| Why the Death Penalty is unconstitutional |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (3:53 pm) I agree for the most part, but what would you say, out of curiosity, to a death sentence for Osama bin Ladin? posted by: thisnameistaken (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (3:58 pm) Agree for the most part as well. "Osama should be put in a big football field filled with all the people whom lost someone in the 9/11 disaster, and let them take care of him. But... usually.. Iwould say " Why do we kill people to prove to people that killing people is wrong?" posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (4:01 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Are you proposing a hypothetical situation in which Osama bin Laden is prosecuted in a legal setting, given a trial and sentenced? If so, I would still oppose implementing the Death Penalty. Don't get me wrong, I in no way support bin Laden, but it goes against my moral standards to condone the killing of another person, if it can be avoided. Now, if we were unable to capture bin Laden and bring him to trial, I would not oppose his death as a last resort, compliant with the notion of self-defense (the only instance I see murder as, more or less, acceptable). posted by: dlfitch (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (4:26 pm) Hypothetically, as in Starship Troopers (the book), capital punishment could be used as a means to prevent crimes. In a world with a flawless legal system, the threat of death would prevent rapes and murders from occurring in the first place. It seems as if death is a powerful concept which can be used to keep people in check. Of course, our legal system is totally jacked (kill the drug war and we can start looking at some sort of reform, but it's hopeless at this point). It's been proven that the death penalty is in no way a deterrent force. We need to put an immediate hold on all executions, wait thirty to forty years, and then think about reinstating it if there is a need (which we can hope won't be the case). posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (4:48 pm) I stand by the addage "two wrongs don't make a right." how does killing someone (a wrong) make up for him or her killing someone else (another wrong)? Why not sentence the person to perform activities that will benefit society? Instead of just removing a "negative" from the world, why not turn the person into a "positive"? posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (5:05 pm) Reply to: jbfs I agree, we need a system of restorative justice rather than punitive justice. Right now victims aren't compensated one bit by criminals. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (5:05 pm) Reply to: dlfitch Even if the Death Penalty did serve as a successful deterrent and really limited the frequency of violent crimes, it would still be an unjust punishment. Taking away a person's life just to prove a point isn't acceptable. But I do agree with you that the Death Penalty is not a successful deterrent and should at least be stopped for a long enough period for us to examine the system more thoroghly. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (5:07 pm) Reply to: jbfs I absolutely agree. The death of a murderer in no way serves justice or society. posted by: WhyNot (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (12:48 am) Reply to: dlfitch "It seems as if death is a powerful concept which can be used to keep people in check." The death penalty was abolished a long time ago in virtually all western nations other than in the US, and while I don't have the exact facts at hand, I remember reading that it made ziltch difference to the criminality rate. In other words, the threat of the death penalty simply does not work. posted by: WhyNot (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:00 am) Reply to: therealspartacus007 "I agree, we need a system of restorative justice rather than punitive justice. Right now victims aren't compensated one bit by criminals." Well said. I believe there was an experiment done in England (not for major crimes, more for petty crimes perpetrated by juveniles) some years back that addressed this very issue. I hope it is still going because the results were incredibly promising. The idea was to confront the delinquant with say, the old lady he stole her handbag from and pushed her down on the sidewalk for good measure so she broke her hip. Then, to discuss it, to make the youth actually realize what devastating impact his petty theft had on the old lady, rather than never realizing it, been sent to jail which HE will then consider as an injust punishment, get to meet hardcore criminals, becomes even more bitter, and slowly enters the sure path to become a big time criminal for the rest of his life. After the confrontation/understand phase, was the phase of reparation. The psychologist, the youth and the victim would try to agree reaching an agreement as to what the reparation would be. Like say, do her housework for a period of time, go do her shopping while she's bed ridden, mow her lawn, etc. I think the idea is wonderful, and even if it cost more in time and money than sending them to jail, considering the staggering good results this scheme achieved, I'm not so sure that in the long run it is not actually cheaper for the society: think: if that youth reenters the "normal" life instead of progressing in the crimal path for life with the resulting thefts, bodily attacks, etc, the bill to deal with the forecoming crimes, plus the cost of every time he's caught had trials, sending him to prison again... etc. posted by: WhyNot (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:08 am) Reply to: thisnameistaken "But... usually.. Iwould say ..." I feel exactly the same as Dragon: if he were captured, he should naturally get life imprisonment (and without torture, i.e. none of this Guantanamo bullshit). Conversaly, if while he's on the loose, some opponents knocks him off, well, just like Dragon says, it's more or less something I can live with, me and my conscience. But I'd prefer the first alternative to become reality. posted by: WhyNot (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:39 am) Dragon, I agree 120% with everything you say, so I won't repeat it :-) I'd like to add 3 things: 1. In all western countries except the US, death penalty has been abolished. In some, this dates back nearly a century ago. As well, Amnesty Internation which has no political affiliation has always condemned it. From these alone, unless Americans think they know better than every body else combined, it should make them wonder why the abolition of death penalty has become the norm everywhere else, and they are still the odd one out. 2. This next point is for the benefit of pro-death penalty ppl (none have showed up here, but I'll mention it anyway, as something all of us can use as an argument, if the need arises): Regardless of any moral justification for or against death penalty, here is an argument why death penalty should be abolished anyway: There has been and will always be judicial mistakes, and in particular, people condemned for crimes they didn't commit. Just in the US, there are countless instances of people who have been executed for something they didn't do. Now, I'd like ppl to really think what a horror this is. Imagine yourself being accused of a heinous crime you didn't commit. That is bad enough. Think the resulting nightmare of losing your job, your friends and family deserting you, the endless trials, etc, ...the whole goddam nightmare. Now, if you end up in jail, imagine what a horrific experience this would be. Imagine sitting in your cell for 10, 20 years, or life, not only suffering jail, but thinking that the WHOLE world thinks you are a monster, a murderer. Imagine the mental ordeal it must be as well as a physical one. But if it is eventually found later there was a fuck up in the judicial system, if you're in prison serving your time, you can be set free. And as it has happened countless time, not just in America, but in France, in Australia, in New Zealand, etc, you can then demand reparation for the immense damage you've suffered, and injustly. Which of course will never make up for the horror you lived, but at least you are back free on your 2 feet, you've regained the esteem of the population, and you can hope to have the will and strength to start a new life. Whereas if you ended up dead, there is to my knowledge no way with current technology to ressussitate you. Lastly, tell pro-death proponent to read some John Grisham novels. They are not only excellent can't-put-it-down thrillers, but several deal with inmates on death row. I can't not believe anyone with a conscience or even just a heart could finish one of these books and still recommend death penatly. And when you experience the ultimate horror of stepping in that death room and counting your last few seconds, even if you ARE guilty, it is already a worse torture than has even been devised in history, but just imagine if you are innocent. Just try to think it's YOU. Then look at me in the eyes and tell me about fuckin death penalty. 3. Lastly, my opinion is that people like Bush (and others of course) who order someone's death penalty or refuse the pardon recourse, are murderers and should be tried so. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (7:42 am) Reply to: WhyNot I'd be interested in seeing statistics on how well the system in England worked. Having worked with at-risk teens, I know that a lot of the time, they can fake their way through an entire process like that. They also have a tendency to revert back to prior ways when they are confronted with an environment that lead to those ways to begin with (e.g. hanging out with the friends who influenced them to do bad things to begin with). All of this is not to say that we should give up on trying to effect these changes in people, but rather that perhaps we're looking at the symptom rather than the cause. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (7:45 am) Reply to: WhyNot "unless Americans think they know better than every body else combined" what rock have you been living under? ;) overall, 3 interesting points. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (9:43 am) Reply to: WhyNot I actually campaigned for a few months in 2002-2003 for a restorative justice system. The details obviously need a lot of work, but I like the idea. In the US Constitution, we have have the right of judicial review, and killing the inmate stops that. That's the primary reason I'm opposed to the death penalty. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (9:46 am) Reply to: jbfs Yes, but the same thing happens when they are put in a prison too- the difference with restorative justice is that they are kept in a safer environment while in incarceration, and their victims are compensated. But you bring up a valuable point. These systems might be used for psychological manipulation, ala A Clockwork Orange. Instead of sending them to a social program to be released as soon as they are "cured" of their deviant behavior, just give them a term of time, like now, but put them in a safe house rather than a prison, and force them to repay their victims. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (10:12 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 That's a classic political ploy. You take somebody who is against the death penalty and ask, "what about so and so?" Then you try to give people the impression that the person you asked is somehow soft on crime or even supports that particular criminal. If a person is against the death penalty, there need not be exceptions. But what if somebody broke into my home and raped and brutally murdered my wife or daughter? Wouldn't I want the death penalty then? If that happened, I'd want to beat the person to death personally, but we live in a nation of laws, not one of vigilante justice. Society must do what is best for society as a whole, and killing the person helps nobody. People talk about wanting closure. They wait for years for an execution, but once it happens, they find out there is no such thing as closure. They don't feel a bit better. Victims of crime don't just get on with their lives. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (10:25 am) Reply to: dlfitch That's idea of the death penalty to prevent crimes is nonsensical. The death penalty does nothing to prevent crimes. Crimes tend to go up when there is a death penalty. Crimes go up at the time of excutions. In London, pickpockets used to be hanged in public, and many went home from the crowds to find their wallets missing. Do you honestly think that a criminal about to shoot somebody is going to think, "Hey wait a minute! If I kill this person, I will get caught and will be executed. If I knew that I would merely spend the rest of my life in jail never to taste freedom again, that would be just fine with me, but if I'm going to be executed, I better think this over!" The reality is that people who commit crimes are not thinking about getting caught and the alternatives to the death penalty are not ones that anybody would accept, given a choice. But the biggest issue is whether your basic premise makes any sense. Should we kill people to prevent crimes? If I could show that killing you would prevent 1000 crimes, should I do it? What about 10,000 crimes? I didn't say you did anything to deserve being killed, but that was not the issue here. If a person commits a crime, he should be punished. But when you say that the determining factor in punishing a person is not what the person did, but whether it can prevent crimes (it won't by the way) then you are saying that the punishment is not even about the person's action. Kill him because it's convenient instead. If you are not able to justify killing a person based solely on his actions, then you are saying that his actions are not the relevant factor. Maybe killing the poor would prevent crimes too. The only problem is that sooner or later, somebody will figure out that if you kill people solely to prevent crimes, that maybe you become the criminal. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:20 pm) I'd rather my tax money doesn't go towards rapists being kept alive and safe. I duno, I'm just one for an eye for an eye. I think that, depending on the crime, if you take someone's right to life away, you have lost and forfitted your right. Why should a murderer be treated better than he felt like treating someone else? You have some valid points though and as always I respect your opinoin. Heck, the state of Israel doesn't carry out the death penalt for prisoners. Great blog! :) posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:50 pm) Reply to: RedTigress "I'd rather my tax money doesn't go towards rapists being kept alive and safe. I duno, I'm just one for an eye for an eye." How, pray tell, is killing someone equivalent to raping someone? An eye for an eye, in its original meaning, was designed to limit the punishment to be no worse than the crime. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:52 pm) Reply to: RedTigress So you'd prefer to have your tax dollars going toward the killing of citizens? In some ways, the criminal does forfeit his rights, but not entirely. Criminals are still entitled to the basic rights outlined in the constitution and must be given a fair trial and a just punishment upon being found guilty. As for costs, it is more expensive to execute a prisoner than to just incarcerate him: "...the costs for carrying out the [death] penalty (i.e. - incarceration, execution) are additional. For life in prison without the possibility of parole, the total is $1,448,935. For a death sentence case, the cost increases to $2,087,926. All of these costs are paid by tax-payers." posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:53 pm) Reply to: jbfs I wouldn't be opposed to someone raping them in return. :) posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:58 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 No, that is not what I was saying. And innocents should never be killed. However, the threat to society is far greater. I would rather see a convicted murderer be put to death with my tax dollars than allowing him to be comfortably tucked away and well-fed for the rest of his life, yes. I think that would be doing something for society. People should be held accountable for their actions, not rewarded with a cushy "punishment". "Criminals are still entitled to the basic rights outlined in the constitution and must be given a fair trial and a just punishment upon being found guilty." Are they? Where in the constitution does it say that Criminals are awarded the same rights as everyeone else even once they murder or maim someone else? When the constitution was written, they still engadged in hanging death penalty recipiants. The intent of the constitution was not to give criminals a leg-up. As for the costs, I feel more immoral for even a penny to go towards keeping a murderer alive, rather than a trillion pennies going towards serving what I feel to be justice. Just a difference of opinions. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (2:04 pm) Reply to: RedTigress "I wouldn't be opposed to someone raping them in return." Oh no. You think punishments should mirror crimes? That's not how justice works. Despite committing illegal and even atrocious acts, a person does not lose his rights to humane treatment. Sure, this view can seem as though the criminal's rights trump the rights of the victim, but in essence, treating a criminal the same (or worse) as they treated their victim does not further justice- two wrongs do not make a right. It actually makes the initial crime worse by intensifying it. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (2:09 pm) Reply to: RedTigress Criminals aren't given additional rights in the constitution to give them a "leg up." The constitution does, however, enumerate rights a person accused of committing a crime has, to be protected. These rights extend to a fair and humane treatment upon conviction. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (2:21 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 "Despite committing illegal and even atrocious acts, a person does not lose his rights to humane treatment." I was just kidding about the rape thing. That's why the smiley face. No, I see what you're saying. And all humans are created in God's image and therefore humaine treatment is a must. That's the difference between us and Saudi Arabia! The death penalty today is carried out in a humaine manner in most states (texas, I don't get but whatever). I was in no way saying a criminal should be tortured. You have the wrong idea, my friend. They have different rights than that of innocent citizens. Now a days, thse rights extend to a fair and humane treatment upon conviction. When the constitution was penned, there was no such extension. As I said, hangings and other forms of execution were frequent. I'm an advocate for lethal injection. Justice is being served in a humane manner. The punishment shouldn't be exual or worse than the crime. However, the punishment should fit the crime. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (2:21 pm) Reply to: RedTigress That last part should read "equal" not "exual" posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (2:31 pm) Reply to: RedTigress Basically, what it comes down to is that our opinion differs on what is fair, just, and humane treatment of criminals. To you, I'm assuming you see the threat to society and seriousness of a crime such as murder to warrant a punishment of death. And to me, I see the forceful death of anyone to be wrong, under any circumstances, including retribution or as a punishment. So, to you, lethal injection is considered humane, but to me it is inhumane, not because of how it is carried out, but because it is killing a human being. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (2:39 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Yea, and that's pretty much the stance that my father takes. Of course, he takes it to the next step (being a christian) and says we should forgive the criminals and show them that in acceptance of jesus they can still go to heaven after murdering someone. Freakish, no? Yea, I love my liberal dad. We have this conversation all the time and it always turns out the same way; we just agree to disagree. Murder definatly warrents a high penalty such as death. I think that if you're going to conspire to take an innocent life, you need to think about the consequences first, death penalty being one of them. And society should be consistant. It's like in "office space", when they all conspire to launder money from that company account. "The worse we can get is a couple years in a nice cushy cell!" Then they find out they're going to a big-time, federal "pound me in the ass" prison. This is not to say that money laundering is the same as murder, but you get the idea. If they didn't take the consideration to way out the pro's and con's of their action, why should society give them the consideration to spare them? Just my opnioin. As I said, you have some very valid points and it does cause one to re-examine their view. Yet, in going over it, I'm still just in resort to agree to disagree. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (3:45 pm) Reply to: RedTigress I'm not sure what your definition of "cushy" is, and perhaps it is just "guaranteed food, water, and shelter" for people who are otherwise not guaranteed those things. Ironically, though, your jocular sentiment of not minding the rapists being raped in return goes hand in hand with them getting life in prison. (Consider the fact that we recently signed in the Prison Rape Reduction Act...) My main problem with the death penalty is that it is based on the assumption that a person who is capable of committing a crime considered to be atrocious by the general public and judicial system is inherently an "evil" person. I would be interested to find the statistics on how many murderers were raised in abusive families, how many had mental disorderes such as bipolar, odd, or various levels of depression, etc. I would not be, at all, amazed if the majority of those rightfully convicted of murder in the first degree were subjected to some horrendous living conditions as children. I think I've digressed from some point I was making earlier, so I'll just stop writing now. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (3:48 pm) Reply to: jbfs Whether or not someone was abused in their youth does not add nor take away the fact that they committed a crime and should therefore be held accountable. I didn't say they were or were not evil. To me, plain and simple, it is crime and punishment and what constitutes as a proper punishment to the crime. ::shrugs:: posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (4:15 pm) Reply to: RedTigress I agree that criminals should be held accountable for their actions, but I disagree that a punishment of death is ever warranted. I believe there are better ways to serve justice and to have the criminal pay his debt to society. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (5:36 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Well, perhaps if I could get a better idea of what constitutes as a better punishment, I'd be more inclined to better understand and even agree more. Care to outline what is a better punishment? :) posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (6:00 pm) Reply to: RedTigress I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm saying that they should be given an opportunity to prove that they are not an inherently evil person. Death is not as forgiving. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (6:27 pm) Reply to: jbfs they are given chance to prove their innocence or "lack of evilness" at trial. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (6:57 pm) Reply to: RedTigress innocence of a crime and not being inherently evil are two completely separate things. As I am a lover of extreme cases, consider someone whose entire family is killed by one person for no known reason. The sole surviovr takes it upon himself to kill the person who murdered his family. The police never find the guilty party. The survivor kills the original killer and is caught by the police. He is tried and sentenced for 1st degree murder. He is very guilty of the crime. Is he an inherently evil man? Consider a no less extreme example, but all together more common. A boy grows up with his dad coming home drunk every night and beating the ever living shit out of him, placing him in the hospital multiple times. For whatever reason, social services does not take the kid away from the family. The kid grows up and accepts that as how life works. One day he comes home from a particularly bad day at work and ends up killing his wife. Is this person inherently evil? What about a kid born into a family in the middle of the low-income section of Harlem? He grows up with knives, guns, drugs, murder, violence, etc. At the age of 15, he joins a gang. At the age of 17 he kills a shopkeeper while robbing him and gets caught. Is this person inherently evil? Should these people be held accountable for their crimes? Yes. Are they just victims of society? No. Are they the results of their environment? Yes. Is it possible that in another environment, these people could be exceptionally productive members of society, leading peaceful revolutions? Yes. Is it possible for individuals to rise up out of the atrocious environments they live in and not perpetrate the crimes? Yes. Should all people be expected to successfully break from the mold of the environment around them? (I'll let you answer that one.) posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.08.04 (10:22 am) Reply to: RedTigress You might have been joking about raping in return, but let's look at it seriously. If it's appropriate to kill somebody who kills, why shouldn't it be appropriate to rape somebody in return? If somebody is convicted of burglary, shouldn't we send somebody to his house and take his favorite stuff, rifle through his photographs, and steal his wedding ring? If somebody robs somebody, shouldn't we catch up to him on the street and do something to him? If he stabbed somebody and is found guilty, shouldn't the bailiff plunge a knife into him after the guilty verdict is read? If he's guilty of rape, why not just pull his pants down in the courtroom and have some intimidating person sodomize him? Perhaps these all seem perverse, but they have one thing in common. They are all less extreme than killing somebody. If we can't justify and would not even entertain these ideas, there is no reason that we should justify taking a life. As for your liberal father, you need not be Christian to hold those views. "Love thy neighbor" comes from Leviticus, not Jesus. Rabbi Hillel said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor" long before most people had a clue who Jesus was. Compassion is part of your religion too. It's in the Tamud. As for cost, somebody already pointed out that it's cheaper to keep somebody in prison for life than to have him executed, but is that really the point? If the other factors alone are not persuasive, then it boils down to killing somebody to save money. It might be cheaper to kill lots of people than let them live, and that has nothing to do with whether they committed crimes. But can you honestly say that it's justifiable to kill somebody because you will have more money for it? If it really saved money and capital punishment were justifiable for another reason, it might be a nice side effect, except that the savings is not there. But it could never be a reason. |
|