Thread: What is the purpose of Capital Punishment?

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I'll bet it is for many though. And by "many" I mean a hell of a lot.

Again, this has been covered. Statistics show that murder rates are the same before and after capital punishment has been instated/removed.

And that's all the more reason why they should be purged from the system.

Life in prison without parole does the same exact thing.

And the "insanity" plea is a crock of shit. Obviously, some one who murders is not in their right mind. That is no excuse.

Okay, no offense or anything but this is quite an ignorant statement. In many cases, it is a 'crock of shit' as was so eloquently put. But blanketing it and saying the entire plea is rubbish is ridiculous. There is a difference between murderers who are not in their right mind and have a perverted sense of ethics, or rather, no ethics at all and someone who is actually medically insane. People who have mental disorders that cause murder have a right to life. So I reiterate: 'insanity' as someone who has no morals is different than actually having an aberration in the brain.

You're wrong about that. I place great importance on Human life. That's why it's imperative to eliminate those who have nothing better to do than take the lives of others.

As said, life in prison accomplishes the same thing.

You are completely missing my point, yet again. It's far better to eliminate one bad apple than to allow that apple to spoil the bushel. In other words, the death of one man is justified when it means the preservation of many others. Those "others" being innocents, mind you.

Just out of curiosity, would you rather have one innocent person wrongly accused, and have that person and two genuinely guilty people put to death for murder, or all three acquitted?

If you think that murderers should be spared the death penalty then it is you who don't value life, not me.

Not necessarily. Think about it. Who values life more, the person who kills someone, or the person who doesn't kill someone? You are not showing that you value life by killing a murderer. This would be true if killing the murderer brought the victim back. But it doesn't. Thus this does NOT show more value in life... at all...

The argument that some innocent person might get caught in the crossfire is not a compelling argument. It's a cop-out that does nothing more than demonstrate a willingness to tolerate murder.

Let me just say here this isn't my argument. However, you are saying we should cut down on the trials for people on death row. THIS would lead to a lot more murders of innocent people. As it is, people rarely get caught in the crossfire... but it is very expensive. Thus the issue here is the price of capital punishment. It cost more than prison for life.

Oneironaught, it seems like you are solidly entrenched into your opinion. However, I think you are still missing my point, in fact, my point was the only sentence you didn't quote. I really do believe that criminals should be punished, harshly at that. Put them in a hellhole where they get sodomised for the rest of their lives for all I care, just don't use an unreliable punishment that is impossible to correct when a mistake is made. What advantages does capital punishment have over life imprisonment? There is no justice served in the death penalty, just your basic "an eye for an eye". Put these criminals to work in a forced labor camp or something if you want them to repay their debts to society. In any case, even in this not so fairy tale unfair world of ours, humanity is finally getting a grip on a fair, equitable and reliable judicial system. Just look at the last few centuries, it's not hard to tell that capital punishment is being rendered obsolete, and you my friend are in the wrong century. Until you can accept that, we'll just have to agree to disagree...

I'll only touch on a few things here:

Originally Posted by wasup

Just out of curiosity, would you rather have one innocent person wrongly accused, and have that person and two genuinely guilty people put to death for murder, or all three acquitted?

If the reality were that 1 person is falsely imprisoned for every two that deserve to be there then I'd have to agree with you. But that is simply not the case. An overwhelming majority of people there are there because they did indeed commit the crimes they are charged of.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Oneironaught, it seems like you are solidly entrenched into your opinion.

Tis true.

we'll just have to agree to disagree...

And that we will.

All other points have been made enough times. There's no way any of us will bend on our views and that's good in a way. It shows that we each believe what we do for a reason and not because of knee-jerk reactions. However, as I've already stated my position repeatedly, there's no need to continue going in circles except to show how stubborn we each are. Therefor, I'm done here.

But don't take my backing out to mean that I'm backing down. I stand firmly by my position and my reasons for believing as such. Continue on as you wish.

There is a correlation between the elimination of the death penalty and an increase in the murder rate.

Benefits of capital punishment:

1. closure for the victims' families
2. revenge for the victims' families
3. impossibility of perpretrator perpetrating ever again
4. deterrence when used consistently
5. existence on death row, where inmates sit in small rooms by themselves all day and don't get to hang out with each other-- extra punishment until death to allow early revenge for victims' families

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

4. deterrence when used consistently

That's exactly correct. "When used consistently" it can be very effective as a deterrent. Your other points are also spot on.

Am i voting what i believe or what i think the reason for it is?

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I'll only touch on a few things here:
If the reality were that 1 person is falsely imprisoned for every two that deserve to be there then I'd have to agree with you. But that is simply not the case. An overwhelming majority of people there are there because they did indeed commit the crimes they are charged of.

You didn't actually answer my question. I did not ask "would you rather 1 innocent be killed for every 2 guilty, or all three always let go?" Simply, in one situation, would you rather have 1 innocent and 2 guilty get killed, or all three let go?

Originally Posted by wasup

You didn't actually answer my question. I did not ask "would you rather 1 innocent be killed for every 2 guilty, or all three always let go?" Simply, in one situation, would you rather have 1 innocent and 2 guilty get killed, or all three let go?

Then I shall:

If the situation were actually as you describe - which is clearly not the case but I'll humor you anyway - and we knew that to be so, then I'd have to say to let them all live.

On a side note, why is forced labour not a viable punishment? I mean, if justice is supposed to be about repaying your debt to society, rather than revenge, then wouldn't this be the most logical solution? Putting criminals to work carving up some mountain is far more reasonable than letting them rot away in cells wasting our tax dollars. And as far as I can tell, Siberia was a far more effective detterant than capital punishment ever was...

Wouldn't the 'deterrent' effect only prevent premeditated murder?

Oneironaught, at one point in time I asked you what you thought the purpose of punishment was. You then told me that, by in large, the point of punishment was deterrence. But it has already been established that the death penalty isn't more of a deterrent than life in prison. And despite how much you bring it up, this isn't about how the death penalty *could* be more of a deterrent. The fact is that it isn't. And besides, most murders are either accidents or crimes of passion, neither of which involves the perpetrator weighing the legal consequences of their actions before committing the crime anyway. Considering this (and statistics), this argument is flimsy at best.

But after reading a lot of what you have said so far, I think I know what the real reason is behind the way you feel. You feel that if someone kills another person, then that person should loose their life as well. It’s a very intuitive conclusion to come to. But what is the reasoning behind it? You just assert this premise under its own volition but you don't explain why this is correct.

We already know it isn't more of a deterrent because of statistics (and that makes sense when we consider the ill-thought out nature of most murders). We know it doesn’t satisfy requisites of retribution, because taking the life of a murderer doesn't actually "cancel out" the death of the victim. Arguing that the death penalty is justified because its safer for society is nonsense considering how few people actually manage to escape from prison, much less maximum security prison…much much less Supermax prisons (for those who are the most dangerous/most likely to try something). And on top of it all, we know it isn;t more economical, regardless of if it *could* be based on some sort of fictional hypothetical.

So what is the backbone behind the "killers deserve to die" mentality, if not mere revenge? It seems more like a primitive urge that a rational decision, seeing as nothing actually comes from it besides a sense of relief from "killing them back". The only thing life in prison cannot do that the death penalty can is getting this sort of “payback”.

Don't get me wrong, I totally get that. But you are trying to exaggerate the righteousness of this otherwise primitive way of dealing with people. It’s a base desire, plain and simply. Killing a murderer doesn't accomplish anything other than satisfying this primal yearning for revenge. Sugar coating it by calling it "closure" doesn't change what it actually is, and neither does trying to hide it in the umbrella term "punishment".

Punishment comes in many forms, and I think it’s clear what type of punishment the death penalty is. I sure as hell know what it isn’t.

Originally Posted by ethen

And besides, most murders are either accidents or crimes of passion, neither of which involves the perpetrator weighing the legal consequences of their actions before committing the crime anyway.

Murder, by its legal definition, involves intent. The law never considers an "accident" to be murder. And "crimes of passion" usually involve mitigating circumstances that deem the acts "voluntary manslaughter". Murder involves willful, knowing intent. Although murder is often impulsive, in which case it is considered "second degree murder", the threat of punishment can still serve as a factor. You might have a whim to suddenly drive 90 on the interstate, but the moment you see a cop, you are going to change your mind. You might have a sudden whim to tell your boss to go screw himself, but the threat of losing your job will most likely keep your mouth shut. Opponents of the death penalty often talk about impulsivity as if it is automatically beyond the scope of the threat of punishment. I very much disagree with them.

You cannot base the potential success of capital punishment on what we have right now. Capital punishment as it is is very rare, considering the number of murderers, and it takes decades for it to be employed. I agree that a psychopathic scumbag isn't going to say, "Hey, I don't want to commit this murder. There is a very tiny chance that I will be put to death in 25 years if I do." Of course they don't think like that. But if we start putting ALL first degree murderers to death and greatly speed up the judicial process, we will actually have a fair system to judge. I think it would be a huge success.

On the contrary, involuntary manslaughter is considered murder, and this would account for accidents I was referring to. Take a drunk driver who accidently wrecks his car and kills someone. Such people are usually convicted of involuntary manslaughter, eventhough there was no intention of killing anyone.

So no, what you just said is clearly invalid.

Nevertheless, the death penalty *as it is* is obviously what we are talking about here...not some idealistic notion of what it could be. If you have to change the reality of the punishment to justify its existence, then something is clearly amiss. Besides, I find it rediculous to think that, in a fit of rage/adrenaline/fear/etc, a person will stop and reconsider killing someone if the penalty is death, but not if its life in prison.

Im sure people are aware of the punishment of murder before and after killing someone, but the whole idea of a crime of passion is temporaily not caring and/or not thinking about the consequences of the crime when commiting it. So I don't see how that would make any sort of difference on murders, unless they were premeditated. And even then, I still wonder how many people would really change their mind simply because the punishment for murder was the death penalty, and not just life in prison. For some reason, I have the feeling that most people who commit premeditated murder have the belief that they will not get caught. So even cases of premeditated murder, that logic is questionable.

Originally Posted by ethen

On the contrary, involuntary manslaughter is considered murder, and this would account for accidents I was referring to. Take a drunk driver who accidently wrecks his car and kills someone. Such people are usually convicted of involuntary manslaughter, eventhough there was no intention of killing anyone.

But not the same level and the punishment shouldn't necessarily be the same.

Nevertheless, the death penalty *as it is* is obviously what we are talking about here...

Maybe you are. But that is only because you want so much to dismiss the value of punishment that fits the crime.

not some idealistic notion of what it could be.

What it "could be" is what is worth fighting for because it's what works. You keep trying to argue against the death penalty because you say it doesn't work. Look at how often it's even an issue... Very rarely. If it were employed as it was intended then it would have a greater impact.

When you are fighting against is something the hardly ever happens, despite the fact that it legally should.

(Now I'm using the following example to illustrate the value of fear factor. I'm not saying we should bring lynchings back into the city streets so don't go there ):
Imagine how hesitant people would be to murder if there were public hangings every weekend? How about if there were public displays of thieves having their hand chopped off? I bet you'd really think twice about stealing anything, even if you were desperate. Well, the same principal applies to actually enforcing the death penalty as it's meant to be.

This all reminds me of the parents that constantly threaten the children: "I'm going to spank you if you keep it up", but never actually do it. The kids just get more and more uncontrollable. When people discover that you never mean what you say or say what you mean then all of the deterrence factor goes up in smoke because the threat of severe punishment is not taken seriously.

Originally Posted by ethen

On the contrary, involuntary manslaughter is considered murder, and this would account for accidents I was referring to. Take a drunk driver who accidently wrecks his car and kills someone. Such people are usually convicted of involuntary manslaughter, eventhough there was no intention of killing anyone.

So no, what you just said is clearly invalid.

Uh, what are you talking about? Manslaughter is not murder. They are two different things. Murder involves intent, without mitigation. It does sometimes inlvolve recklessness, which involves intent in the act but not specifically in the outcome. Murder always involves malicious intent of some type. If you fire shots into a restaurant without trying to kill anybody in particular, your behavior falls under the definition of recklessness. Recklessness goes way beyond negligence, which is an element in involuntary manslaughter. Murder involves recklessness sometimes but usually specific intent. Involuntary manslaughter involves negligence, and voluntary manslaughter involves specific intent or recklessness plus mitigating circumstances. No act is murder unless it involves malice.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

Originally Posted by ethen

Nevertheless, the death penalty *as it is* is obviously what we are talking about here...not some idealistic notion of what it could be. If you have to change the reality of the punishment to justify its existence, then something is clearly amiss. Besides, I find it rediculous to think that, in a fit of rage/adrenaline/fear/etc, a person will stop and reconsider killing someone if the penalty is death, but not if its life in prison.

Im sure people are aware of the punishment of murder before and after killing someone, but the whole idea of a crime of passion is temporaily not caring and/or not thinking about the consequences of the crime when commiting it. So I don't see how that would make any sort of difference on murders, unless they were premeditated. And even then, I still wonder how many people would really change their mind simply because the punishment for murder was the death penalty, and not just life in prison. For some reason, I have the feeling that most people who commit premeditated murder have the belief that they will not get caught. So even cases of premeditated murder, that logic is questionable.

True thugs don't really give a damn about prison. They would rather be at home, but getting three free meals a day while they watch T.V. and play basketball with their best friends is not exactly their worst nightmare. But most of them do fear death. Death is a much scarier idea to them. It would make a difference with many of them, if they took it seriously. So I do support capital punishment in its proper and effective form, which is not what we have right now.

The highest goal of the justice system, according to me, is to make the world better for people and society. Death penalty, in a way, is a paradox. It does 'better' society, by getting rid of the bad apples. However it also kills people. And aren't people what you want to protect?

Originally Posted by Neruo

And aren't people what you want to protect?

People who play by the rules are the ones you want to protect. Don't leave out that all-important qualifier.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

People who play by the rules are the ones you want to protect. Don't leave out that all-important qualifier.

Why do people that play by the rules have more right to live?

Originally Posted by Neruo

Why do people that play by the rules have more right to live?

Those who abide by the rules earn the right to be protected by the rules. Why should one be allowed to reap the benefits of law when they choose to disobey the law?

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Those who abide by the rules earn the right to be protected by the rules. Why should one be allowed to reap the benefits of law when they choose to disobey the law?

Who makes the rule? Who makes the law?

People.

Also:

Why should Anyone not be allowed to reap the 'benefits of the laws', or good things in general?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Uh, what are you talking about? Manslaughter is not murder. They are two different things. Murder involves intent, without mitigation. It does sometimes inlvolve recklessness, which involves intent in the act but not specifically in the outcome. Murder always involves malicious intent of some type. If you fire shots into a restaurant without trying to kill anybody in particular, your behavior falls under the definition of recklessness. Recklessness goes way beyond negligence, which is an element in involuntary manslaughter. Murder involves recklessness sometimes but usually specific intent. Involuntary manslaughter involves negligence, and voluntary manslaughter involves specific intent or recklessness plus mitigating circumstances. No act is murder unless it involves malice.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

True thugs don't really give a damn about prison. They would rather be at home, but getting three free meals a day while they watch T.V. and play basketball with their best friends is not exactly their worst nightmare. But most of them do fear death. Death is a much scarier idea to them. It would make a difference with many of them, if they took it seriously. So I do support capital punishment in its proper and effective form, which is not what we have right now.

You're missing the point. When all is said and done, the only type of murder that may be influenced by a more sever punishment would be premeditated murder, because that is the only type of murder in which the perpertrator actually considers what he is doing before doing it. The rest are crimes of passion (if you don't consider involuntary manslaughter "murder", that is).

This means that, even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than life in prison, despite statistics contradicting this assumption, it still wouldn't matter. The majority of murders are committed without seriously considering the legal ramifications of their actions, regardless of what those ramifications are. So its more or less a moot point that is only relevant to a slight faction of murders, and even then I have my doubts.

If someone commits premeditated murder, they no doubt consider the consequences of their actions, unlike crimes of passion. However, I have a hard time believing that people who would kill someone despite the possibility of life in prison, would suddenly change their mind if the punishment were the death penalty. To be honest, I seriously doubt that the difference between the two is what makes or breaks someone plans of killing someone I’m more apt to believe that the chance of getting caught is largely what determines if someone goes through with premeditated murder.

But I’m tempted to just ignore that argument because, though it makes sense, its just speculation on my part (not to mention that is unnecessary in proving my point).

1.) Statistics show that the death penalty isn't more of a deterrent, and 2.) even if it were, it would have little-to-no impact on the vast majority of murders anyways, considering that they are crimes of passion (and what that entails).

Like I said before, that argument is flimsy at best...and that’s not even having to include the numerous benefits of life in prison has over the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Those who abide by the rules earn the right to be protected by the rules. Why should one be allowed to reap the benefits of law when they choose to disobey the law?

Ah, this is called Social Contract Theory. Like most moral theories, it makes some very good points that ought to be considered, but as a single theory, suffers from critical errors. Its the same with Utilitarianism, Ethics by Agreement, Kantism, Natural Law Theory, etc, etc. The weird thing is, each theory is like a peice to a puzzle. Individually they are flawed, but if you integrate them in such a way, many of the flaws each has as an individual theory becomes corrected by something a different theory has to offer.

Perhaps someday I will do a write up on it.

Originally Posted by ethen

You're missing the point.

Actually, you are missing the point.

When all is said and done, the only type of murder that may be influenced by a more sever punishment would be premeditated murder,

Not so.

This means that, even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than life in prison, despite statistics contradicting this assumption,

There is no evidence that contradicts anything. The only evidence you have is based on the notion that there's a teenie-tiny chance that one might be served the death penalty. If the death penalty is not enforced (like the way it's NOT being enforced now) then of course it's no deterrent.

The majority of murders are committed without seriously considering the legal ramifications of their actions, regardless of what those ramifications are. So its more or less a moot point that is only relevant to a slight faction of murders, and even then I have my doubts.

Your premise is again faulty. Most people commit crimes thinking they will not get caught. That's why the penalty must be so incredibly harsh that it's simply not worth taking the chance.

If someone commits premeditated murder, they no doubt consider the consequences of their actions,

I take it you've never killed any one? Like I said, people who premeditate any crime think they will not be caught, that's why they follow through with the act. The objective of capital punishment is to make the odds/penalty ratio simply not worth it.

However, I have a hard time believing that people who would kill someone despite the possibility of life in prison, would suddenly change their mind if the punishment were the death penalty. To be honest, I seriously doubt that the difference between the two is what makes or breaks someone plans of killing someone I’m more apt to believe that the chance of getting caught is largely what determines if someone goes through with premeditated murder.

Answer me right now, you MUST choose one: Life being rough or dying? Which is it? I guarantee you'll choose a rough life over being killed.

1.) Statistics show that the death penalty isn't more of a deterrent, and

No, your statistics show only that words don't mean shit unless they are backed up with action. See my parent analogy again. It's far more valid than you think.

EDIT:

Notice how people stopped being asinine pornographic pricks in chat as soon as people started getting banned for it? That's the difference between "having rules" and "enforcing rules".

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

There is no evidence that contradicts anything. The only evidence you have is based on the notion that there's a teenie-tiny chance that one might be served the death penalty. If the death penalty is not enforced (like the way it's NOT being enforced now) then of course it's no deterrent.

There is evidence; you just refuse to acknowledge it. Statistics show that there is no change in murder rates in states after the death penalty is instated/removed. That’s evidence that the death penalty, as it is, isn't more of an effective deterrent than life in prison with parole.

You keep basing your argument on some idealistic notion of what the death penalty should be, and not what it actually is. As I said before, and will continue to say as necessary, if you have to change the reality of the situation in order to justify the death penalty, then there is something seriously wrong with your logic. And that’s exactly what you are doing.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Your premise is again faulty. Most people commit crimes thinking they will not get caught. That's why the penalty must be so incredibly harsh that it's simply not worth taking the chance.

There are several mistakes in this statement. First, you are falsely equivocating crimes in general with murder. Secondly, you are falsely equivocating murder in general with premeditated murder. Very few murders are actually premeditated, or thought out before hand. Most murders are crimes of passion, meaning that the person impulsively kills someone out of a state of extreme emotion and/or mental instability. The reason they call this type of murder “a crime of passion” is because such people aren't thinking straight, meaning that they probably aren't weighing the pro's and con's of life in prison vs. the death penalty in their fit of uncontrollable rage.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I take it you've never killed any one? Like I said, people who premeditate any crime think they will not be caught, that's why they follow through with the act. The objective of capital punishment is to make the odds/penalty ratio simply not worth it.

This doesn't make sense. If people are thinking they will not get caught, what's it matter to them what the punishment is going to be? They believe they aren't going to get caught regardless. If what you just said is true, there is no ratio being considered. But if people actually do weight the odds/penalty ratio, that’s only in cases of premeditated murder, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Answer me right now, you MUST choose one: Life being rough or dying? Which is it? I guarantee you'll choose a rough life over being killed.

This is only relevant for people who actually think before they kill someone, not for those who kill someone in the heat of the moment.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

No, your statistics show only that words don't mean shit unless they are backed up with action. See my parent analogy again. It's far more valid than you think.

Two things wrong with this, 1.) You are using the deterrence of an idealized/hypothetical/fictional example of death penalty to justify the actual death penalty, and 2.) The only type of murder a more utilized death penalty would deter is premeditated murder anyway. Crimes of passion are not thought out before hand, meaning the consequences of such actions do not play a role in committing the act, no matter how sever.