Support NeoGAF

[Future]

The criminal system of every developed country is based on the fact that if you didn't commit the crime beyond the shadow of a doubt you shouldn't be condemned to begin with.

Can you imagine if they told you "we're only 90% sure you commited murder so you get 25 to life"?.

The reality is that this happens though. People get convicted of things they didn't do because it's possible that it looks like there is no doubt, even though there is.

There is no doubt, then there is no reasonable doubt. I actually think there is a difference there. Which is why no would should get the death penalty unless there literally is no doubt of wrong doing. If it's never possible to know for sure , then don't kill.

 

[Real Hero]

because you can correct killing an Innocent

 

[Kazerei]

Prison is still a type of society, whether we wish to think that or not. Thus, I guess my view would be that there seems something inherently unfair in allowing the serial killer of 20 to so people to still be allowed to live in any sort of society. The punishment simply does not equate in my opinion and rather they should be completely removed from any type of society, then there is also the fact that they may be a possible danger to other prisoners.

So basically you support the death penalty because it feels right? Because it's a fitting punishment in your opinion? All of the problems with the death penalty in practice have been raised in this thread already. If you're willing to ignore all that because you like the idea in theory, I don't know what else to say.

 

[Anustart]

I'm not against it I guess, but I do believe life in prison is a much worse punishment.

 

[scogoth]

I really don't see how anyone can be against it. Kill the bastard. Problem solved for everyone. We don't pay for him/her to be in prison and he/she pays for what he/she did.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty-costs-texas-outweigh-life-imprisonment
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Costs more to put someone to death than life imprisonment.

 

[HUELEN10]

What I want to know is that for those in support of the death penalty, do you think it should only be used in murder cases, or other situations? Like war crimes, child porno rings with a gorillion victims, or stuff like that.

For example, to those war criminals we have punished with death, not all of them actually killed people through their own hand, they had toadies to do it for them. Something to think about.

 

[Cyan]

I don't understand what you are saying. If a person steals $500 from you and you get angry and decide to go and steal $500 back from that said person, that is revenge. If the police were to catch that person and the court were to order that person to pay you back $500 that is justice. The result is the same, the motivation is different. Justice isn't about fulfilling some emotional rage, it is about doling out equitable punishment as per the social contract.

But there's a clear reason and benefit for ordering the restitution of something stolen. The whole argument here is that just saying "well the death penalty is punishment" and calling it a day completely avoids showing any kind of benefit. When there's nothing gained, no benefit from a punishment, how is it any different from revenge? Or, revenge with less emotion attached?

 

[Bear]

Again, I don't see the debate in a utilitarian perspective or some cost/benefit analysis, there doesn't and really shouldn't need to be any benefit when it comes to things like executing a person. It is simply punishment, it shouldn't be emotional or for revenge, it is simply recognizing the awful deeds of this person and consequently giving them the punishment that is warranted for such crimes.

That's an awfully vague argument that doesn't address any of the points I made. Life in prison is an incredibly severe severe punishment, only justified by the worst of crimes. You're taking away any freedom they will ever have. You are locking them in a single building with society's most depraved people and keeping them there for life. That is the most severe punishment you could inflict, without sinking to the levels of North Korea, that isn't completely irreversible. If you plan on crossing into punishments that can never account for mistakes, you better be prepared to make a good case for it.

If the costs are irrelevant and the benefits don't matter, I'm not sure what is left in your argument besides the idea that we should execute people because that somehow satisfies you as an individual.

 

[Fury Sense]

You don't have to be insane to commit murder. Some arguments I've seen for pan-rehabilitation ignore this... as if "normal" people couldn't possibly be capable of violent crimes. That's naive.

I believe death sometimes means justice and that life in prison can be cruel. However, I know the basics of how our current system works, so I am against the death penalty.

 

[Sorian]

Yes, yes. You know what I meant.

Gotta keep your arguments on the straight and narrow

It still just comes back to the same thing for me. Is the death penalty an appropriate punishment? It can be. But any type of punishment being administered has a (strong) possibility of being applied to a person who didn't commit a crime or commited a lesser crime than they were being charged for and that's where our issue comes in because it is impossible to make a criminal justice system that gets the right answer 100% barring doing something drastic that would completely destroy our personal freedoms. This means that whenever we punish someone, we need to focus on "hedging our bet" instead of just administering a punishment. Life in jail is better because if that person is innocent then we haven't taken as much from them as we could have but if they really were guilty then the death penalty may have been a better option.

 

[G.O.O.]

I'd bet that a large portion of people against the death penalty would change their tune if someone came along and brutally murdered their friends and family.

I wouldn't be so sure. And even if it was true, that's pretty much why justice is served by the state, and not by the family of the victims. Which never did any good.

 

[mullet2000]

Ok... but then it's just revenge, but with the only actual benefits of revenge tamped down so that it won't look like revenge.

I think you're being a little obtuse (sorry if that's the wrong term) about people explaining the difference between those terms. I think they're explaining the emotional difference pretty well between revenge and punishment.

Yes, according to the dictionary definition of revenge there are ways you can fit it into punishment. You are correct on that. But are the negative connotations of the word revenge really applicable to "punishment?" I'm not so sure. You're free to disagree with me on that of course. I don't mean to be antagonistic toward you or anything.

Also, side note but a question I'm genuinely curious about: Why does it cost more to execute someone than it does to clothe and feed them for their whole life? Would really like to see the numbers on that.

 

[danwarb]

I'd bet that a large portion of people against the death penalty would change their tune if someone came along and brutally murdered their friends and family.

Not once reason crept back in. I might/probably would attempt personal revenge if I saw such a crime committed, but I'd still be against capital punishment for the bloody obvious reasons.

 

[collige]

You let a million murderers live(even in prison) you have a lot more than one innocent person having their life taken from them. Whether they kill a nonviolent inmate, murder a guard, serve their sentence and get out to kill again. Some of them will find a way to kill. You would have condemned people to death by letting all those killers live.

You're making the mistake of assuming that murderers have some sort of intrinsic drive that leads them to compulsively kill people. This is rarely the case; most murders are done for emotional or economic reasons. If you kill your wife in a fit of rage after she cheated on you, you're not gonna suddenly have violent urges towards other people.

 

[SamVimes]

I don't understand what you are saying. If a person steals $500 from you and you get angry and decide to go and steal $500 back from that said person, that is revenge. If the police were to catch that person and the court were to order that person to pay you back $500 that is justice. The result is the same, the motivation is different. Justice isn't about fulfilling some emotional rage, it is about doling out equitable punishment as per the social contract.

Were you homeschooled or something? The court is not going to take his life and give it back to the victim, how is this comparison appropriate?
You're arguing for state-sanctioned revenge which is still revenge, not justice.

 

[Vibranium]

Yes I'm against it. People get angry about taxpayers paying for locking up scum, but at the end of the day I believe we need to be better than them and have a responsibility to at least attempt to rehabilitate as many people as possible. Those who are uncurable should get the bare necessities and forever be isolated though.

I'd bet that a large portion of people against the death penalty would change their tune if someone came along and brutally murdered their friends and family.

I'd be horrified, angry and have PTSD, but I still would not change my mind. Even with how messed up I would be, I have faith in myself not to change my opinion.

 

[Monocle]

But it's not about revenge, nor is it really about deterrence, I've already explained my point it is simply about punishment. It's about recognizing the abhorrent acts this person has committed and deeming them no longer fit to remain in society in any capacity. Revenge is about the victims, about emotion and an eye for an eye. Justice isn't supposed to be about revenge it is about dealing out an equitable punishment for the crime a person has committed.

Permanently depriving a person of all their future possibilities is an unacceptable form of punishment. Apart from being (arguably) ethically indefensible, there are loads of complicating factors that other posters have covered here already.

A rehabilitation-oriented prison system is the best solution human civilization has produced to date. Its implementation is often terribly mismanaged, but on paper it achieves the necessary balance between punishment, protecting the public, and respecting human rights that we demand from a justice system founded on principles of fair and ethical treatment for all.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Yes, the death penalty is basically human sacrifice to appease our bloodlust. We like to feel that justice has been served, but it's actually just impotent revenge. (If you doubt it, just watch how many people shriek for the torture and execution of especially vile offenders.) Killing criminals doesn't reduce crime or undo any specific crime, and the death penalty actually incentivizes murder to remove witnesses. Also, the state really ought not to hold the power of life and death over its citizens. Innocent people can and have been killed by the system. One mistake is one too many, and more than one has been made.

I oppose the death penalty because I think the State should not have the power to deprive its citizens of life under any circumstances in which it can reasonably confine them where necessary to protect the public interest. I also do not believe it can be applied perfectly, and that it is intolerable for the State to execute even a single one of its innocent citizens. That's principle. In practice, the death penalty is a monstrosity. It is impossible to apply fairly, is racist and classist, and effectively targets for extinction society's weakest members for society's own dysfunctions and failings. I view it as a low grade kind of genocide, quite frankly. We set up and maintain the conditions that cause criminal behavior, and then we kill the people who predictably engage in it. Yet, instead of correcting the problems with the conditions that cause crime, we pretend to deal with it by slaughtering those induced to commit crimes.

These two sum it up for me.

 

[childplease]

I am absolutely for the death penalty but at the same time I am against the costly appeals system in place.

Death penalty should be handed out on every state as a means to quickly remove violent felons from the penal system thus saving tax payer money.

The means of execution should be cost effective also gunshot to the head works.

 

[pants]

because you can correct killing an Innocent

edo tensei?

 

[Sorian]

Come on now, you know what he means. If you're found innocent after 20 years, you still get to spend the rest of your life free (and probably sue the state for a good amount of money too), instead of being dead forever.

I know what he meant but its not so simple of a hand wave either. There are so many variables that go into it. Sure, you can sue the state and not worry about money for the rest of your life but there are so many little things that have to be taken into account as well that just can't be accounted for. For example, maybe this person was going to live to be 80 but the stress of being in jail for a possible life sentence caused them to develop a heart condition that will kill them at 60 instead. Now its really 40 years instead of 20 but there is no way to measure that. We can't just look at a life sentence and pretend it isn't serious business as well.

 

[Darksol]

I'm against it, although I can understand why others may feel differently.

 

[RedShift]

Revenge stems from a desire, usually from the person who is harmed, to inflict pain and suffering or an equal amount of harm on the person who injured them. It is a purely emotional response. Punishment is cold, it is not motivated by emotion but only sees fit to ensure justice. While the end results of a desire for revenge and punishment/justice can sometimes be the same they are totally different in terms of motivation.

So punishment is just revenge but you have a frowny face when you do it?

There is no difference between the two things you described.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Also, side note but a question I'm genuinely curious about: Why does it cost more to execute someone than it does to clothe and feed them for their whole life? Would really like to see the numbers on that.

It costs more because of appeals, and you have to allow the appeals because you are contemplating executing a man - the appeals process is there to make it absolutely certain, that the man or woman is guilty of the crime.

Which funny enough has the effect of making it more expensive to execute someone than to simply imprison them for life, and the hilarious thing is that there's nothing you can do to make it cheaper to execute someone - unless you're willing to increase the likelihood of innocents getting executed.

It's just not a very sane punishment, yet is a leftover from less rational days because people are just as irrational today.

 

[collige]

I am absolutely for the death penalty but at the same time I am against the costly appeals system in place.

Death penalty should be handed out on every state as a means to quickly remove violent felons from the penal system thus saving tax payer money.

The means of execution should be cost effective also gunshot to the head works.

Money should not ever be the priority when talking about justice.

Spoiler

Child, please.

 

[Sorian]

So punishment is just revenge but you have a frowny face when you do it?

There is no difference between the two things you described.

The motivation is completely different. It's not about the destination but the journey or whatever the saying is. Same idea here, just because you can't see it on the surface level doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

 

[SamVimes]

I know what he meant but its not so simple of a hand wave either. There are so many variables that go into it. Sure, you can sue the state and not worry about money for the rest of your life but there are so many little things that have to be taken into account as well that just can't be accounted for. For example, maybe this person was going to live to be 80 but the stress of being in jail for a possible life sentence caused them to develop a heart condition that will kill them at 60 instead. Now its really 40 years instead of 20 but there is no way to measure that. We can't just look at a life sentence and pretend it isn't serious business as well.

The simple truth of the matter is that we should try to get the best possible outcome from an horrible situation. Losing 20 years of your life + maybe another 20 while completely shitty is still not comparable to losing your life full stop.

 

[HUELEN10]

I am absolutely for the death penalty but at the same time I am against the costly appeals system in place.

Death penalty should be handed out on every state as a means to quickly remove violent felons from the penal system thus saving tax payer money.

The means of execution should be cost effective also gunshot to the head works.

But violent felons imply one would be giving the death sentence to those that are not necessarily murderers. What if the murders weren't violent specifically towards the ones murdered? What if, this guy has a vendetta against his neighbor, and quickly and painlessly murders the neighbor’s wife to get at the neighbor? Does that form of death equate to a bullet in the head?

 

[collige]

I know what he meant but its not so simple of a hand wave either. There are so many variables that go into it. Sure, you can sue the state and not worry about money for the rest of your life but there are so many little things that have to be taken into account as well that just can't be accounted for. For example, maybe this person was going to live to be 80 but the stress of being in jail for a possible life sentence caused them to develop a heart condition that will kill them at 60 instead. Now its really 40 years instead of 20 but there is no way to measure that. We can't just look at a life sentence and pretend it isn't serious business as well.

Oh, I agree which is why I'm against life without parole too. But being released and living to 60 is still far better than being executed after 5 or so years on death row.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Which funny enough has the effect of making it more expensive to execute someone than to simply imprison them for life, and the hilarious thing is that there's nothing you can do to make it cheaper to execute someone - unless you're willing to increase the likelihood of innocents getting executed.

Ive definitely seen this argument on here from people, to "fast track the process for the supa dupa quilty11!" and probably from the state of Texas too.

 

[mullet2000]

It costs more because of appeals, and you have to allow the appeals because you are contemplating executing a man by the hands of the government - the appeals process it there to make it absolutely certain, that the man or woman is guilty of the crime.

Which funny enough has the effect of making it more expensive to execute someone than to simply imprison them for life, and the hilarious thing is that there's nothing you can do to make it cheaper to execute someone - unless you're willing to increase the likelihood of innocents getting executed.

It's just not a very sane punishment, yet is a leftover from less rational days because people are just as irrational today.

Got it, figured it was something along those lines.

Yeah not really a good solution to that unless you want to limit appeals which would obviously be...very bad.

I guess in the end I'm not against to concept of killing a criminal (very specific criminals) and I don't think that "makes us just as bad as them" whatsoever, but it simply doesn't fit in in today's world.

 

[HUELEN10]

Losing 20 years of your life + maybe another 20 while completely shitty is still not comparable to losing your life full stop.

Depending on who you ask, losing those years is more cruel and unusual than death. It's not just about life to some, it's about quality of life.

 

[entremet]

Against.

-Not a deterrent. Some of the highest murder rates are in the South, where the death penalty is de riguer.

-Cost the state a lot of money. Also being tax funded, I'm not morally fine with funding state sanctioned murder.

-Innocents have been murdered because of false accusation and corruption. That's enough alone for me. You can't bring people back from the dead, but many have been released on bad charges after life sentences.

-It's racist in practice in the United States.

 

[azhar]

I'm against it solely because the death penalty necessitates an infallible justice system... something no human society has so far been able to achieve.

 

[Monocle]

I am absolutely for the death penalty but at the same time I am against the costly appeals system in place.

Death penalty should be handed out on every state as a means to quickly remove violent felons from the penal system thus saving tax payer money.

The means of execution should be cost effective also gunshot to the head works.

A good method for putting a decisive end to the otherwise lengthy process of verifying a person's guilt. Innocent or guilty, a bullet will shut yer yap right quick.

 

[Cyan]

I think you're being a little obtuse (sorry if that's the wrong term) about people explaining the difference between those terms. I think they're explaining the emotional difference pretty well between revenge and punishment.

Yes, according to the dictionary definition of revenge there are ways you can fit it into punishment. You are correct on that. But are the negative connotations of the word revenge really applicable to "punishment?" I'm not so sure. You're free to disagree with me on that of course. I don't mean to be antagonistic toward you or anything.

Heh, that's fine. You can disagree with me! And I probably am being a little obtuse.

I think the negative connotations of the word probably do apply to "punishment" as it's being used in this thread. Typically I would think of a punishment as a response to a negative action, designed to prevent repetitions of that action. Necessarily, punishment will be worse in response to actions seen as more strongly negative, because we care more about making sure it doesn't happen again. Think of a mother punishing a child for talking back versus punishing them for doing something dangerous that could've gotten them hurt or killed.

And if used in this sense, this matches up with what I argue for: a rehabilitative justice system with a dual focus on protecting society and on preventing recidivism. And of course taking a look at how deterrence actually works rather than how we intuitively think it might work.

"Punishment" in the sense other folks are using it here seems to have carved off the actual useful aspect, the idea of making sure things don't happen again, and only keeping "worse actions bring more strongly negative results." But "do something bad and we'll do something bad to you," purely as action/reaction with no examination of future results, is quite similar to revenge! We're bothered by revenge because it's simple retribution without regard for outcomes. (And yes, you guys are right, also because it's motivated by emotion and not by a desire for justice. But that's kind of my argument: when we argue for punishment without thinking about actual results or what justice would really entail, we are really just thinking emotionally, similar to the thinking of a person out for revenge.)

 

[RangerX]

Yep I'm completely against in every circumstance. Its pretty simple for me. I believe it is morally wrong to execute people. It has a corrupting influence on society and is bloodthirsty.

The fact innocent people have been executed is reason enough to abolish it but if it should be common fucking sense that if we want to live in a society governed by solidarity, community and concern for others then we should'nt be killing people.

Desmond Tutu said it best "Taking a life when one has been taken is'nt justice its revenge"

 

[Sorian]

Depending on who you ask, losing those years is more cruel and unusual than death. It's not just about life to some, it's about quality of life.

Yeah, there is this too. Some of my older family members have told me on multiple occasions that they would have rather lived 30-40 years stress and debt free than having the long life they've had instead. It's a hard thing to gauge because life opinions like that can change over time and hindsight is 20/20 but it is a consideration.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

I can't trust the justice system to do it in its current form, but I am fine with killing certain criminals, to destroy them and erase them.

Those who simply throw it off as having "bloodlust", it's ridiculous. I am not after their blood or any sense of satisfaction of the kill or violence (which is only experienced by a person with bloodlust). Still, cant trust a judge and jury to make this decision due to the fact that they fuck up plenty and having more Cameron Willingham cases would be absolutely devestating.

A broken system can't be trusted to make such a decision.

 

[Monocle]

Heh, that's fine. You can disagree with me! And I probably am being a little obtuse.

I think the negative connotations of the word probably do apply to "punishment" as it's being used in this thread. Typically I would think of a punishment as a response to a negative action, designed to prevent repetitions of that action. Necessarily, punishment will be worse in response to actions seen as more strongly negative, because we care more about making sure it doesn't happen again. Think of a mother punishing a child for talking back versus punishing them for doing something dangerous that could've gotten them hurt or killed.

And if used in this sense, this matches up with what I argue for: a rehabilitative justice system with a dual focus on protecting society and on preventing recidivism. And of course taking a look at how deterrence actually works rather than how we intuitively think it might work.

"Punishment" in the sense other folks are using it here seems to have carved off the actual useful aspect, the idea of making sure things don't happen again, and only keeping "worse actions bring more strongly negative results." But "do something bad and we'll do something bad to you," purely as action/reaction with no examination of future results, is quite similar to revenge! We're bothered by revenge because it's simple retribution without regard for outcomes. (And yes, you guys are right, also because it's motivated by emotion and not by a desire for justice. But that's kind of my argument: when we argue for punishment without thinking about actual results or what justice would really entail, we are really just thinking emotionally, similar to the thinking of a person out for revenge.)

Good post.

 

[SamVimes]

Depending on who you ask, losing those years is more cruel and unusual than death. It's not just about life to some, it's about quality of life.

Quality of life 15 years on death row before biting it doesn't seem that great honestly.

 

[OldKentuckyShark]

So... revenge.

No, not revenge. Revenge and punishment are two different things.

No shit. I would probably want to kill them myself. That doesn't mean it would be the right decision for the state to capture the guy, tie him up, and hand me a gun.

My point is that it's easy to make a judgement call on something when you've never experienced it, and when you have, your perspective on the matter may very well change.

It's possible to undo a life sentence.

Point taken.

 

[entremet]

I am absolutely for the death penalty but at the same time I am against the costly appeals system in place.

Death penalty should be handed out on every state as a means to quickly remove violent felons from the penal system thus saving tax payer money.

The means of execution should be cost effective also gunshot to the head works.

I'm definitely not against the appeals system.

You must remember than most defendants have barely any decent legal representation as is--a guarantee in the US Constitution. You're going to get an overworked public defender who gives fuck all about defending you.

The State has massive resources in criminal cases where the defendant has no adequate legal services. That's a huge advantage to the State and not keeping with providing decent representation to defendants.

Many have and will continue to be send for jail innocently due to corruption, lying cops, vendettas, you need a balance and the appeals process provides.

 

[HUELEN10]

Quality of life 15 years on death row before biting it doesn't seem that great honestly.

Agreed. Personally, I think death row is cruel and unusual assuming I understand it correctly; people are gonna receive the death penalty, yet are still being teased, and granted, and weighing that above their heads for so long? That's bullshit and cruel. It seems very inhumane, even for the most inhumane of crimes.


That's why I find death to be more humane than a life sentence in solitary, which has happened. That shit will break your mind, it's like being in a prison, in a prison. IN a prison. How is that not revenge?

 

[The Adder]

Black people are found guilty of crimes way out of proportion to the population, obviously this would translate to them getting the death penalty out of proportion too.

No, there is a point you are missing here. After being found guilty, blacks receive harsher sentences than whites who have been found guilty of the same crime. The number convicted is irrelevant to the disproportionality of sentencing.

 

[zeroroute]

Against, unless it's a terrorist. If the person isn't innocent, I feel all the regret they'll build up behind bars is a more suitable punishment than death.

 

[mullet2000]

Heh, that's fine. You can disagree with me! And I probably am being a little obtuse.

I think the negative connotations of the word probably do apply to "punishment" as it's being used in this thread. Typically I would think of a punishment as a response to a negative action, designed to prevent repetitions of that action. Necessarily, punishment will be worse in response to actions seen as more strongly negative, because we care more about making sure it doesn't happen again. Think of a mother punishing a child for talking back versus punishing them for doing something dangerous that could've gotten them hurt or killed.

And if used in this sense, this matches up with what I argue for: a rehabilitative justice system with a dual focus on protecting society and on preventing recidivism. And of course taking a look at how deterrence actually works rather than how we intuitively think it might work.

"Punishment" in the sense other folks are using it here seems to have carved off the actual useful aspect, the idea of making sure things don't happen again, and only keeping "worse actions bring more strongly negative results." But "do something bad and we'll do something bad to you," purely as action/reaction with no examination of future results, is quite similar to revenge! We're bothered by revenge because it's simple retribution without regard for outcomes. (And yes, you guys are right, also because it's motivated by emotion and not by a desire for justice. But that's kind of my argument: when we argue for punishment without thinking about actual results or what justice would really entail, we are really just thinking emotionally, similar to the thinking of a person out for revenge.)

Ok, I see what you were going for much better now.

I can't say I disagree with most of what you said. "Revenge" has just taken on a rather weighted connotation in the English language much like....oh I don't know "ignorant" has come to imply someone is stupid rather than just lacking knowledge for a lot of people. So yeah, that's why I was hung up the way those terms are used.

 

[rudieboy77]

I keep thinking the same two things about this after reading the replies. What positive does this contribute to the victims family? And, After the State has taken a potential threat off the streets. What positive does this end contribute to society/the State?

 

[Sorian]

No, there is a point you are missing here. After being found guilty, blacks receive harsher sentences than whites who have been found guilty of the same crime. The number convicted is irrelevant to the disproportionality of sentencing.

I believe the stat is that jurors recommend a harsher penalty (while prosecutors seek out the opposite) which then falls to the judge for that decision. Regardless, we can't say that the number convicted is irrelevant. It is a rollover, the more that get to the sentencing stage, the more that can be sentenced to death. The disproportionality doesn't just reset when you enter the sentencing stage.

 

[BlackJace]

Against. It's hypocritical and just serves to appease desires for revenge. Plus, I just don't feel anyone is important enough to deem another person unworthy of their own life.

I'd rather they go through hell for the rest of their lives; rotting away in their cells where they can reflect on just how much of an awful person they are. Death just seems like it would free them of living with the consequences of their actions.