News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[Evo]

For some crimes, it seems the death penalty is not punishment enough. I am for the death penalty in cases, such as this, where there is no question of guilt. But I also agree that in these cases, the death penalty should be carried out immediately after sentencing

Would you agree or disagree with the death penalty in a case such as this?

On that June night, the girls were hoping to beat an 11:30 p.m. curfew by taking a shortcut home to Pena's northwest Houston neighborhood. They were crossing a railroad bridge when the gang, drinking beer and initiating a new member, spotted them.

One of the gang members grabbed Pena. She screamed. Ertman tried to help.

In what police later would describe as a sadistic frenzy, the girls were gang-raped for more than an hour. They were forced to perform oral sex. They were kicked, teeth knocked out and hair pulled out and ribs broken. A red nylon belt, with an attacker tugging at each end, was pulled so tightly around Ertman's neck the belt snapped. Shoelaces were used to strangle Pena.

Evidence showed Cantu kicked one of the girls in the face with his steel-toed boot.

Cantu's brother, upset at the gang's gloating about having fun with the girls, called police.

Cantu, then 18, orchestrated the attacks and slaying. He became notorious for trying to kick a TV cameraman recording his arrest.

Authorities later linked him and O'Brien to a killing six months before the attack on Ertman and Pena. In that case, a 27-year-old woman was found at a Houston park with her throat cut. She'd been raped and eviscerated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100817/ap_on_re_us/us_gang_killings_execution;_ylt=AqkSw9xU8DLA.OFXZ6sdf3VH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNmODE1bzU4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODE3L3VzX2dhbmdfa2lsbGluZ3NfZXhlY3V0aW9uBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrAzNyZHRyaXB0b3RleA--

 

[Gokul43201]

There's never really "no question".

 

[Evo]

There's never "no question". But to answer the question directly, no I don't support the death penalty in so-called cut-and-dried cases.

Do you think there is a question as to guilt in this case? If yes, what is the doubt?

 

[Gokul43201]

I edited out part of my previous answer (in order to avoid getting drawn into the larger discussion) - but not fast enough. I should have taken back my entire answer, as I do not think I will be making the time to read the details of the particular case.

In general, I hold that one can only absolutely prove mathematical conjectures. When it comes to proving some aspect of physical reality, you can supply more and more evidence to support it, but that's the best you can do.

 

[Bystander]

Czolgosz, Ruby, Nidal? No questions.

 

[drankin]

For some crimes, it seems the death penalty is not punishment enough. I am for the death penalty in cases, such as this, where there is no question of guilt. But I also agree that in these cases, the death penalty should be carried out immediately after sentencing

Would you agree or disagree with the death penalty in a case such as this?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100817/ap_on_re_us/us_gang_killings_execution;_ylt=AqkSw9xU8DLA.OFXZ6sdf3VH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNmODE1bzU4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODE3L3VzX2dhbmdfa2lsbGluZ3NfZXhlY3V0aW9uBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrAzNyZHRyaXB0b3RleA--

I agree totally. I think one of the reasons the death penalty is not as effective these days is because it can take a decade for it to be carried out. Execution should be a deterent for others as well as a punishment. But if it isn't swift, then the deterent aspect is lost.

 

[skeptic2]

People who commit crimes have at least one of two beliefs that people who do not commit crimes don't have. They are:

1. They won't get caught.
2. They are justified in committing the crime.

If they hold the first belief, then it doesn't matter what the punishment is, it is ineffective in deterring the crime.

Many people who hold the second belief aren't concerned whether they'll be caught or not. People in this category may include the mentally ill or those involved in civil disobedience.

I suspect that many criminals hold both beliefs, justifying in their own minds their reasons for committing the crime. Perhaps what is hardest to understand for those who don't commit crimes is that the deterrents which seem logical and effective to them are not so for the criminal.

 

[jgens]

Would you agree or disagree with the death penalty in a case such as this?

Yes. I disagree with the death penalty period, but that's just a particular moral value of mine.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Death penalty if there's no doubt they did it and the crime is bad enough. The crime doesn't even have to be murder for the death penalty to be warranted.
If it's a crime that's bad, but not death penalty worthy, then they should be sent to a deserted island and never allowed to return.

I suspect that many criminals hold both beliefs, justifying in their own minds their reasons for committing the crime. Perhaps what is hardest to understand for those who don't commit crimes is that the deterrents which seem logical and effective to them are not so for the criminal.

The best way is to find the psychopaths early, when they're still children, and develop medicine to treat their illness.
Some may not be psychopaths, but if you're eviscerating people, you're a psychopath.

 

[Evo]

For those that are against the death penalty, a question. Do you believe that the sentence for someone that tortures and kills for entertainment should be the same as for a thief that injured no one?

Should all crimes have the same punishment?

 

[DanP]

I am a supporter of death penalty. Yes, I think the perpetrators should be executed swiftly, so the state doesn't lose any money on them.

 

[skeptic2]

Perhaps that someone who tortured and killed for entertainment might be tortured and killed as punishment?

Is this not a way of justifying in our own minds what would be a crime in other circumstances.

If punishment is ineffective against criminals as a deterrent, thus the crime, then shouldn't the intent of the law be to either rehabilitate the criminal or isolate the criminal from society as a preventive measure instead of a punitive one?

 

[DanP]

Perhaps that someone who tortured and killed for entertainment might be tortured and killed as punishment?

Hang, drawn and quartered in a public square ?

lethal injection is cheaper :P

 

[drankin]

Hang, drawn and quartered in a public square ?

lethal injection is cheaper :P

Firing squad is cheaper still.

 

[jgens]

For those that are against the death penalty, a question. Do you believe that the sentence for someone that tortures and kills for entertainment should be the same as for a thief that injured no one?

Should all crimes have the same punishment?

Certainly not. A thief that injures no one will only serve a few years in jail at most (typically) while a murderer often serves life in prison. Personally, I believe that this is how things should be.

 

[DanP]

Certainly not. A thief that injures no one will only serve a few years in jail at most (typically) while a murderer often serves life in prison. Personally, I believe that this is how things should be.

Blood for blood, this is how things should be :P Why waste the state money to support the life of a criminal in prison ? THe millions spent during a lifetime for a murderer can be used in health system to save same valuable lifes :P

 

[arildno]

In 1868, John Stuart Mill spoke against the abolition of the death penalty in a speech held before the Parliament.

It is well worth a read:
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/Mill_supports_death_penalty.htm

 

[Evo]

Perhaps that someone who tortured and killed for entertainment might be tortured and killed as punishment?

Is this not a way of justifying in our own minds what would be a crime in other circumstances.

If punishment is ineffective against criminals as a deterrent, thus the crime, then shouldn't the intent of the law be to either rehabilitate the criminal or isolate the criminal from society as a preventive measure instead of a punitive one?

Which brings up an interesting question. Is there less serious crime in countries that have severe punishments for the crime?

I don't mean crazy punishment that does not match the crime, like the recent taliban sanctioned stoning to death of an adulterous couple, without legal process and carried out by a group of crazed villagers.

I believe that extreme care should be taken to prevent the innocent from being sentenced. But does that then mean that all crimes are punished equally, with the exception of duration of time served?

 

[jgens]

Blood for blood, this is how things should be :P Why waste the state money to support the life of a criminal in prison ? THe millions spent during a lifetime for a murderer can be used in health system to save same valuable lifes :P

In my opinion, to deny someone the right to appeal would be a violation of due process. These appeals are quite costly to the state and thus millions aren't actually saved by executing criminals. Moreover, hasty executions would only increase the likelihood that an innocent person will be executed.

 

[cristo]

How is "cut and dried" defined?

 

[skeptic2]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

 

[BobG]

For those that are against the death penalty, a question. Do you believe that the sentence for someone that tortures and kills for entertainment should be the same as for a thief that injured no one?

Should all crimes have the same punishment?

You're mixing two issues.

Should the penalty for someone who tortures people for fun be the same as the penalty for someone who gets in a fight, wins, and continues to toss in some extra blows and kicks even after his opponent has given up and is no longer fighting?

Should the penalty for someone who tortures and kills for fun be the same as the penalty for shooting someone before stealing their wallet and their car?

Even in wars, where behavior normally considered abhorrent (killing) is not only considered acceptable, but desirable, there are limits to acceptable behavior. Torture is a crime even in wars. Not only ending someone's life, but making their last few minutes of life full of extreme pain and terror deserves extra punishment.

I think the death penalty might be used too often by some states, but it's still a fitting punishment for particularly sick crimes.

 

[Evo]

How is "cut and dried" defined?

On top of evidence, the criminal admits to the crime and is found to be of sound mind. If anything is in question, then it's not cut and dried. This means there would be very few affected by such changes to the death penalty, but this would be one case where nothing is being questioned.

 

[skeptic2]

What is the purpose of the death penalty?

 

[DanP]

What is the purpose of the death penalty?

punishment, not deterrence.

 

[skeptic2]

But what purpose does punishment serve if not deterrence?

 

[arildno]

This is an interesting topic.

And, YES, DanP, "deterrence" does not constitute the legitimizing basis for punishments, since then we could equally well adopt the Draconian legal code.

Nor is it relevant, in the perspective of deterrence, that the the one to be punished is ACTUALLY guilty, because you can get a very strong deterrent effect by punishing an innocent instead.


In short, deterrence is a secondary consideration, rather than a primary one.

 

[arildno]

But what purpose does punishment serve if not deterrence?

It does not have a "purpose".

Rather, through his crime, the criminal has fewer rights left than the non-criminal, and the imposition of penalties is an expression of this manufactured inequality of rights.

An inequality of rights manufactured by the action of the criminal himself.

 

[DanP]

But what purpose does punishment serve if not deterrence?

I am an adept of the retributivist principle. This means, the punishment does not necessarily have to serve any other purpose , such as a deterrent effect, a coercive effect or a rehab effect.

 

[skeptic2]

I get it, simple revenge.

 

[arildno]

I get it, simple revenge.

No, you don't get it.

Ask yourself:

What principle legitimizes imposition of punishment?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Evidence can be faked, witnesses can make mistakes or have a bias, and defendants have even been known to admit to a crime that they didn't commit - most often in hopes of cutting deal for a reduced sentence. There is no such thing as "cut and dried".

Evo, how do you know for a fact that what you posted is accurate?

The notion that the death penalty should be applied quickly in order to avoid the appeals process, is a certain recipe for appalling injustices. We have an appeals process for a reason - the system is fallible.

Beyond that, no State should have the right to execute anyone for any reason. There is nothing more dangerous than a government that has too much power.

We have to deal with the sadistic animals that biology produces, but that doesn't mean we should sink to their level. In all likelihood, the people who commit horrific crimes are defective. I strongly suspect that one day, all such behavior will be treatable. Killing these people is akin to burning young women as witches because they ate contaminated wheat.

 

[DanP]

Beyond that, no State should have the right to execute anyone for any reason. There is nothing more dangerous than a government that has too much power.

It's a sentence applied by a jury of your peers or a judge ensemble. The state only carries it out. It's not in the government's power to execute anyone.

 

[turbo]

There have been a spate of well-documented releases of innocent people from death row in recent years thanks to DNA evidence. Swift executions would have meant even more grave injustices than wrongful imprisonment.

Bear in mind that Shirley Sherrod's father was shot in the back by a white farmer when she was just 17, and the all-white GA jury didn't see that murder as rising to the level of a crime. We have come a long way since the Jim Crow days, but there is still plenty of racial injustice to go around.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's a sentence applied by a jury of your peers or a judge ensemble. The state only carries it out. It's not in the government's power to execute anyone.

As you said, the State carries out the execution. Your statement is self-contradictory.

If we want to remain purely ideological, the people on that jury are the State. All the more reason to eliminate the death penalty altogether. How would you like your life to be in the hands of Jerry Springer fans?

How can people on this forum [not you in particular] complain about how stupid the average American is, and then give these same Americans the power of life and death?

 

[DanP]

As you said, the State carries out the execution. Your statement is self-contradictory.

So what ? The government has no power to execute anyone, lacking a definite death sentence. So they are merely an executor. The authority to sentence someone to death is not government's. They are compeled to carry out the jury's sentences, the will of your peers.

If we want to remain purely ideological, the people on that jury are the State. All the more reason to eliminate the death penalty altogether. How would you like your life to be in the hands of Jerry Springer fans?

The prosecution represents the state, not the jury.

How can people on this forum [not you in particular] complain about how stupid the average American is, and then give these same Americans the power of life and death?

I don't think Americans are any more stupid or more smart in average than any other members of a civilized nation.

 

[drankin]

As you said, the State carries out the execution. Your statement is self-contradictory.

If we want to remain purely ideological, the people on that jury are the State. All the more reason to eliminate the death penalty altogether. How would you like your life to be in the hands of Jerry Springer fans?

How can people on this forum [not you in particular] complain about how stupid the average American is, and then give these same Americans the power of life and death?

After the state calls in the candidates, the jury is selected by the suspects lawyer if he/she chooses counsel. The jury is ultimately selected by both the prosecuter and the suspects attorney, not at random.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The prosecution represents the state, not the jury.

As far as I know, this is correct. The jury represents the people. If the jury could not act independently of the state then what would its purpose be?

 

[nismaratwork]

Personally I have no issue with dangerous individuals who can remain a threat even in prison being killed, but I do believe that the process of incarceration with a "ticking clock" to one's death is cruel. I believe that the process of dragging someone out of their cell, strapping them down and executing them, however brief or quiet, is cruel as well. I don't think it's worth it, in the end, unless it's materially necessary such as in cases where a gang leader, mob boss, terrorist, or traitor can continue their activities through proxies even when incarcerated.

The actual killing doesn't phase me at all, but wrapping this up with the notion that "cut and dry" can ever be a universal standard is just wrong. A handful of cases certainly are as close to certain as one can scientifically get, but that is rarely going to apply to a majority.

 

[vertices]

I don't think Americans are any more stupid or more smart in average than any other members of a civilized nation.

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

It may be inhumane, but killing people is very human.

 

[DanP]

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

Says who ? Really sometimes some of you guys manage to amaze me. So lost in idealism that you became oblivious you live in a world where killings, rapes, theft, corruption and a whole plethora of other serious crimes are quotidian events.

There is nothing inhuman and degrading in the death penalty. If someone behaves like a rabid dog, it deserves to be put down.

 

[lisab]

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman and degrading and thus totally incompatible with the norms of civilised behaviour, at the same time.

And you define "norms of civilzed behavior" to be the norms of your culture, by chance?

Just fyi, I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I am in favor of trying to be more accepting and tolerent of others' cultural beliefs, though.

 

[arildno]

Ironic you say that and support the death penalty, a punishment that is inherently inhuman

Assertion, not argument.
Read, for example, how John Stuart Mill argues.

 

[vertices]

And you define "norms of civilzed behavior" to be the norms of your culture, by chance?

It has been very clearly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (google it). Note the word universal.

Just fyi, I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I am in favor of trying to be more accepting and tolerent of others' cultural beliefs, though.

It's hard to be tolerant when they have no respect for human rights...

 

[skeptic2]

I am an adept of the retributivist principle. This means, the punishment does not necessarily have to serve any other purpose , such as a deterrent effect, a coercive effect or a rehab effect.

From: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/retributivism.php which suggests that the purpose of retributive punishment may be for reform or deterrence.

This is another good source but long.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment/

Again, punishment has no deterrence for one who does not believe he will be caught nor does punishment reform those who believe they were justified in committing their act.

 

[arildno]

It has been very clearly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (google it). Note the word universal.

Here, you commit the logic fallacy known as ad authoritam

 

[Evo]

It has been very clearly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (google it). Note the word universal.

And the victim's were deprived of these rights at the hands of their torturers/killers.

It's hard to be tolerant when they have no respect for human rights...

These criminals had zero respect for human rights. What is the punishment for these people?

Not to mention that the UN is not addressing individuals as torturers/criminals.

 

[arildno]

skeptic2:

Rights are reciprocal affairs, not unilateral entities.

You keep rights to the extent to which you respect others' rights.

If you do not respect others' rights, in a legally relevant way, then your own rights vanish.


Meaning that you are left with fewer rights than the non-offender...

 

[DanP]

From: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/retributivism.php which suggests that the purpose of retributive punishment may be for reform or deterrence.

How exactly did you arrived to this conclusion ? The text you link explicitly suggests independence :P

... pain or disadvantage on an offender which is in some sense commensurate with his offence and which is inflicted independently of reform or deterrence.

Again, punishment has no deterrence for one who does not believe he will be caught nor does punishment reform those who believe they were justified in committing their act.

I don't care of punishment as a deterrence or rehab measure. I though I made this clear.

The best deterrent IMO is a solid education.