The Death Penalty

[tykecommie]

Recently in Britain there have been some high profile murder cases and trials. This has led to a quite furvant discussion in the media on should Britain bring back the death penalty? I'm not sure how I feel about this or how I should as a communist? I wondered if people could say if they are for or against it and why. PLEASE DON'T JUST PUT YES OR NO EXPLAIN WHY SO I CAN HAVE A FULLER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENTS

:confused:

[BobKKKindle$]

We should be fully opposed to the death penalty for "normal" crimes - I say "normal" because it might be necessary to use the death penalty for certain political crimes (violent attacks against organs of workers power, for example) in a revolutionary situation. The Death Penalty should be opposed because it implies that individuals can be held fully accountable for any crimes they commit - Socialists recognize that this is an unfair conception of deviance, as crime is actually the result of many factors, most importantly social conditions, which can drive someone to crime either to generate income, or just as an expression of the frustration they feel due to the hardship and alienation that characterize working class life - as shown by the fact that domestic violence is more likely to occur in low-income households. We should demand measures that attack the root cause of crime - such as social inequality and lack of employment opportunities - and support a justice system which seeks to rehabilitate those convicted of crimes, not merely punish, because draconian punishment can actually encourage criminals to commit further offenses when they leave prison.

In addition, black people tend to suffer disproportionately from the death penalty, because they are more likely to commit the crimes that can result in a death sentence (due to socio-economic, not biological reasons, of course) and also because of the institutional racism of the justice system. Have a look into Mumia Abu-Jumal for an example of this.

End the racist death penalty!

[RedAnarchist]

I'm very much against the death penalty for a couple of reasons -

1. As an anarchist, I oppose prisons, and therefore oppose capital punishment.

2. Its murder by the state, which is no better than murder by the individual.

3. Even in todays world of DNA testing and CCTV, miscarriages of justice still happen - there have been quite a few people cleared of a crime years after they were executed for that crime.

4. It doesn't work. If it did, how would you explain why a city like Houston, Texas 9where the death penalty is often used) has a very high murder rate?

[BobKKKindle$]

2. Its murder by the state, which is no better than murder by the individual.

I don't want to divert this discussion too much, but do you think that all "murder" is wrong? Or would you accept that, in some cases, murder is justified in order to protect the interests of a larger group of people? If the latter, what is the difference between a workers state based on democratic councils killing a counter-revolutionary, and a member of an anarchist militia/syndicalist union killing someone?

[lombas]

Someone could be condemned to death for taking someone else's life.

I see no other reason why anyone should be brought to death.

But I prefer the "no comments" way.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't want to divert this discussion too much, but do you think that all "murder" is wrong? Or would you accept that, in some cases, murder is justified in order to protect the interests of a larger group of people? If the latter, what is the difference between a workers state based on democratic councils killing a counter-revolutionary, and a member of an anarchist militia/syndicalist union killing someone?

By state, I meant a capitalist one. I accept that murder is justified in some cases, yes.

[BobKKKindle$]

Someone could be condemned to death for taking someone else's life.

What if one kills another person as part of an attempt to steal bread, because one does not have enough money to buy food? What if a husband kills his wife in fit of rage when they are arguing about how they are going to pay the rent? Is it still justified to kill someone when they were driven to murder by the poverty of a capitalist society?

And, even if this were justified, who/what would do the killing? Who/what would decide when the death penalty should be used? The State? You're apparently an anarchist!

[lombas]

What if one kills another person as part of an attempt to steal bread, because one does not have enough money to buy food? What if a husband kills his wife in fit of rage when they are arguing about how they are going to pay the rent? Is it still justified to kill someone when they were driven to murder by the poverty of a capitalist society?

And, even if this were justified, who/what would do the killing? Who/what would decide when the death penalty should be used? The State? You're apparently an anarchist!

Ah, I was talking about the situation as I see it in anarchy.

The absence of a State means that the forced monopoly on a judicial system (of exploitation, &c.) is broken, it does not mean that the concept of 'a court' itself will be over. I think people will gladly look to 'a' court to settle disputes, and, also, theft, murder, &c.

[darkened day 92]

I am for death penalty for murder and rape. and i think instead ppl should be focused on carrying out the death penalty with a gun so the dying guy would suffer less. but i mean everyone should be responsible for their actions

[RedAnarchist]

I am for death penalty for murder and rape. and i think instead ppl should be focused on carrying out the death penalty with a gun so the dying guy would suffer less. but i mean everyone should be responsible for their actions

Why do you support the death penalty?

Also, theres plenty of far more humane ways of killing someone than shooting them.

[BobKKKindle$]

I am for death penalty for murder and rape. and i think instead ppl should be focused on carrying out the death penalty with a gun so the dying guy would suffer less. but i mean everyone should be responsible for their actionsThe point is that people who commit murder should not be held responsible for their actions - because, as Marxists, we recognize that everyone's actions are, to varying degrees, influenced by the conditions of the society in which they live, and so there is no such thing as an autonomous being who exists independent of their society. This is especially true of crime - as I outlined above, Choosing a more "humane" method does not make the death penalty any more justified, because you are still unjustly depriving someone of their life.

[darkened day 92]

Why do you support the death penalty?

Also, theres plenty of far more humane ways of killing someone than shooting them.
i guess i support it because i believe it scares people if you kill a human being and everyone knows about it it's only fair that you pay the price. Shooting a guy in the head i think is much more humane than hanging him he will die in seconds and not have to suffer(as awful as that sounds). i just belive that anyone that kills someone not inself defense has a responsiblity. i think killing a murderer is more humane than locking him up in a cell for the rest of his life.
I know this opinion is not popular with people but watever

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

In a revolutionary context (i.e. during a revolution or armed struggle against the fascist state) then the death penalty is an nessicary evil.

However in peace times a life never equals a life, no matter what the crime, even attacks against a workers' state.

[Bandito]

even attacks against a workers' state
You would put fragile worker's state in danger because of one human(traitor's) life?
I strongly oppose death penalty in all cases except ones against the revolution and worker's state.
As bobkindles noticed,crimes can be put in connection with social terms,(except for some-that are psychosomatic,and we all know what institution treats them),so you can't take a man's life for stealing,killing etc...
If a man is convicted for killing three people in attempt of robbing a bank,he shouldn't get a death penalty. The representatives of the system that made him chase the "american dream" should be shot.
Do you get my point?

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

A person who kills who is irrefuteably, absolutely without a shadow of a doubt guilty should be detained and after an extensive reveiw of his case he/she should be executed.

Rapists should after having their cases proved in a similar manner be chemically sterilised and work towards the treatment of those they have offended against.

While conditions are a factor in all crimes so they are also factor in the lives of those how haven't commited any. Why a murderer with no money should be treated differently to a murderer who is a millionaire is beyond me.

The death penalty is the ultimate penalty to impose on anyone and while I support it's use I think that it should be a measure that is used cautiously in cases with (virtually) no doubt of guilt.

[Bandito]

Rapists should after having their cases proved in a similar manner be chemically sterilised
But inpregmentation is the least problem in rape,don't you agree?
Sterilisation? No.
Rapists,pedophiles,etc..suffer from physchosomatic illness. They can't be treated as people with no such difficulties. They are ill people,and should be treated in a institution,but CAN'T be shot or murdered.

[Cult of Reason]

The death penalty (outside of revolutionary situations) should only ever be used in situations where the offender is obviously an enduring danger to the public and refuses treatment to make him/her not so. We cannot have prisons in a Communist society, so those are the only options.

For those that are NOT an enduring danger to the public, then some form of rehabilitation is the best answer.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

There should NEVER be a death penalty for any crime.

[Bandito]

The death penalty (outside of revolutionary situations) should only ever be used in situations where the offender is obviously an enduring danger to the public and refuses treatment to make him/her not so. We cannot have prisons in a Communist society, so those are the only options.

For those that are NOT an enduring danger to the public, then some form of rehabilitation is the best answer.


Yes.
Mental institutions are not prisons.
But in this time,such institutions are same or worse than prisons.
There would be a radical change of mental care in worker's state.

There should NEVER be a death penalty for any crime.
For instance,if you manage to pull-off a radically good change in the world(revolution or not) and someone is a constant threat,what wold you do?
If you are really an anarchist,inprisonment is not the option. What than?

[Cryotank Screams]

A person who kills who is irrefuteably, absolutely without a shadow of a doubt guilty should be detained and after an extensive reveiw of his case he/she should be executed.

I would argue that rehabilitation would be the better option because what you and others need to remember is that humans tend to fuck up, make mistakes, etc.


i guess i support it because i believe it scares people if you kill a human being

If by 'scare people' you mean the death penalty can serve as a deterrent then you're wrong because the majority of violent crimes such as murder that take place are not pre-meditated thus the death penalty couldn’t possibly act as a deterrent and if the murder is pre-meditated then chances are that the murderer has it in their head that they are going to 'off the fucker' so again the death penalty couldn't act a deterrent. If you meant something else by “I believe it scares people,” then disregard.


i think killing a murderer is more humane than locking him up in a cell for the rest of his life.

I think giving them the chance to correct their ‘fuck ups’ and go through rehabilitation programs is more humane than both of the above mentioned options.


The death penalty (outside of revolutionary situations) should only ever be used in situations where the offender is obviously an enduring danger to the public and refuses treatment to make him/her not so.

For those that are NOT an enduring danger to the public, then some form of rehabilitation is the best answer.

I agree.

[darkened day 92]

well i'm not for the death penalty in every single murder crime but there are some where it so horrifying so scary to keep them alive. How can you rehilibate your life when your locked up for the rest of your life.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm very much opposed to the death penalty.

Taking another human being's life is only justified if it's in self defense, in my opinion.

[Cryotank Screams]

well i'm not for the death penalty in every single murder crime but there are some where it so horrifying so scary to keep them alive.

I think you are referring to crimes such as the one's committed by the likes of Ed Gein, BTK and others and I would generally file those as special cases and though I would stress that they should try to be put through rehabilitation programs if they prove to be (as Haraldur put it) a “enduring danger to the public,” and so forth I can see where the death penalty could be justified though I would much prefer them to be examined (for lack of better words) so that we can gain a better understanding of why they have and feel the need to commit such violent acts, their history and so forth which would be to our overall benefit.


How can you rehilibate your life when your locked up for the rest of your life.

The point of rehabilitation would be to put an individual through treatment and put them on a pathway that would eventually lead to their release thus they wouldn’t be “locked up until they kick the bucket.”

[darkened day 92]

Okay take the case of charles manson. He was given the death penalty but before they could kill him there was a policy prohibiting the death penalty now he lives and countless children seeking rebellion contact the neo nazi. he did so much harm he ordered the murder of an 8 months pregnant woman and you don't think he should be dead. he is sooo dangerous he inspires murederers.
What about the holocust criminals they killed 6 million maybe a lot more they should be killed.
But for example a guy that kills in a struggle or over a affair (eventhough that is also horrid) but it is not beyond the human's state of mind. then they should be sentenced to prison

[Cryotank Screams]

Okay take the case of charles manson. He was given the death penalty but before they could kill him there was a policy prohibiting the death penalty now he lives and countless children seeking rebellion contact the neo nazi. he did so much harm he ordered the murder of an 8 months pregnant woman and you don't think he should be dead. he is sooo dangerous he inspires murederers.

I would say that the Manson case is a complex one though I still think that rehabilitation should be the first step however if he "refuses treatment," and so on and remains a "enduring danger to the public," and so on then I could see where the death penalty could be justifiable.


What about the holocust criminals they killed 6 million maybe a lot more they should be killed.

That would be a special case and the death penalty would be justifiable. It should also be pointed out that both of these cases are rare and thus special cases.

[darkened day 92]

In less devolped countries it exisists more than you could imagine in my country 10 people were killed and were cut and vital organs were cut off they said that only a doctor could dismantle like that but it still was pinned on a retardeded 20 year old. What my point is ya in europe america and rich asian countries there is more passion crimes but in less devolped countries there are such killings. You could argue it directly to do with society and that would be very true but that does not make it anymore right.
My favourit senario is when politicans send hitmen to kill their oppononts and can't be tried just because they have political or economic amnesty so you can fuck with the people without having to deal with consequences.
If my governments gets overthrown i would be protesting to kill thoes sons of *****es(As freaky as it makes me sound)

[Static]

I'm impartial on this issue.

On one hand, it costs a lot of money to keep someone in prison, and given that (being an American) I (will eventually, as I am 16) have to pay taxes on prisons, it would be better for myself and others if we endorsed this form of punishment.

On the other hand, aren't we doing onto others what we would not want done unto us? Its hypocritical that we can justify this form of punishment, to take ones life, by our desire to pay less in tax for their prison time and for whatever other reason one would support it and yet we would never wish to be killed in this fashion.

Prisons need to be fixed to a form of rehabilitation rather than internment, and the death penalty needs to be given to the person who would be given the punishment as a choice. They can take life in prison (with the chance of being released IF they can be rehabilitated), so that we don't end up forcing them to take their life away, or they can take death, and it is their choice, and its not any bit problematic.

[erupt]

I believe that the state has no right to send anyone to death, for any reason. Capital punishment is only agreeable if the person is one hundred percent guilty, without a doubt, of seriously affecting another's life, whether it be driving someone psychotic (many abusive husbands have done this to their wives), murder, or rape...and the family of the victims should be the ones making the decision, not the government.

One great thing about a true communist society is that the argument that many pro-death penalty people have of how money is wasted on supporting the "unworthy" criminals would be eliminated...to an extent.

Should food produced, among other things, go to criminals? Of course, in my opinion, counterrevolutionaries should receive absolutely no sympathy after the elite class has been overthrown.

[Static]

the family of the victims should be the ones making the decision, not the government.


Why should they? They are clearly emotionally traumatized by the event, and won't be in the right mindset to make such an important decision. I wouldn't trust someones life to someone who just lost a relative to them, and its not like they are that person, they really have no right in the matter if they were not directly harmed or killed. (In non-murder cases, I can agree that the victim should have a say in the matter)

[erupt]

Why should they? They are clearly emotionally traumatized by the event, and won't be in the right mindset to make such an important decision. I wouldn't trust someones life to someone who just lost a relative to them, and its not like they are that person, they really have no right in the matter if they were not directly harmed or killed. (In non-murder cases, I can agree that the victim should have a say in the matter)
I do retract my statement about the family deciding. In reality, how many families are going to say "Let him sit in prison."? The family will have that revengful vigilante mindset. I can say though, that if one of my loved ones were murdered or had another heinous crime committed against them, I would probably snap out myself. I'm almost embarrassed now that I can't form an opinion on what to do in a situation like that, because I do feel that some humans need to be "gotten rid of" for the sake of other human kind, regardless of what kind of economic policies the state has.

[tykecommie]

Thanks for the debate guys I've been away from a computer for a few days and coming back to this is great even though it is rather heavy going. Keep it up its interesting. I would like to put my twopennysworth in and say surely a country or state saying murder is wrong then murdering that person because of there crime smacks slightly of hypocrisy.