Ethics and Capital Punishment

[Euroc]

I'm writing a term paper over the holiday, and I wanted to see some differing opinions regarding the death penalty. Essentially, I will discuss the cost, the effectiveness, the humanity, and the unintended consequences. I'll try to take a neutral stance in the paper and express the arguments from both sides. I wont copy your words for my paper, but I may use some of the ideas and concepts in an attempt to argue both sides.

So, what do you think? Is it right or wrong? Does it help deter crime? Is it ethical? Are their better alternatives? What...

[Elfer]

Using data from this site, it would appear that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent at best, as the murder rate in states with no death penalty is actually significantly less than that in states with a death penalty at the 95% confidence interval.

[Gunter45]

First of all, the death penalty is more expensive than putting someone in prison for life. The unlimited appeals process really ties up a lot of money in court costs.

Secondly, it's a decision that is irreversible. Once you execute someone, there is no way that you can take it back. The day that we have irrefutable proof that we executed an innocent man is the day capital punishment is going to be turned on its head. Besides, what do you do in such a case? Technically, that would be constituted as murder, so do you jail the judge that sentenced him to death and then every judge who failed to overturn the conviction?

[TonyTostieno]

I'm leaving the bit about how well of a deterrent it is to Elfer.

But on the ethical issue, it depends on the situation being dealt with. There are some folks who just flat out should be killed out right, like the very worst serial killers and types like that, because if they somehow get out of jail you've got one big ass problem on your hands.

But other times a life imprisonment without any chance of parole, bail or otherwise would work. In a maximum security prison like Alcatraz, that place should be re-opened for the very worst bastards the nation has to offer.

Then again they should have more then one form of execution. For the generic death penalty have the guillotine or a bullet in the head or something, just make sure it kills them off quickly and cheaply. After that, the worse the person is the more painful the execution should be.

[Gunter45]

At 11/21/07 02:03 PM, TonyTostieno wrote: Then again they should have more then one form of execution. For the generic death penalty have the guillotine or a bullet in the head or something, just make sure it kills them off quickly and cheaply. After that, the worse the person is the more painful the execution should be.

The actual execution isn't what's expensive. Lethal injection and gassing aren't all that expensive, relatively speaking. The cost comes from the court costs associated with the unlimited appeals process.

[TonyTostieno]

At 11/21/07 02:15 PM, Gunter45 wrote: The actual execution isn't what's expensive. Lethal injection and gassing aren't all that expensive, relatively speaking. The cost comes from the court costs associated with the unlimited appeals process.

Shit, you got me there. I guess the only way to deal with that would have to be having a limit on the number of appeals based on the amount of evidence for/against the suspect involved.

[Gunter45]

At 11/21/07 02:18 PM, TonyTostieno wrote: Shit, you got me there. I guess the only way to deal with that would have to be having a limit on the number of appeals based on the amount of evidence for/against the suspect involved.

Then you risk executing an innocent man. The reason the unlimited appeals process is in place is because of the irreversible nature of the death penalty. If you're going to execute someone, you better make damned sure they're guilty.

The capital punishment system is fundamentally flawed.

[Sajberhippien]

At 11/21/07 01:33 PM, Euroc wrote: I'm writing a term paper over the holiday, and I wanted to see some differing opinions regarding the death penalty. Essentially, I will discuss the cost, the effectiveness, the humanity, and the unintended consequences. I'll try to take a neutral stance in the paper and express the arguments from both sides. I wont copy your words for my paper, but I may use some of the ideas and concepts in an attempt to argue both sides.

So, what do you think? Is it right or wrong?

Wrong. It's against the human right to life (and no, you don't lose you human rights because you deny someone else them. The very thing with HUMAN rights is that all HUMANS have them, regardless of anything else) and the UN convention against torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment (think that is the english title).

Does it help deter crime?

No. Not a single study has shown that it workes to deter crime in any way.

Is it ethical?

No. There is a REASON the right to life is a human life. And as long as the juridical system isn't perfect (which it never will be), people WILL get executed innocent of the crime in question.

Are their better alternatives? What...

Prison with good psychiatric treatment. And at least as important: A follow-up once they've been released. There is a Swedish organization called KRIS (criminals revenge in society) which works against criminality among criminals (they have revenge on society by showing that they aren't irreversable), and in the organization the amount of recividists is about 3% (I think that in the US it's about 70%, although I'm not sure at this).

[Euroc]

I've read through each post so far. Thank you for responding. There are definitly some different points I had not considered. It seems to be overwhealmingly anti-death penalty. I need some arguments for the other side. Some would argue justice or recompense... does anyone have a pro-d.p. arguement for that?

[therealsylvos]

At 11/21/07 03:01 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

Wrong. It's against the human right to life (and no, you don't lose you human rights because you deny someone else them. The very thing with HUMAN rights is that all HUMANS have them, regardless of anything else) and the UN convention against torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment (think that is the english title).

And once you deny someone that right you deny it to yourself. Consider that, though being polite is very important, if you are impolite to me then you are shouting that you don't believe it important for me to be polite to you. Thus when you kill, you show contempt for human life that in essence makes you less than human, thus it is incumbent on society to kill you.

Does it help deter crime?

No. Not a single study has shown that it workes to deter crime in any way.

**hemhem**

Is it ethical?

No. There is a REASON the right to life is a human life. And as long as the juridical system isn't perfect (which it never will be), people WILL get executed innocent of the crime in question.

And that is a terrible price. But by your logic we shouldn't jail anybody because people will be wrongly convicted and sent to jail which is also awful. however we can't stop administering justice because of this.

Are their better alternatives? What...

Prison with good psychiatric treatment. And at least as important: A follow-up once they've been released. There is a Swedish organization called KRIS (criminals revenge in society) which works against criminality among criminals (they have revenge on society by showing that they aren't irreversable), and in the organization the amount of recividists is about 3% (I think that in the US it's about 70%, although I'm not sure at this).

Which is fantastic really, but by the fact that we get 70% return criminals is all the more support for the death penalty, you may say but you are taking away their human lives, but how do you explain to a parent whose child has just been murdered by someone YOU let out of jail thatyou weren't able to kill him because he is HUMAN? I have more sympathy for law-abiding citizens than I do for criminals.

[SmilezRoyale]

A bit of the problem is that there are really only 2 [you could argue there is a 3rd, 4th, and 5th, though there are 2 primary ones] forms of punishment in most western countries. Jail time, and Fines.

Sorry, but execution today grinds down completely into something pointless and unfufilling in it's purpose thanks to petty human emotion [more or less sarcam, with a bit of truth behind it]. The purpose of executions were to deter people from commiting the same crime and do so quickly and efficiently, this is why the execution styles were often brutal, this is also why they did them in public, nor did they have to worry about dozens of appeal processes. Now executions are MORE costly, they do them in private, and they make them extremely painless.

Personally i don't care about the human rights aspects of execution, Using the 1/1000 scenario of the innocent individual to be executed is nothing compared to the many of people who got away with atrocities because of crafty lawyers and a sympathetic jury. OJ Simpson's very life is to be acredited for thanks to worthless emotionalism. Infact, I could argue emotionalism has over time made things more expensive than executions themselfs.

For example, I posed the idea of castration as a means of punishing Rapists and commiters of other masculin crimes, People think it's crazy because the 'Concept' sounds twisted and wrong. Yet no one in my classroom could pose a logical explanation as to what would be inhumane if the process was done without causing pain and ensured no medical problems would occur in the future. There's nothing in the constitution that says individuals are entitled to keep their... You get the idea, atleast, not any more so than any of the rights taken away from them when they commit a crime [Think about the rights lost when jailed] People can be against something simply because it doesn't appeal to them emotionally.

[notsneaky]

the way i see it is that there are 2 types of punishment the good punishment is where the guy learns a lesson or regrets what he did like a life sentence if you give them the death penalty what can they learn for the future nothing the just die of course but there are exceptions like hitler

[SuperDeagle]

At 11/21/07 05:59 PM, therealsylvos wrote: And once you deny someone that right you deny it to yourself. Consider that, though being polite is very important, if you are impolite to me then you are shouting that you don't believe it important for me to be polite to you. Thus when you kill, you show contempt for human life that in essence makes you less than human, thus it is incumbent on society to kill you.

And no one seems to understand this very simple concept. Now lets also add the current law system in there and boom! You see why we have the death penalty RIGHT NOW.

[Memorize]

The people who are against it soley for the fact that the person who is sentenced to death is human, are idiots who deserve no say in politics.

What kind of moron considers a cold blooded murderer or rapist human?

What a bunch of pansies.

[Euroc]

Its good to see some people writing who are pro-death penatly. Thanks for the input!

How about this... is it ethical to broadcast the execution to help offset the burden that the comdemned has placed on society? Maybe make it available via pay-per-view?

[LordJaric]

At 11/21/07 01:58 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Besides, what do you do in such a case?

Find the person who commited the crime.

[Gunter45]

At 11/22/07 12:18 AM, LordJaric wrote: Find the person who commited the crime.

The crime I postulated, being the murder of an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted, I mean. Sure, you find the person who really did the crime, but what do you do about state-sponsored murder?

[SuperDeagle]

At 11/22/07 02:53 AM, Gunter45 wrote: The crime I postulated, being the murder of an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted, I mean. Sure, you find the person who really did the crime, but what do you do about state-sponsored murder?

There is a different between a murder, and a execution.
By your logic we should convict people who killed in self defense.
Also, it's not the death penalties obligation to decide who is or is not innocent. It's strictly to punish.
If an innocent man is sentenced to death, oh well, it's not the death penalties problem.
You pretty much already said this.

[PhoenixTails]

There is nothing morally wrong with executing somebody, provided their crimes are horrible.
I want to see a good argument for why Charles Manson deserves to live. "Because he's human" isn't one. Humans have compassion and morality, something many criminals obviously don't. We need a cheaper method of execution though. Gullotine would probably be the best.

[Zorth]

The death penalty has many giant flaws, but if it is a very dangerous person like a serial killer it becomes necessary to use the death penalty.

[Elfer]

At 11/21/07 05:59 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 11/21/07 03:01 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: No. There is a REASON the right to life is a human life. And as long as the juridical system isn't perfect (which it never will be), people WILL get executed innocent of the crime in question.

And that is a terrible price. But by your logic we shouldn't jail anybody because people will be wrongly convicted and sent to jail which is also awful. however we can't stop administering justice because of this.

You're omitting an important difference between jail and the death penalty. If you jail someone, then find out they're innocent, you don't just throw them back on the street, you give them an apology and a big bag of money for their trouble. It's called "compensation."

However, when you execute someone, there's no going back, until we invent a way to raise the dead.

[SmilezRoyale]

Could somone please get they're hands on a statistic on...

- Number of Concivted Felons declared innocent and later found guilty, but never took any punishment [Percents also work]

- Number of Conficted felons found guilty and punished, [The ideal scenario, the bad guys lose, so to speak]

- Number of Convicted Felons found innocent only after they were sentenced [Execution and jail time, doesn't matter]

Personally, when somone commits a crime, they are surrendering they're rights to the state and become state property since the government now has to ensure the well being of this unwanted individual, why not just abort them?

[therealsylvos]

At 11/22/07 12:46 PM, Elfer wrote:

You're omitting an important difference between jail and the death penalty. If you jail someone, then find out they're innocent, you don't just throw them back on the street, you give them an apology and a big bag of money for their trouble. It's called "compensation."

Ah but now we have a problem. how do you compensate for a man who you put in jail for murder for 20 years? what is compensation. I can promise you that if you offered me, or most people for that matter, a deal that if you set me up and everyone thinks I'm a murdrer and they will lock me up for 20 years, then when I get out you will give me 1 billion dollars, there isn't a chance I would agree, I doubt most people would. So its not a simple thing to compensate a man who is wrongfully jailed, in fact its damn near impossible, true it is not AS final as death but it is just short, which brings me back to my original point.

[Elfer]

At 11/23/07 12:29 AM, therealsylvos wrote: Ah but now we have a problem. how do you compensate for a man who you put in jail for murder for 20 years? what is compensation. I can promise you that if you offered me, or most people for that matter, a deal that if you set me up and everyone thinks I'm a murdrer and they will lock me up for 20 years, then when I get out you will give me 1 billion dollars, there isn't a chance I would agree, I doubt most people would. So its not a simple thing to compensate a man who is wrongfully jailed, in fact its damn near impossible, true it is not AS final as death but it is just short, which brings me back to my original point.

Right, but you can at least make the attempt.

If you gave me the choice of going to prison for twenty years, people think I'm a murderer, then later you clear my name and give me a billion dollars, I'd take that over me dying and you saying "whoops"

The point is, if you fucked up with imprisonment, you can still let the person go. No such luck with the death penalty.

[therealsylvos]

At 11/23/07 12:37 AM, Elfer wrote: A

If you gave me the choice of going to prison for twenty years, people think I'm a murderer, then later you clear my name and give me a billion dollars, I'd take that over me dying and you saying "whoops"

The point is, if you fucked up with imprisonment, you can still let the person go. No such luck with the death penalty.

My point was that while jail is still preferable to death, it is still a final punishment that can never really be given back through compensation, thus saying we can let him out and pretend nothing happened won't work. You can't run the justice system with the assumption that this guy could be innocent. a better way is to improve the justice system and make not so lawyer dependent.A system which isn't overly concerned with a "Conviction rate" of a courthouse or D.A.

[Euroc]

Thanks everyone for posting! There were some great points of view. So here I am, finally on the other side of an 11 page term paper! Whew... it feels great to be done!

[JerkClock]

At 11/21/07 01:51 PM, Elfer wrote: Using data from this site, it would appear that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent at best, as the murder rate in states with no death penalty is actually significantly less than that in states with a death penalty at the 95% confidence interval.

This is probably because "lethal injection" is not a particularly painful way to die and is generally seen as a better fate than life in prison. I can garentee you a guillotine, electric chair, or death by 1000 cuts would send a different message to prospecting murderers.

[Euroc]

At 11/24/07 02:53 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/21/07 01:51 PM, Elfer wrote: Using data from this site, it would appear that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent at best, as the murder rate in states with no death penalty is actually significantly less than that in states with a death penalty at the 95% confidence interval.

This is probably because "lethal injection" is not a particularly painful way to die and is generally seen as a better fate than life in prison. I can garentee you a guillotine, electric chair, or death by 1000 cuts would send a different message to prospecting murderers.

While lethal injection is normally painless, the execution is not the punishment. The punishment comes by not being allowed to be alive anymore. Society has basically said that you do not deserve to live anymore. So it really doesn't matter how the sentence is executed (heh-heh)

[EKublai]

At 11/24/07 02:53 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/21/07 01:51 PM, Elfer wrote: Using data from this site, it would appear that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent at best, as the murder rate in states with no death penalty is actually significantly less than that in states with a death penalty at the 95% confidence interval.

This is probably because "lethal injection" is not a particularly painful way to die and is generally seen as a better fate than life in prison. I can garentee you a guillotine, electric chair, or death by 1000 cuts would send a different message to prospecting murderers.

I guarantee you that when someone is contemplating killing someone, there are not at all concerned by the method of their own execution as a consequence of their actions. The notion of dying at all should have the deterrent effect that the advocates claim is there.

I think the fact is that people are so unwittingly eager to play God in this situation that they totally forget that the purpose of a justice system is to serve the people in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, not to serve life and liberty in the persuit of people.

[JerkClock]

At 11/24/07 04:10 PM, Euroc wrote:

While lethal injection is normally painless, the execution is not the punishment. The punishment comes by not being allowed to be alive anymore. Society has basically said that you do not deserve to live anymore. So it really doesn't matter how the sentence is executed (heh-heh)

Well actually it does. If given a choice between a quick painless death, and life in a hellish prison, quite a few would choose the former. And that's the problem. This is not necessarily the case when faced with the penalty of a much more horrifying, agonizing death.