Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[skeptic2]

I agree. Punishment has many purposes, some of which are:

Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution), that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior, that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

In other words, the retributive model, by definition, has within it, restoration, rehabiitation, deterrence, example, upholding of the social contract, and many more.

Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better. Unlike Dudley, I'm not an expert and I don't have all the answers but I do know that what we have doesn't work very well. My opinions are based on my own observations of what works and what doesn't.

 

[brainstorm]

related issue: should people with a life sentence without parole be allowed to opt for physician-assisted suicide or should they be required to serve their sentence as long as possible? What if they have children who have the right to communicate with their parent at various moments in their life? Is it fair to take away these children's opportunity to talk to their parents as adults either by allowing suicide or because they are executed?

 

[DanP]

Is it fair to take away these children's opportunity to talk to their parents as adults either by allowing suicide or because they are executed?

Yes, it is fair to execute. The killer knew he had kids when he committed the crime. He made his choice.

 

[arildno]

We have a 12 yo daughter whom we have almost never punished. The most severe has been very short timeouts when she was under 5. Since she could first understand English we have explained why we do things. I have never used the phase "Because I say so" with her. When she has made mistakes we have explained why what she did was wrong, what she should have done instead and why, and let it go at that. Her teachers consistently tell us she is the best behaved kid in her class. I have always tried to speak to her with the same courtesy I would use with adult.

I believe that most misbehavior in children comes from anger resulting from being bullied and punished by their parents.
http://nopunish.net/pwp-ch1.htm

Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better. Unlike Dudley, I'm not an expert and I don't have all the answers but I do know that what we have doesn't work very well. My opinions are based on my own observations of what works and what doesn't.

You shouldn't post crackpot links with the following HOWLER:

In their beliefs about methods of treating children and training dogs, there was not a smidgen of difference! It is as if America had learned its parenting skills at the American Kennel Club's obedience school. Is it any wonder that the nation's children are screwed up? A dog's nature is to be servile. But a child's nature is to be free.

Do you understand why this is a howler?

 

[Evo]

Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better. Unlike Dudley, I'm not an expert and I don't have all the answers but I do know that what we have doesn't work very well. My opinions are based on my own observations of what works and what doesn't.

Is your statetment "Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better" just your own opinion then? If not, you will need to provide studies that support your claim. Thanks.

 

[Evo]

related issue: should people with a life sentence without parole be allowed to opt for physician-assisted suicide or should they be required to serve their sentence as long as possible? What if they have children who have the right to communicate with their parent at various moments in their life? Is it fair to take away these children's opportunity to talk to their parents as adults either by allowing suicide or because they are executed?

No matter how I read that, it makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

 

[arildno]

Crimes like murder, etc are symptomatic of a culture of violence -

Nope. It is symptomatic of human nature.

 

[nismaratwork]

You shouldn't post crackpot links with the following HOWLER:


Do you understand why this is a howler?

Heh...

Seriously however, some people have a lovely temperament, and others don't. If your kid happens to be a completely straight arrow out of the womb, lucky for you, most fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not a fan of spanking, but to say that MOST misbehaving comes from "anger... and being bullied and punished by their parents" is genuinely insane. This is contrary to even the most gentle and basic theories and practices of raising children.

Evo: If it isn't, it's going to require a mountain of evidence before I stop laughing with Arildno.

Brainstorm: No, they shouldn't be allowed to shorten their sentence through state assisted suicide; it is the responsibility of the state to keep them alive as they are the ward of the state. If they manage to kill themselves, on a personal level I say more power to them. As for kids, you think they do better with a psychopathic parent in their lives?

 

[DanP]

I've had a quick read of your other posts. What I am arguing is that the DP doesn't undo the crime and the finality of it means it is inherently cruel. There is simply no humane way to take a life.

The purpose of punishment is not to "undo the crime", but to punish the perpetrator.

Nothing undoes a crime. By this logic, we shouldn't do anything, just let them roam free.
As for "humane" ways to take a life, humans are the THE AUTHORITY on killing. We are the almost the only species which kills it's own, so Id say it's pretty much human :P

 

[Hepth]

We are the almost the only species which kills it's own, so Id say it's pretty much human :P

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic; there are a LOT of species that kill it's own, all for understandable reasons. Humans are probably the only one that has consideration for the method :)

 

[mheslep]

There was a high profile case here. In a nutshell ... A thief entered the house of a couple, the women was pregnant. The thief somehow managed to wake up her and scared her to death, then the husband got up, the thief became violent. ...

My point, or Mill's, was not directed at self defense under some clear and immediate threat of harm - by definition in that moment the judicial system has no time to act. My example applies where in a working system it is rationale to call the police, maybe provide the license of an escape vehicle. If I have some sense of commitment to the society, I call the cops and let them and the courts do their job because I believe it more or less works. If I have no such commitment because of my own pathology or because the system is joke, then I never call the cops and either go vigilante or cower in my residence.

 

[DanP]

My point, or Mill's, was not directed at self defense under some clear and immediate threat of harm - by definition in that moment the judicial system has no time to act. My example applies where in a working system it is rationale to call the police, maybe provide the license of an escape vehicle. If I have some sense of commitment to the society, I call the cops and let them and the courts do their job because I believe it more or less works. If I have no such commitment because of my own pathology or because the system is joke, then I never call the cops and either go vigilante or cower in my residence.

A home *invasion* as you so plasticaly defined it, its pretty much a self defense situation. Besides, my point is that you shouldn't need to call the cops, protection of the manor should be a right of the owner.

 

[vertices]

Nope. It is symptomatic of human nature.

This is not true. We are social animals, with a highly developed, innate sense of right and wrong. We are evolutionarily hardwired to be altruistic.

My point was that there are complex reasons as to why people commit crimes (for example, social deprivation/exclusion). The DP is a way for politicians to show us that are doing something substantive to tackle crime, a convenient way for them to ignore the real, underlying problems alluded to above.

 

[DanP]

This is not true. We are social animals, with a highly developed, innate sense of right and wrong. We are evolutionarily hardwired to be altruistic.

Are we living on the same planet ? We kill each other like common animals. We invented the burning at stake, hang drawn and quartering , decapitation, firearms, nuclear weapons, tanks, bombers, anti-personal mines, chemical warfare, poisons.

you know about the ~55 millions killed in WW2 . And yes, the ZK camps where altruistic humans where using cyclone B to kill women and kids. About Nagasaki and Hiroshima ?
the Atlantic slave trade and its 18 million victims
about Japanese Nanking agression ?
about Rwanda genocide ?
about Aremenian genocide ?
Bosnia Croatia and Serbia ?
Israel and the arab countries ?
Stalin and his regime and the 20 millions it killed ?I could go on. Humans and evolutionary altruistic. What a joke. Our whole history is a bloodbath. We are extremely cooperative when we find common grounds and interests, natural predators in rest. We didnt learn a thing in the last 2000 years. Only how to invent more and more means to kill other groups on this planet, and more effective weapons.

 

[arildno]

My point was that there are complex reasons as to why people commit crimes (for example, social deprivation/exclusion). .

This is simplistic crackpottery that never has had an iota of convincing evidence behind it.

 

[mheslep]

A home *invasion* as you so plasticaly defined it, its pretty much a self defense situation.

If you discover the intruder.

Besides, my point is that you shouldn't need to call the cops, protection of the manor should be a right of the owner.

Of course. I was inviting you to consider Mill's argument, not self defense.

 

[nismaratwork]

Are we living on the same planet ? We kill each other like common animals. We invented the burning at stake, hang drawn and quartering , decapitation, firearms, nuclear weapons, tanks, bombers, anti-personal mines, chemical warfare, poisons.


I could go on. Humans and evolutionary altruistic. What a joke. Our whole history is a bloodbath. We are extremely cooperative when we find common grounds and interests, natural predators in rest. We didnt learn a thing in the last 2000 years. Only how to invent more and more means to kill other groups on this planet, and more effective weapons.

I agree with you here, but I believe that Vertices is genuine in his view that people are fundamentally moral. In the end, we live in the same worlds in the same way that we perceive events to be simultaneous: it is all relative.

I also agree that a home invasion is (and is in law) ALWAYS a matter of self defense, but it's also one of the rare times when people shoot loved ones or pranksters they know, as in the anti-gun lobby's scare campaigns. To be fair, I think you did sidestep mheslep's offer to consider another view. You're clearly secure in your worldview, so why not consider another for a while? There are no absolutes (except maybe the speed of light in a vacuum), so even if you end believing that Mill's argument is bunko, it's worth discussion in this context.

When you have advocate the harshest possible penalty, it is incumbent upon you to consider other mindsets even if you're not changing where you stand.

Vertices: Lions and Chimpanzees are, in their unique ways, both social animals, and both have males which will kill the young of the existing group upon seizing control. Being social as a unit doesn't mean that violence doesn't play a role in social regulation. You clearly are passionate in your views, but you're not making a good case for them. As the only really pacifistic person I see here, you probably should give it a better and more rigorous attempt.


mheslep: If you're unaware of a crime, you can't act at all, never mind in self-defense. It's obvious that discovery of the intruder is implicit in an argument of home-invasion as self-defense.

 

[arildno]

This is not true. We are social animals, with a highly developed, innate sense of right and wrong. We are evolutionarily hardwired to be altruistic.

False implication.

It is certainly a fact that sociability, and conceptions of morality have a natural basis, but that this is part of human nature, too, does not in anyway make murder, rape, theft etc. into unnatural acts.

If you have difficulties with this, you might reflect upon Walt Whitman's words:

Do I contradict myself? I contain multitudes!

 

[dudleysharp]

Yes, it is fair to execute. The killer knew he had kids when he committed the crime. He made his choice.

Yes, he did. The unfairness is upon the criminal. The father's choices resulted in his children loosing their ability to communicate with them.

If that same father beat and raped his children, would it be

1) the father to blame for his children being put into foster care, where they would no longer be able to communicate with their father, or

2) the state agency to blame which legally removed the children from the fathers "care".

 

[dudleysharp]

restoration and rehabilitation

Erm, how by definition is it possible to have restoration and rehabilitation, if there's capital punishment?

Quite easily.

Let's presume that restoration and rehabilitation must take place before we die (just to remove reincarnation and other issues).

First, at least in the US, it takes about 10 years from sentencing to execution. That 10 years is quite a while. Obvioulsy enough time to seek restoration and rehabilitation, if that is what the murdeer wishes.

From a restoration and rehabilitation standpoint, the death penalty is like any early or earthly death, in that not matter the method of our deaths, be that by cancer, car wreck, execution, old age, etc., we only have the time of our lives within which to seek rehabilitation and restoration.

3) “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey (1) (p. 116).

4) Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods."

"This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’ "

"The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (2)

Some opposing capital punishment ". . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (2)

Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.” (2)

 

[DanP]

Yes, he did. The unfairness is upon the criminal. The father's choices resulted in his children loosing their ability to communicate with them.

If that same father beat and raped his children, would it be

1) the father to blame for his children being put into foster care, where they would no longer be able to communicate with their father, or

2) the state agency to blame which legally removed the children from the fathers "care".

Huh ? Would you like to communicate with your father after he rapes your tinny hole ? :P

 

[dudleysharp]

fear of punishment

I never said criminals don't fear punishment, I said they believe they won't get caught.

Why would criminals fear punishment if they never believe they will get caught? They wouldn't.

They all do fear punishment because they know they may be caught, with many having been already caught, multiple times.

Therefore, they attempt to improve their technique, hoping to lessen the probability of being caught, next time.

All criminals try and apply their own version of stealth for only one reason - they always know that there is the risk of being caught, that is the ONLY reason they try to apply stealth.

 

[dudleysharp]

Criminals getting worse

Is your statetment "Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better" just your own opinion then? If not, you will need to provide studies that support your claim.

Evo, come on.

Are you not aware that criminals interact with more criminals in prison and that because of that criminals increase their knowledge to improve their trade - crime?

That prisoners hook up with other prisoners to continue criminal enterprise within prisons and later in the free world?

There are, sadly, countless cases of criminals getting much worse over time.

Are you not aware of those, without studies?

 

[dudleysharp]

Multi quote not working.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by vertices
Crimes like murder, etc are symptomatic of a culture of violence -

Nope. It is symptomatic of human nature.

sadly so true.

Thus Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler. By all accounts that both had peaceful childhoods.

Technology changes, man does not.

 

[dudleysharp]

Reason

We are the almost the only species which kills it's own, so Id say it's pretty much human

Is there a species which doesn't kill their own?

In addition, several additional species MIGHT kill for some cause other than instinct.

Humans are distinctly different for the range of reasons within which we do kill, just as our reasons are more expansive for everything else we do, than any other species.

 

[DanP]

Is there a species which doesn't kill their own?

Most species don't afaik

 

[nismaratwork]

Most species don't afaik

Sorry DanP, animals kill each other a lot, but it's mostly infanticide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology )

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912086,00.html

http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/viewFile/936/961

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-45FK6K4-43&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1437488176&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b32a00b7720f5adeee3c2c338206c999

I could go on for pages, from crocodiles, all the way through apes and monkeys.


@Dudelysharp: There are several reasons why many criminals don't believe that they'll be caught, or rather, held accountable for their crimes. Let's start small, with serial DUI offenders; we cannot pretend to know what they think, but check the statistics for recidivist DUI and see for yourself. You have people such as car thieves whom you can SEE ON CAMERA in bait-car operations, believing they've gotten away with something, and the disbelief when the engine shuts off and sirens come on. Then, on the extreme end you have the .5-1% of the population that is comprised of sociopaths, who simply do not experience the kind of anxiety or forethought you seem to believe. A hallmark of the person with "antisocial personality disorder" (sociopath/psychopath) is impulsively self-destructive behavior, marked by an inability to appreciate the consequences. Fear of being caught can exist with the belief that one will not be apprehended.

The reasons range from, "I've gotten away with this crime before, so I will again", through, "I NEED drugs, and my mind isn't terribly clear right now," "Only a small number of the total who commit X crime are caught and sentenced," to the extreme sociopath/psychopath: "I can commit the perfect crime."

 

[DanP]

Sorry DanP, animals kill each other a lot, but it's mostly infanticide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology )

I am well aware of this happening in several sepcies, however I do not think is as widespread as you believe. Hoever if you want to convince me otherwise, you could provide a percentage from the total number of species which does.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The percentage of all species which commit infanticide? That would be impossible to figure out. Looking at just rodents though (wikipedia has an article on them specifically, which suggests the percentage will probably be higher than normal I admit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_in_rodents

In fact it's at a point where someone decided it was worth writing an article discussing possible reasons for why one type of rodent would NOT kill pups
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tgdv8qp31bt312jd/

This suggests the behavior if very common in rodents

 

[Evo]

Evo, come on.

Are you not aware that criminals interact with more criminals in prison and that because of that criminals increase their knowledge to improve their trade - crime?

That prisoners hook up with other prisoners to continue criminal enterprise within prisons and later in the free world?

There are, sadly, countless cases of criminals getting much worse over time.

Are you not aware of those, without studies?

It's a violation of our guidelines to make a statement of fact without providing legitimate proof to back it up.

The member needs to show that the number of criminals that become more criminal while incarcerated outnumber the ones that become rehabilitated.

It's not my stand either way, I am holding to the guidelines.

You did read our guidelines? You need to read both the global guidelines and the Politics Guidelines. Links to both are in my signature.

 

[nismaratwork]

I am well aware of this happening in several sepcies, however I do not think is as widespread as you believe. Hoever if you want to convince me otherwise, you could provide a percentage from the total number of species which does.

Office_Shredder beat me to it... that would be a HUGE task that I'm not sure is possible. Your assertion that it's uncommon is probably the one requiring the burden of proof at this point. I'm finding it difficult to find animals, insects, and even plants that don't cannibalize or kill in competition.

This isn't an issue of several species, but whole families and more. ALL of the great cats and all crocodilians for example, will commit infanticide, as will every species of bear that I know of. I don't know if wolves will... I don't think so, however, they do sometimes kill each other in the course of fights for alpha status. Hell, lions who kill the cubs of the previous leader don't even EAT the corpse, it's just a kill. Lions will also kill hyenas, but not eat them, probably for the sake of direct competition for food. Dolphin pods kill sharks, and not for food, despite the fact that sharks don't hunt dolphins. There are more examples... Murder, in one form or another, is so common that if you want to discredit the notion, it's on you to find a significant portion of animals (carnivores/omnivores) which DON'T kill their own.

 

[ThomasT]

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?

Yes, I agree that the death penalty is warranted in cases such as this where there's compelling evidence. Should this be carried out immediately? No. I don't think that's a good idea. But it certainly shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 years. The practical reason for executing these sorts of felons is that there's no technology for changing their behavior in a free society, so returning them to the society at large is problematic, and simply keeping them imprisoned and alive is an unnecessary expenditure of resources. So, while we might allow a few years for advocates of convicted felons to explore possibilities of their innocence, anything beyond that is a perversion of the notion of the "rights of the accused". This wasn't always the case, but I think it is now.

Cases where the objective evidence isn't compelling (as well as crimes of passion and crimes of need) should be treated a bit differently I think. Our criminal justice system no doubt commits a certain percentage of accused felons to long prison terms, and death, on questionable evidence.

Anyway, in cases like the one you've noted, given the preponderance of evidence, I don't see any reason to allow these people to live.

Wrt preventing this sort of thing, it's important that people realize that their personal safety is, ultimately, their own responsibility.

 

[DanP]

Office_Shredder beat me to it... that would be a HUGE task that I'm not sure is possible. Your assertion that it's uncommon is probably the one requiring the burden of proof at this point.

Lions will also kill hyenas, but not eat them, probably for the sake of direct competition for food. Dolphin pods kill sharks, and not for food, despite the fact that sharks don't hunt dolphins.

Actually, I really don't care. I am not asking you to proof this, but a way to convince me would be to provide the data I asked :P Ill retain my stance until further information regarding whatever or not a significant percentage of animals kill their own will surface in one way or another, but ill classify my position as questionable till then.
Its not important to the discussion anyway of death penalty.

 

[skeptic2]

Is your statetment "Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better" just your own opinion then? If not, you will need to provide studies that support your claim. Thanks.

The following is from the Solicitor General Canada.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm

From the discussion section of this paper:
The data in this study represents the only quantitative assessment of the relationship between time spent in prison and offender recidivism. The database consisted of 325 comparisons involving 336,052 offenders. On the basis of the results, we can put forth one conclusion with a good deal of confidence. None of the analysis conducted produced any evidence that prison sentences reduce recidivism. Indeed, combining the data from the more vs. less and incarceration vs. community groupings resulted in 4% (f ) and 2% (z±) increases in recidivism.

and...
What are the possible policy implications emanating from this study? There are, in our view, two viable recommendations. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing future criminal activity. If further research supports the findings described herein, that time in prison increases offender recidivism by even "small" amounts, then the costs accruing from the excessive use of prison could be enormous. For example, even percentage changes of approximately 5% have resulted in significant cost implications in medicine and other areas of human services (Hunt, 1997). In the criminal justice field it is estimated that the criminal career of just one high-risk offender "costs" approximately $1,000,000 (see Cohen, 1997). Arguably, increases in recidivism of even a "fractional" amount are not fiscally responsible, especially given the high incarceration rates currently in vogue in North America. One should also bear in mind that even the most enthusiastic proponents of the utility of sanctions are not only quite sceptical about the use of prison but state, in no uncertain terms, that the deterrence literature in general is of limited use in formulating public crime control policy (Nagin, 1998).20

Therefore, the primary justification for use of prisons is incapacitation and retribution, both of which come with a "price", if prisons are used injudiciously. Locking up chronic high risk offenders for a reasonable period of time is not under debate; we can think of no one who disagrees with that policy. In order to lock up enough prisoners, however, to reduce crime rates by a few percentage points (see Gendreau & Ross, 1981) and to make prisons "pay" for themselves (DiIulio & Piehl, 1991), substantial "costs" will accrue to other government ministries or departments. Unless an infinite source of funds becomes available to governments, fewer expenditures will be directed to education and health care, amongst other things. As a case in point, money spent by states to keep inmates incarcerated recently has risen by 30% while spending on higher education dropped by 19%, and costs to keep a child in school represent a quarter of that required to lock up an offender (Dobbin, 1999).

 

[nismaratwork]

Actually, I really don't care. I am not asking you to proof this, but a way to convince me would be to provide the data I asked :P Ill retain my stance until further information regarding whatever or not a significant percentage of animals kill their own will surface in one way or another, but ill classify my position as questionable till then.



Its not important to the discussion anyway of death penalty.

Agreed, but it was a fun diversion.