Crime and punishment and "second chance"

[Raha]

Let’s start with this: basically I am against capital punishment. My main argument is that because capital punishment is – in “civilized” societies – used in only case of murder, capital punishment is not appropriate one. If murder is unacceptable than every killing should be considered unacceptable. If government or society “feel” they have moral right to kill somebody, than anybody might feel the same. Is that clear? If not, I’ll try to explain it later.
Recently I studied some criminal cases and was really intrigued by the case of Leopold and Loeb from 1924.

More info about the case:
http://www.leopoldandloeb.com
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/loeb/index_1.html

Two extremely intelligent guys from wealthy families who killed 14 years old Bobby Franks with no apparent motive were saved from gallows by famous Clarence Darrow. Loeb was later murdered in prison by another inmate, while Leopold was paroled after some 34 years in prison. Leopold, while still in prison, studied, mastered several languages, taught other inmates, worked in library, volunteered for malaria treatment tests and was really a model prisoner. After release he moved to Puerto Rico, worked in hospital, acquired university degree, did some research work about birds, worked in charity – in other words, did his best to be good and useful citizen.
This case is usually used as evidence against capital punishment – if Leopold have been hanged, he would not do all those good things he did. Strangely enough, with me it worked quite the opposite way. Leopold was given another chance – and he used it. But is it right? Is it OK to give any murderer a second chance? Who will give the second chance to the victim? What do you think?

 

[jps]

The goal of law should not be to do the criminal exactly what they did to the victim....it should be to prevent future harm from taking place and minimize the damage of the crime. Killing the killer, as you pointed out, gives people the impression that there are times when killing is ok and times when it is not, and therefore is clearly contrary to the goal of preventing future harm.

 

[okinrus]

Some people do need to die. For example, if Bin Laden was captured, the state would have to kill him. Otherwise, there would be too much risk of some other terrorist trying to blackmail his release. I don't think you can be against all forms of capital punishment.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
Some people do need to die. For example, if Bin Laden was captured, the state would have to kill him. Otherwise, there would be too much risk of some other terrorist trying to blackmail his release. I don't think you can be against all forms of capital punishment.

okinrus, would Jesus say this? Tsk, tsk! I think if Osama was captured, he might regrettably meet with some terribly unfortunate accident that was beyond our control, but, no, the Americans would not have to "kill him." Shame on you for thinking that!

 

[jps]

Originally posted by okinrus
Some people do need to die. For example, if Bin Laden was captured, the state would have to kill him. Otherwise, there would be too much risk of some other terrorist trying to blackmail his release. I don't think you can be against all forms of capital punishment.

If Bin Laden was captured, killing him would be the worst thing the US could do. It would make him a martyr to all his followers , and would make many who previously were not his followers feel that his views had been vindicated.
Although there are cases where it seems like capital punishment would be beneficial in one way or another(this not being one of them), the damage allowing the state to kill does, far outweighs the benefits.

 

[Jerrek]

You seem confused between the two words "murder" and "kill."

murder is unacceptable: 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

killing can be either acceptable (self-defense, war), or unacceptable (murder).


In case of capital punishment, the state, the people, or whatever you want to call it, is executing the criminal convicted. That is a lawful way of killing, and acceptable to me.


The purpose of the judicial system should be FIRST to punish the criminal appropiately, and SECOND to rehab him or her if possible.

For first degree murder, rape, treason, and kidnapping I would support a mandatory death sentence provided sufficient proof is available. We do not need those trash in society.

 

[Raha]

Originally posted by jps
The goal of law should not be to do the criminal exactly what they did to the victim....it should be to prevent future harm from taking place and minimize the damage of the crime.

I agree with you, but I think that it is only one side of the problem - because it totally excludes the victim and all those deeply influenced by the crime (relatives, friends) from any consideration. Is it OK? Doesn't the victim have any rights? Does it mean that "crime" is what matters - not its victim? Should everybody else just forget?
As it is now (with or without capital punishment) the "victim's party" is totally excluded. Nobody cares about them, nobody tries to make their suffering less bitter, nobody tries to compensate them for their loss. It is only “society”, the “law” and “the offender”. When you break the law (and you are caught) you are punished. But nobody cares about the actual harm. Although I know and understand how this system developed and evolved, I think that it is totally wrong. I think that victim should be placed in the focus, not the criminal. Just consider this – everybody knows most prolific serial killers. Who knows their victims? That’s wrong. Crime should not make one famous. I would make a part of every sentence over such killers that “their name shall be erased from the memory of humankind”. And I am quite sure – that would make crime much less attractive.

 

[Raha]

Originally posted by Jerrek
You seem confused between the two words "murder" and "kill."

No, I am not. I just refuse to distinguish between them. In my opinion, it should be clearly stated that every killing is either acceptable or unacceptable. On what grounds can anybody decide which killing is acceptable and which not? If you say that group of politicians, a judge or randomly selected jury can do that, than why not every single individual? That something is “lawful” does not necessary mean it is right. (In my country communists killed many people in accordance with their law – is it acceptable to you?)
From your “list” I would exclude only killing in self-defense because that should be in my opinion regarded as accident – the attacker bears the responsibility not the attacked one. So if the attacker gets killed, it is his “bad luck” not his target’s fault.