Death penalty

Shwa · February 3, 2011

Yet when you gave the principles, you ignored the concept of justice/punishment. So you'll have to forgive me for assuming you were only concerned about those 3 things.

You are correct, but the point was made in reference to captial punishment not the judicial system in total.

As I said: Restitution is not applicable because an incarcerated individual has pretty much no ability to provide any real restitution to society.

You are being over-simplistic here. For example, you say an incarcerated individual cannot provide any real restitution "for society." But can you prove it and can you prove this to be true for the future? No, you can't so you don't know. What we do know is that if we kill them there is no chance for finding out. Plus I already gave you an example of a possible avenue of resitution.

Redemption and rehabilitation are irrelevant, because the type of people that would normally be sentenced to the death penalty have participated in crimes so horrible that they'd never be let out of jail. It doesn't matter if Bernardo all of a sudden started to feel remorse, or if Picton realized the error of his ways and wanted to hug puppy dogs. They should still remain in jail and as such whatever improvements that have happened in their lives don't really matter.

Again, as if the argument must fit your thinking when it clearly does not. If you think that redemption and rehabilitation is all about hugging puppy dogs, well, you've just embarassed yourself. Not to mention not providing a delineation between what is death-penalty horrible and what is merely life sentence horrible, which likely exists as a boundary somewhere in your mind. Not to mention that redemption and rehabilitaiton can both exist while the person is incarcerated as noted by all the therapy programs currently in place our prisons. Not to mention that we don't have the death penalty for a reason.

Ummm... for pretty much the same reason that gives police/government the right to arrest and incarcerate someone even though society says that kidnapping is wrong, and the same reason that gives police/government to fine someone even though society says theft is wrong.

And yet we don't have capital punishment. Go figure.

And once again, the process of rationalization a murderer goes through are not the same that society goes through when performing capital punishment. The murderer does not care about due process, following any sort of society guidelines, etc.

When you say 'murderer' what rationalizations are you going through?

Nope, its not.
Not any more than the government-sanctioned kidnapping (i.e. arrest/incarceration) of people is a slippery slope towards internment camps. We have due due process, judicial oversight, and the political system.

Government sanctioned kidnapping includes the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution all which are considered in due process, judicial oversight and the political system. These principles cannot be applied to people we kill.

Nope, its not a step back. Or a step forward. Its just an arbitrary line that an individual draws that says "this is valid punishment; this other stuff is not".

But it is not a valid punishment than includes the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution.

Would you consider it a valid point if someone claimed the existence of any jail is a "big step backwards"? After all, it curtails freedom, and we in western society consider freedom to be a rather key concept.

It's an institution like all other institutions. Why get married?

Irrelevant.
Even if, in the future, we could cure all "psychopaths", we actually have to live in the here and now. Waiting a half century for a possible pill to cure 'evil' is not exactly a winning idea.

No but rehabilitation, redemption and restitution are winning ideas and is why these principles are deployed to the great extent they are in our prison system. Now perhaps it is tough for you to wait the next half century, but that is a product of your thinking, not a product of the judicial system.

Oh, and here's something to consider: There is at least some evidence that attempts to "treat" psychopaths may actually be counterproductive. The "treatment", in certain individuals, may allow them to improve their skills (in things like deception) and thus make them more of a threat.

Irrelvant.

bush_cheney2004 · February 3, 2011

...Not to mention not providing a delineation between what is death-penalty horrible and what is merely life sentence horrible, which likely exists as a boundary somewhere in your mind. Not to mention that redemption and rehabilitaiton can both exist while the person is incarcerated as noted by all the therapy programs currently in place our prisons. Not to mention that we don't have the death penalty for a reason.

Why does the burden to provide such "delineation" fall to proponents or even ambivalent "supporters" of capital punishment? The very same political and legal processes that (eventually) repudiated capital punishment for criminal (then military) offenses also instantiated them in the first place. Are such processes only to be respected when they conform to your particular viewpoint and ideology?

Wilber · February 3, 2011

Well, that's a decision that has no real answer, and depends only on a person's personal views.

Quite right, it depends only on a person's personal views. Are ones personal views an adequate reason to justify putting another person to death?

Ummm... never claimed that executions weren't premeditated. My complaint was the way you characterized it as murder, which by definition it is not.

Only because a majority in a legislature says so. Two hundred years ago you could be hanged for petty theft. At the time it was just as legal as hanging a mass murderer.

Yet you chose to ignore it, in an attempt to unfairly smear (through false words) those who might support the death penalty. So you have no problem lying to justify your position is what you're saying.

I don't choose to ignore it. I want to make it perfectly clear to those who advocated it that they do so for their own personal gratification, not because of need. In that respect, their motives are not that much different from the killers.

Ummm... how about:
- those legislators are usually (in the western world) democratically elected and thus answerable to the people

- Because whatever laws are passed have to respect the constitution of whatever country (and typically constitutions cannot be changed on a whim, and are set up to ensure fair treatment of citizens)

- Because, once whatever capital punishment laws are in place, there will (at least in western society) be procedures that must be followed

Those are rather significant differences between capital punishment and the lone murderer killing because he doesn't give a cr*p.

The legality is not in question. The question is should a state have a right to take a citizens life.

Yet we still 'kidnap' (incarcerate people) even if there are other options that would also prevent them from doing harm. Bernie Maddow is a perfect example.

True, but what has that to do with killing someone. Maddow could have been executed for his crimes a couple of hundred years ago. Would that make you happier than putting him in jail?

We also don't need to let them (meaning convicted criminals who's crimes are especially heinous) live either. Ignoring costs for a moment (since it can get tricky, comparing the cost of incarceration vs. legal fees in carrying out a death sentence), keeping such individuals alive serves no value to society, other than the false sense of smugness held by those who falsely equate murder with capital punishment.

So we execute them out of convenience to ourselves. There are a lot of people who aren't murderers who are a cost to society. Lets get rid of them as well.

bush_cheney2004 · February 3, 2011

...I don't choose to ignore it. I want to make it perfectly clear to those who advocated it that they do so for their own personal gratification, not because of need. In that respect, their motives are not that much different from the killers.

Now you are just rationalizing...as this is not the case at all for "all" those who advocate for capital punishment. As I stated before, it is a punishment provided for in/by law, the very same law that protects and advocates for many other aspects of society. Why would it always be wrong in this narrow context?

The legality is not in question. The question is should a state have a right to take a citizens life.

Yes...it can and does in several ways. Don't taze me 'Bro!

Saipan · February 3, 2011

Quite right, it depends only on a person's personal views. Are ones personal views an adequate reason to justify putting another person to death?

No. Just very dangerous criminals.

Two hundred years ago you could be hanged for petty theft.

I don't worry about being killed by petty thief.

Maddow could have been executed for his crimes a couple of hundred years ago.

I don't think women are afraid of going out after dark because some snake oil peddler is on the loose

There are a lot of people who aren't murderers who are a cost to society. Lets get rid of them as well.

How dangerous are they?

Wilber · February 3, 2011

Now you are just rationalizing...as this is not the case at all for "all" those who advocate for capital punishment. As I stated before, it is a punishment provided for in/by law, the very same law that protects and advocates for many other aspects of society. Why would it always be wrong in this narrow context?

As you say, the laws job is to protect and advocate for aspects of society. I don't argue that but the law does not advocate for every aspect of society, that is why we have laws against things.

You are the one rationalizing. You maintain executions are OK as long as a legislature says so. You believe it its a right of the state to put its citizens to death by execution. I do not. Let's leave it at that.

bush_cheney2004 · February 3, 2011

As you say, the laws job is to protect and advocate for aspects of society. I don't argue that but the law does not advocate for every aspect of society, that is why we have laws against things.

Correct...including premeditated murder. That this is not the same as capital punishment has already been established by member segnosaur.

You are the one rationalizing. You maintain executions are OK as long as a legislature says so. You believe it its a right of the state to put its citizens to death by execution. I do not. Let's leave it at that.

OK...that's fine by me. There is no reason to maintain that all proponents do so simply for their own gratification. The merits of capital punishment can be argued without that kind of diversion.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

You believe it its a right of the state to put its citizens to death by execution.

Definitely not. That would be Communism.

ONLY very dangerous criminals.

Wilber · February 3, 2011

There is no reason to maintain that all proponents do so simply for their own gratification. The merits of capital punishment can be argued without that kind of diversion.

Maybe not all but a big part of the issue is the nitty gritty of why people really think it is acceptable to put others to death. I maintain self satisfaction is a big part of it for many if not most.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

Maybe not all but a big part of the issue is the nitty gritty of why people really think it is acceptable to put others to death. I maintain self satisfaction is a big part of it for many if not most.

We call it selfpreservation.

Like the reasons cops carry guns.

bush_cheney2004 · February 3, 2011

Maybe not all but a big part of the issue is the nitty gritty of why people really think it is acceptable to put others to death. I maintain self satisfaction is a big part of it for many if not most.

I don't now how/why it would have such broad appeal except for high profile crimes. Japan hanged four prisoners about two years ago without much fanfare. It is the stuff of old Hollywood movies and now cable television news drama, but I don't know anyone who would buy tickets to be at ringside for the event. It is hard to find jubilant legal witnesses.

Shwa · February 3, 2011

Why does the burden to provide such "delineation" fall to proponents or even ambivalent "supporters" of capital punishment? The very same political and legal processes that (eventually) repudiated capital punishment for criminal (then military) offenses also instantiated them in the first place. Are such processes only to be respected when they conform to your particular viewpoint and ideology?

Not at all. All incarcerated persons are deemed worthy of rehabilitation and redemption. That is what the political and legal processes have determined, not I. If you wish to repudiate these principles for a certain class of incarcerated person then the burden falls on you to be limited and specific. There is no need for me to delineate since the law applies equally to all.

madmax · February 3, 2011

Definitely not. That would be Communism.

ONLY very dangerous criminals.

Touche, LOL... too funny.

Hate to encourage u, but I got a good laugh on this one.

bush_cheney2004 · February 3, 2011

.....If you wish to repudiate these principles for a certain class of incarcerated person then the burden falls on you to be limited and specific. There is no need for me to delineate since the law applies equally to all.

Canadians have already spoken to the larger issue of rehabilitation and redemption...more prison beds will be built because it is a political winner:

http://spon.ca/why-the-tories-will-win-the-prison-expansion-political-battle/2011/01/12/

As for delineating capital crimes, that is left to the very process for which you have such praise.

segnosaur · February 3, 2011

But in the end, you fall victim to exactly--exactly--the same sort of attributes you've been criticizing.

How could this be? I dunno.

You say

keeping such individuals alive serves no value to society, other than the false sense of smugness held by those who falsely equate murder with capital punishment.

this is dead wrong. Do you not imagine there might be people with a principled opposition to executions who are not "smug," who do not call it "murder"

Yes, you are right... there are people who have principled opposition to the death penalty who are not smug or call it murder. However, I've attempted to try to focus my attention only on those people who have made the false connection that capital punishment=murder.

Plus, keep in mind that there is at least some satire here. Yes, 'smug' may not be appropriate in all cases (although some of the anti-death penalty people here make me think it might fit).

Of course, while I may be inappropriately characterizing some death penalty opponents as 'smug', keep in mind that they are likewise inappropriately characterizing those who favor the death penalty too.

segnosaur · February 3, 2011

As I said: Restitution is not applicable because an incarcerated individual has pretty much no ability to provide any real restitution to society.

You are being over-simplistic here. For example, you say an incarcerated individual cannot provide any real restitution "for society." But can you prove it and can you prove this to be true for the future? No, you can't so you don't know. What we do know is that if we kill them there is no chance for finding out.

I'm a firm believer in science. As such, I cannot prove that the earth won't end in 2012, that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer, or that the sun will come up tomorrow. What I can do is examine the evidence. The overwhelming evidence is that there will be no "cure" for the psychopathic mind within our lifetime, so no reason to expect that such individuals will be treated and released (so that they can provide restitution) within the lifetime of anyone on this forum.

Plus I already gave you an example of a possible avenue of resitution.

Sorry, must have overlooked that. Which post was that in?

Again, as if the argument must fit your thinking when it clearly does not. If you think that redemption and rehabilitation is all about hugging puppy dogs, well, you've just embarassed yourself.

Not really. I haven't gone into detail about what is meant by "redemption and rehabilitation" because the issue is not whether a prisoner is capable of undergoing those transformations, but whether it will be relevant to society. Its not, because the death penalty, if implemented, would be reserved only for those who would never be released into society.

Got it?

Not to mention not providing a delineation between what is death-penalty horrible and what is merely life sentence horrible, which likely exists as a boundary somewhere in your mind.

Actually, I've already pretty much given a delineation... those who engage in multiple murders, or those who's crimes include additional components (e.g. torture), the type that should never get out would qualify for the death penalty. (Subject to M'Naughten.)

Not to mention that we don't have the death penalty for a reason.

There are a lot of possible reasons we don't have the death penalty.

Perhaps a majority of people are opposed to it because of the potential of executing an innocent man.

Perhaps its because elections are decided on multiple issues, of which the death penalty is only one, and many people view their candidate's stance on the economy, foreign affairs or the environment to be more important than the death penalty.

And once again, the process of rationalization a murderer goes through are not the same that society goes through when performing capital punishment. The murderer does not care about due process, following any sort of society guidelines, etc.

When you say 'murderer' what rationalizations are you going through?

Thought it was pretty clear what a 'murderer' was... an individual who takes a human life outside the bounds of the law (meaning: not an act of self defense, nor a soldier in the performance of their duties, nor an accidental killing.)

Not any more than the government-sanctioned kidnapping (i.e. arrest/incarceration) of people is a slippery slope towards internment camps. We have due due process, judicial oversight, and the political system.

Government sanctioned kidnapping includes the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution...

Irrelevant.

If you are arguing 'slippery slope', you are suggesting an increased abuse of the particular system. The fact that we haven't had a 'slippery slope' for arrests giving us interment camps means that our government has appropriate checks to its power to keep such a slippery slope from happening.

Dragging your worthless 3-Rs into things means nothing to the slippery slope fallacy.

Nope, its not a step back. Or a step forward. Its just an arbitrary line that an individual draws that says "this is valid punishment; this other stuff is not".

But it is not a valid punishment than includes the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution.

Irrelevant. As I've pointed out, restitution is unlikely to be made, and rehabilitation/redemption will not impact society since the individuals affected would never be candidates for release anyways.

Would you consider it a valid point if someone claimed the existence of any jail is a "big step backwards"? After all, it curtails freedom, and we in western society consider freedom to be a rather key concept.

It's an institution like all other institutions. Why get married?

You still haven't answered the question.

Do you think someone who views even jail as a "big step backwards" to more moral than you are?

Even if, in the future, we could cure all "psychopaths", we actually have to live in the here and now. Waiting a half century for a possible pill to cure 'evil' is not exactly a winning idea.

No but rehabilitation, redemption and restitution are winning ideas and is why these principles are deployed to the great extent they are in our prison system.

Whether its applied to convict accused of (for example) robbery or theft is irrelevant. Those individuals would be subject to eventual release, so rehabilitation, etc. is a good idea for them. The death penalty should (in theory) be only applied to those who's crimes would ensure they would never leave jail.

Oh, and here's something to consider: There is at least some evidence that attempts to "treat" psychopaths may actually be counterproductive. The "treatment", in certain individuals, may allow them to improve their skills (in things like deception) and thus make them more of a threat.
Irrelvant.

Actually quite relevant. You were the one who was touting the great "advances in neuroscience" as a reason to keep psychopaths alive (under the assumption that they might be cured). However, the fact that after all our work we've managed to actually make the problem worse is quite relevant. Its an indication that that magic pixie dust you're suggesting as a cure for the psychopath is something that's not going to be coming in anyone's lifetime.

segnosaur · February 3, 2011

Ummm... never claimed that executions weren't premeditated. My complaint was the way you characterized it as murder, which by definition it is not.

Only because a majority in a legislature says so.

Its called a "definition". Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of life.

Two hundred years ago you could be hanged for petty theft. At the time it was just as legal as hanging a mass murderer.

Irrelevant. Just because justice was overly brutal in the past (or in other cultures) doesn't mean that the "bad" penalties handed out before can't continue to be used now.

Put it this way... in the past, people were sentenced to jail for sodomy. Does that mean that just because jail was used as excessive punishment in the past (for something that shouldn't even have been a crime) that nobody should be jailed today?

Re: Capital punishment falsely defined as "murder"...
Yet you chose to ignore it, in an attempt to unfairly smear (through false words) those who might support the death penalty. So you have no problem lying to justify your position is what you're saying.

I don't choose to ignore it.

Well, either you're ignorant of the definition of "murder", or you are ignoring the definition. You can't have it both ways.

I want to make it perfectly clear to those who advocated it that they do so for their own personal gratification, not because of need. In that respect, their motives are not that much different from the killers.

False characterization. Sorry, falsely claiming that those who favor the death penalty are similar to the killers themselves is nothing but lander, and no more accurate than if I called those against the death penalty as "criminals who are probably psychopaths themselves but just don't want to risk getting killed themselves".

Ummm... how about:
- those legislators are usually (in the western world) democratically elected and thus answerable to the people

- Because whatever laws are passed have to respect the constitution of whatever country (and typically constitutions cannot be changed on a whim, and are set up to ensure fair treatment of citizens)

- Because, once whatever capital punishment laws are in place, there will (at least in western society) be procedures that must be followed

Those are rather significant differences between capital punishment and the lone murderer killing because he doesn't give a cr*p.

The legality is not in question. The question is should a state have a right to take a citizens life.

You asked what the difference was between what a murder does and what the state does during executions. I gave a list of differences. The fact that you would dismiss those differences is rather telling.

Yet we still 'kidnap' (incarcerate people) even if there are other options that would also prevent them from doing harm. Bernie Maddow is a perfect example.

True, but what has that to do with killing someone.

Once again (since it doesn't seem to be sinking in)...

YOU were the one that claimed that we don't need to kill to prevent a criminal from harming society. I was pointing out that there are criminals that we jail but don't have to. Yet we still incarcerate them. Why? Its because simply letting them go free (with appropriate checks/balances on their behavior) would not be seen as justice. Maddow did something bad, he gets jailed. Not just to keep him from setting up another ponzi scheme, but because we (as a society) believe its in our best interests to have appropriate punishment for crime.

So we execute them out of convenience to ourselves. There are a lot of people who aren't murderers who are a cost to society. Lets get rid of them as well.

Nope, because I made it quite clear: If we did have a death penalty, I would want it reserved only for those who have committed acts so vile that they have forfeit the right to live. Some petty theft may never become a successful business person or doctor, and he may end up 'costing' society (through incarceration), but at least he should be given the chance to make society better. Bernardo, Bundy, etc, would never have that opportunity due to the nature of their crimes.

Wilber · February 4, 2011

Nope, because I made it quite clear: If we did have a death penalty, I would want it reserved only for those who have committed acts so vile that they have forfeit the right to live. Some petty theft may never become a successful business person or doctor, and he may end up 'costing' society (through incarceration), but at least he should be given the chance to make society better. Bernardo, Bundy, etc, would never have that opportunity due to the nature of their crimes.

This is getting tiresome. Legality is never in dispute. What makes something legal merely requires legislation. Just because something is legislated doesn't automatically make it right you have said so yourself so lets get off this tangent.

You I and I may very well agree that we feel some individual doesn't deserve to live because of what they have done. It is not a feeling that is foreign to me. I say just because we may feel that, doesn't give us the right to put a person to death either personally or through our state system. We obviously have a fundamental disagreement concerning this and neither of us is going to change so I am going to leave it at that.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Wilber

Saipan · February 4, 2011

I say just because we may feel that, doesn't give us the right to put a person to death either personally or through our state system.

We can do it either way. And it has nothing to do with feeling. Just the opposite. A common sense.

Wilber · February 4, 2011

We can do it either way. And it has nothing to do with feeling. Just the opposite. A common sense.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices aquired by age eighteen" Albert Einstein

Saipan · February 4, 2011

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices aquired by age eighteen" Albert Einstein

And he was right. I'm extremely prejudiced against criminals.

As well as Communists and Nazis - for a very good reason.

Shwa · February 4, 2011

I'm a firm believer in science. As such, I cannot prove that the earth won't end in 2012, that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer, or that the sun will come up tomorrow. What I can do is examine the evidence. The overwhelming evidence is that there will be no "cure" for the psychopathic mind within our lifetime, so no reason to expect that such individuals will be treated and released (so that they can provide restitution) within the lifetime of anyone on this forum.

Dodge. I suppose science predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in your lifetime too?

Sorry, must have overlooked that. Which post was that in?

Do you own homework and keep up.

Not really. I haven't gone into detail about what is meant by "redemption and rehabilitation" because the issue is not whether a prisoner is capable of undergoing those transformations, but whether it will be relevant to society. Its not, because the death penalty, if implemented, would be reserved only for those who would never be released into society.
Got it?

And yet the principles of redemption and rehabilitation are available to all prisoners including lifers. Did you get that yet?

Actually, I've already pretty much given a delineation... those who engage in multiple murders, or those who's crimes include additional components (e.g. torture), the type that should never get out would qualify for the death penalty. (Subject to M'Naughten.)

That's pretty vague. How about self-defence or preservation of self against the police? All you are doing is making up categories to fit the condition of your mind. Nothing more.

There are a lot of possible reasons we don't have the death penalty.
Perhaps a majority of people are opposed to it because of the potential of executing an innocent man.

Perhaps its because elections are decided on multiple issues, of which the death penalty is only one, and many people view their candidate's stance on the economy, foreign affairs or the environment to be more important than the death penalty.

Perhaps, but we don't have capital punishment and there are reasons for that. They trump whatever you can come up, no matter how vigorous you argue. You are not convincing.

Thought it was pretty clear what a 'murderer' was... an individual who takes a human life outside the bounds of the law (meaning: not an act of self defense, nor a soldier in the performance of their duties, nor an accidental killing.)

Why, that was fast. If you can make such determinations that quickly, why bother with courts in the first place? All we need is you as judge and jury.

Irrelevant.
If you are arguing 'slippery slope', you are suggesting an increased abuse of the particular system. The fact that we haven't had a 'slippery slope' for arrests giving us interment camps means that our government has appropriate checks to its power to keep such a slippery slope from happening.

Dragging your worthless 3-Rs into things means nothing to the slippery slope fallacy.

Oh but it does. Because the "worthless 3Rs" is the middle ground at present - that has already been decided.

Irrelevant. As I've pointed out, restitution is unlikely to be made, and rehabilitation/redemption will not impact society since the individuals affected would never be candidates for release anyways.

I can cite the criminal code. What can you cite to prove your point except point to your own thinking? So it is entirely relevant since the rehabilition, redemption and resitution is implicit in all sentencing.

You still haven't answered the question.
Do you think someone who views even jail as a "big step backwards" to more moral than you are?

Irrelevant question.

Whether its applied to convict accused of (for example) robbery or theft is irrelevant. Those individuals would be subject to eventual release, so rehabilitation, etc. is a good idea for them. The death penalty should (in theory) be only applied to those who's crimes would ensure they would never leave jail.

Based on the false assumption that rehabilition, redemption and resitution cannot occur within the institution when current practices clearly show they do.

Actually quite relevant. You were the one who was touting the great "advances in neuroscience" as a reason to keep psychopaths alive (under the assumption that they might be cured). However, the fact that after all our work we've managed to actually make the problem worse is quite relevant. Its an indication that that magic pixie dust you're suggesting as a cure for the psychopath is something that's not going to be coming in anyone's lifetime.

And you can correctly predict the advances of science now can you? Not only judge and jury, but you now possess an amazing omnipotence too.

But the reality of the situation is you can't know so you are substituting emotional simplism for a complex moral problem which actually renders your argument impotent and unconvincing. Seriously, if a child rapist was put to death, I wouldn't shed a tear. But you have failed to convince me why we ought to reverse a decision of Parliament that was made with great care and much debate. Better to err on the side of caution I think. Unless you can come up with some other better reasons why we ought to.

bush_cheney2004 · February 4, 2011

..... But you have failed to convince me why we ought to reverse a decision of Parliament that was made with great care and much debate. Better to err on the side of caution I think. Unless you can come up with some other better reasons why we ought to.

So there was no rehabilitation and redemption before this decison of Parliament? If not what caused this step function to a kinder and gentler policy? If yes, then clearly the policy coexisted with capital punishment at one time.

Shwa · February 4, 2011

So there was no rehabilitation and redemption before this decison of Parliament? If not what caused this step function to a kinder and gentler policy? If yes, then clearly the policy coexisted with capital punishment at one time.

It might be better to say a policy co-existed with capital punishment at one time.