The Death Penalty

[Tom Paine]

As an English resident, I have no experience of the death penalty. I have also lost no relatives (to my knowledge) to violent crime. So I am starting this topic up in order to see what kind of views others have on the death penalty, and why. By the way, I am anti-capital punishment, but can see some arguments for it and I suppose I might have a different view in different personal circumstances.

[Bovril]

I'm not a fan of the death penalty for three main reasons:
1. You can't appeal after being executed.
2. It costs so damn much. In the U.S killing people often costs more than putting them away for life.
3. I think civilised, compassionate societies should aim to reform, not just to punish, criminals.

[internationalist]

I just dont understand how we are supposed to teach people to not kill by killing people. Its quite a paradox

[Kanaric]

I'm not a fan of the death penalty for three main reasons:
1. You can't appeal after being executed.
2. It costs so damn much. In the U.S killing people often costs more than putting them away for life.
3. I think civilised, compassionate societies should aim to reform, not just to punish, criminals.

Many criminals and especially with crimes that people are executed for do not and will not reform. Not only will the victims families and societies accept that and allow them to leave their prison but if it is to work it would probably be Clockwork Orange-esque or whatever other novel or movie you can think of.

Also if there is only reform what is the fear of comitting crime? There would be no reason not to attempt some major heist or crime because all you can do is fake being "cured" and then get rewarded for it. On the other hand if all crimes were punishable by execution people would be terrified of comitting even the smallest crime, of course i dont think that should be the way it is.

Western Europeon countries and Canada are different when compaired to America in this regard, there are many different problems as far as crime goes here.

[Spetsnaz]

Death penalty should be, and it should be for serial kilers and rapers, those people are not people and they should be executed, you CANT teach a mature serial killer not to kill, so they should be killed, but electric chair is expensive ofcouse, but imagine how would you feel in on your taxes a criminal got food, and water all his life? No its better if he would just be killed, probably by shooting in heart, however slowly cutting him apart or doing to him what he had done to victums would be nice too.But if i was a president i would sing a law where all rapist must be costrated, because they are not true men. Its harsh but it will work serial killers deserve death and a long scary death the rules of constitution, bible aplly to people they are not people.

[Dominicus of Byzantium]

Although you can't appeal when you are dead, you can still be executed...

I remember the instance in the middle ages when a pope, dug up his predecessor and put him on trial, his predecessor couldn't defend himself so he was found guilty and thrown into the river.

[Tom Paine]

Although you can't appeal when you are dead, you can still be executed...

I remember the instance in the middle ages when a pope, dug up his predecessor and put him on trial, his predecessor couldn't defend himself so he was found guilty and thrown into the river.

Furthermore, many peopl on Death Row in some American states had only a poor state-paid representative with no real interest in getting their client off. I cannot remember figures, but in Texas a group of university students looked at a variety of cases of people convicted on death row there, and found out that they could have got around 50% of them off. These were probably "closed cases" though, where the defendant had already been executed, as would the state release the files of living killers?

[PacSubCom]

bible apply to people they are not people

And that is what it does all come down to. If you consider them human beings then you cannot with a good heart kill them, therefore you must dehumanize them so you can with a good conscience gut them like fish and leave them flapping on the street!

And rapists of course will all rape on. So let's kill them, just be sure they won't. While we're at it, why not kill all lung cancer patients, the chance of recovery is slim and consider the costs to society! I know some don't understand irony, but what the heck ...

As it comes up in every death penalty discussion, remember Illinois, where all death penalties were suspended after it was found out by DNA testing that most of the death row inmates were indeed innocent! That alone, the obviously exreme imperfection of the US judiciary system is argument enough to let them all live.

What that little example means for the millions of other inmates (=worthless scum not fit to live) in the US, well, please come to your own conclusions.

[Tom Paine]

Its not even dehumanization; it is something lower than that. It leaves them with less dignity, freedom, and respect than an animal. We have, in the death penalty, a problem of non-repealable punishments. There are outcries about the public hangings in Iran, but we rarely hear anything about the death penalties being meted out in the US. maybe it is because the execution method in Iran is less humane? Not really; a practiced hangman can make sure the "criminal" breaks their neck upon dropping, while it has been found that the amount of anasthetic used in America in conjunction with the lethal injection is too low and people experience the pain. SO maybe it is because Iran is an "Axis of Evil" country, while America is everyones' favourite do-gooder? Could it be something so superficial? Why yes, it could very well be! So why don't we make it universal? If the death penalty is disaproved of when carried out in one country, then we should disapprove of it in all countries.

[DimeBagHo]

It leaves them with less dignity, freedom, and respect than an animal.

The philosopher of dignity - I mean the guy who practically invented the modern idea of human dignity - thought quite differently. Immanuel Kant actually argued that attempts to refrom were an attack on human dignity, while the death penalty for murder expressed respect for the murderer as a human being. Here are quick versions of why:

Reform: The very idea of reform is an attack on autonomy, which is the source of human dignity. The idea is that you can take a person who commits crimes, and by some external process transform them into a person who does not commit crimes. This (1) denies that they have free will and (2) is an attempt, not just to bend the will of a person, but to crush it and remake it according to the will of another. (This is roughly the idea that the film "Clockwork Orange" was trying to get across.)

Execution: The death penalty, however, expresses respect for a killer as a human being. But it is important to note that simply killing a killer, like you might a dangerous animal, is not enough. It must be execution - there must be a trial, conviction, and sentencing where the crime is identified and death is set as the penalty for that crime. Kant thought that execution is better than reform because it treats the killing as something that the killer chose to do, and because it does not involve any attempt to crush and re-maike the will of the killer. He also thought that it was a particularly suitable punishment for murder because it puts the killer in a position where the wrongness of his own crime becomes inescapable to him - in other words it serves as a kind of moral education - because as he contemplates the fact that his own life is going to be intentionally extinguished he will, if he has any humanity in him at all, see what was wrong with intentionally extinguishing the life of his victim.

I never really got the last bit until I watched "Dead Man Walking". The final scene is an excellent illustration of what Kant was talking about. The protagonist played by Sean Penn was a total POS but in the final scene it becomes apparent that the contemplation of his own execution has made him into a halfway decent human being - he has finally come to understand that killing people is wrong.

[Tom Paine]

This is a point I disagree on. Killing someone is not dignified, and not conducive to reform; it simply makes them think about the double standards of the state. Sanctioning killing is not the way to go about it, at all. it is not conducive to a good, kind etc society and serves no useful purpose except the blood-lust of the victim's relatives/friends.
And on your point about "Dead Man Walking", the character reforms (yes, reforms) not because of the contemplation of death, but because of guilt. Surely that would be a better way to punish someone? Leave them with the burden of the guilt for the rest of their lives? Is that not worse? And the death of a reformed person is a huge waste. Think about how much they could help people to reform; using their own experience. No, execution is not dignified, or useful to anyone. On this point I disagree with both Kant, and yourself. But it is aa good point, I suppose.

[DimeBagHo]

This is a point I disagree on. Killing someone is not dignified, and not conducive to reform;

Sure, but that is the point. Kant was horrified by the very idea of reform. He thought it was an attack on the idea of human dignity.

[1]it simply makes them think about the double standards of the state. [2]Sanctioning killing is not the way to go about it, at all. [3]it is not conducive to a good, kind etc society [4]and serves no useful purpose except the blood-lust of the victim's relatives/friends.

I see three or four claims made here. But I don't see any argument for them. With [4] especially you need to consider the reasons that Kant provides, rather than just asserting that there are no other reasons besides blood-lust.

And on your point about "Dead Man Walking", the character reforms (yes, reforms) not because of the contemplation of death, but because of guilt.

Well sure, it was because of guilt, but how could he feel guilty for what he did without contemplating death and the wrongness of intentionally taking life? Even genuine guilt would have been impossible without an understanding of why his actions were wrong.

Surely that would be a better way to punish someone? Leave them with the burden of the guilt for the rest of their lives? Is that not worse?

This bit I really don't understand. Above you were talking about a better, kinder, society, and now you want a punishment that is more cruel than execution. What gives?

And the death of a reformed person is a huge waste. Think about how much they could help people to reform; using their own experience.

But this is yet another idea that Kant would have found offensive. People are not a resource to be exploited for social purposes or otherwise.

[Tom Paine]

But does killing someone make them think their own actions were wrong? And if so, how, given that it is state-sanctioned murder. And I am not saying that it is crueler, but worse, to be precise, to leave them with their guilt; as then they really do think about it, rather than becoming embittered with a society of double-standards.
And people have a choice of reform; they cannot be forced to. That is why offering them that choice is better than writing them off, which I would say was extremely wasteful; a choice, once given, must be followed through, and thus the death of those who have reformed is non-onducive to reform in others.
And possibly ther are other reasons for the execution than blood-lust (which I should have said vengeance; I apologise if I have offended ayone), but to Kant they would be abhorent, as it would be using people as a resource for social betterment. Unless you can give me a reason which is not?

[Bovril]

I suppose this depends on whether you think all mental states as worthy as each other. I think the modern societal consensus is that they are not. Take depression for example. I think even Kant would considder, say, an advertising campaign to make people more aware of depression, and induce them to seek help if they were depressed, to be a thing which was not contrary to human dignity. The state of mind of a 'murderer', which Kant talks about, is in some ways similar to depression. It is dysfunctional and unhappy. Thats an objective analysis, in tune with the lived experience of people who murder. To help people out of this state of mind seems to me to restore their dignity. I realise my view is grounded in objective humanism, but the alternative, relitiveism, is so easily hoisted on its own petard, that to build soicetal norms around it is impossible.
Two other points:
-Kant was writing before the advent of modern psychology. At the time acts were thought of as aconscious expression of an inaliable will. Obviously we don't think that way anymore. We don't believe that sorting out someone's mental health problems, for example, constitutes a breaking of their will, as was previously the case (see Madness and Civilisation for this).
-I think it is a mistake to characterise someone as a 'murderer' per se. There is nothing inherant about anyone that means they are a 'murderer', not even a strong desire to murder (which as I just argued is not itself inherant in any particular individual). I don't think its appropriate to apply tags like 'murderer' to in an absolute sense (rather than to connote events from their past), which is what Kant seems to be doing here.

[lycon]

There is no way to justify the death penalty apart from the fact that life in prison does not mean that, but rather means that you are in prison untill we say, i think here in AUS most of the prisoners in for life actualy come out after about 20 years or so. But also i dont think many of them at all re-offend exept for that psyco petifile who re offended after release 3 times or something. I guess we can tell that rehab does kinda work for some people so we can't realy prove that a person cant be rehabilitated and so cant kill them.

[Spetsnaz]

And that is what it does all come down to. If you consider them human beings then you cannot with a good heart kill them, therefore you must dehumanize them so you can with a good conscience gut them like fish and leave them flapping on the street

They dehumanize themselves without our help, by killing or raping.

And rapists of course will all rape on. So let's kill them, just be sure they won't. While we're at it, why not kill all lung cancer patients, the chance of recovery is slim and consider the costs to society! I know some don't understand irony, but what the heck ...

Ever seen a lung cancer patien killing , cutting to pieces, raping,cutting off organs, heads, eyeballs, drinking blood?? I didnt.So you cant compare here, but you can compare them to idiots and retards, they too are ill, and not normal, they to need help,but most wont stop being idiots, and downs, but they are NOT a danger for society while all those freaks like maniacs, rippers, sexual maniacs, phedophiles, are, so death penalty should be for monsters who dont deserve to live a day, if you think that they can be cured then visit some sites, read some books about maniacs, and killers like Chikatila, Bundy, Onoprienko and others, maybe then your vew will change. Also if you say serial killers need help then , did you watch Freddy Kruger? Bet you did, most people seen thoose movies so in your view Freddy should be treated in hospitals, and we should try to make him a normal man?

[Tom Paine]

Many people are rehabilitated; you cannot write off everyone because of some reoffenders. On that point, I agree fully, lycon. However, using the fact that life imprisonment doesn't mean life is no way to justify the death penalty; a way to say, "We should have lifem as meaning life" maybe, but otherwise, it means very little.
And I definitely agree with Bovril. Especially on that last point; given that Kant tags people as murderers, would it not be simpler to work out a test that tells you who those people are, and then kill them? But many would not murder people, and some non-"tagged" people would do, so it is highly flawed. We have a greater understanding of the human psyche now, and understand that there is no such thing as predestiny in that sort of event. So it really is a flawed argument.

[Tom Paine]

They dehumanize themselves without our help, by killing or raping.
Ever seen a lung cancer patien killing , cutting to pieces, raping,cutting off organs, heads, eyeballs, drinking blood?? I didnt.So you cant compare here, but you can compare them to idiots and retards, they too are ill, and not normal, they to need help,but most wont stop being idiots, and downs, but they are NOT a danger for society while all those freaks like maniacs, rippers, sexual maniacs, phedophiles, are, so death penalty should be for monsters who dont deserve to live a day, if you think that they can be cured then visit some sites, read some books about maniacs, and killers like Chikatila, Bundy, Onoprienko and others, maybe then your vew will change. Also if you say serial killers need help then , did you watch Freddy Kruger? Bet you did, most people seen thoose movies so in your view Freddy should be treated in hospitals, and we should try to make him a normal man?

No-one can dehumanise themselves as well as others do it for them.
Most murderers don't do the kind of things you've listed either. And many do reform; are you saying we should write them all off because some don't? And the rippers, etc that you refer to sometimes (possiby even oftentimes, but I haven't seen figures) are mentally ill; ergo treating them as such makes complete sense, right? Rather than killing them for not being in control properly. And how do you classify a monster? Is a soldier a monster? They chose go out and kill people for money, on the orders of another. They don't seem to attract the death penalty. What makes that different from a murderer? O yes, it is state-sanctioned, kind of like execution. Some of these "monsters" will be mentally ill, for example psychopaths; and do we treat them as we treat other mentally handicapped people or as we treat the rest of us? A point to think on, certainly.
Finally, if you are using a fictional film to help your argument, surely you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for facts...

[Bovril]

Also if you say serial killers need help then , did you watch Freddy Kruger? Bet you did, most people seen thoose movies so in your view Freddy should be treated in hospitals, and we should try to make him a normal man?

This is a very interesting illustration in the difference between our ways of thiking. You seem to think that equating murderers with Freddy Kruger is legitimate. Freddy Kruger is a fictional representation of pure demonic evil. So, for you, murderers are the same thing bought into the real world. If I felt that this premise was correct, I would agree that the death penalty is the only sensible course of action. However, I really can't see any reasons to support your characterisation of people that kill (or at least, kill without state sanction as Squeakus points out).
In order to win a convert round to your way of thinking what you have to do is show me that either the act of murdering imparts the actor with the quality of inherent demonic evil, or only those with this quality in the first place are capable of murdering. It will also help if you can establish an objective sense of which acts can be defined as murder, since different legal systems differ on this one.

[Spetsnaz]

Finally, if you are using a fictional film to help your argument, surely you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for facts...

No, just freddy kruger before he bacame a nightmare of american boys and girls was a phedophile who killed children, remember the start of the first movie?So hes fictional ofcourse but in the start he has some real life friends like Chikatila,who killed even more than Freddy and what i was trying to say is that if PAcsubcom says that they must be triated , would he treat freddy kruger.
If you read carefully enough you must have noticed that it wasent even my point, the point is that ONLY serial killers, maniacs , ill killers, mass rapists( who raped more than 5 people) are deserving death, if a person stole a tv and shot a custumer hes not a stupid maniac or a phedophile hes just a criminal so he deserves jail, but if they act as not humans they should die, and there are some SERIAL killers who are idiots who cant controle themselves and are mentaly ill , they can be treaten but most maniacs are smart people and if they tasted blood they will never forget its taste,like animals so they should be treated as mad animals: killed.
Again dont mess serial killers with murderers.