Death Sentence Vs Life Imprisonment

[wolram]

For 1st degree murder.
I think it would be best to ship them out to some deserted island, may be put a mine field around it, and let them fend for them selfs.

 

[Cyrus]

You mean send them to Australia again?

 

[Kurdt]

Do you think that by "explaining" the goodness of humans by blaming "exceptions" on mental illness, the environment, society and other excuses is going to change one thing about the fact the we are who we are due to millions of years of evolution?

The attitude that we are who we are is pretty negative. To me it says there is no point trying to change because we are this way anyway. the point I'm making is that if there is a reason for someone to murder be it mental instability or whatever (this is pre-meditated and not self defence stuff) then perhaps that person can be helped like anyone else who has a psychological problem.

The problem also with evolution is its not perfect, that's why there are genetic diseases and faulty genes. The fact is that in this modern era we can do something about it and not just leave people to rot saying well its your fault because we evolved with a certain percentage of murderers in our society and you happen to be one of them.

 

[wolram]

You mean send them to Australia again?

No that is way big, just a small island.

 

[MeJennifer]

The attitude that we are who we are is pretty negative.

To me this has nothing to do with attitude Kurdt. Something is either true or false, regardless whether it is negative, positive, beautiful, Utopian etc.
My attitude in this matter is frankly rather one of indifference. Which is usually the best approach in assessing something objectively. Too much subjectivity guarantees a distorted view wouldn't you say?

To me it says there is no point trying to change because we are this way anyway.

Well look at history and see what happens when some people are trying to change others, "for the good" of course. Ideologies that require people to start thinking differently usually lead to brutal suppression of thought and expression.

The problem also with evolution is its not perfect, that's why there are genetic diseases and faulty genes. The fact is that in this modern era we can do something about it and not just leave people to rot saying well its your fault because we evolved with a certain percentage of murderers in our society and you happen to be one of them.

And you would not consider that statement arrogant? The attitude of "we humans can do better than nature"? We are the product of nature, what is wrong in finding some pride in that? Are you saying that that what created us (evolution) is wrong?

Don't get me wrong I respect and understand exactly what you are saying.
And no snideness or ill-will intended on my side!

 

[Kurdt]

I don't think that attempting to do something about the problem of murderers in a society is arrogant at all. In fact that is part of our nature as far as I am concerned. We have opposing points of view and could argue forever so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[J77]

Of course the death penalty should be abolished!

Mistakes can be and are made with "lifers" - it's a good job they're still around to be freed.

 

[Anttech]

Have we not debated this one to death already (pun intended).

Anyway my 2 eurocents:

The death penalty as a behavior corrective measure does not work obviously, because there isn't much to correct once you are dead.

The death penalty as a deterrent does not work also IMHO, as if it did Murder rates, Rapes would happen far less frequently than they do.

The death penalty as a way to keep criminals of the streets does work, however with Maximum security prisons as safe as they are, could be argued as just as effective.

So the only description I can think of that the death penalty really does outweigh life imprisonment is for Revenge purposes.

I for one don't think the government should sponsor Revenge through the courts, it brings them to the same level as gangsters revenging the loss of one of their 'family'

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

States which have the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who abolished it. Also those who reinstituted it saw no drop in murder rates.

The money it costs to keep a criminal on death row (legal bills) is greater than keeping them incarcerated for life.

Interestingly the law on this comes from the Old testaments, eye for an eye law, the Jews had one punishment that warranted the death sentence and that was murder. This draconic legal system was it is purported the inspiration for Americas laws. By the way Israel no longer has a death sentence, meaning they are more progressive than perhaps those of a fundementalist leaning, if you get my drift.

How do you judge a man as being incorrigable, is there a standard evaluation test that predicts sixty years of the rest of someone's life, who are you to play God?

How can a man atone for his crimes if he's dead? How do we know that he may never give anything back to society, serve as an example of a repentant man, lead others not to make his mistakes, we don't he's dead, darn

Revenge does not bring contentment in the famillies in question, it does not bring back the lost familly member and it is in the long term of no real consolation.

Quite apart from the fact that it's old fashoined and somewhat barbaric, The US I think will follow Europes lead in the end and fewer and fewer states will use it. I've yet to see anyone convince me that it does anything except waste money end life and increase murder rates.

 

[arildno]

States which have the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who abolished it. Also those who reinstituted it saw no drop in murder rates.

The money it costs to keep a criminal on death row (legal bills) is greater than keeping them incarcerated for life.

This is one of the main reasons why I voted for life imprisonment only; death penalty does not "work" (in a generally preventive way), as it is practised in Western countries today.


One might wonder whether public torture&executions might bring an element of terror into the general population preventing them from doing crime, but from the (rather meagre) statistics from earlier Europe when this was the norm, it seems that the level of crime was, in fact, a lot higher than it is today.

So, the scare strategy in preventing crime seems singularly unsuccessful, nor are orgies of vengeful violence something we should participate in as a society, IMHO.

 

[J77]

This is one of the main reasons why I voted for life imprisonment only; death penalty does not "work" (in a generally preventive way), as it is practised in Western countries today.

You mean, as practised by the US: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

 

[arunbg]

In most of the recent cases of death penalty in the US that I have come across, the punishment is carried out at leat 10-15 years after the crime has been committed .What's the use of that? How do you know the criminal is not a changed man ?
Right to life is fundamental and no court or state has the authority to take anybody's life, period.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

By the way Israel no longer has a death sentence.

Israel did have a death penalty on the books at one time. Adolph Eichmann was the only person executed under that law. So far, I haven't found any information on the web indicating that the law had changed.

 

[MeJennifer]

Right to life is fundamental and no court or state has the authority to take anybody's life, period.

Feel free how "right to life is fundamental".
It is clearly your prerogative to have an opinion about death penalty. But to present it as some universal law, is just a sofist way of promoting your idealism.

 

[Anttech]

So he is free to have an opinion, but not express that opinion??

You totally lost me, seems like "doublespeak" or whatever they call it

 

[PRDan4th]

The best argument against the death penalty is that convictions can be in error! Executions cannot be reversed.

 

[Pengwuino]

States which have the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who abolished it. Also those who reinstituted it saw no drop in murder rates.

Since very few states don't have the death penalty, that's a statistically rediculous statement as there's no data no real way of comparing how effective it is or isn't.

Revenge does not bring contentment in the famillies in question, it does not bring back the lost familly member and it is in the long term of no real consolation.

I assume you speak for all families of murder victims?

 

[arildno]

Were does this notion come from that murder must be some kind of mental illness?
Perhaps from the absurd idea that since "humans must be good and if that is contradicted by the facts then they must 'obviously' be mentally ill, by definition"?

What a few thousand year of history has shown us is that humans murder for all kind of reasons, ranging from pleasure to self defense. Murder is simply a human activity, which by the way is not uncommon in the animal world either.

Culture is also natural to humans, including the formation and upholding of norms.

If we assume that there exist a core set of naturally given personalities each of which can develop in its own ways in different directions due to cultural influences, then it is consistent with this that different cultures will/may produce different outsiders/criminal types.

Once a developed personality type differs markedly from the average ones, then the term "mentally ill" may well be appropriate.

With the state monopolization of violence, it was imperative to regulate the subjects' behaviour, for example by new forms of child raising techniques.

Our aversion towards exerting violence is certainly culturally induced, and
any Roman (slave, poor or free) would, for example, be appalled by our submissiveness towards, say, verbal insults, in particular by our reluctance to punch the offender in the face.

 

[MeJennifer]

So he is free to have an opinion, but not express that opinion??

You totally lost me, seems like "doublespeak" or whatever they call it

No read what I write, he is free to have it and free to express it as far as I am concerned.

However he is making an extraordinary claim that "right to life is fundamental" and above any judicial system.
So I call him on it and ask him to support that claim.
That's all.

 

[Anttech]

I have read your post 10 times now, and it still doesn't make any sense for me. Your most recent post does more so, however you are still calling upon someone to support an opinion, that you don't mind him to have, yet you are asking him to support his opinion like you would support facts, No?

is it not like me saying, In my opinion the sky is Red with green dots, in that picture and you asking me to support this...

Anyway let me get this straight, you are saying that the life and being allowed to live is not a fundamental right of humans?

 

[Pengwuino]

Raise your hand if anyone thinks anyone else is going to be convinced of the opposite viewpoint through this thread.

 

[MeJennifer]

Anyway let me get this straight, you are saying that the life and being allowed to live is not a fundamental right of humans?

Only a judicial system can declare something a fundamental right.
If his opinion is that country XYZ should instantiate a law that makes the "right to life" a fundamental right then that is clearly an opinion that one either agrees or disagrees with.

But that is not what was claimed, what was claimed was:

Right to life is fundamental and no court or state has the authority to take anybody's life, period.

In other words, his poses a fundamental right that apparently stands above any judicial system.
That appears to be simply a form sophism.

 

[MeJennifer]

If we assume that there exist a core set of naturally given personalities each of which can develop in its own ways in different directions due to cultural influences, then it is consistent with this that different cultures will/may produce different outsiders/criminal types.

Once a developed personality type differs markedly from the average ones, then the term "mentally ill" may well be appropriate.

So in your line of thinking you do not consider mental illness as only a medical condition, but it also applies to people who do not fit in ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Since very few states don't have the death penalty, that's a statistically rediculous statement as there's no data no real way of comparing how effective it is or isn't.

Aw come now it proves that it isn't a deterent since it makes no difference to murder rates when you reinstate it, your not being reasonable, you could say that the states that have a death penalty are inherently the most violent too therefore they always would of had higher murder rates, but you'd have a hard time proving it, it at least indicates that there is no correlatory effect of a death sentence being a deterrent, and if this is the case is there really any point in throwing money at it, since it fails to achieve anything?

I assume you speak for all families of murder victims?

Actually I'm speaking about people who told me about the situation so it's anecdotal, but you'd have to be a pretty vindictive person to think the death of the perpatrator is going to bring you any comfort in the long run. I'll warrant some people may be like that, but it's not healthy to bear that sort of grudge surely?

Israel did have a death penalty on the books at one time. Adolph Eichmann was the only person executed under that law. So far, I haven't found any information on the web indicating that the law had changed.

Yes so did the Early Jews, right up until they reformed there country. It's an ancient law, perhaps I never made that clear and one they didn't want to reinstate in a progressive penal system that they have in Israel.

Raise your hand if anyone thinks anyone else is going to be convinced of the opposite viewpoint through this thread.

Give me a list of pros and I'll be convinced, this is a commonly occurring thread and I've yet to see anyone produce a convincing counter argument to the anti position, it seems to me that the only reason to keep these laws is conservatism, ie it's always been that way why change it?

 

[Anttech]

In other words, his poses a fundamental right that apparently stands above any judicial system.
That appears to be simply a form sofism.

Is it really a sofism? Care to enlighten me on what Islamic mysticism has to do with the opinion that life is a fundamental right?

 Sofism \So"fism\, n.
     Same as Sufism.
     [1913 Webster]

  Sufism \Su"fism\, n.
     A refined mysticism among certain classes of Mohammedans,
     particularly in Persia, who hold to a kind of pantheism and
     practice extreme asceticism in their lives. [Written also
     sofism.]

 

[quantumdude]

It seems obvious enough to me that MeJennifer is talking about sophism, or if you prefer, sophistry.

 

[Evo]

Sophism: 1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive

Anttech, this is the correct definition.

 

[Anttech]

It really wasnt obvious to me, thus the question. Glad you cleared it up, because I was having a hard time understand what that was all about.

 

[MeJennifer]

Again just for the good order, I am not arguing against someone's opinion.

Whether something is a right is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Rights are granted under a legal system. They exist or they do not.

To state that such and such is a universal right above any legal system is simply nonsense, technically incorrect.
That was my point.

 

[Pengwuino]

Aw come now it proves that it isn't a deterent since it makes no difference to murder rates when you reinstate it, your not being reasonable, you could say that the states that have a death penalty are inherently the most violent too therefore they always would of had higher murder rates, but you'd have a hard time proving it, it at least indicates that there is no correlatory effect of a death sentence being a deterrent, and if this is the case is there really any point in throwing money at it, since it fails to achieve anything?

Now you'll need to provide a source...

Give me a list of pros and I'll be convinced, this is a commonly occurring thread and I've yet to see anyone produce a convincing counter argument to the anti position, it seems to me that the only reason to keep these laws is conservatism, ie it's always been that way why change it?

It comes down to being a moral issue no matter how many excuses people make up for either side. Every argument I've seen is pretty much total BS when you pull the argument out of a vacuum and apply it to the real world and the rest of the judicial system. Think about your argument when applied to other judicial punishments. Doesn't work does it? Ahh shucks.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It's been a while since I read all this stuff, in other words give me some time and I'll find the original thread I linked, in a thread a long time ago :D

Don't wait up but I'll get something, I don't make a habbit of making baseless accusations. Although some web sites are patently biased IIRC so it's a wheat from the chaff deal.

 

[Kurdt]

So in your line of thinking you do not consider mental illness as only a medical condition, but it also applies to people who do not fit in ?

I think the point he was making here as I have been, is that through natural processes a culture develops a normal behaviour pattern in which most people in that culture adhere to. Somebody who significantly deviates from this behaviour could be classified as having a particular mental imbalance be it genetic or environmental/social. The old notion of distinct mental illness and the classic image of the raving loony in a mental institution is now being replaced these days with an understanding that an individual may display mild traits of a particular recognised disorder while not actually having the full range of traits classicly ascribed to such individuals. This is known as a mental spectrum disorder. The spectrum term indicating that characteristics can range from minute traces to the full range of mental disfunction.

My original point when I brought this up was inreference to somebody who goes out and murders in a pre-meditative manner. I was merely suggesting that these individuals display behaviour far from the norm in todays society that could be ascribed to a mild inbalance. Just a theory that's all

 

[arildno]

Note that personalities we would call raving loonys today could be well-integrated, and indeed, respected individuals in other cultures (like shamans)

The fact that we now withdraw from such persons, and truth to tell, look down upon them, significantly reduces their life quality (and their ability to function), and they are, for example, left in a void of loneliness&self-loathing never experienced by their previous "personality relatives".

So yes, mental illness does have some contingent, historical features attached to it.

As for the "strictly medical" condition, such criteria don't as yet exist when it comes to mental afflictions; the most objective one can do is a careful evaluation of the extent to which the individual has the ability to function on his own. But, as stated, an individual's ability to function is dependent upon which society he is expected to function in..

 

[arildno]

arildno: I concur with this point of view but perhaps go further to say that a lot of petty crimes are born from social factors which largely need to be resolved in society. Beyond that some serious crimes are performed by people whom I imagine have some sort of mental illness. ... The fact that somebody killed is indeed terrible but if they are fond to be of unsound mind then they deserve the chance to be treated and live a normal life.

Certainly, I agree with much of this. As for my term "forcibly retained", this is readily open for the misinterpretation "staying in jail as is done today".
There is a whole lot of other supervision forms and liberty-restrictive arrangements that might be far more efficient than letting some people rot in a jail cell, with an hour or so a day outside.


However, as long as those that have been damaged by unfortunate societal factors exist, some form of efficient dealing with these individuals must also be present.

 

[Gokul43201]

Notice how i said nothing as to the merits of the death penalty...

This seems to be the pattern among those (40% of respondents) in support of the death penalty.

The only specific claim of merit raised in this thread is here:

Some consider it simply an effective deterrent for others.
"Here, look! This is what's going to happen to you if you do not obey the law!". The criminal is used as an example and warning for others.

Is there any statistical support for that? I'd like to see it.

Someone did raise the possibility of having a dangerous criminal escape from captivity. Again, do we have statistics on the number of jailbreaks from high security prisons?

The only other "merit" talked about indirectly is the achievement of revenge.

This really isn't a debate if the voters in support don't support their vote.