News Capital Punishment: Is it Time for its Return?

[flyingpig]

Capital Punishment returns?"

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-half-of-us-back-death-penalty

More than half of voters back the reintroduction of the death penalty, a new poll suggests.

So there is a chance that they are going to bring back the death penalty in the UK.

So what do you guys think?

Is it really wrong to put terrorists and murderers to death? Is it more expensive to the country to keep thousands of criminals in a building just to dehumanize them? Or none of the reasons really matter because we are actually putting people to death and it is just immoral.

 

[daveb]

This boils down to what is moral vs immoral and the relationship with justice. It's all opinion based since there really is no way to philosophically prove it one way or the other.

 

[flyingpig]

The concern for me is this

Harris questioned 1,100 people aged between 16 and 64.

Sixteen-years-old? They've all been probably overinfulenced by Death Note or something

 

[Ryan_m_b]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-half-of-us-back-death-penalty

So there is a chance that they are going to bring back the death penalty in the UK.

Now here is what I want to know. Is it really wrong to put terrorists and murderers to death? Isn't more expensive to the country to keep thousands of criminals in a building just to dehumanize them?

Or is it just wrong to kill people.

There's no chance it will be bought back. This poll from a free London news paper is largely irrelevant, there's no political backing for this and no motion to do so.

The problem with capital punishment is twofold

1) It violates a fundamental principle behind out legal system that everyone has the capacity to be a good person

2) If you kill the wrong person you can't take it back

On the subject of terrorists and murderers. Firstly a terrorist may be young and brainwashed and secondly killing them may make martyrs out of them rather than keeping them in conditions that show them for what they really are, criminals (also the potential damage to the movement if a suicide bomber becomes rehabilitated is huge IMO). With murderers it's even more complicated, many murders are crimes of passion and not premeditated. They are committed by normal people who were caught in a situation that got out of hand and again the problem runs into the two things mentioned above.

People may disagree with me here but I see criminals as a symptom of society that should be rehabilitated (whilst the fundamental causes are addressed). I don't think capital punishment solves anything and whilst my emotional response may be different if I was a victim* that is largely irrelevant to my opinions on how justice should work.

* A common argument I find presented to me on this issue is "Oh yeah, how would you feel if your mother/father/sibling/spouse/friend was murdered/beaten/raped?" and my response would be "I would want to kill the bastard who did it". But just because that is my emotional response doesn't mean that I think it is a moral one.

 

[I_am_learning]

I think the victim should be given the authority whether to capital punish or Imprisonment. Its basic natural right to fight back.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the victim should be given the authority whether to capital punish or Imprisonment. Its basic natural right to fight back.

On the contrary, that's the one person who should not be given any say in the matter.

Curbing the basic natural urge to simply "fight back" is what separates savages from civilizations. Civilized societies decide what is the right thing to do (whatever that might be), not the thing that encourages revenge.

 

[flyingpig]

I think the victim should be given the authority whether to capital punish or Imprisonment. Its basic natural right to fight back.

But is it just a feeling of one instant (well unless he or she killed your relatives maybe it isn't an instant) or just to feel better?

 

[Jack21222]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-half-of-us-back-death-penalty



So there is a chance that they are going to bring back the death penalty in the UK.

So what do you guys think?

Is it really wrong to put terrorists and murderers to death? Is it more expensive to the country to keep thousands of criminals in a building just to dehumanize them? Or none of the reasons really matter because we are actually putting people to death and it is just immoral.

It is really wrong to put people ACCUSED of being a terrorist or a murder to death. How many people on death row have been exonerated? A lot. How many innocent people were killed by the government before they had a chance to be exonerated? We'll never know, but I'd bet everything I own that the number is greater than zero.

I'd rather see a million murderers rot in jail for the rest of their lives than have one innocent man killed.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd rather see a million murderers rot in jail for the rest of their lives than have one innocent man killed.

I think this is actually carved somewhere in the annals of justice. Better 20 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man die.The question must be asked though: are you willing to pay to have a million murderers put up in jail for the rest of their lives? Not all taxpayers are.

 

[flyingpig]

The question must be asked though: are you willing to pay to have a million murderers put up in jail for the rest of their lives? Not all taxpayers are.

I think the average taxpayer already hates paying tax...

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the average taxpayer already hates paying tax...

Then they'd really hate paying even more to keep murderers in comfort, wouldn't they?

(PS. This is not my personal view, I am simply laying out the common classic argument(s).)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The question must be asked though: are you willing to pay to have a million murderers put up in jail for the rest of their lives? Not all taxpayers are.

I think the average taxpayer already hates paying tax...

Then they'd really hate paying even more to keep murderers in comfort, wouldn't they?

(PS. This is not my personal view, I am simply laying out the common classic argument(s).)

If true this presents us with a quandary, most people would be unwilling to let innocent men and women die but may not be willing to pay to keep criminals alive.

However I do not believe this is the case. It is simplistic (IMO) to say "do you want your tax spent on keeping murderers in comfort" because the real question is "do you want your tax spent on jails to keep murderers out of society". Sometimes I feel the my-tax-money arguments are a bit fallacious as the huge benefits from paying tax towards certain projects are overlooked for simplistic and evocative arguments.

 

[Jack21222]

The question must be asked though: are you willing to pay to have a million murderers put up in jail for the rest of their lives? Not all taxpayers are.

Yes, absolutely. A million murderers times about 50,000 a year to keep them locked up... 50 billion dollars. That's a drop in the bucket for one of the core functions of government.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, absolutely. A million murderers times about 50,000 a year to keep them locked up... 50 billion dollars. That's a drop in the bucket for one of the core functions of government.

Do you have any real figures for that?

EDIT not the best source but http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/04/prisons-reoffending-rates" quotes the cost of keeping a UK inmate is £45,000 (~$75,000) yet the cost of reoffending is £11billion (~$17billion). Frustratingly there's no reference for where these figures come from nor a time frame over which they are meant to apply.

 

[flyingpig]

well most of our tax money go to the dirty pockets of politicians anyways.

 

[I_am_learning]

The question must be asked though: are you willing to pay to have a million murderers (in which may be few innocent) put up in jail for the rest of their lives? Not all taxpayers are.

We have to add the bold part, because if we were sure there aren't any innocents then we would have already accepted Capital Punishment in the first place as per the argument "Better 20 guilty be free than 1 man die".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

well most of our tax money go to the dirty pockets of politicians anyways.

Err...what country are you in? Even if politicians partake in activities such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal" they are hardly taking "most" of the tax money.

 

[DaveC426913]

The concern for me is this



Sixteen-years-old? They've all been probably overinfulenced by Death Note or something

Why single them out as not having valid opinions? Pretty sure the day I turned 18, I wasn't hit with the Wisdom Stick.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Why single them out as not having valid opinions? Pretty sure the day I turned 18, I wasn't hit with the Wisdom Stick.

Whilst I agree with this there is a valid argument to restricting polls like this to those of an age able to vote on the matter if it did come up.

 

[DaveC426913]

Whilst I agree with this there is a valid argument to restricting polls like this to those of an age able to vote on the matter if it did come up.

I thought about that, but I concluded that, on such a pivotal moral issue as this, voters or no, their beliefs should be considered - certainly at least in an informal poll.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I thought about that, but I concluded that, on such a pivotal moral issue as this, voters or no, their beliefs should be considered - certainly at least in an informal poll.

Agreed with the caveat that the poll should go lower than 16 to include people of younger ages (perhaps 10 and up) and that the poll be divided along demographic lines so that it can be presented as "X% of people of voting age think Yes, interestingly Y% of children thought Yes"

 

[flyingpig]

Why single them out as not having valid opinions? Pretty sure the day I turned 18, I wasn't hit with the Wisdom Stick.

They don't know enough to really make good judgment. We are talking about the UK afterall...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They don't know enough to really make good judgment. We are talking about the UK afterall...

That's a fantastic generalisation you've made there, an offensive one at that.

 

[flyingpig]

That's a fantastic generalisation you've made there, an offensive one at that.

Sorry let me rephrase that properly. I shouldn't have added the "Uk" part.

Basically all I am saying is that 16-year-olds aren't well-informed enough and therefore I don't think their opinions should be valued very much. I mean most of them are still in high school

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry let me rephrase that properly. I shouldn't have added the "Uk" part.

Basically all I am saying is that 16-year-olds aren't well-informed enough and therefore I don't think their opinions should be valued very much. I mean most of them are still in high school

And my point was: what makes someone two years older automatically better-informed?

I understand the general idea of voters making policy for general decisions; it just seems to me that this one has more of a moral component to it that doesn't necessarily require being fully-apprised of all the circumstances. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion in the moralistic direction of their country.

It also makes difference who held the poll, and to what purpose it is being put. If an informal pop media poll, there's no reason why minors would/could not have a voice.

 

[flyingpig]

And my point was: what makes someone two years older automatically better-informed?

A little more experience and I guess reached the "legal" adult age.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion in the moralistic direction of their country.

Assuming they know what's going on in their country.

It also makes difference who held the poll, and to what purpose it is being put. If an informal pop media poll, there's no reason why minors would/could not have a voice.

I think this is just a "yes" or "no" poll, you can't give your reason.

 

[DaveC426913]

A little more experience and I guess reached the "legal" adult age.

Which is arbitrary when it comes to wisdom. Someone doesn't simply become more informed on their birthday.

Assuming they know what's going on in their country.

Again, you assume that 16 year-olds do not, and assume that 18-year-olds do.


On many issues, being informed to make a strategic decision is certainly critical. On the issue of 'do I want my country to condone the killing of people', it is possible to have a strong belief about it at a young age. It's not the same kind of policy as most.

 

[Evo]

And my point was: what makes someone two years older automatically better-informed?

Trying to play the old Devil's advocate game? Because if you want a serious poll, a poll representing the people that would actually be able to vote on such a thing, you don't ask children. Sixteen year olds can't vote, so unless you want to argue that 16 years old be allowed to vote, your argument is rather pointless.

Let's get back to the topic please.

 

[arildno]

's no chance it will be bought back. This poll from a free London news paper is largely irrelevant, there's no political backing for this and no motion to do so.

The problem with capital punishment is twofold

1) It violates a fundamental principle behind out legal system that everyone has the capacity to be a good person

2) If you kill the wrong person you can't take it back

1) It really doesn't matter if Anders Behring Breivik was a good boy, or can become one again. He still ought to be executed for his crimes. Sadly, we can't, since death penalty for civil crimes was abolished in 1902
2) We won't kill the "wrong" person in the case of Anders Behring Breivik.

 

[Evo]

Odd, can anyone find that poll? I couldn't find it online, so I searched Harris' UK poll archives and the only poll on capital punishment between 2006-2010 is a 2008 American poll.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/uk/Insights/HarrisVault.aspx

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The newspaper must have got whiff of something because this evening its come out that there is a petition to get the government to discuss the issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14400246

If they do get the number of people they need the Commons will reject it so its highly unlikely anything will happen. I'm also quite worried about the people organising these petitions, on the news they just interviewed one of them and he just seemed like a right-wing fanatic who thinks all politicians are in on it (whatever it is). Out of all the issues there are suspiciously no petitions on climate change or tuition fees which are some of the biggest controversies of recent years yet multiple petitions about the death penalty, leaving the EU and leaving the human rights act. This sounds suspiciously like a major push by some extreme-right wingers.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

1) It really doesn't matter if Anders Behring Breivik was a good boy, or can become one again. He still ought to be executed for his crimes. Sadly, we can't, since death penalty for civil crimes was abolished in 1902
2) We won't kill the "wrong" person in the case of Anders Behring Breivik.

This is a sensitive issue but specific cases do not change my stance.

 

[Ken Natton]

The e-petitions website is here:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/index.html

It seems to be a website that has a lot of problems. Very often, when you click on any links, you get a message telling you that something has gone wrong. And how accessible it will be to those outside the UK I don’t know.

For me too, arguments about the cost to the taxpayer of keeping life-term prisoners in prison are entirely beside the point. With due concern to the sensitivities for arildno, I happen to think that Breivik is actually a very good case in point. My arguments against the death penalty have nothing whatever to do with any sympathy for Breivik or respect for his rights. I care as little about Breivik as arildno does. He should live out his miserable little life going where he is sent, eating what he is given, utterly powerless to affect anything of significance. The problem with executing him is not about him, it is about us. My belief, arildno, is that it is not a coincidence that your country scrapped the death penalty so long ago and has such a low murder rate. I don’t suggest that one is the cause of the other, I suggest that they are both symptoms of the same aspect of your society. The active use of the death penalty and the high murder rate in certain states of the US are similarly symptoms of the same aspect of that society.

 

[arildno]

Japan has a very low murder rate, about twice the Norwegian.
It also executes its murderers on a large scale.

So, there really isn't any solid correlation that countries that practice execution have much larger murder rates than others.

 

[Evo]

The newspaper must have got whiff of something because this evening its come out that there is a petition to get the government to discuss the issue.

So it seems that newspaper in the OP made up an imaginary Harris Poll? Harris states in it's political polls that they start at 18 years of age.

 

[drankin]

Executing someone for willfully taking the lives of innocent people seems like the best thing for society to me. Keeping someone alive, food, housing, clothing, (a TV?), for the rest of their life just doesn't compute to me.

But I don't live in Norway.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's get back to the topic please.

This is actually the topic as defined by the OP.

The OP explicitly clarified in post #3 that his issue is with the age category of the poll:

The concern for me is this

Harris questioned 1,100 people aged between 16 and 64.

Sixteen-years-old?...

Trying to play the old Devil's advocate game? Because if you want a serious poll, a poll representing the people that would actually be able to vote on such a thing, you don't ask children. Sixteen year olds can't vote, so unless you want to argue that 16 years old be allowed to vote, your argument is rather pointless.

My point is that this poll is not necessarily about voting. While minors do not make legal decisions, they do (arguably) have a right to weigh in on moral grounds.

One can rationalize and argue costs and benefits of this or that actions; there will be under debate by everyone of a legal age, but the core issue here cannot be side-stepped - and it doesn't require a law degree to have an opinion on - which is thus:

All other issues aside, can you accept your country institutionalizing the killing of citizens?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Japan has a very low murder rate, about twice the Norwegian.
It also executes its murderers on a large scale.

So, there really isn't any solid correlation that countries that practice execution have much larger murder rates than others.

Efficacy is not an aspect of why I oppose the death penalty. The morals of it along with the impracticalities of it is why it I currently deem it unethical.

Executing someone for willfully taking the lives of innocent people seems like the best thing for society to me. Keeping someone alive, food, housing, clothing, (a TV?), for the rest of their life just doesn't compute to me.

Death is easy, life is hard. Execution is a solution for society not a punishment for the criminal. Keeping them alive for decades at a time serves two purposes

1) It is a punishment they can appreciate
2) There is a chance that they can reform in which case they are not the same person they were when they committed the crime.

I see nothing logically wrong with this and as is the case with ethics it is a lot murkier than the rest of what we can discuss on this forum. This is what I hold to be moral at this time.

 

[drankin]

Efficacy is not an aspect of why I oppose the death penalty. The morals of it along with the impracticalities of it is why it I currently deem it unethical.


Death is easy, life is hard. Execution is a solution for society not a punishment for the criminal. Keeping them alive for decades at a time serves two purposes

1) It is a punishment they can appreciate
2) There is a chance that they can reform in which case they are not the same person they were when they committed the crime.

I see nothing logically wrong with this and as is the case with ethics it is a lot murkier than the rest of what we can discuss on this forum. This is what I hold to be moral at this time.

1) It is a punishment they can appreciate. Why would it matter what they appreciate? They obviously don't appreciate letting others live.
2) There is a chance that they can reform in which case they are not the same person they were when they committed the crime. It doesn't matter if they can be reformed. If they live the consequences of their actions can never be appreciated.

I don't see the moral dilemna in this. To me, letting a murderer live actually devalues the lives of others in a society. The lives of innocent individuals are not seen as important. Some social ideal is held above their own individual existence.

I think this is where the core of the debate lies. Idealism versus individual worth.

 

[arildno]

Why is it important that a criminal "appreciates" his punishment?
Rather, it is the society around that determines what punishments theit criminals ought to have.

Basically, it is about how a society maintains pride and confidence in itself.

 

[Char. Limit]

Sorry let me rephrase that properly. I shouldn't have added the "Uk" part.

Basically all I am saying is that 16-year-olds aren't well-informed enough and therefore I don't think their opinions should be valued very much. I mean most of them are still in high school

That's a fantastic generalisation you've made there, an offensive one at that.

When I was sixteen, I did my best to be informed on the issues. I joined the JSA (never made it to office there, but that's beside the point), and I, for the most part, knew the main issues and what people wanted to do about them.

Just because YOU at 16 didn't know anything about politics doesn't mean everyone didn't.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

1) It is a punishment they can appreciate. Why would it matter what they appreciate? They obviously don't appreciate letting others live.
2) There is a chance that they can reform in which case they are not the same person they were when they committed the crime. It doesn't matter if they can be reformed. If they live the consequences of their actions can never be appreciated.

I don't see the moral dilemna in this. To me, letting a murderer live actually devalues the lives of others in a society. The lives of innocent individuals are not seen as important. Some social ideal is held above their own individual existence.

I think this is where the core of the debate lies. Idealism versus individual worth.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, not all murderers are bloodthirsty sociopaths. I see the purpose of a criminal justice system to issue rehabilitation, not state sanctioned vengeance. I don't agree that there is any devaluing of human life in not having executions, if anything I think it exemplifies the value of human life.

Why is it important that a criminal "appreciates" his punishment?
Rather, it is the society around that determines what punishments theit criminals ought to have.

Basically, it is about how a society maintains pride and confidence in itself.

I don't think there is any link to pride or confidence. It's important that a criminal appreciates his punishment because otherwise it is pointless. Justice isn't for the satisfaction of the victim nor society it is for the protection of society by dealing with crime. As I don't agree that executions are a good way with dealing with crime I therefore don't agree that it is an appropriate part of justice.

 

[drankin]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, not all murderers are bloodthirsty sociopaths. I see the purpose of a criminal justice system to issue rehabilitation, not state sanctioned vengeance. I don't agree that there is any devaluing of human life in not having executions, if anything I think it exemplifies the value of human life.



I don't think there is any link to pride or confidence. It's important that a criminal appreciates his punishment because otherwise it is pointless. Justice isn't for the satisfaction of the victim nor society it is for the protection of society by dealing with crime. As I don't agree that executions are a good way with dealing with crime I therefore don't agree that it is an appropriate part of justice.

Yes, we disagree. I'm just pointing out the crux of the debate. I appreciate your point of view.

Justice IS for the satisfaction of the victims, their families, and society. It is not just rodent removal. We all have a sense of justice. That's why many of us are on this forum.

We pay a lot of money to our government to reinforce our sense of justice. We want consequences for bad behaviour, irresponsibility, and violence. Rehabilitation is great, but that is not the purpose of the "justice" system.

I think I ran a red light today at a camera enforced intersection. I'd rather be rehabilitated than pay the ticket but guess what... :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, we disagree. I'm just pointing out the crux of the debate. I appreciate your point of view.

And I appreciate your point of view and I do think it is legitimate in spite of strongly disagreeing.

 

[Jack21222]

Do you have any real figures for that?

EDIT not the best source but http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/04/prisons-reoffending-rates" quotes the cost of keeping a UK inmate is £45,000 (~$75,000) yet the cost of reoffending is £11billion (~$17billion). Frustratingly there's no reference for where these figures come from nor a time frame over which they are meant to apply.

The number came right from my rectal cavity, but I'm fairly sure it's order-of-magnitude correct.

 

[flyingpig]

When I was sixteen, I did my best to be informed on the issues. I joined the JSA (never made it to office there, but that's beside the point), and I, for the most part, knew the main issues and what people wanted to do about them.

Just because YOU at 16 didn't know anything about politics doesn't mean everyone didn't.

No I did know, but I didn't think it was ENOUGH to make a good judgment. All the knowledge I had back then was from textbooks that was taught to us, so it was rather one-sided.

 

[DaveC426913]

No I did know, but I didn't think it was ENOUGH to make a good judgment.

Enough to answer a poll. It's just a poll.

No one said whether the poll was being used to affect policy.

 

[Evo]

I'd say something, but then I'd have to ban myself. I believe that many cannot be rehabilitated, their upbringing saw to that. You would have to change their entire being. People need to realize that a person raised to believe that only violence and hatred matters cannot be easily, if ever changed.

Then you have the person put into a bad, abusive situation by another person and they snap and kill/harm them. These people shouldn't be jailed because they are not a threat to society, IMO.

Then you have the ones that kill for profit or convenience. These should be kept away from society. Can they be rehabilitated, a few, maybe, depends if they can be kept out of situations where they feel someone is between them and what they want.

Then you have those that kill and torture for fun. I don't think these can be rehabilitated either.

So, in my opinion, either they shouldn't be in prison or a few might be rehabilitated, the majority will never be safe to be released. I believe justice is an eye for an eye, and in these later cases means a death sentence is not punishment.

IMO.

 

[daveb]

I think this is where the core of the debate lies. Idealism versus individual worth.

However, there are moral and ethical philosophies that take the position (see Kant) that life itself is invaluable, regardless of whether it is innocent or not, so even that line can be murky. Here, any kind of killing is morally wrong because it devalues the individual worth of the person being executed (in other words, just because the person A doesn't uphold the moral code doesn't mean the moral code no longer applies to them).

 

[arildno]

It is ironic that you refer to Immanuel Kant.
He is one of the clearest SUPPORTERS of the death penalty.

Here are three quotes by him:

1. "“If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.”

2. "Even if a civil society were to be dissolved by the consent of all its members (e.g., if a people inhabiting an island decided to separate and disperse throughout the world), the last murderer remaining in prison would first have to be executed, so that each has done to him what his deeds deserve and blood guilt does not cling to the people for not having insisted upon this punishment; for otherwise the people can be regarded as collaborators in his public violation of justice"

3. "A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral."

http://pro-dp.appspot.com/init/default/view/697011/Philosophers