Death Penalty

[ilw]

I can't really find the words to say this properly (too much of the apple last night i think), but punishment is not really the goal, its whats used to achieve a goal and in the case of the death penalty i think a large part of why people want it is revenge. I've said this in the last death penalty thread, but anyway if you look at a justice & punishment system I think there are 4 aims
1) Deterrent to others in the society
2) Remove the threat from society
3) Rehabilitate the offender
4) Retribution for those who suffered as a result of the crimes

Punishment usually covers 1,3,4, in the case of the death penalty it covers 1 and 4, and imo wanting the death penalty comes down to either thinking its a good deterrent (which i don't really agree with) or they are giving into the basic urge for revenge. In a perfect world I would like to think that 4 in the list wouldn't come into it, because although we all feel the need for revenge when a crime is committed against us, its not really going to help (psychologically perhaps but I'm sure theres another way) and having revenge institutionalised, to the stage where the state will even kill the people who have committed crimes against you, seems basically barbaric to me.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by ilw@1 January 2004 - 15:40
I can't really find the words to say this properly (too much of the apple last night i think), but punishment is not really the goal, its whats used to achieve a goal and in the case of the death penalty i think a large part of why people want it is revenge. I've said this in the last death penalty thread, but anyway if you look at a justice & punishment system I think there are 4 aims
1) Deterrent to others in the society
2) Remove the threat from society
3) Rehabilitate the offender
4) Retribution for those who suffered as a result of the crimes

Punishment usually covers 1,3,4, in the case of the death penalty it covers 1 and 4, and imo wanting the death penalty comes down to either thinking its a good deterrent (which i don't really agree with) or they are giving into the basic urge for revenge. In a perfect world I would like to think that 4 in the list wouldn't come into it, because although we all feel the need for revenge when a crime is committed against us, its not really going to help (psychologically perhaps but I'm sure theres another way) and having revenge institutionalised, to the stage where the state will even kill the people who have committed crimes against you, seems basically barbaric to me.

For a person suffering from an overdose of the apple you have done a good job.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by ilw@1 January 2004 - 23:40
..... imo wanting the death penalty comes down to either thinking its a good deterrent (which i don't really agree with) or they are giving into the basic urge for revenge.

I can't agree with you there. If having no death penalty doesn't deter people from killing, it stands to reason that having it would, if only in a few cases. People must not want to be executed, I don't see a queue of prisoners asking to be executed instead of spending the rest of their lives in prison. And every person sentenced to death appeals. Public executions are the way to go if you are going to do it, let the public who want it to happen, watch it happen, that would be a deterent.

[clocker]

Originally posted by ilw@1 January 2004 - 07:40
I think there are 4 aims
1) Deterrent to others in the society
2) Remove the threat from society
3) Rehabilitate the offender
4) Retribution for those who suffered as a result of the crimes

Punishment usually covers 1,3,4, in the case of the death penalty it covers 1 and 4

Doesn't the death penalty effectively address #2 also?

[Evil Gemini]

OK think of it this way.

What if some one you loved got brutally murdered then the cops caught the guy and they find out he has killed heaps of other people.

Would you rather see him get gassed while you watched ? or get life in prison and he is still walking around breathing air and eating food while all the people he has killed are nothing more than bones.

I said before it would be worse to be in jail all your life but then i thought about it.

Life in prison would get easier on them because they will adopt to it and then thats their lives.

[Biggles]

I am unconvinced that the death penalty serves any purpose other than it satisfies some primeval urge for collective retribution. Whether to cede to such urges is good for society is a moot point - on the whole, though, I think not.

I believe someone remarked that crime in Saudi Arabia is low - yet they still execute people on weekly basis. I suspect that two other factors contribute to low crime more than any anything else

1) The liklihood of being caught. (The religious police in Saudi are most effective)

2) The amount of consensus amongst the population that codes they live by are just and fair. (There are many devout Muslims in Saudi who accept Sharia law as just and fair)

In communist Yugoslavia in the 70s the Croatian coast was a popular holiday resort. I had a friend who left a camera on a beach there by mistake. On returning the next day the camera was still there but someone had thoughtfully placed it on a towel to keep the sand off it. Today the former Eastern bloc countries are the home to the new Mafia (perhaps this is what Donald Rumsfeld was referring to as the New Europe) where no crime is too awful to contemplate as long as it turns a handsome profit. The chances of the camera still being on the same beach today are slim indeed. What has changed? - not the people nor so much the penalties but, I would suggest, the two principles above.

Crime, its causes and the most effective solutions are political footballs and "tough measures" are cheap political fixes that sound like somebody is doing something (and scratches that primeval itch). It is no substitute, however, for an effective police force that has the backing of a cohesive society that aspires to common goals. (It is just that the latter doesn't fit easily onto a political tract)



Still not sure what this smillie is for, but I do like it.

[ilw]

Originally posted by clocker+1 January 2004 - 13:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 1 January 2004 - 13:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@1 January 2004 - 07:40
I think there are 4 aims
1) Deterrent to others in the society
2) Remove the threat from society
3) Rehabilitate the offender
4) Retribution for those who suffered as a result of the crimes

Punishment usually covers 1,3,4, in the case of the death penalty it covers 1 and 4

Doesn&#39;t the death penalty effectively address #2 also? [/b][/quote]
Very true, I blame the apples (or wheat in my case). I suppose imprisonment is the usual punishment and so it covers 2 as well.

OK think of it this way.

What if some one you loved got brutally murdered then the cops caught the guy and they find out he has killed heaps of other people.

Would you rather see him get gassed while you watched ? or get life in prison and he is still walking around breathing air and eating food while all the people he has killed are nothing more than bones.

In other words theres an animal instinct in you to get revenge, relying on your base desires is imo not a good way to think intelligently about a subject. Obviously everyone feels the anger and hatred, but it doesn&#39;t mean you have to listen to it.
Would you yourself kill this person, i.e. release the gas watch him pathetically try to hold his breath, struggling to stay alive, but eventually failing and dying?

Yes i agree it is an extra deterrent, in that way the death penalty may save a couple of lives, however, it may also wrongly kill a couple of innocents.

I just think its not much of a deterrent,

[j2k4]

Two quick thoughts, here:

The prospect of life imprisonment might be a bit more palatable to the pro-death-penalty contingent if it weren&#39;t generally interpreted to be a life of relative ease, where the only real restriction is on freedom of movement; society demands a sufficiently punitive solution, and instead sees those convicted of heinous crimes living it up on the inside (relatively speaking, of course).

To those who would argue against the deterrent effect of the death penalty:

I&#39;ve mentioned this before, but it makes a point, so here it is-

How would one go about determining how many people do NOT commit murder because they themselves would be put to death by the State if caught?

Oh, and one other point:

Those who are against the death penalty often use the quote, "&#39;Revenge is Mine&#39;, sayeth the Lord"....

Oddly enough, they remain of secular mien on all other life/death issues, such as abortion or euthanasia.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by ilw@2 January 2004 - 01:10
I just think its not much of a deterrent,

What does not much of a deterrent mean? What if it saved one life? Ten, a hundred? When does it become worthwhile?

[J'Pol]

It may be "common sense" to believe that it is a deterrent. However I am not aware of any meaningful study which supports this. One has to consider the types of crime involved and the circumstances in which they are committed.

I think the scenario that someone sits down, plans a murder, considers the ramifications of their actions and then decides whether to do it or not is probably a rare one.

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.