Bring Back Death Penalty

[mattnunn]

andymadmak said:

mattnunn said:

As I said above, the defence of this argument usually resolves to the question of economics with the pro death penalty people arguing that the cost of keeping people alive need not be met by a civil society.
.

Got any stats to back that up? You keep asserting it, but that does not make it true.

Stats to back what up?

[Ozzie Osmond]

Bedazzled said:

Why does her life matter?

Because many humans believe that all human life "matters".

This is why we have laws against abortion and voluntary euthanasia. And murder.

[HRL]

We have laws against abortion? Since when?

[marcosgt]

HRL said:

We have laws against abortion? Since when?

Against late abortion, I assume he means, a woman was recently jailed for years for this.

M

[andymadmak]

mattnunn said:

andymadmak said:

mattnunn said:

As I said above, the defence of this argument usually resolves to the question of economics with the pro death penalty people arguing that the cost of keeping people alive need not be met by a civil society.
.

Got any stats to back that up? You keep asserting it, but that does not make it true.

Stats to back what up?

Sorry, I was not very clear. I think what you are saying is that most pro DP people hold that view for economic reasons (ie, it costs too much to keep people in prison for life) . In my experience, the pro DP people I know, whilst welcoming the savings, do not hold their views for that reason, but rather because

1, They want to see society better protected
2, they see no point in keeping people like Brady etc alive - indeed keeping them alive in prison for life would in many cases be seen as more cruel and vastly less civilised than simply putting them to sleep for ever.

I might go on to say that deterrence for other potential murderers is the one service that murderers can usefully provide to wider society through their death - a point I fear which is not made by life imprisonment.

Apologies if I have missinterpreted your point.

[mattnunn]

andymadmak said:

mattnunn said:

andymadmak said:

mattnunn said:

As I said above, the defence of this argument usually resolves to the question of economics with the pro death penalty people arguing that the cost of keeping people alive need not be met by a civil society.
.

Got any stats to back that up? You keep asserting it, but that does not make it true.

Stats to back what up?

Sorry, I was not very clear. I think what you are saying is that most pro DP people hold that view for economic reasons (ie, it costs too much to keep people in prison for life) . In my experience, the pro DP people I know, whilst welcoming the savings, do not hold their views for that reason, but rather because

1, They want to see society better protected
2, they see no point in keeping people like Brady etc alive - indeed keeping them alive in prison for life would in many cases be seen as more cruel and vastly less civilised than simply putting them to sleep for ever.

I might go on to say that deterrence for other potential murderers is the one service that murderers can usefully provide to wider society through their death - a point I fear which is not made by life imprisonment.

Apologies if I have missinterpreted your point.

Okay, the death penalty is not a detterent to murder. This is not my opinion, it's a widely held fact, if you google it you will find the weight of professional opinion in these matters lies on this side of the argument, you can run through the websites and stat yourself, I neither have the expertise or inclination to fully engage you, but I do know I'm right about this (I know that sound incredibly arrogant but I'm married to a wannabee criminilogist and have had this discussion many many time)

Start here (top result on google)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterr...

So once you've accepted this your down to a two handed argument

a) Is it morally correct to take the life of another person as a punishment?

Answer no obviously not, it's a confusing mixed message that makes no sense.

b) Is it pragmatically a better option all around to kill someone rather than spend the effort and money keeping them in jail for life, even though morally it's accepted to me an inferior option.

Answer - possibly, it's at least debatble.

Which is why I said that this argument almost always resolves to be about the economics once it's been worked through.

[andymadmak]

mattnunn said:

Okay, the death penalty is not a detterent to murder. This is not my opinion, it's a widely held fact, if you google it you will find the weight of professional opinion in these matters lies on this side of the argument, you can run through the websites and stat yourself, I neither have the expertise or inclination to fully engage you, but I do know I'm right about this (I know that sound incredibly arrogant but I'm married to a wannabee criminilogist and have had this discussion many many time)

Start here (top result on google)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterr...

So once you've accepted this your down to a two handed argument

a) Is it morally correct to take the life of another person as a punishment?

Answer no obviously not, it's a confusing mixed message that makes no sense.

b) Is it pragmatically a better option all around to kill someone rather than spend the effort and money keeping them in jail for life, even though morally it's accepted to me an inferior option.

Answer - possibly, it's at least debatble.

Which is why I said that this argument almost always resolves to be about the economics once it's been worked through.

OK, I see your point. I follow your logic stream. But, it most certainly is NOT a fact that the DP is not a deterrent to murder, so for me the stream breaks down right there! What you assert may well be alot of peoples opinion, and they no doubt sincerely believe it, and they no doubt have some stats to back that view. But it is just an opinion it is not a fact. Why? because there are other stats and opinions that directly contradict that view. So I can equally claim that in the case of the UK (and only the UK for my purposes) the DP was a strong deterrent to a significant number of murders. Not all, by any means, but possibly as much as 50%. There are clear stats that would support this contention. Now, having said that, those opposed to the DP would suggest that there are any number of reasons why my interpretation of the available stats might be flawed. But that is just their opinion too.
The only fact we can point to in relation to the UK is that the murder rate per million head of population doubled within a short time post removal of the DP, despite many decades of stability before abolition. I point to the doubling as evidence of the effect of removal of the DP deterrence. (along with a whole heap of other changes that liberalised the police and criminal justice system in the 60s and 70s) Ergo reinstating the DP would, over time, reinstate that deterrence factor.
It would not prevent all murders, but history SUGGESTS that it would prevent 50%. Granted this is my interpretation of the available data as it pertains to our country. Others can have a different interpretation, but annoyingly too many either refuse to accept the basic data (ie, the doubling of the murder rate) or dismiss it with the sort of cavalier disregard that people often have when an inconvenient truth pops up to prick their bubble!
Granted some people offer alternate theories, but why would those theories be any more valid than my own?
And why does everything have to be absolute in this debate? "the DP was clearly not a deterrent because there were still murders" is the gist of what many say, which is to completely ignore the fact that not everybody feels constrained by ANY law to the same degree. Now, in our society we simply do not refuse to do things because they are not 100% effective. If that were the case there would be no laws at all, no police force, no courts and no prisons. Clearly that would be silly.

I genuinely feel that the DP was and could be again a deterrent to a significant % of murderers. I am not looking to save on my taxes, nor am I an extremist. I do recognise that the system, were it to be reintroduced would have to have some special considerations placed upon it. The yanks have "degrees of murder" so to speak - perhaps this is a useful start point?
That so many try to stifle debate with name calling and ridicule is worrying.

[thinfourth2]

Bedazzled said:

thinfourth2 said:

So you want him removed from society

So why do you want the death penalty instead of life in prison

If a wild animal attacks a person it is put down because it's the most practical and humane thing to do; it isn't locked in a cage and poked with a sharp stick every day. Why treat Myra Hindley any differently? What sets her apart? Why does her life matter? I'm still waiting for someone to offer an answer.

Why does her life matter?

As she was in jail for taking anothers life therefore we should not drop to her level.

However ignoring that

Does your life matter?

It isn't overly difficult for a iffy police force to frame you for murder. So if you are perfectly happy to be killed without chance of appeal then go for it.

Bedazzled said:

If the likes of Hindley were executed it would provide adequate punishment

But it could easily be argued that going for a very long sleep is less of a punishment then 35 years in jail. Jail someone at 25 for 35 years and thats the vast majority of their life gone, wasted in jail.

Bedazzled said:

and more immediate closure for the victims' families,

Or they not only have the death of a loved on on their mind but also the death of another.

And can you imagine how great they will feel when the man executed turns out to be innocent

Bedazzled said:

and it's the most practical outcome for the rest of society.

How is it the most practical

You must explain this to me as I don't see how its more practical

Bedazzled said:

Why should they have to worry about what she is doing, or whether she might get released some time in the future on 'compassionate grounds' if some idiot politician has a moral wobble?.

If they are locked in a jail then no need to worry, As to getting released try not to elect idiots

[Chimune]

Hackney said:

Digga said:

TheHeretic said:

No. Our justice system cannot be trusted not to send innocent folks to their deaths. I've posted this before on similar threads. It is the number of death row exonerations in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_de...

Surely there are cases though, were the evidence is absolute? I'm thinking of situations where there are multiple witnesses and incontrovertible supporting evidence.

At the time I'm sure they thought the evidence was absolute.

For me, the fact that you can get it wrong means you should never execute.

Just read this horrifying story:
"Damon Thibodeaux has been proved innocent of a crime for which Louisiana has spent 15 years trying to kill him."

a couple of choice quotes:

He walked out as the 300th prisoner in the US to be freed as a result of DNA testing and one of 18 exonerated from death row.

2% to 4% of death-row inmates are probably innocent. "If that was the rate of failure of airplanes," he says, "would you fly?"

"When I read the transcript of the trial for the first time, I thought to myself that the high school mock trial team that I coached of 15- to 17-year-olds would have run rings around the lawyers in that courtroom," said Kaplan. "We put more energy into a $50,000 contract dispute than went into the defence at the Damon Thibodeaux trial."

[Colonial]

Chimune said:

Just read this horrifying story:
"Damon Thibodeaux has been proved innocent of a crime for which Louisiana has spent 15 years trying to kill him."

a couple of choice quotes:

He walked out as the 300th prisoner in the US to be freed as a result of DNA testing and one of 18 exonerated from death row.

2% to 4% of death-row inmates are probably innocent. "If that was the rate of failure of airplanes," he says, "would you fly?"

"When I read the transcript of the trial for the first time, I thought to myself that the high school mock trial team that I coached of 15- to 17-year-olds would have run rings around the lawyers in that courtroom," said Kaplan. "We put more energy into a $50,000 contract dispute than went into the defence at the Damon Thibodeaux trial."

And yet you have cretins arguing that the death of innocent people doesn't matter because the end somehow justifies the means.

And I'm not even sure what that end is. And I don't think they are.

Just give them some bloodsports in the Colosseum and they'll be happy.

[davepoth]

Chimune said:

Just read this horrifying story:
"Damon Thibodeaux has been proved innocent of a crime for which Louisiana has spent 15 years trying to kill him."

a couple of choice quotes:

He walked out as the 300th prisoner in the US to be freed as a result of DNA testing and one of 18 exonerated from death row.

2% to 4% of death-row inmates are probably innocent. "If that was the rate of failure of airplanes," he says, "would you fly?"

"When I read the transcript of the trial for the first time, I thought to myself that the high school mock trial team that I coached of 15- to 17-year-olds would have run rings around the lawyers in that courtroom," said Kaplan. "We put more energy into a $50,000 contract dispute than went into the defence at the Damon Thibodeaux trial."

And that's why we can't have the death penalty. If one innocent person dies due to a miscarriage of justice, we (all of us) are no better than the murderers.

[AJS-]

davepoth said:

And that's why we can't have the death penalty. If one innocent person dies due to a miscarriage of justice, we (all of us) are no better than the murderers.

While that is a somewhat convincing argument I don't like it because it implies that we're quite happy to lock the wrong person up for 25+ years of their life, with a good chance of them dying in prison, which amounts to just about the same thing.

[TheHeretic]

AJS- said:

While that is a somewhat convincing argument I don't like it because it implies that we're quite happy to lock the wrong person up for 25+ years of their life, with a good chance of them dying in prison, which amounts to just about the same thing.

But like the case mentioned, they at least have the chance to be set free upon new evidence, and so on. Hard to do when they are 6 feet under.

[AJS-]

TheHeretic said:

But like the case mentioned, they at least have the chance to be set free upon new evidence, and so on. Hard to do when they are 6 feet under.

Agreed but if it's 25 years later then their life as they knew it and hoped it might turn out is gone forever.

Plus, these are the cases we hear about. How many people serve their sentence ane are never exonerated even if they are innocent? Or die in custody without ever clearing their name?

Not that this really strengthens the case for the death penalty but to my mind at least it does not make a very satisfactory argument against it.

[AW35]

Unfortunately you cannot bring in the death penality for when the evidence is only overwhelming because that means the penalty for the crime does not depend on the crime itself but how good the evidence is. Then cases will not be argued onr than guilt or not guilt but whether the cctv camera footage was too blurred for instance. Taken to extreme someone might be sentenced to death because it was Full 1080 HD and let off if only mere HD 720.

It's a none starter therefore, you either have it or don't and quality of evidence shouldn't be a factor, that should only be a factor on whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

The poll question I find interesting, doesn't even mention what for. Of course in the old days capital punishment was handed out for far less henious crimes than today. Nowadays we are more civilised and everyone wants to continue that trend I presume.

[thinfourth2]

AW35 said:

The poll question I find interesting, doesn't even mention what for. Of course in the old days capital punishment was handed out for far less henious crimes than today. Nowadays we are more civilised and everyone wants to continue that trend I presume.

Leaving instant coffee granules in the communal sugar bowl

[craig7l]

What I would like to see is very specific prisons for very bad people. Designed for minimal staffing levels required due to revised thinking of prisioner activity and interaction. Planned maintenance to cover the basics. Isolated for each "person" with a specific outside space available at specific times. Exceptionally minimal facilities not a lot more than a light bulb on at a specific time.
If anyone says in humane I will scream....!!

The biggest benefit is that it would cut per head prisoner cost by 2/3rds but unfortunately evil people are evil people and time would tell if these prisons would stop evil crimes.

[Derek Smith]

craig7l said:

What I would like to see is very specific prisons for very bad people. Designed for minimal staffing levels required due to revised thinking of prisioner activity and interaction. Planned maintenance to cover the basics. Isolated for each "person" with a specific outside space available at specific times. Exceptionally minimal facilities not a lot more than a light bulb on at a specific time.
If anyone says in humane I will scream....!!

The biggest benefit is that it would cut per head prisoner cost by 2/3rds but unfortunately evil people are evil people and time would tell if these prisons would stop evil crimes.

That has been tried in the past, although not for reasons of revenge but to help the person come to terms with their crime and improve. It was a disaster if recidivism is seen as a bad thing.

[drivin_me_nuts]

AJS- said:

davepoth said:

And that's why we can't have the death penalty. If one innocent person dies due to a miscarriage of justice, we (all of us) are no better than the murderers.

While that is a somewhat convincing argument I don't like it because it implies that we're quite happy to lock the wrong person up for 25+ years of their life, with a good chance of them dying in prison, which amounts to just about the same thing.

So, you don't like it because the prisoner might die? So what about the ones who live? What about those imprisoned when in their late teens, early twenties... in fact even in their mid forties? 'Sorry mate, we'll kill you now as you're likely to die inside anyway'.

[AJS-]

drivin_me_nuts said:

So, you don't like it because the prisoner might die? So what about the ones who live? What about those imprisoned when in their late teens, early twenties... in fact even in their mid forties? 'Sorry mate, we'll kill you now as you're likely to die inside anyway'.

Can you actually imagine that though? Can you imagine where you were 25 years ago, and if you had missed everything in between because you were locked in a prison for a crime you didn't commit? And being released in your mid 40s with no career and no qualifications, no friends, family who might not want to know you?

True enough that it isn't as final as death, and hopefully in many cases it would be corrected much earlier than that. But the argument that we can't have the death penalty because it will result in killing the wrong people betrays a real lack of faith in our justice system, warranted or not, and puts us in the uncomfortable position of accepting that people may be wrongly convicted, imprisoned and have their life ruined, but it's somehow OK because at least we didn't kill them.