Capital Punishment

[newbie]

My 2 cents: Until it's proven it is a deterence (it's not), that it's cheaper (it's not), and will not create a single innocent death (it will), it is reduced to a barbaric method for vengence.

[August1991]

I find the repeated use of the word "get/ getting tough on crime" humourous.

I find it humourous because it's illogical.

It is not a logical step, to apply a term such as "getting tough" to a subject such as crime, which is a subject very broad and very complex as I'm learning in completing my Criminology degree.

The meaning of such a phrase is very vague. "Getting tough". What does that even mean?

I don't think the term is vague at all. It generally means that society should punish convicted criminals more severely. How vague is that?

There are generally several reasons for punishing crimes: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.

I agree Renegade, and I suppose forgiveness could fall under "rehabilition".

Are rules made to be broken? In a bureaucratic society with many rules, is it not inevitable that some will be broken? Should we not consider extenuating circumstances?

----

Let me consider the "rich aunt murder". Mary is a peaceful, good woman who would never harm anyone. Mary has a rich, older, childless, spinster aunt. While standing beside a cliff, the aunt announces injudiciously that her will leaves all to Mary. Hearing this, Mary pushes the aunt off. A security camera catches the deed.

Brought to trial, it is clear that Mary is no threat to anyone (she'll never murder anyone else) and there is no need to rehabilitate her (Mary's a good person). This was a once-in-a-lifteime situation and anyway, Mary's not getting the aunt's money. A pardon seems in order.

Yet the judge sends Mary to the gas chamber. Retribution? No.

The judge wants to send a signal and protect all other aunts who choose to walk on cliffsides with their nieces.

Retribution, our sense of fairness, is just an expression of the need to protect others. We impose punishment as a signal to keep others in line. For the signal to work, the punishment must fit the crime, and must be imposed accurately. [The recent murders of eight men in Ontario suggest that gangsters understand this process, and possibly capital punishment, better than our politicians.]

As to rehabilitation, does anyone really believe prisons are the best place to learn - except in the sense of thinking about why one is there? IME, people learn their own way in their own time.

Karla Homolka recently left prison with a university degree, and was given help to integrate into society. God knows if she has changed, learned or rehabilitated. But what signal have we sent out?

[jdobbin]

This didn't really belong in the other thread about the government not advocating from Canadians facing the death penalty. It doesn't really fit the Canadian politics thread except to highlight the debate happening in another nation.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/69546

Why the reluctance to populate death row? Polls show popular support for capital punishment stays relatively high, at about 65 percent. But when it comes to carrying out death sentences, the people involved—judges and juries, prosecutors and prison officials—are starting to recoil, or at least pull back. What is acceptable in theory seems less and less tolerable in practice. Indeed, the Supreme Court has called at least a temporary halt to executions while it examines the fine points of killing convicts by pumping lethal chemicals into their veins. "The death penalty may go out with a whimper, not a great moral revolution," says Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

The new reluctance to punish by killing is part of a historical trend. There was a time when death and torture were spectator sports, when crowds flocked to see prisoners drawn and quartered or beheaded. In some parts of the world, flogging and stoning are still public spectacles. But in the 19th century, supposedly "enlightened" states began looking for more-humane ways to serve final justice—to kill people without causing too much suffering to either the victims or their executioners. The authorities tried hanging, firing squads, electrocutions, gas chambers and, more recently, lethal injection. Each method was supposed to be an improvement over the last.

But the results could be ghastly. Too much depended on the uneven skills of the executioners. The hangman's noose has to be handled just so. Too short a drop and the prisoner slowly strangles. Too long a drop and the prisoner can be decapitated. Witnesses to executions in the electric chair have watched, horrified, as flames shot out of the head of the doomed prisoner. In Arizona in 1992, the state attorney general vomited and the prison warden threatened to quit after observing the agonizingly slow death of a man in a gas chamber. Today not many doctors are willing to play any part in an execution, and prison guards often complain of little or no training.

[Wilber]

This is one argument that we will never settle to everyones satisfaction but I would say this. Anyone who is not willing to personally pull the switch, lever, trigger or whatever it takes to kill someone, has no business arguing for capital punishment. I don't want a reply, just reflect on it and be honest with yourselves.

[Carinthia]

This is one argument that we will never settle to everyones satisfaction but I would say this. Anyone who is not willing to personally pull the switch, lever, trigger or whatever it takes to kill someone, has no business arguing for capital punishment. I don't want a reply, just reflect on it and be honest with yourselves.

When I first read your statement I recoiled too as I would never think that I could pull the lever, trigger or whatever. Then I got to thinking about the 9 year old girl who was raped and strangled by her stepfather and male friend this past week. Ya, I could pull the lever on these two.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Carinthia

[Smallc]

When I first read your statement I recoiled too as I would never think that I could pull the lever, trigger or whatever. Then I got to thinking about the 9 year old girl who was raped and strangled by her stepfather and male friend this past week. Ya, I could pull the lever on these two.

But that is retribution, something the justice system should not, IMO, be based on. Cooler heads need to prevail once the dust has settled.

[Wilber]

When I first read your statement I recoiled too as I would never think that I could pull the lever, trigger or whatever. Then I got to thinking about the 9 year old girl who was raped and strangled by her stepfather and male friend this past week. Ya, I could pull the lever on these two.

I see, so you would make the determination who you would kill, some but not others according to how much you were outraged. Not outraged enough, then someone else could do it. Except when the state executes someone, it does it in your name and why should you expect someone else to do your killing for you?

[Who's Doing What?]

Thin these idiots out of our gene pool.

I like my murderers and rapists extra crispy, thanks.

[Carinthia]

I see, so you would make the determination who you would kill, some but not others according to how much you were outraged. Not outraged enough, then someone else could do it. Except when the state executes someone, it does it in your name and why should you expect someone else to do your killing for you?

Sure, there are different degrees of crime, we all know that. Crimes of passion, crimes of greed etc. Of course I would find it easier to off a child killer than I would a guy who killed his business partner over money or a spouse who killed a spouse because he/she found their spouse in bed with someone else. There could be extenuating circumstances to many crimes of murder and the death penalty doesn't always fit. Because of this, I would not want to personally pull the lever. However, I believe that sex crimes against children where rape and murder are the outcome, should be dealt with in the most harshest, serverest way possible. There is no reasoning behind brutal child killing crimes other than a perverted satisfaction, if you will. I would rather have my tax dollars used to pay someone to put these kinds of people to death than to have my tax dollars used to house and feed them for the next umpteen years while they spend their time watching TV and playing on the internet.

So, to answer your question, yes I do believe that some who kill should spend the rest of their lives in prison and some other's should be put to death. Some crimes of murder do outrage me more than others. Sadly, in this day and age, nobody is spending the rest of their lives in prison are they? Perhaps our dissatisfaction and frustration with our justice system has now inspired us to revisit the death penalty.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Carinthia

[Wilber]

So, to answer your question, yes I do believe that some who kill should spend the rest of their lives in prison and some other's should be put to death. Some crimes of murder do outrage me more than others. Sadly, in this day and age, nobody is spending the rest of their lives in prison are they? Perhaps our dissatisfaction and frustration with our justice system has now inspired us to revisit the death penalty.

Fair enough, I'll take that as you would be willing to pull the lever personally under certain circumstances.

In the context of state sponsored capital punishment, you would then have to clearly spell those circumstances out in the form of a law. You would then have to live with how your law was interpreted by judges and juries and be willing to personally pull the lever on anyone sentenced to death under your law. You wouldn't get to chose.

After all, expecting someone else to do dirty work you are not prepared to do yourself is pure hypocrisy. This is not the same thing as paying the neighbours kid to mow your lawn or shovel your driveway.

A lot of Canadians (self included) are frustrated with our criminal justice system but not being able to fix it is a poor excuse for putting people to death. After all, a majority of the worlds countries are functioning without using the death penalty. What's the matter with us?

[Carinthia]

Fair enough, I'll take that as you would be willing to pull the lever personally under certain circumstances.

In the context of state sponsored capital punishment, you would then have to clearly spell those circumstances out in the form of a law. You would then have to live with how your law was interpreted by judges and juries and be willing to personally pull the lever on anyone sentenced to death under your law. You wouldn't get to chose.

After all, expecting someone else to do dirty work you are not prepared to do yourself is pure hypocrisy. This is not the same thing as paying the neighbours kid to mow your lawn or shovel your driveway.

A lot of Canadians (self included) are frustrated with our criminal justice system but not being able to fix it is a poor excuse for putting people to death. After all, a majority of the worlds countries are functioning without using the death penalty. What's the matter with us?

Although I believe in capital punishment for certain crimes doesn't mean I would be capable of doing the job. I don't like dirty public toilets either, but that doesn't mean that I am a hypocrit because I wouldn't want to go clean them myself. If we based all of our laws on whether WE persoanlly could do the job, could mean that many of our services would cease to exist. I view it as a public service. Eliminating child killers off the face of the earth, would be a huge public service, IMO. Keeping these brutal people in prison for life means nothing to them as I would guess that their idea of "life enjoyment" is on a much lower scale than the rest of us. The threat of life in prison is not enough of a deterent for them. As they are cowards by nature, the thing they would fear most is death.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Carinthia

[Guest American Woman]

This is one argument that we will never settle to everyones satisfaction but I would say this. Anyone who is not willing to personally pull the switch, lever, trigger or whatever it takes to kill someone, has no business arguing for capital punishment. I don't want a reply, just reflect on it and be honest with yourselves.

By your line of thought, anyone who isn't willing to personally fly a plane and drop a bomb has no business supporting war. Ever. Under any circumstance.

We don't have to be able to personally carry out the tasks of all that we support. I support the right to chose. Does that mean I'd have to be willing to perform an abortion?-- Do you think anyone who wouldn't be willing to personally perform an abortion has no business arguing for 'pro choice?'

[Wilber]

Although I believe in capital punishment for certain crimes doesn't mean I would be capable of doing the job. I don't like dirty public toilets either, but that doesn't mean that I am a hypocrit because I wouldn't want to go clean them myself. If we based all of our laws on whether WE persoanlly could do the job, could mean that many of our services would cease to exist. I view it as a public service. Eliminating child killers off the face of the earth, would be a huge public service, IMO. Keeping these brutal people in prison for life means nothing to them as I would guess that their idea of "life enjoyment" is on a much lower scale than the rest of us. The threat of life in prison is not enough of a deterent for them. As they are cowards by nature, the thing they would fear most is death.

If you put cleaning public toilets on the same level as taking someones life, there isn't much I can say. If you are not willing to do the job yourself, you are doing nothing more than hiding behind the law so you can hire a contract killer to do the job for you. You are just as responsible because it is your law he is enforcing. You just don't have the guts to do it yourself. That's a hypocrite in my book.

[Wilber]

By your line of thought, anyone who isn't willing to personally fly a plane and drop a bomb has no business supporting war. Ever. Under any circumstance.

We don't have to be able to personally carry out the tasks of all that we support. I support the right to chose. Does that mean I'd have to be willing to perform an abortion?-- Do you think anyone who wouldn't be willing to personally perform an abortion has no business arguing for 'pro choice?'

Damn right, that is exactly what I am saying. You may not be physically able or qualified to do something, but if you are and are still not willing to do them, you have no right to expect others to do them for you.

[Guest American Woman]

Damn right, that is exactly what I am saying. You may not be physically able or qualified to do something, but if you are and are still not willing to do them, you have no right to expect others to do them for you.

I'm not willing to perform an abortion, so I can't support someone else's right to have one. It's all about "me," to your way of thinking.

That's about as self-centered and egotistical a line of thought as I've ever encountered.

[Wilber]

I'm not willing to perform an abortion, so I can't support someone else's right to have one. It's all about "me," to your way of thinking.

That's about as self-centered and egotistical a line of thought as I've ever encountered.

So this is now an abortion debate? Who is talking about someone else's right to have an abortion? We are talking about your right to demand that someone else take a persons life.

What's egotistical about not expecting someone to do something for me that I would not be willing to do for myself?

[Guest American Woman]

So this is now an abortion debate? Who is talking about someone else's right to have an abortion? We are talking about your right to demand that someone else take a persons life.

What's egotistical about not expecting someone to do something for me that I would not be willing to do for myself?

No, it's not an abortion debate. Are you really not following the actual discussion? This is what you said:

Anyone who is not willing to personally pull the switch, lever, trigger or whatever it takes to kill someone, has no business arguing for capital punishment.

So I'm wondering if that line of thought applies to everything one supports, or if for some reason I'd like you to explain, it only applies to supporting the death penalty.

If it applies to everything, it's a very self-centered, egotistical line of thought-- as I just illustrated with the example regarding abortion and being pro-choice.

Here's another example. Someone's little child has just been brutally raped, tortured, and murdered. They're asking for the death penalty, and are more than willing to pull the lever/whatever themselves. I'm not willing to pull the lever/whatever. So by your way of thought, that means I can't support the family who lost a child by a brutal murder in their request for the death penalty. And you don't think that's self-centered and egotistical?

[myata]

There's no statistical argument for death penalty. Great majority of democratic countries in the West do not have it, and their crime rate is much lower than that of those few which do. It's more of whatever makes us feel good question. Like our long time ancestors who thought that walking around the fire three times while shaking a stick would bring luck in tomorrow's hunt. Whether rational connection between the two acts exists or not, is irrelevant. They believed that it needed to be done. Was the right thing to do.

Personally, I'd be uneasy living in a society that accepts that killing a human being (against their will and outside of emergency situation where they pose immediate danger to others) can be a right thing to do.

[Guest American Woman]

Personally, I'd be uneasy living in a society that accepts that killing a human being (against their will and outside of emergency situation where they pose immediate danger to others) can be a right thing to do.

You must be uneasy living in Canada then since that's exactly what going to war is-- a society accepting that killing a human being can be the right thing to do.

[Wilber]

So I'm wondering if that line of thought applies to everything one supports, or if for some reason I'd like you to explain, it only applies to supporting the death penalty.

If it applies to everything, it's a very self-centered, egotistical line of thought-- as I just illustrated with the example regarding abortion and being pro-choice.

Here's another example. Someone's little child has just been brutally raped, tortured, and murdered. They're asking for the death penalty, and are more than willing to pull the lever/whatever themselves. I'm not willing to pull the lever/whatever. So by your way of thought, that means I can't support the family who lost a child by a brutal murder in their request for the death penalty. And you don't think that's self-centered and egotistical?

Pretty much. In the case of the death penalty you are asking someone to put a person to death. By being pro choice you are doing just that, supporting someone else's right to make a choice concerning their own life. You are not asking someone to impose your values on another person. You are not asking someone to take a life on your behalf. I am pro choice myself by the way.

Do you think that we should forget about victim impact statements and judges? Just let the victims determine sentences and do away with all that stuff? As much as I deplore the leniency of some sentences which are given, I certainly don't want to go that route.

You can't deny their right to request the death penalty but don't you think it would be hypocritical to support someone else's request for something you say you don't support yourself? At least Carinthia says there are some situations where she would be willing to pull the lever herself. Would you hide behind someone else's grief to accomplish the same thing?

If that is self centered and egotistical, I can live with it.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Wilber

[myata]

You must be uneasy living in Canada then since that's exactly what going to war is-- a society accepting that killing a human being can be the right thing to do.

True, I don't agree with the role Canada is taking in Afghanistan. There can be no excuse for going to other people and taking part in their wars. It makes us complicit in the killing no matter the intentions.

It would make me even more concerned if we started to accept the same happening on this country's soil.

[Guest American Woman]

The "intentions" were to partake in the war, same as every other nation that's involved.

Interesting, though, that you're not as concerned about those you kill on someone else's soil.

Edited November 12, 2007 by American Woman

[Carinthia]

If you put cleaning public toilets on the same level as taking someones life, there isn't much I can say. If you are not willing to do the job yourself, you are doing nothing more than hiding behind the law so you can hire a contract killer to do the job for you. You are just as responsible because it is your law he is enforcing. You just don't have the guts to do it yourself. That's a hypocrite in my book.

Equating public toilets with child killers is unfair, I have more respect and compassion for public toilets.

When Richard Speck, the guy who slaughtered 8 student nurses in one afternoon, died of a heart attack, it was reported that one of the nurses who was on duty that day, said that they tried so hard to revive him they used a toilet plunger. Fitting!

When a vicious killer takes the life of a child, they have killed two things...the child and the soul of the childs Mother. Yes, I'm sure many a Mother who has suffered this kind of grief would want to continue to breath the same air as a beast who took her baby away for no other reason than selfish, unspeakable pleasure.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Carinthia

[myata]

Maybe not overly humanistic, but nothing unusial I can assure. It always hits harder closer to home.

[Wilber]

Equating public toilets with child killers is unfair, I have more respect and compassion for public toilets.

When Richard Speck, the guy who slaughtered 8 student nurses in one afternoon, died of a heart attack, it was reported that one of the nurses who was on duty that day, said that they tried so hard to revive him they used a toilet plunger. Fitting!

When a vicious killer takes the life of a child, they have killed two things...the child and the soul of the childs Mother. Yes, I'm sure many a Mother who has suffered this kind of grief would want to continue to breath the same air as a beast who took her baby away for no other reason than selfish, unspeakable pleasure.

Maybe so but do you want all our laws based on revenge?