Death Penalty

[Duncanthrax]

I hold the position that the death penalty is only justified when certain dangerous people cannot be incarcerated without a reasonable possibility of them escaping. Sort of the El Chapo situation where he had enough support on the outside, and the government employees are so corrupt, that he just had his henchmen dig a tunnel to escape. But like in the El Chapo situation, I think that simply means that they should be incarcerated in another country.

I did think of one situation for which I would support the death penalty. If there is a justified guerilla war, like the resistance to the Nazis, then it is a situation when they do not have ability to effectively incarcerate someone dangerous and imprisonment outside the country is not a reasonable possibility. So if the person committed a serious crime, even short of murder, I can see that the death penalty may be the least bad option.

I'd even tend to favor that if the established government is in danger of being overthrown, provided there is a substantial possibility of the dangerous prisoner being released by the guerilla army, again provided that another country will not take the prisoner.

[Crossbow]

Considering how many people have been literally exonerated from the death penalty due to advances in DNA matching, then it is quite obvious that the death penalty is a form of legal recourse that should be immediately rescinded.

[Chris_Halkides]

There have been several executions for which new evidence sows considerable doubt about the guilt of the executed person. Cameron Todd Willingham is the most well known such case but there are others. These cases are enough to convince me that the death penalty should be abolished.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Begs the question of why myself or anybody else should get to decide when someone else shouldn't be allowed to live. Why don't you explain that first.

I do get to decide if someone needs killing, but not it someone else if gets to flip the switch..

(I do not condone capital punishment}

[Thor 2]

I submit the following reasons for my opposition to the death penalty:

1. I think we should always promote the ideology that life is sacred. The state killing does not do that.

2. If someone is executed somebody has to do it. I wonder about the physiological effect this has the one doing the killing, and what kind of person would be drawn to this occupation.

3. The idea that this ultimate punishment will act as an effective deterrent seems to be in question. Some posts above bear this out.

[Skeptical Greg]

1. ( Human ) Life is only sacred because we have the ability to think it is.

2. Apparently there is no shortage of people willing to kill someone. Their psychological
health would be the least of my concerns.

3.This assumes death is the ultimate punishment.

[Thor 2]

One argument favouring the death penalty is that it gives "closure" to the families of the victims of the villein. Some of these folk are, or have been, granted ringside seats at an execution.

I don't know how you measure the effectiveness of closure therapy, but if anyone knows of any research on this it would be interesting.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I do get to decide if someone needs killing, but not it someone else if gets to flip the switch..

(I do not condone capital punishment}

Of course. The point of my post was that Warp had completely reversed the burden of proof, asking others to provide proof someone should be allowed to live. I thought that was a weird starting point.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a lot of people shuffle off this plane of existence, but I never thought I have the right to decide.

As far as the usual "why do we get to decide to incarcerate people, then?"- public safety has always been an accepted reason to curtail rights at times. You're going to have to go a long way to convince me that the proponents of the death penalty have that as their main priority. It's usually an afterthought, to justify what they already want to do.

Incarceration is an unfortunate necessity, and I have lots of problems with how it's often carried out. But you can't correct the sentence of a dead person.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I would ask, why would someone suggest that say, a self-confessed mass-murderer, should be kept alive?

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Begs the question of why myself or anybody else should get to decide when someone else shouldn't be allowed to live. Why don't you explain that first.

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Of course. The point of my post was that Warp had completely reversed the burden of proof, asking others to provide proof someone should be allowed to live. I thought that was a weird starting point.

I think it is an ideal starting point. There are clearly those who believe that no matter how egregious the crime, no matter how certain the guilt, execution will never be acceptable.

If someone is that immersed in their beliefs, I see no reason for debate. If they insist, then they should outline why a self-confessed mass murderer should not be executed...instead of relying on arguments that hinge upon a potential innocent being put to death.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

1. ( Human ) Life is only sacred because we have the ability to think it is.

2. Apparently there is no shortage of people willing to kill someone. Their psychological
health would be the least of my concerns.

3.This assumes death is the ultimate punishment.

An odd set of replies.

1. My head is spinning.

2. So you're not concerned about the State fulfilling an executioners desire to kill, or perhaps making said executioner comfortable about being a killer?

3. So what's more ultimate?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Duncanthrax

I hold the position that the death penalty is only justified when certain dangerous people cannot be incarcerated without a reasonable possibility of them escaping. Sort of the El Chapo situation where he had enough support on the outside, and the government employees are so corrupt, that he just had his henchmen dig a tunnel to escape. But like in the El Chapo situation, I think that simply means that they should be incarcerated in another country.

I sort of transitioned to this position from being pro-death penalty for guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not about severity of the crime but as a practical measure, the last arrow in the quiver to stop an inmate who has killed and will almost certainly kill again unless he's stopped.

I've been moving away from even that, towards abolition. Sometimes I question this when I hear about stunningly gratuitous cruelty where the perpetrators are inflicting unspeakable harm for the fun of it (which could describe some death advocates). But I think the punishment sets a bad example overall. The concept of purging the society of undesirables is probably a very ancient one. But it's a very steep slippery slope and history reminds us how far some people will go for "justice". I want to see that idea suppressed to the furthest extent possible.

[angrysoba]

Japan still has the death penalty (so to the United States, the Michael Jackson song, "Yoooou are not alone!"), and it is pretty popular here.

Even in my job as a university teacher, when I get students to discuss controversial or hot topics, the death penalty is almost universally considered a good thing (maybe 90%), which would certainly be unusual among university students in the UK or the US, I would expect (interestingly, students are pretty much 99% in favour of changing the law to allow same-sex marriage).

Generally, Japan does not impose the death penalty except in cases of multiple murders or aggravated murder.

However, there have been a number of murders where it seems the perpetrator deliberately sought the death penalty.

Quote:

Police say one man suffered critical injuries and 16 other people were hurt in a knife attack on a Tokyo train on Halloween night. Here are some of the key facts about the incident, plus witness accounts.

The attack took place Sunday just before 8 p.m. on a Keio Line train bound for Shinjuku. It was approaching Kokuryo Station in Chofu City – a commuter town in western Tokyo. The suspect took out a knife from his bag and stabbed the 72-year-old passenger sitting next to him. He then made his way through other carriages and used cigarette lighter oil to start a fire.

....

...Hattori reportedly told investigators that he thought his wish to receive the death penalty would be fulfilled if he killed two people or more. He said he chose the night of Halloween for the attack because there would be many passengers.

Link

Quote:

A man charged with killing a woman and injuring a man at his former workplace in this west Japan city shouted that he would rather have the death penalty after a trial by lay judges sentenced him to 27 years in prison on Feb. 3.

Shinichi Kakei, 47, a former part-time employee at Yamato Transport Co., was sentenced by the Kobe District Court for killing and injuring his former co-workers at the company's distribution station in Kobe's Kita Ward in 2020. Prosecutors had sought a 28-year prison sentence. Presiding Judge Takushi Noguchi stated in the ruling that it was "a remorseless and brutal crime with strong intention to kill."

Noguchi admonished Kakei after the ruling, saying, "I hope you accept your guilt." Kakei then shouted, "The death penalty would have been better. I will gladly die."

Link

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

An odd set of replies.

1. My head is spinning.

2. So you're not concerned about the State fulfilling an executioners desire to kill, or perhaps making said executioner comfortable about being a killer?

3. So what's more ultimate?

1.Why is life sacred? This sounds religious to me. I have no place for religion.

2. I'm concerned about the practice. I do not condone capital punishment.
No one is forced to be an executioner. Let the persons who choose to do it deal with it. I am not concerned about them on a caring level.

3. It would depend on the person being punished. Death is usually an easy way out.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by Warp12

If someone is that immersed in their beliefs, I see no reason for debate. If they insist, then they should outline why a self-confessed mass murderer should not be executed...instead of relying on arguments that hinge upon a potential innocent being put to death.

For one thing, some people falsely confess. For another besides Mr. Willingham, Larry Swearingen, James Earhart, and Carlos DeLuna were also executed, and substantial doubts about these cases also exist. There are a number of other individuals who came within days of being executed but who are now recognized as being innocent, Randall Dale Adams being an obvious example. The notion that no innocent person has ever been executed in this country is difficult to defend.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You only mention punishment and deterrent as reasons for having the death penalty. Are those really the only reasons you can think of?

Medieval revenge fantasies, based on religious indoctrination.

Anything else?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

For one thing, some people falsely confess. For another besides Mr. Willingham, Larry Swearingen, James Earhart, and Carlos DeLuna were also executed, and substantial doubts about these cases also exist. There are a number of other individuals who came within days of being executed but who are now recognized as being innocent, Randall Dale Adams being an obvious example. The notion that no innocent person has ever been executed in this country is difficult to defend.

Nobody is saying that no innocent has never been put to death. How about the John Wayne Gacy example? Stop reaching back to the potential innocents.

Lord, even when you spell it out very clearly, people harp back to their arguments. We are talking about the people with zero chance that they aren't guilty, already.

As I say, to some it doesn't matter. They would lament the execution of any mass-murderer, no matter how large the scale.

[Chris_Halkides]

Another reason to do away with the death penalty is that the threat of its imposition sometimes makes people change their testimony against others or to confess falsely. This issue has come up in the Trials and Errors subform, but I don't have examples* of changing testimony at my fingertips (possibly it played a role the Hank Skinner case). This link alludes to the problem.
EDT
*see the Jerry Bigelow case at this link.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Nobody is saying that no innocent has never been put to death. How about the John Wayne Gacy example? Stop reaching back to the potential innocents.

Lord, even when you spell it out very clearly, people harp back to their arguments. We are talking about the people with zero chance that they aren't guilty, already.

As I say, to some it doesn't matter. They would lament the execution of any mass-murderer, no matter how large the scale.

Your example has no practical significance. There is no way to restrict the the death penalty to only those about which there is 100% certainty of guilt. For every John Wayne Gacy there is a Steven Truscott. My point is not that Steven Truscott is innocent; it is that a fourteen year old youth was sentenced to death at all.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

Your example has no practical significance. There is no way to restrict the the death penalty to only those about which there is 100% certainty of guilt. For every John Wayne Gacy there is a Steven Truscott. My point is not that Steven Truscott is innocent; it is that a fourteen year old youth was sentenced to death at all.

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

I don't think your point is as profound as you think it is. There are people who are against the death penalty for different reasons, the majority view so far seems to be concerns over its practicality and often subjective application.

Since the question is probably better directed at someone like me, NO it's not an acceptable outcome from me as far as how things should run. I don't think anyone is going to shed a tear for Gacy apart from his family, but that isn't the point.

[llwyd]

Gacy was deranged, insane - he shouldn't even have been put to prison but to a mental hospital for the rest of his life. He and other serial killers aren't "evil" but defective, sick.

A longer rant of mine on this subject: https://stockholmslender.blogspot.co...nversions.html

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yeah, it was a little tongue in cheek, but is not as if these stats are one off.

States with the death penalty consistently have higher rates of murder than those without over an almost 30 year period.... its irrefutable, the facts don't lie.

Its not a case of a small sample v a large sample either - 25 to 32 states had the death penalty over the period in question, 16 to 23 states didn't and two have the DP but had a moratorium that covers all or part of period in question (Oregon since 2011 & Pennsylvania since 2015) so their stats are included in the non-DP states as applicable.

Finally all those stats are on a year-by-year basis. Any state that abolished the DP during the period 1990 to 2019 was swapped in the stats to a non-DP state the following years.

Do these states have the death penalty due to their high murder rate? What happened to the murder rate after the death penalty was brought in or abolished?

Before a person can draw any conclusions about those stats the above questions must be answered.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

2. If someone is executed somebody has to do it. I wonder about the physiological effect this has the one doing the killing, and what kind of person would be drawn to this occupation.

Do you mean psychological effect?

Bit obscure in analogy terms but I know animal shelters have difficulty in getting people to stay in the job of executing stray dogs and cats. If people struggle to kill animals, I imagine killing people must have more of an impact on the psyche.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Do you mean psychological effect?

Bit obscure in analogy terms but I know animal shelters have difficulty in getting people to stay in the job of executing stray dogs and cats. If people struggle to kill animals, I imagine killing people must have more of an impact on the psyche.

And the sort of people who do NOT struggle to kill people would probably not be the sort of people you would want in any civilised society.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

Taking a more UK-centric approach, never once did I regret the fact that Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were imprisoned with no hope of freedom, or of living any kind of meaningful life whatsoever, and suffered every day until they died of natural causes. Execution would have been an easy way out for them.

It's interesting that you're choosing murderers as your example. I suspect you're arguing this because you feel that those you're talking to would regard killing another person as the ultimate moral wrong, so if we're to execute anybody it would be murderers. But this is a self-defeating argument; if killing is the greatest moral wrong, how is it morally corrective to kill another person? So the moral argument is nonexistent. Clearly, from a point of view of rehabilitation, execution is indefensible, because it starts from the presumption that some people can never be rehabilitated. From a point of view of defending society from criminals, it's defensible, because it ought to be cheaper to execute a criminal than incarcerate one for life (though, given the level of safeguards that need to be built into the system, in practice I suspect it isn't); but why stop at murderers? Society is equally protected by executing serial fraudsters, or serial shoplifters, or any criminal who has shown no sign of reforming. The answer is that it's morally indefensible to execute people for such lesser crimes. And from a point of view of punishment, see above.

So, no, the execution of Gacy is not an acceptable outcome for me.

Now, can you explain why not executing Gacy is not an acceptable outcome?

Dave

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

...snip..

3. So what's more ultimate?

Death is not a punishment - there must be a person alive to be punished, it's why I said earlier it seems a contradiction for those who support the death penalty as a punishment.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

1.Why is life sacred? This sounds religious to me. I have no place for religion.

...snip...

That's just a hangover of the origins of words, today the term "sacred" can be taken to mean something like "primary" and so on.

All our moral codes and ethics arise from opinions not facts.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

From a point of view of defending society from criminals, it's defensible, because it ought to be cheaper to execute a criminal than incarcerate one for life (though, given the level of safeguards that need to be built into the system, in practice I suspect it isn't); but why stop at murderers?

"Many people assume that the state saves money by employing the death penalty since an executed person no longer requires confinement, health care, and related expenses. But in the modern application of capital punishment, that assumption has been proven wrong."link1. See also link2 and link3.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

I'm not squirming; I am saying plainly that this is an unhelpful question.

[casebro]

Compare to killing enemy soldiers in wars? How sacred are soldiers lifes?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by casebro

Compare to killing enemy soldiers in wars? How sacred are soldiers lifes?

Depends on time and location.

Right now, the lives of soldiers from developed countries seem to be comparatively sacred so that death tolls that would have been considered quite light two or three generations ago are unacceptable.

Then again, tens or hundreds of thousands are killed in various civil wars around the world and hardly anyone blinks.

[TofuFighter]

Originally Posted by casebro

Compare to killing enemy soldiers in wars? How sacred are soldiers lifes?

Since you haven't posted this in response to any post in the thread specifically, I can understand why you would ask, but it's not really on topic, since deaths in war are not a result of punitive actions.
If you're directing this comment at the exchange about the sacredness or otherwise of life, also probably off topic, but I don't have an answer to it.

(under correction, i'll just say that the correct grammar is: soldiers' lives)

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

And the sort of people who do NOT struggle to kill people would probably not be the sort of people you would want in any civilised society.

Based on what?

The world's best-known executioner, Albert Pierrepoint, wasn't a bad man and ran a nice pub by all accounts, despite stringing up ~500 people, including the 22-year-old Irma Grese.

Charles-Henri Sanson executed 2931 people, including both Louis XVI and Robespierre, yet was actually a fairly caring bloke who was responsible for the entirely painless guillotine to be used for executions. He appears to have been another relatively average bloke, making a living to feed his family while not being a raging psychopath.

I suspect people who execute people as a way of making a living approach the job much as George Orwell did the caning boys while a master at Eton - whether or not you agree with it, you do it properly, because that's your job.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Do you mean psychological effect?

Bit obscure in analogy terms but I know animal shelters have difficulty in getting people to stay in the job of executing stray dogs and cats. If people struggle to kill animals, I imagine killing people must have more of an impact on the psyche.

Dead right!.... I did mean psychological.

Interesting to hear that animal shelters have that problem.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Darat

Death is not a punishment - there must be a person alive to be punished, it's why I said earlier it seems a contradiction for those who support the death penalty as a punishment.

I would imagine the punishment of knowing you were going to be killed would be extreme. When the waiting goes on for years and years....

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

1.Why is life sacred? This sounds religious to me. I have no place for religion.

2. I'm concerned about the practice. I do not condone capital punishment.
No one is forced to be an executioner. Let the persons who choose to do it deal with it. I am not concerned about them on a caring level.

3. It would depend on the person being punished. Death is usually an easy way out.

1. Sounds a bit scatty to me.

2. So you are not concerned about people being turned into professional killers?...... OK

3. How you can say this with such authority is beyond me.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

I'm not squirming; I am saying plainly that this is an unhelpful question.

Maybe it isn't helpful to you, or your position. That is about the only justification for your avoidance, as I see it.

It is a pretty simple question, and several others had no issue with providing an answer. My final attempt: Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

I would have preferred that he receive treatment. Maybe before he started murdering, while we are in the land of hypotheticals.

Acknowledging that health care, much less mental health services, are not something we are discussing, I’d rather he died in jail. Watching the world move past him. Without any hope of having an impact or being a part of the world.

Are you afraid that we don’t have good enough jails to accomplish that?

Why must we spend all the extra money to kill him when it would have been far cheaper to cage him? You’d think conservatives would hate the death penalty. Read the New Testament and think about your own wallet, just this one time.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I’d rather he died in jail. Watching the world move past him. Without any hope of having an impact or being a part of the world.

Are you afraid that we don’t have good enough jails to accomplish that?

Why must we spend all the extra money to kill him when it would have been far cheaper to cage him? You’d think conservatives would hate the death penalty. Read the New Testament and think about your own wallet, just this one time.

Based on the evidence accumulated in Gacy's case, I don't see any need for overwhelming expense or delay in his execution. He was on death row for 14 years, ridiculously. But that is a different can of worms.

So, you would rather see him rot in jail, as that amounts to a greater punishment, in your mind?

Why would I read the New Testament?

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Based on the evidence accumulated in Gacy's case, I don't see any need for overwhelming expense or delay in his execution. He was on death row for 14 years, ridiculously. But that is a different can of worms.

So, you would rather see him rot in jail, as that amounts to a greater punishment, in your mind?

Why would I read the New Testament?

A bigger can of worms than sending someone straight to the guillotine because they're "obviously" guilty and "obviously" deserve it? The expensive safeguards exist for a reason.