Capital Punishment

[MrLeft]

As for me, when a serial killer confesses to raping and killing 20 women, children or men, it's hard to argue that his life should be spared. In Malaysia, they hang people who carry drugs(mules) and anyone who has a firearm without a permit,( which is very hard to get). Naturally in both cases I don't agree with the punishment. Someone could plant a gun (or drugs) on me and it's the death penalty unless I have a competent lawyer. A lot of people have gotten off because of police incompetence but that's another story.
America is now grouped with China and a few other countries that still practices Capital Punishment--I mean among developed and developing countries. The Vatican is against it as are most European Countries. Texas alone puts to death more convicts than the whole of Western Europe I would think. I just want to know what you think, and is the system still viable in your eyes.

[Ismail]

There is no good reason to use the death penalty. It would be more efficient and effective to sentence death row inmates to a life of hard labor.


As for me, when a serial killer confesses to raping and killing 20 women, children or men, it's hard to argue that his life should be spared.You want revenge, yes. I would want that in some situations myself. However, killing the person solves nothing. They're dead and....that's it. I'd rather have them work and gradually crush their spirits until they die years later.

[piet11111]

after the revolution i would support the death sentance
but right now i dont because the pigs often dont investigate their case properly and are only interested in getting the crime "solved" by any means.

besides there are a whole lot of scumbags to get rid off after the revolution and shooting them is the best way to get rid of them.

[cyu]

Some places are considering using the death sentence against convicted child molestors. Opponents of this legislation say it will encourage the molestors to kill their victims. After all, if you're going to be executed anyway, why not just kill off anybody that could possibly testify against you? There's no way you could be executed twice.

As a believer in cooperative evolution, I'm not a fan of policies that go against that. It's not to say I trust all convicted criminals, but I believe a criminal justice system that focuses on rehabilitation more than punishment is better in the grand scheme of evolution toward better cooperative societies.

[LSD]

The problem with the death penalty is that it's a perfect punishment in an imperfect world.

To be utilized on a significant scale it would require a justice system capable of dispensing flawless judgements and that's simply not attainable.

Obviously we can greatly improve on the one we've got now, but even in the most idealized utopian classless stateless communist system imaginable, mistakes will happen.

And when they do, any punishments imposed need to be reversible, at least to a reasonble degree. Death isn't reversible at all.

[Goatse]

I'm against the death penalty, but not against hard labour for life (and the option of suicide given to them.) I wouldn't advocate George Bush, Saddam Hussein or Tony Blair's deaths - I'd force them to spend the rest of their lives rebuilding Iraq. (Not that Saddam can do much rebuilding now.)

[luxemburg89]

having grown up in a country without the death penalty and the only stories of death penalties every coming from certain US states I'm not sure. I can't get my head round living in a society with it - I'd be pretty scared - what if you got the wrong person? Also possibly making a criminal (a murderer, rapist etc) live with their crime - and making regret and remorse come over them would be a far more suiting punishment than just killing them and not making their suffering drawn out (I undestand some would not feel remorse) but in which case we could submit them to solitary confinement and make them live with their crime on minimal food in a cell with nothing to do - hopefully driving them mad. I understand why someone would want a person who murdered or raped their family or friends to die, but i think I would want them to suffer for as long as possible - It's a very tough question.

I tend to have the view that for petty crimes (stealing/robbery etc) the system should be based on rehabilitation not punishment.

[Demogorgon]

I am against the Death Penalty in all cases. It is barbaric.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:03 pm
The problem with the death penalty is that it's a perfect punishment in an imperfect world.

To be utilized on a significant scale it would require a justice system capable of dispensing flawless judgements and that's simply not attainable.

Obviously we can greatly improve on the one we've got now, but even in the most idealized utopian classless stateless communist system imaginable, mistakes will happen.

And when they do, any punishments imposed need to be reversible, at least to a reasonble degree. Death isn't reversible at all.

The problem with the death penalty is that it's a perfect punishment in an imperfect world.

I couldn't agree more.

[redcannon]

to me the death penalty is just not harsh enough. so you die, so what? if you killed before that, it probably isn't that big a deal to you (why should the baker fear his bread?) i like the idea of a life of hard labour, but i think a life of isolation from the rest of the world would be better. we could just place them all the desolate regions of northern canada.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

well I'm generally against the death penalty but there are cases where I think it is justified. Every revolution has seen it.

[Oedipus Complex]

Assuming the death penalty is not being applied towards a revolution then I'm against it in all forms.

I will seek to unveil terrible issues within capital punishment:

1. It doesn't deter crime: All scientific studies have yielded absolutely no evidence to support the supposition that when capital punishment is applied then subsequently crime drops. It's really quite simple if you ponder over it. Most crimes are committed because a lack of needs, being money, food, etc. Therefore how will stiffening a penalty do anything to prevent human's instinct for survival? Many times crimes are committed also because of failed relationships, which are often done in the "heat of passion" where one can not possibly be thinking rationally in any sense to be thinking about a stiffer punishment. Here is some evidence Deterrence Bullshit (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167)

2. It is arbitrarily used: There is no unifying codified law which exclaims specifically the details of when capital punishment is to be applied and when it isn't. Here is some statistics on itArbitrary Death (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1328). It really shouldn't come as a surprise that many are often eager to impose such a cruel punishment upon humans while others aren't. It’s just the luck of the draw which you get.

3. Race plays a factor: Rather sad that something without biological evidence plays a factor in who dies or not. Racial Bias (http://www.ncadp.org/fact_sheet2.html)

4. Innocence: The murder of an innocent human being is the most gruesome thing which society can allow. The possibility will never magically vanish; there are many undoubtedly who have already been executed who were innocent, and undoubtedly there remain many more. Whether because of racial bias, conviction even with lack of evidence, etc. There will always be the chance of killing someone who did not commit the crime. How can you possibly call yourself a "civilized" nation when that occurs?

5. Class plays a factor as well: Let's face it lawyers cost a ton of money. One who lacks the funds (often times the victim because as stated before victims commit crimes to gain money etc) for adequate representation must deal with court-appointed lawyers who have been known to sleep on the job, misuse key evidence, and in short don't provide a fair picture to the juror. Therefore we can see that once again life or death depends on your class status.

[Oedipus Complex]

6. Prosecutors: Even ethical violations will not stop prosecutors from withholding evidence in order to win a case despite the fact that they know they could possibly kill an innocent person. Why would they do this? Simple! The more cases you win the higher prestige you earn hence greater salary. The bottom dollar is what it comes down to for them unfortunately and not ethics.

7. Jurors: This says everything Juror Bias (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1328). It is slightly below the representation portion of the article.

8. Community pressure: What I am referring to when I say community pressure is the fact that often times when a murder is committed in that clique town of "nobody would have ever expected that this would happen in this town", the police are therefore under a tremendous amount of pressure. Since their jobs can depend on finding the right person and quickly so nobody else gets harmed, it comes as no surprise that the police will often use tactics such as focusing all efforts on one individual, ignoring countless other leads, and interrogating/physically harming someone in order to extract a confession. It becomes logically apparent that these methods obviously will lead to wrongful convictions and therefore wrongful executions.

9. Victim's family: Often times you'll hear the emotional argument that the death penalty allows peace for the victim’s family. Even despite the numerous flaws listed above how exactly will the death penalty help you forget that your loved one has died? At first yes the victim's typically support the execution but many testimonials have shown that later the death penalty can never erase the horrors of the past.

10. U.S.A.'s "company": If we take a look at the countries which are Retentionist Retentionist (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng) you start to infer some similarities between the countries which are retentionist and abolitionist countries. How does it feel America to be in company with countries like Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia, Iraq, and Iran just to name a few.

11. Not so humane: Here are just some after 1976 (imagine before then) of botched executions Botched Executions (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=478). There will always be mistakes in the execution process and trying to pretend that his only happened in the death penalty's archaic form is simply being intellectually dishonest and downright offensive to those who have suffered for no reason.

I don't think that there is any need to continue on longer with even more evidence to compound the already overwhelming portion of it that the death penalty serves no purpose at all.

[Yardstick]

I do not support the deah penalty for mainly the reasons stated above me.

The only justification I can see is as a form of revenge, which to me seems foolish.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The death penalty is a concept which simply does not belong in civilized society. The fact of the matter is that the killer's pain ends at the moment of execution, him being dead and all, while his innocent family will now mourn their loss.

Besides that the only actual purpose served by imposing the death penalty would be to serve one's petty desire for revenge. Such consequential emotive judgement does not belong in judicial matters.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I have trouble with the death penalty simply because I don't see violence as acceptable except in self-defence, and once the man is fearful and harmless in a courtroom he needs defending from his prosecutors, not the other way around.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:50 pm
The death penalty is a concept which simply does not belong in civilized society. The fact of the matter is that the killer's pain ends at the moment of execution, him being dead and all, while his innocent family will now mourn their loss.


Yes, the killer's "pain" ends at execution. Would you rather it continue?



Besides that the only actual purpose served by imposing the death penalty would be to serve one's petty desire for revenge. Such consequential emotive judgement does not belong in judicial matters.

Wait a moment. If the killers pain ends at execution then where is the revenge? I understand that that could be the desired "retribution", however, wouldn't further life that prolongs the killers' "painful" existance also serve as a form of revenge? Furthermore, execution does is not exclusivly for "revenge." It can also be to remove a threat permanantly from society.

[Pawn Power]

To be sure, capital punishment today is a racist abomination.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Ismail
There is no good reason to use the death penalty. It would be more efficient and effective to sentence death row inmates to a life of hard labor.Right on! :cool:

My original response on capital punishment (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65353&view=findpost&p=1292298734):


The politically correct debate here is between pro-death and pro-jails. However, even outright executions cost money (poison for injections, electrical stuff for electrocutions, etc.). Jail terms for the worst offenders mean than they get to live at society's expense (even a potentially socialist one). Is anyone here willing to stomach penal labour like I have in high school (hey, the Bolsheviks did this in the Civil War for common criminals, POWs, class and political enemies, corrupt officials, etc.)? At least, in regards to those deserving the death penalty (but no urgency for immediate execution), the harsher forms of penal labour are a cheap way to "execute" them, while extracting labour value from them (as exploitative as that sounds, I know).

[Fodman]

It can also be to remove a threat permanantly from society.
which leads me onto this:

i've always been against the death penalty, however Saddam's execution made me think about what may have happened if he was left to rot in prison for years - there would probably have been numerous threats to civilians by supporters of Saddam, as an act demanding his release. Killing Saddam stopped any such demands from taking place (although acts like these are already being done, with the aim of getting the coalition to withdraw from Iraq, with all of these attempts ending in failure)

this approach is absolutely pragmatic

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yes, the killer's "pain" ends at execution. Would you rather it continue?
Well I wouldn't bend over backwards to end it. I'm certainly not a sadist, but I do believe that a killer's pain serves as a healthy deterrent to others. But what's your point here? Are you trying to refute my point against the death penalty? If so, I assume that you are pro-capital punishment. Why so?


Wait a moment. If the killers pain ends at execution then where is the revenge? I understand that that could be the desired "retribution", however, wouldn't further life that prolongs the killers' "painful" existance also serve as a form of revenge?
You're right; objectively speaking, there has been no restoration of balance in terms of pain or misery. However, this is unlikely to be the opinion of the victims' families who, because of religious beliefs or intense anger, think that the death of the perpetrator would somehow constitute justice. This is untrue, and that is my point. The "revenge" card which many use to justify the death penalty, besides being irrelevant (as revenge is not viewed as an acceptable motive for murder in any jurisdiction), is flawed.


Furthermore, execution does is not exclusivly for "revenge." It can also be to remove a threat permanantly from society.
Indeed, but I would question this justification as well. First of all, the security in some of our more notorious prisons is becoming ever more effective (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax#Prisoner_life)) and as a result the death penalty is fast becoming redundant as a means of ensuring society's safety. Also, you have to take into account the guilty party's motives for committing the crime in question; often people are sentenced to death for crimes which they committed for ideological reasons, religion, right-wing extremism etc. In cases such as these, sentencing the accused to death will only paint them as martyrs to their cause, and lead more to support them and potentially follow in their footsteps.

[Comeback Kid]

I belive that the death penalty should be an option for the prosecution, not for proles that are involved in crime to stay alive, but for serial killers, mass murders and pedophiles ect.


Yes, the killer's "pain" ends at execution. Would you rather it continue?

I belive that it should be held for people with issues that are so extreme or so sadistic, that they would not find jail 'painful' as they feel no remorse.


Furthermore, execution does is not exclusivly for "revenge." It can also be to remove a threat permanantly from society.

3 schools of punishment for a crime are retribution, deterence and rehabilation. This enforces my point that only really be used in really fucked cases should. There is no point trying to rehabiliate serial killers, maybe when we have a higher understanding of sociology and have advanced in beahavoiral science.
You shouldn't need to deter people from commiting these crime sbe cause regular people shouldn't need to be detered from commiting mass murder.


5. Class plays a factor as well: Let's face it lawyers cost a ton of money. One who lacks the funds (often times the victim because as stated before victims commit crimes to gain money etc) for adequate representation must deal with court-appointed lawyers who have been known to sleep on the job, misuse key evidence, and in short don't provide a fair picture to the juror. Therefore we can see that once again life or death depends on your class status.

The death penalty should only be held where there is insumountable evidence against the accused.


There will always be the chance of killing someone who did not commit the crime

see above.


1. It doesn't deter crime: All scientific studies have yielded absolutely no evidence to support the supposition that when capital punishment is applied then subsequently crime drops. It's really quite simple if you ponder over it. Most crimes are committed because a lack of needs, being money, food, etc. Therefore how will stiffening a penalty do anything to prevent human's instinct for survival? Many times crimes are committed also because of failed relationships, which are often done in the "heat of passion" where one can not possibly be thinking rationally in any sense to be thinking about a stiffer punishment. Here is some evidence Deterrence Bullshit

You shouldn't need to deter people from going out and killing 20 innocent people, or raping a small child, its shit that shouldn't be going through you mind.



9. Victim's family: Often times you'll hear the emotional argument that the death penalty allows peace for the victim’s family. Even despite the numerous flaws listed above how exactly will the death penalty help you forget that your loved one has died? At first yes the victim's typically support the execution but many testimonials have shown that later the death penalty can never erase the horrors of the past

I agree that this is a moot point. Whats done is done.


6. Prosecutors: Even ethical violations will not stop prosecutors from withholding evidence in order to win a case despite the fact that they know they could possibly kill an innocent person. Why would they do this? Simple! The more cases you win the higher prestige you earn hence greater salary. The bottom dollar is what it comes down to for them unfortunately and not ethics.

There should be something simmilar to the Hippocratic Oath in the field of law. I am intersted in law because of a desire for justice, not a suit and a sports car.

Oedipues you know your stuff very well, do you study law?