The Death Penalty

[WeeMouse]

Please forgive me L & Wee for bringing this scenario forward

No bother, man!

I see what you mean...I would want the person to die....but that doesn't mean that they should! The rest of their life would be hellish (people don't take kindly to child murderers....).

It is a fuzzy situation, but killing people just doesn't seem right...they may deserve it, but if i then killed the murderer....would that make things right again? if the courts ruled that the murderer should be killed, would that bring back the child....?

/me goes back to eating cookies....too much thinking...

[j2k4]

This is a sticky subject, and one I will dabble in long enough to make one (1) point.

If you spend any time with any of our "emotive" subjects, you will eventually become used to having certain statistics available to you which bear upon the subject in question; so many statistics, in fact, that they become moot.

Relative to the death-penalty debate, however, I find missing the one salient statistic:

There is no possible way to assemble a statistic which would firmly indicate how many murders DO NOT occur due to the existence of the death penalty.

Personally, I am in favor of a very strictly administered death penalty.

[MagicNakor]

What I do remember of one of the studies which was a compilation of answers from murderers, specifically those serving life sentences for (if I recall) murder in the 1st degree (which, if I'm recalling correctly, is really the only way to "land" a death penalty in the United States: that of premeditated murder) in states that currently do not have capital punishment. A majority of those polled would have "considered more carefully/reconsidered" had the state had the death penalty and knowing that they would be tried for it. The results for not commiting the crime at all and commiting the crime in the same manner were fairly close. The study was done in the early 90s, perhaps even the late 80s. I doubt I have it anymore, but I will keep looking.

[j2k4]

The death penalty is currently administered in accord with a somewhat complicated (hard to explain in theory; simpler in practice) system of "mitigating circumstances", which are factors considered to reduce the culpability of the crime, and "aggravating circumstances"; factors which increase penalties.

Example: a "mitigating circumstance" could be a defendent's age, or the existence of a state of mental or emotional disturbance.

An "aggravating circumstance" might be that the victim was a law-officer, or the murder was a "contract-for-hire", or occurred in the commission of a kidnap-for-ransom.

These vary slightly from state to state in the U.S.

[ilw]

How many states in the US still have the death penalty? Is there a split like North south East west?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@8 July 2003 - 07:55
How many states in the US still have the death penalty? Is there a split like North south East west?

As of 2000, the only states without a death-penalty statute are:

Maine
Vermont
Massachusetts
West Virginia
Rhode Island
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
North Dakota
Hawaii
Alaska

[ilw]

Wow, I thought the split would be the other way round (ie lots more without death penalty).
Anyway if u allow capital punishment, how come not corporal punishment? Surely corporal is the next logical step from imprsionment. In my mind the order goes:
Imprisonment, corporal punishment, disfigurement (eg removal of hands/ tattooing of prominent parts of the body), capital punishment and maybe ultimately torture before death.
Yet i'm sure lots of advocates of the death penalty would see steps 2 and 3 as cruel?????

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@8 July 2003 - 08:57
Wow, I thought the split would be the other way round (ie lots more without death penalty).
Anyway if u allow capital punishment, how come not corporal punishment? Surely corporal is the next logical step from imprsionment. In my mind the order goes:
Imprisonment, corporal punishment, disfigurement (eg removal of hands/ tattooing of prominent parts of the body), capital punishment and maybe ultimately torture before death.
Yet i'm sure lots of advocates of the death penalty would see steps 2 and 3 as cruel?????

Have you any idea how we have agonized over the definition of "cruel and unusual"?

If we did as you suggest, it would make commensurately less sense to restrict the use of the death-penalty as we have.

On second thought....

[Ron]

I have very mixed feelings about this, so I can't really give a straight answer.
But do you believe it is more humane to put a man behind bars for the rest of his life, knowing he will get beaten/raped at every possible occasion?
Isn't that also a form of torture?
Imagine what it must be like to spend the rest of your natural life between hardened criminals. Always needing to watch your back (and ass).
Nothing to look forward to. Nothing at all.
Is that something YOU would want? Or could stand?
I *think* I would prefer the easy way out of a lethal injection then.
The chair would be another thing though.

I wonder what would happen if all lifers would be given a pill to end their life painlessly at a time of their choosing.
How many would use it?

So my answer would be that I am for the death penalty in certain cases (involving children or especially brutal crimes)
But also against, because there is no foolproof way to determine who is guilty or innocent.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Ron@8 July 2003 - 10:55
I have very mixed feelings about this, so I can't really give a straight answer.
But do you believe it is more humane to put a man behind bars for the rest of his life, knowing he will get beaten/raped at every possible occasion?
Isn't that also a form of torture?
Imagine what it must be like to spend the rest of your natural life between hardened criminals. Always needing to watch your back (and ass).
Nothing to look forward to. Nothing at all.
Is that something YOU would want? Or could stand?
I *think* I would prefer the easy way out of a lethal injection then.
The chair would be another thing though.

I wonder what would happen if all lifers would be given a pill to end their life painlessly at a time of their choosing.
How many would use it?

So my answer would be that I am for the death penalty in certain cases (involving children or especially brutal crimes)
But also against, because there is no foolproof way to determine who is guilty or innocent.

In my more cynical moments I can construct a pretty good argument for life imprisonment, but, the rape issue aside (it doesn't happen nearly as often as people think), I don't think life imprisonment is punishment enough.

Why should a rapist/murderer have anything to look forward to?