Capital Punishment

[vyo476]

I think we should resurrect the penal colony system and send them all to the moon.

 

[Dave]

I support the death penalty because it is the only acceptable punishment for many murder cases. I firmly believe in the "eye for an eye" concept.

I hear many in the opposing camp saying "what if we make a mistake and punish someone that's innocent?" The same question could be asked of any punishment. By that logic there should be no prison system at all.

Coyote, I'm trying to find a nice way of saying this, but I think I'm going to get labeled as something I'm not regardless of how I put it. One thing I noticed about your graph is that just about every state that falls below the national average in homicide rates has ..um...no racial diversity. With the exception of New York, and to an extent Pennsylavania, these states don't have big cities and the crime that goes along with them. Your graph is a bit misleading on this point.

 

[Coyote]

I support the death penalty because it is the only acceptable punishment for many murder cases. I firmly believe in the "eye for an eye" concept.

I hear many in the opposing camp saying "what if we make a mistake and punish someone that's innocent?" The same question could be asked of any punishment. By that logic there should be no prison system at all.

The same question? Not at all. Other options do not end a life if mistakes are made. Death is death and as far as I know - irrevocable.

Coyote, I'm trying to find a nice way of saying this, but I think I'm going to get labeled as something I'm not regardless of how I put it. One thing I noticed about your graph is that just about every state that falls below the national average in homicide rates has ..um...no racial diversity. With the exception of New York, and to an extent Pennsylavania, these states don't have big cities and the crime that goes along with them. Your graph is a bit misleading on this point.

They also don't have the death penalty. Also look at the graph showing death penalty states and their neighboring non-death penalty states - for example MA/CT where demographics are quite similar.

 

[Dave]

The same question? Not at all. Other options do not end a life if mistakes are made. Death is death and as far as I know - irrevocable.



They also don't have the death penalty. Also look at the graph showing death penalty states and their neighboring non-death penalty states - for example MA/CT where demographics are quite similar.

So youve found a way to turn back time and give people those years of their life back that they spent in prison? Good to know.

Actually, if you look at the demographic information, CT is a little more "diverse" than MA. The only real flaw I've found in my argument is West Virginia and Virginia. West Virginia is about 95% white and has no death penalty. Virginia is much more diverse, more big cities, and has the death penalty. Virginia has a lower homicide rate.

I'd like to clarify my position a little. I'm not saying that non-white people cause crime. Far from it. I'm simply saying that historically, diversity causes tension and a segregating of people by race leads to certain races having more problems than others, and that leads to violence.

 

[Coyote]

So youve found a way to turn back time and give people those years of their life back that they spent in prison? Good to know.

No, you can't do that - but you can free them. If they are dead...what then?

Actually, if you look at the demographic information, CT is a little more "diverse" than MA. The only real flaw I've found in my argument is West Virginia and Virginia. West Virginia is about 95% white and has no death penalty. Virginia is much more diverse, more big cities, and has the death penalty. Virginia has a lower homicide rate.

I'd like to clarify my position a little. I'm not saying that non-white people cause crime. Far from it. I'm simply saying that historically, diversity causes tension and a segregating of people by race leads to certain races having more problems than others, and that leads to violence.

I strongly suspect that homocide statistics have little to do with the application of the death penalty or not and more to do with demographics and economics. Poverty often drives crime and inflames racial tensions. So I would probably agree with you on that.

 

[Dave]

No, you can't do that - but you can free them. If they are dead...what then?

I strongly suspect that homocide statistics have little to do with the application of the death penalty or not and more to do with demographics and economics. Poverty often drives crime and inflames racial tensions. So I would probably agree with you on that.

My point is that all forms of punishment are irreversable. If you whip someone they will still have scars. If you imprison them they will still have lost those years they are in prison. If someone is found innocent, you can free them and maybe give them a few dollars for their time, but you can't undo the punishment, you can only lessen it. I would think that a monetary compensation for wrongful death would work for the families of people put to death.

One more thing I found in the study you posted was the issue of Michigan and Ohio. Similar demographics in the same area, but Ohio has lower homicide statistics. Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.

But that's not really what I base my argument on. I base it on the fact that death is the only acceptable punishment for murder. I can't look a victims family in the eye and tell them that a jury has found someone guilty of killing their loved one, but we are going to show him better treatment than he showed his victims. I support the death penalty because it is simply the right thing to do.

 

[Blue]

Capital punishment isn't a deterrent, it is punishment.

I agree with you. But I have some reservations. I can't accept some crimes like serial assault or killing many people.

If we mention about these kinds of guilts, I don't think that another punishment is useful. Because there is a destruction of others' lives. In this point deterrence is not important I think.

 

[Coyote]

My point is that all forms of punishment are irreversable. If you whip someone they will still have scars. If you imprison them they will still have lost those years they are in prison. If someone is found innocent, you can free them and maybe give them a few dollars for their time, but you can't undo the punishment, you can only lessen it. I would think that a monetary compensation for wrongful death would work for the families of people put to death.

But you are STILL alive - in all those examples, you are STILL alive. You may have scars but you still have your life. And no amount of money can ever compensate for a wrongful death - just ask a murder victims family.

 

[JavaBlack]

I am anti-death penalty.
I have several reasons:
1. I do not believe it has a major deterrent effect (there is a study that suggests otherwise, but I feel it is a product of poor methodology... not only that but if it's correct, it basically suggests we need regular executions to keep the effect in place... a demand for executions seems pretty disturbing to me).
2. People can find spiritual awakening in prison and do good works... even if they will never be allowed out of prison again.
3. When you execute an innocent, you cannot pardon him later.

#3 is my main argument, and as such I am able to accept the death penalty in rare occurrences... when the crime is disturbing, the murderer shows no remorse, and the murderer has an overwhelming amount of evidence against him, including a confession.
I can also see the point in executing certain figures, ie dethroned dictators, who might be dangerous from behind bars in inspiring more violence. But obviously this is not a common thing.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in being pro-abortion, anti-death penalty?

 

[JavaBlack]

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in being pro-abortion, anti-death penalty?

No more than being pro-death penalty, anti-abortion.
Frankly I'm not fond of either practice. I can tolerate the death penalty on rare occasions. I don't think criminalizing abortion really helps to stop them and there are some rare occasions where abortion is not so bad.

For people who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty, it's a matter of individual autonomy. Fetuses are not seen as living humans in their own right, while developed humans in prison are.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

No more than being pro-death penalty, anti-abortion.

So killing innocent unborns is fine, but convicted rapists and murders -- they have a right to live?

 

[JavaBlack]

...

So killing innocent unborns is fine, but convicted rapists and murders -- they have a right to live?

If you believe in human rights and do not consider unborns to be fully developed humans, then yes.
But very few people are actually 100% pro-choice and 100% anti-death penalty. There are extreme differences between the two issues:
1. The death penalty is a state action. It's easy to stop. Just don't let the state do it. There. Solved.
Abortion, on the other hand, does not stop when criminalized. It is a more complex issue that requires paying attention to why abortions occur. Most people who lean pro-choice see abortions as awful... but believe criminalization will actually create bigger problems.
2. A state-sanctioned killing is a killing using the tax money of people who are against it.
3. People don't always see abortion as a killing of a life. It is seen as a prevention of life by some... which makes it only marginally different from use of contraception.

For all these reasons there are people who will believe in one and not the other.
It's for reason #1 chiefly that I am against the death penalty completely while being more gray on abortion. I'd rather stop the demand for abortion than attempt to police it.

 

[Coyote]

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in being pro-abortion, anti-death penalty?

It's the same contradiction that exists in being pro-death penalty, anti-choice.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

It's the same contradiction that exists in being pro-death penalty, anti-choice.

No it's not. There's a difference between unborn, innocent people who have never committed a crime and those guilty of premeditated, cold-blooded murder.

BTW -- nice touch with the "anti-choice". I guess that makes you anti-life.