Death Penalty and Executions

[juliod]

Capital punishment frequently comes up as a topic of discussion in this forum. Typically, most people express dissatisfaction with the current system in the US. I'd like some comments on this proposal for reform.

There are usually two objections to the current system. Advocates of the death penalty think there are two many levels of appeal and that it takes too long and is too uncertain. Opponents complain that too many innocent people are convicted and that executions are often unnecessarily cruel.

My proposal is straightforward. It would be implements at the state level, where most executions take place. Basically it is composed to two provisions:

1) Prior to an execution, the Governor of the state must certify that the convict is in fact guilty and that execution is appropriate considering all the facts and compared to similar crimes. This duty would have to be done by the Governor personally and cannot be delegated.

2) The Governor of the state would personally carry out the execution. The Governor would have to personally operate the mechanism, the switch, button, or level than directly leads to death. The Governor must remain in full view of the prisoner until a pronouncement of death.

My goal is to increase the sense of personal responsability in capital cases. That is what I think is lacking, and what leads to all the problems with the death penalty. The governor is the Chief Executive, let them execute. That will be the motto of our movement.

Why are executions too cruel? It's because no one in actual authority is involved in them. They are carried out by anonymous prison officials who may be sadists in the first place. Even lethal injection, once thought to be a humane method, is now suspected of causing extreme pain and suffering in some, perhaps many, cases. If the Governor were doing the execution directly, they would want to be very sure that things were done right, if only for their own conscience.

Why are innocent people still being found on Death Row? It's because no one in actual authority actually cares. Judges, in my view, are a hopeless case. Politicians, OTOH, often need to make a posturing tough-on-crime stance. They would be less likely to ignore evidence of actual innocence if they had to personally and publicly state they they are convinced of the justice in this specific case. No more hiding behind a jury.

My plan would tie the chief executive more directly to the execution, both in decision and action. Since they would have no simple defense in case the convict were later shown to be innocent, the Governors would take these cases much more seriously and give them greater consideration (and not just whether it makes them look "tough").

Opponents of executions often seem frustrated that as the date of an impending execution comes up it is impossible to get anyone in authority to look at evidence of innocence. Governors won't meet with their representatives. Courts won't grant hearings. The problem is that often the evidence of innocence is quite convincing. If there were a high official who must tie his or her personal dignity, reputation, and honor to the guilt of the condemned, we would not have these issues.

I think if my proposal were implimented it would be very helpful in weeding out those miscarriages that plauge our capital system, and lead to a reduction in the need for multiple appeals and repeated rulings.

DanZ

[Dilettante]

Cephus wrote:

Last I checked, the criminal was ALIVE when the death penalty was used on them. Unless they've started executing corpses where you live, that's a bit silly, isn't it?

Oh no, don't worry! Where I live capital punishment has long been abolished, there is no "life without parole" and hardly anyone spends more than ten or thirteen years in jail. Let me explain: if death is the punishment, the prisoner is not there to receive it when it comes because, as Epicurus reportedly said: Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
At most, the punishment would be the wait on death row.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

If it takes 20+ years to ever be put to death, how would that deter anyone? I'm sure it would be much more effective if it was mandated to occur in 3 years or less.

But of course, you can't actually prove that until the new system is put into effect. As for now, we can sufficiently prove that the death penalty serves absolutely no purpose, and burdens society with exclusively NEGATIVE effects.

If we enacted a successful reform that ensures future deterance, and is not prejudiced against the poor and mentally handicapped, I might consider advocating death.

However, historically spreaking, it seems effective systems of this sort are few and far between. A better solution might be to attack destroy the ROOT of violence. This might be done through things such as a bridging of the wealth gaps, family programs, and public education. The common human tendancy is to lash out in retaliation, but this is rarely a yielding solution.

No, she did it because you did something wrong.

Isn't that what I said?

If you continue to do something wrong, the punishment should escalate because obviously, spanking didn't help.

So what should she do? Beat you with a stick? Torch your feet? Amputate digits?

I have seen family's that revert to corporal punishment. Their houses are zoos. An escalation in a punishment's intensity not only transcends rationality, but often has a polar effect.

I believe supporters of the death penalty are not really interested in the logic of it (whether it prevents future crime); they are more interested in the emotionality of it (revenge).

Indeed, I rarely see rationality in the logic of death proponents. Their beliefs seem to be driven by primal instincts dictating them to retaliate now, reason later.

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth only leaves the whole world blind and toothless"

-Ghandi

The question of deterrence depends on who you're trying to deter: the criminal or someone else. The death penalty deters the criminal 100% of the time. Whether or not it stops anyone else from commiting the same crime is irrelevant, just like slapping the kid's hand when he takes cookies isn't going to stop anyone else from taking cookies until they get caught and penalized for it themselves.

So instead of decreasing crime rate we should just deal with the criminals- AFTER they commit the crime. How is this helping the guy with a bullet in his head, or the mangled rape victim? We would not have to worry about punishing criminals if we prevented them from becomming criminals in the first place.

It's kind of like this nonsensical "war on terror". We go out to kill the terrorists; great. But at the same time the terrorists are multiplying at an increased rate, in light of our retaliation. Sure, we kill plenty of them, but typically AFTER they toss the grenade into the bar, or fly the planes into government buildings. Who is this helping? How can this bring about peace? It is a never ending cycle of violence.

Our entire penal system is deluded in this regard. All we focus on is putting the criminal out of sight where we don't have to look at them. Nevermind actually DOING something about the problem. We kill a murderer, and go off thinking such a situation will never recur. What a fabulous little fantasy land.

Prison doesn't even deter the criminal, over 50% of prisoners return to crime after they are released

Even in life without parole?

Last I checked, the criminal was ALIVE when the death penalty was used on them. Unless they've started executing corpses where you live, that's a bit silly, isn't it?

Sillier than executing the live person? The live person behind bars has just about as much chance of committing another crime as the dead person. On top of that, there is a good chance the live person is undeserving of death; 50% of all death row inmates are later released. But of course, the new evidence comes much too late for many of them.

[micatala]

Punishment should both penalize the guilty and stop them from commiting the crime again. If you steal cookies after being told not to and get your hand slapped, the next time the punishment should be more severe until you get the idea through your head not to steal cookies.

OK. So I think we agree that one functions of punishment is to change the behavior of the person punished. Obviously the death penalty would do this, since there would be no future behavior at all.

However, as our Platypus friend has said:

So instead of decreasing crime rate we should just deal with the criminals- AFTER they commit the crime. How is this helping the guy with a bullet in his head, or the mangled rape victim? We would not have to worry about punishing criminals if we prevented them from becomming criminals in the first place.

Most people would believe, I think, that one function of the penal system should be to dissuade people from committing crimes in the first place. If there is a reasonable chance of getting caught, and the potential punishment is severe, there should be a deterrent effect. I would be astonished if this cannot be documented. I would agree with Cephus that the immediacy of the consequences is an important consideration.

For the typical 'upstanding citizen' (to use a loaded phrase) just the possibility of getting arrested and hauled into court is enough of a deterrent in most cases, never mind the subsequent jail time, fine, etc. For others, the sentence might make a difference.

Now, the question is does the death penalty have more of a deterrent effect than life imprisonment or some other potential punishment (e.g. serving the victim's family as a slave for the rest of one's life). I know Cephus has not championed the idea of death penalty as deterrent, but many death penalty proponents do. I would have to agree with PP that the data I have seen suggest the death penalty as it exists serves no more effectively than prison as a deterrent.

Some crimes are so heinous that the first time they are commited, the guilty is removed from the gene pool and I have no problem with that whatsoever.

As has been pointed out, it is not the guilty that is removed from the gene pool but the convicted and these two are definitely not synonymous.

The question of deterrence depends on who you're trying to deter: the criminal or someone else. The death penalty deters the criminal 100% of the time. Whether or not it stops anyone else from commiting the same crime is irrelevant, just like slapping the kid's hand when he takes cookies isn't going to stop anyone else from taking cookies until they get caught and penalized for it themselves. Prison doesn't deter anyone either, they still commit crimes and get locked up. Prison doesn't even deter the criminal, over 50% of prisoners return to crime after they are released, yet you don't see people demanding that prisons be abolished because they don't have any sort of deterrent effect at all.

I guess I have addressed this above. I would disagree that 'whether the death penalty deters anyone else from committin the same crime is irrelevant.' It is absolutely relevant, or much of the purpose of the death penalty or any other penalty is gone.

The last part of your statement seems to be confusing deterrence with rehabilitation. I agree, the prisons are horrible at rehabilitation. Recidivism rates are disappointingly high. However, I would still maintaint that, however imperfect, the penal system does have some deterrent effect on the as yet non-criminals among us.

[Dilettante]

In this thread I feel like a square peg in a round hole. My take on death penalty is very different, and almost everybody else's views seem to me entirely erroneous. Let me try to explain:

1. Execution cannot be a form of punishment. eliminating the person to be punished totally contradicts the idea of punishment.
2. Rehabilitation is not the primary function of the justice system. If it were, why keep someone in prison any longer than strictly necessary? If after a few psychotherapy sessions the "patient" (as convicts should then be called) shows signs of being cured, the right thing to do would be to put him/her on the streets a.s.a.p.
3. There is a perfectly defensible purpose for executions, because society needs to establish some untresspassable limits, especially in nations were life without parole is not an option. Of course all possible guarantees should be enabled so that judicial mistakes are virtually impossible.
4. There are cases, perhaps very rare but nonetheless real, where judicial execution could fall under the scope of euthanasia. If we respect people's freedom, we cannot accept someone incorporating into their biography certain horrendous massacres. Unfortunately, since there aren't any virgin spaces in our planet any more, transportation out of human society is not an option, and only expulsion from the society of the living is available.
5. It is simply humanly impossible to live with, say, multiple murders with sexual assaults or massive terrorist crimes on anyone's conscience. Either we relieve that person's conscience via execution or, if they do not feel the corresponding remorse, we must classify that person as a wild beast and lock them up for life.

As you see, "deterrence" and "punishment" do not even enter my mind when talking about capital punishment. That's why I feel odd reading most people's opinion, either for or against.

[Cephus]

But of course, you can't actually prove that until the new system is put into effect. As for now, we can sufficiently prove that the death penalty serves absolutely no purpose, and burdens society with exclusively NEGATIVE effects.

By the same token, you can't prove that the new system wouldn't work. And you can't prove a damn thing about the current system outside of what it's supposed to do, which it does perfectly. All you can do is point at effects no one claims it has and call it a failure. That's fallacious thinking.

So what should she do? Beat you with a stick? Torch your feet? Amputate digits?

Not my job to decide since family punishment isn't proscribed by law.

I have seen family's that revert to corporal punishment. Their houses are zoos. An escalation in a punishment's intensity not only transcends rationality, but often has a polar effect.

Funny, in my experience, it's the families that refuse to punish their kids at all that turn into zoos, with the kids running the house because their parents really don't care enough to bother correcting their behavior.

So instead of decreasing crime rate we should just deal with the criminals- AFTER they commit the crime. How is this helping the guy with a bullet in his head, or the mangled rape victim? We would not have to worry about punishing criminals if we prevented them from becomming criminals in the first place.

If you want to deter criminals, that's something you do outside of the penalty phase. That's like blaming diets for fat people.

Do try again.

[Cephus]

As has been pointed out, it is not the guilty that is removed from the gene pool but the convicted and these two are definitely not synonymous.

Sorry, but no. When you go on trial before a jury of your peers, you are found guilty or not guilty. If you are found guilty, then you are, for all legal purposes, guilty. As far as I'm concerned, you are innocent until proven guilty and after that point, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. That's why I think we need to eliminate all appeals that seek to prove anything but the innocence of the convicted party.

Funny how no one ever tries to do that, isn't it?

The last part of your statement seems to be confusing deterrence with rehabilitation. I agree, the prisons are horrible at rehabilitation. Recidivism rates are disappointingly high. However, I would still maintaint that, however imperfect, the penal system does have some deterrent effect on the as yet non-criminals among us.

Honestly, I don't think there is any difference between whatever deterrent effect prison or the death penalty has. Both are very low to the point of being almost non-existent. Most criminals aren't going to stop commiting crimes because they're afraid of going to prison any more than most drivers are going to stop speeding because they're afraid of getting a ticket. It's simply a non-issue and both figure they won't get caught. Same with murderers. None of these people think about the consequences beforehand. Yet it's only the death penalty that people complain about because it's a purely EMOTIONAL rather than a rational issue.

[micatala]

Sorry, but no. When you go on trial before a jury of your peers, you are found guilty or not guilty. If you are found guilty, then you are, for all legal purposes, guilty. As far as I'm concerned, you are innocent until proven guilty and after that point, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

Sure, for legal purposes you are declared guilty. However, that is obviously not the same thing as being actually guilty, of having actually committed the crime one is convicted of. You can play semantics and say 'convicted = guilty' but this is ignoring the reality of the situation. I would prefer reality over legality.

No, we will never entirely rid the court system of mistakes. So, what should we do in light of the fact that mistakes always occur? If the convict is still alive, we can at least return to the person the rest of his or her days of life. If we execute the person, we have in my view committed a grave, grave injustice, for now, even though he or she committed no crime, he or she is now dead and there is no opportunity for even partial rectification of a horrible mistake.

I take it you think a few innocent people killed is OK? You want to try and justify this to the loved ones of those who have been mistakenly executed?

That's why I think we need to eliminate all appeals that seek to prove anything but the innocence of the convicted party.

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of appeals are not about trying to prove innocence?

Honestly, I don't think there is any difference between whatever deterrent effect prison or the death penalty has. Both are very low to the point of being almost non-existent. Most criminals aren't going to stop commiting crimes because they're afraid of going to prison any more than most drivers are going to stop speeding because they're afraid of getting a ticket. It's simply a non-issue and both figure they won't get caught. Same with murderers. None of these people think about the consequences beforehand. Yet it's only the death penalty that people complain about because it's a purely EMOTIONAL rather than a rational issue.

I would disagree that it is purely an emotional issue. It is a moral and logical issue. The death penalty is the only penalty which is completely and entirely irrevocable. It is entirely rational to oppose the death penalty on the grounds that people who are convicted might later found to be innocent, and if they are still alive, we can return them to their lives in society. I don't see that there is ANYTHING to be gained by executing them, as they are just as 'out of the way of society' in prison as they are dead, and as has been shown, there is much to lose.

Quote:
I have seen family's that revert to corporal punishment. Their houses are zoos. An escalation in a punishment's intensity not only transcends rationality, but often has a polar effect.

Cephus:
Funny, in my experience, it's the families that refuse to punish their kids at all that turn into zoos, with the kids running the house because their parents really don't care enough to bother correcting their behavior.

I don't think we should create a false dichotomy here. The choices are not 'A: corporal punishment' and 'B: no punishment or correction at all.' Skillful parents know how to teach their children good behavior and to make appropriate decisions without corporal punishment. True, if the parents do nothing at all with respect to teaching/discipline/punishment, then you are likely to see bad results. No one is advocating this, either with respect to children or the larger society.

The false dichotomy moved up to the societal level would be saying the choices are 'death penalty' or 'no penal system at all.'

All along, I have advocated that we focus on sensible measures that can be taken to deter crime and protect society. Ideally, we would employ measures that have been empirically shown to be effective in achieving one or both of these goals, or at least employ measures that have been shown to be better than any others. We have a good amount of data showing that the death penalty is no more effective than life imprisonment. Because of this, and because of the irrevocable nature of the death penalty and the history of the system making numerous mistakes, I think it is unconscionable that we would employ the death penalty, especially on a large scale as we currently do in the U.S.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

By the same token, you can't prove that the new system wouldn't work.

But I can prove that the results of such a system would be entirely prejudiced against the criminal, especially those of low income and mental capacity.

The current number of appeals may seem frivolous, but they help ensure justice. Our penal system is all ready partial to the rich, who have a better chance of winning given their more expensive/experienced lawyers. A poor person often recieves some crackpot from the bottom of the barrel, who may or may not be concerned with the outcome of the case. In the system you envision, it seems the capital criminal (who is almost always of low economic status) will only get one shot at proving his innocence. That is like giving me only one shot at proving I can make a 50 yard field goal. The slightest mishap could mean failure.

And yet, even considering the number of appeals a convict is allowed, hundreds of death row inmates have been mistakenly convicted over the years, many of whom were executed before the new evidence was revealed. How can you condone this, or just pass it off as an unfortunate side-effect? Is this the sort of justice our forefathers would have wanted?

As far as I'm concerned, you are innocent until proven guilty and after that point, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

But you don't exactly have a chance to prove your innocence if you are not allowed any appeals, do you? "Eliminate all appeals that do not seek to prove a convicts innocence"? How would that help? Is this not the purpose of all appeals?

Honestly, I don't think there is any difference between whatever deterrent effect prison or the death penalty has.

I have heard that Texas and Oklahoma have seen substantially increased crime rates after encorporating capital punishment into the system. There may be other factors that contributed to this, but it is still rather incredulous.

All you can do is point at effects no one claims it has and call it a failure.

This I don't understand. The negative effects of the death penalty are firmly imbedded in countless studies and data.

Are you aware of any positive effects of enacting capital punishment? If so, please share.

Funny, in my experience, it's the families that refuse to punish their kids at all that turn into zoos, with the kids running the house because their parents really don't care enough to bother correcting their behavior.

So corporal punishment is the only method of discipline? My parents never hit me, and I turned out pretty good. They must have been doing something right.

I think the main fault of corporal discipline is its lack of actual moral instruction. Kids who are spanked do not abate from doing something wrong because they genuinely understand that it is unacceptable; they do it out of fear of the violent repercussion. The second they are alone and see no chance of a punishment they revert back to the wrongful customs. This is especially apparent when they venture out on their own. With no ethical standard, and no daddy around to enforce it, what is to stop them?



Here is a question of which I have not yet gotten a sufficient answer. Exactly what is the purpose of the death penalty? What does it offer that life imprisonment does not (besides a greater chance of injustice)?

[Cephus]

But I can prove that the results of such a system would be entirely prejudiced against the criminal, especially those of low income and mental capacity.

Fine by me. I'm all for being prejudiced against the criminal. What I don't get is how you people can care so little about the VICTIM. You don't care who these murderers kill, you don't care how much they torture, beat, rape, etc. their victims, how much pain the victim goes through, you just want to see the murderer back on the street.

That's really sad IMO.

But you don't exactly have a chance to prove your innocence if you are not allowed any appeals, do you? "Eliminate all appeals that do not seek to prove a convicts innocence"? How would that help? Is this not the purpose of all appeals?

No, it isn't the purpose of any appeals. Death row inmates do not propose to show that they didn't commit the crime, they simply don't like the sentence. They don't want to die. Therefore, they try to find legal loopholes, raise questions about procedure, etc. They do not seek to prove that they didn't actually commit the crime, they did, they were convicted of it TWICE and sentenced to die TWICE. They are guilty.

So yes, we need to stop any and all appeals that seek anything other than to prove that the criminal is factually innocent of the crime. No more loopholes, no more whining, crying, yadda yadda. I don't care how many children's books they've written, they killed people in cold blood, they deserve death.

If they want to PROVE otherwise, fine. Otherwise, get back on death row.

This I don't understand. The negative effects of the death penalty are firmly imbedded in countless studies and data.

You're the one who keeps claiming that because the death penalty doesn't deter anyone, it doesn't work. Who claimed it did deter anyone? Who claimed it was supposed to deter anyone? It doesn't, it isn't supposed to, period. What it does, however, is render justice to one sick, sadistic individual who doesn't deserve to live and it does this with 100% effectiveness.

It's ridiculous to claim that the death penalty is supposed to do all these things that it isn't supposed to do. What's next, is it supposed to cure baldness and whiten your teeth too?

So corporal punishment is the only method of discipline? My parents never hit me, and I turned out pretty good. They must have been doing something right.

That's kind of questionable, you do seem to have a thing for protecting criminals.

[juliod]

That's kind of questionable, you do seem to have a thing for protecting criminals.

The problem I have with your opinions is that you are reacting like a theist. As an atheist I read your posts with a deep sense of shame. Like a conservative you seem to base your opinions on cartoon charicatures and straw men rather than real life issues. You seek simple, knee-jerk solutions that avoid the need to work out moral and ethical issues for yourself. A theist would just say "That's the way god wants it".

"Protecting criminals" No one ever wants to "protect" criminals. That's the sort of ad hominem attempt to label your opponents rather than thinking about the issues that conservative often use against liberals.

Come over to the Dark Side! You say you are an atheist, that means you are 80% the way there. Those of us on the liberal side (including the liberal theists) enjoy the benefits of being able to feel we are making things better, not just nastier and more brutal.

What we are saying is that the purpose of punishment for crime is to make society better. It's part of the social contract. We collectively decide what actions make society worse, agree to not do them, and set a punishment for those who won't agree. Together we have the power to do what we cannot do alone

Once you decide that punishment has a purpose other than just bloodthirst you open up the utilitarian arguments. You do not have to be limited to what you think is the meanest, most violent, or harshest action to take against "them". You can think about what is best for "us".

Like what I posted in at the start of this thread you can think of ways to make the current systems better. You've already freed yourself from the authority of religion. Reject the tyranny of the past. Reject the bias towards the power structures of the current day. At the very least you won't have to support political groups that hate you for being an atheist.

DanZ