The Death Penalty

[ST88]

On the TV show, "Homicide", one of the characters describes the Death Penalty this way: "It's wrong... and necessary." On TV, it's often used as leverage to get suspects to confess -- I don't know if it works this way in real life. But the idea is that the threat of death as a punishment for violent crime is part of its effectiveness.

We often hear the religious among us talk about the sanctity of life when it comes to topics like abortion and assisted suicide, and though many religions have come out against the Death Penalty, only one actually puts a fair amount of resources towards opposing it (Quakers, I believe).

Most of the world's nations have banned the death penalty, and yet the U.S. is made up of people who arrived from most of the world's nations. We have a culture of death in this country -- idealizing death as the ultimate punishment, in some ways the ultimate exile from society. In this way, the U.S. is less pragmatic than other nations, and more reliant on an image of the ideal society. The ideal society myth is part of the reason why people emigrate here.

The Death Penalty strikes me as pie-in-the-sky reasoning about what death should mean to people and how the threat of it affects their behavior. In pop-sociology, what it is intended to do is deter people from committing violent crimes for fear of having the government put them to death. This is ludicrous, of course, but the ideal is still around.

What is the purpose of Capital Punishment, and is it a fair way to deal with the worst violent criminals in society? What does religion have to say about the death penalty, and how has it informed U.S. opinion?

[youngborean]

For me personally, guilt is not a factor, I do not trust institutions of men enough to choose to allow them the literal power of life and death over its subjects. Hell, I don't even trust them enough to levy taxes fairly, much less life/death.

How would punishment for crime look then? I agree with the idea that there is a conflict of interest in having one institution make the law and carry out the punishment. That is why I like the idea that the community as a whole carries out the punishment. That way the blood is on everyones hands and there has to be consensus that it was the right thing to do. This is the biblical model.

[Vladd44]

That is why I like the idea that the community as a whole carries out the punishment. That way the blood is on everyones hands and there has to be consensus that it was the right thing to do.

heh. Well im not supporter of stonings either.

Power will be abused by a few against many in a centralized power society.

In less centralized structures, power can still be abused, but it will be by a greater number of people against many. But with power less centralized it would be smaller abuses. The more power is distributed, the less effective one person will be at taking advantage of it.

[youngborean]

I'm not really a supporter of stonings either. I probably think I wouldn't be game to do one. But collective punishment by individuals within a community seems to be the most fair, because there is some sort of consensus at the time. It is really a difficult subject in reality. Theoretically it is easy to have an opinion on the matter hard, but very few people that are either for or against the death penalty have actually had a loved one murdered.

[Dilettante]

Vladd44 wrote:

I would be remiss to not clarify what I mean my just/unjust. I cannot accept an institutionalized definition for this term. It is strictly a term I was using in an individual sense. I am the one defining certain laws as unjust and without principle by MY set of views and principles, not some archaic code set by people who don't represent my interests.

Sounds like, for you, the concept of justice can never be objective, but depends on the individual. Is that correct? Does that mean you're a relativist?

Rule of law and legal guarantees are what the govt says they are today, nothing more.

But said government was (hopefully) voted into office. It sounds like you feel there is no need for a justice system, but I may have misinterpreted you again. How would you enforce the law without a State?

Bottom line is, I cannot trust the institution that defines due process or rule of law to be the ones to implement the day to day operation of those procedures. For me that is a conflict of interest.

Shouldn't the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial) take care of that? Unless the same people control all branches of government I don't see that there's much of a problem there.

[Vladd44]

Sounds like, for you, the concept of justice can never be objective, but depends on the individual. Is that correct? Does that mean you're a relativist?

I fail to see how people can be objective in anything. To be objective would require an objective perspective, and that is absurd to even consider. It is that lack of ability to be objective that ultimately causes me to consider life/death issues very dangerous ground for a government to be deciding.

But said government was (hopefully) voted into office.

There is no guarantee that a "duly elected" government will represent the needs of the people. Sounds nice in theory, but look around.

It sounds like you feel there is no need for a justice system, but I may have misinterpreted you again. How would you enforce the law without a State?

I am a realist, there must be some sort of governmental structure.But I don't have to like, or trust it. I support a much weaker federal union. Devolve as much power as you can down the chain. The more diffused it is, the harder it is for a single person (or small group) to wield it abusively.

[Gollum]

I am a realist, there must be some sort of governmental structure.But I don't have to like, or trust it. I support a much weaker federal union. Devolve as much power as you can down the chain. The more diffused it is, the harder it is for a single person (or small group) to wield it abusively.

I agree but (and you knew that was coming didn't you?) there are times when salvation comes only with the exercise of centralized power. Consider an example:

Germany would have (should have?) won WW2 because they pursued their goals from a central position that wielded extremely effective absolute power. The only reason that they didn't was that the holder of that power was a psychopath and a lousy military tactician. Their opponents in contrast had distributed their power base and as a result, did everything by committee ... result, central power wins! Only when a Roosevelt, a Stalin and a Churchill take charge; quell the dissenters in their own ranks and get on with the job, does the balance tip and most of Europe doesn't speak German.

Sure ... routine absolute power, or sweeping powers even if not "absolute", in a government is not a good thing. On my off-days I'm convinced that any power beyond the responsibility to do the housekeeping stuff is not a good thing. Unfortunately I do recognize that there are those times when taking action and to h*** with contrary opinions, is necessary to the survival of a nation.

There is no guarantee that a "duly elected" government will represent the needs of the people. Sounds nice in theory, but look around.

Gotta second that. The polls (what did we ever do without them!) indicate that many politicians get elected based on their clothing or hair style and not their command of, or proposed solutions to, the issues. It seems to me that "duly elected" is a "warm fuzzy" that makes us feel like we have some control over government when in fact we are like the prisoner in the torture chamber being allowed to select the club used to beat him. OK. I admit. That's a bit extreme but look at it this way. A typical election campaign lasts a couple of months and the winner is in office for four years. How likely is it that the issues that the politician will have to decide during that four years will even exist (let alone be resolved in the minds of the electorate) during the campaign? Probably zero. Which means that the "elected official" has free reign to do whatever he or she wants. Regretably, we have short memories and his or her chances of being punished next time 'round are slim.

[Mattevt]

What about Saddam? Here's a textbook death penalty case.

The trial of Saddam Hussein is set to begin very soon. In reading an article on this topic I came across a quote by an Iraqi security guard known as Ahmed.

Put Saddam in the streets of Baghdad, all of them in the street, and the people will just shoot him, finished

It is my opinion that Ahmed should be nominated for the US Supreme Court. It is this kind of straight talking that America needs concerning convicted criminals. I'm sure the usual suspects have gathered for Hussein's trial. ACLU, Amnesty International etc. all have their teary eyes turned towards this mockery of a trial to ensure Hussein is not mistreated or given an unfair trial.

This blind eye towards the atrocities and grossly despicable actions of Saddam is really disturbing. This man deserves no rights, no Doritos, and no fair trial. Would we give Hitler a garden and cheese puffs if we were able to bring him to trial after WW2? Not likely.

Obviously, Hitler was a lot worse than Hussein in a historical perspective. But we have to realize the scope of his crimes and ask why does he deserve a trial at all. Other war criminals may deserve a trial because some of them were acting for the preservation of their own lives and the lives of their families by obeying orders. Saddam was under no orders when he gassed his own people or when he used chemical weapons on Iran. We have to remember the mass graves uncovered during this war. The bodies of Kurdish citizens, men, women, and children heaped in to ditches in order to silence any opposition. This man does not deserve legal council.

We fool ourselves into thinking that the human race is above such barbarous behavior. Iraqi citizens were held down and made to live in fear under his reign. Justice in this case would be to let the citizens of Iraq have their way with Saddam in the streets.

Back on topic...I say let us stomp out crime by making punishment effective. Let us learn from the nonsense of the politically correct left and consider harsh punishments for criminals, letting human vengeance police itself.

I'm not a proponent of violence, don't get me wrong. However, when we come across an individual with no regard for human life we must see that they will not be rehabilitated with with "hugs and sensitivity".

Let's save tax dollars. Empty all the death row wings of our prisons and throw another killer on the fire so that we may discourage the behavior in the future.

Some smart guy said:

"In order to make an omelet you have to break some eggs."

This is the philosophy we should use for stamping out violent crimes. Let's warn the murderers, rapists, and other various twisted individuals that we'll eventually get back to basics and replace their Zoloft with cyanide.

Most of you will deny this publicly, but I know you agree.

[McCulloch]

Mattevt,

Due process is not merrited. It is a human right. Unless Saddam is at risk of killing someone immediately (justifying defence of human life), no one has the right to "take him out". This way leads to mob justice like in the old movie "Incident at Oxbow".

Death penalty for Saddam? It should certainly be considered. Just like the 12 given death sentences at Nuremberg: Goring, von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Franck, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, Bormann (absent) and 250 subsequent death sentences for other Germans convicted. Had Hitler been captured, he too would have faced a fair trial and, in all likelihood, been executed.

There has to be an application of due process of international law. Otherwise we just prove that Saddam is right. This due process should not "turn a blind eye" to the atrocities, but examine them face on. Saddam should be allowed to try to answer for his crimes so that after he is dead, no one can legitimately say that he was unfairly convicted.

That being said, I have to agree with the idea that justice delayed is justice denied. Due process has to become more efficient to be effective.

[Mattevt]

Okay, maybe I was ranting a little too much. However, my main point is that the death penalty is a just punishment in many cases. I think I understand the need for a trial, but it's been a long time coming.

[juliod]

There has to be an application of due process of international law.

Of course, the problem is the Dubya administration. Since they don't want there to be an "legitimacy" to international law, they have failed to move Hussein to The Hague where he could undergo a real trial for crimes against humanity. They are trying him for Iraqi crime. It will be difficult to show that anything he did was an actual crime in Iraq at the time he did it.

Hussein was then, and still claims to be, the legitimate President of Iraq. Due to our negligence in keeping him in Iraq, I think it possible that he will once again be President of Iraq.

First he will present an image of dignity and defiance, as he is doing now. This will resonate with the Iraqis. He will become a symbol of resistance to the occupation, both inside and outside the insurgency. Then he'll become too dangerous to execute, for fear of a general uprising. Once the insurgency reaches a crescendo, he may be freed (by the government or by a mob). This would be the ultimate humiliation for us.

DanZ