The death penalty

[fireguy_31]

Incarcerating them does not keep them from harming society.

Some might argue it does. I mean, anyone convicted and sentenced for a crime has, essentially, broke the social contract. Therefore, no longer privilaged to be a member of society. So, if a locked up criminal harms someone else who is locked up, they are not harming society [proper] but, rather, harming another not worthy of society - why should we upstanding citizens care, be bothered or feel threatened by that?

Of course, my argument holds no weight if rehabilitation is possible.

*Rehabilitaion*

...have a chance of being rehabilitated.

Most, if not all, proponents of the death penalty ascribe to the notion that recidivists can not be rehabilitated - which, to them, should be reason enough to institute/uphold the death penalty. They feel a repeat violent crime offender should be executed because they are socio-paths, psycho-paths whatever, whom are beyond the scope and reach of modern rehabilitation abilities. No matter what we do they'll always be a liability, so: lay them to rest and get rid of the headache.

Of course, this argument holds no weight unless rehabilitation is the purpose of incarceration..

To which, the answer is NO! Incarceration is punishment, not rehabilitation. Just as much as a death sentence is punishment rather than a viable answer to a problem.

 

[Tiassa]

Source: Reuters
Link: http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=5996428
Title: "Curator Gets Death for Stealing Relics"
Date: August 17, 2004

The head of a relics protection department at a former Chinese imperial palace has been sentenced to death for stealing the artifacts he was meant to protect, the Xinhua news agency said Tuesday.



Source: Reuters

Obviously, China's death penalty did not deter the theft of 259 archaeological relics. Li Haitao allegedly pocketed over US$385,000 for the pieces. (Damn that capitalist spirit!)

But the world will soon be spared dealing with a master, sinister criminal, right? Maybe they can do a mass execution of archaeological thieves, like they did with drug dealers.
____________________

• Reuters. "Curator Gets Death for Stealing Relics." August 17, 2004. See http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=5996428

 

[milkweed]

Obviously, China's death penalty did not deter the theft of 259 archaeological relics. Li Haitao allegedly pocketed over US$385,000 for the pieces. (Damn that capitalist spirit!)

<BR>&nbsp;
Obviously, this article would not show in any way how many other persons put more value on their lives rather than money. It was not the intent of the article. It was only a statement of fact. In china, you may lose your life for stealing. From there, its a matter of choice. And this is a man who clearly knew better than to steal.
<BR>&nbsp;
Other pieces of the article: Police had seized more than 100 relics from his private collection, it said.
<BR>&nbsp;
So it wasnt one of those cases of stealing to feed his starving family either.
They did not sentence each person involved to death for this crime as was also shown in the article here:
<BR>&nbsp;
The Intermediate People's Court of Chengde city also sentenced four of Li's accomplices to jail terms from between two and five years and fined them between 10,000 yuan ($1,200) and 100,000 yuan ($12,000), it said.
<BR>&nbsp;
So it appears China does not dole out the death penalty at every opportunity.
<BR>&nbsp;

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Edit: As a preface bear in mind that I am replying from an American point of view. I'm assuming you live in the US as well but I want to be sure the context is clear.

Does the death penalty actually deter people from comitting crimes that call for it as a punishment? AND, would the executor not be a murdurer him/herself? What makes that different from gunning someone down on the streets? I can't decide if I am for the death penalty, or against it.

1. No. The appeals process is too long so that by the time punishment is administered the association between the punishment and the crime is tenuous at best. People don't remember the crime that's over a decade old - especially not the younger folks who were probably prepubescent at the time it was committed. This results in those who would be otherwise deterred not being deterred at all.

2. No. One of the requisite attributes for a murder conviction is malicious intent. Also, the convicted would be afforded due process of the law. It can be sufficiently assumed that they do not afford their victims such a luxury.

3. See above. An unsanctioned execution would be done outside the auspices of the legal system, which makes it an unlawful killing at best (not necessarily against the law, but not within it either) and murder at worse. An unlawful killing would be when a citizen shoots and kills a home invader. The citizen is probably not guilty of a crime, but since the act was not done within the legal system it is illegal and thusly requires investigation and such.

Incidentally, I oppose capital punishment for three reasons, most important first:

1. With current judicial mechanisms it is more fiscally attractive to incarcerate a criminal for life rather than spend the money on a lengthy and arduous appeals process. That's right; it's cheaper to keep them alive.
2. There are more effective ways of exacting punishment from criminals in such a way that they remain useful to society rather than an encumberence. An example of this would be labor; a punitive measure that is woefully underused nowadays, yet arguably better for inmates than imprisonment.
3. We just can't seem to get it right. I may sound like some effeminite bleeding heart pussy when I say this. Don't worry: I'm a gun-toting meat-eating wrench-twisting weapons engineer. But when I hear of people being retried and found innocent 15 years after being placed on death row, I simply cannot agree that such odds are acceptable. Especially not in light of items one and two.

The best instance for executions are in the event where the criminal may have hostages taken to barter for his or her release. For example, say we capture Osama. The longer he is kept alive the more temptation there will be for some mullah fuckjob to go hijack a bus with a vest full of Semtex and ball bearings, demanding his release. We'd never release him, but if he's not alive anymore, he's no worry to us, and nobody can use his imprisonment as a justification for hostage taking and other such shitfuckery.

 

[robtex]

Did you even read the sites you quoted? Or are you just going to continue to propegate liberal bleeding heart propaganda all over the place.

yes I did and read a lot about it for a while. Could you possibly find a way to argue the points and not attack the aruguer?


[QOUTE]First of all, all of the sites you quoted are anti-DP and completely biased. None of those sites are factual, just a bunch of people screaming about injustice. [/QUOTE]


Because it is such a sensative issue all sites pro and con are going to be bias. You are going to be hard pressed to find a neutral source on the subject.

[QOUTE]We no longer use the death penalty on mentally retarded people as I showed you above and you failed to read. We are NOT the only country who uses the death penalty on minors either, so you are wrong again. [/QUOTE]

read please


http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0211/p02s02-usju.html

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/01/27/373258?extID=10032&oliID=213

[QOUTE]No one in this thread thinks that the DP is a deterrent, so you are off on a tangent with no reason.[/QUOTE]

nice of you to speak for everyone. I am sure they appreciate that.

[QOUTE]I have studied the Death Penalty at length. And while I believe that there are problems in the system, overall it does protect society from sociopaths who will continue their crimes if released. [/QUOTE]



How much do you know about the court systems? Have you been to a crimminal court more than 10 times? If not and you have not read up on the court system you are NOT WELL EDUCATED IRREGARLEDESS OF HOW MUCH YOU HAVE STUDIED on the subject cause knowing the laws is only 1/2 the equalition the other 1/2 is knowing how they work within the court system.

it is not a deterent than i am assuming you are pro-vengence? why is that?



You really have blood on you lips when speaking about this......not that different than people you want to kill......

 

[laughing weasel]

How many innocent peoples death is an acceptable trade for killing one guilty individual? Is one innocent to four guilty acceptable? How about one in eight, one in twelve, where do you draw the line when it is someone that you love? I guess it doesn’t matter because it is only blacks and Mexicans who get executed any way. What does that say about our society? The death penalty is more expensive and kills more innocent people than any escapees might. It is also enforced unfairly with regards to race and income levels. What kind of justice system kills the weakest members of the group?

 

[Arditezza]

read please


http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0211/p02s02-usju.html

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/01/27/373258?extID=10032&oliID=213

You might want to read those links. No one in those links was executed, AND I had already talked about Juvenille offenders and the upcoming judgements. More unsopported and unread arguements from you. Not surprising.

How much do you know about the court systems? Have you been to a crimminal court more than 10 times? If not and you have not read up on the court system you are NOT WELL EDUCATED IRREGARLEDESS OF HOW MUCH YOU HAVE STUDIED on the subject cause knowing the laws is only 1/2 the equalition the other 1/2 is knowing how they work within the court system.

it is not a deterent than i am assuming you are pro-vengence? why is that?

You really have blood on you lips when speaking about this......not that different than people you want to kill......

Where to start... hmm.

Lets go over this again, since you obviously aren't giving me the respect of actually reading my posts before shooting off your fool head about things.

I don't believe that the DP is a deterrant. Nor do I believe it serves any kind of justice for the victims. I believe the DP prevents further crimes by these offenders. Which means, that the DP is final and the criminals executed can no longer create more victims or commit more crimes against humanity. End of story. Is that debatable at all?

And, my degree is in Criminal Justice, and served on a Police Department for 6 years. I have sat in the courtroom for both school projects and as a police officer more than 100 times in criminal cases, some of which involved the death penalty or life inprisonment. I have spent time interviewing witnesses, victims and criminals. In the spring, I will be attending law school. Any other questions about my ability to think for myself?

 

[Pete]

Since I'm having a militant dictatorship day today, I'll post to this thread as well.

One assumption often made with regard to executions (and convictions in general) is that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be executed.

But is that truly the case? If x guilty go free, then some number of innocents will suffer and/or die because of that... the only difference is that such incidents are not a direct action of the legal system.

Another assumption (more deeply ingrained) is that judicial punishment must be in response to an illegal action, not as prevention for future illegal actions. This, however, contradicts the touted justification for incarceration (protection of society). If protection of society is truly the goal, then all members of society should be regularly assessed for their likelihood of endangering others. (Actually, I think that protection isn't the goal, but vengeance. Just watch the media coverage of such circuses, and analyse the questions put to the immediate victims.)

SO.... here's my Orwellian solution (is Orwellian necessarily a bad thing?)
1) Everyone over the age of 13 should have a regular (yearly? 5 yearly? 10 yearly?) risk analysis performed to assess the level of risk each individual poses to others.
2) Anyone with a risk profile of a certain level (eg x% probable to cause harm to others in the next y years) should be reassessed, and if the assessment is confirmed they are to be re-neducated if possible (resources permitting), monitored (again, resources permitting), or executed.

Yes, innocent people will die by our own hands. That's a price we should be mature enough to accept, because (if the right numbers are chosen) more innocent people will avoid harm.


(seriousness level - 5/10)

 

[Asguard]

Arditezza

ill give you one

RONALED RYAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Asguard]

http://acadp.com/


The death penelty is the biggest wrong in this world

Firstly look at the issue of "deterance"

The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded, " ... It is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment ... "

Then there is the argument of how much it costs to keep someone alive

It costs taxpayers' three-four times more money to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate him for 40 years.

Where life and liberty is at stake, all possible avenues to determine innocence must be accorded to the accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. Capital cases, from the point of arrest to execution, end up costing taxpayers millions more dollars, than life in prison without parole.

Various American state governments estimate that a single death penalty case from the point of arrest to execution averages around US$3.2 million per case. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole averages around US$1 million.

Four times the amount?
yep its SOOO much cheeper to just knock them off isnt it
and if you dont belive that then look into the Lindy Chambilen case and how much the total legal fees for that case really were, besides the 900 000 compo paid cause she spent 20 years in prision when she did no crime

How about this argument?

Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford to pay for their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.

yep, those poor people they definitly need to die. Hey we can solve 2 problems at once and just excute all the poor people because oviously they are all evil criminals who deserve to die right?

Murderers who do not get the death penalty are not less guilty - they just get better lawyers. If you don't have the capital - you'll get the punishment.

Virtually every prisoner on death row around the world is penniless, or close to it. If you are lucky, you will be provided with a state-appointed lawyer ... the lawyer who has a bad reputation for sleeping through the trial - the lawyer who is under the influence during the trial - the lawyer who is inexperienced, overworked, overwhelmed and underpaid - the incompetent lawyer - the lawyer who does not investigate your case or find your witnesses - the lawyer who does not seek or present your DNA evidence - the lawyer who does not file your appeal in time - the lawyer who goes on vacation when your court brief is due. And so on ... through the long, horrifying list of everything else that goes wrong.

I am not going to go into the racisium of this issue as even if you could remove that it would STILL be wrong. I refuse to fight against it basied on the colour of the dead man\women

What about innocents?

Because the death penalty is administered by human beings and because human beings are 'fallible', innocent people have been executed in the past and will continue to be executed in the future.

Nobody knows the exact number of innocent victims of execution because governments never admit to their mistakes. Despite the most stringent judicial standards, human error cannot be ruled out, resulting in innocent people being executed.

The only way to ensure that no innocent person is ever executed is either to be God, or do away with capital punishment - only one is an option.

Ronald Ryan (the last man hung in Melbourne) was innocent. No he wasnt "not guilty" he was compleatly inocent. The man he "murdered" was actually shot by a fellow guard while Ryan was trying to break out of prison. Now yea he was escaping but so what? that should have just ment more time in a more secure facilaty not his death for a crime he didnt comit


Strange it seems to me that if you lock someone up for life then all you have to do when they are found to be innocent is apologise and pay them heeps of money for there hardships

The capital punishment system is unreliable. A recent study by Columbia University Law School in the United States, found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Since 1973, 115 death row prisoners have been exonerated in the United States due to human errors in the criminal justice system. Some of these prisoners had come within hours of being executed, literally. The unnervingly large number of exonerations will eventually, if it has not already, implicate governments in the killing of innocent people.

Factors leading to wrongful convictions include :
• Racial Prejudice
• Inadequate Defence
• Police and Prosectorial Misconduct
• Perjured Testimony
• Mistaken Eyewitness Testimony
• Suppression of Mitigating Evidence
• Misinterpretation of Evidence
• Tainted Jailhouse Testimony
• Community Pressure for a Conviction

Now we come to the big one, RETRIBUTION

Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of "pay-back".

all i can say about this is whats the difference between the "state" doing it and a mafia godfather?

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind

Now i know this isnt my best argumentive piece as its 1:30 in the morning and i have just come home from work BUT i seriously belive 3 things about the death penelty

1) with life without the possablity you can always undo a mestake
2) There is NO ONE who cant make a contribution to sociaty even if that is as an object for resurch
3) No one has gone so far that they cant be forgiven, ok maybe they cant live in sociaty ever again but they can still contribute to it

there is NO REASON for this barbaric ritual to continue. We now have the technology to make prisons totally secure if we wanted to and i cant think of a time that a prisoner in max security broke out in Victoria or even australia

what is the grater chance? Killing an innocent person or a prisoner escpaing? because better a 10000 guilty go free than the death of 1 inocent

 

[Jenyar]

There are more effective ways of exacting punishment from criminals in such a way that they remain useful to society rather than an encumberence. An example of this would be labor; a punitive measure that is woefully underused nowadays, yet arguably better for inmates than imprisonment.

Forced labour of a captive - isn't that slavery?

 

[Pete]

Slavery implies ownership. Slaves are property.

 

[Arditezza]

Ronald Ryan (the last man hung in Melbourne) was innocent. No he wasnt "not guilty" he was compleatly inocent. The man he "murdered" was actually shot by a fellow guard while Ryan was trying to break out of prison. Now yea he was escaping but so what? that should have just ment more time in a more secure facilaty not his death for a crime he didnt comit

I was speaking of the United States, not of Australia. The system in the U.S. is so careful, and has so many appeals that the chances of one person getting the death penalty, who is completely innocent is very nearly impossible. I know next to nothing about the Australian system, so I can not speak for the Death Penalty there. It is different in all places because of the circumstances and the different justice systems.

However, I still believe that killing one innocent person to prevent 1000 criminals out, each who create just one more victim is not a reason to stop the death penalty.

It's not about it being a deterrant, it's not about retribution or justice, it's about protecting society as a whole from criminals who have chosen to remove themselves from it.

 

[Asguard]

who ever said i think we should let them out?
thats the whole POINT
never herd of life without the possability?

B\W Ryan was only found to be innocent with the forensic science of NOW but you cant change the past when there dead

Australia hasnt had the DP on its books since him and we arnt awash with convicted murders. Yes there are people who were released but thats not your point is it? because if they were ok to releace then they wouldnt have been killed right?

i cant THINK of a time EVER when a max security brake out occured, how often does it happen in the US?

because what other reason is there?

you just said it was about protection, well thats what a JAIL is for.

case closed you lose!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Forced labour of a captive - isn't that slavery?

Nah. Like Pete said, slaves are owned. Convicts are not - they are repaying a debt incurred to society with their labors. Slavery is uncompensated, involuntary servitude. Convicts are neither uncompensated (because they begin their sentence in debt, if that makes sense) nor are they restrained involuntarily (because they comitted an act to warrant their incarceration, by their own volition).

It's not really the same.

 

[laughing weasel]

No it is the same and it leads down a very regressive nineteenth century mentality of debtor prisons and chain gangs. That path has been tried and failed because why should prison convicts take jobs away from the non-convict population. A slave is any one who is not compensated for labor that is taken from them by force or threat of extortion. I am for rehabilitation of non-capital criminals but do not feel that it is necessary for those who are never going to leave prison. I do not feel that they have the right to all the modern comforts but that they should have to earn them through good behavior. Killing some one is the ultimate denial of free will.