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?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Returning the evil done unto one is the predominant animal intuition and a habitual practice throughout the course of human history.



Guess what? It does not work.



Abolish revenge, and you abolish the majority of ethical dilemmas plaguing the human race. The death penalty is philosophically unsound; we have 4,000 years of human history to vouch for that. Saddam deserves death no more than the hundreds of other inmates on death row- or you and me, for that matter.

[Cephus]

The problem is that you cannot appeal based on innocence. All appeals must be based on technical errors. Once a jury has found you guilt you are guilty. To get a new trial you have to find an actual legal error in the trial (i.e. a technicality)

Then that is something that needs to be changed. The only reason one should be able to appeal a conviction is if their conviction was wrong. They need to produce new evidence to support their contention that they are wrongfully imprisoned. Otherwise, they serve their sentence.

BTW, we don't need anything like a complete revamp of the legal system. We need only eliminate mandatory sentances, life without parole, and the prohibitions of marijuana and cocaine.

I think there need to be a lot more mandatory sentences, honestly. If you do crime X, you get sentence Y. Doesn't matter what color your skin is, how much money you have, the judge can't be bought, it doesn't matter. I do agree with you that drug users don't need to be behind bars, they need mandatory treatment programs. Drug dealers though, they should all get the death penalty.

[McCulloch]

Drug dealers though, they should all get the death penalty.

A bit simplistic, eh? So someone who breaks the law by providing pain relief to patients in palative care is technically a drug dealer and worthy of death?

[Cephus]

Drug dealers though, they should all get the death penalty.

A bit simplistic, eh? So someone who breaks the law by providing pain relief to patients in palative care is technically a drug dealer and worthy of death?

Since the courts have ruled that medicinal drugs of at least certain types are legal, they wouldn't be. Going around providing PCP to people, no matter how pure your motives might be, is crossing the line though. There are legal channels for getting drugs to people who need them, people don't need to go outside of those channels.

[McCulloch]

Since the courts have ruled that medicinal drugs of at least certain types are legal, they wouldn't be. Going around providing PCP to people, no matter how pure your motives might be, is crossing the line though. There are legal channels for getting drugs to people who need them, people don't need to go outside of those channels.

I'm with you on the PCP. However the courts and the medical system seem reluctant to give high power drugs, such as heroin, to dying patients. Why? Because they might get addicted. D'oh!

[Cephus]

Since the courts have ruled that medicinal drugs of at least certain types are legal, they wouldn't be. Going around providing PCP to people, no matter how pure your motives might be, is crossing the line though. There are legal channels for getting drugs to people who need them, people don't need to go outside of those channels.

I'm with you on the PCP. However the courts and the medical system seem reluctant to give high power drugs, such as heroin, to dying patients. Why? Because they might get addicted. D'oh!

Obviously I've only been talking about people peddling illegal drugs to anyone they can find on the street. I'm sure there is room for people to get legally licenced to provide beneficial drugs to a certain portion of the population which needs it. Better yet, simply use the drugs that are confiscated from the drug dealers, both for drug treatment programs and for the terminally ill.

[juliod]

Obviously I've only been talking about people peddling illegal drugs to anyone they can find on the street.

You mean the pharmacutical industry and the doctors? I mean, who peddled the drugs to Limbaugh?

With all due respect, I think you are 180 degrees on these issues. Big Pharma does at least 10 times as much harm to the US as pushers. And the US has actual problems with only two drugs: alcohol and tobacco. These two dwarf all other drugs combines, and we've already learned the lesson well that prohibition only enriches organized crime.

As for mandatory sentences they are the scourge of the legal system. They remove from the judge and the state the ablity to avoid trial by plea-bargaining. If we made a lot more madatory sentances then our system would collapse under the number of additional trials.

Here's the problem: It's been known for centuries that the penal system supports crime. But at all times the public has only had one view on crime: more punishment. Genuine reform of the penal system has exactly zero political support.

And the core problem remains the fallibility of the system. With many actually innocent people being convicted we are all guilty of the infliction of suffering and death on individuals. The illusion that this is being done to "criminals" allows a deep self-deception. Nutured, of course, by conservatives.

DanZ

[Cephus]

You mean the pharmacutical industry and the doctors? I mean, who peddled the drugs to Limbaugh?

Too bad Limbaugh didn't overdose.

You're making the argument that because person X is also breaking the law (which, in this case, they are not), then we should let person Y off the hook and it doesn't work that way. While I don't agree in any way, shape or form with the way the pharmaceutical industry works, they are usually within the letter, if not the spirit of the law and are not open to legal prosecution. Street corner drug dealers are not following the letter or the spirit of the law, they are operating 100% illegally and as such, deserve punishment.

As for mandatory sentences they are the scourge of the legal system. They remove from the judge and the state the ablity to avoid trial by plea-bargaining. If we made a lot more madatory sentances then our system would collapse under the number of additional trials.

I think there's far too much plea-bargaining as it is. Pretty much, if you're rich, you get off because your high-priced lawyers have a lot of pull with the legal system. I think our entire legal system needs a fundamental overhaul, it's not a justice system, it's not about punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent, it's about getting people off at any cost, regardless of guilt or innocence.

[juliod]

You're making the argument that because person X is also breaking the law (which, in this case, they are not), then we should let person Y off the hook and it doesn't work that way.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are large problem and there are small problem. It's wrong to froth at the mouth about the small problems if large problems still exist.

The pharmaceutical industry causes massive harm to the US, not just in denial of medicine to the poor, but in unnecessary treatment and harmful "side" effects.

The harm of the illegal drugs is trivial by comparison.

Street corner drug dealers are not following the letter or the spirit of the law, they are operating 100% illegally and as such, deserve punishment.

That's a strange notion, that because something is illegal doing it means you "deserve" punishment. Haven't you ever heard "The law is an ass"? Law is what we inflict on ourselves. We have a patriotic duty to modify it.

I think there's far too much plea-bargaining as it is.

It's necessary. You can't get around it. If there was less plea-bargaining, every case would go to trial. We don't have the resources to conduct so many trials.

DanZ

[Cephus]

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are large problem and there are small problem. It's wrong to froth at the mouth about the small problems if large problems still exist.

No, there is a problem (illegal drugs) and something you want to think is a problem (the pharmaceutical industry). One is illegal, the other is not. Just because your pet problem isn't being addressed doesn't mean we should ignore the real problem that exists.

The pharmaceutical industry causes massive harm to the US, not just in denial of medicine to the poor, but in unnecessary treatment and harmful "side" effects.

Who says they are denying medicine to the poor. They are providing a product to anyone who can pay for it. This is as ridiculous as getting pissed at BMW for not giving cars to the poor.

That's a strange notion, that because something is illegal doing it means you "deserve" punishment. Haven't you ever heard "The law is an ass"? Law is what we inflict on ourselves. We have a patriotic duty to modify it.

Only if it needs modifying, and only if we do so through proscribed methods. Simply ignoring a law you don't like is stupid.