Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Death Penalty Right or Wrong?

This is quite the serious question, but the topic has come under great debate these past few months here details which I won't entirely go through, but if you're Aussie you'll know what I'm talking about. I was curious as to what you guys thought about the death penalty whether it right or wrong. If so I want to know why, but I would also like to know if you think that if an appeal was launched should the courts overturn the decision and instead give a life-sentence or whatever they think is appropriate.

Having talked it over with a a few of my friends one of whom is a law student and they all say that it is wrong. However, the last person who was sentenced to death here was over 30 years ago (I think I can't exactly rememeber) and so Australia has no death penalty, but I know other countries do and so I'm interested in what you think.

I personally think that the death penalty doesn't solve anything because people still commit the same crimes even with it installed and people knowing the potential punishment certain crimes can be given. However, even though I advocate this I also know that if a final decision has been made it is often hard to get the courts to overturn the ruling, but even saying that I feel that the death penalty doesn't solve anything.

Well, as you may know, some US states have the death penalty and others don't. I remember seeing somewhere statistics that murder/crime rates are lower in states with the death penalty, but I've no idea where -- and I'll grant you that thugs are likely not thinking too much about their long term prospects. There are other murderers, though, who may well decide not to risk it in a state that might end up killing them.

And I'll tell you one thing for certain -- a criminal who's been executed will no longer have *any* chance of doing further harm. Whereas "life sentences" can get bargained down and worked around. Didn't a lot of IRA terrorists get amnestied, after a while, as part of a political deal? It's hard to do that with dead people.

I do believe the state, within the constraints of the justice system, has the moral right to execute criminals, as an exercise in justice and in defence of the state's residents.

Appeals for clemency should be part of the system, though. Is the system perfect? Nope, nothing is. I'm in favor of clear laws universally followed -- but with someone to respond to extraordinary cases. (And to my mind, they would have to be very extraordinary circumstances, not just, 'hey, my client has decided he doesn't want to die.')

I've heard that phrase before, and it's always kinda puzzled me. What would you expect it to solve? It won't magically avert all crimes, no. In individual cases, though, it provides justice, for murderers especially. A murder victim isn't able to sue for clemency. Our courts need to be as absolutely fair as they can manage, but when there's a conflict between the rights of the victim and the rights of the guilty, I've got to side with the victims and their families.

PJ

p.s. <putting on admin hat> This is a controversial topic and emotions can run high, but I trust that we will all endeavor to argue our positions without getting into any sort of name-calling. Right?

Good point, Pam - the admin one, I mean. Yes, a very controversial topic and one where feelings run extremely high.

As some will know, I am completely hostile to the death penalty. I suppose my opposition can be summed up in two reasons, the first most important.

One: two wrongs do not make a 'right'. If killing is wrong, then it's wrong for everyone, and that includes the State.

Two: miscarriages of justice do happen. Where someone's been in prison for years and finally manages to prove their innocence, they can be released. It's not perfect - that person has still suffered. But it's possible to make some amends. If the person was executed, there's nothing anyone can do to put it right.

There are lots of other things I could talk about - debates on statistics which, as we all know, are easy to manipulate and rarely prove anything in either direction; the length of time and cost of keeping someone on Death Row for twenty years or more; whether it's a good thing to encourage victims of crime - who fully deserve support and sympathy - to think of justice in terms of vengeance. But essentially my opposition is summed up in terms of the two points made above.

And I hasten to add that these are my opinions and not a criticism of anyone who disagrees.


Wendy

How did I know you'd jump in here, Wendy?

One comment:

I've never heard it quite that way before. I'm not buying, though -- if taking something without someone's consent is wrong, then it's wrong for everyone, including the State. Yet we still have tons of taxes.

There are things that the State does that individuals may not do.

Imprisoning someone without their consent, for instance. If I tried that, I'd be charged with kidnapping. When the State does it, it's called a jail sentence.

The State has moral bounds, don't get me wrong, but they are *not* identical to the restrictions we place on individuals.

PJ

I find your analogies here a little strange, Pam. As a government governs by concensus, surely that means they have the consent of the people to take taxes from them? They get it from the ballot box when they're voted in. As for kidnapping - it would be called that because you'd be taking an innocent victim who'd broken no laws. Whereas, a jail sentence is something the State imposes on someone who's broken laws. So I'm afraid I'm not buying the connection here.

Leaving aside any moral, ethical considerations etc, my main objection to the death penalty has always been precisely on these grounds that Wendy has already stated.

I simply cannot buy the bizarre logic that you allow someone (the executioner) to kill someone as a response to someone killing someone. To me it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Forget any legal justifications - which is the basis on which you've made your objection above. I can't buy it morally. You simply can't decide that killing someone is wrong and then use killing as a means of punishment. To me, simple logic then dictates that the executioner must themselves be killed because they've taken a life. If taken to its logical conclusion where would it end?

I've never bought the justice angle either. It's never justice. That's impossible to achieve. It's revenge. And what separates us from the animals - usually - is that we should be able to rationalise our way past the kneejerk reactions to some horrific crime, rather than simply going with our basest emotions.

When all's said and done though, I could never support the death penalty so long as the system is fallible. And whenever there is a human element in its constructions its fallible. Many people these days hold up DNA as some magic absolute. But there already dozens of cases in the US where people who have spent years in prison, convicted on DNA, have been released when new evidence comes to light which proves beyond any doubt they didn't commit the crime.

So long as the possiblity exists that an single individual can be wrongly convicted, the death penalty will never be an option for me, personally.

LabRat

Let me see if I can explain further...

Yes, they do -- the consent of a majority. But they won't have universal consent, and if a person says "forget it, I don't want to pay taxes," that person might end up in jail.

In other words, the State has the right to take money or property from someone who does *not* consent. An individual does not have that right.

My point there was that the State is entrusted/empowered to do things that individuals may not do. It's not a one-to-one analogy. So the statement that
just doesn't hold up as a logical argument.

While it is definitely wrong for an individual to murder someone (I'm excluding self-defense, here), that says *nothing* about whether or not it is wrong for the State to do it as well.

On another point, I agree that sometimes innocent people are killed, which is a tragedy and should be strenuously avoided. However, it's also a tragedy if a murderer lives to get out of prison (parole, amnesty, escape) and kills again. You have to weigh both factors, IMO.

We agree that there will never be a perfect system -- human beings aren't really capable of creating 100% accurate systems, certainly not in something as very complex as crime and punishment. My reaction to that is that all we can do is try our hardest to get it right, as often as we possibly can, and accept that sometimes, it will fail. (That's where the clemency plea is important, btw.)

PJ

I am for the death penalty. I believe people who commit pre-meditated violent crimes should no longer have any rights.

Jackie

I can never really be sure where I stand on this issue. I tend to lean towards Wendy and Labrat's reasonings, but not all the time. So, basically, I'm only here to show you guys a phrase from one of my favorite bumper stickers:

Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?

Sara

I was extremely uneasy when I saw that this topic had been posted, but greatly relieved to see that a courteous, intelligent debate was then unfolding.

I'm opposed to the death penalty, as I'm sure many of you would have guessed.

Jackie, isn't there a gulf of difference between the withdrawal of rights and the deliberate taking of a person's life? Even if the withdrawal of rights includes withdrawal of the right to life, that's still not the same as deliberately taking that life.

Yvonne

But couldn't this argument be applied to the other side as well? In order to make sure that criminals can't commit another crime we lock them up, but sometimes the system fails.

I'd like to believe that someone known to be dangerous will not be put back on the street where they can harm someone else. If prisoners are released it is because it is believed that that they have been rehabilitated. In some cases it's not the case, and the result may be another murder/rape/robbery etc. committed by someone who has been convicted of the same crime before.

The difference in that case is that the criminal is at fault for harming an innocent person and can be held responsible for doing so. While the judicial system may have failed to recognize the danger the perpetrator posed to the public, it is the perpetrator who is directly responsible. In the case of a miscarriage of justice where an innocent person is executed, the state is at fault.

In both cases an innocent person is dead. The difference is that in one case the perpetrator can be punished for the crime in accordance with the law, while in the other case the perpetrator cannot be held responsible in an effective manner and will go on to kill other innocent people (because, as others have pointed out, mistakes will happen). Aside from any kind of questions this poses in regard to morality, it also seriously harms the legitimacy of governmental authority, which is important if a political system is to function properly.

I agree. But as long as mistakes happen, I prefer a system that protects the right of the individual not to be executed for something they did not do.

P.S. After we're done with this debate, I think we should go on to discuss prayer in schools, gay marriage, abortion rights and possibly the war in Iraq .

People who are familiar with my ideology would probably be shocked to find that I chose undecided.

When I hear about a case where someone was brutally murdered, my blood boils and I admittedly go into that "fry the b*****d" mood as clearly that person is no longer human and deserves what he/she gets. That's the emotional argument for the death penalty.

On the other hand, in less emotional moments, I wonder what gives the state the right to take someone's life. Granted the Constitution (for those of us in the US) allows the taking of life with due process, so it's not a question of legality. It's more of a moral argument similar to what Wendy, Labby, and Yvonne and others have argued for.

I do believe the death penalty does work to hold down violent crimes as do other methods like the right to carry concealed weapons. If the goal is to provide safety to the public, it seems that the threat of severe punishment could serve as a deterrent if done correctly. Just ask Singapore about their laws. While seemingly draconian to most of us, people rarely commit violent crimes because of the knowledge that the government is very serious about punishment.

In this country, it seems that the death penalty is handed out without any consistency. If the penalty for murder one is death for one person while another is 20 years to life, I just don't see how it could work as a very effective deterrent. I'm not necessarily advocating a transition to the Singapore laws, but there's no doubt it works there. Some sort of consistency has to be in place.

So in essence, I am for it sometimes and against it other times, both for reasons Pam has stated and for reasons Wendy, et al have mentioned.

Oh dear. I never know quite where I fall. Well, in *theory*, I could never truly justify taking someone's life away. Giving ourselves and our states or countries the power to decide whether or not someone gets to live makes me really uneasy. And I realize that's also exactly what killers do. They decide that someone else doesn't get to live anymore.

However...

This isn't theory. This is the real world. Don't some of us feel a little safer when a dangerous person will never have even a thread of a chance of walking the streets again? I'm afraid I do. It's easy to let emotions throw our decisions around. And yeah, throwing someone in prison for the rest of their lives would accomplish the same thing, but there's always a chance that they can appeal their way out on a technicality. Of oourse, there's always a chance we could execute an innocent person.

I just wish our justice system was better. Wishful thinking, eh? I wish there were better alternatives so we didn't have to sit around handing out death sentences whenever we sit it fit.

Is the death penalty ever really a deterrent? Obviously to the particular killer it is. My case studies from ethics last year tell me the death penalty is not the most effective tool for the rest of society. Obviously, everyone didn't wake up today and say, "Hey! I think I'll reform myself!"

So these are just a jumble of my thoughts on the death penalty. Ultimately, I don't think the death penalty is the best idea, but what are the alternatives? Do people learn anything from rotting around in jail for the rest of their lives? Do we learn anything by executing them?

I don't know.
Good discussion, everyone,
JD

I'm for the death penalty, but I'm a bit muddled as to when it should be imposed. After all, as pointed out, the justice system is not perfect.

Sure, people can be found innocent later. So institute a waiting time before the penalty is imposed. (Already in place)

But when should someone be given the death penalty? Well, you never know if someone can be rehabilitated. Maybe the person is just mentally unstable.

Then again, there are some people who do crimes so heinous or so numerous, that their sentences are already "lifetime with no chance of parole" or "5 consecutive life sentences". This is probably where I think the death penalty should come into play. Do we really need people going into jail at 25, and living until 95, living in the court system without hope of getting out? At this point, it's a drain on taxpayer dollars, since they just sit there getting fed, have a warm place to sleep.. and have to deal with the politics of inmate life (watched a bit too much Oz). Sometimes it's just cheaper to exact the death penalty in those instances.

It's really hard to draw the line on if and when it should be imposed, in my lil head.

I picked undecided, but not because I believe the death penalty is wrong. There are some people in this world who, without a doubt, would make the Earth a better place without them in it.

However, I honestly think that death is an easier way out. Let them live in a cage for eternity -- the idea is to punish, right? Any purported judgement in the hereafter will keep, and empirically speaking, the only punishment we can garuntee is the punishment we can see and measure.

Also, you can always revoke life-imprisonment if for some reason a mistake was made, whereas you can never undo a death. In any system where human error is involved, I'm extremely reluctant to employ such a drastic, irrevocable action. This is especially the case now that I've begun to grow familiar with the US justice system as a result of my work in forensics.

Until you have a family member murdered you cannot understand the relief and closure that their murder getting the death penality can give. I had an uncle murdered in a robbery who left behind a wife and 5 children ranging from teenagers to very young. His daughters were unable to be walked down the aisle when they were married, his only son who was the youngest didn't have a man to guide him into manhood, his wife didn't have her husband to grow old with.

The anger and sadness will never leave my uncles family. If his muderer had gotten a live sentence they would have felt they got justice, instead he got a life sentence. He went on living having family visits, conjugal visits with his wife, I believe fathering another child. Pictures of his families living, and letters. Their husband and father had none of these. For them this was not justice.

So do I believe in the death penalty, YES. In most states if not all having the death penalty appeals are automatic. Also the prisoners go on to live 15-20 years or more. That is the average of the appeals process.

It cost us billons of dollars a year to keep all the life sentence murders in jail. We have terrible over crowding in most states. You also have him continuing his criminal activities in jail - murdering other prisoners who may have not been violent criminals, raping other prisoners, selling drugs etc.

In my opinion these billions could be put to better uses, education of our children, child protection so we maybe have less criminals, law enforcement, and medical research.


Yes, this is a very hot topic for all of us for different reasons, even among family members. Because it is a matter fueled by emotions it will never be solved to everyones satisfaction.

Wow, I had to read that 3 times just to understand. As you can probably already tell, writing (and maybe reading ) is definately not one of my strong points. I'll have to agree to disagree on that one because I personally don't think there is a difference. I feel if someone decides to take a life then it's a decision to give their own away (in States where there is the death penalty). I won't go into it too much. I am very stubborn and have a hard time expressing myself through writing (at least in English).

Jackie

I don't think that death is the answer to our system's problem here in the US. I do feel that our criminals have too many rights and it's because of lawyers finding an out for them. I think that when some one does something heinous, ie., child molestation, they should be taken to prison and it should be publically announced to the other prisioners what they did and let them suffer the consequences. But nooo...HIPPA laws in prison...go figure. There should be no cable, air conditioning or organ transplants or emergency bypass surgery or dialysis. No free medical care or free college degrees. And for God's sake, people who are child molesters, serial killers, etc. cannot be rehabilitated! So stop wasting my tax money!

A simple solution to our crime problem here in the US is to allow people to just beat the s**t out of criminals when they are caught, do not allow them a trial and stop making jail like the Waldorf Astoria!

My brother who lioves in Freeport, Bahamas says that they have such little crime because they will beat the crap out of people there and there is no trial or greedy defense lawyers. The constable down there doesn't even carry a gun. Try that in the US!

Wow. Quite a discussion.

I guess my thinking is this: people who were convicted of murder twenty or thirty years ago are now being cleared based on the advancement of DNA evidence. What scientific advancements are going to come in twenty or thirty years that will clear people who are convicted today? And if we kill someone today who we find out is innocent tomorrow... what does that do to our moral justification for using the death penalty?

Canada had the death penalty until the 1960s. Since it was abolished, the capital crime rate in Canada has actually fallen (on a per capita basis). (Just a little fact that I found interesting)

As always, I don't have the answers. I just have a lot of questions.

ML

Oh, just one more thing. I'm probably one of those 'greedy defense lawyers' you're talking about. But let me ask you this: how many people get the crap beaten out of them who didn't do anything? And would you still feel the same way about this system if your brother were one of the people who was lying bloody and bruised in a hospital, fighting for his life, because someone decided he was guilty of something. Trials might not be perfect. But they're better, in my opinion, than the alternatives.

ML