General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you support the death penalty, you support killing as revenge.
Don't fool yourself. There is no deterrent effect to execution as punishment. It certainly doesn't rehabilitate a person to kill them. It costs much more to convict, house and execute than it does for any other sentence. And there is no merit to the argument that it prevents further killing by the individual. Incarceration is incapacitation in that respect.
The only viable position for those who advocate state executions is vengeance. If you are pro-death, own it. Be honest with yourself and others. You want blood in revenge for what they did. And, you must also own that some innocent people will be put to death in your quest for that blood.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)
Orrex
(63,172 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)You knew better than to throw that argument out there.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)It was a mocking dismissal of a ridiculous assertion.
The death penalty is most certainly not a deterrent for future crime. It only guarantees that the executed person won't commit further crimes. If that person was innocent, for instance, then his execution didn't punish or prevent any crimes.
Capital punishment is a barbaric practice that should be abolished. Every single argument in favor if it will invariably boil down to a crass rumination on economics or else some call for righteous vengeance.
Barbaric.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I don't find it barbaric.
I find the rape and torture of infants barbaric. Don't you?
Orrex
(63,172 posts)Of course I find the rape and torture of infants to be barbaric.
State-sanctioned executions are also barbaric. The brutality of one wrong act does not justify the brutality of another.
Other than for the aforementioned reasons of economics and Old Testament-style vengeance, why do you not find capital punishment barbaric?
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)but cannot, for a the life of me, muster up a lot of compassion for someone that rapes and tortures and kills anyone....especially an infant.
I think about the love I have for my family. I realize that my emotions come into play. If someone did something like this to one of my loved ones, I'd go nuts. I guess that I am not above wanting revenge.
But again, it is a punishment fit for the crime. I don't care about justifying brutality. I want a punishment.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)Believe me, I understand your passion. If someone harmed my children in that way, I would personally kill the assailant with my bare hands.
That is an entirely comprehensible parental attitude, but it is imperative that the judicial system needs to act with greater objectivity.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)
There's a lot to digest.....
Orrex
(63,172 posts)
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Yeah, that's never allowed here! 
Orrex
(63,172 posts)
spanone
(135,795 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and those crimes have a much, much higher recidivism rate than murder and sex offenses...
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I want to punish murderers.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Or is it just that their methods of punishment are insufficiently cathartic for your personal emotional needs?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)is all about. Your issue is addressed through incapacitaton.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)A guy shoots a girl with a shotgun then buries her alive...he's convicted and sentenced to death. There is mistakes made during his execution and he suffers a bit before he dies. What is the problem?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If suffering is okay just this once, then surely it's okay the next time, too. How many exceptions are there before the exceptions beocme the rule?
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)For a crime the didn't commit.
Or is that just an "Oh...well"
Kinda like we have to accept several kids dying or injured by unsecured firearms everyday.
Because...AMERIKA! FUK YEAH!
Maraya1969
(22,464 posts)don't. So explain that please.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Orrex
(63,172 posts)the intended claim is that capital punishment is 100% effective as a deterrent for future crimes committed by the executed person.
Even if execution were the only means of preventing future crime, I'm still not convinced that it's justified.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Even in that case, executions can be botched. This has happened many times.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)
Very few unconvicted murderers commit further crimes, it is usually a one off. So unless you can see into the future like a fortune teller your claim is foolish.
However, in the real world, the DP can encourage murder as criminals want to eliminate witnesses.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
tenderfoot
(8,425 posts)Not much of a deterrent if you ask me.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It's a great technique - cuts down on time wasted trying to understand exactly what someone who disagrees with you is saying. After all who needs to hear people who "want blood in revenge" and are willing to see that "innocent people will be put to death in your quest for that blood." Frankly people meeting that description must be bastards.
Bryant
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Then what purpose does it serve? I can't think of any other motive. If you know of another reason for the death penalty, please let me know.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Does it serve to deter criminals? Not according to available statistics.
Do innocent people die from the death penalty? Yes.
So where does that leave us? Once deterrence is gone, the only remaining rationale for being in favor of the death penalty left is retribution. And apparently this desire for retribution against criminals is so great that it outweighs the innocent lives that are lost.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)They would agree with you?
I oppose the death penalty because of the possibility for error and executing an innocent person; were that not an issue, I would probably support it.
Bryant
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This person, for example, agrees with me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024894432#post53
I guess there might be some proponents of the death penalty that falsely believe that it has a deterrent effect. But I suspect that mostly it's about retribution, even if not everyone will be as open about it as that post I linked to.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Certainly they are more eager to shed blood than people opposed to capital punishment. After all, we are talking about people who want to see other people be put to death.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It's basically shame based - those people on the other side should be ashamed of themselves, while people on my side of the fence are good noble loving people. You are ascribing to them a motive - revenge.
I've had long conversations with people on both sides of this issue; and while I know where I come down, I don't think ascribing motive to people who disagree with you politically is particularly useful.
Bryant
DanTex
(20,709 posts)is "retribution". Revenge is more personal in nature -- e.g. someone hurts me so I want to hurt them back. Retribution is more generally the idea that a person who does something harmful deserves to have harm done to them.
This is in contrast to other justifications for punishment, which include discipline, rehabilitation, deterrence, and keeping criminals off the streets. The death penalty doesn't accomplish any of those things any more than life in prison. The only argument in favor is that some people deserve to be put to death for what they did, i.e. retribution.
Exactly what it feels like. Words like revenge and blood thirsty don 't help to further the discussion.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I am comfortable using it though. How else would you describe someone who supports and advocates killing another human being?
azmom
(5,208 posts)Along side captain America, and all those other guys. I'd like a cape, please.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The only viable basis to support the DP is revenge. And it is killing. It is killing for revenge. All other arguments collapse when properly considered.
You are free to hold that position, but you should do so honestly.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)some number of innocent people will be convicted. If they're merely imprisoned, then the mistake can be corrected, at least to an extent. But death is irrevocable.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Bundy admitted that he would keep killing until he was stopped.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)Does that not count as "he was stopped?"
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Orrex
(63,172 posts)It is not necessarly an argument for capital punishment.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)It's very possible that he would never have been caught again had he not escaped.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)I have a hard time getting worked up over the death penalty when the people they're executing as abhorrent as the ones they've done recently.
unblock
(52,126 posts)my mother lost half most of her family to a government that claimed for itself the right to kill its subjects.
no government should have the power to kill its subjects when the simple and obvious alternative of life in prison without parole exists. once that person, however heinous their crime(s) is in prison, it's completely immoral and counterproductive to kill them instead. it is, by any reasonable analysis, premeditated murder of someone who is no longer a threat and at least as heinous as the acts that supposedly justify it.
GOPee
(58 posts)If a career criminal, was faced with death if caught, would they consider leaving no eyewitnesses to a crime that would result in a life sentence anyway..
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Orrex
(63,172 posts)It's a summary of the arguments put forth in favor of capital punishment, and the underlying belief is more or less irrelevant.
Do you have a pro-death-penalty argument that isn't a matter of economics or a call for revenge?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)What you call revenge, I call punishment. I could make the argument that all punishment is based on revenge of some sort. So we both agree that the crime should be punished, but disagree on what degree of severity the punishment should take.
It's the best I can do on a cell phone right now. Maybe we can discuss it more at another time.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)That's a pretty fair articulation. As you say, we will likely continue to disagree on the particulars, but I appreciate your taking the time to spell it out.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Back when the US abolished the death penalty for a time, did we stop punishing murders? When someone commits a murder in new mexico, do the judges presiding the case just wave their hands around and look puzzled?
It comes down to the argument that other methods of punishment are something you personally deem "insufficient." Basically it comes down to what you feel the convict "deserves."
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I support the DP as PUNISHMENT.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)people will always be convicted of crimes they didn't commit? What about the fact that 5% or more of the people on death row are likely innocent? Do you simply consider them collateral damage?
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)Don't agree with my opinion, then you are a __________. (Fill in the blank)
You have no idea if the death penalty is a deterrent or not. It may not be a deterrent in 100% of the people, but that does not mean it has no effect at all.
People who plan and carry out the rape, torture and murder of another human being do not deserve to be rehabilitated. They chose to accept the punishment when they chose to commit their heinous acts.
It may cost much more to house and execute, but it does not have to.
No murderer who has been executed has EVER committed another murder. Incarceration does NOT incapacitate, it can only limit. Guards and prisoners die daily because mistakes are made.
You can try to appeal to emotion all you want with your "quest for blood" blather, but the fact is that these sub-humans chose their path and they deserve to be removed from society, not to be babysitted and tended to for the rest of their worthless lives.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)As I've stated elsewhere, the arguments in favor of capital punishment invariably boil down to either a dollars-and-cents claim of economics or else an embrace of Old Testament-style vengeance.
You have not put forth a persuasive argument in favor of your position.
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)I was only responding to the weak anti death penalty claim that it is cheaper to keep them alive.
As with most issues, "statistically" and "almost certain" are terms used when supporting proof is absent from ones position. Of course the death of an innocent person is not acceptable, and if I did not have faith in our system, I would not support it.
The actions of the criminal are what determines things, not me. Your weak attempt to shift that responsibility away from the criminal and onto me, is very telling.
Their behavior is what makes them worthless to a civilized society. That is not an appeal to emotion, that is fact.
"you are explicitly granting permission to anyone who wants to kill you, as long as they can come up with some way to identify you as "sub-human"
Yeah, like raping, torturing and murdering an eleven month old baby is equal to being a terrible neighbor or not saying excuse me. Give me a break.
"You have not put forth a persuasive argument in favor of your position"
Eh. Like I really thought I would change the opinion of those who refuse to acknowledge any position other than their own.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Your response was quite weak. You state: "It may cost much more to house and execute, but it does not have to." So your claim is basically that we can spend less on public defense, but you offer exactly zero explanation of how that would work, let alone the ramifications of doing so. The claim that other options exist without articulating what those are is pretty much empty rhetoric.
You did copy and paste and still read what you wanted to read instead of what was actually written.
The original post said 'convict, house and execute'
Common sense would dictate that I left out the convict part because I do not believe we should "spend less on public defense." If I didn't say to spend less on defense, and don't believe we should spend less on defense, why would I offer some explanation to spend less on defense?
Empty rhetoric indeed.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Housing is equal or less with the DP vs life in prison without parole, which only leaves available costs savings on defense, but if you have other options then do tell. As yet you haven't even attempted to support your own assertions.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)You have it exactly backwards. What you assert is a "weak claim" is typically offered as a rebuttal when an advocate for capital punishment complains about having to pay to support a murderer jailed for life. The "weak claim," if such it may be called, is made by the pro-death-penalty camp, so you should take it up with them.
Your dismissal is off the mark because, in fact, I used to support the death penalty quite enthusiastically. My opinion evolved when I saw that the arguments in favor of it (more or less identical to the ones you've offered) are ultimately untenable.
Even if the philosophical arguments weren't sufficient to ban the death penalty, then its real-world failings certainly are. Poor people are executed more often than wealthy people, and blacks are executed more often than whites. This class- and race-based disparity alone shatters the supposed validity of the punishment.
You are welcome to imagine that opponents of the death penalty are simply stubborn and intractable, but that's not the case. I understand your position, because I have rejected it after long embracing it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)What do you tell their families? They were killed by the state, yet they were NOT GUILTY?
Or these people?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-voices-victims-families
Those who supposedly should have gotten closure and did not?
Or those who plain out dod not want the death penalty?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/when-victims-speak-up-in-court-in-defense-of-the-criminals/283345/
So what exactly do you tell those people? Especially those sent to the death chamber who are actually not guilty? Tough noodles? And let's not go into the issues of race in this, or poverty.
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)since that story doesn't provide any names or actual proof of an innocent person being executed.
There really isn't anything to tell the victims family members who are against the death penalty and who will use the murder of a loved one to promote their anti death penalty beliefs.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)are guilty? That's a pretty big assumption right there.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Who was not guilty is made up?
I gave you the link somewhere. I am sorry, but horses and water come to mind here.
Oh and yes, a family is fighting right now to keep their son's killer off death row.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)So in other words, remove more of the safeguards intended to prevent the innocent from being executed... 
Throd
(7,208 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... Pope of DU's many High Priests of Liberalism, is a daily struggle.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Said it better.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)moral superiority to decide when another human being should be put to death.
REP
(21,691 posts)Richard Grissom. If he had been executed for his first murder, he would not have been able to commit four more murders.
Ed Kemper. If he had been executed after his first two murders, he would not have been able to commit eight more murders.
I don't object to killing. I object to a poorly run and corrupt justice system. I would be fine with them rotting in solitary for life, but I do not object when those who are guilty beyond doubt are executed. It's like putting down a rabid dog.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)...and living.
oh well.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)People convicted of murder have been released and killed again. They have escaped and killed again. They have killed again in prisons, from country club Fed joints to Supermax. Incarceration bloody well isn't incapacitation.
They have never, ever, been executed and killed again.
Aren't the lives of those killed by already convicted murderers important to you? Why are you on a quest for their blood?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)None of the DP supporters seem to care much about their lives. Because apparently our legal system is infallible.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)really? Your perception of human emotions and motivations is a tad shallow.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)revenge.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Name an alternative that has, or could possibly, prevent a convicted murderer killing again.
How is wanting to prevent future murders revenge?
Orrex
(63,172 posts)It may be an argument in favor of more secure incarceration. Further, executing someone to prevent recidivism is an execution for crimes not yet committed. How do you justify this?
In addition, a number of people on DU also seem eager to punish past murders, with the "recidivism" argument being secondary.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If you want to cite the stats that show murder and manslaughter recidivism rates high enough to justify simply executing all murderers, then be my guest.
RandoLoodie
(133 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Murderers have committed further murders while in prison, showing that general population incarceration does not equal 'incapacitation' in that regard. You'd have to put anyone who would potentially qualify for the death penalty in a supermax isolation sorta deal - and there's a good argument that that's a form of torture. And I also disagree with your opinion that 'the only viable position' is 'vengeance'. That's an opinion, not a factual assertion, based upon your worldview.
I'm anti-death penalty, because A) as you point out, innocents wind up with it, and you can't undo it, B) the systematic racism entwined in our 'justice system' results in racist outcomes, and C) the state shouldn't be in the business of killing people. We can't claim that killing people is 'bad', then turn around and do it ourselves.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Multiple studies that have been completed since capital punishment was reinstated show that prisoners sentenced to life without parole do not pose any more threat to other prisoners or corrections personnel than do inmates in the general population, and in most cases “lifers” perpetrate fewer crimes in prison than those eligible for parole.
Comprehensive research has been performed on inmate misconduct data using various subsets of inmates from Missouri, Texas, Arizona, and Florida, all of which has shown that convicted murderers were not significantly more likely to engage in disciplinary misconduct or commit acts of institutional violence than were inmates serving time for other offenses.
* * *
Between 2001 and 2007, states with the death penalty had considerably higher prison murder rates on average (4.25/100,000, with four of 38 states reporting no prison homicides in that time period) than those states without the death penalty (.92/100,000, with 7 of 12 states reporting no prison homicides).
Both populations had lower murder rates on average than the country as a whole, which averaged about 5.6/100,000 during the same period.
https://death.rdsecure.org/article.php?id=555
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Has Ted Bundy killed anyone recently? So when you execute a murderer, you're making sure he won't kill again. So there is a deterrent. On a broader level, it's nearly impossible to tell if the death penalty does or does not have a deterrent effect because its use is so widely varied.
As to the "it costs more" argument with regard to the death penalty, you're actually making a back door argument for fewer and fewer appeals (that all cost money) and for quicker executions -- which would lead to more wrongly-convicted persons being put to death. Which is something I'm pretty sure you don't intend to do.
I do believe that some people are just so wholly evil that because of their crimes they have forfeited the right to exist, even in a prison cell. The problem is that until I see OJ Simpson or Dick Cheney in the death chamber, I know that the death penalty is applied only to people who lack the financial means to avoid it.
Philosophically, I have no issues with the death penalty. As a practical matter, as a punishment administered by people who are prone to making mistakes in judgment, I see no way to pursue the policy without committing gross injustices.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)I'm good with revenge and vengeance.
Does that mean I can't be a good democrat? Do I have to vote republican?
I respect your opinion, but disagree.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I support the principle of the death penalty. I think that some (thankfully, few) criminals are so dangerous that even the small risk that they could escape is too great a risk to take. However, I also oppose the death penalty being used unless there is absolute proof of guilt. And that's not an unattainable standard anymore. Think of the mountains of evidence used to convict, say, BTK. That's the kind of absolute certainty that I think should be the standard for a death penalty case. Under that standard, no innocents get executed because if there is even teh slightest doubt, the case fails teh absolute proof test and the DP can't be used.
That said, I also look forward to teh day when we master suspended animation. That way, when someone is found guilty, we just freeze them and warehouse the block of ice. If it turns out we were wrong, we can thaw them out and apologise.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Same thing. Like Han Solo in Star Wars. Brilliant minds think alike.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I think some crime are so heinous the only proper punishment is death. I think some people are beyond rehabilitation, redemption or forgiveness, and I think it is a waste of time to even try to do so.
And I also think we should quit hiding executions behind closed doors at midnight. Make the only punishment as Death by Firing Squad, in a public place and time. A designated place of execution in every city, county, state or at the Federal Level, at high noon local time, and the media would be able to cover it live if they so chose. If the public wanted to attend, then there would a lottery for those that wanted to attend.
Now, having said that, I could accept the abolition of the DP, provided it was replaced by Life Without Parole. ANY possibility of Parole. Absolutely None. But, as soon as the DP was abolished, the same people who want to abolish the DP would start complaining that Life Without Parole was inhumane, and everyone deserves a chance at rehabilitation, redemption and release back into society.
Case in point. Life Without Parole A Different Death Penalty
unblock
(52,126 posts)the premeditated killing of someone who is in prison is no longer a threat to society, and can be kept that way for life, is itself a heinous crime an has no place in a civilized society.
governments across history and across the world have a horrendous history when it comes to the use of their power to kill their subjects. it is a right no government should have.
even if there were a crime for which the only appropriate punishment is death, it is simply not appropriate for any one or any government to inflict death on that person.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)No crime should be automatically life with no eligibility for parole. That is the next argument, and one that I fully embrace. LWOP is a death sentence in itself. The point is, parole is not a right or automatic. But, a person should be entitled to consideration of release after a period of years, 15-25 in the case of murders.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)And your position is why I maintain my support for the Death Penalty.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The battle ground will then be LWOP.
Step by step, we will get there.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)And I will always support LWOP. I will NEVER change my position on that. Ever.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)A lot of people support LWOP for many crimes. I am not so naive to believe that there are not any people who not be kept separated and secure from society. What I have a problem with is the LWOP for either a single act of violence by someone relatively young and three strikes laws that put people away on LWOP for non-violent crimes. Simply put, I don't believe that LWOP should ever be a mandatory minimum sentence. The vast majority of people serving LWOP sentences have the potential for rehabilitation, even if it takes 15-20 years. Those who cannot be rehabilitated are almost exclusively the result of severe and untreated mental illnesses. Neither the prisoner not society are best served by warehousing them in prisons rather than a hospital were they can be treated.
For the tiny percentages of lifers who can never be treated or released, the parole process can ensure they remain in custody. Parole for a lifer is not easily obtained and can serve as a check on those too dangerous to be released.
My bottom line is that I don't believe that anyone cannot be repaired or treated with better alternatives than death of LWOP. LWOP gives the prisoner no hope and no motivation to rehabilitate.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)A guard, or another prisoner. Are you going to have 24 / 7 / 365 solitary confinement for the worst of the worst under your system?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)the rest of the population.
The number of people who are regular and repeat killers is so very low that they could be handled without the need of LWOP and DP sentences.
There are a few, though, to be sure a small number, that due to a combination of mental illness, poor conditions and poor treatments are a danger to themselves and the prison. They are already housed in solitary confinement 24-7 and it isn't improving their condition or the safety of the COs who still have to interact with them. What they need is engaging therapy, serious treatment and access to quality mental healthcare and medication. The number who do not respond to real mental health treatment would very low.
Improvement of conditions, reduction of sentencing, greater access to rehabilitative programs and the prospect of reintegration into the community greatly reduces inner-prison violence. It is in everyone's interest, especially the COs to improve conditions. COs have a life expectancy of around 55 years. And it isn't because they are killed by prisoners.
If someone does kill again in prison, they would be sentenced again.
Logical
(22,457 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)justice was a popularity contest............ Thanks for your wisdom. I don't care it we were the last nation on the planet with the DP, it would not change my mind that it is justice. But what do I know,(according to many here) I am just a slack jawed yokel from Texas that is tainted as a liberal because of where I was born.
Logical
(22,457 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Moreover, the bloodthirsty rhetoric of its strongest supporters is really disturbing and frightening.
K&R.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)That piece of excitement that raped and killed the baby? Fuck yes I want people like that dead. And further I want them to suffer terribly for a long time first.
I don't care if it's a deterrent or not, that's irrelevant. What matters is making the punishment fit the crime.
Two things I disagree on. One, it may be more expensive the way it is now but it certainly doesn't have to be. In open and shut cases, of which there are many, you don't get to sit there and appeal for twenty years. You get convicted and hanged (or whatever method is to be used) on the same day. Expense problem solved.
And I will NOT own that innocent people need be executed. That never has to happen either. If there is ANY doubt, you get life in prison until the case can be resolved one way or the other. If it never is, you just stay there until you die. Other problem solved.
You don't get to decide what I think and I what I find acceptable.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)You fully admit that's what you want to do. However, I don't. I'm a tax payer too. Don't you think its immoral to use my tax money, and other non-death penalty supporter's tax money, for your sadism?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The problem is, the decision to put people to death is made by humans, and humans make mistakes. If we were going by the standard of "ANY doubt", that would effectively mean abolishing the death penalty.
At the very least, if you don't want to own the innocent victims, you would be against the death penalty in 2014 America, since the practical reality is that we're very far from being able to administer it without killing innocent people.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And I will NOT own that innocent people need be executed. That never has to happen either. If there is ANY doubt, you get life in prison until the case can be resolved one way or the other. If it never is, you just stay there until you die. Other problem solved.
Doubt in capital punishment cases often rises years or even decades after the fact when a witness comes forward and says they were intimidated or police are found to have acted unethically.
Death penalty cases require a unanimous verdict by the jury, and given the number of death row exonerations, it's patently clear that juries do make decisions based on bad evidence.
So, you'd kill them on the spot, despite that some "open and shut cases" could turn out to be bogus years down the line?
840high
(17,196 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Orrex
(63,172 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... I sensed your response would arrive sooner ... maybe network latency.
That was good! 
ladjf
(17,320 posts)civilized society. It is barbaric for a Government to murder people as a form of punishment.
It is horrifying to see polls showing that over 50% of Americans favor capital punishment.
Between 1967 and 1977, there were no executions. Now there are hundreds every year.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If the issue is important, then the facts are important.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)to the moral issue. Is it acceptable to kill 42 per year but not 420 ?
azmom
(5,208 posts)Wrong in wanting and desiring justice to be done.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Being done. In Kant's social and political philosophy, he argues that the only punishment possibly equivalent to death, the amount of inflicted harm, is death. Death is qualitatively different from any kind of life, so no substitute could be found that would equal death.
No substitute. I tend to agree with that. Specially when you take into account the egregiousness of some crimes. Bashing a child's head with a hammer and killing the child. No, punishment can equate that other than death.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)There's been some horrific murders in the years since, and I believe life without parole where the judge orders that they're never to be released *is* justice being done. They've been removed from society...
That eye for an eye stuff just doesn't wash. If the US insists on being out of step with the rest of the Western world, then it should at least be honest about what it does. Make the executions public. Do them in really public places and inflict as much pain as possible, and the Saudis and Iran can give some tips on how to do that. Break into scheduled shows on telly, televise the executions live, and show the population what they're supporting.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Criminals deserve much worse than they receive. So it's not an eye for an eye. The punishment has to be commensurate with the crime, and we have to respect our constitution that calls for no unusual and cruel punishment. I think what are advocating would be unconstitutional.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Nuremburg comes to mind. Not that Nuremburg was all about revenge. But if I accept your premise the DP is exclusively an act of revenge then revenge was certainly part of the mix at those post war Nazi war crimes trial since more than a few nazis were hung. And I am fine with that
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I can live with that. I disagree, but not going to argue with crazy people. Some person that knows nothing about me and has no right to pass judgement on my beliefs thinks my support of the DP is because I am filled with blood lust. Ok....whatever helps you sleep at night bucko.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I'm not passing judgment on your beliefs. If you support the death penalty, you support it for revenge or your haven't thought it through.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)It is justice, pure and simple.
But since you want to call it revenge. Here is the definition of revenge. the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong committed against you or someone else. If we are going to play your game, that would be the whole criminal justice system...........But I am not playing your game.
The DP is justice, pure and simple, I am steadfast in that belief, as steadfast as I am that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Especially when it necessitates torture like we've seen in Oklahoma & putting innocent people to death like in Texas.
And you're confusing "simple" with "simplistic"
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Mine and it seems a good number of people in this thread see it as justice. Would you like to share more of your opinions and tell me why more of my opinions are wrong? That should go well.
I see it as justice, easy and simple justice for those who deserve it.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Is it justice to condemn hundreds of innocent people to death through an inadequate, racially biased & politically motivated process of adjudication?
No, it isn't. And no amount of narrow-minded rationalization on your part can make it so.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)As to the whole criminal justice system, many do view it as a means of revenge, which is what punishment is.
The current criminal justice system is horribly flawed. It should be prospective rather than retrospective. It should focus on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism rather than over-criminalizing, punishing and over-incarcerating. The current approach does not increase security or move us forward. It doesn't benefit society or the individual. It is sorely fucked up. And that is undeniable.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)your opinions is that since I don't agree with you it must be revenge.
Justice is watching the criminal die for his horrible crimes that merit such a penalty. So please, continue to tell me that only your views are correct and mine are wrong. That is definitely a winning strategy for you.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Those are your words of revenge. "Watching a criminal die." And you don't see that as wanting revenge? You are not being honest with yourself. Or you lack that capacity.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I disagree with you and this happens.
I am very honest with myself and no I don't see it as wanting revenge.
Let's try again, they say reading is fundamental, I guess it wasn't for you
Justice: the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
Killing a killer, watching the light leave his eyes is justice, not revenge. But keep it up, it is fun watching you transform.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I'm usually against it. Some crimes are just, wow. When I read about some masochistic animal abuser, and there's some vacant, horrible people in this world, I think I could make an exception, if it were up to me. Take the Hitler question further. If it would have saved a million lives, should he have been killed, looking back? Should bin laden have been killed? It isn't all so cut and dry. I still consider myself anti-dp for most crimes, but I do see exceptions.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)If it would have saved a million lives, it would be worth it to incarcerate and incapacitate him.
No exception, the death penalty is always wrong.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)"it would be worth it to incarcerate and incapacitate him"
if that were not possible, but killing him was, it would be the right thing to do, yes?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The death penalty comes after an arrest, a conviction and a sentence. The point is there is no justification to that process resulting in a sentence of death. The only reason for supporting the DP that withstands logic is that the supporter wants to avenge the crimes of the convicted and they want to do that through killing.
Your Hitler hypothetical to be of any use to this discussion would resume the DP comes at the end of a conviction. Incarceration would be just as effective in preventing hypothetical future killings by him.
If you are asking whether in your time machine hypothetical one would be justified in killing Hitler before he engaged in genocide, I misunderstood your question and would not answer such a fantastical question as serious. That has nothing to do with the death penalty.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)You chose to respond to it, so I chose to respond to your response.
Didn't mean to confuse you.
One could argue that killing bin laden (assuming he was then, or ever was, real in the sense he has been presented) was not too far removed from the concept of the death penalty.
Again, I've been pretty consistently against it. But as I said above, I do believe there are exceptions.
840high
(17,196 posts)I think of the 11 month old baby being raped and killed - I know in my heart DP is not wrong for this man.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)By the way, the person you are thinking of is not the one who was tortured to death.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Justice: the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
Revenge: inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to (someone else).
Justice is a deserved punishment for a crime...........revenge is inflict hurt or harm for an injury done to someone else. You failing to see the difference is probably the funniest thing this side of a double execution day............
morningfog
(18,115 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Please explain.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You know who you are.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I am a retired Army veteran who works in the Defense Contracting business that is passionate about PBO and my home state of Texas.
If you want to say I am someone else, by all means, say it. Be brave and accuse me of whatever the fuck you are trying to accuse me of.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You are playing a sad and pathetic game. So sad and so pathetic. I pity you.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Who am I? Cmon tough guy or girl. Be steadfast of your convictions and tell me who and what I am. If you can prove I am someone other than who I say I am, then prove it. Otherwise you are seriously close to violating ToS and I will gladly burn someone for making bullshit accusations. Like I said watching you transform into an internet bully has been fun and educational for me and others here.
I know who I am. 20 year Army Veteran, living in El Paso working for the Defense Community. Unless you have some evidence that I am not myself, I would advise you to not dig the hole any deeper.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You aren't worth it. Go back to your cave.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)should I get bent like you said down thread, or should I not worry about it? If you ignore me I won't have the answers I need.
Texasgal
(17,041 posts)
Seriously?
840high
(17,196 posts)execution. I don't want revenge - I want justice - the justice that our jury decided on.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)that one fails Logic 101
840high
(17,196 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)When it is a jury decision, did you know that anyone who opposes the death penalty is stricken from the jury. In other words, any jury that decides death is a pre-selected group of pro-DP jurors. How fucked up is that?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)as your terrible attempts at logic and cogent thought.
We done yet?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
flvegan
(64,406 posts)Some let these emotions rule how they think, bolstering their ego to desire the death of another human as revenge. The death penalty is revenge, not punishment. I've been saying that on DU for a decade now.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Criminal murders, a just punishment is their own death. That is very logical.
Killing, raping and murdering are about the worst things an individual can do. Let's look at the definition one more time.
Justice: the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
Logically killing a killer is justice. Your funhouse mirror logic is pretty shitty actually.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)God, you are dense.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Although thank you for noticing my genius status, I rarely tell that to DUers. I am modest.
Justice is a fitting punishment. Punishment is not revenge. When I ground my child for breaking curfew, it is not for revenge, it is because they broke the laws of my house and a fitting punishment (justice) is being grounded. And you call me dense. 
840high
(17,196 posts)seem to have a hard time accepting the fact that other people's opinion might be different from yours.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Anyone who supports killing has a different opinion. That is the premise of this thread. Have that opinion, hold it, love it. I don't really give a fuck. You are on the losing side of history here. It is one of those issues that we will look back on in 20 years in horror and disgust.
But, if you set forth noble reasons for the death penalty, you are full of shit. It does not meet any objective or serve any meaningful purpose. It serves one purpose: Revenge. You can call it justice or punishment, but the basis of those aims is revenge. Any other reasons fail, and no others have even been proffered.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)And any other opinion is full of shit. Got it. You must be a real hit in social circles.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Reassure society that we as a whole can not and will not stand for someone , let's say, bashing a toddlers head with a hammer and killing them. It's society speaking and saying, we find this so morally reprehensible you will have to pay with your life. We will not now or ever condone such an action and there are consequences so before you start taking hammers to baby head, be aware that you will pay with your life. I think that's a very noble view.
Wait, that would be the aim, not the basis. The basis then would be to achieve said aim.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)The intention of punishing does not have to be attributed to something negative. When you punish your children for misbehaving. It would be wrong for me to say that your punishment is based
On revenge. It is your motive or intent that is important.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It cannot be. There is no one left after to receive the punishment or to be effected by it. Execution is solely for the living and it is for revenge.
Can call it a penalty. And, yes it serves the good of the community (living). However, it is not revenge based. It is based on the value of fairness, and justice.
Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".[7] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University involving capuchin monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human"[8] indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.
It's an inequity aversion, not revenge that calls out for justice., or so says wiki.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)You didn't.
Let's start at the beginning, shall we?
"Criminal murders, a just punishment is their own death. That is very logical. "
You state that a thing is logical here, but you do not offer any argument to support that conclusion. You seem to treat it as if it is a universal truth of some kind. It isn't.
It is unclear to me if you believe what follows that serves to support your original conclusion, or if it is the other way round, but in no part do you actually offer an ARGUMENT, merely your own opinion offered up as if it were so plainly obvious that it needs no explanation.
Try again.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Here's the difference, I have no desire to tell anyone who doesn't support the DP that anything is wrong with them.
The logic point was just to be as silly as the OP who thinks they are also logical.
Hope that clears things up.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)You sound like Descartes trying to prove the existence of God, and then becoming smug that he has.
Further, it appears to me that you are talking in circles in an attempt to turn vengeance into justice. It's tortured, and it fails.
Demobrat
(8,961 posts)You're a better person than me. I wish I could be like you but I'm not. You're just better. A better person, and I suspect better in bed too. Better. Better. Better. Every day, in every way. You're better. I admit it. You're better.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)If you want revenge, you want revenge. Why take it personal?
Response to morningfog (Reply #140)
Post removed
Demobrat
(8,961 posts)And I told you what you wanted to hear. How is that taking it personal?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)or a bad person soon. I think neither, you sound like a normal person to me.
Demobrat
(8,961 posts)Guess I'll just have to suck it up.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)My apologies.
Demobrat
(8,961 posts)Why do you have a problem with that?
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)You would not mind playing the money game...you give me $10 dollars for every person who has killed after sentenced to life in prison, and i give you $50 for every executed person who has killed after being executed.
If it is not a deterrent surely i will owe you money then?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)offending. The data is clear that there is no measurable deterrent effect in jurisdictions with the death penalty.
As for the individual deterrence, my point is that incapacitation through incarceration meets that end.
On your thought experiment, consider this: Between 2001 and 2007, states with the death penalty had considerably higher prison murder rates on average (4.25/100,000, with four of 38 states reporting no prison homicides in that time period) than those states without the death penalty (.92/100,000, with 7 of 12 states reporting no prison homicides).
https://death.rdsecure.org/article.php?id=555
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it means that the mere existence of the consequence itself prevents - deters - the action that leads to the consequence.
So tell you what. I pay you $10 for every inmate doing a life sentence that has killed someone. And you pay me $50 for every murder conducted in a state or nation that has the death penalty.
You will indeed owe me money, because it's clearly not a deterrent.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)The more heinous and DNA evidence, cell tower records that PROVES it was that man or woman, I have no problem with the DP. They should kill them within a years time. Some killers DO get released from time to time. Let's end that practice.
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)should be what is used.
There should be no death penalty - ever.
The death penalty is about retribution and revenge and for too many blood lust. I think that if they brought the guillotine back we would have people buying tickets and sitting in the front rows with their cell phones taking selfies.
"Given my experience, I believe there are three compelling reasons why the death penalty should be replaced. (1) The criminal justice system makes mistakes and the possibility of executing innocent people is both inherently wrong and morally reprehensible; (2) My personal experience and crime data show the death penalty does not reduce crime; and (3) The death penalty wastes precious resources that could be best used to fight crime and solve thousands of unsolved homicides languishing in filing cabinets in understaffed police departments across the state."
-George Gascon, San Francisco District Attorney and former police chief
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)They are mad at you for pointing out the obvious.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)It tends to happen when others make completely inane, childish arguments and try to pass them off as IF-THEN statements.
Before taking the time to j'accuse, you should know I'm against the death penalty, although that wasn't always true.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)have not yet offered a reason to support the DP. If you have one, I'm listening.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...that the policy is decided or properly depicted as an IF-THEN statement. That's how children and cultists think.
Given sufficient time and desire, I could probably construct an argument but frankly I have no desire to give the Right Wing a freebie.
Edit: And on a more personal note, I have a splitting headache right now that is keeping me a bit below my normally cheerful mood. 
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This is not just an "if/then" statement. I discussed the flaws of the various reasons for supporting DP. The point is that none of them withstand scrutiny. I accept that some people are pro-DP. It is clear, though, that supporters do not have any viable justification for their support other than seeking revenge for the acts of the condemned. No one has offered an alternative. This isn't right wing anything. This is a challenge to DP supporters to take a look at their position.
Hope your headache gets better.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)Well played satire.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)There is nothing special about a lifetime of imprisonment that makes it humane while an execution is not. It all depends on what people consider a just punishment.
But here is one problem with abolishing the DP. If you do it will lead to murderers being released from prison.
How? Well, right now murderers plea to murder charges if the DP is taken off the table. If life w/o parole is the maximum sentence, they will plea deal to life with parole and get out of prison.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Not by a long shot. The lifer release on parole rates are very low, depending on the state. And even upon release, they are monitored for the rest of their lives.
Murderers are already released from prison. There are lifers who earned parole. And murderers are among the lowest recidivists of all crimes. Partly because they spend 15+ years maturing before they are released.
So that argument is not supportive of the DP.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I wish I had some unconditional forgiveness inside me...but alas, I do not. Not one drop of it.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)The OP and some others seem to make a big deal out of it, but really, who cares what they think?
I guess I am another not as evolved. I'm not a Christian, and I am not big on forgiveness.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And yet, I have no problems to admitting to such faults as a human. IMO, the people you got to be wary of are the ones that have zero vices and hover a few inches above the ground in their own self-perfection. They never utter a single wrong answer and always have a long nose to look down on us mere humans.
I believe in revenge, I am an agnostic and I too am not big on forgiveness. Just how I was built, I try to keep the bloodlust down...but when I read a story about an 8 year old child being murdered by a rapist that goes on to rape his sister...I cannot think of anything BUT a grizzly death for said criminal.
Just the way we are wired oldhippie - some will never let us live it down, but like you said...who cares what they think. Life is way too short to worry about living up to near perfect expectations.
Im very loving and very compassionate. That is why I side with the victims and victims family. They are the ones deserving of our love and compassion. Not the monsters perpetrating heinous acts.
oneofthe99
(712 posts)Sometimes dues have to be paid
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I don't begrudge anyone for feeling that. I think it is a natural emotion. I appreciate you being honest about it. I would prefer that the debate be on honest terms. There are many logical, economic and humane reasons to be against the DP, but really the only reason to support it that withstands scrutiny is vengeance. The debate should be properly defined.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The state killing someone. War. Those things I sadly believe we are all accustomed to now.
I think when most people hear of a child being raped and killed, part of their brain just naturally says the criminal should 'pay' in some fashion. The monetary value we place on a human life. Someone that discards human life as no value. Most would say death is a suitable punishment. Yet I think the very notion of death repulses the living and it should. It repulses the living that death meaning nothing to some of their fellow humans. That they would murder a child or anyone for that matter.
It is hard rationally to deal with it. Logically a civilized society would evolve past crime or maybe we are only hoping that is possible. Until then some will just simply be happy with an eye for an eye. Keep it simple.
azmom
(5,208 posts)You. It's a very difficult and painful stance to take and I totally understand why people oppose the death penalty. I do resent it when people ascribe negative motives to my believes. I would not do that to them, that's wrong. But, I am a forgiving individual so I do forgive them. I understand the passion that is involved when discussing this subject.
Response to morningfog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the whole penal system, but in particular the DP, are a civil rights issue. And those who face it, tend to me minority and poor, that is not an accident.
And people accuse me of being "emotional" when pointing these little facts too.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Death with her walking cane. A man murdered a 16 month old by denying her food and exposing her to sub freezing temperature. These are the types of crimes we are dealing with when it comes to the death penalty.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is never the duty of the state to kill as a result of a conviction. It is still going to cost much more. It will still put innocent people to death.
The death penalty can not be made right, no matter the crime.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Do with the crime committed. It has everything to do with the crime committed and the state certainly has the moral duty as an agent of our society to punish people.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The state used to be able to put mentally disabled people to death.
The state used to be able to put people to death for crimes not involving murder.
No more. And one day in the not to distant future, the state will no longer be allowed to put anyone to death as punishment.
The is absolutely no morality in killing as punishment. NONE.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Wrong. These depraved monsters are a cancer to society. It's too bad that evil like that exists in our world. I wish we could all take a stand for innocent people like I described in my post and support the death penalty. But, hey we all have different views on things.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)It is worth noting how exceptional America is on the death penalty. We do have different views on things, to be sure. We are on a dwindling list of countries stuck in the barbaric past.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And partially dunked in acid while still alive. Kid coded and died in front of the EMS crew...no brainer right? How the hell does Mexico move on with life without the death penalty? It was officially abolished in 2005, after not being used for 75 years in the civilian side, and over 40 in the military.
Yeah I was part of the medic crew that declared that child. We tried, but really we tried for ourselves, and our sake.
A gent hung up 17 people on a fine Christmas Eve, he died during a shootout with another cartel, but the system would not have given the death penalty.
As the former AG of Mexico once told me, the death penalty affects the nation and creates bloodlust. It is cruel, it is inhuman, and it leads to a system of justice where the executioner becomes a sick person so the state can pretend to punish, because it is punishing itself.
mike_c
(36,270 posts)eom