The death penalty. It's time for another look.

Let's go back to one of the old tried and true methods: The firing squad is a lot cheaper, quicker, and more effective. Once sentenced to death, one should be executed forthwith, and publicly. I think it would serve as more of a deterrent when people see others executed publicly.

Scream to who? To what? Call it in and you get "Welcome to the complaint department...This call will be recorded for accuracy and training purposes...For complaints about Putin, press 1, For Monsanto concerns press 2, If you think you're being followed by an alphabet group press 3. if you want to mentally review this call and press nothing...Hang up now...

The highlighting of this latest issue is a typical 'Problem/Reaction/Solution' attempt at bringing in the next barbaric method - the guillotine - just pay attention folks it's coming.

a reply to: Diderot

I fervently do not support it. It is fundamentally a religious and barbaric practice which no civilized society should exercise. But the US is 60% comprised of savages barely out of the primordial ooze who believe in spooky oogah boogah nonsense written a very long time ago by people who couldn't even figure out basic sanitation.

a reply to: th3dudeabides

Yet we are the most powerful nation on the planet.

Nothing wrong with the death penalty.

a reply to: charles1952

Hello again Charles.

"And society as a whole? "We believe that killing a person unlawfully is the worst crime which can be committed. We have decided to impose the harshest possible sentence to reflect our beliefs and sense of Justice." Are you willing to throw that away?"

I am quite willing to throw away that which I believe does more harm than good.

"1. The death penalty is a poor deterrent of capital crimes. This applies not to a repeat capital crime by the candidate for execution, but to a general deterrent to others who might contemplate a capital crime.
I don't think it has to be. That's not it's purpose. But even if it was, there's a very good reason that it's not a deterrent."

Since you agree that it is not a deterrent, then to me it has no value other than vengeance.

Vengeance, by itself, diminishes humanity.

a reply to: th3dudeabides

If the death penalty could be shown to reduce crime,
then I would support it.
It doesn't
and I don't.

a reply to: th3dudeabides

You've confused me.

If you say that you don't support the death penalty, but you make statements which seem to come from savages barely out of the primordial ooze, you appear to contradict yourself.

May I suggest that instead of invective, you consider the arguments that have been made in favor of the death penalty, and refute them?

I don't mind if you want to look at my comments on the first page. I'd be glad to discuss them with you even if you have to also call me names.

originally posted by: Diderot

Today, 60% of Americans support the death penalty, and I know that very many of you here at ATS fervently support it. I just have a few points that I would like you to consider.

1. The death penalty is a poor deterrent of capital crimes. This applies not to a repeat capital crime by the candidate for execution, but to a general deterrent to others who might contemplate a capital crime.
2. The death penalty is extremely expensive compared to a sentence of life without parole.
3. The death penalty has shown to be increasingly cruel, which is a constitutional prohibition. In 2014, states are seeking a viable (pardon the pun) access to drugs for lethal injection. The latest execution in Arizona lasted almost two hours.
4. The USA is in a very select club, along with China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Belarus (the only European nation that executes its prisoners.
5. Our death penalty has a long history of mistakes and miscarriages of justice.

My question to the true believers: In your mind, is this perfect justice?

1. I agree with you here because I don't think that anyone who commits these crimes takes time to stop and think about the death penalty......or just don't care.

2. I disagree with you here because even though I DO NOT have the figures I would guess that it costs far more to house and feed a person for 30-50 years than put them down.

3. disagree. I think overall the process has been made very easy on the offender. Yeah, this last one was botched but nothing in life is 100% and sometimes s__t happens. I still feel he got what he deserved. I think we should just go back to hangings. Ropes are cheap and can be reused and if done properly is pretty dang quick, snapped neck!

4. What other countries do is irrelevant to me. No matter what your stance on the death penalty is world acceptance should be the last of your considerations. Justice should be the first. There are FAR, FAR more countries than 5 that use the death penalty, most of them don't even bother with a trial.

5. Where do you get your figures for this statement? Data I found states that since 1977 there have been 1,385 executions in the USA, no record of how many had something go wrong. There has been 37 executions in Arizona with one bad procedure. If you have different stats please inform me. 1 out of 38 is acceptable to me, the end result is still death and even though he was trying to breath there is no pain, way better than his victims died.

a reply to: vonclod

Sadly, it seems that the sole function of capital punishment is vengeance.
Justice equals pain, to some.

originally posted by: Wiseupall
The highlighting of this latest issue is a typical 'Problem/Reaction/Solution' attempt at bringing in the next barbaric method - the guillotine - just pay attention folks it's coming.

Why not just implant every newborn with a chip in the brain and all you have to do is push a button and "splat".
Don't even need a trial.... our future?

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: th3dudeabides

If the death penalty could be shown to reduce crime,
then I would support it.
It doesn't
and I don't.

It's not a deterrent, it's a punishment!

My opinion.

According to the OP I should comment on whether it's time for another look, so I would like to register my opinion on the death penalty.

It's time for another look!

a reply to: mwood

"2. I disagree with you here because even though I DO NOT have the figures I would guess that it costs far more to house and feed a person for 30-50 years than put them down."

Sorry, but capital punishment is far more expensive that life without parole. There are many more appeals and judicial reviews involved.

"3. disagree. I think overall the process has been made very easy on the offender."

I have no reply to this one.

a reply to: mwood

"Why not just implant every newborn with a chip in the brain and all you have to do is push a button and "splat".
Don't even need a trial.... our future?"

A little dark humor.
Right?

a reply to: Diderot

Dear Diderot,

Thank you for responding to me. It appears we're at the start of a useful discussion and I'm grateful to you for that.

What, in your mind, is the difference between "vengeance" and "justice?" For me, the difference is that justice, among other things, imposes penalties in accordance with law, vengeance doesn't. That difference seems to be supported by dictionaries. That makes it appear as though you're using the wrong word. Perhaps for emotional effect?

I quite agree with you that

Vengeance, by itself, diminishes humanity.

But Justice is necessary for humanity to exist.

You also seem to be saying that you're willing to dispense with justice if you believe it results in more harm than good. Should the Zimmerman judge have thrown out the "Not Guilty" verdict because of the riots it was going to cause?

Yes, I agree with you that the death penalty, as it is, is not a good deterrent. I explained why. Not for philosophical or moral reasons, but because it occurs so extremely rarely that it does not enter the murderer's calculations. Would it be a deterrent if 3/4 of the murderers were executed? That might very well make it a deterrent.

If it became a deterrent, perhaps you'd approve?

"And society as a whole? "We believe that killing a person unlawfully is the worst crime which can be committed. We have decided to impose the harshest possible sentence to reflect our beliefs and sense of Justice." Are you willing to throw that away?"

I am quite willing to throw away that which I believe does more harm than good.

Let me explain the other comment in my post. Assume, for a moment, you have kidnapped a child. The ransom has been paid and you're getting ready to let the child go. Then the thought hits you, "She knows my voice, which is distinctive, and she might have seen my face that time when the mask slipped. She's the only witness against me. I can't be executed for murder, and I've got a better chance of getting away if she doesn't talk." Who gets to tell the dead child's parents?

Identical problem for the rapist of a child. I haven't looked up all of the state statutes, but two of the first three I checked allowed for life imprisonment as the penalty.

Are you so sure that execution as an option does more harm than good? I'm not.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: vonclod



Sadly, it seems that the sole function of capital punishment is vengeance.

Justice equals pain, to some.

Exactly..why pretend otherwise, almost 0% of murderers are thinking..ok im just going to get 20-life ok im doing it, they do it because they think they will not get caught..deterent is not in the picture. Prison should be prison though.

a reply to: Diderot

Dear Diderot,

I was just poking around and found an interesting site dedicated to collecting opinions on key issues and giving equal time to about three experts on each side. This was not listed as pro or con, but it does address your belief that the death penalty doesn't deter crime.

If the death penalty could be shown to reduce crime,then I would support it. It doesn't

it appears that top scientists don't agree with you.

Daniel S. Nagin, PhD, Professor of Public Policy and Statistics at Carnegie Mellon University, and John V. Pepper, PhD, Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia, wrote in their 2012 book Deterrence and the Death Penalty:

"...[R]esearch to date of the effect of capital punishment on crime is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on crime rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on crime rates.

Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the crime rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the crime rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment."

So, at least in these expert's minds, talking about the death penalty and deterrence doesn't have any scientific backing. Maybe it does deter, maybe it doesn't, maybe it does neither. If the argument is that the death penalty should be opposed because it doesn't deter, then the argument is wrong. Same with the death penalty does deter.

Have you got another objection to it which can be supported?

With respect,
Charles1952

Justice is just the end result a process that can often be flawed unfairly applied to the poor and minories..penalty wise. How is that just?

a reply to: vonclod

Dear vonclod,

Now that is a meaningful question, thanks.

I think we can agree that all societies including ours need a system of justice. No country is advanced enough to have a computerized system, heck, we don't even allow polygraphs as evidence because of their unreliability. We're pretty much stuck, therefore, with a justice system run by men. That means it's going to get things wrong on occasion.

Some errors we're just not going to be able to eliminate. This simplest example is when it's a "he said - she said," and we believe the wrong one.

But other errors, such as discrimination based on income or race, have to be stamped out. Men are trying to do that, but they won't clear it completely. Anytime a judge or juror has to make a decision, it is influenced by a dozen things. Maybe they don't even know about them.

And, honestly, sometimes wealth and minority status to have a place in our consideration. What happens if two people are suspected of stealing a 1997 Nova. One of the suspects is broke, and the other has three Jaguars in his garage. Obviously, people are going to ask why would the rich guy steal a car?

Or if there is a gang killing in Chicago arising from a fight between two Black gangs. No White guy will be convicted for that one. He'd be nuts to even be near two Black gangs.

We will never live under a perfectly just system, we keep trying to improve it, because people like you keep reminding us that it isn't perfect and needs work in one area or another.

As far as penalties go, here's a long study of 85 earlier studies:
www.ncjrs.gov...

I haven't gone through it but in their summary of results they find that American Indians, Asians, and Whites are all sentenced at the same level, Hispanics and Blacks more harshly. A lot of that difference is the difference in penalties for Crack and Powder.

I didn't spend enough time reading it, but there are factors which go through a judge's mind. One possibility is gang affiliation. Who knows what the rest are.

I remember a couple of cases in which the individuals were accused of the same crime. It was a felony, but a low level one. One of the two was terrified, prepared a confession, cooperated in every way. I recommended a year probation. The other individual was basically the opposite. The evidence was there, but he continued to maintain a "spit in your face, so what attitude." I recommended a year in prison, which gave him a chance to learn, "so what."

Right calls? I don't know. I'm just a guy and did the best I knew at the time. But that's about all a human system can do.

With respect,
Charles1952