The Death Penalty

[redross]

Hey everyone, this is my first thread/post on this site. I'm a philosophy major with a focus in ethics and metaphysics and especially...meta-ethics!

 

One topic that always polarizes people is the death penalty. Frustratingly, I've found that most of those opposed to capital punishment oppose it for reasons unrelated to the act of killing someone for their crimes. The main argument opponents of capital punishment use: someone innocent may be executed.

 

The problem with this argument is this: it does not address the actual act of executing criminals for their crimes, but rather points to flaws in our current judicial system.

 

So, my question to opponents of the death penalty: if there existed a judicial system that eliminated the possibility of the execution (or even conviction) of innocents, would you still be opposed to capital punishment? In other words, is there something morally wrong with executing criminals in-and-of itself?

[Asimov]

Hey everyone, this is my first thread/post on this site. I'm a philosophy major with a focus in ethics and metaphysics and especially...meta-ethics!

 

One topic that always polarizes people is the death penalty. Frustratingly, I've found that most of those opposed to capital punishment oppose it for reasons unrelated to the act of killing someone for their crimes. The main argument opponents of capital punishment use: someone innocent may be executed.

 

The problem with this argument is this: it does not address the actual act of executing criminals for their crimes, but rather points to flaws in our current judicial system.

 

So, my question to opponents of the death penalty: if there existed a judicial system that eliminated the possibility of the execution (or even conviction) of innocents, would you still be opposed to capital punishment? In other words, is there something morally wrong with executing criminals in-and-of itself?

 

Can o' worms.

[waynus]

So, my question to opponents of the death penalty: if there existed a judicial system that eliminated the possibility of the execution (or even conviction) of innocents, would you still be opposed to capital punishment? In other words, is there something morally wrong with executing criminals in-and-of itself?

 

 

I guess there are a few lines of argument that could be employed to address this situation. Assuming no innocents are convicted and a prison system that works well.

 

1) Why execute at all?

 

To keep someone locked up for their natural life is a far worse punisment than a quick and merciful death. It allows them to be confronted every day with their crimes and their consequences.

 

2) Killing a criminal forces someone else to take a human life.

 

Taking a life is no easy thing (so I have been told by friends who have served in the military) one does not forget the experience. As a society do we have the right to hand this to an individual/s to do and what of the consequences of that.

 

3) If we take a human life in a legal penalty are we applying the rule of law or allowing for revenge?

 

4) Are we doing it to save money?

 

I don't know the costs but I think that killing the guilty would probably be a cheaper option. If so it becomes about economics which is not moral reason for the action.

[redross]

1) Why execute at all?

 

To keep someone locked up for their natural life is a far worse punisment than a quick and merciful death. It allows them to be confronted every day with their crimes and their consequences.

 

2) Killing a criminal forces someone else to take a human life.

 

Taking a life is no easy thing (so I have been told by friends who have served in the military) one does not forget the experience. As a society do we have the right to hand this to an individual/s to do and what of the consequences of that.

 

3) If we take a human life in a legal penalty are we applying the rule of law or allowing for revenge?

 

4) Are we doing it to save money?

 

I don't know the costs but I think that killing the guilty would probably be a cheaper option. If so it becomes about economics which is not moral reason for the action.

 

1) While it may be so that letting a criminal stew in their own guilt (supposing they had any) is a greater punishment than death, the fact still remains that there is a chance they could be granted parole/escape. Killing them puts an end to this risk.

 

2) It forces someone to take a non-innocent life. By choosing to disregard the laws of society and impose your will on another person (commit a crime) you have forfeited your moral status; as such, there is no problem with taking a criminal's life.

 

There are many people (such as myself) who would have no problem executing a rapist, murderer, etc.

 

3) We would be applying the rule of law. I think the problem most people have is lumping criminals and innocents together under the umbrella-term 'human life'. I think there is a very important distinction to be made with regard to law-abiding citizens and those who harm others for personal gain.

 

4) I think Asimov once told me that it was actually more expensive to execute criminals (with our current methods) than to imprison them for life, so I don't support it for any economic reason. Although, we could adopt a less costly - and by proxy, probably less 'humane' - method of execution.

[Dhampir]

The arguments you put forth are almost exactly the same as the ones I bring to this debate. Maybe you can argue your point a little better.

[KT45]

1) While it may be so that letting a criminal stew in their own guilt (supposing they had any) is a greater punishment than death, the fact still remains that there is a chance they could be granted parole/escape. Killing them puts an end to this risk.

For the american system, life in prison is better. If a person is convicted of a murder they can appeal, and appeal, and appeal which is a process that can take years and they have the possiblity of getting out or maybe claiming insanity in the process so they end up getting no pushiment. This is horrible because it goes into the tax payers pockets.

 

On the other hand if you say life in prision they have a less of a chance to get an appeal because there is usually less of a rush to get his appeal recognized because he isn't going anywhere.

 

I have nothing against capital punishment. I just think that the accuser should pull the switch if they really want them dead. If they don't got the guts to end a human life then it shouldn't be ended. Most People just wouldn't do it to avoid the guilt trip.

[Mythra]

I'd be opposed to capital punishment for murderers or rapists who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Because then they get out of any penalty at all, going directly to paradise and eternal happiness with the LORD.

 

For all the rest of em, though - shoot em up.

[Taphophilia]

Actually, it is much more costly for taxpayers to put a convicted criminal to death than it is to house them for life. They go through more of an appeals process, and like Taylor says it takes years and years. The legal fees and court costs are much greater for death row inmates. Prisons are pretty much self supporting institutions. Aside from the salaries of the prison workers, the prisoners grow and raise their own food, do most of the maintenance, and other labor intensive work.

[redross]

What if we executed criminals in the most cost-effective way possible...say put them in a cage and let them starve. That takes economics out of the equation and I for one, would not be opposed to such a treatment.

[KT45]

I'm against cruel and unusual punishment.

[Asimov]

I have nothing against capital punishment. I just think that the accuser should pull the switch if they really want them dead. If they don't got the guts to end a human life then it shouldn't be ended. Most People just wouldn't do it to avoid the guilt trip.

 

 

Why is there guilt in ending a life of someone who has commited a crime? That would indicate doubt that the person is guilty and that they don't deserve their punishment.

 

I'm against cruel and unusual punishment.

 

How is it cruel?

[Vigile]

Now you are just being obtuse.

[SkepticOfBible]

How is it cruel?

 

So you mean to say that starving people to death and putting them in cages like animals is all right?

 

Don't forget, we are talking about criminals who commited crimes other than murder or rape, such as white crimes.

 

 

1) While it may be so that letting a criminal stew in their own guilt (supposing they had any) is a greater punishment than death, the fact still remains that there is a chance they could be granted parole/escape. Killing them puts an end to this risk.

Or maybe they actually feel sorry and want to do something better with their lifes when they get out.

 

Let's not blanket all murderers here. Not every murderer commits his crime in cool bloodedness. Many of them are one time acts of emotions or sometimes because of the socio economic status. Not that I am absolving them of their crimes or anything

 

I strongly believe in second chances, and as a humane society, we should aim to reform them.

[Taphophilia]

It's not the method of execution that's expensive, it's all the legal fees and court costs.

 

At least as far as the justice system in the US, cruel and unusual punishment is not going to happen. Due process, is every person's right. Especially, today. In the past, the prisoners were treated horrific and no clemency was given to the condemned.

 

Today we live in a much different climate. Although, I think it's frightening that prisons are set up to only make criminals more and more violent once they have been through the system. They are not set up for rehabilitation.

 

Death row inmates are separated from the rest of the prison population.

 

Certain criteria have to be met in order for prosecutor's to seek the death penalty. A charge of first degree murder does not always carry the death penalty, there must be agrivating circumstances, usually this involes the manner in which the murder is carried out and if there is more than one victim.

 

Once an individual is found guilty, there is no longer a presumption of innocence. Appeals look at the way the trial was conducted. There are also time limits after the penalty phase to present new evidence, in most states it's three weeks. Convictions are rarely overturned.

[Skankboy]

And thus I propose the "Three Strikes and You're Dead" initiative. Everyone deserves a chance at rehabilitation, but you can only go so far...

[Antlerman]

I guess I'd like to turn the question around. Isn't the Unitied States one of the few remaining industrialized nations that still practices execution of it's criminals in its justice system? If so, how come?

[Skankboy]

National Moratorium

 

 

Beginning in 1967, while awaiting the Supreme Court ruling, and for the next nine years, the states stopped executions. In July of 1976, however, the Court upheld the death penalty as a legitimate punishment for certain crimes, opening the door for Congress and the state legislatures to make the death penalty an option again.

 

Today, while more than half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, the United States continues to use the death penalty in all but 12 states (plus the District of Columbia). From January 1977 through April 2001, 710 executions were carried out in this country: 545 by lethal injection, 149 by electrocution, 11 by gas chamber, three by hanging, and two by firing squad.

Related Links

Deadly Questions: New Study Raises Concerns

 

Countries of the World and Their Death Penalty Status

 

Methods of Execution in the U.S.

 

U.S. Prisoners Under Sentence of Death

 

Women on Death Row

 

Number of Persons Executed in the U.S.

 

 

International Abolition and Use

 

 

According to Amnesty International, more than three countries a year on average have abolished the death penalty in law since 1976 or have gone from abolishing it for ordinary crimes to abolishing it for all crimes. Seventy-five countries and territories, including Australia, Germany, and Spain, refuse to impose the death penalty for any crime.

 

Of the countries that still permit the death penalty, only five use lethal injection, the most common method of execution in the United States. Seventy-three of those countries use firing squads, 58 hang condemned criminals, six stone them, and three still use beheading (Congo, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates).

From HERE, not authoratative perhaps, but at least it gives us some info to go from.

[Antlerman]

From what I'm seeing online, in the Western Industrialized nations, only the U.S. remains a country where 2/3rd's of its citizens support execution of criminals. Many people see a direct correlation with this and the influence of Christian doctrines in this country. In either case, it seems inescapable that "something" is influencing perception here that sets the U.S. apart from the rest of the modern industrialized world.

 

Are we more educated than the rest of the Western nations, or are we further behind? How many people here in the States accept the findings of science in regard to the origin of the species to be wrong, as opposed to those in the rest of the world? Is the acceptance of capital punishment based on emotional values and ancient traditions, or is it based on the results of scientific study? I guess I'd start there in evaluating the merits of capital punishment, looking at what studies have shown instead of looking at how it appeals to an inherited sense of social "justice". Bottom line, the decision to do this shouldn't be based on what you "feel" is right.

 

I happened to find this when I was searching on this subject that I'll look into more later as time permits: http://www.prisonexp.org/deathpen.htm

[dibby]

1) While it may be so that letting a criminal stew in their own guilt (supposing they had any) is a greater punishment than death, the fact still remains that there is a chance they could be granted parole/escape. Killing them puts an end to this risk.

 

Surely you are going back on what you said at the beginning? The chance a dangerous prisoner gets parole or escapes is not the ethical debate, but a problem with the judicial system or, maybe, the prison not being secure enough.

[SkepticOfBible]

Isn't the Unitied States one of the few remaining industrialized nations that still practices execution of it's criminals in its justice system? If so, how come?

 

I don't if you consider India a indrustrialised country or not, but I do know we have the death penalty.

 

You might as well included some of the oil rich Arab states too which have the death penalty. China is another place I think.

[Asimov]

How is it cruel?

 

So you mean to say that starving people to death and putting them in cages like animals is all right?

 

Don't forget, we are talking about criminals who commited crimes other than murder or rape, such as white crimes.

 

Are we? He specifically mentioned those who are to be put to death.

 

Or maybe they actually feel sorry and want to do something better with their lifes when they get out.

 

Let's not blanket all murderers here. Not every murderer commits his crime in cool bloodedness. Many of them are one time acts of emotions or sometimes because of the socio economic status. Not that I am absolving them of their crimes or anything

 

I strongly believe in second chances, and as a humane society, we should aim to reform them.

 

I believe in second chances when a second chance is warranted.

 

I think some of the conversation is getting away from the topic...which is whether or not the death penalty is moral. We can make it more economic than the current system, so that part of it is irrelevant. We are talking about the hypothetical application of the death penalty, not the current application of it.

[Eponymic]

 

Are we more educated than the rest of the Western nations, or are we further behind?

 

Ha!

 

The U.S. ranks towards the bottom in literacy rates for all high income countries.

 

It's no surprise that people are so easily duped into Christianity in this country.

 

Wherever the literacy/education rates are the lowest, the organized religion rates are the highest.

[Asimov]

Honestly...can we stop talking about the US?

[Antlerman]

Isn't the Unitied States one of the few remaining industrialized nations that still practices execution of it's criminals in its justice system? If so, how come?

 

I don't if you consider India a indrustrialised country or not, but I do know we have the death penalty.

 

You might as well included some of the oil rich Arab states too which have the death penalty. China is another place I think.

India would be considered one of the 3rd world countries. The U.S. (and Canada) would be considered part of the 1st world countries: (for a better explaination of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries see: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/thir...d_countries.htm )

 

The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after word war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia

The relevance of this to the question of morality of capital punishment is that in the industrialized G8 nations, the United States in is out of step with the rest of the modern world in things like science and views on capital punishment, and it becomes a question of cultural influences in shaping views of morality, rather than some argument from science. If it was based on reason, then why is there a loss of support for it in most industrialized nations where education and scientific knowledge rates are much higher than elsewhere in the world, and why isn't that the case also in the U.S. where 61% of our population also rejects the science behind the Theory of Evolution?

 

To ask the question what is the moral basis for or against capital punishment, I think it's a valid question to ask: 1) What are the cultural influences that may be biasing a decision for it, and 2) What scientific evidence supports it or doesn't support it? Isn't this the best way a society should arrive at moral decisions for itself, if it doesn't utilize some external guide book from some designated god with a list of concrete rules?

[Taphophilia]

I would have to say that I am pro death penalty, not out of morality or any kind of religion.

 

I am pro death penalty because I feel that some crimes (murder), or should I say the way the crime was carried out, should be differenciated in the penalty phase. However, in the Clemency phase of the appeals process (the last appeal before the Death Warrant is issued, it means stepping down the penalty), clemency should be granted.

 

To me there is a difference between the Death Penalty and actaully executing the individual.