Yay, or Nay... Death Penalty.

[karrie]

So then, we should allow all of those people to become part of the problem, and 'again', it seems to
me that is not remembering the victim, just because the victim is dead, do we then push on to make everyone comfortable. The victim is DEAD, and for me, that is the priority, and the families
connected to the perp. will have to live with the fact that their relative is a murdurer, and they
also, should be putting their energy toward the VICTIM, and the fact that he/she is DEAD.
It seems to me that it is a MUCH bigger crime, in my mind, than it is in many others minds.
If a relative of mine murdured someone, I would not be running around trying to figure
out how to save his/her life, as he/she has to pay dearly for that horrible crime.
The suffering I would endure when he/she's life comes to an end, was brought on by
the murdurer.

The thing is, as you've pointed out... the victim is dead. So no, they're not the priority unfortunately. What society is willing to live with, and how a sentence impacts us, is what's important. It all makes no difference to the dead.

The negative impact the crime has had on society isn't necessarily minimized by creating more grief.

 

[westmanguy]

Everyone...

...my truthful stance on this is a little bumpy.

Everybody dies?

Why not make them suffer in prison for the rest of their lives and they can perish after death in Hell (if your religious).

After I get past the anger of each case life *without parole* seems very good.

Like a mental torture with death anyways.

the *without parole* part though is a must. Their must be some way to void out parole rights...

 

[Pangloss]

Sorry to throw icewater on the bloodlust folks - but what about the hundreds of people in the last few years who have been released after years in prison (many on death row) because they were wrongly convicted?

How is any irreversable punishment ethical in the face of uncertainty?

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

BTW - Won't take the poll because the question is still moot in Canada.

Pangloss

 

[talloola]

The thing is, as you've pointed out... the victim is dead. So no, they're not the priority unfortunately. What society is willing to live with, and how a sentence impacts us, is what's important. It all makes no difference to the dead.

The negative impact the crime has had on society isn't necessarily minimized by creating more grief.

Create more grief for some, but make closure for others, and serve justice. Putting someone away
for their life is also creating grief, their families will live the rest of their lives, knowing their
family member is sitting in some prison somewhere, how is that being free of grief, I would ask.
The law should not ever forget the dead, and that victim is the reason for the fight to continue on,
so that the victim, who cannot come back, has someone to speak for them.

 

[Niflmir]

So first, about the victim. Capital punishment does not seek justice, it seeks revenge. This is an important distinguishment, sure many people conflate the two, but they are not the same at all. Capital punishment cannot deter crimes from happening, furthermore it justifies killing as a reasonable way to dispose of alleged monsters. Let us not forget that every time someone goes on a killing spree or a kills repeatedly, they believe that they are eliminating trash from society. Their self-righteousness is identical to the self-righteousness espoused in the death penalty, only their beliefs have not passed the sloppy test of democracy. People have so little faith in the justice system, but I suggest you go out and look at the various organizations that seek to support the victims and see how many of the members are lawyers and judges. These people are far more concerned about preserving victims rights than the average citizen, but as we all know, the media only ever reports the most sensational sentences and never reports the appeal courts strengthening the sentence, which happens quite repeatedly.

There is far more reason to seek to eliminate crime than to punish crime, but so many people get caught up in the punishment aspect that they forget how little punishment acts as a deterrance. Conclusively, the death penalty has no impact on the crime rate and only seeks to satisfy the most bloodthirsty of the law-abiding. I don't think that is a healthy catharsis. It reinforces the idea that violence can be solved with more violence, and that innocents dying is justifiable in the name of punishment.

On the nature of costs in the system and backlog in the courts, the death penalty can only increase this. The defense attorney of an individual facing the death penalty will stall the entire process, and apply for every appeal. They will be able to successfully bring their case before each appeal court simply on a constitutional ground, and they can tack on any issue that will guarantee a lengthy trial. Thus the death will be anything except quick and inexpensive. Also, it often eliminates judicial discretion. Consider the recent case where a father euthanised his daughter, faced with the decision of choosing acquital or death sentence for premeditated "murder", the judge might decide that justice is better served with an acquital.

Finally, on the issue of who is killed. Many of these people aren't murderers or sexual abusers, take for instance the famous Californian "three strikes" rule. Many of these people are subsistence criminals, so don't use the extremes to justify a law that penalizes the small fries.

So in summary, its far more expensive, it perverts the justice system (there is justice in this system, but thats not sensational enough to make the news) into a revenge system, it is an unhealthy catharsis/message for society (i.e. killing is an effective way to solve problems), it ignores the issue of lowering the crime rate while seeking to satisfy people about the crime rate, it does not focus solely on the most violent and dangerous offenders. From an economic standpoint, it fails by increasing costs. From a criminologic standpoint, it fails to prevent crime. From a victims standpoint, it fails for some, so it just fails. From a justice standpoint, an innocent will die, so it fails. From a sociological standpoint, it manifestly creates a more violent society, so it fails. What is left but the appeal to emotion of a few?

 

[folcar]

I believe we should have capital punishment, but only for individuals where doubt over there guilt is not an issue. Ex. A Bernado/Homolka or Picton. In cases like these the evidence against them is staggering and unrefuttable, but in a case where evidence is more superficial and not so clear like the OJ trial. The death penalty should not apply as the risk of condemning and innocent person, who was in the wrong place is too high. I think in terms of the monsters that would be put down, it is the duty of society to ensure they cannot ever repeat there actions. And the death penalty is the only surefire way to prevent them from doing so.

I also believe we should consider it fir severe child molestors, unlike the mirder victims these people are forced to live out there lives often as total emotional/ psycological wrecks. Although here i'd settle for life in prison with no parole.

 

[Niflmir]

I believe we should have capital punishment, but only for individuals where doubt over there guilt is not an issue. Ex. A Bernado/Homolka or Picton. In cases like these the evidence against them is staggering and unrefuttable, but in a case where evidence is more superficial and not so clear like the OJ trial. The death penalty should not apply as the risk of condemning and innocent person, who was in the wrong place is too high. I think in terms of the monsters that would be put down, it is the duty of society to ensure they cannot ever repeat there actions. And the death penalty is the only surefire way to prevent them from doing so.

I also believe we should consider it fir severe child molestors, unlike the mirder victims these people are forced to live out there lives often as total emotional/ psycological wrecks. Although here i'd settle for life in prison with no parole.

That does raise an important point. For life in prison, the level of reasonable, in reasonable doubt doesn't need to be very extreme, but for complete and utter annihilation the level of reasonableness must necessarily be extremised. What I mean is, a judge would necessarily deem certain evidence as granting a reasonable doubt for the death penalty but unreasonable for life in prison. This sort of discretion already exists, many convictions are granted "on a balance of probabilities." Subsequently, there would be less convictions due to the more stringent requirements, I don't think anybody would say that that is a good thing from a victim's perspective.

 

[TenPenny]

I believe we should have capital punishment, but only for individuals where doubt over there guilt is not an issue. Ex. A Bernado/Homolka or Picton.

Umm...in case you didn't notice, 'Picton' is still innocent. Until the trial is over and we know the results.

My personal stance is that it should be for only heinous crimes, child sexual assault, and a few others. Garden variety murder doesn't count.
Bernardo and Homolka should both be examples, Olsen as well.
Pickton IF he is found guilty by a proper trial.

 

[Zzarchov]

In Robert Sawyer's science fiction book, Neanderthal, the Neanderthal society has a rule - if you commit a serious crime, not only are you sterilized, but your children, your siblings, and your parents are, too. On the idea that being a bad person is a genetic trait.

And didn't that lead to a horrid system of hidden abuse where sadistic types would abuse the crap out of their spouses because if they complain the punishment would be that not only is their spouse punished, but their own children and grandchildren.

Doesn't seem like a very good system to me, maybe because I have a ne'er do well sibling.

 

[talloola]

So first, about the victim. Capital punishment does not seek justice, it seeks revenge.

That is an opinion only, as none of my thinking focuses on revenge, but fairness and justice, yet I have the
opposite opinion than you, in respect to the above.

 

[#juan]

Capital punishment does not seek justice, it seeks revenge.

That might be true if the victim's family were running the court. They are not. The lawyers, judge and jury are.

It can be said that the death penalty is a deterrent, because it is. No killer ever killed again after he/she was executed.

Keeping a killer around for thirty or forty years is too expensive. I'm only willing to give Olsen the cost of a bullet or an injection. I don't care which. I don't care if his feelings are hurt. The cost of keeping an Olsen or Bernardo alive could be used for something useful.

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

I've always felt those who commit some of the worst crimes are sick, such as Olsen. Yet i do not think Bernado is. Bernado I could see as a candidate for CP but not Olsen. Jeffery Dahmer was sick too. i don't think Picton is.

Is being a psycopath or a violent sociopath a disease, even of the mind? Can we execute mentally ill people?

 

[Pangloss]

Gee, another state joins the civilized world.



By Jon HurdleTue May 8, 1:46 PM ET



New Jersey lawmakers will consider abolishing the death penalty this week, starting a process that could see the liberal state become the first to scrap capital punishment since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976.


On Thursday, the judiciary committee of the state Senate will consider two bills calling for New Jersey to replace execution with life imprisonment without parole. Capital punishment in the state is already suspended under a moratorium passed by legislators in late 2005.


Sen. Ray Lesniak, a Democrat and sponsor of one of the bills, said he was confident that a combined bill would be passed by the panel and, while its fate in the full Senate was less certain, it was likely that the legislation would become law some time this summer.


Lesniak, a former supporter of the death penalty, said he had changed his mind largely because of the risk of executing an innocent person.


"We have seen so many cases of innocent people being sent to death row, it's just not worth taking the chance," he said.


But Sen. Nicholas Asselta, a Republican who supports the death penalty, argued that DNA testing eliminated the possibility of people being executed in error, and that capital punishment was a valid deterrent for the worst crimes.


"How can you not impose the death penalty on people like Osama bin Laden?" Asselta said.
Asselta predicted the full Senate would vote to abolish the death penalty because it was controlled by Democrats who would be supported by some Republicans.


Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, is opposed to the death penalty, and has said he will sign any such bill after it is approved by the legislature, both of whose houses are controlled by Democrats.


FEWER EXECUTIONS


Any decision by New Jersey to scrap its death penalty would likely encourage some other U.S. states to take a harder look at the issue at a time when both death sentences and executions are at their lowest levels in a decade, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group that campaigns for its abolition.


The hearing follows a report from a New Jersey legislative panel in January this year that recommended abolishing the death penalty, partly on grounds that it does not deter the worst crimes and is a greater burden on taxpayers than life without parole.


The New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission also cited increasing evidence that the death penalty was "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency."


New Jersey currently has nine people on death row but has not executed anyone since 1963.



Nationwide, 53 people were executed in 2006 in the 38 states that have the death penalty, down from 98 in 1999, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.


On May 4, the state of Alabama executed death row inmate Aaron Lee Jones by lethal injection.


His was the 17th execution in the United States this year and the 1,074th since capital punishment was restored in the United States, according to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.



Pangloss

 

[Niflmir]

So first, about the victim. Capital punishment does not seek justice, it seeks revenge.

That is an opinion only, as none of my thinking focuses on revenge, but fairness and justice, yet I have the
opposite opinion than you, in respect to the above.

Revenge is getting even for what was done, justice seeks a fair punishment for actions. Capital punishment cannot be looked at solely from a "Its what is best for the victim," aspect. If it does, it is only revenge since it ignores the other aspects of justice. One of the aspects of justice is rehabilitation, by completely ignoring this aspect, capital punishment can never lay claim to justice. So to me, it is definitional. You could seek to refute my definition of justice, by saying that rehabilitation, trial fairness, reasonable doubts and prevention are not a part of justice, but I don't think you would want to take those away from the idea of justice.