executing murderers when 100% sure of their guilt

[tacoma_kyle]

Spending loads on good psychologists or whoever are needed to rehabilitate criminals? Huh? When perfectly ordinary citizens would have to pay out the ass to get help? I disagree with that.

[Will]

Punishing criminals doesn't work. The prison system creates better and more ruthless criminals, not safer people. There are only two ways to actually reduce crime:
1) Prevention. I've worked closely with Second Step in the SF Bay area and am proud to say that the program has been an incredible success. It teaches problem solving, empathy, and emotional training. It's seen a decrease to nearly zero in aggressive behavior and has increased social competence to that which is above most adults I know. Programs like this are absolutely imperative in stopping crime before it happens.
2) Rehabilitation. It's stupid to simply put criminals together in prison for x years until they're released without attempting to actually rehabilitate them. It's proven to simply make matters worse. How do you rehabilitate criminals? Social programs inside prisons.

[Whitney]

My atheism has virtually no effect on my decision making process regarding capital punishment. It's strictly a moral decision.

I agree.....only I also keep finances in mind.  If it were cheaper to impose the death penalty then it would be a lot harder for me to decide which way was the best course of action.  Mainly because I'd be thinking about how that money could instead be used to help those who haven't done anything wrong.

I use to be for the death penalty because somehow my research showed it was cheaper....my old sources must have been written by a Texas lawmaker because everything I've read since then point to it being cheaper to put someone in jail for life.  I also use to think, quite simply, that really bad people deserve to die..I was also a theist back then....but I think the correlation was more towards me being young and naive than because I was a theist.

[tacoma_kyle]

Will, I feel I should note I am talking about the death penalty, not prison time.

I got a question for you, somewhat generic, but yeah.

Holy shit one of my room mates is snoring fuckin loud!---side note

Oh wait nevermind. I found a easy and viable answer.

[Kylyssa]

I find the idea of the death penalty as a deterrent to be completely laughable.  For a deterrent to function the criminal must first think that the punishment applies to them and not just to the stupid jackasses that get caught.  Then they must actually care about the punishment.  Lastly, they must be able to control the homicidal impulses they have.

People up for the death penalty have behaved in such inhumane ways following such powerful impulses that no amount of deterrent could stop them from committing their heinous acts.  Their reasoning ability is already completely broken so why would the promise of punishment by death mean a thing?  I sincerely doubt that at the cusp of committing an atrocity a criminal is thinking, "I wonder what the consequences are?"  Rather, they are caught up by their warped passions and no amount of reason is going to deter them from a release of their monstrous urges.

[Tom62]

I'm against the death penalty simply because it is not a deterrent but a rather cruel way of revenge (an eye for an eye....). Killing a murderer doesn't solve anything. It doesn't bring back the people (s)he murdered, nor rehabs the murderer or prevent future murders from happening. It is also extremely cruel to let those people wait months or even years for their execution. Bringing hope and than taking them away again. No, if someone received the death penalty it should be excuted immediately.

I fully agree with Willtravel. Most important is crime prevention. Teach children that it is not cool to join a macho streetgang, how to solve problems without violence, etc. etc. The same for criminal rehab. Throwing criminals that where convicted for minor crimes in jail with tougher criminals then it is very likely that they learn in jail how to become a tougher criminal.

[Kona]

Speaking to the point of how atheism affects my decision regarding the death penalty, I really don't think it does anymore than being a devout Christian would.  I don't think atheists have the corner on the morals market and neither do Buddhists.  I can go back and forth over it all the time and a particularly provocative case portrayed in the media (as they so often are for ratings)  can sway me towards the pro- position just as much as a story of unjust punishment can make me lean the other way.  It is not an easy issue and even those in the religious community have the same vacillations.  You can find a host of good points on either side of it, perhaps depending on your mood or company at any given moment.  The more interesting question to me is why do people choose one position over the other? Perhaps we should discuss that.  Some of you have outlined the most common trains of thought.  Let me add some comments of my own.

a) Death penalty as deterrent to others?  Don't think it is effective.

b) Death penalty as punishment that fits the crime (murder)?  No. Would rather have lifetime incarceration.  Club Fed? No. Solitary for life?  Depends.

c) Death penalty as fiscal measure?  No real savings there.

d) Death penalty as reciprocal punishment (eye4eye)?  Well, go back to hangings in the public square (or HBO pay-per-view). 'Running Man' perhaps?  Make it a family affair so kids can get the full deterrent value, eh?  Other than the usual media circus around an execution, most people who support the death penalty are abjectly removed from the entire process.  

e) Death penalty for Hitler, Stalin, Mao?  Death penalty for 13 year olds?  Yes and No. Hmmmmmm....I'm vacillating again.  


Timothy McVeigh.   He gave up the normally-lengthy appeals process and opted for early execution.  Why? Didn't want to rot in prison and Purgatory was preferable?  Did it for the greater public good?  Just wanted to be in control of his own fate?  The later I think.  He chose "Invictus" as his final statement.  Then he ate some Ben and Jerry's.  


Personally, I really don't like the death penalty.  Not because it is 'wrong' or 'cruel' per se, but because society at-large is so far removed from participating in the final act of judgment.  As I alluded to above, there was a time when executions were held in public instead of behind closed doors with just a few witnesses.  That is too sanitized and clean for the conscience.  My preference would be to afford everyone the opportunity (or civil responsibility), especially those on the pro side, to see the grapes of wrath being pored out before their very eyes.   Then the issue may finally be settled in the next few elections.  Or not. Hard to turn away from the impending carnage of a train wreck in progress.

[Will]

Teach children that it is not cool to join a macho streetgang, how to solve problems without violence, etc. etc.

I fully agree with your post, but this sentence makes me think of the gangs in West Side Story for some reason. Less violent, more dancy.

[Valerie]

I think that far too many people are too far removed from what the VICTIM had to suffer at the hands of a cold blooded murderer.  My sympathy is and always will be with the victims of terrible crimes and not what happens to the person responsible.  They seal their own fate when they commit their crimes.   I don't believe in torturing criminals, but lethal injection, or heck just an overdose of anesthesia would be justifiable justice.  People, please bear in mind, what it must be like to beg for your life only to have it taken anyway because you are garbage to them.  If we as a society don't have the guts to do what should be done with these horrible people then the message that society is sending is that the victims are expendable, but the criminal is not!!!!!!

[Valerie]

Also, life in prison is too good for murderers.  They don't deserve to live THEIR life when their victim cannot.  Death is the ultimate sacrifice whether it's given in war or given as a punishment for depriving someone else of that inalienable right.  It should be done within a reasonably short time too, like a year.  Remember, if there's a chance of punishing the wrong person, then death shouldn't be the sentence because it is so final, but when the person is certainly the guilty one (and I have known of many, many cases) then for the sake of the victim at least do what is fair.

[Will]

Most victims don't want the guilty person to be executed. I'll see if I can find a link to the study, but something like 80% of the family and friends polled said that they didn't want the guilty person killed. Not only that, but often the execution can be emotionally devastating and actually compound the emotional damage of the initial crime.

I'm thinking of the victim.

[Valerie]

I don't mean to doubt your word, but I would like to see real statistics on that.  It wouldn't however, change the way I feel.  I am so SICK of reading about women who have been raped and murdered.  I am SICK of hearing about children who are abused and murdered.  If execution stops that one person from ever killing again, I'm all for it.  My family knows that I would want justice if something ever happened to me at the hands of a murderer.  You need to look at some crime scene pictures to really get a grip on who you are defending.  That's about all I have to say............

[Will]

The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent. People don't kill again in solitary in prison. Killing someone for killing someone else isn't justice, it's vengeance.

As for crime scenes, I've had way too many. I've been shot in the leg with a 9mm handgun. One of my best friends from high school was shot in the head right in front of me. When I was 11, I saw a hit and run. Let me tell you that pictures simply don't do them justice.

The reality is that the death penalty is based in an emotional response. That's why the arguments in support of it are all so weak: it's tough to rationalize a decision made in the heat of anger. I refuse to make an irrational decision simply because I can't discern decisions based in emotions from decisions made thoughtfully.

[Will]

Some reading material:
http://deathpenaltyinformation.blogspot ... ctims.html
http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/death-penal ... enalty.htm

This is where the study on the victims' family used to be:
http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/32/1/80

I'm trying to find a mirror.

[Kona]

"It's impossible to find support," she said. "There's no one to talk to, no one who understands. Food is provided and therapists are on hand before and after an execution for the families of the victims of the executed. But there is nothing for the families of the executed."--Amnesty Int'l Blogs

Indeed, there can be two sets of victims created in murder case--one on each side.  I think most will agree that the crime victim's family has the priority when it comes to state resources for social and mental health assistance.  We still live in a free society, so if NGO's want to offer assistance to the perpetrator's family they are free to do so.  I just don't think it should come from public coffers.

Killing someone for killing someone else isn't justice, it's vengeance.......The reality is that the death penalty is based in an emotional response. That's why the arguments in support of it are all so weak: it's tough to rationalize a decision made in the heat of anger. I refuse to make an irrational decision simply because I can't discern decisions based in emotions from decisions made thoughtfully.

While we may live in a modern age, revenge is a deep part of our evolutionary heritage and strongly coupled to our sense of justice.  The application of higher reasoning does not much inhibit the power of the brain's limbic responses.  Perhaps this is why almost every recent poll shows about  2/3 of Americans support capital punishment.  This support seems to wax and wane with any high-profile case, but the majority is firmly established.  When offered a choice between death or life without parole, the numbers slip closer to 50%.   Beyond this, there are various other remedies offered in substitution for death, some more holistic than others.   What I take from this is that the split is a reflection of the conflict between our human compassion (forgiveness) and innate sense of equal justice.  I believe these two to be at the very heart of the issue.   Interestingly, when I was a Christian the teachings I heard often combined these into a marriage that goes something like this:  Forgiveness for the sin, but the punishment stands firm.  I don't find this to be an irrational response to a capital crime, I just disagree with the manner of punishment.  

I think what most people on the anti-death side are upset most about is the sometimes lack of due process afforded many defendants and the seeming arbitrary application of the penalty--I whole-heartedly agree!




Links

Polls

Evolutionary aspects of justice <---Highly Recommended