Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?, page 9

I do so dislike it when people suggest that I have not read the thread properly. I said that I had before, and I believe the reply from Durden clarified any confusion you may have had about his postings. Now to my own opinions on the matter.

Why would (or should) society use such a penalty?

To protect itself from those who would seek to harm others through fear of the punishment itself, or disposing of the offender thus ensuring the prevention of any further such actions?

Or

To quench some urge for personal vengance on a primordial scale?

Being that we supposed to be talking about 'civilized' society, the second point should be instantly dismissed.

True justice must surely be percieved through moral, impartial eyes. Whereas vengeance, tends to be envisaged through the eyes of one who has been wronged. The legal systems of the west, (the only ones I can comment on) are supposed to be based with the aim of justice (a fair trial) and not some kind of personal vengeance. and after all, if society were run along those lines then surely I should be allowed to go and steal the car of the thief that stole mine, at which point we tumble into the realms of 'An eye for an eye' and chaos reigns supreme.

As has been said the belief in this 'punishment', or not, is a matter for personal opinion, and as such I shall not attempt to sway the views of others who have already stated their position, but rather offer my own alongside their causes.

Let me say here that I believe that the ultimate goal of imprisonment should be the rehabilitation of offenders.

For those who have yet to understand the true definition of rehabilitation: dictionary.cambridge.org...

It does not mean letting them out a la:

Originally posted by FredT

Honest guys he says he feels okay now

Any punishment incurred should be that of the co-incidental temporory deprivation of the offenders freedoms that must occur when ensuring success of the aforementioned rehabilitation.

That said, should any punishment be purely a coincidental by product of the rehabilitation process. No, I don't believe so. If there were some magic to cast and instantaneously rehabilitate the offender, I do feel that they would still 'owe' society for any crimes commited. Should such magic exist, the repayment of such a debt would, ideally, be classed as the punishment for their crimes.

Unfortunately the above scenario is just that, a possible event sometime in humanities future. Untill then we are forced to make do as best we can while continuing to, hopefully, advance our civilization.

To make such advances then, surely it is correct for us to act in a moral fashion. Following this train of thought we must arrive at the conclusion that, although an offender may be punished for any crimes commited, surely it must be the main goal of society to rehabilitate such people?

Therefore it must be classed as detrimental to the advancement of our civilization for the desire of punishment to override the deisre for rehabiliation.

With this in mind then the ultimate aim of society, in regards to the point in question, must be the sucessful rehabiliation of all offenders.

By Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, August 25, 2004
(From - www.sacbee.com... )
Legislation proposing a massive shift in California's prison system to stress rehabilitation services for even the most hard-core prisoners was approved Tuesday by the Assembly.

Again, here:

Taken from www.iss.co.za...

Respondents were asked what they thought should be the most important goal of prison in respect of convicted offenders.
Most thought rehabilitation (59%), followed by punishment (26%), and the removal of criminals from society (14%). Rural respondents were significantly more likely to say that prison�s most important goal should be rehabilitation (75%), followed by urban (62%) and small town (51%) respondents.

So, now taking as fact this should be societies aim the question should be does capital punishment hinder or advance any attempt to reach such a goal?

If these people are to be considered detremental to society and act in a manner which would impede or excessively distress the population, (such as many of the heinous crimes those who are in favour of such puhishment repeatedly dredge up in hope of playing the lowest common denominator fear card), then they must be removed.

Society must be protected.

Why not exclude those who would commit such acts from society entirely?

Because it has been said, and I think it is recognised by many, that you can judge a society by the way it treats its criminals.

Being that the best we can hope for as a society is that our criminals can be rehabilitated, shouldn't this then be striven for rather than execution?

So the case for the withdrawal of Capital Punishment stands above, I believe it is part of the evolutionary process of an advancing society.

So, to the point of capital punishment.

Why would, or should, anyone desire the death of another is not the point in question. Justice is not to ensure any single person vengeful satisfaction. What must be reflected upon is why, or how, would society benefit?

We have heard that it is an effective deterrent, but I believe we have already seen this agrument countered adequately.

So to the protection of society?

Incarceration can, and does, protect society. Despite those who would suggest that these offenders just sit plotting all day and will someday make their escape and wreak some kind of terrible vengance upon the society that condemned them, this doesn't appear to be the case. At the very least any attempt to use it in justification for execution is laughable.

So, should this punishment be continued on the gounds of personal retribution?

I don't think that this argument needs any more countering than has already been provided above.

Some say that society should not have to pay for the rehabilitation of those who have commited such atrocious acts as would warrent such a sentence.

I agree, and I feel that while incarcerated prisoners should, not only work to pay for their upkeep, but also to compensate society. A path that is not open for the dead. Death, well it's kinda final.

It has been said that many offenders, (of all crimes) only go on to re-offend.

True, but repeat offenders are those who have failed to be rehabilitated, who is to blame for this? It is known that prison teaches all the tricks of crime, and through experience I believe it is much easier for the ex-convict to re-offend than not. Also it may be pointed out that those who do go on to re-offend tend to commit more serious crimes the second time round. So should we simply execute all who commit a crime worthy of a prison sentence? I don't think so. I think there should be more focus on the rehabilitation of offenders rather than the punishment.

Perhaps I should rephrase that. I think there must be more focus on the rehabilitation of offenders rather than the punishment. I believe it is a necessity in the steps toward a more civilized society.

I can think of no justification for Capital Punishment other than the ease it grants to just ignore societies most disturbed rather than face and try to study them, hopefully leading to such an understanding as to eventually enable society to aviod creating such offenders in future.

Allow me to finish with a few quotes:

Originally posted by nathraq

Let the families of the victims decide how the perp is punished. That will make for some creative punishments!

and

Originally posted by mako0956

Lethal injectioon is too good. Take him out back and beat him with a shovel for that matter

Hardly moral responses, again see vengance and justice above.

Originally posted by FredT

But the bible is kind of a guide book of Gods teachings told in narritive forme no?

I have heard many things, including many saying that The Bible is the word of God. I feel it would appear a tad arrogant to interpret God's word. Let's not bring The Bible on this, one only has to put the sentences, "Thou shalt not kill" and "If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, " together to see that it just doesn't make sense.

Should morals be involved in this topic? Yes, definately. I think it essential. Should religion become involved. If you will excuse the pun - God no.

Originally posted by FredT

The anti- group always seems to lose sight of the fact that the murderer never cared about the rights of the victem or what was right or wrong.

Two wrongs do not make a right, a harsher person might tell you to grow up a little.

Originally posted by mako0956

we should heed the words of Marquette University Professor John McAdams, who concludes, "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

Pathetically symplistic. All this shows is that the title "Proffesor" does not gaurentee quality.

Originally posted by mako0956

Apparrently you have not been the victim of a violent crime nor have been in the presence of someone who has, your opinion would be dramatically different.

You seem to be of the opinion that everyone can be rehabilitated. They can't. These people are predators and are extremely dangerous to society.
(Bag up a few murder victims and let me see how your opinion changes).

So should the police, who may 'bag up a few murder victims' as you so eloquently put it be responsible for deciding the punishment for criminals? No, dealing with such a thing ensures you are not impartial. It would, I suggest, make you ineligible to sit on the jury for the case. Hence it is obvious to the law that dealing with such cases does affect your views and obviously bias your viewpoint. That is why the police don't make the laws, but enforce them. Many people seem to have grapsed this concept without any problem. How ironic then that you do not.

Originally posted by FredT

How does it do more harm?

If you honestly cannot see how executing someone on the off chance that they cannot be rehabilitated harms society then... well, such comments leave me speechless.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

We do not kill a rabid dog who bit a child because we want revenge. We do not kill this dangerous dog because we think it will stop other dogs from attacking children. We put these dogs down because they are a danger to society.

I am stunned that you should equate the justice of a civilized society with the treatment of dogs. We should treat people like animals? Please take note of the section above where I mention that a society can be judged by the way in which it treats it's criminals. We are supposed to be a civilized society.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Civilization was BUILT on the death penalty, you seem to not get this fact.

Thje very first code of laws, the Code of Hammaraubi, stated clearly the death penalty was crucial to society.

Eye for an Eye, and a Life for a Life.

So, your question, does the death penalty belong in a civilized society is clearly answered: YES. Civilization was built upon it, and every civilization since the very first has had the death penalty.

Witch burning anyone. I had hope we had advanced somewhat over time.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
I used to believe in the death penalty but i do not anymore.
I dont think you should take away anyones life, if you can help it.

But what about the life of the victem that was taken?

Look, this is supposed to be about justice, the validation of the death penalty, not retribution or vengeance.

Originally posted by Amuk

Would you want the man who raped and tortured your 5 yearold to death to spend 6 years behind bars and be released to do it again?

That IS what happens without the death penality

No, that IS what happens with a flawed legal system and failure to rehabilitate. Should we look at those issues, or should we just sod it all and just execute them?

Originally posted by TACHYON

Now let me ask you anti death penalty people. Would you want these "rehabilitated" murderers living next to you?

Err... well if they were "rehabilitated" then why would I mind. I will refer to the dictionary definition posted above. I suggest you take time to read it. No - I will put it here for you:

rehabilitated
adj : (of persons) restored to health or useful life; "rehabilitated prisoners"

Definition
rehabilitate verb [T]
to return someone or something to a good or healthy condition, state or way of living:
The prison service should try to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can lead normal lives when they leave prison.

Now, do you understand that a truly rehabilitated prisoner offers no threat?

I feel that society is morally obliged, to itself, not the offender to learn to deal with these people and thus deliver to us the promise of a better tommorow.

Jack

Originally posted by FredT
A I have pointed about I fully support mandatory DNA testing for murderers. At that point if guilt is proven and confirmed through DNA testing, what possible purpose could 10 years of appeals allow? I also oppose apeals for the "cruel and unusual" resons, or other procedural issues. If the convict has a real issue then its legitamate to allow for appeals. Beyond that its activist lawyers prolonging the enevitable.

It's my opinion that the main problem with capital punishment lies in the act of legitimizing murder in favor of blood-thirst and need for violent vengeance, which in essence is an attempt to right a wrong with another wrong and contradicts the idea of not accepting the act of murder in a civilized society. The fact that human error on numerous occasions have caused innocents to be executed are just horrific examples of how the actual use of capital punishment keeps failing as a practice.

As to the question of considering DNA testing, in cases it can be used, as the fail-safe solution to reduce the delays and costs of the trial process. First off; I don't think you disagree that a person cannot be considered guilty as long there is the smallest reasonable doubt. Hence, until a suspect is proven guilty - beyond reasonable doubt - he/she can't and should not be considered guilty nor treated as such. Now, forensic investigators take many precautions to prevent mistakes, but human error can never be reduced to zero. Consequently (which is also the recommendation of the National Research Council) forensic DNA is and should be considered as just one of many types of evidence. It is crucial that other clues are examined with equal scrutiny; motive, weapon, and/or additional evidence linking a suspect to the crime scene. The general logic behind this the same as used when DNA-testing can't be used; the more evidence we have collected and the more carefully we reason, the more valid the inferences. Subsequently the less likeliness that samples from a particular suspect may have been planted, on purpose or by accident, at a certain crime scene. In conclusion, even in cases where DNA-testing can be used, still considering the ever important and crucial procedural safeguards required by the courts in capital cases, murder trials still take considerably longer in cases when the death penalty is involved, which inevitably increases the time and cost of the administration of criminal justice.

Lethal injection has been ruled as NOT cruel and unusual.

Again, this is the interpretation of what is to be considered cruel and unusual in states retaining the death penalty. The fact that the very use of legalized murder keeps being highly questioned all over the world, as well as within the U.S., makes the argument of the actual chosen manner of killing secondary. Is it your opinion that, if one individual were to murder another with the use of a manner equal to lethal injection, the penalty for this act shouldn't be as severe as, say the penalty for a homicide where a gun was used?

...once you violate the laws of the state, most of the constituional protections simply do not apply. By your logic life in prison could be defined as cruel and unusual.

Well, what constitutional protections one chooses to consider acceptable to be disregarded for an individual violating the laws of the state, is a matter of opinion and again, essentially the moral ethics of a civilized society. I could just as easily claim that by your reasoning, torture should not be considered a cruel and unusual manner of punishment for violators of state law.

Lethal Injection seems much less cruel in that context.

So, merciful killings is what you're proposing here? Your answer to a failing prison system/environment is to kill the inmates merely because you feel sorry for them? Priceless.

More importantly, the Founding Fathers who adopted the Bill of Rights banning "cruel and unusual punishment" had no problem with implementing the death penalty.

Have your society not evolved and changed quite a bit since then? Or is it your opinion that the exact interpretation of the Bill of Rights used in the United States of the late 1700's are to be considered those of a society that cannot evolve further, hence should be adopted in today's, as well as future societies? Wouldn't you agree that this scripture came out of the questioning of the laws and acts of their society of those days?

Other nations are just that other nations. Simply because other countries in the world do not have the death penalty does not mean we should follow thier lead. Should we go with the flow and follow the rest of the world on every issue? NO. Americans have voted on the issue and have approved of capital punishment. What other countries do in not germane in this issue.

Since you chose to bring up the question of public opinion; on what exactly do you base your own opinion? Would you suddenly want to abolish capital punishment if the majority of states within the U.S. (and its citizens) were to demand this abolition? Continuing the issue of public opinion within the U.S., according to the most recent poll presented by Gallup, when posed with life imprisonment without parole as an alternative to capital punishment as the penalty for murder, the current margin is 50% to 46% in favor of the death penalty over life imprisonment, whereas last years (2003) numbers were 53% vs 43%.

"Death penalty opponents love to assume that the principal purpose for capital punishment is deterrence, possibly realizing it is a perfect straw argument. Tangible proof of deterrence alone is not a valid reason for capital punishment (or any other form of punishment, for that matter), nor is it the main rationale employed by astute death penalty advocates. As Christian writer C.S. Lewis observes, "[deterrence] in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. Why, in Heaven�s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? -- unless, of course, I deserve it." Inflicting a penalty merely to deter -- rather than to punish for deeds done -- is the very definition of cruelty. A purely deterrent penalty is one where a man is punished -- not for something that he did -- but for something someone else might do. Lewis explained the logical end of this argument: "If deterrence is all that matters, the execution of an innocent man, provided the public think him guilty, would be fully justified."

The fact that you chose to use a quote like this makes me wonder whether you've actually read it and properly thought it through? First, you do realize that this contradicts the fact that deterrence have long been recognized by the courts as one of the main purposes of criminal punishment? Secondly deterrence is not to be considered the same thing as preemptive or incapacitative. The person you quoted seems unsure indeed of the actual meaning of deterrence. As to the use of deterrence as the single reason for punishment - who said anything about doing so? Deterrence is but one of the issues to be considered when looking at what can be an acceptable manner of punishment. When it comes to the actual choosing between those acceptable punishments, it's obviously a question of the severity of the crime perpetrated. Furthermore, the fact remains that the government of a society has an important obligation to its citizens, which includes that of a role model and a protector of human life. As Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the Pennsylvania Prison Society and early believer in the so called 'brutalization effect' concluded; having a death penalty actually increases criminal conduct. And, like I've previously presented; the majority of evidence supports this argument. If the protection of citizens are to be considered as one of the most important obligations; how can one possibly ignore the vast preponderance of evidence showing an obvious increase in homicide where capital punishment is used?

Men should be punished for their own crimes and not merely to deter others.

I never disputed this opinion.

...the death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes.

As I'm beginning to find it rather tiresome having to repeat the same answers all over again, I'll just quote what I've stated before on this particular matter:

"...this is actually an incapacitative, not a deterrent, effect of executions. And like I stated earlier about deterrence; the vast preponderance of available evidence does in fact, not support capital punishment to be more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder. And as to the question of incapacitating an individual from repeating a heinous act; equally as effective as capital punishment but far less inhumane is the use of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole."

Oh No the UN!!!! Should I recant? I think not!

The United States is one of the members of The United Nations and have also signed The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now, you are obviously free to agree or, as in this case, disagree with that wich is presented by U.N. through its Declarations (i.e. in this case, the affirmed desire to eventually abolish capital punishment worldwide).

Originally posted by maco0956
Just out of curiousity, what is your country of origin, or are you a citizen of?

I'm going to resist the temptation of asking what that has got to do with this discussion. My country of origin is Sweden; which is also where I currently live. Oh, and I'm also a Swedish citizen.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
One thing though, why put them away for life? Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for them to continue living when they've not let another human continue living.

The issue of cost has been covered earlier in this thread. However in short, and though I do agree that criminals should pay their own dues to society as much as possible, considering the actual costs; capital punishment isn't and has never been a better and more economical alternative to imprisonment for life. Actually very much the contrary.

Edit: Clarification about FredT's comment concerning the UN (which was misinterpreted).

[edit on 5-9-2004 by Durden]