The Death Penalty

[clocker]

I am unequivocally for the death penalty.
In my opinion there are individuals so warped and broken that rehabilitation or redemption is out of the question and the threat that they pose to society far outweighs any moral qualms I might have about killing them.

Think: Richard Speck or Charlie Manson.
Both thrive(d*) in prison.
Completely unrepentent, nay, proud of the actions that put them in confinment. No question of their guilt, as they were both proud to acknowledge it to anyone who would listen.
Think: Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.
Serial predators who studied their prey in order to better fit in and walk among us.
Creatures so far outside of our ken, that faced with undeniable proof of their actions, many still felt unable to believe it. Ted Bundy looked like the boy next door. Gacy was a respected businessman who liked to entertain children dressed as a clown. Behind their masks, both were aliens, constantly searching for the next victim.

Deserving of my pity, my compassion?
Not a chance.


*Speck died in prison, having led a seemingly happy, if manisfestly bizarre, life behind bars. Video was shown on TV, filmed in prison, where Speck taunts the outside world for making his life so easy- sex, drugs and violence all being so easy to obtain/practice behind bars. Watch that video and then tell me that this thing was even human[I].

[evilbagpuss]

I will support the death penalty when,

i) Someone discovers a way to bring people back from the dead.

ii) We create a justice system that never ever gets it wrong and is 100% free from corruption.

To me, unless one of those 2 things has happened, the issue boils down to how many innocent people you are willing to execute by mistake. Is 1 or 2 dead innocents an acceptable margin of error?

Unless you limit the death penalty to individuals who have been convicted based on irrefutable DNA evidence you can never be 100% sure your killing the right person.

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@8 July 2003 - 16:59
I will support the death penalty when,

i) Someone discovers a way to bring people back from the dead.

ii) We create a justice system that never ever gets it wrong and is 100% free from corruption.

Sadly, we live in an imperfect world.
Do you refuse to fly?
After all, you can't be "100% certain" that the plane won't crash.

Advances in forensic technology continue to eliminate error (and free previously jailed, wrongfully convicted people, happily), but what about the cases I mentioned?
There is absolutely no doubt about Bundy, et al.

They confessed.
They bragged about their transgressions.

[hobbes]

Let us dissect the issue into it's components:


1. Do you trust your judicial system to fairly and securely enforce the death penalty?

Only if the system executes confessed murderers. Has anybody ever seen the interview with Jeffery Dahmer. He admitted that could understand (if he were to put himself in their shoes) why his victims families were upset with him, but he felt no regret for the killings. He claimed that he did not kill out of hate, but out of love. Dahmer was obsessed with pouring acid into the brain of living humans to make them into "sex slaves". Jeffery, I have a chair here for you.



2. Do you support the concept of a death penalty?

Have you seen the movie "Seven"? Who wanted Brad to put the gun down and let the system take care of the matter?

In a word, "Yes" I support the concept. If I were to witness someone murder my wife, first hand (the essential element), I would kill him.



3. I guess a third question could arise. If you are Brad Pitt, do you trust the system to be able to carry out the justice a person deserves (cough, OJ Simpson, cough).

I have to say, that I would prefer to have a system in which a murderer could wriggle off the hook, over one in which a single innocent man was killed.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker
Sadly, we live in an imperfect world.
Do you refuse to fly?
After all, you can't be "100% certain" that the plane won't crash.

Comparing a mode of travel to the death penalty isn't appropriate. I guess you could take a boat if you were that bothered about flying but in this case its either death or a life sentence. To continue the comparison its either the plane or your going nowhere. No boats here

Advances in forensic technology continue to eliminate error (and free previously jailed, wrongfully convicted people, happily), but what about the cases I mentioned?
There is absolutely no doubt about Bundy, et al.

They confessed.
They bragged about their transgressions.

As I said before if theres absolutely no doubt and the crimes are that heinous then... fair enough.

However, I think these 'gentleman' are the exception not the rule with regards to prisoners on death row. I can think of a couple of exceptions on the opposite end of the spectrum who are also on death row but their convictions look very suspect. How many more suspect convictions are there that the mass media do not feel are worthy of our attention?

I guess the 'one innocent life' issue is the bottom line here, nothing, (asides from DNA it seems) is infallible.

I wonder how you would start a letter to an executed mans family saying "sorry folks, but we got it wrong this time"....

[Ron]

What if they changed " beyond reasonable doubt" to "any doubt whatsoever"?

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@8 July 2003 - 17:57


I wonder how you would start a letter to an executed mans family saying "sorry folks, but we got it wrong this time"....

How do you start a letter to Nicole Brown's family?

"Sorry folks, but OJ promises never to rest until "the real killer" is found..."?*


Apparently, OJ is convinced that the "real killer" is hiding out on golf courses...

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker
How do you start a letter to Nicole Brown's family?

"Sorry folks, but OJ promises never to rest until "the real killer" is found..."?*

Different topic. I dont see how the existence/non-existence of a death penalty would make a difference to Nicole Browns family.

That situation reflects badly on the court system and the police i.e the 'bringing the culprit to justice' area but its got nothing to do with the sentencing or 'punishment of the culprit' area.

[j2k4]

All excellent posts, guys.

As to the concerns about wrongful execution, I believe appropriate mechanisms are in place to limit administration of the death penalty to those who are well and truly guilty; these "standards", aided (as EBP says) by DNA evidence, do make a difference as to the propriety of the death penalty in such cases as it is lawfully applicable.

I did a paper on this for a corrections class a few years ago-regretfully I can't locate it just now.

I'd like to point out, though, that to carry the "reasonable doubt" aspect to it's strict, logical (and in this case, somewhat silly) conclusion would technically render even DNA proof suspect, as is mathematically provable, although at extremely long odds, yes?

My point is, one cannot escape the fact that the determination of guilt, like so many things, remains, even in the face of overwhelming "evidence", a judgement call.

[ilw]

I think i'm right in saying that punishment is supposed to serve 4 main functions
1) Rehabilitation
2) Deterrent
3) Retribution
4) Keeping society safe (ie removing socially incapable people from the general populace)

With the death penalty there is no chance of rehabilitation and I would argue that anyone completely incapable of being rehabilitated is probably so unbalanced that crime and punishment would mean little anyway. I can see that the death penalty does act as an increased deterrent, and may be marginally better than life imprisonment at keeping society safe (as it would not only remove the perpetrator from society, but also from jail). The only area where the death penalty excels is in that of retribution. To me retribution is the base and savage part of the justice system which serves no real function other than to satisfy a basic human urge for revenge. Obviously all of us feel the need for revenge when someone causes us harm, but I don't agree that the law should condone this revenge. The law should remain impartial, objective and should work to protect and advance our society.