The Death Penalty

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

As a steadfast death penalty advocate for the 'extreme cases'... trust me when I say I question whether I am morally bankrupt or not on this issue. My opinion has not come without much probing. I am not a cold person and wish there was no need for such a discussion. Given reality though and forced to deal with crimes we really wish had not occurred... this is where I have come to.

Fair enough.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

As a steadfast death penalty advocate for the 'extreme cases'... trust me when I say I question whether I am morally bankrupt or not on this issue. My opinion has not come without much probing. I am not a cold person and wish there was no need for such a discussion. Given reality though and forced to deal with crimes we really wish had not occurred... this is where I have come to.

Fair enough.

Hmmm. I was kind of hoping for something else so I might have a chance to respond with: "What a load of old cobblers" (Byrnzie, 2012).

Man that was funny. Really, really funny.

DS1119

I read posts of pro gun regulation and I read things like "even if it saves one life it's worth it". Well the latest case in the US for a pro-death penalty would have saved multiple lives.

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

I read posts of pro gun regulation and I read things like "even if it saves one life it's worth it". Well the latest case in the US for a pro-death penalty would have saved multiple lives.

Violence begets violence.


Carry on...

DS1119

Byrnzie wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I read posts of pro gun regulation and I read things like "even if it saves one life it's worth it". Well the latest case in the US for a pro-death penalty would have saved multiple lives.

Violence begets violence.


Carry on...

And if you really believe that then there's no changing your mind. Yes...having criminals face the death penalty creates people to be more violent. Please. :fp:

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

And if you really believe that then there's no changing your mind. Yes...having criminals face the death penalty creates people to be more violent. Please. :fp:

Teaching people that violence is a solution teaches people that violence is a solution. Nothing ambiguous about that.

As you were...

DS1119

Byrnzie wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

And if you really believe that then there's no changing your mind. Yes...having criminals face the death penalty creates people to be more violent. Please. :fp:

Teaching people that violence is a solution teaches people that violence is a solution. Nothing ambiguous about that.

As you were...

Teaching people that you will pay the ultimate price if you continue to do wrong things against society is quite a lesson. A valuable one at that.

As you were.

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

And if you really believe that then there's no changing your mind. Yes...having criminals face the death penalty creates people to be more violent. Please. :fp:

Teaching people that violence is a solution teaches people that violence is a solution. Nothing ambiguous about that.

As you were...

Teaching people that you will pay the ultimate price if you continue to do wrong things against society is quite a lesson. A valuable one at that.

As you were.

The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent.


At ease, soldier...

DS1119

Byrnzie wrote:

The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent.


At ease, soldier...

Sure it does and it also is a closure for the families victims. And I know you're going to post the odd story where a family stepped out against it...but when you do that please post all of the other executions stories where the family and public had zero problems with it.

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent.


At ease, soldier...

Sure it does and it also is a closure for the families victims.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a ... th-penalty


Criminologists' Views on Deterrence and the Death Penalty
March 18, 2011

Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/stude ... ment1b.htm
'...some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

catefrances

DS1119 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent.


At ease, soldier...

Sure it does and it also is a closure for the families victims. And I know you're going to post the odd story where a family stepped out against it...but when you do that please post all of the other executions stories where the family and public had zero problems with it.

i cant imagine the death of the person who killed my child/lover/sister/brother/father/mother/whoever would ever give me closure. bring the victim back to life and then perhaps id be at ease with it all. at no time would i ever think thank goodness that motherfucker is dead.. now i can move on with my life. what i would be thinking about though is how the murderers family was feeling at the time of his state sanctioned murder... because then wed have something in common... the senseless death of a loved one.

JonnyPistachio

Byrnzie, thanks for posting those articles. Michael radelet was one of my professors at University of Florida. He is a very smart dude and opened my eyes to a lot of issues regarding the he DP. Before I took his sociology class, I didn't put much thought into the DP and I was a supporter. He made me see other sides of the story and realize what a travesty of a program the DP is in America.

There have been a substantial amount of other studies that show that the DP is not a deterrent as well.
I personally dont think It offers that much closure to families since it takes 20-30 years to execute someone.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I would be so bold as to suggest that at most, some families are indifferent to the death penalty- exceptions aside. Many want it and those that do deserve it- flat out. When we argue at this point of contention... people opposed to the death penalty shift their focus from the survivors and focus on the murderer. I wonder why? Why would someone care little for the survivors' needs (the only people the courts can help after the fact) and concern themselves with the needs of a pig?

Case in point: Clifford Olson. Beast of BC. A sadist of the highest order. Filth if you will. The following is an exerpt from The Globe and Mail:

The bodies of the three boys and eight girls, aged between 9 and 18, had been found in secluded areas within a 90-kilometre radius of Vancouver. Some of the victims had been raped and sodomized, some were bludgeoned, others were stabbed and one was strangled. All had been drugged and killed in a murderous spree lasting only nine months, from November, 1980, through July, 1981, while Olson was out of prison on mandatory supervision.

The piece reads further and then offers this after speaking to all of Olson's prison requests such as a life sized non inflated sex doll:

Nevertheless, each time Olson made headlines – the most recent occasion was when he appeared before the National Parole Board in 2010 – the families of his victims were traumatized again. Their children will never be restored, but at least now Clifford Olson has been silenced. When he died of cancer Friday at the age of 71, his legal challenges were finally over.

Source: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/natio ... ice=mobile

Cancer treatments, nice meals, sex dolls, television, books, an occasional laugh, and isolation and protection from other prisoners who were dying to do the deed we failed to do. All these were very troublesome for the survivors. Not only did they have to lie awake at nights imagining the sheer terror the pulse of their existence faced in their last moments... but they were constantly reminded of the fuking idiot that savagely took them from the earth to satisfy his sick cravings.

Did you note the part that stated Olson was out on mandatory supervision? 'Soft' attitudes have advocated for fairer conditions for the worst we have to offer. It is my opinion that 'soft' attitudes kept this beast alive as well.

We were not better for sparing his life. As some may have patted themselves on the back in grandiose manner because we 'showed the level of our mercy when dealing with him', we failed his grieving survivors- big time. When people suggest that the courts do not serve the survivors, I bristle somewhat. Who should the courts serve then? Olson? Everyone else? Why must we tell grieving families wishing for death to essentially 'suck it up' and then exercise the very best care we can providing for the killer's needs while locked up?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We were not better for sparing his life. As some may have patted themselves on the back in grandiose manner because we 'showed the level of our mercy when dealing with him', we failed his grieving survivors- big time. When people suggest that the courts do not serve the survivors, I bristle somewhat. Who should the courts serve then? Olson? Everyone else? Why must we tell grieving families wishing for death to essentially 'suck it up' and then exercise the very best care we can providing for the killer's needs while locked up?

the courts serve society. if the courts served the individual only, their purpose would shift from justice to vengeance. again, no one is looking at the "needs of the pig" as you put it. If there are perceived injustices with regards to the plush care an inmate is purported to have received, then yes, that needs to be addressed and changed. But that does not warrant killing them.

no one is telling anyone to "suck it up". we're telling them society is better than them. I wouldn't celebrate the death at the hands of the state even if it were my child killed. Like I said before, if given the opportunity, I'd probably do it myself, but that's why we have impartial courts, so that doesn't happen.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We were not better for sparing his life. As some may have patted themselves on the back in grandiose manner because we 'showed the level of our mercy when dealing with him', we failed his grieving survivors- big time. When people suggest that the courts do not serve the survivors, I bristle somewhat. Who should the courts serve then? Olson? Everyone else? Why must we tell grieving families wishing for death to essentially 'suck it up' and then exercise the very best care we can providing for the killer's needs while locked up?

the courts serve society. if the courts served the individual only, their purpose would shift from justice to vengeance. again, no one is looking at the "needs of the pig" as you put it. If there are perceived injustices with regards to the plush care an inmate is purported to have received, then yes, that needs to be addressed and changed. But that does not warrant killing them.

no one is telling anyone to "suck it up". we're telling them society is better than them. I wouldn't celebrate the death at the hands of the state even if it were my child killed. Like I said before, if given the opportunity, I'd probably do it myself, but that's why we have impartial courts, so that doesn't happen.

If the courts truly serve society... which faction do they serve?

As I attempted to point out in my previous post (that you agreed with), the courts (at least in my province) do not serve most of the individuals who have been personally affected by serious crime. Survivors of extreme crimes- at best- might be indifferent to the punishment the murderer faces. There might be a few cases where survivors are opposed to the death penalty and even some where the survivors might find it within themselves to completely forgive the killer; however, it is more reasonable to suggest that the overwhelming majority of survivors wish for a penalty that matches the crime as well as fill their strong need for justice.

Some critics of the death penalty on this forum have suggested that we remove the survivors of the crime from the decision-making process because they might just respond with vengeance instead of justice. Is there really a difference? Ironically, some of these same critics talk as if they are in a better position to decide what is appropriate. It might be fair to state that these armchair philosophers, far removed from any crime that might personally affect them and alter their perspective, may not actually be in the ideal position they claim to be where they might best judge whether or not the death penalty is appropriate or not.

Moreover, if the courts serve society... then why, according to Gallup 2011, do 61% favour the death penalty, while only 35% are not in favour?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

If only one third of society feel that it is inappropriate to execute someone for murder, then exactly how are the courts serving the interests of society? I would suggest that courts are serving the wishes of interest groups that, arrogantly, plunder forward with what some believe to be weak punishments... thinking: "The majority of people wish for the death penalty, but they are simple and ignorant. We know what is best!"

I say plunder forward because the Gallup poll shows that, while that figure has dropped in recent years... since 1975 where the death penalty had an approval rate of 66%... to a high of 80% in 1994... to now... the majority of people have preferred the death penalty for a person convicted of murder.

I would further speculate that many of the people opposed would consider the death penalty more strongly if it was defined as a consequence for someone committing an 'extreme' crime- such as one involving a child, or multiple people in serial fashion. That 61% approval rate might climb much higher if the poll asked: are you in favor of the death penalty for Clifford Olson instead of are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

those results are a little skewed. check this one out.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1127764--majority-of-canadians-support-return-of-death-penalty-poll-finds

“We ask the question in two ways — do you support or oppose the death penalty — and in that context people really do support it,” he said. But when the option of life imprisonment is introduced as an option for those convicted of murder, “50 per cent actually say they would prefer life in prison.”

I still find the amount of people that find it acceptable to be appalling.

either way, what I meant by my "serving society" I meant it in the regard of protecting society, not fancying to the whims of society. Now, as a democratic society, you'd think I'd agree with it going the way of the majority. But I can't. And I sincerely disbelieve that it ever will return. Canada's reputation means too much to this country, and bringing back the death penalty would just further ruin said reputation by making us more America Jr than we already are sometimes perceived.

I will acknowledge that you do make some rather convincing arguments, however. I'm still quite surprised at the amount of people that support killing criminals.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

those results are a little skewed. check this one out.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1127764--majority-of-canadians-support-return-of-death-penalty-poll-finds

“We ask the question in two ways — do you support or oppose the death penalty — and in that context people really do support it,” he said. But when the option of life imprisonment is introduced as an option for those convicted of murder, “50 per cent actually say they would prefer life in prison.”

I still find the amount of people that find it acceptable to be appalling.

either way, what I meant by my "serving society" I meant it in the regard of protecting society, not fancying to the whims of society. Now, as a democratic society, you'd think I'd agree with it going the way of the majority. But I can't. And I sincerely disbelieve that it ever will return. Canada's reputation means too much to this country, and bringing back the death penalty would just further ruin said reputation by making us more America Jr than we already are sometimes perceived.

I will acknowledge that you do make some rather convincing arguments, however. I'm still quite surprised at the amount of people that support killing criminals.

The numbers aren't skewed... they parallel the Gallup poll:

The survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in partnership with the Toronto Star found that 63 per cent of the 1,002 Canadians surveyed across the country believe the death penalty is sometimes appropriate.

When they re-worded the question, the survey produced the stats you speak of. Again though, I wonder aloud how many people might approve of the death penalty if the question was worded in such a way that it specified death penalty for Clifford Olson or another high-profile murderer? I think you would see a spike in support. Do you disagree?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

The numbers aren't skewed... they parallel the Gallup poll:

The survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in partnership with the Toronto Star found that 63 per cent of the 1,002 Canadians surveyed across the country believe the death penalty is sometimes appropriate.

When they re-worded the question, the survey produced the stats you speak of. Again though, I wonder aloud how many people might approve of the death penalty if the question was worded in such a way that it specified death penalty for Clifford Olson or another high-profile murderer? I think you would see a spike in support. Do you disagree?

ok, skewed may have been the wrong word to use. maybe misleading, since the results were quite a bit different when you give the person answering options.

I don't know if you'd see a spike in support. as I said before, I'm still in shock at how high those numbers are.

goingtoverona

i'm for the death penalty, but i'm against it. meaning i'm all for executing our shitbags, i have no moral or ethical issues in regards to that. we have billions of people on this planet, a few less murderers isn't gonna put a dent in the population. my problem is that there are innocent people on death row just like in regular jail. i think thomas jefferson said something like, better to set 100 guilty men free than to imprison 1 innocent. that's pretty much how i feel relating to this so i would be 100 percent for abolishing the death penalty.

JonnyPistachio

goingtoverona wrote:

i'm for the death penalty, but i'm against it. meaning i'm all for executing our shitbags, i have no moral or ethical issues in regards to that. we have billions of people on this planet, a few less murderers isn't gonna put a dent in the population. my problem is that there are innocent people on death row just like in regular jail. i think thomas jefferson said something like, better to set 100 guilty men free than to imprison 1 innocent. that's pretty much how i feel relating to this so i would be 100 percent for abolishing the death penalty.

Me too. One mistake is all it takes to ruin it.