America executes its 1,000th prisoner

[motai]

Kenneth Lee Boyd, a convicted killer, was executed early today, becoming the 1,000th prisoner put to death since the United States reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

Boyd, 57, was pronounced dead at 2:15 am (0715 GMT), said a state Department of Correction spokeswoman, Pam Walker. His death came after both Governor Mike Easley and the United States Supreme Court declined to intervene and stop the execution.

...

Boyd did not deny that he shot and killed Julie Curry Boyd, 36, and her father, 57-year-old Thomas Dillard Curry in 1988. Family members said Boyd stalked his estranged wife after they separated following 13 stormy years of marriage and once sent a son to her house with a bullet and a note saying the ammunition was intended for her.

...

"The execution of Kenneth Boyd has not made this a better or safer world," Mr Maher said. "If this 1,000th execution is a milestone, it’s a milestone we should all be ashamed of."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1901324,00.html

Is the death penalty in America still a viable solution? I'm under the impression that, since human reasoning can be flawed, there lies a propensity for error (and innocent people are executed). Now, the man above was clearly guilty, but did his death really console the family of the victim? Moreover, will his death really send a signal to criminals in the United States? Or will they just ignore it?

According to articles from Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng ), the death penalty doesn't deter criminals. The reason being that they do not think rationally in the first place, much less think about the consequences of their actions.

If this has been true for years, why is the death penalty still carried out in nations over the world? What would differentiate state-approved violence (which the 20th century has seen enough of) and civilian violence?

I realize that the impetus for having a death penalty is to show an example to the murderer that they are not above the law, in a Hannurabi eye-for-an-eye type situation. To give them the same treatment that they have done to the victims to whom they have slaughtered. But is such violence really necessary? Would a mandatory life in prison sentence be a more suitable punishment?

Any ideas?

 

[deckart]

The biggest problem with the death penalty in the US is that it can take 20 years (as well as a lot of money) to finally exercise it. Criminals don't take it seriously as an impending consequence. They go on a killing rampage and finally give up when they've been cornered, ready to go back to prison where they are praised by their criminal peers. If you intentionaly take someones life, you should forfiet your own.

 

[deckart]

The biggest problem with the death penalty in the US is that it can take 20 years (as well as a lot of money) to finally exercise it. Criminals don't take it seriously as an impending consequence. They go on a killing rampage and finally give up when they've been cornered, ready to go back to prison where they are praised by their criminal peers. If you intentionaly take someones life, you should forfiet your own.

 

[brewnog]

I love the death penalty, it's such an effective deterrent. Look at those 999 convicts who were put off becoming murderers by the first dude to be executed. Oh no, wait...

 

[Anttech]

Proud moment.. National holiday maybe :uhh:

 

[deckart]

If a convicted murderer where simply put to death with a few weeks of his conviction, that would be an excellent deterent. The punishment fits the crime. Where is the justice if there is no punishment? I don't understand why some people have a problem with it.

 

[PerennialII]

Neglect of human rights, revenge based understanding of justice, weak deterrent, failed prison & rehab systems, errors in administering, ... read any Amnesty site for a complete and thorough list, and still the executions continue ... at what point did it become essential for a society to murder its citizens in order to function? I suppose to many this is a "stupid" question, but I fail to see the (or any) logic what comes to the death penalty.

 

[Skyhunter]

If a convicted murderer where simply put to death with a few weeks of his conviction, that would be an excellent deterent. The punishment fits the crime. Where is the justice if there is no punishment? I don't understand why some people have a problem with it.

Where do they practice quick executions?

Could you please support this claim with some statistics to show that it to be a deterrent?

Or is this just your own opinion.

 

[Manchot]

If a convicted murderer where simply put to death with a few weeks of his conviction, that would be an excellent deterent. The punishment fits the crime. Where is the justice if there is no punishment? I don't understand why some people have a problem with it.

Things are not so black and white. I have a problem with it because "convicted murderers" are not necessarily murderers. There is that whole innocent-people-can-be-wrongly-convicted complication. But I guess that those people are acceptable sacrifices.

Also, I don't believe that the state should be in the business of killing people. Go figure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

GOVERNOR GEORGE RYAN [former Governer of Illinois]: I now favor a moratorium because I have grave concerns about our state's shameful record of convicting innocent people and putting them on Death Row. I can't support a system which, in its administration, has proven to be so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life.[continued]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june01/penalty_5-10.html

How many innocent people may we kill in order to satisfy some people's idea of justice? I would like a number. What are acceptable levels of execution of innocent people; 5%, 10%, 20%? Next, how do we guarantee this limit?

 

[Pengwuino]

I think its a good thing people are set to death. Think about it... you send someone to life in prison... what life does he have left? What "justice" is better served by this? Hell many people do kill themselves by themselves. Plus there's 0 guarantee of an appeal! With the death penalty, you get an automatic appeal.

I'm surprised we've only killed 1,000 people. Hell there were 2800 or so murders in california this year alone...

 

[russ_watters]

Where do they practice quick executions?
Could you please support this claim with some statistics to show that it to be a deterrent?
Or is this just your own opinion.

I think you may have misread - deckard wasn't saying that there is a place like that, just that there should be. And yes - that was an opinon. One based primarily on logic, but not a unique one. That it doesn't provide much of a deterrent due to the length of time it takes to execute it (pun intended) is a pretty common criticism of the death penalty.

 

[Evo]

Things are not so black and white. I have a problem with it because "convicted murderers" are not necessarily murderers. There is that whole innocent-people-can-be-wrongly-convicted complication.

Not aimed at you, since you stated you are against the death penalty altogether, but would people be opposed to a swift death penalty in a case where the crime was heinous, there were credible witnesses AND the murderer admitted to commiting the crime? State reasons to support your stance, for or against.

 

[PerennialII]

I think its a good thing people are set to death. Think about it... you send someone to life in prison... what life does he have left? What "justice" is better served by this? ...

Do you believe it is up to a 'system' to define what is the value of life someone has left, and how could you come to any meaningful criteria measuring the worth of a life (and why then stop with the death penalty, I'm sure we can come up with a scoring system to maximize some indication of "good" for the society, like let only the productive live?)? [Let alone the implications towards a society acting in such a manner (or this manner actually)]

 

[Tide]

Executions conducted by the state constitute moral hypocrisy. The premise of the illegality of taking a person's life except in self defense is that "killing is wrong." There is no compelling argument that the state is defending itself by carrying out executions. Therefore, by the same premise, execution conducted by the state is wrong.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think you may have misread - deckard wasn't saying that there is a place like that, just that there should be. And yes - that was an opinon. One based primarily on logic, but not a unique one. That it doesn't provide much of a deterrent due to the length of time it takes to execute it (pun intended) is a pretty common criticism of the death penalty.

I would have to say the logic is flawed.

If someone is willing to commit murder, they are either in a state where they do not care about the consequences, or they believe they will not be caught. To presume that a person would commit murder because the punishment is not harsh enough is just ludicrous.

The death penalty is not punishment. When you are dead you you don't care anymore. It is not justice, because the victims are not compensated. It is nothing more than vengeance being disguised as "justice". I don't believe the state should mete out vengeance.

I have never seen any statistical evidence to support the theory that the death penalty is a deterrent.

If you or anyone else has any I would like to see it.

Killing someone because it is your opinion that they should die is murder, whether done by an individual or carried out by the state.

 

[Moonbear]

I would have to say the logic is flawed.

If someone is willing to commit murder, they are either in a state where they do not care about the consequences, or they believe they will not be caught. To presume that a person would commit murder because the punishment is not harsh enough is just ludicrous.

The death penalty is not punishment. When you are dead you you don't care anymore. It is not justice, because the victims are not compensated. It is nothing more than vengeance being disguised as "justice". I don't believe the state should mete out vengeance.

I have never seen any statistical evidence to support the theory that the death penalty is a deterrent.

If you or anyone else has any I would like to see it.

Killing someone because it is your opinion that they should die is murder, whether done by an individual or carried out by the state.

You quoted Russ on this, but it seems like you're responding to deckard's post. Am I correct in that interpretation?

I have to agree that I don't see how the time it takes to execute someone makes a difference to whether the death penalty is a deterrent. It would seem to me that anyone who finds an early death repugnant enough to want to avoid it would also not be likely to commit murder regardless of the penalty.

To begin with, it could only be a deterrent for premeditated murder, as only a premeditated act would involve enough time and thinking about the crime to consider all the consequences as well. Someone committing murder that is not premeditated is driven by emotion, not reasoning, so in that state of uncontrolled rage, nothing is going to act as a deterrent.

For someone who is going to commit a premeditated murder, I would tend to think the vast majority are psychopaths anyway. They don't have any sense of empathy, and their emotions are rather flat. For some, they believe they will never be caught, that they are smarter than everyone else, so the punishment isn't relevant, because they don't believe they'll ever face that punishment. For some, their thinking is so twisted that they've rationalized that their act is justified, that they are doing something right and good, whether its the voices in their head telling them that, or whatever, again, they have something very wrong with the way they think and view the world, and even if they consider the punishment, they think what they are doing is so right that it's worth the risk. And for the few who generally are rational, but have built up a true hatred for someone, perhaps the wife who is going to hire a hitman to take out her husband, they are already nervous just of the idea of getting caught at all. The difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty isn't really a big deal, either one is bad enough. If anything, someone who still has a shred of conscience and/or remorse may prefer death over the humiliation in front of their friends and loved ones that they have done something so horrible to spend life in prison. These are the people who are likely to be a suicide risk in prison, because they do empathize with the victim and the victim's family and understand the consequences of their action and are remorseful and feel guilty about it; of course these are the people who generally get life in prison rather than the death penalty, because they do show remorse at their trial.

What the death penalty appears to be, in my opinion, is a way to eliminate society's burden of treating or caring for people who have a mental illness we do not understand or have any idea of how to treat. Afterall, those who get the death penalty instead of a life sentence are the people who show no remorse for their actions, who have committed especially heinous acts, who cannot provide any reason that their victims could have been a real threat to them, only perceived as a possible threat due the distorted workings of their own minds, etc.

We call them psychopaths or sociopaths because we recognize there is something pathologically wrong with them that leads them to commit such acts. We have no idea what to do with them. We don't understand the nature of the illness, and we can't treat them without understanding what causes the illness. They remain a threat as long as the illness is untreated, and the illness is of a nature that even if they receive treatment, there is too much risk if they cease to remain compliant with their treatment (i.e., go off their meds), so it would be far to dangerous to release them even if their illness were treated. They remain even a risk while in prison, both to other prisoners and to wardens.

So, I don't buy the argument that the death penalty provides any deterrent that imprisonment doesn't already provide, nor do I believe it is really serving the purpose of punishment, because punishment implies we are trying shape behavior or teach a lesson to not do something again, and we really aren't doing that; these are not prisoners we expect to rehabilitate. Life in prison and the death penalty serve the same purpose, to remove someone from society who we recognize as highly dangerous to others and beyond our abilities to rehabilitate.

To me, the question or dilemma that follows from this is whether we, as a society, have an obligation to provide for the care of that person once we have identified them and isolated them from the general population, or is it morally acceptable to decide they are of no value to society, only a burden, and can be executed to eliminate that burden on society. Does the need to shunt resources from people who need them and can be productive members of society to paying for feeding and clothing, and hygiene, and shelter, and all of the security needed to keep someone imprisoned make it justifiable to eliminate that burden so those resources can go to more productive members of society? Our laws do make the provision that there are times when killing is justified, such as in self-defense. So, is this a justifiable exception as well, that killing is okay in the case of the death penalty if it's to remove someone from society who causes more harm than good? Or is it just another form of premeditated murder?

You'll note I haven't answered those questions. I won't. I don't know the answer. But, I raise the questions because my opinion is that those are the real questions, and issues of things like deterrence and punishment are nothing but a smokescreen that obscures the real ethical dilemma of how to handle murderers who cannot be released back into society.

 

[Skyhunter]

Excellent post moonbear.

Yes I was responding to deckard's post, but russ had responded to my response to deckard, and I was responding to russ's response, if that makes any sense.

Our prison system IMO is the real problem here. If someone commits a crime, justice should require that they make whole those they have injured. Dying is not going to bring back a life taken, nothing can do that. Therefore the killers life is forfeit. The rest of their life should be devoted to making amends, even though that is impossible the attempt should be made. If a prisoner does not want to participate, isolate them in a dark cell with no outside stimulus or contact and see if they don't decide that they need others and need to give in order to receive.

Taking away a persons freedom for a period of time does not make whole the victim, or rehabilitate the offender.

 

[deckart]

Excellent post moonbear.
Yes I was responding to deckard's post, but russ had responded to my response to deckard, and I was responding to russ's response, if that makes any sense.
Our prison system IMO is the real problem here. If someone commits a crime, justice should require that they make whole those they have injured. Dying is not going to bring back a life taken, nothing can do that. Therefore the killers life is forfeit. The rest of their life should be devoted to making amends, even though that is impossible the attempt should be made. If a prisoner does not want to participate, isolate them in a dark cell with no outside stimulus or contact and see if they don't decide that they need others and need to give in order to receive.
Taking away a persons freedom for a period of time does not make whole the victim, or rehabilitate the offender.

Sky, I respect your take on this issue.

Murder in the first degree, unless I'm mistaken, is premeditated. The murderer has made a calculated plan to end anothers life and then carries it out. I don't believe a civilized society should support such a persons existence. If the judicial system were ideal, and consequences to first degree murder were swift and definate, some intelligent murders who are planning a murder may be dissuaded from carrying it out. But, since most murders never get executed, it is not much of a deterent. So when it is actually carried out, everyone is crying foul. It's no different with children. If you aren't consistent with your discipline it does not have much effect.

 

[Pengwuino]

Executions conducted by the state constitute moral hypocrisy. The premise of the illegality of taking a person's life except in self defense is that "killing is wrong." There is no compelling argument that the state is defending itself by carrying out executions. Therefore, by the same premise, execution conducted by the state is wrong.

So why not declare kidnapping legal?
Stealing?
The state does it by imprisoning you against your will, taking what you own...

 

[Skyhunter]

Sky, I respect your take on this issue.
Murder in the first degree, unless I'm mistaken, is premeditated. The murderer has made a calculated plan to end anothers life and then carries it out. I don't believe a civilized society should support such a persons existence. If the judicial system were ideal, and consequences to first degree murder were swift and definate, some intelligent murders who are planning a murder may be dissuaded from carrying it out. But, since most murders never get executed, it is not much of a deterent. So when it is actually carried out, everyone is crying foul. It's no different with children. If you aren't consistent with your discipline it does not have much effect.

I understand your point. But like moonbear pointed out, most murderer don't believe they will be caught, so the punishment is irrelevant and not part of their consideration.

And is the possibility that it might deter a future killer outweigh the possibility that an innocent person might be executed?

 

[Smurf]

So why not declare kidnapping legal?
Stealing?
The state does it by imprisoning you against your will, taking what you own...

I don't really see your point here Pengwunio. Prisons don't help anything, crime is not caused by individuals, and property is theft anyways.

 

[Pengwuino]

Do you believe it is up to a 'system' to define what is the value of life someone has left, and how could you come to any meaningful criteria measuring the worth of a life (and why then stop with the death penalty, I'm sure we can come up with a scoring system to maximize some indication of "good" for the society, like let only the productive live?)? [Let alone the implications towards a society acting in such a manner (or this manner actually)]

I believe the murderer has already put the value of life in a very clear way by.. murdering someone. To me, you kill someone and you've just agreed to allow the state to put a null value on your life just as you did to your victim.

The death penalty is not punishment. When you are dead you you don't care anymore. It is not justice, because the victims are not compensated. It is nothing more than vengeance being disguised as "justice". I don't believe the state should mete out vengeance.

What defines punishment? The victims are almost never compensated in any physical crime. What happens when someone assaults you? They go to jail... no compensation unless you go to civil court (and of course, you can go to civil court as well in a murder case). The only time there is ever any real compensation is in financial crimse.

I also feel there IS a difference between a state killing someone and a person killing someone. I mean we all know and realize that when there are wars, only certain things are considered crimes yet people are killed off by the hundreds of thousands. Were British soldiers put on trial after storming the beaches on dday and killing germans? No because we all realize that state governments live to different rules then individual members of society. Think of it like parents dealing with children. Now I don't know about you, but I FULLY expect (not that i condone it) a parent to hold their children to a much higher standard then they hold themselves to in many situations. You expect a kid to clean up their toys every single time they play, never be late for something, etc etc. The adult? Well they can clean up once a week... start dinner whenever they want... etc etc.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't really see your point here Pengwunio. Prisons don't help anything, crime is not caused by individuals, and property is theft anyways.

...What?

 

[Skyhunter]

What defines punishment? The victims are almost never compensated in any physical crime. What happens when someone assaults you? They go to jail... no compensation unless you go to civil court (and of course, you can go to civil court as well in a murder case). The only time there is ever any real compensation is in financial crimse.

In the same post you quoted I mentioned that the problem is broader than the death penalty.

I agree with you, victims should be compensated and made whole by the person whom caused them harm. The Tookie Williams case is a good example of someone taking the initiative to give something back by discouraging young people from joining gangs. If the opportunity were made available for a person to compensate his/her victim(s) it would, IMO go a long way toward rehabilitating them.

[edit]After talking to my friend the DA, I have come to the conclusion that Tookie is not a good example. His crimes were heinous and he has never been debriefed, ie aided the authorities in solving murders by other gang members. And he has never confessed to his crimes, even though the evidence is irrefutable.[/edit]

I also feel there IS a difference between a state killing someone and a person killing someone. I mean we all know and realize that when there are wars, only certain things are considered crimes yet people are killed off by the hundreds of thousands. Were British soldiers put on trial after storming the beaches on dday and killing germans? No because we all realize that state governments live to different rules then individual members of society. Think of it like parents dealing with children. Now I don't know about you, but I FULLY expect (not that i condone it) a parent to hold their children to a much higher standard then they hold themselves to in many situations. You expect a kid to clean up their toys every single time they play, never be late for something, etc etc. The adult? Well they can clean up once a week... start dinner whenever they want... etc etc.

Dead is dead, what could possibly be different. Just because you can rationalize something does not make it real. The state is an idea. It only exists in our collective minds.

 

[Archon]

I believe the murderer has already put the value of life in a very clear way by.. murdering someone. To me, you kill someone and you've just agreed to allow the state to put a null value on your life just as you did to your victim.

Well, that makes sense. And naturally the value of the state becomes "null" after it puts this value on your life by executing you for your crime, right? That's what happens when we apply your logic consistently, anyway. I don't know if that was your intention.

What defines punishment? The victims are almost never compensated in any physical crime. What happens when someone assaults you? They go to jail... no compensation unless you go to civil court (and of course, you can go to civil court as well in a murder case). The only time there is ever any real compensation is in financial crimse.

It seems to me that the compensation could be to society in general. The criminal could be required to serve jail time, and then perform some amount of community service, for instance. But if you kill the criminal, there is no opportunity for any sort of compensation at all. In fact, a criminal on death row is a bigger drain on society than one simply imprisoned.

I also feel there IS a difference between a state killing someone and a person killing someone. I mean we all know and realize that when there are wars, only certain things are considered crimes yet people are killed off by the hundreds of thousands. Were British soldiers put on trial after storming the beaches on dday and killing germans? No because we all realize that state governments live to different rules then individual members of society. Think of it like parents dealing with children. Now I don't know about you, but I FULLY expect (not that i condone it) a parent to hold their children to a much higher standard then they hold themselves to in many situations. You expect a kid to clean up their toys every single time they play, never be late for something, etc etc. The adult? Well they can clean up once a week... start dinner whenever they want... etc etc.

Then why prosecute and condemn the Nazis? It was the "state" killing people, after all.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, that makes sense. And naturally the value of the state becomes "null" after it puts this value on your life by executing you for your crime, right? That's what happens when we apply your logic consistently, anyway. I don't know if that was your intention.

Well you need to include my later argument that the state has certain differences compared to an individual. The state is perfectly capable of (as it should) doing things individual citizens cannot. Can I go out and decide to randomly run some guy off the road and arrest him and lock him in a jail in my backyard? No. Can the government (in a real jail)? Yes. That is something we accept living in a society, our government can have a different set of rules in order to avoid anarchy.

It seems to me that the compensation could be to society in general. The criminal could be required to serve jail time, and then perform some amount of community service, for instance. But if you kill the criminal, there is no opportunity for any sort of compensation at all. In fact, a criminal on death row is a bigger drain on society than one simply imprisoned.

Do you want a murderer out doing community service? How does someone who gets shot feel any sort of compensation if the perpetrator is off cleaning freeways? Why should society be compensated in teh first place? Some may argue certain societies or some of their attributes actually fuel the actions of criminals!

Then why prosecute and condemn the Nazis? It was the "state" killing people, after all.

I don't think you understand my argument or i was a bit ambiguous. A soldier kills because you've been ordered to by the state and its pretty much agreed upon that the burdon is put on the state instead of you as a soldier. When we look at how we prosecuted the nazis, we did so under the idea of war crimes, the rules that DO apply to governments in a way. Just as we prosecute criminals for doing things they can't do, we prosecuted that government for doing things they weren't suppose to do but the actual things we can prosecute for are different in each case. I guess you can think of it as a hierarchy. The world society has a certain set of rules handed down to governments that they have to follow. Those governments in turn have rules their citizens must follow. Those rules can be drastically different however! So in thinking about the nazis, we prosecuted he nazis because they violeted the rules governments are suppose to follow but we don't prosecute the soldiers for the most part because the rules given down from the "world society" pretty much say that soldiers can kill people by orders from the state in normal situations (which of course, leaves room to prosecute those who did very nasty things such as many nazi commanders).

Yah... that about makes sense.

 

[Archon]

Well you need to include my later argument that the state has certain differences compared to an individual. The state is perfectly capable of (as it should) doing things individual citizens cannot. Can I go out and decide to randomly run some guy off the road and arrest him and lock him in a jail in my backyard? No. Can the government (in a real jail)? Yes. That is something we accept living in a society, our government can have a different set of rules in order to avoid anarchy.

First, I CAN run someone off the road, arrest them (in a sense), and lock them up somewhere. It just isn't legal. More importantly for this argument, it isn't "moral" or "ethical." Similarly, just because the government is capable of doing this does not make it "moral" or "ethical." Continuing with the example of Nazi Germany, the state was quite capable of rounding up and executing Jews, but I think we would all agree that this was a morally despicable act. Incidentally, the government can't (by current laws) randomly run someone off the road, arrest them, and lock them up. They need to have some reason. Unless they decide to change the laws to make this possible, which is just another reason to hold governments to the same moral standards as individuals.

Do you want a murderer out doing community service? How does someone who gets shot feel any sort of compensation if the perpetrator is off cleaning freeways? Why should society be compensated in teh first place? Some may argue certain societies or some of their attributes actually fuel the actions of criminals!

Personally, if I was shot and survived, I'd much rather have the criminal doing community service than rotting in a jail or grave somewhere (assuming, of course, that there was reason to believe that the criminal would not do the same thing again). In jail for life, or on death row, the criminal is of no use to society. In fact, he is quite the opposite. And I don't think community service would be "cleaning freeways." It would have to be something really meaningful, like educating people about crime/violence/gangs (for instance). I'd feel a lot happier knowing that the person who shot me (and this applies even if I didn't survive) was helping prevent others from being shot than if they were forced to give up their life in exchange for mine.

Though if I was shot and didn't survive, I wouldn't care particularly about being compensated.

I still think there should be jail time, but I also think it should be combined with efforts at rehabilitation. Otherwise, it seems to me that in most cases, one of two things will happen. Either the criminal will stay in jail for the rest of his life, or he will be let out still alive but with no real change in his thinking, making a repeat offence likely. On a slightly different note, I also find the premise behind those maximum-security prisons for all the worst criminals interesting. Basically, it seems to be "let's put all the most violent elements of society together in one place, where they can spend 20 or 30 years of their lives fighting each other like animals just to stay alive, and then release them back into the world." I think that's just brilliant.

I don't think you understand my argument or i was a bit ambiguous. A soldier kills because you've been ordered to by the state and its pretty much agreed upon that the burdon is put on the state instead of you as a soldier. When we look at how we prosecuted the nazis, we did so under the idea of war crimes, the rules that DO apply to governments in a way. Just as we prosecute criminals for doing things they can't do, we prosecuted that government for doing things they weren't suppose to do but the actual things we can prosecute for are different in each case. I guess you can think of it as a hierarchy. The world society has a certain set of rules handed down to governments that they have to follow. Those governments in turn have rules their citizens must follow. Those rules can be drastically different however! So in thinking about the nazis, we prosecuted he nazis because they violeted the rules governments are suppose to follow but we don't prosecute the soldiers for the most part because the rules given down from the "world society" pretty much say that soldiers can kill people by orders from the state in normal situations (which of course, leaves room to prosecute those who did very nasty things such as many nazi commanders).
Yah... that about makes sense.

That makes more sense. But the fact remains that, even if you justify in a legal sense the state killing people, it doesn't serve a purpose beyond (as Skyhunter said) the meting out of vengeance. Soldiers during wars kill for a purpose, but if the state executes a criminal, it does nothing but satisfy the victim's family and provide the illusion of justice.

 

[Tide]

So why not declare kidnapping legal?
Stealing?
The state does it by imprisoning you against your will, taking what you own...

I'm struggling to see any connection to what I said. Help me out here.

 

[Moonbear]

Dying is not going to bring back a life taken, nothing can do that. Therefore the killers life is forfeit. The rest of their life should be devoted to making amends, even though that is impossible the attempt should be made. If a prisoner does not want to participate, isolate them in a dark cell with no outside stimulus or contact and see if they don't decide that they need others and need to give in order to receive.

Perhaps you've missed the part of my post where I discuss the psychopaths? How many of them do you think will want to participate in making amends? And if someone is that ill (I truly believe you have to have a certain degree of mental illness, whether or not you're found legally insane, to commit premeditated murder), how is throwing them in a dark cell with no outside contact going to help anyone? That would likely qualify as cruel and unusual punishment, and anyone who didn't start out insane would end up that way with such treatment. Honestly, if the only choice other than death were to be tossed into isolation in a dark cell, I'd say death were the more humane choice! Fortunately, we've come a long way since the middle ages when prisoners were tossed into damp, dark, rat-infested dungeons and allowed to fester in their own waste. :yuck:

 

[Astronuc]

You quoted Russ on this, but it seems like you're responding to deckard's post. Am I correct in that interpretation?
I have to agree that I don't see how the time it takes to execute someone makes a difference to whether the death penalty is a deterrent. It would seem to me that anyone who finds an early death repugnant enough to want to avoid it would also not be likely to commit murder regardless of the penalty.
To begin with, it could only be a deterrent for premeditated murder, as only a premeditated act would involve enough time and thinking about the crime to consider all the consequences as well. Someone committing murder that is not premeditated is driven by emotion, not reasoning, so in that state of uncontrolled rage, nothing is going to act as a deterrent.
For someone who is going to commit a premeditated murder, I would tend to think the vast majority are psychopaths anyway. They don't have any sense of empathy, and their emotions are rather flat. For some, they believe they will never be caught, that they are smarter than everyone else, so the punishment isn't relevant, because they don't believe they'll ever face that punishment. For some, their thinking is so twisted that they've rationalized that their act is justified, that they are doing something right and good, whether its the voices in their head telling them that, or whatever, again, they have something very wrong with the way they think and view the world, and even if they consider the punishment, they think what they are doing is so right that it's worth the risk. And for the few who generally are rational, but have built up a true hatred for someone, perhaps the wife who is going to hire a hitman to take out her husband, they are already nervous just of the idea of getting caught at all. The difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty isn't really a big deal, either one is bad enough. If anything, someone who still has a shred of conscience and/or remorse may prefer death over the humiliation in front of their friends and loved ones that they have done something so horrible to spend life in prison. These are the people who are likely to be a suicide risk in prison, because they do empathize with the victim and the victim's family and understand the consequences of their action and are remorseful and feel guilty about it; of course these are the people who generally get life in prison rather than the death penalty, because they do show remorse at their trial.
What the death penalty appears to be, in my opinion, is a way to eliminate society's burden of treating or caring for people who have a mental illness we do not understand or have any idea of how to treat. Afterall, those who get the death penalty instead of a life sentence are the people who show no remorse for their actions, who have committed especially heinous acts, who cannot provide any reason that their victims could have been a real threat to them, only perceived as a possible threat due the distorted workings of their own minds, etc.
We call them psychopaths or sociopaths because we recognize there is something pathologically wrong with them that leads them to commit such acts. We have no idea what to do with them. We don't understand the nature of the illness, and we can't treat them without understanding what causes the illness. They remain a threat as long as the illness is untreated, and the illness is of a nature that even if they receive treatment, there is too much risk if they cease to remain compliant with their treatment (i.e., go off their meds), so it would be far to dangerous to release them even if their illness were treated. They remain even a risk while in prison, both to other prisoners and to wardens.
So, I don't buy the argument that the death penalty provides any deterrent that imprisonment doesn't already provide, nor do I believe it is really serving the purpose of punishment, because punishment implies we are trying shape behavior or teach a lesson to not do something again, and we really aren't doing that; these are not prisoners we expect to rehabilitate. Life in prison and the death penalty serve the same purpose, to remove someone from society who we recognize as highly dangerous to others and beyond our abilities to rehabilitate.
To me, the question or dilemma that follows from this is whether we, as a society, have an obligation to provide for the care of that person once we have identified them and isolated them from the general population, or is it morally acceptable to decide they are of no value to society, only a burden, and can be executed to eliminate that burden on society. Does the need to shunt resources from people who need them and can be productive members of society to paying for feeding and clothing, and hygiene, and shelter, and all of the security needed to keep someone imprisoned make it justifiable to eliminate that burden so those resources can go to more productive members of society? Our laws do make the provision that there are times when killing is justified, such as in self-defense. So, is this a justifiable exception as well, that killing is okay in the case of the death penalty if it's to remove someone from society who causes more harm than good? Or is it just another form of premeditated murder?
You'll note I haven't answered those questions. I won't. I don't know the answer. But, I raise the questions because my opinion is that those are the real questions, and issues of things like deterrence and punishment are nothing but a smokescreen that obscures the real ethical dilemma of how to handle murderers who cannot be released back into society.

Very good points. Interestingly, those states which actively (aggressively) practice the death penalty, e.g. Texas, generally have higher homocide rates, while those that rarely use or which have banned the death penalty, tend to have lower homicide rates. One might conclude that communities in which the death penalty is practiced tend to be more violent. Perhaps the death penalty is simply a symptom of latent violence in a community.

I agree with Skyhunter, the death penalty is about vengeance, not justice.

 

[Moonbear]

Perhaps the death penalty is simply a symptom of latent violence in a community.

Possibly, or an indicator of the frustration level of those who live in fear because of the violence around them. Maybe even a little of both.

 

[motai]

The death penalty is not punishment. When you are dead you you don't care anymore. It is not justice, because the victims are not compensated. It is nothing more than vengeance being disguised as "justice". I don't believe the state should mete out vengeance.
I have never seen any statistical evidence to support the theory that the death penalty is a deterrent.
If you or anyone else has any I would like to see it.
Killing someone because it is your opinion that they should die is murder, whether done by an individual or carried out by the state.

Adding on to this line of thought... an article from the Baltimore Sun that seems a little biased toward the death penalty. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.kane05feb05,0,6385621.column

That's what it's about for Fred Romano. He doesn't buy into the closure argument some death penalty advocates make. (It's just as well. Death penalty opponents, ever noble with grief not their own, dismiss the notion of closure, too.)
"It won't bring closure," Fred Romano said. "Dawn will never be back. I'm not looking for closure. That's a bad misconception on the part of some people. I want Oken to die for the murder of Dawn, Patricia Hurt and Lori Ward."
This isn't even about revenge, another rallying cry of the anti-capital punishment crowd, who chide death penalty advocates for seeking vengeance.
"It's justice," Fred Romano said. "It's not revenge."
His wife, Vicki Romano, agreed, then elaborated.
"Revenge would be going out and killing one of [the murderer's] family members," Vicki Romano said. "The death penalty isn't revenge. It's the law."

I do not see how wanting someone to die makes someone any different than the murderers themselves. In order for peace overall to be propagated, IMO, even violent thoughts need to be tempered. Even if the victims' families want the criminal to die, they are doing nothing but infusing the very hatred into themselves that drove the criminal to kill in the first place. It is not a healthy mindset at all, and only serves to perpetuate the most negative aspects of humanity.

Perhaps it is this mindset, this vengance that has existed since ancient times, that has fueled the legal basis for the death penalty. Perhaps, incidentially, going along with Astronuc's post, suggest that this hatred is passed through society, as more people turn to violence. (can't support that last bit there).

And btw, very good post Moonbear, I can see you've done your homework .

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You quoted Russ on this, but it seems like you're responding to deckard's post. Am I correct in that interpretation?
I have to agree that I don't see how the time it takes to execute someone makes a difference to whether the death penalty is a deterrent. It would seem to me that anyone who finds an early death repugnant enough to want to avoid it would also not be likely to commit murder regardless of the penalty.
To begin with, it could only be a deterrent for premeditated murder, as only a premeditated act would involve enough time and thinking about the crime to consider all the consequences as well. Someone committing murder that is not premeditated is driven by emotion, not reasoning, so in that state of uncontrolled rage, nothing is going to act as a deterrent.
For someone who is going to commit a premeditated murder, I would tend to think the vast majority are psychopaths anyway. They don't have any sense of empathy, and their emotions are rather flat. For some, they believe they will never be caught, that they are smarter than everyone else, so the punishment isn't relevant, because they don't believe they'll ever face that punishment. For some, their thinking is so twisted that they've rationalized that their act is justified, that they are doing something right and good, whether its the voices in their head telling them that, or whatever, again, they have something very wrong with the way they think and view the world, and even if they consider the punishment, they think what they are doing is so right that it's worth the risk. And for the few who generally are rational, but have built up a true hatred for someone, perhaps the wife who is going to hire a hitman to take out her husband, they are already nervous just of the idea of getting caught at all. The difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty isn't really a big deal, either one is bad enough. If anything, someone who still has a shred of conscience and/or remorse may prefer death over the humiliation in front of their friends and loved ones that they have done something so horrible to spend life in prison. These are the people who are likely to be a suicide risk in prison, because they do empathize with the victim and the victim's family and understand the consequences of their action and are remorseful and feel guilty about it; of course these are the people who generally get life in prison rather than the death penalty, because they do show remorse at their trial.
What the death penalty appears to be, in my opinion, is a way to eliminate society's burden of treating or caring for people who have a mental illness we do not understand or have any idea of how to treat. Afterall, those who get the death penalty instead of a life sentence are the people who show no remorse for their actions, who have committed especially heinous acts, who cannot provide any reason that their victims could have been a real threat to them, only perceived as a possible threat due the distorted workings of their own minds, etc.
We call them psychopaths or sociopaths because we recognize there is something pathologically wrong with them that leads them to commit such acts. We have no idea what to do with them. We don't understand the nature of the illness, and we can't treat them without understanding what causes the illness. They remain a threat as long as the illness is untreated, and the illness is of a nature that even if they receive treatment, there is too much risk if they cease to remain compliant with their treatment (i.e., go off their meds), so it would be far to dangerous to release them even if their illness were treated. They remain even a risk while in prison, both to other prisoners and to wardens.
So, I don't buy the argument that the death penalty provides any deterrent that imprisonment doesn't already provide, nor do I believe it is really serving the purpose of punishment, because punishment implies we are trying shape behavior or teach a lesson to not do something again, and we really aren't doing that; these are not prisoners we expect to rehabilitate. Life in prison and the death penalty serve the same purpose, to remove someone from society who we recognize as highly dangerous to others and beyond our abilities to rehabilitate.
To me, the question or dilemma that follows from this is whether we, as a society, have an obligation to provide for the care of that person once we have identified them and isolated them from the general population, or is it morally acceptable to decide they are of no value to society, only a burden, and can be executed to eliminate that burden on society. Does the need to shunt resources from people who need them and can be productive members of society to paying for feeding and clothing, and hygiene, and shelter, and all of the security needed to keep someone imprisoned make it justifiable to eliminate that burden so those resources can go to more productive members of society? Our laws do make the provision that there are times when killing is justified, such as in self-defense. So, is this a justifiable exception as well, that killing is okay in the case of the death penalty if it's to remove someone from society who causes more harm than good? Or is it just another form of premeditated murder?
You'll note I haven't answered those questions. I won't. I don't know the answer. But, I raise the questions because my opinion is that those are the real questions, and issues of things like deterrence and punishment are nothing but a smokescreen that obscures the real ethical dilemma of how to handle murderers who cannot be released back into society.

:!) Moonie will you marry me?

I look at the situation in more or less the same way. Deciding that the community should not be responsible for keeping these persons alive for the rest of their lives is the only logical reason to support the death penalty(note that I am not stating I agree that it is ethical just that it is logical reasoning).

Personally I think that they should be made to do work that helps society in return for their shelter, food, health care, and any other benefits that they receive from the state and that those benefits should be almost completely limited to necessity. The problem is what to do if they refuse to work or their tendancies are such that they are unable to be employed in any fashion.