to an ever-lasting state like this, we should be sure they could not contribute good to society before they die.

[TheComrade]

Capital punishment should NEVER be used. I believe the main purpose of law is rehabilitation. What about those that you can't rehabilitate, I hear you ask? Difficult question - lock them up forever? I don't really know - but killing them is unacceptable - you are no better than them, simple.

It doesn't make you feel any better - just talk to the families that have been murderers killed, many of them are the biggest anti-capital punishment campaigners.

By killing anyone for their political beliefs you make them a martyr and simply fuel their cause further.

[SCDF]

In cases with 100% prove that the suspect commited the crime, dead penalty is very good. Why ?

-I don't want to pay for a that idiot, so that he can press number plates in jail and watch tv.
-It will be a good oppurtunity to let criminals see that they don't have to think about a heavy crime.

[Bannockburn]

No. the death penalty should not be used in any circumstance. For a long time, I was pro capitol punishment. However, a couple of years ago, I changed my mind.

To begin with, modern republicans derive their powers from the people. The people do not have the right to kill, therefore neither does the state. That is a weak argument, but it shows a double standard.

The death penalty derives from Hobbes' transcendent sovereignty. Nevertheless, capital punishment seems to contradict the very basis of law. We don't rape, rapist. We don't assault, assaulter. We only seem to kill, killers. Its generally assumed the same acts that punish the original act becomes the act themselves. This is why law, generally is never over and abundant of the crime itself. The death penalty seems to be the exception.

Besides, punishment, as a rule is suppose to end. A punishment that never ceases, ceases to be a punishment at all. They are suppose to have a duration. The death penalty does not have such a condition, and as a result is ipso facto not a punishment anymore. Crimes are meant to punish. If the death penalty does not punish, then what does it do? It murders.

Outside of philosophical reasons, our legal system is not infallible.

[Simotix]

You should be proved with out any possible doubt to be considered for the death penalty. You should then, once considered be trialed atleast twice so there will be a majority rule.

Taxes should not have to pay for first degree murders, serial rapists, recountable child molesters, and such of that nature. They should be punished by death, not by having the freedom to live. Would you want the person that raped your wife,then cut up her limbs and put them in a freezer have the right to life? I sure as hell would not.

I would also like to point of John Locke's "Rights of Man" and how it describes that it is our right to kill to prevent kill. By this, I would to say that if someone is going to kill another free person that does not harm, then he is a harm to society and should be killed it if is shown that without reasonable doubt that he was going to preform such an act.


Originally posted by YoUnG192+Nov 28 2005, 04:20 AM--> (YoUnG192 @ Nov 28 2005, 04:20 AM)I would support it for rape, attempted murder, and murder.[/b]
People that get charged with attempted murder doesn't always mean they tried to murder someone on purpose. Attempted murder can still be an accident.


Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:04 AM
Being a Nazi (Yeah; it should be a crime.) is probably #1 on my list.
Depends. There is nazis that do nothing, just believe and sit around. You should not be killed for thoughts, it is the actions that cause the question.


Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:16 AM
and if you wrongfully execute someone, you are creating more victims where there shouldnt be.
See above.


Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 28 2005, 06:21 AM
i also don't think it serves justice, rather it carries out revenge.
Justice, in some cases is revenge.

Example - You get a speeding ticket for doing 85 mph in a 55 mph and have to pay a fine. That can be sort of the counties revenge for not following the law and putting lives at risk.

However, I do not see the problem where revenge for such things as a serial rapist falls into a problem.


Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:07 PM
Hell, just look at Governor George Bush and how many people he executed in his time as Governor of Texas.
Wasn't Texas always known to be a state of this nature though?


Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:07 PM
For Murder? Fuck no! What If I murder someone who deserves it, such as a Nazi or a racist? I should be commended, not executed, for something like that!

As I quote from above "There is nazis that do nothing, just believe and sit around. You should not be killed for thoughts, it is the actions that cause the question.". Also, racists should not be killed. They are wrong and harmful, but not punishable by death.


Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:18 PM
For rape; no. That's because the victim could be drunk and so could the rapist.
Intoxication is not an excuse. You picked up the drunk, you got your self drunk, you are responsable for your actions. If you can not hold your right to a think clearly then you have a problem, if you then commit a crime while not thinking clearly it is nobodies fault but your own.


Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:24 PM
Also - It would keep the prison population down, (a lot of murders, rapists and paedophiles serve long sentences) and prisons (modern ones in the UK), are relatively comfortable buildings that could be re-cycled as perhaps homeless shelters of mental institutes, something for the good of society.
I agree. Keeping the population down in prisons by filtering out and pursing those who are harmful to society will make less jails needed. Those jails can then be used for something constructive. Also, it can improve jail conditions. Even though they are criminals, they still deserve rights (depending on severity of crime).


[email protected] 6 2005, 12:32 PM
killing them is unacceptable - you are no better than them, simple.
Killing someone that has raped multiple children will never, on any level, be put on the same level as me if I were kill that person by the death penalty. Same goes with other similar offenses.

[Ownthink]

Attempted murder is no accident -- Manslaughter can be an accident. Murder is always pre planned and you intended to carry it out, or try to.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 10:54 PM
Attempted murder is no accident -- Manslaughter can be an accident. Murder is always pre planned and you intended to carry it out, or try to.
I believe selling heroine in high amounts can get you attemped murder (or maybe it is manslaughter) in some places.

Also, isn't it Murder in the 3rd degree that is not planned murder?

[Ymir]

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/567/...06_Tookie.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/567/567_06_Tookie.shtml)

Don’t let California execute a peacemaker
By Alan Maass | December 2, 2005 | Pages 6 and 7

THE STRUGGLE to save Stan Tookie Williams is reaching a new turning point.

On November 30, people in as many as 50 towns and cities across the U.S. will gather at meetings, film screenings, pickets and protests as part of a national day of action calling for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant clemency to the former gang leader-turned-peacemaker.

Stan is scheduled to die in San Quentin prison’s death chamber on December 13 for four 1979 murders that he has always maintained he didn’t commit.

Since going to prison, the co-founder of the infamous Crips gang in Los Angeles has rehabilitated himself, writing a series of children’s books that warn against crime and prison. Those books--plus his efforts to promote peace agreements between rival street gangs--have earned him a series of Nobel Prize nominations since 2001. Last year, the FX cable channel premiered a movie about Stan’s life, starring Jamie Foxx.

This October, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Stan’s latest appeal, clearing the way for California’s Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, to seek an execution date. But people from all walks of life--ranging from Hollywood and hip-hop superstars to long-time anti-death penalty and anti-racist activists--have come together in a growing movement asking Schwarzenegger to grant clemency.

That effort took a step forward last week when Schwarzenegger announced that he would hold a clemency hearing with Stan’s lawyers--something the governator refused to do in one of the two death penalty cases to cross his desk since taking office. But there are no guarantees--so activists have much more planned to keep up the pressure.

With his growing numbers of supporters around the country, Stan is one of the most famous death row prisoners in the country. But many of the issues in his case are the same as those facing the 3,400 other prisoners on death row around the U.S.

In particular, racism played a central role in Stan’s case. His murder trial was moved from Los Angeles to a predominantly white, conservative area, the jury in the case was all white, and the prosecutor, in his closing argument, compared Stan to a Bengal tiger in the zoo. Like almost everyone else on death row, Stan also had inadequate legal representation.

The connection to the wider struggle against the death penalty will be highlighted because the November 30 day of action for Stan coincidentally falls on the same day when abolitionists will mark the expected 1,000th execution since the capital punishment was reinstated in the U.S. in 1976.

From the exoneration of another death row prisoner last month--the 122nd since 1976--to recent revelations that a victim of the Texas execution machine from a dozen years ago was likely innocent, the evidence of what’s wrong with capital punishment continues to pile up. The struggle to save Stan is helping to expose this unjust system--which singles out the poorest and most vulnerable in society for the ultimate punishment.

[Invader Zim]

I find the death penalty to be the most amusingly hypocritical institution in American society.

Punishing barbarism with a barbarism, so much for the moral high ground of the society which sees fit to degrade and destroy humanity in such a manner.

[patrickbeverley]

[/B]There have been many cases in my home country (Britain) where people have been found guilty of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment, then evidence has been found to clear them long after they would have been dead with capital punishment.

Now in those cases someone's had years and years taken from them under a false conviction. That's terrible.

But they are not dead!

They can now live on, free, having been cleared. You cannot reverse death.

Oh, and to those who don't want to "pay for a that idiot, so that he can press number plates in jail" - the cost of putting someone through the Death Row appeals process then executing them is considerably higher than the cost of imprisoning them for a hundred years.

[redstar2000]

May I draw your attention to a very lengthy thread in our Theory forum...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=43222&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43222&st=0)

Some of the arguments on this question are developed in far greater detail.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif