Personally, I have never liked the deterrent argument in favor of the death penalty.  I can't speak to what goes on in the other nations that still use it but here we only impose it for crimes which are so depraved that nothing, even the death penalty would have deterred them in the first place.

Case in point is that our new governor has made it clear that he will sign the repeal bill the moment it hits his desk.  However, the bill died last week just because such a crime happened recently.

What happened was that two guys broke into a doctor's house and beat him down with a baseball bat, tied him up and forced him to watch as they raped and murdered his wife.  Then they poured gasoline on his two sleeping daughters and around the rest of the house and dropped lit matches on the girls.

Fortunately, the doctor escaped but the whole family is gone.

At this point, there is now no chance of a repeal bill coming up again for a few years.  We will likely have a different governor by that time and no telling how he will feel about the matter.

Really, if we are going to do it, then it is proper to frame it as the worst possible punishment for the worst possible crimes.

guy off or send him to Somalia to carry water to starving muslim kids.

I already addressed that.

Then there's no reason to increase the severity of the consequences of any crime that society would want to diminish. If your logic is true, we should actually lessen the severity in order to see a 'decrease' in the crime.

I've debated this to a pulp on other forums before. I've seen 'studies' that are probably similar, if not the same ones that you must be referring to. They are 'single case' studies, not true 'meta- analysis', that compare gender, age, socio economic class, education, mental health, past history, motive, method, geography, and relationship between the victim and the criminal, etc, etc.

The benefits are clear. Killers that are dead find it impossible to kill again, and don't burden the tax payer by giving him free room and board, and medical for the rest of his antisocial sub human life.

The topic of innocent people getting 'convicted', is an entirely different topic, that is conflated with the obvious benefits of permanently eliminating cold blooded murderers from society.

You could argue the same way against penicillin.

Should we reconsider the use of penicillin because the odd person dies from it?

Not in my mind.

YMMV

Been there, done that. I'll be satisfied simply with what I've said here, and will leave it at that.

No, you didn't. You asserted. You made a lame anology which makes no sense in the real world of science.

Wrong. My logic is the logic of 'what works'. My logic is, Does it really work? (No, really work, not just you 'wanting' it to work.)

Does the death penalty actually lead to a decrease in the crime rate? No. Not compared to life imprisonment. Not according to actual studies of actual real places where this has been actually studied.

Right, and this is why these debates tend to be trainwrecks, because like global warming denialism, you'll nitpick every study to death until your opponent gets sick of debating you.

Well, I've got that flipped: Burden of proof = on you.

Extraordinary claim: Killing people convicted of murder as a matter of government legal policy will actually cause more good than harm in society, over and above the obvious alternative of life imprisonment.

That's what you have to show. Because if you cannot show that to be actually true, then you are endorsing unjustified killing, which already has a name: murder.

Naked assertion. I disagree with you. They are not clear. You made the claim, now prove it.

1. How many of these 'killers' are actually innocent people wrongfully convicted? Look up the stats. It's incredibly ridiculous how many innocent people are killed in Texas. For what? Does it actually prevent crime? No. In fact, killing the wrong person and closing the case leaves an actual murderer on the loose in your town.

2. The cost of a capital punishment case costs more than keeping the prisoner in life imprisonment. The 'burden' to the taxpayer is higher with capital punishment.

No, it is not a separate topic. Because the law applies equally to all people. If Billy Bob is the worst possible criminal and it can be proven to near 100% certainty that he definitely did his nasty deeds, then yes, a death penalty law will eliminate Billy Bob. But when innocent Jim Bob is in the wrong place at the wrong time and the crooked good ol' boys of the sheriff's dept. decide he 'must' be guilty 'cuz juss lookit him!

Then the exact same law ends up killing an innocent person. And there's never any death penalty for crooked cops who send people to the chair, is there? Nope. Or lawyers or judges or juries either.

The question of capital punishment is a question of law. It's not a question of "But we should be able to kill this ONE PARTICULAR dude, cuz he's obviously the guy." The same law applies to all citizens, rightfully or wrongfully convicted.

I would actually favor it for a few crimes......if it wasn't such a ridiculously long and expensive process......and there wasn't such a danger of executing people who were innocent......and, preferably, it was also shown to actually deter crime.......

So, I don't mind killing the worst criminals. If a justice system could drastically (like, exponentially) reduce the practical problems with the death penalty, I might support it; I doubt I will ever see that happen. 

I agree. That is very close to my final point -  it endorses the idea that killing someone who offends you is ok.

Does anyone have any information on the cost of prosecution for a death penalty case, versus the cost of life imprisonment?  I know there's a lot more judicial stuff you have to do to apply the death penalty, but I'm not too familiar with it or with the costs involved.

If the cost of applying the death penalty is near the cost of life imprisonment, then I think it's a bad idea.  If we're going to save a lot of money with it, then I'm okay with it.

No, it's called premeditated murder.

I guess when all you have to do is redefine words, you can win any debate without actually doing any heavy lifting.

In that case...

No, you're wrong.

Yay, I win!

Norway, with a very low crime rate, has a normal maximum prison term of 21 years, or up to 30 in extreme cases. No 'life', let alone a death penalty.

That part of Europe has among the lowest violent crime/murder rates in the world.

Which of course makes recent events all the more shocking, but it appears to have been the work of one individual, with access to arms and explosive materials.

More food for thought.

Well, AiG, you have gone into the issue of gun availability, which is tangential to the OP.

That is a more complex issue in terms of how it correlates to level of gun-related crime, where cultural issues, attitudes, seem to be involved, as even Michael Moore conceded in his doco on Columbine, when he did a brief comparison to a community in Canada, with a similar level of gun ownership to much of the US, with a very low murder rate.

On another tangential point, I only realized yesterday that in the terms I am used to, Norway is a small community, being only about twice the population of the city I live in, Brisbane, a middle-sized State capital city here.

I suspect that contributes to community cohesiveness, which lessens the crime rate.

The complexity of predicting human reactions when many different factors are involved can lead to many counter-intuitive results, where, for example, severity of punishment doesn't necessarily have as much effect on deterring crime as would seem 'logical' that it should. At least not beyond a certain level.

I haven't redefined anything. Yay, you lose for failing to argue!

'Legal' killing does not mean justified killing, or else you can't argue against a God killing random people because he's the Law, or whatever the fuck. (I'm trying to avoid a Godwin forfeit in this debate, but it's hard... it's really hard! )

Bzzzt.

Wrong again.

Are you that desperate to grasp at those kinds of straws?

'Legal' means 'justice'. Duhh...

Obviously, execution is 'justified', by being sanctioned by the lawmakers, the jury, and the judge.

That's an obvious strawman. Ask any theist. Which theist is going to tell you that God kills people randomly? He sentences 'lawbreakers' to eternal hellfire.  

And apparently, disobeying your parents, eating shellfish, and oral sex are breaking the law...

In any event, I never argue that a god would be 'wrong' to do that, just that it's cruel and sadistic, and entirely not consistent with claims that he's 'loving'.

I don't understand the sympathy for killers who are executed, anyways.

It's funny how none of them get mauled to within an inch of their lives from poking bears with sticks. They seem pretty good at avoiding those types of death sentences...

Tell it to the judge...

No.

By definition, state executions are legal. Duhhh...

Humans are flawed, obviously.

Yes, I do.

Stop switching up your arguments. Stay on topic.

That's a strawman, as we are talking academically about the 'principle' of death sentences for killers.

You're obviously unable to logically defend your position, if you're going to strawman and appeal to emotions about 'innocent' people getting 'murdered'.

Why the double standard? What about the people who were the victims of the murder?

It's always so fucking funny how they're forgotten when the bleeding hearts are whining about 'injustice'.

People convicted of murder who are executed, have gone through 'due process', if you haven't noticed. They have the right to a lawyer. They have the right to a trial, by their peers. They plead their case. They have the right to an appeal. They can be pardoned. They can be found not guilty.

What about the victims of murder? Did they have any of those options available before they were 'sentenced' to death?

It's conflating 2 issues as 1.

Whether the justice system produces 'false positives', is NOT the debate.

It's a dishonest tactic, to appeal to emotions. I already covered that when I stated that by his argument, penicillin has killed people, and all doctors would have 'blood on their hands'.

These topics always degenerate into this bullshit, and quick.

Bottom line, if you don't want to get mauled to death by a bear, don't poke any with a stick, and chances are pretty eff'n good you won't die getting mauled by a bear.

Same with the death penalty. Don't murder anyone, and chances are you won't be executed for murder.

 I've found the death penalty debate a bit silly.  The actual killing (or not) is almost a side discussion.

For me, it all comes down to the people that MAKE these choices.  I personally wouldn't entrust elected officials with this power, or that they'd have the right person, since a lot of these actual court cases can get very political (especially around these kinds of cases.)  I simply don't have enough trust in governments to get it right. 

Eh........

Okay, so if it were up to you, redneF would now be in the jail for the rest of his life? 

Mistakes Were Made (But not by me)  particularly chapter 5.  Almost every law enforcement officer at any level believes the "perps" are guilty - before presentation of evidence, before a trial, before a confession, and even if they are exonerated through DNA testing.  They have to believe that.  Take a deep breath.

I agree with Vastet and others, yes, it is premeditated murder, legally sanctioned by our laws, but premeditated and murder just the same.  So is self defense.  So What?  Murder is murder, dead is dead.  And if the person was innocent of the crime for which they were executed and premeditatively murdered that doesn't mean they are guilty of some other crime and you can justify it.  (So maybe you specifically didn't say that Red, but others have.)

Yes, drowning a puppy and euthanizing a suffering dog are murder - and they are different.  Different in intent, different in compassion. 

You have choices, it is either semantics or it is situational ethics.  I choose situational ethics.  You seem to prefer semantics.  The animal is dead.  The person is dead.  In the cases mentioned so far, all acts were premeditated.  Sometimes compassionate, sometimes cruel, sometimes needless, sometimes required, sometimes lawful, sometimes not.

Unlike Vastet, I have no problem with premeditated murder being legal in some situations.  Self defense.  Fine.  Compassionate euthanasia, fine.  Suicide - as long as you don't endanger anyone else - fine.  State ordered executions - fine as long as we are certain sure we have the right person on the table.  And that is where I really differ with you.  Punishing innocent people is not fine.  I can live with the occasional person having to do some community server when they are actually innocent.  Won't hurt them, though it may be inconvenient.  Incarceration may not be pain free, but I think most people can live through it long enough to either serve the time or get exonerated.  But I draw the line at bodily injury unless we are 100% certain they are guilty.  And that goes for any injury short of execution/murder. 

I don't think I am a bleeding heart liberal on this issue.  I just don't trust the courts, judges, and juries to be perfectly logical and reasonable at any trial.  You don't trust the "government", how is criminal court not a part of the government?

But not necessarily just.

Game. Set. Match. Thank you for playing.

Ah, but community service isn't The End, is it? Death is.

Someone wrongfully punished with community service could (in theory, anyway) seek redress from the state.

Not so with the death penalty. Make a mistake, and there's no way to undo it. "Oops. Sorry we wrongfully ki-- Wait a sec, you're dead, so why bother apologizing? Oh well, at least we still have our cushy jobs."

Consider:

1) Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 10 years later, new evidence proves you're innocent; a corrupt police department planted evidence because they were convinced you must have been the guilty one. Released to live out the rest of your life, reunite with family, friends, etc.

2) Convicted and sentenced to death. After all the legal appeals are exhausted, it's 9 years later. Executed. 1 year later, new evidence proves you're innocent; a corrupt police department planted evidence because they were convinced you must have been the guilty one. Oh well, you lose, loser.

Look into the number of death row cases in Texas that have been later proven to have been innocents convicted by a corrupt system convinced an innocent person was guilty. Seriously, look it up. It's fucking ridiculous.

The death penalty encourages this kind of corruption, because there's no penalty to the ones doing the wrongful killing, and for whatever reasons (racial, ego, political, whatever) you want someone permanently removed from the world, all you gotta do is kill em. Legally. But unjustly.

No, the debate is about implementing (or repealing) a death penalty law. The fact that our systems are inefficient and sometimes corrupt is a given. That is the reality that we live in. We have never lived in a reality without significant inefficiency and corruption.

If you want to debate the airy fairy 'philosophy' of it, go ahead and do that, but don't talk about it as if it is something that realistically should be passed into law and implemented.

Yes, they most definitely are. Do you think torture is a justifiable punishment?

After all, if you have a super-efficient legal system, where anyone who disagrees with the Pope is hunted down, tortured, forced to confess and name accomplices (who are also 'guilty', obviously), and finally burned at the stake, then isn't that just the most hunky dory system in the world?

Let's all go back to that time! I can't wait!

It was all 'legal' after all, 'cuz the Pope wrote the laws.

And while I'm on the topic of unjust authority--you Americans--may I remind you of the American Rebellion? Seriously. Think about it.

Just cuz The Machine runs smoothly, doesn't mean that whatever it does is All Good.

Jaywalker! Off with his head! But torture him first ... his cries of anguish give me such a rush!

Community service may potentially kill innocents?! Holy shit! I had no idea! Now that you mention it, yes, I'm against community service for the exact same reason. And you should be too.

Ah, wait, I thought you meant that community service involves actually killing someone as part of the punishment. You know, like The End, no take-backs, no "Sorry, we'll make it up to you."

And don't forget torture, and rape, and any other 'punishment' you can think of. Cuz after all, it's not really about the punishment is it?

You don't have a subjective frame of reference ... if you're DEAD.

Would you want to live in medieval Japan???? Not me, thanks.

I didn't say it was rational, I just listed one of the reasons.  An emotional response as a REACTION to their ACTION would give me satisfaction.  I'm just being honest, I doubt you would feel differently if you were emotionally invested.  Revenge feels good, I'm not proud of it, but I am honest enough to recognize that I'm an imperfect human being.  

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

cl, I have seen that link before. Since I live in the great state of Connecticut, I can provide a bit of detail on why the data is spotty.

As it happens, our state budget process borders on money laundering. There is one master bank account that all money goes in, called the general fund. All expenses are paid out of that. Every allocation all the way down to the fully trivial has to be spent during the two years of the state accounting period. Unspent money has to be returned, thus creating a situation where all money will be spent just to spend money. Past that, there is a “rainy day” fund for anyone who legitimately runs out of money but the rules for that are the same as the rules for the general fund.

So the department of corrections gets a fixed sum on a use it or lose it basis. Apart from regular accounting and an annual audit from a firm not connected with the government, there are no actual questions asked beyond “did you spend all the money we gave you?”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Past that, as with my earlier point that capital punishment should not be viewed as a deterrent, I also don't much care for the idea of claiming that it might be cheaper to off people than to give them three squares for the rest of their lives.

If it were even possible to come up with numbers, then why not just figure out the cost of capital punishment against the number of years of imprisonment is worth and off anyone who could get a longer sentence? Really, that would be cheaper.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If one really wants to take a look at costs for this, how can it ever be viewed as reasonable that a death sentence not cost a great deal more than, say, 20 years in jail? Anyone who is willing to use the death penalty should be willing to shoulder a huge financial burden for getting the job done.

The first trial should be done with greater preparation and handled more carefully that a trial for more mundane crimes like bank robbery. Then the sentencing trial should be at least as expensive. Then there are the endless appeals, which should also cost a great deal.

In fact, the case is that everything in the last paragraph is pretty much what happens.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK, what part of “A government of, by and for the people” leads you to think that the jury is not part of the government?

You might want to read up on the matter of jury nullification.

Yes, Juries can nullify law on a case-by-case basis; yes, there is a token phrase dedicated to "the people" from the Gettysburg Address. None of which inherently includes a jury as a part of formal government, unless you mean self-government. edit; By mentioning "A government of, by and for the people", you might as well have said that illegal aliens are somehow a part of government.

Have you been forgetting to take your lithium again, and would you like a cookie?