The Death Penalty Is Unacceptable

[Gravekeeper]

i'm just against obama for trying to fuck it up.

1) Explain.

2) I can't find any such photos, though not for lack of trying. Link?

3) Way to ignore the debate that occured over the images and the reasons for not releasing them. Which are similar to the reasons you just argued for in point number 2.

4) Whoa whoa whoa. Excuse me? You can't be serious. Even suggesting their death is Obama's fault is beyond pale. There's a limit to how blatantly partisan you can be and still be taken seriously. You think they fly around with a big logo of who they are stamped on the chopper? Their chopper was hit after taking off from a night raid where they were trying to support the US Rangers whose raid on a Taliban leader had already gone sour.

The Taliban didn't know it was them nor did it specifically target them. They were bringing in reinforcements into a firefight. Of course they're going to get shot at.

I'm sorry, but even suggesting they would be still be alive if not for Obama is offensive, disgusting and disrespectful. You should frankly be ashamed of yourself.

[Ree]

This thread is now veered into 2 different topics.

This is a death penalty debate.

If you wish to discuss the way the government handled the execution of Bin Laden, or anything related to that issue, please take it to the politics forum for debate.

[HYHYBT]

I've been wondering lately whether it wouldn't be better to go more for other punishments besides lengthy prison sentences or death. Not for what would be death penalty cases, but in general.

[Teysa]

I guess we could bring back the stocks and public floggings. That might be a deterrent for some people.

[HYHYBT]

In one way, at least, it's *more* of a deterrent. Or, at least, it removes a major encouragement the current system has. Lock people away a few years and by the time they get out the only place they fit into society *is* prison. If that's your life, that gives motive to get yourself returned there. Whereas (masochism jokes aside) nobody wants to be flogged again... AND, if other than whatever the crime was you had a life to lead, you still have it.

It also would cut down on what I think of as sentence inflation: the sort of thinking that goes "well if X gets three years, why does Y only get ten" when, until you heard the penalty for X, you'd thought the one for Y was about right. That makes a sentence of the same length worth more, I *think* for the criminals as well.


Sorry, I'm not explaining this very well.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

It is the only way to be certain, beyond a doubt, that a monster will never commit another crime. Lock them up: They can still kill other prisoners who may not have commited such a bad crime, they might kill a guard, they might escape and kill somone else.

This is the part that keeps me from being 100% against the death penalty. Take someone like Ted Bundy, for example. He was arrested and jailed many times over the course of his killing spree, but escaped at least twice. Now, granted, he didn't leave many living victims (not counting the family members of the dead) - only one woman that I know of managed to get away from him and tell the tale - so maybe not too many people were *personally* afraid that he'd get out and come after them. Still, all evidence that I've read by experts on serial killers and psychopaths says that, should he have ever have been freed (or escaped) from prison, he'd have killed again.

I'm sure there are foolproof ways to keep a convicted killer/rapist/kidnapper/what have you behind bars forever...but some of those methods would not be allowed under the "cruel and unusual punishment" guidelines (and I perfectly understand that). Until it can be proven to me that a true monster - a sane person who chooses to terrorize other people and commits heinous crimes in the process, and is convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt - can be PROVEN to no longer be a threat to society at large, I can only put myself in the shoes of the people who live in daily fear that the prisoner will get out and come after them. As Bara said, the convicted person's death is currently the ONLY way to guarantee that cannot happen.

[Rapscallion]

As a result of this thread, I got off my bum and did something I've wanted to do for some time. I picked up a copy of 'Executioner: Pierrepoint' by Albert Pierrepoint. He was famous for being Britain's last hangman. He served in this capacity in nine countries, including executions of the Beasts of Belsen and many more famous names. He didn't want notoriety, which is what the Belsen and other post-war trials gave him. His theme for the part-time work he did was that he had been taught that it was a sombre and discreet job that should afford dignity to both executioner and executee, as well as the mercy of speed and painlessness to the latter.

Quite a remarkable man, and it's a book worth reading. If you want a chill going up your spine, you don't need fiction. He also came out with many thought-provoking comments.

In the end of the book, he reveals that after executing over four hundred people, he decided against execution as a suitable punishment. His reasoning was that as a deterrent, it never deterred those he had to kill. From what I read, very few of those non-war criminals he dealt with were truly evil types - most were from moments of madness or drunkenness etc, and very few were actively trying to kill someone else at the time of their crime.

He came to the view that it didn't deter, and that it only sufficed to grant society the vengenace it sought.

For me, the question then becomes a case of does society need that vengeance? The death penalty in the western world was generally saved for cases of murder - the Victorians were fairly brutal in their approach to offing petty criminals, but in the 1900s the majority of British executions were for acts that deprived society of some of its members. Is it truly wrong for society to expect that someone who killed one or more of its number to be removed and have the same done to that person? For me, that's the crux of the matter.

I'm still undecided.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

For me, the question then becomes a case of does society need that vengeance?

Obviously not, as there are many countries that are trucking along just fine without capital punishment. Both of ours included. Very few first world countries still have capital punishment. In fact I think its only the US and Japan that do. More dubiously, the US is one of only 8 countries where you can be executed under the age of 18 in some states.

The death penalty in the western world was generally saved for cases of murder - the Victorians were fairly brutal in their approach to offing petty criminals, but in the 1900s the majority of British executions were for acts that deprived society of some of its members.

The original point of the death penalty as a deterrant was that executions were gruesome, often painful and most importantly public. So the state could go "See? This is what will happen to you if you commit this crime". In this day and age, such a spectacle is rightfully considered appalling and executions are conducted in the most humane ways possible and not in public. So its ineffective as a deterrant these days. Which only leaves vengeance which, obviously, society can live without.

Is it truly wrong for society to expect that someone who killed one or more of its number to be removed and have the same done to that person? For me, that's the crux of the matter.

For me, I view it as attempting to create a right from two wrongs using a process that's too fallable to even consider as fair or just. The ultimate punishment sets us up too easily to make the ultimate mistake. On top of that, I think there's an unsettling religious connotation to the death penalty in many places. Once you remove pain and spectacle, you can't tell me there isn't an element of "Lets kill him so he suffers in the afterlife".

[Andara Bledin]

Is it truly wrong for society to expect that someone who killed one or more of its number to be removed and have the same done to that person?

Yes.

There are people who, through various means, deprive society of members every day who are allowed to not only retain their own lives, but sometimes not even garner any criminal record for it. Those are the other extreme, but it happens. All around the world. And society has yet to collapse from the weight of it.

We may be part of the animal kingdom, but that does not excuse us from behaving like mere animals.

^-.-^

[Evandril]

In the end of the book, he reveals that after executing over four hundred people, he decided against execution as a suitable punishment. His reasoning was that as a deterrent, it never deterred those he had to kill.

It was a perfect deterrent for those he executed I will admit, I do feel if they are going to have executions, they should be prompt, public and bloody. With the news today, hearing one person was killed in jail after a 50 year confinement is fighting for headline space against the person who killed 3 people in an armed robbery...Sounds more of a deterrent to shopping than killing, IMO. Making it public and brutal (Give 'em to Mythbusters, spare Buster for the 'going to be fatal and extreme' stunts or the like), and it'll have a chance of doing more than removing someone from society.

That being said...The first step is to completely reform the police and judicial systems to insure fair trials, and only use the death penalty when there truely is 'no reasonable doubt' of the crime...Which makes the first part more likely than what's needed to insure it's a just system

[mikoyan29]

I live in a state that hasn't had the death penalty for its entire existence (or pretty close to it). I'm surprised our crack legislation hasn't gotten around to reversing that as well.

I think my whole problem with the death penalty is that it takes so long to carry it out.

[Andara Bledin]

It takes a quarter of a century to carry out and we still are killing innocent people.

If that isn't a condemnation of the whole process, I don't know what is.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Again, condemning the process leading to the penalty, and not the penalty itself.

I still remain unconvinced either way. There are many instances where I wouldn't support its use, but several where I would.

Rapscallion

[Canarr]

The article that Raps linked to in the firing squad thread had this tidbit I find interesting:

With a record 3,046 condemned men and women awaiting executions in 38 states, the public's increasingly hard line on crime pressures politicians to speed up executions. In Utah, polls indicate that 75 percent of voters support the death penalty.

That was in 1996, and there were, according to the article, 56 executions nationwide in 1995. Some anti-death penalty spokesman estimated 100 executions in 1996.

Now, unless I'm overlooking something here, the math seems simple to me: 3,000 people condemned to death, 100 executions per year = 30 years until the last one is through. So - people spending decades on death row isn't to make sure that they're definitely guilty before being executed, it's just because the system's seriously backlogged?

[Panacea]

Now, unless I'm overlooking something here, the math seems simple to me: 3,000 people condemned to death, 100 executions per year = 30 years until the last one is through. So - people spending decades on death row isn't to make sure that they're definitely guilty before being executed, it's just because the system's seriously backlogged?

The pace of executions has sped considerably up, especially in the South (Texas and Florida lead the way, here). Executions were slowed in the 90's because there were still a lot of legal challenges to the resumption of executions going on in the courts. Those challenges have been beaten back, and now states are executing people right and left.

Things have slowed up recently because a key ingredient in lethal injection, sodium thiopental, is in world wide short supply due to manufacturing issues. It is being replaced with sodium pentothal, and in some cases potassium cloride is being taken out of the mix, which defense lawyers are challenging as cruel and unusual. Several states suspended executions to see how the legal cases would work out.

The courts have ruled in favor of the states, and executions are resuming. The new cocktails are working fine. I expect the pace to pick up again.

I have no problem with the death penalty per se, but the slew of cases showing innocent people have been put on death row (and a few executed) have convinced me there are serious flaws in determining which cases are selected as capital cases, including strong racial biases. These processes need to be resolved, and the criteria tightened considerably. Circumstantial cases should not be capital cases; there needs to be rock solid physical evidence, too.