Capital Punishment Debate

djpbarry

Do people believe that there are any cases when capital punishment is justified? If so, under what circumstances?

My own opinion is that capital punishment can never be justified and has no place in any civilised society. My main reasons for this stance are the violation of human rights incurred in the application of capital punishment and the fact that any justice system is fallible - there are numerous documented cases of wrongful convictions and executions of innocent people.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if wrongful conviction can be completely or almost 99% completely ruled out then I would support it only for serial offenders. People who, if released would almost certainly offend violently again, murders, rapists, child abusers. If there is no hope for rehabilitation, it's too much of a cost to the state to keep them locked up indefinitely. The money should be better spent on people who can be treated.

SubjectSean

Mordeth wrote: »

if wrongful conviction can be completely or almost 99% completely ruled out then I would support it

So what you're saying is that you want to execute slightly more than 1% of all the totally innocent people Killing people for killing people is retarded.

djpbarry

Mordeth wrote: »

if wrongful conviction can be completely or almost 99% completely ruled out then I would support it only for serial offenders.

So you're saying it's ok to execute innocent people or lesser offenders?

Mordeth wrote: »

If there is no hope for rehabilitation, it's too much of a cost to the state to keep them locked up indefinitely. The money should be better spent on people who can be treated.

There is little evidence that capital punishment is less costly than life imprisonment. From a study by Martin Kasten:

The total costs of a capital case, beginning with the investigation costs and ending with the execution costs, are estimated to range in the millions of dollars. Studies conducted in Florida, North Carolina, and Texas estimate capital cases cost an average of $3.36 million, $2.16 million, and $2.3 million, respectively. The highest estimates are in California where a single capital case is estimated to cost between $4.35 and $5.44 million. Estimated costs to the states on a yearly basis are astounding. A California study estimated that the state spends an additional $90 million per year because of its imposition of the death penalty. New Jersey's death penalty annually costs that state an additional $22.8 million dollars over the estimated costs of a life imprisonment system. A 1987 study found that the death penalty process would cost Kansas an extra $14,306,374 annually. In 1989, the New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that New York's adoption of the death penalty would cost the state approximately $141 million dollars per year.

Sleepy

Mordeth wrote: »

if wrongful conviction can be completely or almost 99% completely ruled out then I would support it only for serial offenders. People who, if released would almost certainly offend violently again, murders, rapists, child abusers. If there is no hope for rehabilitation, it's too much of a cost to the state to keep them locked up indefinitely. The money should be better spent on people who can be treated.

Studies in the US have proven that's it's more expensive to use capital punishment than simply to lock someone up and throw away the key due to the appeals process and media circus that surround the execution. It's a combination of this fact and the likelihood of an inept justice system killing an innocent person that keeps me from advocating it passionately.

I have no ethical problem with capital punishment whatsoever.

If someone is a consistent drain on a society through their actions they give up their rights in my opinion. While many studies exist to prove it's not a deterrent, I'm of the opinion that this is largely down to the 'it won't happen to me' factor that exists with anything that's a rare occurence. If a quick, economically viable process existed to exterminate human vermin, I believe this factor would be done away with as people got used to the idea that if you consistently violate society's laws, society has no use for you.

djpbarry

Sleepy wrote: »

If a quick, economically viable process existed to exterminate human vermin, I believe this factor would be done away with as people got used to the idea that if you consistently violate society's laws, society has no use for you.

But where do you draw the line? I'm going to assume that you believe that a serial killer should be executed? What about an individual who is convicted of several counts of manslaughter?

Sleepy

Manslaughter is a crime that's always interested me because it's always seemed to me that it's a law against accidents.

That said, if an individual has been found guilty of several counts of manslaughter where the victim was beaten to death or similar (i.e. where the perpetrator intended to harm the victim but the court accepts that he/she hadn't "meant" to kill the victim), yes I'd include it.

You could include most of the serial offending scumbags currently clogging up our prisons and corrupt politicians amongst those I consider of sufficient detraction to society that we'd be better off if a bullet found it's way into their brains.

Like I said, I don't advocate the death penalty due to the practical problems it faces. I just have no problem with it in theory.

LadyJ

Death penalty is just a terrible idea under any circumstances imo. I always take this stance in this debate. More time and money should be spent on studying, understanding and rehabilitating criminals instead of trying to wipe them all out, which will never happen anyway.

djpbarry

Sleepy wrote: »

... where the perpetrator intended to harm the victim but the court accepts that he/she hadn't "meant" to kill the victim ...

And therein lies the rub. Proving whether or not someone intended to do something is far more difficult than proving what they actually did.

Sleepy wrote: »

You could include most of the serial offending scumbags currently clogging up our prisons and corrupt politicians amongst those I consider of sufficient detraction to society that we'd be better off if a bullet found it's way into their brains.

So, presumably you're a big fan of the current regime in China?

Sleepy

djpbarry wrote: »

And therein lies the rub. Proving whether or not someone intended to do something is far more difficult than proving what they actually did.

Well, if I hit someone with a tire brace, it's pretty clear that my intentions are to do serious damage. If my car hits and kills a child who's chased a football into the road, it's fairly safe to assume I had no intentions of hurting that child. One's actions speak pretty loudly as to one's intentions.

So, presumably you're a big fan of the current regime in China?

Yes. Of course I am. Because someone can't disagree with you on the morality of the death penalty without being in favour of a semi-despotic, pseudo-communist regime :rolleyes:

Zulu

How about banishment from the society?
I'd personally be against capital punishment for 2 reasons - 1) mistakes and 2) I believe as a society we should strive to rehabilitate (even if we can't)

But I am sympathetic to the idea of not allowing repeat offenders be part of our society. How would you feel about banishing them to an outlaw society in the arse end of Siberia or some such (i was thinking Antarctica, but let's leave it pristine)? ...and let them do what they want?

djpbarry

Sleepy wrote: »

Well, if I hit someone with a tire brace, it's pretty clear that my intentions are to do serious damage. If my car hits and kills a child who's chased a football into the road, it's fairly safe to assume I had no intentions of hurting that child.

Those are two reasonably clear-cut examples. But consider the example of an over-worked doctor mistakenly administering a morphine overdose to a patient. This could constitute manslaughter on the grounds of negligence.

But, negligence consists of conduct by an individual which is not reasonable — that is, the individual did not act with the care and caution of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. This "reasonable person" is an abstraction, reflecting the standard of conduct which society wishes to impose. So, the verdict may well rest on the attributes of an abstraction.

Sleepy wrote: »

Yes. Of course I am. Because someone can't disagree with you on the morality of the death penalty without being in favour of a semi-despotic, pseudo-communist regime :rolleyes:

You said that we would be better off if corrupt politicians were executed. This is not conduct befitting of a civilised society in my opinion. It is, however, a feature of life in China.

Zulu wrote: »

How would you feel about banishing them to an outlaw society in the arse end of Siberia or some such (i was thinking Antarctica, but let's leave it pristine)? ...and let them do what they want?

And in the not too unlikely event that they should make their way back into civilised society? What then?

bugler

I'm with Sleepy, in that I have no moral objection to killing criminals where their crimes are particularly heinous. Why? Because I don't believe killing is necessarily wrong, and wrongdoing merits punishment. So what if the death penalty isn't a deterrent? The sole goal of the criminal justice system isn't to rehabilitate.

I think it's important a legal system can level the playing field in terms of defence (in a contest for your life I don't think it's right that wealthy people can essentially improve their chances of survival whereas poor people can't). Which is why the U.S. system is repugnant to me, among other reasons. Many defendants get a court appointed lawyer who simply isn't that bothered.

Zulu

djpbarry wrote: »

And in the not too unlikely event that they should make their way back into civilised society? What then?

well that was why I was thinking Antarctica - not very easy to escape from there, but ultimately, any prison can be escaped from (ie: the current solution), so it doesn't really change things.
I take it you're against this idea then?

Zulu

bugler wrote: »

So what if the death penalty isn't a deterrent? The sole goal of the criminal justice system isn't to rehabilitate.

Well thats another issue. Clearly the death penalty ISN'T a deterrent - as crime continues inside countries where it exists.

I think it's important a legal system can level the playing field in terms of defence (in a contest for your life I don't think it's right that wealthy people can essentially improve their chances of survival whereas poor people can't). Which is why the U.S. system is repugnant to me, among other reasons. Many defendants get a court appointed lawyer who simply isn't that bothered.

..and thats a produce of a capitalist society. The legal eagles who are better will be paid more.

djpbarry

Zulu wrote: »

well that was why I was thinking Antarctica - not very easy to escape from there, but ultimately, any prison can be escaped from (ie: the current solution), so it doesn't really change things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prison breaks are not a common occurrence, in Ireland at least. The only two I can think of (Maze and Mountjoy) were the work of the IRA.

Zulu wrote: »

I take it you're against this idea then?

I do not think it is practical. You are essentially just shifting the problem elsewhere; brushing it under the rug in a sense. It is likely that these criminals will become someone else's problem.

Zulu

djpbarry wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prison breaks are not a common occurrence

Then what grounds do you have to suggest that they would they be more common is this new theoretic prison?

You are essentially just shifting the problem elsewhere; brushing it under the rug in a sense.

Well you're attempting to rehabilitate first, and then where it's not successful, banishing the person from the society they refuse to live in.

Muff_Daddy

Absolutly 100% support the death penalty, but only, and I stress ONLY for the worst criminals - i.e. cold blooded murderers who are an inherent danger to the lives of others. Basically, I am of the belief that if you deliberately take an innocent life, you forfeit your own entitlement to life. I believe punishment is the paramount requirement in any sentence, ranking higher than rehabilition, cost to the tax payer or even deterrence (though I believe the DP is a deterrence anyway) and I believe the only mode of punishment proportionate to murder is the death penalty.

The taking of the life of a killer is not equal to the same killer taking the life of an innocent human being, and the only way you could think that it is, is if you have a degree of sympathy with the killer, which is why I don't agree with the whole 'two wrongs don't make a right' arguement. The execution of a killer is not a "wrong" in my view.

Of course, I would be appaled if an innocent person was sentnced to death, and with the competetive nature of our legal system, I would admit to being a bit uneasy at having a capital pumishment act introduced with the legal executives we have. However, if someone is proved o be guilty of murder, beyond any doubt at all, I would say give them the chair.

You have to remember, if a murderer is sentenced to death humainly.....it's still probably a fairer deal then what their victim got.

djpbarry

Zulu wrote: »

Then what grounds do you have to suggest that they would they be more common is this new theoretic prison?

They would be if the region in question (say, Siberia) is not policed.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

Absolutly 100% support the death penalty, but only, and I stress ONLY for the worst criminals - i.e. cold blooded murderers who are an inherent danger to the lives of others.

So how do you decide who should die and who should live?

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

I believe the DP is a deterrence anyway

No, it is not:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

The taking of the life of a killer is not equal to the same killer taking the life of an innocent human being, and the only way you could think that it is, is if you have a degree of sympathy with the killer, which is why I don't agree with the whole 'two wrongs don't make a right' arguement.

That is your opinion, but everyone's right to life is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Ireland, along with all other UN nations of the general assembly, has adopted.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

However, if someone is proved o be guilty of murder, beyond any doubt at all, I would say give them the chair.

Proving anything beyond all doubt is impossible to achieve.

Sleepy

I was discussing this with a friend last night and think I framed my views on this rather more succinctly than I have here:

Rights are not entitlements, they are a collection of liberties which the members of a society have chosen to afford one another. If one's right interferes with the rights of the rest of society, one forfeit's that right.

We see this on a daily basis: criminals forfeiting their right to liberty when society deems fit to incarcerate them, people forfeiting their right to practice their religion when refusing blood transfusions for their children, members of the IRA forfeited their right to freedom of association etc.

Unless one puts a sacred value on life, there's no reason why the right to life is any different to one's other rights. And as there's no rational reason to value life as sacred, there's no case to be argued.

Zulu

djpbarry wrote: »

They would be if the region in question (say, Siberia) is not policed.

I'm very sorry; I made an assumption. I assumed readers of this thread wouldn't require me to spell out every detail of my proposed hypothetical idea.
Choose a very remote region and tag the poisoners. ...or, forget about it. It's just an idea :rolleyes:

stakey

I support the death penalty for the gravest crimes against humanity, as such this would apply to:

- perpetrators of genocide
- mass murderers
- serial killers
- serial sex offenders (who repeatedly offend after attempts to rehabilitate fail)

Of course in these cases i'd expect the evidence to be 100%.

Out of interest, those who are against the death penalty entirely, how do you rehabilitate organisers of genocide say in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Sudan, Rhwanda, Iraq etc etc...

Should the Nazi's have been rehabilitated?

For high crimes against humanity we should have the death penalty, there is no point in attempting to rehabilitate these individuals, society is better without them!

LadyJ

stakey wrote: »

For high crimes against humanity we should have the death penalty, there is no point in attempting to rehabilitate these individuals, society is better without them!

Life sentence. No parole. That removes them from society forever without killing them.

stakey

I think you'll find a bullet is alot cheaper than incarcerating someone for the rest of their natural lives...

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

Out of interest, those who are against the death penalty entirely, how do you rehabilitate organisers of genocide say in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Sudan, Rhwanda, Iraq etc etc...

Interesting. Perhaps forcing them to work out their existence serving those they attempted to wipe out? ...or in the aid organisations set up to relieve those persecuted.

It reminds me of the Band of Brother episode where they make the villagers clean up all the corpses in the death camp beside the village. One of the solders searches the camp to find the commandants wife (who had shamed him earlier for breaking into her house). He finds her in a pit of bodies struggleing to help in the clean up effort. It struck me at the time.

stakey

I don't believe the majority of victims in Sebrenica, Auschwitz and Rhwanda would be happy to have those who perpetrated the destruction of their communites/families/societies working to aid them as punishment. I think you'll find the majority will want them as far removed from them as possible and i'd imagine a good number would demand an eye for an eye.

LadyJ

stakey wrote: »

I think you'll find a bullet is alot cheaper than incarcerating someone for the rest of their natural lives...

Perhaps but I don't agree with that idea so I would be more in favour of the money going towards incarcerating them.

Zulu

I believe a number of them would prefer that those responsible wheren't swiftly executed, and had to pay in torment for their crimes.
I also believe that a number of them would seek for the people to acknowledge whole heartly what they did was wrong, to understand the pain they caused.
And I believe that the death penality would be an easy way out for other; that they'd feel cheated.

bonkey

stakey wrote: »

Of course in these cases i'd expect the evidence to be 100%.

And where do you expect the evidence to be for a normal conviction?

How do you distinguish between "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "100%". Can you give an example of something that would qualify for "guilty", but where the certainty wasn't enough to meet your 100%?

If you can't, then what you're effectively saying is that the standard you'd set is that a verdict of guilty is good enough
If you can define the difference, then you're saying that there's a window where you're happy to have innocent people jailed for, as long as they're not executed.

purple'n'gold

When capital punishment was practised in these islands, convicted murderers were hanged within 2-3 months of conviction, trial and appeal. See here for an example.
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/ruth.html
This means that a convicted person had to endure a rollercoaster of shock, hope, resignation and terror for about 3 months before it was all over. Some life without the possibility of parole prisoners in the USA have to endure being held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day for the rest of their lives with no contact with other people except minimum contact with their guards. It’s a horrifying thought, and I think a lot of people would opt for the quick way out.
http://www.tommysilverstein.com/index.html

djpbarry

Sleepy wrote: »

Rights are not entitlements, they are a collection of liberties which the members of a society have chosen to afford one another.

It's not that simple - there have been and still are cases where the liberties afforded to a minority are controlled by the majority.

Sleepy wrote: »

And as there's no rational reason to value life as sacred, there's no case to be argued.

Then why are we having this debate?

Zulu wrote: »

Choose a very remote region and tag the poisoners.

Look, I just don't think it's going to work any better than a conventional prison.

stakey wrote: »

I think you'll find a bullet is alot cheaper than incarcerating someone for the rest of their natural lives...

There is the small issue of a trial to get through...

Sleepy

djpbarry wrote: »

It's not that simple - there have been and still are cases where the liberties afforded to a minority are controlled by the majority.

I'm not sure what your point is here?

Then why are we having this debate?

Because most people don't seem to use logic or reasoning and, as such, have opinions based on what they'd like to be true.

djpbarry

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is here?

Well, you said that basically, a society determines what rights are afforded its citizens. What I am saying is that, if you allow individual societies to determine the rights of its own citizens, you can end up with societies like Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, the Southern US prior to the Civil Rights Movement and present-day Saudi Arabia. This is precisely why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was put in place, to protect all individuals regardless of the society they find themselves in.

Sleepy wrote: »

Because most people don't seem to use logic or reasoning and, as such, have opinions based on what they'd like to be true.

I am being logical when I say that:

• Utilising capital punishment in the sentencing of criminals will likely result in innocent people (or lesser criminals) being put to death.
• There is little evidence, if any, that the death penalty deters criminals.
• There is little evidence that sentencing criminals to death is cost-effective.

bonkey

Sleepy wrote: »

Studies in the US have proven that's it's more expensive to use capital punishment than simply to lock someone up and throw away the key due to the appeals process and media circus that surround the execution.

Whereas studies in China would probably show the opposite.

Given that you've been complaining about people not using logic, perhaps you should consider the wisdom of choosing one implementation of a principle as "proof" that the principle is fundamentally flawed with regards to cost.

If someone is a consistent drain on a society through their actions they give up their rights in my opinion.

So the long-term unemployed should have no rights?

Muff_Daddy

djpbarry wrote: »

So how do you decide who should die and who should live?

Simple, If a murderer takes the life of an innocent person said murderer waivers his own right to life. Why should the murderer be allowed to enjoy the right to life when he/she had no regard for the concept when comitting their crime? I won't say murderers 'are't human', but they are human beings who's human rights are restricted.

I would ask you the question: Why shouldn't a state be allowed to decide who should live and who should die, providing that it is not a despoitc state?

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it is not:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

Three things:

Firstly, did you know that executions were halted in the states in the late 60's and resumed in the mid 80's? The murder rate was never higher in the US than during the years of the cessation of the death penalty.

Secondly, look at Ireland. The murder rate is increasing at an alarming rate, you only have to watch the news to see this. The whole 'criminals feeling invincible' attitude is getting more and more prominant. It's my belief that if we had capital punishment, gangsters would at least think twice before committing murder. Another two examples of the evidence supporting the theory that the death penalty is a deterrence:

England & Wales:



Australlia: (red line = year the death penalty was stopped)



Thirdly, even if the death penalty didn't deter, I would still support it, because as I said before, I rank an appropriate punishment as the be all and end all of any sentence. The fact that the death penalty deters is the cherry on the icing on the cake.

djpbarry54525990 wrote:

That is your opinion, but everyone's right to life is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Ireland, along with all other UN nations of the general assembly, has adopted.

I've already stated that the right to life should be subject to preserving the life of others. It seems grossly unfair to me that a murderer should be allowed to rely on the Declaration of Human Rights.

djpbarry54525990 wrote:

Proving anything beyond all doubt is impossible to achieve.

It's extremely rare, I'll give you that, but it's not impossible. A person could be caught in the act of murder, may have been seen on camera or other evidence that unquestionably places them in the secne of a murder. It's an unfortunate fact that all murders can't be proven, but for those that are, the only fair punishment that can be dished out is capital punishment.

Muff_Daddy

LadyJ wrote: »

Life sentence. No parole. That removes them from society forever without killing them.

Does it remove them from prision officers, visitors or doctors who have to treat them?

LadyJ

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

Does it remove them from prision officers, visitors or doctors who have to treat them?

No but there should obviously be precautions taken so that no harm can come to these people.

stakey

Why not? In the case of mass murderers, serial killers, serial rapists, instigators and perpetrators of genocide, why wouldn't we want any harm to come to them? Why would we want to lock them up till the end of their years, what's the purpose?

Muff_Daddy

LadyJ wrote: »

No but there should obviously be precautions taken so that no harm can come to these people.

These are killers, possibly trained killers we are talking about. Can you guraentee that precautions will work 100% of the time? People are murdered in prisions all the time, a lot of the time, it's guards, visitors or non-violant criminals. This is never going to be stopped.

LadyJ

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

These are killers, possibly trained killers we are talking about. Can you guraentee that precautions will work 100% of the time? People are murdered in prisions all the time, a lot of the time, it's guards, visitors or non-violant criminals. This is never going to be stopped.

I realise that this is a problem but I'm saying we need to make the prisons safer for guards etc.in whatever ways we can. There doesn't seem to be enough effort put into this.

No matter how many murderers you execute there will still be more to come tbh.

LadyJ

stakey wrote: »

Why not? In the case of mass murderers, serial killers, serial rapists, instigators and perpetrators of genocide, why wouldn't we want any harm to come to them? Why would we want to lock them up till the end of their years, what's the purpose?

You misunderstood what I was referring to.

Gibbins123

how about those serial murderers rapists etc, were transferred to a much more basic prison. A more basic prison would mean slightly lower costs right?

"Mountjoy Prison provides courses in a wide range of subjects including literacy, maths, art, career guidance, word processing, English, computers, arts and crafts and much more."

I hope the serial murderers don't have access to this!!

I don't agree with capital punishment, but my would be that they get next to nothing. Ok maybe books. (not crime books) but very very little else. Separate them from those who have a chance at rehabilitation.

djpbarry

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

Simple, If a murderer takes the life of an innocent person said murderer waivers his own right to life.

You originally stated that you would support the death penalty but "only for the worst criminals". How do we separate the "worst" from the "not quite as bad" criminals? Do we use a penalty points system? And where do we draw the line?

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

Why shouldn't a state be allowed to decide who should live and who should die, providing that it is not a despoitc state?

Any state that "decides" who should live and who should die sounds rather despotic to me.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

Firstly, did you know that executions were halted in the states in the late 60's and resumed in the mid 80's?

No, capital punishment was suspended in the United States from 1972 through 1976.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

It's my belief that if we had capital punishment, gangsters would at least think twice before committing murder.

Why would they? The problem in this country is that these guys are escaping arrest, never mind the sentencing. If you know there's a pretty good chance you're not going to get caught for doing something, then the punishment becomes less of an issue.

As regards your graphs, I would imagine they show solved murder cases. As technology advanced towards the end of the 20th century, particularly in the area of DNA profiling, prosecution of murderers has become more successful.

In addition, long-term trends show a decrease in murder rates in Europe:
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/41/4/618

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

even if the death penalty didn't deter, I would still support it, because as I said before, I rank an appropriate punishment as the be all and end all of any sentence.

I disagree. Rehabilitation should be the priority.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

The fact that the death penalty deters is the cherry on the icing on the cake.

Your assumption that the death penalty deters murderers is by no means a fact.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

It's extremely rare, I'll give you that, but it's not impossible. A person could be caught in the act of murder, may have been seen on camera or other evidence that unquestionably places them in the secne of a murder.

It is impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt. If someone is "caught in the act", you are relying on (potentially unreliable) witness testimony. Camera footage can be tampered with - no technology is perfect.

LadyJ

djpbarry wrote: »

It is impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt. If someone is "caught in the act", you are relying on (potentially unreliable) witness testimony.

This is a good point. Eye-witness testimony is notoriously flawed.

Muff_Daddy

djpbarry wrote: »

You originally stated that you would support the death penalty but "only for the worst criminals". How do we separate the "worst" from the "not quite as bad" criminals? Do we use a penalty points system? And where do we draw the line?

As I said, the worst criminals are 'cold blooded murderers who deliberetly and intentionally end the lives of others'. It is what the courts call 'First Degree Murderers'. Those that should not subject to capital punishment are those who don't possess the requsite mens rea, i.e. people who commit manslaughter, or a non premeditated murder (a second degree murder). When I talk of people who should be executed, I speak ONLY of first degree murderers.

djpbarry wrote: »

Any state that "decides" who should live and who should die sounds rather despotic to me.

A despotic state is a state where people are sentenced to death on a completly more arbitary basis than for murder. To execute a serial killer is not the same as executing a person because of their religious beliefs. It's not that hard, for me anyway, to seperate these murderers from 'the rest of us'.

djpbarry wrote: »

No, capital punishment was suspended in the United States from 1972 through 1976.

You are right, executions were suspended in the whole of the US from 1972 and 1976, but were suspended in Texas from 1964 to 1982, as a result of a challenge to the consitiutionality of the electric chair as a means of execution. I'm not aware of the murder rates in Texas between those years, but if the murder rate in Texas is consistant with the murder rate in the US in the 1970's, then one would have to presume that the murder rate increased.

djpbarry wrote: »

Why would they? The problem in this country is that these guys are escaping arrest, never mind the sentencing. If you know there's a pretty good chance you're not going to get caught for doing something, then the punishment becomes less of an issue.

Can't really argue with you there.....if a person is going to kill on the hope he never gets caught, no deterrant will stop him. But if the DP stops say 5 more people from murdering, than it is proving some deterrance.

djpbarry wrote: »

Your assumption that the death penalty deters murderers is by no means a fact.

Fair point, but there is no conclusive proof either way. It's a matter of opinion.

djpbarry wrote: »

It is impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt. If someone is "caught in the act", you are relying on (potentially unreliable) witness testimony. Camera footage can be tampered with - no technology is perfect.

There can be evidence pieced together such as 'being caught in the act' and caught on camera in conjunction with DNA evidence, the whereabouts of a suspect and testamonies which prove, if not guilt beyond all doubt, exclude anybody else from involvement of a murder but for the actual murderer and in cases like this, I believe the death penalty can be utilized.

Dave!

No, I don't support the death penalty because (a) it is not a deterrent, and (b) the legal system is fallable.

If it's not a deterrent, then the only reasons to use it is (a) to 'get rid' of unsavoury characters, or (b) to save money. It does not save money (as has been shown), and I don't think a civilised society should destroy people it does not deem desirable.

djpbarry

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

Those that should not subject to capital punishment are those who don't possess the requsite mens rea

Mens rea is a highly subjective concept. It is not always clear what the intentions of the accused were.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

You are right, executions were suspended in the whole of the US from 1972 and 1976, but were suspended in Texas from 1964 to 1982, as a result of a challenge to the consitiutionality of the electric chair as a means of execution. I'm not aware of the murder rates in Texas between those years, but if the murder rate in Texas is consistant with the murder rate in the US in the 1970's, then one would have to presume that the murder rate increased.

So, you are assuming that:

1. Because the murder rate increased in the US between 1964 and 1982, that the murder rate in Texas also increased during that period.
2. You are also implying that the increase in the Texas murder rate is related to the moratorium on executions in Texas during this period.

These two assumptions contradict each other if you are assuming that capital punishment deters murderers. If capital punishment is an effective deterrent, then why did the national murder rate increase during this period? Or are you assuming that the murder rate in Texas was so high during this period that it drove up the national rate?

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

But if the DP stops say 5 more people from murdering, than it is proving some deterrance.

That's a big if.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

there is no conclusive proof either way. It's a matter of opinion.

Exactly. Do you think we should start executing people because someone is of the opinion that it's the right thing to do?

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

There can be evidence pieced together such as 'being caught in the act' and caught on camera in conjunction with DNA evidence, the whereabouts of a suspect and testamonies which prove, if not guilt beyond all doubt, exclude anybody else from involvement of a murder but for the actual murderer and in cases like this, I believe the death penalty can be utilized.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but it looks like you're saying that if enough evidence is compiled from a series of both reliable and unreliable sources, then, through a process of elimination, the court can be 100% sure of guilt and execute the accused. Have I got that right?

I recommend you watch the film "The Life of David Gale".

4pointplay

Am all in favour of an eye for an eye myself.

djpbarry

4pointplay wrote: »

Am all in favour of an eye for an eye myself.

Thank you for that wonderfully thought-out contribution.

4pointplay

djpbarry wrote: »

Thank you for that wonderfully thought-out contribution.

No worries laddie.:rolleyes:

Muff_Daddy

djpbarry wrote: »

Mens rea is a highly subjective concept. It is not always clear what the intentions of the accused were.

But, in cases where it is clear, the DP could be used.

djpbarry54539276 wrote:

So, you are assuming that:

1. Because the murder rate increased in the US between 1964 and 1982, that the murder rate in Texas also increased during that period.
2. You are also implying that the increase in the Texas murder rate is related to the moratorium on executions in Texas during this period.

These two assumptions contradict each other if you are assuming that capital punishment deters murderers. If capital punishment is an effective deterrent, then why did the national murder rate increase during this period? Or are you assuming that the murder rate in Texas was so high during this period that it drove up the national rate?

Essentially yes, it would have contributed to the rise, but this is entirely based on presumption, and not on fact. My point is that in the years where executions were suspended, there was a sharp increase in the number of murders. I guess you would attribute that the rise is related to new scientific evidence, used to convict murderers, and I would say this is related to the suspension of executions. It's a grey area.

djpbarry54539276 wrote:

Do you think we should start executing people because someone is of the opinion that it's the right thing to do?

Well in a perfect world, there'd obviously be no murders, but ideally, with a perfect legal system etc, I would like to see murderers punished for their crimes the way I see fit, but I know our legal system is far from perfect and my opinion is just that, an opinion. Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to force my opinion upon anyone, I'm just offering my own. It's a belief I have, and something I feel strongly about, as I can see from your posts, it's something you feel strongly about as well.

djpbarry54539276 wrote:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but it looks like you're saying that if enough evidence is compiled from a series of both reliable and unreliable sources, then, through a process of elimination, the court can be 100% sure of guilt and execute the accused. Have I got that right?

Yes, it's hard to explain, but I was basically trying to say if there is enough evidence present in a case, it is possible to prove cases beyond all doubt, albeit only a very small number of cases. I think it would be very cynical to say it is impossible to prove guilt beyond all doubt.

djpbarry54539276 wrote:

I recommend you watch the film "The Life of David Gale".

I'll make it my buisness to watch that film:).