Attn Seth RE: The Death Penalty

[oatmeal fetish....]

This is why I am against it -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070713/us_time/willgeorgiakillaninnocentman

The system is a human, faulty one, which in all probability will (or maybe already has) kill an innocent person. Granted, this guy may be guilty as sin. But he might not be. To me that doubt is enough to keep him alive, albiet locked away.

[Larry Flyntz]

I'm sort of for it, emphasis on sort of. I agree that it is faulty, that it has killed many innocent people, and that it really drags out justice.

And from the standpoint of "justice," putting someone away for life achieves justice in the same way as killing him does; it keeps him away from society forever. So, I view the death penalty and life in prison exactly the same in terms of justice, which is why I think they should be interchangeable at the choice of the convicted. So, if you're convicted of murder or something of the sort, I think you should have the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I, for one, would pick the death penalty.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

Well, it sounds like you might be against executing people who are innocent and I agree with you 100% on that.

However, I think that the death penalty serves a purpose within our society. If/When they catch Bin Laden, should he get the death penalty? Saddam got it. Hitler would have. Eichmann did. But I guess the real issue is whether or not the guy who guns down a convenience store clerk for $50.00 so he can go buy some crack deserves it.

But I might be wrong there, because i seems to me that you have a problem executing someone as long as there is a shred of doubt about whether they did it. Is that right? Would eliminating error make the death penalty an acceptable alternative for convicted murderers?

I think that a "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" mentality is a bad idea, here. But I don't think it's wrong to lawfully execute someone found guilty of a capital offense. Also, I've heard arguments for life in prison instead of the death penalty that go along the following lines: life in prison is worse than death. If that is true (I'm not sure if I buy it myself), wouldn't making this person stay locked up for life be worse?

It's very, very difficult to change someone's mind about the death penalty. But I feel that there are times when capital justice is warranted.

[Larry Flyntz]

But I feel that there are times when capital justice is warranted.

Why? It seems you think that certain egregious crimes "deserve" the death penalty in some way. But this forces us to ask the question: what is the purpose of the American justice system? Is it to achieve "justice" in some mythical, god-like way of killing the bad and rewarding the good, or is it simply to make society safe? I think it is the latter. I don't think it is our business to be playing "God," and deciding who should live and die. As I said, under a more "keep society safe" understanding of justice, life in prison is exactly the same as the death penalty. So, in order to argue that some crimes deserve the death penalty in some way, one would have to argue that this "detached" understanding of justice is in some way flawed, and that justice would be better served if heinous criminals were killed rather than kept away from society for the rest of their lives. I don't see how that would better achieve justice, but I'm open to arguments.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

I suppose an eye for an eye is too an ancient a standard to apply to this argument. You do have a point there. But lets say somebody rapes and murders seventeen pre-pubescent girls. Or sets off a bomb in a crowded stadium killing twelve and crippling forty three. Or someone stabs my grandmother in an attempted mugging. Does this kind of deviant behavior not warrant the death penalty. When you reside in a country and live under its laws you are subject to a system of penalties when you break the law. These are in some kind of proportion to the crime you have committed. An aussalt conviction carries a heavier sentence than running a red light, things like that.

As a professor of mine, Judge Circone, put it: one of the purposes of the criminal justice system is to make violators pay a mandated price for stepping over the bounds of acceptable behavior. This is not just to keep people safe, but also to make people realize that they cannot live outside of societies norms and not pay a certain price.

For example (and I don't necessarily agree with this), Philadelphia has rescinded self defense as a permittable defense to murder. I brought this up to a friend of mine who lives in an impoverished neighborhood and he explained that people had been using self defense to escape the consequences of murder for events such as drug killings, muggings and a host of other problems. When the death penalty was off the table for people committing such acts, the consequences of their actions were lower and the risk was more acceptable. When the death penalty becomes more of a reality, so to does the consequences of taking a life. At least, this was the logic used at the time. Lord knows it hasn't stopped people from killing other people in philadelphia.

[Larry Flyntz]

If it could be empirically proven, for instance, that the murder rate is lower in states with the death penalty than in states without it, I think the argument semi-made in your last paragraph might hold some weight. But some quick and dirty research doesn't show that. According to my reliable source (wikipedia, that is), states with capital punishment average 5.2 homicides per 100,000 people, while states without capital punishment average only 3.2.

Of course, this sort of comparison assumes that all the states are similarly situated. However, the states with capital punishment may have capital punishment as a means of dealing with high crime rates, whereas states without it may simply have lower crime rates and thus no need to institute capital punishment. In other words, it's hard to measure the deterrent effect of the death penalty since states with it may "naturally" (I know that crime isn't really natural, per se) have a higher crime rate than those without it. Thus, the death penalty may have some deterring effect in those states, even if the crime rate is still higher. So, I don't argue that these numbers necessarily prove that the death penalty is a failure.

But anyway, I agree completely that there is (and should be) proportion based on the crime. However, given that life in prison and death are roughly equal punishments (in my mind, at least), I don't see what would set apart a life-in-prison crime from a death penalty crime. As long as whoever committed the crime is kept out of society forever, I don't see why it matters, especially if the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment.

[Dubblix]

So in reading it, I gathered the only thing linking him to the murder was one of his acquaintances saying he did it.

So unless they overturn his conviction, it really goes to show that minorities are guilty until proven innocent.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Seth, I believe you are referring to the deterrent factor. It is bullshit. I forget all the exact reasons why, bu the following springs to mind -

In crimes of passion, the accused is not thinking about the consequences of the actions, therefore no punishment will deter them from committing the act (see the opening scene of minority report).

In murders over disputes about money/drugs/whatever, I.E. the mob and their killings -those who do the killings truly believe that they will get away with it, otherwise they would never consent to doing them. What hitman would really kill someone if he believed that he would probably get life in jail or executed by the state? They are not deterred by any punishment, because they believe they will not be caught.

And some others that I can't remember off hand! But as Flyntz said, the murder rate in the highest capital punishment state - Texas I believe - is higher than any non-capital punishment state kind of throws the deterrent factor out the window.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

Seth, I believe you are referring to the deterrent factor. It is bullshit. I forget all the exact reasons why, bu the following springs to mind -

In crimes of passion, the accused is not thinking about the consequences of the actions, therefore no punishment will deter them from committing the act (see the opening scene of minority report).

In murders over disputes about money/drugs/whatever, I.E. the mob and their killings -those who do the killings truly believe that they will get away with it, otherwise they would never consent to doing them. What hitman would really kill someone if he believed that he would probably get life in jail or executed by the state? They are not deterred by any punishment, because they believe they will not be caught.

And some others that I can't remember off hand! But as Flyntz said, the murder rate in the highest capital punishment state - Texas I believe - is higher than any non-capital punishment state kind of throws the deterrent factor out the window.

Welll...let me tell you a story. I was hanging out in a police station with my friend Officer Duffy. In walks a guy who begins chatting up the desk seargent on duty. He admits to having a strong desire to murder his wife, only he does not because he is afraid of the death penalty.

The truth is that this never happened. I don't hang out in police stations. I never heard or saw such a man make such an admission. I don't have any friends named Duffy. The events of such a conversation will never happen.

As I understand it, it's hard to measure people's motivations and the actions that they do not commit. I admit this is one of the more paper thin arguments in favor of the death penalty. It is entirely possible that there is a deterrent factor. But how would you know? From all the murders that aren't committed?

Also, I understand that people really like to use statistics to back up their arguments about the death penalty. I appreciate the effort. I really do. But much like, say, the Mexican border dispute, people tend to twist numbers around in various manners proving whichever fact they think should be true. Both sides of the argument do this. I did some research on this topic for a paper at the end of the previous school year and found enough conflicting data and interpretations to make you go nuts.

I agree that for certain members of society crime is a way of life and believing that you will never be caught is a way of maintaining that lifestyle. But when mobsters are caught, when they are charged with murder and threatened with a needle in the arm, I bet more than a few decide to turn states' evidence give a hand to our own criminal justice system.
[/b]

[Larry Flyntz]

I just can't comprehend how the death penalty could have more of a deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Can you imagine someone saying "I'll kill this guy; I'm okay with spending the rest of my life in jail" and then saying "Whoa! Death penalty! No way; I'm not killing him!" It just seems ridiculous to me. But, then again, plenty of people have a very different understanding of "life" than I do.

[oatmeal fetish....]

As I understand it, it's hard to measure people's motivations and the actions that they do not commit. I admit this is one of the more paper thin arguments in favor of the death penalty. It is entirely possible that there is a deterrent factor. But how would you know? From all the murders that aren't committed

Also, I understand that people really like to use statistics to back up their arguments about the death penalty. I appreciate the effort. I really do. But much like, say, the Mexican border dispute, people tend to twist numbers around in various manners proving whichever fact they think should be true. Both sides of the argument do this. I did some research on this topic for a paper at the end of the previous school year and found enough conflicting data and interpretations to make you go nuts.

I agree that for certain members of society crime is a way of life and believing that you will never be caught is a way of maintaining that lifestyle. But when mobsters are caught, when they are charged with murder and threatened with a needle in the arm, I bet more than a few decide to turn states' evidence give a hand to our own criminal justice system.
[/b]

I just can't comprehend how the death penalty could have more of a deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Can you imagine someone saying "I'll kill this guy; I'm okay with spending the rest of my life in jail" and then saying "Whoa! Death penalty! No way; I'm not killing him!" It just seems ridiculous to me. But, then again, plenty of people have a very different understanding of "life" than I do.

If only there was some way to decide which one of these viewpoints to favor th -  OH SHIT THE ACLU!

[oatmeal fetish....]

fyi seth and I talked about this thread IRl today it was pretty funny.