News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[arildno]

Foul play causes a social imbalance. The main purpose of the punishment is reestablishing the social balance.

I'd rather say punishment is a form of an exterioriation of the implicit social contract, in that by punishing, criminals AND non-criminals alike, becomes aware of the contract's existence.

Whether it can be said to "re-establish" anything, besides the belief that the system is working, is a matter upon which I harbour some doubts.

The overall justification of punishment, however, lies in the reduced rights of the criminal, the reduction occurring at the moment of the crime.
(we can do unto the criminal actions that we cannot do upon non-criminals, because the criminal has fewer rights (left).)

Further elements of the justification will determine, for example, whether or not a deserved punishment should be implemented.

 

[DanP]

Whether it can be said to "re-establish" anything, besides the belief that the system is working, is a matter upon which I harbour some doubts.

Im really curious what are those doubts. I find this very interesting.

 

[arildno]

Im really curious what are those doubts. I find this very interesting.

Well, the "social imbalance" argument typically tries to argue that the criminal has gained some sort of "advantage", that the punishment then re-appropriates.

This imagery works, I suppose, in the case of theft, but what "advantage" has the criminal gained by, say, a rape, that is "removed" by the punishment?

From my point of view, violating others' rights makes you an outlaw; upon the moment of the crime, you've already lost a number of rights, and are of less legal worth than the non-criminal.

And then, it is up to the society to find out how to treat that person according to his reduced status (according to the principle: "to each his due").

They MIGHT treat him just as before (non-punishment, or the granting of pardon, for example), but they are entitled to other actions against him as well.

 

[DanP]

Well, the "social imbalance" argument typically tries to argue that the criminal has gained some sort of "advantage", that the punishment then re-appropriates.

This is interesting. In my "imagery" the things worked differently. The society has taken damage when the crime was executed, and by punishment the loss is alleviated. I never thought that the perpetrator gains an advantage, which must be re-appropriated to the society. Somehow diametrically opposed to what you described. And I have to clarify here, I talk about society, not the individual victim. The loss of the victim can
be compensated with a civil action complementing the criminal process.

I agree with the outlaw issue.

 

[arildno]

The society has taken damage when the crime was executed, and by punishment the loss is alleviated.

Well, that is another imbalance argument.

The problem I have with that is the idea that society is somehow "enriched" by meting out punishment.

From what I see, we have a double loss situation, for the (punished) criminal AND society, both gets poorer.


As I see it, that double loss is incurred at the moment of the crime.

To punish justly, i.e, treating the criminal in a way according to his reduced status, but that would be inadmissible to treat a non-criminal might, possibly, offer some consolation to the victims/society t large, might induce some regrets in the criminal, but none of this provides the justification of punishment.

For example, a lot of criminals DO regret their actions sincerely&immensely, and would never think ever of doing anything like that again.

That does not, however, on its own, restore their status of equal legal worth with the non-criminal (and hence, inadmissibility of punishment).

If the society is to be said to be "enriched", it lies in exercising the greater scope of freedom of action upon the criminal that his self-inflicted loss of rights has given society.

 

[nismaratwork]

What determines whether a punishment is commensurate with the crime? By your argument below, it's nothing more than the whims of the people on any given day.

So, it really has nothing to do with a rationale linking your actions to the inalienable nature of your rights. If "the ppl, through free election of members of the community in the lawmaking organisms of the state" feel like jaywalking, having homosexual sex, or disagreeing with an opinion of the government deserves a death penalty, then so be it. Heinous or not does matter.

It's that "heinous" bit that makes this all so difficult. I also find it difficult in practice to reconcile emerging knowledge of neurobiology and psychology with a death sentence.

Evo: You talked earlier about entertaining prisoners, but the reality is that humans require some amount of baseline stimulation or we go stark raving mad. We already keep plenty of people in a cell 23 of 24 hours in the day, and the results are NOT pretty. When someone is deprived of freedom for the rest of their natural life, and in the tender mercies of the state and their fellow prisoners, I think it's factitious to talk about paying for their upkeep. We're paying for their punishment, which requires basic living.

In the end, killing in self defense is different from killing someone who is confined. The latter is cold blooded, and while I can't say it's wrong (being a moral relativist), I find it hard to accept.

 

[DanP]

Evo: You talked earlier about entertaining prisoners, but the reality is that humans require some amount of baseline stimulation or we go stark raving mad. We already keep plenty of people in a cell 23 of 24 hours in the day, and the results are NOT pretty. When someone is deprived of freedom for the rest of their natural life, and in the tender mercies of the state and their fellow prisoners, I think it's factitious to talk about paying for their upkeep. We're paying for their punishment, which requires basic living.

So isn't it all so much more merciful to put them out of the misery ? A lethal injection and we can all move on :P

To be honest, if someone would kill one of my family, the best punishment ever IMO would be to let me kill them and walk unharmed by law.

I also find it difficult in practice to reconcile emerging knowledge of neurobiology and psychology with a death sentence.

Really what's the point ? Now you going to tell me that they are irresponsible ? Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases they are.

 

[vertices]

It should first be noted what, historically, was meant by "inalienable".

It means something that cannot be handed over to someone else from the one possessing it.

You may alienate your right to driving your own car by renting it out, but you cannot sell yourself into a state of slavery.

Thus, "inalienable rights " means that there exist rights that cannot be transferred from on person to another by means of a contract.

Inalienability is, therefore, a limitation upon what sort of contracts are to be regarded as valid contracts, and which are not.

Punishment is reserved upon them who refuse the validity of contracts as such, i.e, who has outlawed themselves, in some manner.

inalienable rights are moral rights - take human rights for example, which is basically a statement that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of human beings, is always morally wrong, under any circumstance. I consider this to be a truism.

So when Mr Obama made it clear to the world that "we don't torture", what he was implying was that any contract that alienates human rights is by definition null and void.

It's interesting you mentioned slavery because this institution was only abolished when the government and public grew to accept the idea of inalienable rights (even if they weren't defined as such)...

 

[DanP]

It's interesting you mentioned slavery because this institution was only abolished when the government and public grew to accept the idea of inalienable rights (even if they weren't defined as such)...

This is a wrong example in this context. Nobody can sell you in slavery, that's true. Nobody can kill you, your right to life is protected. But you can alienate your so called "inalienable" rights. When you kill, you forfeit your rights.

Obama is right. The civilized states "don't torture". But others do. In doing so they forfeit their rights and can be punished. At large scale we do this by them bombing back into stone age with our superior technology. At small scale we either confine them in prisons, either kill them in some places. Legally.

 

[vertices]

This is a wrong example in this context. Nobody can sell you in slavery, that's true.

But slavery was contractual be it explicitly or implicitly. The principle argument of the anti slavery movement was simply that slavery denies people of their inalienable rights.

Nobody can kill you, your right to life is protected. But you can alienate your so called "inalienable" rights. When you kill, you forfeit your rights.

That's what people believed when slavery was practised. It's not something 'civilised states' believe.

In doing so they forfeit their rights and can be punished. At large scale we do this by them bombing back into stone age with our superior technology. At small scale we either confine them in prisons, either kill them in some places. Legally.

erm, we're talking about the death penalty. What's your point?

 

[loseyourname]

Mission or not, it cannot be the primary justification for punishing crime.

Not the least because there is no reason to suppose limiting punishment to those actually guilty is more effective in crime reduction than punishing a few non-guilties along with them.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's problematic. Acceptable strategies to achieve a mission can be constrained by other considerations, like, well, justice. You can build that into the mission statement if necessary. I believe the Federal Reserve Board, for instance, has a mission of promoting full employment while controlling inflation, which are competing goals.

Criminal justice systems can formulate their mission to be punishing criminals in order to reduce crime (the classic task-purpose mission statement format we use in the military).

But I was actually thinking more broadly when I first wrote that anyway, beyond any actual criminal justice system, in that the purpose of having a criminal justice system in any society is to reduce crime. Punishing non-criminals is one means of doing so, and as you point out, has been used by certain societies. There was an episode of Star Trek in which every offense was a capital offense, even walking on the grass. That's a possible strategy to reduce crime.

Our task, in determining the specific strategy of our particular criminal justice system, is to figure out how to reduce crime using 1) means that are effective and 2) means that are morally permissible. Capital punishment is pretty hotly contested on both counts.

 

[arildno]

Nobody can kill you, your right to life is protected. But you can alienate your so called "inalienable" rights.

Nope.

You cannot sell yourself into slavery.

Furthermore, the original meaning of an "inalienable right" to life is that you cannot, by means of a private contract, let somebody get to kill you.

While these concepts sound weird, the first one is well documented, people DID sell themselves into slavery.

And, saying that you cannot enter a valid contract so that another individual can kill you, effectively criminalized the phenomenon of duelling, even, that is especially, in its voluntary contractual form.

 

[DanP]

That's what people believed when slavery was practised. It's not something 'civilised states' believe.

No , back then it was believed that certain classes of beings have less rights than others.
That we can sell race X in slavery because they are no better than animals.

Today we recognize many of the so called "natural" rights to all humans. We cannot take
those rights from them. But again, they themselves can act in such a way that they forfeit their rights. We don't take it from them, they basically give them away when they do a crime.

erm, we're talking about the death penalty. What's your point?

erm, why bring in Obama and torture then ?

 

[DanP]

Furthermore, the original meaning of an "inalienable right" to life is that you cannot, by means of a private contract, let somebody get to kill you.

You can. .But in most of the states the contractor will be tried as a criminal. However, several states have seen the light in this issue IMO. For example the legislative changes from 2002 from Netherlands in the area of euthanasia are a big step ahead. I think Switzerland has very permissive laws in this area too.

 

[arildno]

You can. .But in most of the states the contractor will be tried as a criminal. However, several states have seen the light in this issue IMO. For example the legislative changes from 2002 from Netherlands in the area of euthanasia are a big step ahead. I think Switzerland has very permissive laws in this area too.

That is merely evidence of a growing perception of life as an alienable right.

Earlier, both euthanasia or duelling were criminal actions, on basis of life being an inalienable right in the sense of issues about which valid private contracts concern themselves.

We still don't have the right to duel each other..

 

[vertices]

No , back then it was believed that certain classes of beings have less rights than others.
That we can sell race X in slavery because they are no better than animals.

Today we recognize many of the so called "natural" rights to all humans. We cannot take those rights from them. But again, they themselves can act in such a way that they forfeit their rights. We don't take it from them, they basically give them away when they do a crime.

as regards the bit in bold: yes we do. Remember though, natural rights are inalienable. They are moral rights that reflect our humanity.

erm, why bring in Obama and torture then ?

To illustrate the concept of inalienable rights. Let me ask you this: do you think someone who's killed babies for fun, should forfeit his rights not to be subject to cruel and inhumane treatment (ie torture) - ie. would it be okay to torture him?

 

[lisab]

That is merely evidence of a growing perception of life as an alienable right.

Earlier, both euthanasia or duelling were criminal actions, on basis of life being an inalienable right in the sense of issues about which valid private contracts concern themselves.

We still don't have the right to duel each other..

...so we have to resort to flame wars on interweb forums. Not nearly as satisfying .

 

[DanP]

as regards the bit in bold: yes we do. Remember though, natural rights are inalienable. They are moral rights that reflect our humanity.

You insist on their inalienability. I am not. I consider that someone who commits serious offense (as defined in the laws of the realm), and is found guilty before a court of law, is forfeiting his rights.

The universality of moral rights is a noble idea, but IMO is hopelessly idealistic. Look out on the window. We kill each other, we steal from each other, we lie for a garbagety job, we cheat on each other, whatever. Humans are just not very moral animals. Our "humanity" has nothing sacred in it. It has no morality per se. The society, as it is, is hold in balance by a number of forces of various natures. I am more interested in a stable and fair society, then in idealistic philosophy of what it is to be human.

To illustrate the concept of inalienable rights. Let me ask you this: do you think someone who's killed babies for fun, should forfeit his rights not to be subject to cruel and inhumane treatment (ie torture) - ie. would it be okay to torture him?

Ill let things such as torture (and interpretation of the definition of the word ) for secret services :P

I would be satisfied with his execution after due legal process. But then again, I would not loose any sleep if the prison guards would beat him daily before feeding him breakfast. Its up to them. For me justice is served if he is executed.

 

[DanP]

...so we have to resort to flame wars on interweb forums. Not nearly as satisfying .

Would you like to be my second ?

 

[arildno]

Would you like to be my second ?

Against me, you won't last a minute.


Runs and hides from excessively bad pun..[/size]

 

[DanP]

Against me, you won't last a minute.


Runs and hides from excessively bad pun..[/size]

Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

 

[nismaratwork]

So isn't it all so much more merciful to put them out of the misery ? A lethal injection and we can all move on :P

To be honest, if someone would kill one of my family, the best punishment ever IMO would be to let me kill them and walk unharmed by law.



Really what's the point ? Now you going to tell me that they are irresponsible ? Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases they are.

If someone murdered a family member of yours, and you sought vendetta/vengence/revenge/etc... I wouldn't blame you. Codifying that as law has been done, and it's abused... see dueling. I'm pointing out something contrary: on one hand, killing a killer works for me, but holding them in limbo with their death looming is torture. Execution: nasty, but very human. The wait for execution, all the way to be strapped down: inhuman, cruel and unusual.

There is no way, within our legal framework, to allow you to seek legal revenge through reciprocal homicide. If that cannot be reconciled with the cruel nature of the death penalty (to be distinguished from simply "death" or "killing") means that we shouldn't allow it in our society. I would rather cloth and cage such people than have them suffer what amounts to psychological torture... unless it was my family member. The thing is, being a victim doesn't give you the right to violate or dictate law, so you have to ask yourself: do you prefer a country where revenge killings are dissalllowed, but you have myriad legal options, protections, and societal structure... or do you trade that in for vengeance?

In addition, let me be clear, killing takes a toll on the killer unless they're psychotic, or a sociopath, and while I'm an atheist I believe there is something to be said for the concept of mercy. Mercy may be a scant thing (living in a cage for life is rough), but in the spirit of "doing unto others..." it has a place.

I'm not claiming that these things are absolutes, they are my view, but I see value in them. There is no tangible benefit in killing someone who is harmless once incarcerated, so why take that step for the sake of a satisfaction you might feel is hollow once experienced? Maybe it's better to live in a world where hunting someone down and killing them in the name of revenge carries a price; it's murder and treated as such. I'm a moral relativist, so I don't claim a high-ground, just the ground that when all factors are accounted for, I wish to be on.

Finally, evidence mounts that sociopaths and many other career criminals, killers, rapists, pedophiles et al... do not "fire on all cylinders". fMRI anf PETscans are telling here, and so I pose this to you: Your mother is murdered by a psychopath, and a treatment exists to restore (or create) the neurological machinery that they need to be a functional person who doesn't kill on impulse. You still want them dead, sure, but can you justify that morally?

 

[DanP]

Finally, evidence mounts that sociopaths and many other career criminals, killers, rapists, pedophiles et al... do not "fire on all cylinders". fMRI anf PETscans are telling here, and so I pose this to you: Your mother is murdered by a psychopath, and a treatment exists to restore (or create) the neurological machinery that they need to be a functional person who doesn't kill on impulse. You still want them dead, sure, but can you justify that morally?

I know that there is mounting evidence of some variations in how PFC works in those individuals.

I don't need a moral justification to have them legally killed in such a case. That's my point. We are losing the sight of the forest because of the trees. What is needed is a punishment fit for the deed. Not empty philosophy. Not morals. And is very fit to kill someone who has killed. An eye for an eye works for me.

But besides, let me ask you something. You are born with sociopathic tendecies. Would you undergo voluntarily a procedure designed to change the very core of your being ? The self, what defines you ? I have the feeling that you won't find too many volunteers for such a procedure.

 

[turbo]

Please! The OP made a case for swift executions in "cut and dried" cases. It has been proven again and again that there are lots of innocent convicts on death row. Our criminal justice system is not infallible. DNA evidence has acquitted lots of "guilty" convicts. Surely, the scientists on this forum should support the application of science in the pursuit of justice and not place undue haste and emotion ahead of truth.

As I mentioned once before, Shirley Sherrod's father was killed by a white farmer. He was shot in the back before 3 eye-witnesses, but the all-white grand jury refused to indict the murderer. Criminal justice is not blind to race, social position, wealth, or other factors. Got a crime? The DA and his/her staff has a suspect that they "like" for it with or without supporting evidence.

 

[vela]

Please! The OP made a case for swift executions in "cut and dried" cases. It has been proven again and again that there are lots of innocent convicts on death row. Our criminal justice system is not infallible. DNA evidence has acquitted lots of "guilty" convicts. Surely, the scientists on this forum should support the application of science in the pursuit of justice and not place undue haste and emotion ahead of truth.

I agree, and not only because of the very real possibility of mistakes but because of the likelihood for abuse by those in power. Giving the government the legal power to kill is just plain idiotic.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree, and not only because of the very real possibility of mistakes but because of the likelihood for abuse by those in power. Giving the government the legal power to kill is just plain idiotic.

That's a concrete reason I can get behind.

DanP: You're talking about a philosophy when you invoke the concept of fitting punishment. Murder is a simple and old deed, and without even the semblance of structure to moderate society you have a world that isn't fit to live in.

Your last point is telling, and very clear: my answer is give them a choice: Death or indefinite incarceration (depending), or the death of the self that currently exists. That seems fair, and remember that you aren't removing who they are, you're actually adding to it. I'm not talking about some sci-fi "mindwipe" which I see as the same as execution, but a restoration of executive function to moderate the existing personality.

There is also a great difference between having anti-social tendencies, and being a sociopath... one could be the result of trauma, the latter is a mechanical deficit. Asking if they should be "fixed" is a bit like asking if someone with autism should be "cured" if such were possible; it's not something you present as an option. Yes, there would probably be a period of nightmarish results similar to psychosurgeries of the past, but it still beats executing people.

 

[Evo]

Please! The OP made a case for swift executions in "cut and dried" cases.

And only in those cases. This would actually drastically reduce the number of people sentenced to death.

How many cases have every base covered, including the admission of guilt that can't be disputed? Sure, people have falsely confessed, but their confessions were dismissed because they didn't know all of the facts.

 

[Gokul43201]

How many cases have every base covered, including the admission of guilt that can't be disputed? Sure, people have falsely confessed, but their confessions were dismissed because they didn't know all of the facts.

Not sure what you mean by the last bit. But I definitely recall there being cases of people convicted on the basis of their confessions and later found innocent: Edgar Garrett comes to mind.

See also, the highly cited paper by Leo and Ofshe, "The consequences of false confessions: deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation", Jour. Crim. Law & Criminology (1998): http://faculty.law.wayne.edu/moran/LeoOfshe.htm

 

[DanP]

DanP: You're talking about a philosophy when you invoke the concept of fitting punishment.

I am more inclined to think I am talking politics. Fitting punishment is not an universal constant
which has to be discovered by science or philosophized. It is the result of social and political negotiations.

Murder is a simple and old deed, and without even the semblance of structure to moderate society you have a world that isn't fit to live in.

We have already the structure. Now we should watch ourselves not to become too soft and too lenient. Our infatuation with the "sacred" nature of human life is costing valuable lives. Rapists released early from prison only to rape again, drunk drivers who killed then after serving they would jump in a car again, drinking and driving, killers getting out on bails, running away and killing.

Your last point is telling, and very clear: my answer is give them a choice: Death or indefinite incarceration (depending), or the death of the self that currently exists.

I am not talking of a post crime choice. If such a "treatment" exist, would you take before committing any offense ? The post crime treatment has no value. Before it may have helped and prevent loss of life. Making the choice after the crime, when your options are limited and your hand forced by the perspective of the punishment, it's just adding offense to injury. Most humans would doit if cornered and presented with a darker alternative. If for nothing, to save their miserable life. Regardless of the outcome of the treatment, the criminal deed remains. Justice must be done. He must pay. The killer must be killed.

 

[dudleysharp]

Death Penalty - deserved sanction for some crimes

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.

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

I know this case well and am friends with the parents of the two girls.

I supported the executions as a consequence of these crimes.

Disclosure: I am a pro death penalty expert who was once opposed to the death penalty.

 

[dudleysharp]

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

There are no doubts as to guilt in this case. None.

 

[dudleysharp]

deterrence review

Execution should be a deterent for others as well as a punishment. But if it isn't swift, then the deterent aspect is lost.

No, it is not.

The foundation for deterrence is the execution, itself, not any time between sentencing and the execution.

The various studies, since 2000, having slightly different protocols, different data sets and other variables, finds that from 3-28 murders are deterred per execution.

Some also find that just the presence of a death penalty law, by itself, deters some.

Some also find, that lessening the time between sentnece and execution would also enahnce deterrence. I think that makes sense, as well.

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

Not so fast

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.

I think some criminals hold those beliefs, but not all.

A deterrent, to be effective, only needs to deters some.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

Another consideration.

Both reason and the evidence support that the potential for negative consequences does affect criminal behavior.

Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of punishment. Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including capital murderers, act in such a fashion. Fear of capture does not exist without an expectation of punishment.

This doesn't mean that they sit down before every crime, most crimes or even their first crime, and contemplate a cost to benefit analysis of a criminal action. Weighing negative consequences may be conscious or subconscious, thoughtful or instinctive. And we instinctively know the potential negative consequences of some actions. Even pathetically stupid or irrational criminals will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection. And there is only one reason for that -- fear of punishment.

When dealing with less marginalized personalities, those who choose not to murder, such is a more reasoned group. It would be illogical to assume that a more reasoned group would be less responsive to the potential for negative consequences. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that some potential murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe punishment of execution.

As legal writer and death penalty critic Stuart Taylor observes: "All criminal penalties are based on the incontestable theory that most (or at least many) criminals are somewhat rational actors who try so hard not to get caught because they would prefer not to be imprisoned. And most are even keener about staying alive than about avoiding incarceration."

Based upon the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential of negative consequences, reason supports that executions deter and that they are an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

 

[dudleysharp]

Punishments = Less crime?

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.

There are varying rates of crime, when looking at all criminal justice protocols, because there are many factors, often culturally related, which have a major effect of crime rates.

The easy question is this:

Would crime rates go up if 1) there were no criminal sanctions or 2) we dramatically reduced sanctions for all crimes.

I think the answer to both is yes.

Please review, This may clear the air a bit.

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

 

[dudleysharp]

Appeals and costs

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.

Access to appeals are constitutionally required and should be. Inmates may waive appeals if they so desire. Some do.

Often, in plea bargains, inmates must waive appeals when accepting a plea deal. It is voluntary, therefore constitutional.

I have found many of the cost studies to be blatanly inaccurate. Please review:

"Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/21/death-penalty-cost-studies-saving-costs-over-lwop.aspx

The abuse of appeals is a problem but, has generally, been overcome in Virginia, wherein appeals take about 6 years prior to execution.

 

[dudleysharp]

punishment and deterence

punishment, not deterrence.

I think Dan is correct.

The foundation for sanction has to be a just and appropriate punishment for the crime commited.

But, a positive outcome of that punishment is that it deters others.

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice and deterrence

But what purpose does punishment serve if not deterrence?

It serves justice, an outcome of which is deterence.

 

[dudleysharp]

Revenge vs justice

I get it, simple revenge.

No, it is morally, quite simple to distinguish between revenge and justice.

In the context of the death penalty (could be any sanction):

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

Cut and dried, of course, do exist

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".

Yes, there is and many of them.

I agree to all of your examples - they have all happened, just as cut and dried cases happen, all the time, where evidence is solid, witness were 100% correct and the criminal has confessed to the crime that they did commit.

 

[dudleysharp]

Innocence vs guilt

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.

Make sure to fact check the innocence claims:

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

2) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

3) The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

7) "Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

8) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

 

[dudleysharp]

Racial injustice

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.

I think racial injustice, or what I call otherism, will always exist, simply because it has always been part of the bad side of human experience.

But, things are getting better, in some locations.

"Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html

 

[dudleysharp]

which suggests that the purpose of retributive punishment may be for 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 think it logical to find that retributive justice does have and inescapable reformative and deterrent effect, at least for some.

The deterrence can be a product of a thoughtful or instinctive process, conscious or subconscious, so a belief system may or may not come into play.

All active or prospective criminals do consider the probability of being caught and the sanction to come, that is why most of them to not rob police station of commit rapes in broad daylight while being videotaped by the toy store surveillance camera. Their behavior is effected to some degree and not infrequently to the point of not committing a crime.

 

[dudleysharp]

The most civilized death penalty

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.

Or, it is more civilized to have it.

7. C. S. Lewis: "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "

"I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal."

"The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."

"My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being."

"Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .".

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "

"The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment."

"But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image."

"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "

" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis

8) C. S. Lewis: "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. " "The Complete C.S. Lewis", Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002

 

[dudleysharp]

Citing bad authority is not authoritative

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

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

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice, not protection

No, as I said above in post #12 society needs to be protected from dangerous people. Although rehabilitation is a noble goal we still are far from realizing it.

The moral purpose of sanction is that criminals deserve it for the crimes they have committed. Protection is a secondary and necesary by product of that purpose.

The death penalty, as all other criminal sanctions, are given because they are just and deserved.

 

[arildno]

But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."

Personally, I'd keep to the maxim of Roman law, "to each his due", without accepting the horrid duenesses the Romans thought fit to impose.

Essentially, the criminal act itself initiates a double loss, a loss for the victim, and a loss in legal status for the criminal, so that some actions that would be a violation of a non-criminal's rights, are NOT the violation of the criminal's rights, since he possesses fewer rights, due to performing the criminal action.

This, of course, is in the abstract, jurisprudence must figure out precisely how, and in what manner, rights are lost (and thus, what actions can be called just punishments).

There is never a violation of a criminal's rights in the just punishment, he just has fewer such rights than non-criminals.

 

[dudleysharp]

passion and deterrence

The deterrence effect of death sentences is probably minimal, just because murder tends to be a crime of passion more than rational calculation, and even when it is not, like in this case, it's often perpetrated by nihilistic gang bangers that don't expect to live past 25 anyway and don't particularly care if they're executed (you don't join a violent gang if you're afraid of getting killed).

In the US, when it comes to capital murders, most are of the more premeditated type.

Based upon some recent deterrence studies, even "heat of the moment" murders can be prevented by deterrence.

No matter how excited or enraged, most of us bring ourselves back from that abyss, to a more sensible approach. One reason for that is deterrence, either thoughtful or instinctive.

 

[arildno]

Quoting John Stuart Mill on the deterrence aspect of the death penalty for pre-meditated murder:

7) My hon. Friend says that it does not inspire terror, and that experience proves it to be a failure.

But the influence of a punishment is not to be estimated by its effect on hardened criminals. Those whose habitual way of life keeps them, so to speak, at all times within sight of the gallows, do grow to care less about it; as, to compare good things with bad, an old soldier is not much affected by the chance of dying in battle. I can afford to admit all that is often said about the indifference of professional criminals to the gallows. Though of that indifference one-third is probably bravado and another third confidence that they shall have the luck to escape, it is quite probable that the remaining third is real. But the efficacy of a punishment which acts principally through the imagination, is chiefly to be measured by the impression it makes on those who are still innocent; by the horror with which it surrounds the first promptings of guilt; the restraining influence it exercises over the beginning of the thought which, if indulged, would become a temptation; the check which it exerts over the graded declension towards the state--never suddenly attained--in which crime no longer revolts, and punishment no longer terrifies.

8) As for what is called the failure of death punishment, who is able to judge of that? We partly know who those are whom it has not deterred; but who is there who knows whom it has deterred, or how many human beings it has saved who would have lived to be murderers if that awful association had not been thrown round the idea of murder from their earliest infancy? Let us not forget that the most imposing fact loses its power over the imagination if it is made too cheap. When a punishment fit only for the most atrocious crimes is lavished on small offences until human feeling recoils from it, then, indeed, it ceases to intimidate, because it ceases to be believed in.

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course...th_penalty.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

all rights alienable

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

Both morally and immorally, all rights are alienable.

See Hitler and Jesus.

Yes, I know, I am stretching your point, which is that some rights have been established, morally, as inalienable, even if immorally, they are taken away.

I simply do not find that such has ever been established.

Both freedom and life may be taken away for moral reasons. There are many examples, such as just incarceration, killing in self defense or a just war, or execution of our worse criminals.

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice vs deterrence

SO?
Deterrence does NOT constitute the justification for punishment!

Precisely.

Justice does and a secondary benefit of just sanction is deterrence.