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

[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 actions

The 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.