|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Capital Punishment debate
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
Where is it legal in the first world countries? Is it a deterrent?
[Thread title edited for Limbo.]
[ 08. February 2006, 19:22: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
Is it the law of the land in other English-speaking nations, principalities and islands (i.e. Gibraltar)?
-
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes?
I'd not heard that before, why do they appeal then?
As for the deterrent, what would qualify as a deterrent? I think it's fairly self explanatory that at least one person is deterred from ever re-offending?
Though those two paragraphs above may be related I grant you.
Love,
Evo1
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
By deterrent, what I of course meant is - is the majority of people considering a capital offense deterred? Apparently treason is no longer a capital crime and is as popular as ever. Many big cities still have high homicide rates, so this is not a deterrent.
[taebos]
[ 16. November 2005, 10:36: Message edited by: Sir Kevin ]
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
This page from Amnesty International might be useful in answering which states retain and which have abolished. The USA has some interesting bedfellows on this issue.
M
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Many big cities still have high homicide rates, so this is not a deterrent.
[taebos]
But we could only know that by setting up a parallel universe and seeing what the difference in the rate in that particular city at that particular time would have been.
A deterrent doesn't need to stop someone doing something does it? Just act as one of the cons.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
A deterrent doesn't need to stop someone doing something does it? Just act as one of the cons.
Well, that, thank God, isn't how the Nuclear Deterrent worked. (If it worked; I always thought arguments about its deterrent value vis-a-vis Global Thermonuclear War were akin to "I've been riding a motorbike for 45 years, and I've never had a fatal accident yet..." )
But I'll concede that a deterrent to murder, for example, might be held to "work" if it could be demonstrated that it reduced the murder rate. Of course, if you hold that state murder is still murder, then you would argue that a death-penalty regime with a 100% successful conviction score would actually double the murder rate. Which is a strong moral argument against the death penalty.
It's always important to ask at what cost these things work.
There is, of course, the argument that murder is such an abhorrent thing that only the forfeiting of a right-to-life meets its just demands. I have found myself wondering whether this leads in the direction of a regime under which murderers might be sentenced to death, but that society concur that it has no right to enact the sentence. Wouldn't that be like saying that the state is not God? Here's Genesis 4: quote:
[15] Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Where is it legal in the first world countries?
Why seperate discussion to first world countries? I can see how some people might consider the death penalty appropriate for some crimes, and others would consider it to be inappropriate in all cases. But if that's the case why differentiate between where it's OK and not? If it's wrong, it's wrong. You can justify saying I don't want it here (or, I do want it here), but I'm not going to comment on the choices other nations make. But, you can't say "it's OK in these countries, but not those ones" on the basis simply of whether or not they're "first world".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Deterent is just one aspect of the judicial process - whether the punishment is a large fine, extended incarceration or the death penalty (or, in some countries loss of a limb or other penalty). But, I suspect it's primarily a deterent to getting caught rather than necessarily commiting the crime in the first place. Also, in the case of many murders, the "heat of the moment" factor is probably so high that there's no real thought of "if I do this I'm going to be executed/live the rest of my life behind bars". In such cases deterrence isn't a factor.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Where is it legal in the first world countries?
To my knowledge, the only NATO members who still have the death penalty are Turkey and the United States.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
...Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
...
I generally think it should be more broadly applied.
And I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not. It is intended as punishment and protection for society. That's good enough for me.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
quote:
To my knowledge, the only NATO members who still have the death penalty are Turkey and the United States.
Apparently Turkey abolished it in 2004, according to Amnesty. Among the stable and well established democracies the US shares it with Japan, South Korea and India. The Vatican, I was amused to note, abolished it in 1969 which must be a source of comfort to visiting protestant dignitaries. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
And I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not. It is intended as punishment and protection for society. That's good enough for me.
- Law is not and was not intended to be punishment.
- A lifetime prison sentence, if properly enforced, would do the trick for protection.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
And I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not. It is intended as punishment and protection for society. That's good enough for me.
- Law is not and was not intended to be punishment.
- A lifetime prison sentence, if properly enforced, would do the trick for protection.
-Digory
The primary purpose of the law is to convict. Punishment follows, usually based on the law.
Lifetime prison sentences rarely ever are.
There is a thread in Limbo on capital punishment: Please read.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
From the Amnesty International site:
quote:
As in previous years, the vast majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2004, 97 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Viet Nam and the USA. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 3,400 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher. In March 2004 a delegate at the National People's Congress said that "nearly 10,000" people are executed per year in China. Iran executed at least 159 people, and Viet Nam at least 64. There were 59 executions in the USA, down from 65 in 2003.
I don't support the death penalty, and I think the US government is quite wrong in its use of it but I think the use of statistics is slightly disingenous. There seems to be no reason to bunch the US with China, Iran and Vietnam - or indeed any of the four together - except to somehow establish guilt by association. 3,400 but possibly 10,000 executions in a year (I bet Tony didn't raise the subject when he met the Chinese President recently) is not really on a par with 59 down from 65. Given that most of the countries that do have the death penalty aren't the sort of places that provide statistics to researchers from Amnesty International, contributing to 97% of the number of reported executions may merely witness to freedom of information and statistical exactitude rather than a draconian legal system.
It's the same sort of smug liberal mindset that led the Guardian to think they could influence the outcome of the US election by having Richard Dawkins and Antonia Fraser write to the electorate of New Hampshire. Given the concerns expressed by Amnesty about human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay (which I share) you think they'd go out of their way to scrupulously avoid the appearance of anti-Americanism.
[ 16. November 2005, 13:04: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
Sadly, the sentiment in favor of capitol punishment in this country remains quite high.
The recent gubernatorial election here in Virginia had the death penalty as a factor. One candidate had said that as part of his faith (he is RC) he opposed the death penalty, but that, if elected, he would enforce it "because that is the law". His opponent made a HUGE effort to smear him on this. It did not work.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
Sadly, the sentiment in favor of capitol punishment in this country remains quite high.
The current occupants of the Capitol are quite punishing!
Sorry. *gets his coat*
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
Sadly, the sentiment in favor of capitol punishment in this country remains quite high.
I think it's gradually declining, though. Am I overoptimistic?
quote:
The recent gubernatorial election here in Virginia had the death penalty as a factor. One candidate had said that as part of his faith (he is RC) he opposed the death penalty, but that, if elected, he would enforce it "because that is the law". His opponent made a HUGE effort to smear him on this. It did not work.
I'm confused. This could be either
* The Republican candidate smeared the Democratic candidate for not having the dedication to convert to a faith better befitting the governor of a hang-em-high state before running for office;
or
* The Democratic candidate lost (contrary to what I recall from the news).
Which is it? Or am I making some kind of foolish assumption (surely no big-name Virginia Republican is opposed to the death penalty both religiously and politically...)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
During the 20th century New Zealand could not make it's mind up. They switched from the death penalty to life imprisonment several times. There was no discernable effect on the murder rate, this is the nearest thing to an experiment we have and it did not support the deterrence argument.
[ 16. November 2005, 17:42: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
My understanding is that, for sex-related crimes in the US, when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
My understanding is that, for sex-related crimes in the US, when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
long time no see. welcome back, Mad Geo.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Listen real careful now ............ sssssssssshh .... yep comet Erin will impact in about 14 posts.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
I don't know. I have heard two explanations given. One is that many people feel that, when the evidence so often boils down to issues of "he said/she said," and whether consent was given, and did this person really know how old that person was -- they feel that there's too much they can't know for sure. So while they are sure enough that they're willing convict the accused and throw him in jail, they don't feel that they can be sure enough to impose the death penalty.
Another explanation is simply that a large number of people who support capital punishment do not support it for anything other than murder -- a life for a life, but not for anything else.
It may be that both of these are true, in some measure, for some people -- enough so to produce the effect I described above.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
...It may be that both of these are true, in some measure, for some people -- enough so to produce the effect I described above.
You need 12 out of 12 to hand a murderer, but only 1 out of 12 to hang a jury.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
I meant hang, not hand. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
You need 12 out of 12 to hand a murderer, but only 1 out of 12 to hang a jury.
Righto, and that's exactly the way it was intended. This was the working definition of "jury" at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. It was also understood that any juror outraged by the law or its application to the case should vote 'not guilty' regardless of the facts. In other words, so wary were the Founding Fathers of tyranny that they wanted to be sure people wouldn't be convicted unless the people were virtually unanimous about it.
American conservativism, one would think, would respect this concept and precedent, which derives from British jurisprudence. If doing so brings 'justice' to a standstill, then maybe it's up to the other two branches of government to draft laws with which more of their constituents agree.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.
That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.
One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
The recent gubernatorial election here in Virginia had the death penalty as a factor. One candidate had said that as part of his faith (he is RC) he opposed the death penalty, but that, if elected, he would enforce it "because that is the law".
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Had he said the same thing on another issue I can think of (and I say this not knowing the man and unsure of whether I could find Viriginia on a map), bishops would be telling people they had a moral obligation to vote against him...
I find the death penalty barbaric, and have no idea why it seems there are some in the States who consider it a badge of honour - probably the more when nearly everyone else has abolished the practise. But I do shake my head at the variety of Catholicism where one's country's 'ways' are superior to church teachings.
(I am C of E - it just leaves me puzzled, on not only the Ship but other sites, all the more the US 'conservative Catholic' ones, where the Vatican is supposed to be treated with blind obedience - unless it is about capital punishment... )
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.
That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.
One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
You're probably not old enough to remember lynchings. I'm not really, either, but I've done a bit of reading on the subject. I won't ask you to imagine them; they were too horrific to go there. And it is the possibility of lynchings that causes me to support having the death penalty.
I believe that, if the death penalty were not available, then, in the event of particularly heinous crimes, there will be people who feel that the perpetrator deserves to die, and who believe that, if the legal system can't do justice, they'll simply do it themselves.
As long as there is the possibility that the perpetrator could be sentenced to death, I think people like that are more willing to let the legal system do its job, giving passions time to cool, and giving us a better chance that real justice will be done.
Therefore, I support having the death penalty on the books. It strikes me as being less bad than the alternative.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.
That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.
One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
Did you read the other capital punishment thread like I suggested? This discussion is all there.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.
That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.
One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
So if DNA immediately exonerates a death penalty conviction, does that mean we can kill the bastard immediately if it proves him/her guilty?
Just curious how consistent you were on this.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Thanks Joyfulsoul, it has been a long break)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It is the possibility of lynchings that causes me to support having the death penalty...
if the death penalty were not available, then, in the event of particularly heinous crimes, there will be people who feel that the perpetrator deserves to die, and who believe that, if the legal system can't do justice, they'll simply do it themselves.
Maybe you're right, I just don't remember lynchings. Or maybe this is because where I grew up (Wisconsin) they didn't occur, even though neither did executions: my home state, I'm pleased to say, has never had capital punishment. And Wisconsin is hardly overrun with murder, either, we might note. The linked graph shows a strong positive correlation, in fact, with murder rate and death penalty throughout the country. The variation among states in murder rate is quite dramatic, and the top states are all death-penalty, the bottom states mostly not.
I'd be more inclined to guess that the same mentality that would lynch someone would also want capital punishment.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'd be more inclined to guess that the same mentality that would lynch someone would also want capital punishment.
Yes, exactly. And given that we have many people with that mentality, I'd rather have capital punishment than lynchings. The chances of justice being done by a judge and jury are much greater than the chances of justice being done by a mob.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The linked graph shows a strong positive correlation, in fact, with murder rate and death penalty throughout the country. The variation among states in murder rate is quite dramatic, and the top states are all death-penalty, the bottom states mostly not.
I wonder which influences which? Is it that in those states where there is the death penalty, the murder rate was the highest anyway (and thus the death penalty was reintroduced/never rescinded), or is it that having the death penalty is either making no difference to the murder rate or in fact inflaming it? Just curious ...
Where I am tempted by the death penalty (I'm a Brit) is for the mass murderer - the one who walks into a school and fatally shoots a bunch of kids and their teacher; or who systematically kills possibly 200 people while in drag as a doctor. There seems to be something unjust about someone who kills many, and therefore is responsible not only for many deaths but the ongoing suffering of many families, ending up receiving the same punishment as someone who has killed one person. They might not even stay in prison for life (since in the UK life doesn't generally mean life - it means anything up to 25 years, with exceptions).
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suze
Ship's Barmaid
# 5639
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
My understanding is that, for sex-related crimes in the US, when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
I don't know about whether the jurors would avoid finding them guilty but you may well find children and young people becoming even less prepared to speak about the abuse they have suffered. Very often the young person has great love for the person abusing them and, while they want the abuse to stop, they don't want the person punished for what they have done. It's not uncommon for the child to feel guilt for getting the person abusing them into "trouble" I imagine that feeling would only multiply if the person was then sentenced to death. That in and of itself may be enough to make them retract their allegation, making conviction nigh on impossible.
--------------------
' You stay here and I'll go look for God, that won't be hard cos I know where he's not, and I will bring him back with me , then he'll listen , then he'll see' Richard Shindell
Posts: 2603 | From: where the angels sleep | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:
quote:
Did you read the other capital punishment thread like I suggested? This discussion is all there.
Posting as a shipmate. There's no rule that says that it is forbidden to re-state an argument that has been used in a Limbo thread, if one feels that it is particularly compelling or not adequately answered in the previous thread. The fact that I agree entirely with Romanlion's supremely wise and eloquent post has, of course, nothing to do with my pointing this out.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
You're probably not old enough to remember lynchings. I'm not really, either, but I've done a bit of reading on the subject. I won't ask you to imagine them; they were too horrific to go there. And it is the possibility of lynchings that causes me to support having the death penalty.
I believe that, if the death penalty were not available, then, in the event of particularly heinous crimes, there will be people who feel that the perpetrator deserves to die, and who believe that, if the legal system can't do justice, they'll simply do it themselves.
As long as there is the possibility that the perpetrator could be sentenced to death, I think people like that are more willing to let the legal system do its job, giving passions time to cool, and giving us a better chance that real justice will be done.
Therefore, I support having the death penalty on the books. It strikes me as being less bad than the alternative.
That hasn't been the experience of Western Europe where, in many instances, the death penalty has been removed from the statute books for ordinary crimes for at least a generation. Bosnia-Herzegovina, South Africa and the former communist countries have removed the death penalty despite the fact that there are large numbers of people who one would expect to bear grudges from the civil war, apartheid and communism but who somehow refrain from lynching each other. If a black South African or Bosnian Muslim can be trusted not to take the law into their own hands, I would think anyone can.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... There's no rule that says that it is forbidden to re-state an argument that has been used in a Limbo thread, if one feels that it is particularly compelling or not adequately answered in the previous thread. ...
Indeed.
However, if one were to read the other thread, the arguments were made, and emotions got rather heated. My suggestions were made for the benefit of those who were not aware of that, and those who got involved before who do not wish to reopen old wounds.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.
That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.
One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
So if DNA immediately exonerates a death penalty conviction, does that mean we can kill the bastard immediately if it proves him/her guilty?
Just curious how consistent you were on this.
(Thanks Joyfulsoul, it has been a long break)
I have no moral qualm with capital punishment per se, but the evidentiary threshold necessary to guarantee, unequivocally that it is administered properly is, IMO prohibitive.
DNA alone would not do it for me.
The confluence of evidence it would require for me personally(as a juror) to condemn someone to death would be rare, in the utmost sense of the word.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
[...] when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
In England in the 18th century capital punishment was tried for more and more crimes until bu the early 19th century you could be executed for just about anything. "As well hang for a sheep as a lamb" was only just an exagerration.
The result was that juries refused to convict all sorts of apparently guilty people. Especially if they were any of young, beautiful, noble, well-spoken, obvious victims, notorious highwaymen, et.c etc. It wasn't until after it became normal to commute the sentence to transportation fior everything short of murder that the conviction rate went back up again.
And thus was the Empire forged.
NB although death was mandatory for murder the range of homicides that did not count as murder was (& is) very large in English law. Even in the 19th century the majority of killers were not executed.
For some reason I always feel the need to re-read The Ballad of Reading Gaol when thinking abotu this sort of thing.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I have no moral qualm with capital punishment per se, but the evidentiary threshold necessary to guarantee, unequivocally that it is administered properly is, IMO prohibitive.
DNA alone would not do it for me.
The confluence of evidence it would require for me personally(as a juror) to condemn someone to death would be rare, in the utmost sense of the word.
So, guilty, but not guilty enough to endure the punishment set by law.
The law sets out that the level of evidence is "beyond a reeasonable doubt". To be a juror and ignore this in favour of your own limit (which, I would guess, might require several eye witnesses, at lest two different video tapes and a signed confession) is to defy the law.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
And I will simply point out the chillingly high number of murder convictions in Canada where it has been proven beyond any doubt -- often 10-20 years after the conviction -- that scrupulous judges and consciencious juries got it wrong. Active police intent to get a conviction regardless of the facts has been a factor in some cases, but certainly not in others.
And it has from time immemorial been a premise of Common Law (the basis for the criminal law in the US as well as in Canada and the UK) that it is better for twn guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be punished. It's one of those things like the concept of due process and innocent until proven guilty that tends to get forgotten.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
...DNA alone would not do it for me....
Would DNA alone be enough to let someone go?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:
quote:
The law sets out that the level of evidence is "beyond a reeasonable doubt". To be a juror and ignore this in favour of your own limit (which, I would guess, might require several eye witnesses, at lest two different video tapes and a signed confession) is to defy the law.
Have you no room for conscience?
If I were asked, per impossible to sit on a jury for a capital case I would ask to be excused on the grounds that I disagreed with capital punishment and could not in conscience bring in a guilty verdict if there were any danger of the death penalty. Any sensible judge would kick me off the jury - doubtless with a flea in my ear - before you could say 'miscarriage of justice'.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:
quote:
The law sets out that the level of evidence is "beyond a reeasonable doubt". To be a juror and ignore this in favour of your own limit (which, I would guess, might require several eye witnesses, at lest two different video tapes and a signed confession) is to defy the law.
Have you no room for conscience?
The law is the law.
I have a conscience, but if I am required to apply a particular law, I do so - that is my duty. My opinion is irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If I were asked, per impossible to sit on a jury for a capital case I would ask to be excused on the grounds that I disagreed with capital punishment and could not in conscience bring in a guilty verdict if there were any danger of the death penalty. ...
That is the honourable thing to do.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:
quote:
I have a conscience, but if I am required to apply a particular law, I do so - that is my duty. My opinion is irrelevant.
Which is fine, up to a point. What, however, if a law is unjust? What would you do if, to take an extreme example, the Canadian government were overthrown by the Canadian Reich Party or worse, the Canadian Reich Party swept to power in a free and fair election, and you were obliged to report any Jews you knew of in hiding to the authorities so they could be taken away and killed. Are you really saying you would never follow your conscience? What if a law was passed obliging you to burn incense to the Canadian Prime Minister? Are there really no circumstances in which you would break the law?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The primary purpose of the law is to convict. Punishment follows, usually based on the law.
Lifetime prison sentences rarely ever are.
What purpose does "conviction" serve?
That lifetime prison sentences rarely are is a solvable problem, and does not necessitate the death penalty.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, guilty, but not guilty enough to endure the punishment set by law?
The law sets out that the level of evidence is "beyond a reeasonable doubt". To be a juror and ignore this in favour of your own limit (which, I would guess, might require several eye witnesses, at lest two different video tapes and a signed confession) is to defy the law.
Not true. As Alogon points out:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It was also understood that any juror outraged by the law or its application to the case should vote 'not guilty' regardless of the facts. In other words, so wary were the Founding Fathers of tyranny that they wanted to be sure people wouldn't be convicted unless the people were virtually unanimous about it.
<snip>
...maybe it's up to the other two branches of government to draft laws with which more of their constituents agree.
The system was set up to allow jurors to believe that the person may seem guilty, but not enough so to endure the law of sentencing provided, etc. That's where democracy still holds some of its power.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... What would you do if, ...
It's not that I will ignore your question, but I have taken the position that hypothetical questions, especially ones such as the one you posed which are intended only to provide the worst possible scenario for the sole purpose of winning an argument, are to be treated rhetorically.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
... quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, guilty, but not guilty enough to endure the punishment set by law?
The system was set up to allow jurors to believe that the person may seem guilty, but not enough so to endure the law of sentencing provided, etc.
So, I guess you agree with me?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
