What do you think about the Death Penalty?

[m1469]

This question has come up in family of late, and if it feels impersonal, I tend towards the idea of being against it.  However, if it felt personal and it were about somebody who committed a heinous crime against a small child in my family, for example, I think I would have a little different perspective on it.  And, it is these types of people who get that type of sentence.

[thalbergmad]

Victims of crime naturally have a different perspective and if someone killed a member of my family, I would want them dead. In jolly old England, the death penalty was scrapped over 40 years ago and it is extremely unlikely to come back, as we seem to concentrate more on the rights of criminals than rights of victims. Not only are the sentences that are handed out pathetic, jail is somewhere for people to go and play pool and table tennis, go to the gym and chill out and smoke drugs with your mates whilst the guards look on helplessly.

From what I see that happens in certain American States, I would submit that it is less cruel to use the death penalty than it is to keep someone on death row for years with endless last minute stays.

Thal

[thinkgreenlovepiano]

I have heated discussions with my parents about this quite a bit
I like to play mind games and imagine things from different perspectives sometimes..

We don't have death penalty here in Canada anymore, but I've always been against the death penalty, and well, killing in general. I don't think it makes sense to stop murder by killing, and that our society should focus more on rehabilitation rather than revenge- revenge may even perpetuate violence in society as I've seen statistics that suggest that the death penalty may promote violence cruelty in society and increase the murder rate.  I don't think we need the death penalty anymore, now that we have the facilities to protect everyone from criminals (although we don't always use it   ) -- I don't like how the justice system works now either with murderers getting out of jail in a few years and people smoking and partying in prison. I think that is the other extreme that we're heading towards.

I don't know if it's fair for me to say this, because it has never happened to me before but if I put myself in the shoes of a victim's family, I can certainly understand why some would support the death penalty. I can't even begin to imagine how furious and sad I would be. Likely I would say that I would want the murderer dead- but that would probably be all emotional. I think rationally and ethically speaking I'd still be opposed to it- killing is still killing... And it wouldn't be fair or logical to only be ok with it because it's my own family who is being killed.

 I've always wondered-- what if I were accused for a crime I didn't commit, and was sentenced to death? I've had dreams of that happening (probably from watching too much tv   ). Or what if a criminal really wanted to change?

Just my thoughts....

[jesc]

IMO

If the heinous crime is done to someone I care about, I honestly won't hesitate to invoke the death penalty. That said, I can't bring myself to deny others of what I myself would like to be done in their shoes.

But... again .... there's the but...

The possibility of wrongful conviction. That's the rub... always a rub. You cannot bring a dead person back to life. For jail sentence there is that small opportunity to set things right (you cannot bring back all those years served).

[Bob]

This question has come up in family of late,

Haha... Just casual conversation?  *Bob thinks that's a weird topic to come up.*

I think there's a balance.  If someone did something terrible enough, if there wasn't any chance of them being rehabilitated... and if they weren't still useful to society in some way... Sure.  Wrap it up.  Erase the problem.  Part of the balance would be if it's worth it to pay for their room and board for the rest of their life when they're locked up.  At a certain point they've already lost rights as a citizen.  And some aren't ever going to be released from prison.  And if it's certain they commited the crime. 

If they're making license plates or something, that's semi-productive.  I wonder if they could be studied, if there's something to be gained from that.  I'm picturing someone who's mind is wired up wrong.  Human testing comes to mind if they've dipped below rights of a citizen or even a human -- If it's productive, at least something could be gained from them.  That seems a bit out there though. 

So it's a balance for me.  It would be pretty extreme to go all the way through with that.  I can think of one somewhat recent criminal who I would probably give up on myself but they probably still wouldn't meet all the criteria listed above. 

I suppose another angle would be if the state wasn't taking care of that criminal, who else could they take care of instead?  Finish off a criminal who's not contributing anything and is only taking away and give those resources to someone struggling who could benefit and contribute something back to society.  Put a kid through school.  Feed the homeless.  That type of thing.

And it's always possible someone could turn over a new leaf years down the road.  Possible but... I think I'd cut my losses after a certain point and just give up on them.

[lostinidlewonder]

I totally disagree with the Death Penalty because you cannot be 100% sure every single person on death row is guilty and deserves death. Allow even one innocent person to die on death row is a HUGE injustice, so much so that the system itself becomes a mass murderer even though it is supposed to be an image of justice and Human justice is imperfect.

Should the guilty be put to death? I don't think so too since even if a small % after many years of incarceration become a different person this is better than killing them before they could have a chance to change. Look at people who are caught with drugs in places like Bali, do they deserve death? Most of us Westerners would think not but it is Law in those places to put to death many drug importers. So what justice is there to kill people? It is different all over the world so we should simply not have the Death Penalty.

We hate the crime not the person, a person can change in time, who you are today will change in many ways in the years to come. But if someone murdered my entire family I probably wouldn't be upset if they themselves where put to death, but as a Christian I would hope that God would give me the strength to forgive the murderer eliminating the burning desire to see them die. Fortunately enough the majority of us will never have to be put in such situations.

[minor9th]

If they were found guilty and promptly shot by a firing squad (within 5-10 minutes), then I'd be all for it. But, with inmates sitting on death row for some 20 years at cost to taxpayers of $100,000 per year, then it's a little hard to justify.

[m1469]

For me, thinking of it as the possibility of it being a loved one, especially a child, just makes it less philosophical and intellectually righteous.  It makes my perspective a little more practical, I think, since that is what somebody else is experiencing when somebody does something that could invoke that penalty.  It's not just that I would want revenge, though I can imagine that would be a mighty emotional challenge, or just that I would feel very challenged with hate for that person.

It's just hard for me to justify many people spending money, keeping somebody around for years with a roof over their head, three meals a day, exercise, etc., when they selfishly wiped somebody off the face of the earth who was contributing to society in positive ways.  

To me, justifying keeping somebody around seems like a different matter than whether it's philosophically correct to kill a murderer (and worse).  How do you justify it on it's own?

Recently there was a case in my State where a man was going to actually be injected, but the governor of the State put a last minute stop to it, and the man whose life the governor saved was quoted as criticizing and belittling the governor as not having the guts to go through with it.  hmm.  Btw, it was on the news and that's how it came up in my family.  

There are certainly some cases where people are wrongfully convicted.  I somewhat recently watched a true movie about a case where a man was convicted and serving years-worth of a sentence, his sister wouldn't give up on him though.  She became a lawyer and something like 14 years later was able to prove his innocence upon DNA testing coming out.  And, since DNA testing came into the scene in I think it was 1984, something like 70 or so formerly convicted people had been found innocent because of it (as of the time the movie came out, and I'm not sure when that was).  Of course that's a little ... disturbing.  

But, we have DNA abilities now, and in some cases there truly is no doubt.  So, I think if it's a situation where there's actually no doubt, the crime was heinous, and we are going to spend how much money keeping this person around?  I don't know how to pragmatically justify that.

[Bob]

The system does seem a bit messed up.  I'd reserve it cases where it's absolutely clear, no questions. 

[ahinton]

Victims of crime naturally have a different perspective and if someone killed a member of my family, I would want them dead. In jolly old England, the death penalty was scrapped over 40 years ago and it is extremely unlikely to come back, as we seem to concentrate more on the rights of criminals than rights of victims. Not only are the sentences that are handed out pathetic, jail is somewhere for people to go and play pool and table tennis, go to the gym and chill out and smoke drugs with your mates whilst the guards look on helplessly.

I don't think that the evidence really suggests that victims of crime always have a different perspective from those who aren't such victims. When the death penalty has been in force in so-called "civilised" Western societies, it has been imposed only for murder, so we're more or less bound to consider it for that purpose alone in our discussions here. Different victims of crime will have different takes on what has happened to them - and time, whilst not always the great healer that it's often cracked up to be - can make differences to those perspectives. A direct victim of a murder is obviously dead, so cannot have a view. Someone who's lost a close family member as a consequence of murder is an indirect victim who will suffer the consequences of this and, whilst some will be motivated to desire to removal of the murderer's life, others may want that murderer to have to suffer for years in prison just as the victim will suffer. When someone is the victim of another crime such as attempted murder or rape, they are always direct victims but the perpetrator/s, even if convicted, would not have expected to receive the death sentence even in the days when we had one in Britain; the victim is therefore not even afforded the luxury of having a choice about whether the crimial should be executed or imprisoned.

Not all jails are the five-star hotels that you imply here and I would certainly not want to spend time in one on either side of the bars.

I accept that sentencing policy can never be guaranteed to be perfect and, even if it were, individual judges will still have license to dispense sentences as they see fit - some harsher than others.

Like you, I don't believe that enough energy is devoted to the rights of victims, although this situation is improving, albeit far too slowly.

From what I see that happens in certain American States, I would submit that it is less cruel to use the death penalty than it is to keep someone on death row for years with endless last minute stays.

I agree entirely with this.

Finally, my simple answer to the question is that I don't, because, to me, imposing the death penalty amounts to an admission of social failure and the failure of justice. For me, this applies on all scales, from the individual who has committed a single murder to serial killers and multiple murderers to those who have committed acts of mass genocide; Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot should have been brought to justice and forced to account and be punished for their actions against society, just as bin Laden and Gaddafi should have been hauled off to the International Court in den Haag rather than merely shot.

The death penalty sends out all the wrong signals and is accordingly a retrogressive phenomenon that effectively substitutes for justice - and if we're not all entitled to justice at all times, there may as well be none.

The death penalty also carries with it the risk that if the conviction ultimately turns out to have been insecure, there's no longer a remedy available, whereas (as we have on occasion witnessed) if someone imprisoned for murder is later discovered to have been innocent, that person can at least be freed, pardoned and compensated.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Not all jails are the five-star hotels that you imply here and I would certainly not want to spend time in one on either side of the bars.

Their is a B & B near Spalding which is probably worse than the average prison.

Thal

[ahinton]

Their is a B & B near Spalding which is probably worse than the average prison.

"Their" is, is "there"? Well, I very rarely have to go to that neck of the woods, as it happens, but i am nevertheless mightily grateful to you for the warning!

Best,

Alistair

[landru]

The death penalty is the ultimate in what a government can do. It amuses me that here in the US there are vociferous people who scream for the death penalty but somehow think the government is always wrong, always interfering and every government bureaucrat should be put in a straitjacket.

Well, which is it? You distrust the government on absolutely everything leading up to the death penalty - and then shrink back and say, "Well, you know, in the miniscule little thing of taking someone's life, then the government is peachy."