Death Penalty

**clocker** · 01-01-2004, 04:29 PM

I think that the question of "deterrence" is a red herring in this debate.
I don't believe that fear of the death penalty will stop anybody from commiting the crime.
It seems that the basic question is does society have the right to say "Your crime was so abhorrent and heinous that not only do we want you separated from us, we want you gone, period".
IMO, yes.

**J'Pol** · 01-01-2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by clocker@1 January 2004 - 17:29
I think that the question of "deterrence" is a red herring in this debate.
I don't believe that fear of the death penalty will stop anybody from commiting the crime.
It seems that the basic question is does society have the right to say "Your crime was so abhorrent and heinous that not only do we want you separated from us, we want you gone, period".
IMO, yes.

To such an extent that you would risk doing it to the innocent.

**Billy_Dean** · 01-01-2004, 05:06 PM

What about public floggings then JP? It could be big on Sky!

**clocker** · 01-01-2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by J'Pol@1 January 2004 - 09:36

To such an extent that you would risk doing it to the innocent.

You are mixing two separate issues, JP.
The first being " Does society have the right/obligation to impose the death penalty?" and the second "If yes, then under what circumstances?"

I am arguing the first question.
The second is not immediately relevant.

**J'Pol** · 01-01-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by clocker+1 January 2004 - 18:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 1 January 2004 - 18:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J'Pol@1 January 2004 - 09:36

To such an extent that you would risk doing it to the innocent.

You are mixing two separate issues, JP.
The first being " Does society have the right/obligation to impose the death penalty?" and the second "If yes, then under what circumstances?"

I am arguing the first question.
The second is not immediately relevant. [/b][/quote]
Please allow me to re-word then.

To such an extent that you would do it to the innocent ?

If you have decided yes to the first part, which I totally disagree with, then please elaborate on the conditions which would allow use of the death penalty.

**oldmancan** · 01-01-2004, 06:00 PM

I support the death penalty in principle. However, I'm not aware of any historical application that I could endorse.

I don't support the concept of revenge. I believe in justice. Rarely, imo, do the two go together.

I'm still thinking of the social contract, and the good of the society balanced against the good of the individual. What options are available to the society to protect itself from a bad individual? The most extreme is to exterminate the bad individual.

I suggest that in some cases the extermination of an individual, by a society, is warranted. Can extermination of an individual be civilized? I suggest that the manner of killing and the reason for killing the individual are more relevant than the actual act. The manner of killing should be "painless" so as not to torture.

I don't want to judge who should live or die. Nor do I want to assign punishments to crimes. I do believe society has the right to protect itself, indeed it has an obligation to do so.

I agree with J'Pol. "Even if it were to be a deterrent, does that justify society deliberately and methodically taking lives as an act of punishment / revenge. I genuinely think that every time we do this it lowers our status and right to call ourselves civilized." ...taking lives as an act of punishment / revenge...being a key condition.

What if change that to "Even if it were to be a deterrent, does that justify society deliberately and methodically taking lives as an act of protecting itself? I genuinely think that every time we do this it lowers our status and right to call ourselves civilized.

gotta go

cheers omc

**J'Pol** · 01-01-2004, 06:17 PM

OMC

I take your points on board. I fully agree that the vast majority of society can reasonably expect to be defended from the criminals which it contains.

However I remain of the opinion that society is perfectly capable of defending itself from criminals, without having to take their lives.

Indeed, are the innocent not entitled to be protected from society itself. However much we try to prevent it that society may end up taking their life thro' errors in the Court system, or errors in the evidence (either deliberate or accidental), or corruption from the Police or Judicial system, or inept defence, or a myriad of other things

There are so many ways that a person can be found guilty of an offence which they did not commit. People must be protected from the risk of losing their life, thro' mistakes which can all to easily occur.

**clocker** · 01-01-2004, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by J'Pol@1 January 2004 - 10:43

To such an extent that you would do it to the innocent ?

If you have decided yes to the first part, which I totally disagree with, then please elaborate on the conditions which would allow use of the death penalty.

This whole argument regarding the "killing of the innocent" is completely specious.
Of course I don't endorse this and have never intimated that I did.
Why would you think that of me?

I have never said that the death penalty should be lightly or cavalierly imposed, either.
What I do say is yes, society has the right and the duty to hold the death penalty as an option.
If concern for the innocent is the overweening problem here, then what about cases where there is no doubt whatsoever?
John Wayne Gacy comes immediately to mind.

**J'Pol** · 01-01-2004, 06:45 PM

I think we just fundamentally disagree.

I simply believe that for a society to deliberately take the life of one of it's members demeans that society. It is doing something that is fundamentally wrong, on behalf of it's citizens.

The fact that the death sentence is available, makes the society which has it less civilized.

Everything else put forward is just other reasons why having it is wrong. I do not put them forward as one argument. They are entirely separate.

In essence :

1. It is morally wrong, so it should not be done.

2. There is an element of revenge in addition to the punitive element. That is at best unsavoury.

3. Society is perfectly capable of defending itself without it.

4. It is of questionable deterrent value.

5. Indeed it may alienate others (family etc) from the society it seeks to protect, causing further dangers.

6. There are too many ways it can be imposed in error, both deliberate and accidental.

These are all separate arguments, each leading to the conclusion that we should not have it.