The prisons are full

Remove all ads!

You punish a crime because the law was broken. I don't believe that ANY form of punishment can be positive for society. It can only control the negative and stop further damage from being done. Suppose I was injured in an accident. Medical care can prevent further damage, but I will still be worse off because of the injuries. Should I lose an arm by accident, the tourniquet would stop the blood loss, but it will NOT restore my arm.

Look at a crime for which nobody would recommend the death penalty. Assume that an innocent citizen was savagely assaulted and suffers long term, potentially crippling injuries. Society has lost the services of a member of some value to society, his employer is inconvenienced by losing the services of a valued employee, and his family has suffered undue hardship by the greivous injuries sustained by the injured member. The criminal is then caught, convicted and incarcerated for several years as deemed fitting by a judge. His employer is likewise inconvenienced by losing an employee, and his family is subjected to severe hardship. I do NOT see this as a positive effect for society.

But if that is considered "justice", then could that logic not also apply to capital punishment? Once the crime is committed, it is a lose-lose situation, so why then is life in prison with no chance to parole any better under such circumstances than execution?

In extreme cases, the worst of criminals, such as serial rapists, become a detriment to society, and in that case, their death could be viewed as a positive for society. At the very least, their execution would be the lesser of two evils.

I understand that, but I believe that the death penalty is, morally, the lesser evil. Resolve the situation and be done with it, so that any healing for the victims and their families can begin.

Then where do you come up with any idea of a net gain? I fail to see it. Committing a crime is a lose-lose situation for ALL parties. The criminal loses because they are caught and punished, society because punishing the criminal, under normal circumstances, still has a cost as mentioned above. Even where there is some restitution, it can only help to repair the damages as opposed to putting the victim or his next of kin in a better position.

Execute a murderer, he will never murder again, and the families of his victims receive closure. That's as close to a positive as can be asked in a murder case.

The Killer is alive. The State is keeping him sheltered and fed, denying closure to the families of his victims. The killer, who has shown a disregard for the life of another human, is locked in a secure facility with other criminals who's crimes may not warrant death, rape or other criminal activity against them. As Martaug pointed out, these criminals will commit further crimes against other inmates who do not deserve that. executing those that would have no chance of parole eliminates that risk, leaving only those with some incentive to behave appropriately in prisons (and thus, only those that have a chance of leaving, thus meaning a turnover of prisoners to reduce the over-crowding).

We've gone over this before, and you have yet to accept this, but once again:

Fair punishment requires that the punishment fit the degree of damage inflicted. Since the primary victim has been deliberately killed, deliberately killing the murderer is as close a fit as can be made. If you consider the delays through the courts and appointment with the executioner, to be further punishment, then that is as close to what the family of the victim endured in losing the victim.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If it's "why must the punishment for the crime be fair?" then I answer that that is what is meant by Justice. If you mean something else, then please elaborate on that.

I thought that was why the process took so bloody long--to eliminate such bias and see that the death penalty actually fits the crimes. Not every capital crime warrants the death penalty, and I thought the extra processes were a way to determine whether a degree of clemency should apply.

I'll give you that, but if the law was to be changed to agail permit the death penalty, I would argue that it would no longer fall under the heading unusual. It does not have to be the automatic response, but it should be an option.

 

I think you got my meaning pretty spot on there (and even managed to phrase the question better than myself ), but I'll elaborate anyway, based on your answer.

Justice is an abstract concept. It has no formal definition, or form. Person A might think Justice is one thing, while Person B believes Justice is another thing (as shown in the past pages). By itself, it can be used as justification to nearly any act - whether that be capital punishment or holding a criminal in prison, murder and genoside, stoning and crusifiction, religous and racial pursecution. The list is endless. I'm sure the recent stamping out of protestors in Tibet was done in the name of Justice.

To me, arguing that something should be done simply because it is Just, is akin to arguing that something should be done simply because the Christian Bible, the Tanakh, or the Qur'an said so. There needs to be further justifications and reasoning why the action (in this case the punishment) is the correct approch to the situation.

Now, onto my point of benefits. Punishment in itself is, by definition, a bad/negative act against someone. We wouldn't punish someone by patting them on the back, giving them a sticker, and saying how well they've done - that is not a punishment. We would punish someone by going and making him sit in the corner of the class and missing out on his lunch time. We reward good deeds with good acts, with punish bad deeds with bad acts. As two wrongs do not make a right, punishment by itself it cannot be used as a reason why the action should be taken. It becomes necessary to look at the concequences of the punishment to find a reason.

You have raised two different concequences of the punishment in your last post - protection and retaliation. Protection can either involve protection of yourself, or the protection of those whom you sympathis with. This is a concequence, and motivation for the punishment, which I can completely agree with. Protection can apply in two different ways, firstly protection from the criminal himself, and secondly, protection from those who may immitate the crime in some manner. Regarding the latter, you have stated previously that you believe Deterrence does not work, so we will rule out that reasoning once again. As for protection from the criminal himself, you say that those imprisoned can still offend. Against this I would (and have, so far without refute) argue that this is a failure of the prison systems, and not a solid reason to kill someone. We do not chop off someones hand just because it is possible for him to steal while in jail. We try to lessen the possibilities as much as practically possible, to a stage where their occurance is inconsequential.

This leaves us with your second concequence of (and hence argument for) capital punishment - retailation. While you have not used that term in particular, where you say that keeping the killer alive is "denying closure to the families of his victims" this, as I read it, is implying retailation as a reason. It is a natural emotion when one (or someone one sympathises with) has been wronged. However, it is little more than an animal instinct of self preservation, with no solid reasoning behind the actions.

Going back to my reasoning for using the term gain and benefit, it must be noted that these concequences follow after the crime. The crime has already occured - we cannot change that fact. What we must do is look at each possible punishment and gauge which one has the most benefits - the best concequences - and then proceed to act in that manner.

So what I am asking for is what positive concequences come out of capital punishment, in order to gauge whether or not capital punishment is a good form of punishment for the crime.

I hope that explains what I mean by the term gain, benefit or positive concequence - I really don't know how else I can attempt to explain it.

 

ok rotku, had to crunch some math. your statement that non-death penalty states have less murders than death penalty states didnt sound right to me,so i looked into it a little.
so a few facts:
the 2 states with the lowest murder rate new hampshire(1.0)(13) & south dakota(1.2)(9) both have the death penalty, the 3rd & 4th states are north dakota(1.3)(8) & hawaii(1.6)(19)which dont have the death penalty, 5th is wyoming(1.7)(9)which does & all the other non-death penalty states are higher than wyoming(some WAY higher) hmm, 3 out of the lowest 5 are DP states

now lets look at the second number following each state above that is the actual number of murders not the per 100k capita. this means that the lowest actual murder rate for a state is north dakota at 8(non DP) than south dakota(DP), wyoming(DP), vermont(non DP), newhampshire(DP), montana(DP) hmm 4 out of the lowest 6 are DP states

i know what you are saying "thats not a fair comparison", ok i will give another example
how about this: north carolina(DP)(6.1)(552) 9+mil pop VS michigan(non DP)(7.1)(715) ~10mil pop
also several states listed as DP state have executed so few that they shouldnt qualify, take california(6.8)(2485) for example, only 11 executions since 1977 . now compare this to texas(5.9)(1230) which fries about 2 dozen a year. seems to be a clear correlation to me.
the reason the stats that DP foes like to use are the way they are is because the non DP states are fairly small(only about 42 mil total) & several states listed as DP haven't used it enough to make a difference, the comparison between california & texas show this fairly clearly.

now on a slightly different note, the 2 states with the highest murder rate really suprised me. maryland(9.7)(544) & louisiana(12.4)(532) man, lotta pissed off people in louisiana!! i can sorta see maryland, you know being that close to dc & all

as to being able to convince you the death penalty is a good thing, i wont even try as you seem to be pretty set against. as is your right, me(as a comedian said, hmm ron white maybe?) i'd like to see them put in an express lane, as soon as the conviction comes down, a special investigative branch looks at every aspect of the case & if they determine everything was done properly, bam! 2 weeks later light them up with ole sparky

 

Did I say that? I've been trying to completely avoid making that statement, as I know there is no proof either way.

If you did want to make an acurate comparison between states with capital punishment and states without, your best bet would probably to look at a single state (or many single states, to get a better picture) over a period of time, from when they made use of capital punishment to when they removed it. However, I can tell you that the evidence on it is completely unconclusive.

On a slight side note, you know there are a few really helpful keys on most keyboards - the Shift keys and the Caps Lock keys. They can be used for capitalising the first letter of a sentence and proper nouns, and making it easier for others to read

 

Ohh, good burn rotku!!

ok what about new york? in 1990 the were averaging 6(!!!!) murders a day. The death penalty was reinstated in 1995 and the murder rate has been dropping since. This year may be the first with less than 500 murders in decades.
Now, i'm not saying it is all due to the reinstatement of the death penalty alone, just that it is a factor

 

By this logic, it extrapolates to suggest that the worst of crimes deserve the ultimate punishment--death. Therefore, deliberate Murder, multiple rapes or other sufficiently horrific crimes should receive the death penalty.

This seems to contradict your previous statement. First you say that bad acts meet bad rewards, then you say that that doesn't help anything. If someone commits a wrong and is NOT sufficiently punished, then why, then, must the state declare it wrong if they won't back up their laws? Punishment is not about making it right. They admit that they cannot make a right. They can only punish the wrongs.

Well, the people that argued for prison reform may have contributed to that problem. Keeping the prisoners in solitary and constant lockdown would also achieve that end, but someone would call that cruel and unusual.

That's resolution, not retaliation. Retaliation is the family of the victim hunting and killing the murderer. The Justice system is supposed to provide a civilized recourse for this. Allowing the justice system to execute the murderer enables this to happen.

A dead body will decompose and return to the soil important nutrients to enable plants to grow. Worms will and other scavenging insects will consume the body. Not much, I admit, but more than you get by locking them in prison for the rest of their life with no parole, where they become a drain on society. By that logic, life with no chance for parole is a bigger negative than an execution.

 

martaug, for each case that the evidence supports what you are saying, there is one that is against your theory. There simply isn't conclusive evidence. If what you say is accurate, your example of New York is a perfect case. Death penalty reinstated, crime drops. Death penalty decleared unconstitutional (2004), crime continues to drop. And yes, capital punishment has been unconstitutional in New York since 2005

Gnarf, if the decomposing of their body is the only good consequence to come out of their death, then we should also be killing any other members of society who cannot contribute. Also keep in mind that lots of bodies these days are cremated, it really doesn't provide a good reason to take someones life.
I hope you do have better reasons for wanting to kill someone than this.

To address the side points:

Not at all. It applies nothing of the sort. Take a classroom situation (to follow on from my example of good act good reward, bad act bad punishment) - if a child was to hit another child, the punishment to this would not be hitting back, it might be to send to another classroom for the rest of the day, or a detention or something. Likewise, if a child was to do really good work, the reward wouldn't be to do really good work back at the child, it might be a gold star or a chocolate fish. No where did I state that the punishment and the reward should be equal to the actions taken.

To further explain this (and your next statement) I'm going to use numbers - these numbers don't mean anything in particular, apart from their relationship to each other.

Let's use a scale of -10 to 10 to represent an action. -10 is a bad action, 10 is a good action, with everything in between representing varies degrees of the good and bad actions, with 0 been neutral.

Let's say the crime committed rates at -10, even if the punishment is -1, it still is a bad act. This is what I was meaning when I said "We reward good deeds with good acts, with punish bad deeds with bad acts."

Why is it sometimes I get the impression that what I write on my side seems to appear completely different (or not at all) on other peoples computers?

Following on from my number example, let's say the crime rates at -5. The current net effect on society is -9. The punishment by nature is a negative action, so we must asign a negative value to it - however, as you do not place a criminal in such high regards, let us say it is -1; taking our total effect on society to -10. This is where your argument stops. If a punishment were to have no further consequences, we would be left with a -10 effect on society.

What I am trying to say is that every punishment, for it to be viable, must have some postive concequences. Now, they're obviously not going to be on an equal scale to the negative actions, as we cannot bring back a life. However, there will be positive concequences. So let's say there is a positive effect of 3. This gives us an overall net effect of -7. Sure, soceity has lost from the crime, however, the loss is not as great as it would have been with no punishment.

Completely irrelavant to the topic at hand.

No, I would define it differently. While it is not direct retalitation, it is a form of retaliation none the less - or more a wish for a retaliation, using the state as the means of retaliation. Unless I am looking at this completely wrong, and it is not that they wish to see negative on the criminal, because a negative has been committed to them. Prehaps you could enlighten me?

 

Yes, i knew it had & the murder rate went up from 4.5 in 'o5 to a 4.8 in 'o6. Can't get rates for '07 yet. Kinda weird higher rate less murders(most have lost some population)

Why are we even debating the death penalty as you see no reason to impose it for any crime & we see many crimes it should be imposed. I do not feel a responsibility to pay to keep these thugs locked up for their lifespan. I would gladly pay more to execute them. There are(i feel) many crimes for which the only appropriate punishment is death: deliberate murder, murder in the commisison of a felony, rape of a child just to name a few.
The planet will be better off with them died and buried.

Gnarfflinger answered your question of it being the prisons responsibility to keep the prisoners from committing crimes. Sorry, they are just like cops, they are not there to keep you from commiting a crime just to punish you up for doing it.

 

I would think it would be a safe bet that if you asked any cop they would prefer to view the main part of their job as prevention as opposed to enforcement.

But no, Gnarf has argued exactly the opposite in the past. If you take time to read over his posts, he has said that there are some crimes where imprisonment is needed, to prevent the criminal from acting the same again - that was his reason an eye for an eye cannot apply in all situations. Now I think you're putting words in Gnarf's mouth.

 

Sorry rotku, but i figure gnarfflinger & i agree on which crimes deserve the death penalty a lot more than we disagree.
Yes , most police officers would PREFER if the main part of their job was prevention but it isn't as any will tell you.
Why do you feel that their is no crime that deserves the death penalty?

 

Simple reason. Because killing anyone is wrong and never required. And when it comes from the State, it's bloody scary.

And yes, I'm sure you two do agree on many points, but that doesn't change the fact he didn't say what you claimed.

[Edit]
Ha! By a complete stroke of luck, just ran into a cop in the elevator at work. Couldn't help but asking him what he thought his job was mainly, and I'll give you one guess at what the answer was

Okay, a sample of 1 isn't going to prove anything, but still, I thought it was a nice coincidence.

 

So rotku, when someone murders another person what do you think we should do with them?
Forgot you were in a different country when i posted the police officer attitude thing (kinda funny since i was just asking you about new zealand) I was talking about police here in the states as i haven't had the chance to talk to officers from other countries(well, except mexico. the guys down there make the most corrupt cops in louisiana look like angels!)

See, we have a fundamental difference of opinion, i think that killing someone for certain crimes is a legitimate action whereas you seem to think of all killings as murder. This may be because of the differences in the countries we live, life experiances, age(i'm twice yours), etc...
Locking someone up for life is just not enough for some crimes as they are still breathing &/or not reliving the horrors that were inflicted upon them. Their victims don't have these luxuries.

 

But see, even if I were to put aside that belief for now (no argument would get anywhere if people stuck solidly by extreme beliefs like that - always best approching debates with an open mind, you learn more that way) and look at further arguments and reasonings, I still fail to see any advantage of capital punishment over imprisonment. There's deterrance, which hasn't solidly been proved; protection, which can be achieved just as well with a good prison system; "resolution" to use Gnarf's word, but the State should not just be killing someone because some people demand it; there's costs, which can be (and have been) argued from both sides.

The use of capital punishment simply comes from an unfound fear, the desire for revenge and tradition - none are reasons to kill.

 

Nope, not a fear, not a desire for revenge, not for tradition, simply to show the consequences of doing wrong(what i & others would call evil).
Locking someone up can never be enough punishment for these crimes.
The denial of the use of capitul punishment simply comes from a mistaken utopian view of the world. "If i do good, than all others will to" Sorry, just doesn't work in the real world, we humans are just to fallible & prone to our urges.

 

Simply to show the consequences of doing wrong? That would imply that there is a proven relation between capital punishment and a downturn in major crimes. If this relationship had been proven, then yes, I could accept that argument. But currently there is no solid evidence on the subject. I often see both pro-death penalty and anit-death penalty supporters trying to claim there is a relationship one way or another, but in the end there is no significant evidence to support either side. People should not be killed just on the off chance that there is a relationship between capital punishment and crime levels.

This is where it comes down to the concequences I was talking about. If there is any sort of substantial positive concequence that capital punishment offers over imprisonment, I will throw in the towel now and admit that there is a good argument for the death penalty. However, I have yet to see it produced here. Even a quick look I have had through pro-death penalty sites, their main argument seems to simply focus around countering the arguments against it, rather than arguments in support of.

 

My argument for it is that a dead murderer can never kill anyone again, whereas one in prison may kill someone there or escape and kill some innocent.

 

But an innocent civilian has done nothing to warrant their death. We're talking about the worst of criminals.

If a -10 act is committed, then shouldn't the punishment be -10? If not, then why bother punishing the offence if you lack the stomach to issue an equitable penalty? Going back to the example of Paul Bernardo. He videotaped the rape and murder of two teenage girls. Would you let this bastard off with a slap on the wrist? I doubt it. The worst of crimes deserve the most severe of penalties.

So reality is not viable? I'll give you a positive consequence off the execution of the worst of criminals--they are out of society--permanently! Considering the failures of the prison system, you'll understand my laco of confidence in incarceration...

The criminal kills an innocent civillian. The state executes the killer. The matter is resolved. It is over. It is not about retaliation, but restoring the peace. It is not always pleasant, but it must happen.

Well said. Actually, if there are people that don't want the executions, then why can't they pay for their upkeep--even our share?

There can be no question that prevention is preferable to enforcement. The problem is that prevention has failed and the offence has been committed. In that situation, enforcement is an unpleasant reality.

Where an eye for an eye can work, it should be used. But raping a rapist and sending him on his way means he is free to rape again. That problem does not exist in capital crimes...

When someone kills another, then their death IS usually required.

Agreed, that's why there are so many safeguards in place. It's also why it is not always mandatory...

Send them to the countries that are so insistant n keeping them alive? Then they are not our problem, but theirs. Same as what execution achieves now that I read that line...

No prison system is perfect. Why take that kind of risk with the worst of criminals?

They are killed beccause of the horrific crimes that they have committed, not some pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.

The State has made a law. The State must enfoprce the law. If the state fails to exact a fiar punishment for the crimes committed, then the citizenry will seek other avenues to seek fair redress of wrongs. Killing the worst of criminals imposes that peace.

 

So following that last line of argument, Gnarf, any state that makes it a requirement to wear a hat at all times, on the pain of death, would be required to carry out the death penalty on all those who took their hats off. The state considers this a fair punishment - I mean, how dear those peasants not wear their hats!?

Okay, make it a -10 and my argument still holds. Like I said, the only thing that mattered with the numbers was the positive, negaitive and neutral aspects of them.

Okay, tell the family that the person has been killed, show them faked video evidence of the death, then put the prisoner in a locked up cell somewhere. Peace is restored, the matter is resolved, and no one else has to die - all as a result of a small white lie.

martaug, for argument sakes I will give you that point for now. However, I'm going to take it one step further - if someone were to come along tomorrow, and say they have invented a cost free way to send all prisoners to the moon (and keep them alive there), would you then oppose state sanctioned killing of criminals?

 

That is why Australia was a brilliant idea.

 

Yet in a certain sense even Australia fails (or failed, I guess, tenses get muddy here) in what I believe should be the fate of a criminal. People went to Australia, and basically got a second shot at life -- they got to be successful and in some cases wealthy. That's not appropriate punishment for violent, premeditated crimes.

I am a huge proponent of retaliation and retribution in cases of such crimes. I do not believe that it demeans the state or the people it serves to take revenge on people whose behaviour is grotesquely out of sync with that of the average citizens.

I put myself in the shoes of the family of the victims. If someone raped and murdered my daughter, I would not want to hear the state tell me "we will now place this man in a prison and spend millions of dollars feeding, clothing and providing medical care for him until he dies of natural causes. He will never hurt anyone again, but we value his rights and his life." I'm sorry, that would not be enough for me, and every time I hear of a situation like that, I place my vote and my opinions alongside those of the people who lost their child, NOT with the criminal. For the segment of society that cares about victims, capital punishment is the only just solution. (I realize of course that this is my brand of "justice", but I don't think it is an unreasonable one.)