Death Sentence Vs Life Imprisonment

[russ_watters]

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.

Fine, but could you clear up what to me seems like a fair number of contradictions between statements of yours:

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.

Don't those two statements contradict each other? If reinstituting it means no drop, then doesn't that mean states have the same rate with it as without it - not a higher rate as in your first sentence?

And then we have:

I've yet to see anyone convince me that it does anything except waste money end life and increase murder rates.

and:

...it makes no difference to murder rates when you reinstate it...

If the death penalty increased murder rates, then re-instituting it should increase it. But you just said "no drop" and "no difference".

And there is a logical fallicy here of assuming a causal link: unless it can be shown that instituting or abolishing it has an effect on the murder rate, then it cannot be concluded that just because states that have always had it have higher murder rates, it is because of the death penalty, as your second last sentence said. The cause-effect relationship could be the other way around: the death penalty could exist in those states because of a high historical murder rate. Or there could be no causal link at all.

There is another issue as well. The money thing. I don't think money should be an issue in a question of rights, but if the money is that important, there is another obvious solution: streamline the process. And that *may* have the added benefit of increasing the deterrence effect, if people see that a death sentence really is a death sentence, not just 20 years in and out of courtrooms.

 

[arunbg]

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

Why do you seem to grab on to technical flaws while diverting from the original spirit of the discussion ?
Right to life should be a universal right .Happy now ?

Of course most knew what I actually meant.
Still I would like to hear your opinion about mine.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do you seem to grab on to technical flaws while diverting from the original spirit of the discussion ?
Right to life should be a universal right .Happy now ?

Technical or theoretical, same question: should it be? Why?

How would you deal, for example, with a scenario where two people's rights to life interfere with each other. For example, conjoined twins: say they will likely (but not guaranteed) die if they are no separated, but if they are separated, one will likely live and the other will certainly die. Doesn't protecting an absolute individual right to life require that you not separate then?

For crime: self defence. If the right to life is universal, then self defense should not be allowed.

 

[MeJennifer]

This whole rights issue is in currently fashion.
People want rights for just about everybody and everything.
Special rights for this group, for that minority, etc.

But often it seems that they fail to see that every new right granted is taking away freedom from others.
Rights is a zero sum game.

 

[arunbg]

How would you deal, for example, with a scenario where two people's rights to life interfere with each other. For example, conjoined twins: say they will likely (but not guaranteed) die if they are no separated, but if they are separated, one will likely live and the other will certainly die. Doesn't protecting an absolute individual right to life require that you not separate then?

Good point there russ.
The same argument can also be extended to any risky operation(kidney transplant eg),where a person can be killed during surgery or have a longer lifespan as compared to an artificial kidney. How would you implement right to life there ?
In these cases I think it is best for the individual himself to be able to revoke his right to life (as is done even today) as and when he likes.

For crime: self defence. If the right to life is universal, then self defense should not be allowed.

I don't quite follow. Could you explain how you came to this conclusion ?

Cheers
Arun

 

[russ_watters]

The same argument can also be extended to any risky operation(kidney transplant eg),where a person can be killed during surgery or have a longer lifespan as compared to an artificial kidney. How would you implement right to life there ?

There is no right to life issue there: the person getting the transplant makes the choice.

In these cases I think it is best for the individual himself to be able to revoke his right to life (as is done even today) as and when he likes.

That really isn't the way rights work. Rights simply give you the choice - you can't revoke your own rights. Ie, you don't revoke your own right to live (or speak), you simply choose not to live (or speak). The difference, though, is that once you make the choice about life, you can never go back - whereas with speech, you can always change your mind because you still have the right.

I don't quite follow. Could you explain how you came to this conclusion ?

Sure. If right to life is utterly absolute, then it is always murder to purposefully take someone else's life from them. And that includes if someone pulls a gun on you and starts firing, but you manage to kill him before he kills you. In today's courts, your attacker has forfeited his right to life by jepoardizing yours and you are justified in killing him. If the right to life is total, then no justification is allowed and you would be convicted of murder.

 

[russ_watters]

The general death penalty debate is a matter of logical reasoning for the penalty. Why or why not put someone to death. There are four main resonings behind every penalty, that I can think of:

1. Punishment
2. Rehabilitation
3. Removal from society
4. Deterrence

Punishment is obvious. If someone kills someone, you "make the punishment fit the crime" as others have put it. But is that reasonable? Right to life may not be absolute, but it is generally considered to be the most absolute of any of the rights because, as I said in my last post, it is essentially the only one that can be permanently revoked by a single act. That means that great care has to be taken in revoking it, if it is done at all. Wheter or not it should be is the primary matter for opinion on this subject.

For rehabilitation, one of the standards for the death penalty is that rehabilitation has to be judged to be impossible. Repeat offenses are generally a reason for that. So this issue does not apply, though that does take a judgement call.

For removal from society is the same for death penalty and for life imprisonment without parole, so it would not be used as a justification for the death penalty.

Deterrence is a tricky one ethically. Whether or not it works, deterrence is essentially punishing one person for the possible future crimes of another and because of that it is a sticky issue for the courts.

People have mentioned money and cruelty as other lines of reasoning. I don't think money should apply to such important questions (it certainly didn't help defending against the Pinto lawsuits) and cruelty is covered by #1.

 

[arunbg]

Russ, thank you for making your position clear.
Perhaps what is required is a universal right to choice of life, that rests with the individual only.That way you don't "revoke" your right to life in the cases above, as you pointed out.

There is no right to life issue there: the person getting the transplant makes the choice.

Well, don't the conjoined twins make the choice too ?

Sure. If right to life is utterly absolute, then it is always murder to purposefully take someone else's life from them. And that includes if someone pulls a gun on you and starts firing, but you manage to kill him before he kills you. In today's courts, your attacker has forfeited his right to life by jepoardizing yours and you are justified in killing him. If the right to life is total, then no justification is allowed and you would be convicted of murder.

Of course you will be convicted for murder.Of course you have violated the right but so what ? It's still murder for self defence. Note that granting the right to choice of life does not in anyway affect the way in which a criminal is punished, apart from saving him from death penalty, if it comes to that. In this case the crime will be treated just like any other.

Cheers
Arun

 

[MeJennifer]

The general death penalty debate is a matter of logical reasoning for the penalty.

I disagree, it is simply a matter of opinion.
One is either for it, against it or has no opinion.
But there is absolutely no necessity to provide "logical reasoning" (whatever that means) in order to justify one's opinion.

Punishment is obvious. If someone kills someone, you "make the punishment fit the crime" as others have put it. But is that reasonable?

Well you tell us, do you think it is reasonable.
I suspect you will say, no it is not?
My response question would be on what ground do you base that assertion?

Right to life may not be absolute, but it is generally considered to be the most absolute of any of the rights because, as I said in my last post, it is essentially the only one that can be permanently revoked by a single act.

"Generally considered a right"?
So basically what you claim is that most people think it ought to be a right. We all know it is currently not, just look at the law to verify that. On what data do you base that claim? Are there any available polls that people generally consider the right to life a universal right? And what would you consider generally, say 80% of the population?

For removal from society is the same for death penalty and for life imprisonment without parole, so it would not be used as a justification for the death penalty.

Oh really why not?
For instance from an economical standpoint it could be a lot cheaper than put people in prison for life.
As soon as the judge declares the death penalty it could be done within 24 hours!
Personally I have no opinion about the death penalty but if it is instituted I have a strong opinion about the time it takes from sentencing to the execution. Sometimes it takes years! I find that first of all ineffective and second I find it cruel towards the sentenced. Get it over with quickly!

Deterrence is a tricky one ethically. Whether or not it works, deterrence is essentially punishing one person for the possible future crimes of another and because of that it is a sticky issue for the courts.

What's tricky about it?
In my view deterrence is the main reason that societies have penalties.

People have mentioned money and cruelty as other lines of reasoning. I don't think money should apply to such important questions (it certainly didn't help defending against the Pinto lawsuits) and cruelty is covered by #1.

You don't think it should apply? Well of course you are entitled to your opinion!
However, you were going to use reason and logic, you fail to convince me it cannot be reasoned or that it is in any way illogical to use money, or in broader sense economics, as an argument.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course you will be convicted for murder.Of course you have violated the right but so what ? It's still murder for self defence.

I was talking about how our legal system actually works. The way our legal system currently works, it is not murder. Murder, by definition, is illegal/unlawful killing. Self defense is considered a reasonable justification and therefore is not illegal/unlawful.

 

[BobG]

The general death penalty debate is a matter of logical reasoning for the penalty. Why or why not put someone to death. There are four main resonings behind every penalty, that I can think of:

1. Punishment
2. Rehabilitation
3. Removal from society
4. Deterrence

Punishment is obvious. If someone kills someone, you "make the punishment fit the crime" as others have put it. But is that reasonable? Right to life may not be absolute, but it is generally considered to be the most absolute of any of the rights because, as I said in my last post, it is essentially the only one that can be permanently revoked by a single act. That means that great care has to be taken in revoking it, if it is done at all. Wheter or not it should be is the primary matter for opinion on this subject.

For rehabilitation, one of the standards for the death penalty is that rehabilitation has to be judged to be impossible. Repeat offenses are generally a reason for that. So this issue does not apply, though that does take a judgement call.

For removal from society is the same for death penalty and for life imprisonment without parole, so it would not be used as a justification for the death penalty.

Deterrence is a tricky one ethically. Whether or not it works, deterrence is essentially punishing one person for the possible future crimes of another and because of that it is a sticky issue for the courts.

People have mentioned money and cruelty as other lines of reasoning. I don't think money should apply to such important questions (it certainly didn't help defending against the Pinto lawsuits) and cruelty is covered by #1.

The one reason you left out is to provide a feeling of security for the general population. Whether it's rational to feel more secure when a few are executed winds up being irrelevant. The important things is whether people do feel more secure in a society where the worst criminals are removed from society permanently and irrevocably.

Executing serial killers, repeat child molesters who finally kill one of their victims, and those that kill with a shocking amount of cruelty should be executed if for no other reason than to give the average person some assurance that society will punish evil and protect those that follow the rules.

 

[Kurdt]

I don't think I could ever feel secure in a society that seems inherently hypocrytical. Is it ok to kill for one reason but not another? In my view murder is either right or wrong. Personal assurance seems a rather cheap and easy way out of the complete moral dilema altogether.

 

[durt]

Execution is not murder - it's justice.

 

[Kurdt]

Execution is not murder - it's justice.

Then justify it.

 

[arunbg]

I was talking about how our legal system actually works. The way our legal system currently works, it is not murder.

I was merely referring to the fact that you don't get a heavier sentence owing to the fact that your killing was justified( of course you need to prove it).It will just be considered as a violation of right, and will be tried as is done even today.Of course, willful murder is also violation of right, but can invite a heavy sentence (life imprisonment) but not the death penalty itself.

The one reason you left out is to provide a feeling of security for the general population.

I think russ covered that in removal from society.

Executing serial killers, repeat child molesters who finally kill one of their victims, and those that kill with a shocking amount of cruelty should be executed if for no other reason than to give the average person some assurance that society will punish evil and protect those that follow the rules

Such people are quite rare (as can be seen from the lower no. of executions these days ) and it would not be quite a Herculean task to keep society safe from these few, would it ?
Multiple terms can also be meted out to such individuals, and with the right to choice of life, they can even choose between death and these terms.I'd say 99% would choose the latter. Society still remains safe.

I disagree, it is simply a matter of opinion.
One is either for it, against it or has no opinion.
But there is absolutely no necessity to provide "logical reasoning" (whatever that means) in order to justify one's opinion

You mean to say that the opinion is a mere whim ?
You can support death or life imprisonment, with absolutely no logical reason whatsoever ? Then why the debate ? Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.
From what I have seen from the debate, I am yet to see any solid argument in favour of death penalty.

Oh really why not?
For instance from an economical standpoint it could be a lot cheaper than put people in prison for life.

Are you trying to justify the killing of a person for economical reasons ?!Dear me.

What's tricky about it?
In my view deterrence is the main reason that societies have penalties

Sure it is, the tricky part only comes when dealing with the fact that death penalty is a deterrant.Although I haven't seen statistical proof, many previous posters have implied that sometimes life imprisonment is a better deterrant.

Personally I have no opinion about the death penalty but if it is instituted I have a strong opinion about the time it takes from sentencing to the execution. Sometimes it takes years! I find that first of all ineffective and second I find it cruel towards the sentenced. Get it over with quickly

Where death penalty is indeed instituted, I couldn't agree more.
Though, enough time should be given to the convicted to appeal to the highest court, which is mostly where the problem of time delay lies.

"Generally considered a right"?
So basically what you claim is that most people think it ought to be a right. We all know it is currently not, just look at the law to verify that

Well there has to be something of the sort shouldn't there, otherwise murders would be legal !
Again, I reiterate it is right to choice of life left only to the individual himself that should be made universal, and that is only my opinion.

 

[Soilwork]

I've only read the first couple of posts of this thread so I'm basing some of my post on those comments.

I also want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to insult people for their views and if it comes across that way it is only because I have an innate ability of choosing my words poorly.

I personally believe that the dealth penalty is indeed necessary in some circumstances. These circumstances are extreme circumstances where the deed was committed unprovoked and where the evidence presented is absolutely incriminating. Rape and murder are serious crimes that I think the dealth penalty is necessary for. I'm sure that the death penalty may be no more effective than the imprisonment option in acting as a deterrent, but in those cases I think that it should be used to completely remove the problem from society.

I often hear the argument that the death penalty is barbaric and that everyone has the 'right' to live their life and that they have the 'right' to be given a second chance. I've never really understood this stance at all because once a person has made a conscious decision to take an innocent person's life through rape or murder they have forfeited all their rights. If we choose to be apart of a society then we choose to abide by the rules/values of that society, ergo our 'rights' are determined by the society we are living in. I don't know though...I think that if somebody murdered/raped a loved one of yours for no particular reason then you might change your mind. If you still stick to your guns then you must be a truly forgiving and trusting saint!

Unfortunately as I've been told many times before, I'd be no better than the criminals, I'm a barbarian and I'm a poor excuse for a human being. While I don't particularly appreciate these labelings for having more traditional/conservative values on this subject I understand that it's said in an attempt to make me re-evaluate my position on the subject. But it's just one of those areas in which my position will never change.

I just want to reiterate that I think the death penalty should be applied to extreme cases of unprovoked murder and rape with the evidence aboslutely incriminating the suspect. This is because I'm quite aware that there are grey areas in some cases of murder and rape.

 

[MeJennifer]

You mean to say that the opinion is a mere whim ?
You can support death or life imprisonment, with absolutely no logical reason whatsoever ? Then why the debate ? Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.

No, what I saying is that a political opinion without logic or reason is just as valid as one that claims it is all logical or reasonable. Has it ever occurred to you that for the person holding the opinion it is most often completely logical and reasonable?
Basically applying logic and reason to something like a political opinion is asking too much from logic and reason.

Are you trying to justify the killing of a person for economical reasons ?!Dear me.

I suggest you read what I write.
Since you like to use logic and reason for debating this perhaps you could explain the logic and reason of "dear me".

Sure it is, the tricky part only comes when dealing with the fact that death penalty is a deterrant.

Sure it is?
I was asking what is tricky about it, you did not answer that at all.
Again what is tricky here?

Though, enough time should be given to the convicted to appeal to the highest court, which is mostly where the problem of time delay lies.

You don't think that the highest court has better things to do that judging clear cut cases. If someone if found guilty and sentenced by the judge, who is correctly applying the law, then why have a big dog and pony show about it all the way to the high court?

 

[arunbg]

No, what I saying is that a political opinion without logic or reason is just as valid as one that claims it is all logical or reasonable. Has it ever occurred to you that for the person holding the opinion it is most often completely logical and reasonable?
Basically applying logic and reason to something like a political opinion is asking too much from logic and reason.

What do you actually mean by a "political opinion" and why do you consider this a political issue ?
And what is your definition of logic and reason ? Are you referring to mathematical logic ?!
This thread is for people to express their opinion on this issue, and how they back or support their opinion through valid arguments.

For instance from an economical standpoint it could be a lot cheaper than put people in prison for life.
As soon as the judge declares the death penalty it could be done within 24 hours!

Are you trying to justify the killing of a person for economical reasons ?!

I suggest you read what I write.

What else did you mean? Is there something in invisible text or something?

What is tricky here?

It is tricky because it seems to be a misconception that the death penalty acts as a deterrant.It is obviously tricky to those(like you)
who feel that the death penalty is a deterrant.

In my view deterrence is the main reason that societies have penalties

You don't think that the highest court has better things to do that judging clear cut cases. If someone if found guilty and sentenced by the judge, who is correctly applying the law, then why have a big dog and pony show about it all the way to the high court?

Unfortunately, humans are not computers and are prone to making mistakes. How many times have we seen the verdict made by a lower court be changed following an appeal to a higher court ?
Why do you think this is so ?
Also how do you decide whether a case is clear cut or not ?
Obviously to all judges issuing a verdict, the case has to be clear cut.
And yet verdicts change.

Do you agree that there seems to be virtually no clear cut "reasoning"
for the implementation of death penalty ?

I don't hold anything against anyone, so please don't feel so.

Cheers
Arun

 

[MeJennifer]

What do you actually mean by a "political opinion" and why do you consider this a political issue ?

Deciding if something should be a law and the punishment associated with violating it clearly a political matter.
To think that that is a matter that can be decided by applying reason and logic is simply nonsense. It is similar with abortion, it is a political issue.

Logic and reason cannot determine whether things like the death penalty should be instated or abortion should be allowed. These issues are primarily matters of morals and economics.

It is tricky because it seems to be a misconception that the death penalty acts as a deterrant. It is obviously tricky to those(like you)
who feel that the death penalty is a deterrant.

Of course it is a deterrant.
Really now, don't you believe that some people do not kill because there will be some form of punishment if they got caught?
So then it just becomes a matter as to what society decides to be an appropriate deterrent.
Incarceration or execution.
How do you determine what is more appropriate. Well again, simply a mixture of morals and economics.
If you hold on to the "killing is bad" morality then you would likely be against it.

Unfortunately, humans are not computers and are prone to making mistakes. How many times have we seen the verdict made by a lower court be changed following an appeal to a higher court ?
Why do you think this is so ?

Well human life, all life has its share of tragedy.
Nothing is perfect.

Do you agree that there seems to be virtually no clear cut "reasoning" for the implementation of death penalty ?

As I said before to me this is simply a political opinion.

Consider the question: What kind of punishment so you think a serial killer deserves, incarceration for a long time or execution?
Line up a group of people and they voice have different opinions.
To assert that one opinion is more valid, logical, reasonable than the other is simply nonsense. Most people who do that simply try to push their own moral values onto others under the pretense of logic and reason.

I don't hold anything against anyone, so please don't feel so.

 

[arildno]

"Consider the question: What kind of punishment so you think a serial killer deserves"

Even more basic:
Why do you think he "deserves" a "punishment?

In particular, why is it necessary to inflict any further "punishment" on a person other than to take those measures towards him that we are entitled to due to considerations for our own safety?

 

[arunbg]

Deciding if something should be a law and the punishment associated with violating it clearly a political matter.
To think that that is a matter that can be decided by applying reason and logic is simply nonsense. It is similar with abortion, it is a political issue.

I think you are viewing the issue too objectively.
If people were to always accept popular opinion, there would be no debates, and the world would be stagnant.Popular opinion changes.

Indeed, it is a question of morals, but how are morals formed in the first place? There should be some logical basis, shouldn't there ?

 

[MeJennifer]

"Consider the question: What kind of punishment so you think a serial killer deserves"

Even more basic:
Why do you think he "deserves" a "punishment?

Well many people find satisfaction in seeing others punished for violating something that is against the law. Some find revenge a sweet thing.

In particular, why is it necessary to inflict any further "punishment" on a person other than to take those measures towards him that we are entitled to due to considerations for our own safety?

Well I can think of a few reasons. One is as a deterrent or as a form of revenge.

 

[MeJennifer]

I think you are viewing the issue too objectively.

Well I consider that a compliment!

If people were to always accept popular opinion, there would be no debates, and the world would be stagnant.Popular opinion changes.

So are you in favor of democracy, or should a comittee of "wise" men who reason everything decide on things?

Indeed, it is a question of morals, but how are morals formed in the first place? There should be some logical basis, shouldn't there ?

Not neccesarily.

 

[arildno]

Well many people find satisfaction in seeing others punished for violating something that is against the law. Some find revenge a sweet thing.

Yeah, let's base our society on our eagerness to inflict misery upon others.
Hope you'll be happy there.

 

[MeJennifer]

Yeah, let's base our society on our eagerness to inflict misery upon others.

Well also that is a human emotion.
We did not evolve from angels you know.

You ask me why, I answer and now you do not like that answer.

 

[quantumdude]

Logic is just a mechanical decision procedure that enables us to determine whether an inference is valid or not. It does not come equipped with a way to assign truth values to statements about the real world such as, "The death penalty is morally wrong." The only way to assign a truth value to that statement is to first adopt a system of morals, anyone of which can not be anything but arbitrary.

 

[MeJennifer]

Logic is just a mechanical decision procedure that enables us to determine whether an inference is valid or not. It does not come equipped with a way to assign truth values to statements about the real world such as, "The death penalty is morally wrong." The only way to assign a truth value to that statement is to first adopt a system of morals, anyone of which can not be anything but arbitrary.

You think!

 

[arildno]

Logic is just a mechanical decision procedure that enables us to determine whether an inference is valid or not. It does not come equipped with a way to assign truth values to statements about the real world such as, "The death penalty is morally wrong." The only way to assign a truth value to that statement is to first adopt a system of morals, anyone of which can not be anything but arbitrary.

True enough, and MeJennifer has chosen to build her society upon her eagerness to inflict misery.

 

[MeJennifer]

True enough, and MeJennifer has chosen to build her society upon her eagerness to inflict misery.

Yeah I must be a barbarian!

 

[arildno]

Just stating a fact.

 

[quantumdude]

It may or may not be a fact, but it is certainly not deducible from anything that's been posted here. You're just jumping to conclusions. Some people (such as myself) who support the death penalty for sufficiently heinous crmies, sincerely hope that it never needs to be used. There is no logical inconsistency in holding the view that brutal murder should be met with execution and not being eager to mete out such a terrible punishment.

 

[arildno]

I haven't said that meting out death penalty per se need reflect an eagerness to inflict misery.

What I have said (and I stand by that) is that to punish, to do something out a desire to revenge something, does, indeed, show an eagerness to inflict misery.

Nor have I said there don't exist cases in which actions born out of a revenge wish might be defensible.

 

[quantumdude]

What I have said (and I stand by that) is that to punish, to do something out a desire to revenge something, does, indeed, show an eagerness to inflict misery.

You're still jumping to conclusions. The concept of revenge has not one whit to do with the concept of eagerness to inflict misery. There is nothing inconsistent with holding the conviction that brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, and being filled with dread at the prospect of carrying out that punishment.

 

[arildno]

..brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, .

Why?

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is nothing inconsistent with holding the conviction that brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, and being filled with dread at the prospect of carrying out that punishment

Nothing purely logically, no, but that doesn't mean it's coherent. If you truly believe that some prisoners should be killed, then to hope they will not be killed is to be sure very human, but not very coherent. Do you feel guilty about your dread, since according to you the punishment is righteous?