World Day Against the Death Penalty

sponger

The act of taking a life does little to teach people about respecting life. The amish, apparently, have that already figured out.

wendy1976

sponger wrote:

The act of taking a life does little to teach people about respecting life.

I agree but i also would like to add that locking someone up for the rest of their life in a place that only teaches them more new ways of killing and forces them to be the toughest or get raped or killed,is not going to teach them to respect life either.
Not saying that they should get away with their crime,just think that their can be other ways to maybe turn a few of them around?!

sponger

wendy1976 wrote:

I agree but i also would like to add that locking someone up for the rest of their life in a place that only teaches them more new ways of killing and forces them to be the toughest or get raped or killed,is not going to teach them to respect life either.
Not saying that they should get away with their crime,just think that their can be other ways to maybe turn a few of them around?!

Unfortunately, I think that's the best we can do for now. We have to put these people somewhere. And wherever we put them, they're going to act the way they've been acting.

Also worth mentioning here is that our jails and prisons are overcrowded. It's hard to make jail or prison a rehabilitative atmosphere when you got like 3-4 guys in a cell designed for 2 maximum.

At any rate, regardless of overcrowding, I doubt that society is intentionally making prison a place where people get raped and beaten.

Of course, the most "civilized" and probably the most productive alternative would be to put everyone into some kind of rehab-esque kind of atmosphere, where the criminals can go to therapy and talk about their problems so that someone can get to the bottom of what made these people into monsters.

But, we'd be talking about a lot of money that our government will probaby never even come close to having. Therapists cost a lot of money. And to maintain a "safe" environment for so many people, it would cost even more money.

I think a big mistake was Nancy Reagan's zero tolerance policy. If I'm not mistaken, that policy alone made the biggest contribution to jail overcrowding, and didn't even make a significant dent in drug abuse. These people belong in a rehab facility, not prison. So, perhaps that would be the first step towards making the world a perfect place.

Byrnzie

chopitdown wrote:

A humans life is precious. If someone goes and destroys a human life (i.e. murder) the only punishment that can validate the preciousness of the life taken by murder is punishment by death. There are other options but that's where I choose to take my stance. That's the blunt answer b/c I don't feel like typing everything out.

So it's simply revenge then? A revenge killing?

Puck78

chopitdown wrote:

A humans life is precious. If someone goes and destroys a human life (i.e. murder) the only punishment that can validate the preciousness of the life taken by murder is punishment by death. There are other options but that's where I choose to take my stance. That's the blunt answer b/c I don't feel like typing everything out.

the first and the second sentences are contradicting one each other.
I find it worrying that people not involved directly in the problem (people that didn't suffer of the killing of a relative, etc) can call for killing someone (through death penalty) so easily.

know1

chopitdown wrote:

A humans life is precious. If someone goes and destroys a human life (i.e. murder) the only punishment that can validate the preciousness of the life taken by murder is punishment by death. There are other options but that's where I choose to take my stance. That's the blunt answer b/c I don't feel like typing everything out.

Surely you can see the contradiction and hypocrisy in that?

Here are a couple:

A. If a human's life is precious, then why are we sanctioning ending it.

B. If we have to punish those who kill by killing them, then the jury, judge & executioner should also be killed

chopitdown

Byrnzie wrote:

So it's simply revenge then? A revenge killing?

no, it's not revenge. Revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. If the murderer was killed in the streets in would be a revenge killing. If the murderer has gone through procedure and the law was followed and the law allows for putting a man to death it is not revenge. You can perceive it as revenge but it's not, in my mind.

chopitdown

Puck78 wrote:

the first and the second sentences are contradicting one each other.
I find it worrying that people not involved directly in the problem (people that didn't suffer of the killing of a relative, etc) can call for killing someone (through death penalty) so easily.

where did i say it was easy to call for killing. In every post I've written about this I say this is something to take VERY seriously and it should be exercised with extreme care. quit putting words in my mouth about how easily I can call for someones execution. the fact that I have an opinion on the matter that is different than yours does not mean that it's flippant.

chopitdown

know1 wrote:

Surely you can see the contradiction and hypocrisy in that?

Here are a couple:

A. If a human's life is precious, then why are we sanctioning ending it.

B. If we have to punish those who kill by killing them, then the jury, judge & executioner should also be killed

b/c of the action of murder. A person bears responsibility for their actions and murder is something that, in my opinion, is the most heinous act.

If the judge jury and executioner perform the murder in the street, i agree with you 100% on part B.

there is one alternative to capital punishment that I think can be enacted. complete and total solitary confinement in a cage with no windows for the rest of the murderers life. So it's like he's dead to society, family etc... but he's still alive knowing full well he'll never see anyone again.

Puck78

chopitdown wrote:

where did i say it was easy to call for killing. In every post I've written about this I say this is something to take VERY seriously and it should be exercised with extreme care. quit putting words in my mouth about how easily I can call for someones execution. the fact that I have an opinion on the matter that is different than yours does not mean that it's flippant.

well, YOU have the opinion that a person shhould be killed, that's what i meant. Now I don't know if you're involved somehow (if they killed a relative of your, etc), but if not, you think that someone that doesn't interfere with your life should be killed. And i find it worrying.

chopitdown

Puck78 wrote:

well, YOU have the opinion that a person shhould be killed, that's what i meant. Now I don't know if you're involved somehow (if they killed a relative of your, etc), but if not, you think that someone that doesn't interfere with your life should be killed. And i find it worrying.

I think the option should be available and used with care, yes I do. I think that someone who has endangered society doing the most heinous act possible should have to take responsibility for their actions. I'm sorry you find it worrying, but just give me credit that it is not an easy decision and one that i take lightly, I just happen to weigh the options and (gasp) disagree with you. I'm not saying I'm right and your opinion is wrong, they are just different and we can both present valid reasons for our belief, whether or not you want to accept the reasons is a different thing.

Hope&Anger

chopitdown wrote:

no, it's not revenge. Revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. If the murderer was killed in the streets in would be a revenge killing. If the murderer has gone through procedure and the law was followed and the law allows for putting a man to death it is not revenge. You can perceive it as revenge but it's not, in my mind.

Sorry -- I don't get why the location of the killing is relevant to the question of whether or not it was vengeful. Out on the street -- revenge, but strapped to a gurney with a needle stuck in your arm -- not revenge? I don't get why it matters.

(And I'm not sure I agree with you that revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. Most supporters of the death penalty call themselves retributivists -- they seek retribution for the murder. Retribution is a fancy word for revenge that intellectuals use to deny they're seeking revenge.)

I also wonder if you demand this kind of accountability from all murderers. If not, how do we decide which murderers to seek the death penalty for? Because right now, in our system of justice, local prosecutors have a lot of discretion over these things.

chopitdown

Hope&Anger wrote:

Sorry -- I don't get why the location of the killing is relevant to the question of whether or not it was vengeful. Out on the street -- revenge, but strapped to a gurney with a needle stuck in your arm -- not revenge? I don't get why it matters.

(And I'm not sure I agree with you that revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. Most supporters of the death penalty call themselves retributivists -- they seek retribution for the murder. Retribution is a fancy word for revenge that intellectuals use to deny they're seeking revenge.)

I also wonder if you demand this kind of accountability from all murderers. If not, how do we decide which murderers to seek the death penalty for? Because right now, in our system of justice, local prosecutors have a lot of discretion over these things.

the location was to show the difference b/t procedure and a "vengence is mine" attitude. The only way i feel it is appropriate to take a human life is if you can show through proper procedure the person is at fault. If you take away procedure and take matters into your own hands you are not respecting the life of the person in question. the death penalty is a punishment that you had better be 100% right about in exercising. If there is doubt about guilt, it should not be instituted at all.

You may be right about retributionist, i'll concede that. To me revenge has a vindictive side to it, and I'm sure that a lot of people have the vindictive position...esp the family of the murdered.

I haven't given much thought to which type of murderers deserve the death penalty and i agree that the prosecuters do have control over who gets what. My biggest concern with the death penalty is ensuring that if it is carried out that the wrong person isn't put to death, which tragically happens.

sponger

chopitdown wrote:

no, it's not revenge. Revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. If the murderer was killed in the streets in would be a revenge killing. If the murderer has gone through procedure and the law was followed and the law allows for putting a man to death it is not revenge. You can perceive it as revenge but it's not, in my mind.

The only difference is that, in the case of a state sanctioned execution, the chances of mistaken identity are greatly reduced. So, by that rationale, all you're saying is that revenge ceases to be revenge if one is reasonably sure of who is being revenged upon.

But, I think that just because we have determined for sure who is responsible for the crime doesn't mean that we aren't being vindictive and vengeful when we demand his execution. It just means we're careful.

After all, isn't that why executions are witnessed by the victim's immediate family? You don't think they are being resentful and vindictive by taking pleasure in seeing the execution?

"Due process" doesn't change our motivations. It only keeps up the appearance of order within our society.

It's sort of like mob killings. Prior to the creation of the "commission" in the early 1900's, mobsters did not need a "go ahead" to do a hit on another mobster. Maranzano changed that when he created the five famlies and the commission to oversee the activities of those families.

Under your rationale, the act of getting a "go ahead" from a commission takes the vindictiveness and revenge out of mob hits.

The only morally justifiable reason to take another person's life is to protect your own or the life of another. When a killer is behind bars, the "self-defense" rationale is no longer valid as he is no longer a threat to society.

Therefore, the only reason why anyone would want to execute that person would strictly be for the act of revenge. There is no other reason.

You might say that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. But, does it really? Do murderers really care if they might someday face the electric chair for their actions? Statistics don't seem to support that notion.

It kind of reminds me of alcoholics who think they're not true alcoholics because they only drink the expensive stuff. That is, in their minds, alcoholics are the winos on the street who drink ernest & gallo and ask for hand-outs. Yes, there really are alcoholics out there who really do believe they are different because they aren't drinking cheap alcohol.

In this case, "due process" is the expensive stuff, and "street revenge" is ernest & gallo. That is, you think a trial by judge and jury takes the ugliness out of revenge as we live in a so-called "civilized" society.

Alcoholism is alcoholism just as revenge is revenge.

Hope&Anger

chopitdown wrote:

The only way i feel it is appropriate to take a human life is if you can show through proper procedure the person is at fault. If you take away procedure and take matters into your own hands you are not respecting the life of the person in question. the death penalty is a punishment that you had better be 100% right about in exercising. If there is doubt about guilt, it should not be instituted at all.

This is really interesting because this is one of the proposals to reform the death penalty.

Right now, in all 36 (or 38?) states that have the death penalty and the federal system, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- which is NOT 100% sure. Try to get a lawyer tell you HOW SURE you have to be to be beyond a reasonable doubt -- they all have a different number. But one thing they are agreed on is that it's NOT 100%.

Some have argued that juries use a different standard of proof in death penalty cases. That standard would be that there's absolutely no doubt -- they are 100% sure that the defendant committed the crime.

Most prosecutors and police are against this standard because it doesn't give them any room for error. And they're willing to have room for error even in death penalty cases.

Ahnimus

Phineas Gage

chopitdown

Hope&Anger wrote:

Some have argued that juries use a different standard of proof in death penalty cases. That standard would be that there's absolutely no doubt -- they are 100% sure that the defendant committed the crime.

Most prosecutors and police are against this standard because it doesn't give them any room for error. And they're willing to have room for error even in death penalty cases.

there should be no room for error in the death penalty. It is a VERY permanant penalty.

Hope&Anger

chopitdown wrote:

there should be no room for error in the death penalty. It is a VERY permanant penalty.

I completely agree. Sadly, the way the death penalty is administered in the US, it's riddled with errors.

chopitdown

sponger wrote:

The only difference is that, in the case of a state sanctioned execution, the chances of mistaken identity are greatly reduced. So, by that rationale, all you're saying is that revenge ceases to be revenge if one is reasonably sure of who is being revenged upon.

it ceases to be revenge if due process and the legally allowed procedure is followed. that is what I'm saying. I am more comfortable with the death penalty if they are 100% sure they have the right person. I'm not comfortable with it if there is doubt.

sponger wrote:

But, I think that just because we have determined for sure who is responsible for the crime doesn't mean that we aren't being vindictive and vengeful when we demand his execution. It just means we're careful.

After all, isn't that why executions are witnessed by the victim's immediate family? You don't think they are being resentful and vindictive by taking pleasure in seeing the execution?

"Due process" doesn't change our motivations. It only keeps up the appearance of order within our society.

i'm not saying there aren't people in attendance who it's not revenge for; I'm not crazy enough to think that. I bet a majority of the people who were affected are there b/c of revenge. I think the persons actions have earned the death penalty.

sponger wrote:

It's sort of like mob killings. Prior to the creation of the "commission" in the early 1900's, mobsters did not need a "go ahead" to do a hit on another mobster. Maranzano changed that when he created the five famlies and the commission to oversee the activities of those families.

Under your rationale, the act of getting a "go ahead" from a commission takes the vindictiveness and revenge out of mob hits.

The only morally justifiable reason to take another person's life is to protect your own or the life of another. When a killer is behind bars, the "self-defense" rationale is no longer valid as he is no longer a threat to society.

Therefore, the only reason why anyone would want to execute that person would strictly be for the act of revenge. There is no other reason.

No mob hits are always revenge and murder by definition. The legal due process, for me takes away the revenge factor. If you break the law but follow process (mob hit by committee) it is still revenge b/c it's not legal and it is about revenge.

I agree that self defense is morally acceptable. Another reason is to take responsibility for an action.

sponger wrote:

You might say that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. But, does it really? Do murderers really care if they might someday face the electric chair for their actions? Statistics don't seem to support that notion.

I don't think it's a deterrent; if it serves as one to some great, but that's not what the primary motive is for me. For me it's about accountability.

sponger wrote:

In this case, "due process" is the expensive stuff, and "street revenge" is ernest & gallo. That is, you think a trial by judge and jury takes the ugliness out of revenge as we live in a so-called "civilized" society.

Alcoholism is alcoholism just as revenge is revenge.

why would the jury be out for revenge on the murderer and why would the judge be out for revenge???

chopitdown

Hope&Anger wrote:

I completely agree. Sadly, the way the death penalty is administered in the US, it's riddled with errors.

i know, that's where my biggest dilemma comes in..I agree with it in principle but the way it's enacted is extremely troubling.