Happy Atheist Forum

Time after time I am totally perplexed by the reluctance of the courts in this country to punish people who murder in cold blood by executing them.  I am in favor of this when there is zero doubt as to their guilt.  I can't help but feel outraged at the news stories of BRUTAL murders, horrible tortures and when the perps. are caught, we as a society wring our hands over the fates of these people.  We're supposed to worry whether or not lethal injection is painful for the murderer when his victim was raped, beaten, stabbed, etc. and usually it's more than one victim.  How can we send our young people to war to get shot at and killed, not to mention the innocent lives that are being killed in the crossfire and then worry about whether or not a murderer should be able to live out the rest of his life?  This past week I read about a man who in the early 70's murdered his mother, wife and three children and then lived free under an assumed name for the next 18 years until he was caught.  He just died after spending 4 days in the hospital for pnemonia at the age of 81!  There was absolutely no justice for his victims in my opinion.  By the way, he was asked by Connie Chung once, why he didn't just kill himself instead of killing his family and his answer was that suicide would've barred him from heaven and he felt that he would see them in heaven someday because he had asked forgiveness.  I feel like my outrage at all the injustice will eat me alive someday.  I won't even go into all of the expense of keeping their asses alive by having to house, clothe, guard and feed them till they die a natural death while the tax paying law abiding citizens pay for it all!!!!!!!

There is no circumstance in which it is appropriate for a state to murder anyone. Even if they're 100% guilty.

I gotta disagree with you Willravel, sometimes there is just no place in our society for them. their crimes are so horrible that there is no place for them on this earth, not even in prison where the tax payers have to support them for the rest of their 3 consecutive life sentences, or whatever it may be.

After you take into account the higher costs for trying to impose the death penalty and the many years you have to keep them in jail while they go through the appeals process; it actually ends up costing more than if they were given a life sentence.

I don't think there is such a thing as 100% certainty because there have been old cases where people were found guilty due to DNA evidence but now that we understand that evidence better they were found innocent, a person can admit fault to a crime in order to protect someone they love, and sometimes the person looks guilty just because the circumstances happen to add up and the real bad guy goes free.

Not to mention the whole idea that two wrongs do not make a right...why should it be right for the state to do the very thing it is punishing someone for?  We would not think it was proper justice to subject the raper to being raped...the same reasoning can be applied to determine that it's not justice to kill the murderer, just revenge.

Also, I think that it is actually a worse punishment to have to spend your life in prison because max security than to get an out by being killed in a relatively painless manner.  It also serves the main purpose of removing bad people from society.

Quote from: "ShimShamSam"I gotta disagree with you Willravel, sometimes there is just no place in our society for them. their crimes are so horrible that there is no place for them on this earth, not even in prison where the tax payers have to support them for the rest of their 3 consecutive life sentences, or whatever it may be.

On moral grounds I can't possibly excuse capital punishment. It's not about money at all, it's about principle. That's not to say that the prison system doesn't need reform, it's in dire need, but killing? No way, Jose.

Still, even if I could excuse it morally, it doesn't make sense. Uber-criminal + lobotomy = slave labor. Pwned!

lobotomy aye? isn't that almost like an execution if the mind if absent?

Mostly, I'd say I don't favor capital punishment.  Mostly for the reasons that laetusatheos laid down.

However, I don't agree that executions are completely about revenge --- isn't there a defense mechanism here?  How can this person kill/hurt anyone else if they're dead?  Isn't this the best way to be sure?

The problem is knowing if any one individual is truly guilty or not, of what you think he's guilty of.

Here's how I thought this one out:

If the state did execute the correct murderer, how could the murderer argue that an injustice had been committed?  And, if no injustice was committed, then how could there be a problem?

On the other hand, if killing is wrong, how can the state be allowed to kill?

Well, is all killing wrong?  Perhaps killing can be justified, and it depends on the circumstance.  For example, killing in self-defense seems completely justifiable, so it is not true to say "all killing is wrong".

Conclusion: executing guilty people is acceptable.

So my beef just comes down to the degree of certainty that an accused person is really guilty.  I don't find the death penalty amoral, I just find it too risky of creating equal injustices.

In other words, I think the inherent uncertainty involved in knowing whether or not you would be executing somebody justly is ample reason to not execute anybody.  Its not that a correct application of the penalty strikes me as amoral, but rather that the incorrect application is just as bad, maybe even worse, than the original crime.  The fact that this can happen seems unavoidable.  So, stopping execution isn't for the preservation of the rights of guilty people, but rather for the protection of the rights of innocent people.

Here's a fun thought:  if murdering somebody is justifiably punishable by execution, and the state has effectively murdered someone by executing an innocent person, should we execute the state as justifiable punishment for the murder they committed?  :wink:

Hello out there........Executing a cold blooded murderer and the murder of an innocent person are NOT THE SAME THING!  When a murderer is allowed to live in prison or out, write letters, watch t.v. work out, pursue education, get on computers, talk on the phone, see family, etc. etc, how is this fair when the person who was murdered is dead forever?  Anything less than death as a punishment shits on the life or lives that were taken.  Why should society have regard for a murderer's life when this person has no regard for other's lives?  I'm talking about when a person is obviously guilty, the crime was committed in FRONT of other reliable witnesses or he's caught holding the bloody knife. You all know what I mean.  Like I said, there isn't any justice for victims today with all of the bleeding heart liberals in this country.

Hard to say, hard to say.

In the very least, if there's no death penalty, I'd prefer that person to spend life in solitary confinement with no way to commit suicide or anything like that. No TV, no writing letters to the outside world, no appeal, no outside time...nothing. If somebody ever committed a crime so horrendous that would make death seem fair, then fine, let them die.

...Alone and slowly, with age. To me that's just the worst. Quite frankly, the death penalty is fair to nice to some of the monsters out there. :-/

Well...life isn't fair.  What about the victims who are against the death penalty and feel the death of the convict only makes their suffering worse?  Justice is removing the criminal from society....it doesn't have to mean killing the person.  Even if I were for using the death penalty in definite cases....our legal system simply isn't objective enough to create a hard line between what is definite and what leaves room for error.  If even one innocent person is killed by the state, and it has happened, then that is enough reason to leave the death penalty behind.

Personally, I'd make the prison systems tough so that they are living at a humane level yet not in a way most people would want to live....kinda like this (just ignore the conservative slants) http://conservativethoughts.us/2008/01/ ... y-in-pink/ (http://conservativethoughts.us/2008/01/15/prison-inmates-pretty-in-pink/)

Deter them from wanting to come back (or to even get there in the first place), have them help pay for their own stay, and serves as a fitting punishment for those who caused great harm to society...all without having to determine any moral line of when it is proper to kill or not.

Alright, I'm going to try to pull this thread back to the original reason why we're on this forum in the first place. What effect does atheism or theism have on people's view of capitol punishment?

As in, if we were theists would we find capitol punishment more acceptable because we believed they would continue to suffer in hell. Does atheism make capitol punishment less acceptable because rather then having a prolonged punishment, they are simply ended, with no afterlife?

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

Quote from: "Willravel"There is no circumstance in which it is appropriate for a state to murder anyone. Even if they're 100% guilty.

I call BS. I know I am only disagreeing with your opinion. Why should some ass hole continue to live when he/she takes anothers ONLY chance at life?

They are dead. No more risk, no more funds supporting them, a message to those who need it.


In all honesty I think the death penalty should be implemented more, in the proper scenarios (...leaves to be defined...). And in a more timely manner.

Quote from: "tacoma_kyle"I call BS. I know I am only disagreeing with your opinion. Why should some ass hole continue to live when he/she takes anothers ONLY chance at life?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi164.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu16%2Fsoxrock180492%2Fdisappointed-bongo.jpg&hash=895758afad229421d432de02fa957c372139c18f)
Why should some government continue to exist when it takes another's ONLY chance at life?

But seriously, the idea that somehow premeditated murder is any way for a civil society to act scares the shit out of me. For one, it absolutely doesn't work as a deterrent, for two it's not a punishment since, well, how do you feel the punishment when you're dead? Third, it is based in the false premise that some people cannot be rehabilitated. As someone who's studied psychology with some of the best professors on the subject on the West Coast (throws west coast sign), I've gotta say that it's defeatist at best, and downright creationist-istic in reality. I'll elaborate:
Why do we all have no patience for creationists? Because they don't know jack shit about science even though they pretend that do. Likewise, the idea that the average person can simply decide that someone can or can't be rehabilitated makes no sense. Yes, some cases are unlikely, but I doubt you'll find a psychologist who will simply say, "It's impossible." You try until you either succeed or fail, just like in medicine.

Quote from: "tacoma_kyle"They are dead. No more risk, no more funds supporting them, a message to those who need it.

Life in prison also removes said convict from being a risk to society. And, again, seriously all statistics on the subject show clearly that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent. As for the funds, we need to reorganize the prison system into something that isn't profit driven. It has nothing to do with capital punishment and everything to do with bad policy.

The death penalty supposedly isn't a deterrent because it isn't used consistently.  People seem to break the laws of society based on what they think their odds are of getting away with it.  As far as getting away with murder goes I'd say that most people have a very good chance.   I feel that whether or not it's a deterrent is irrelevant anyway.  The punishment should fit the crime, period.

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.

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.

Quote from: "Willravel"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Tom62Teach 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.

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!!!!!!

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.

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.

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............

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.

Some reading material:
http://deathpenaltyinformation.blogspot ... ctims.html (http://deathpenaltyinformation.blogspot.com/2007/02/executions-creating-more-victims.html)
http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/death-penal ... enalty.htm (http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/archive/2008/01/30/murder-victims--families-against-death-penalty.htm)

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

I'm trying to find a mirror.

"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.

QuoteKilling 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 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2163)

Evolutionary aspects of justice (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume1_2/Commentaries/HoffmanGoldsmith_1_2.pdf) <---Highly Recommended

I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not, or if it costs more than life imprisonment, I say execute them.  There have been a lot of people killed by released killers that would be alive if their killer had been put to death.  It seems that life in prison doesn't mean anything.  Usually they are paroled (in Canada anyway) after a third of their sentence is served.  And don't get me started on child molesters!!!!

Hakuna

How can there ever be 100% certainty of guilt? Or of anything?

For the people who commit the most terrible crimes, death is the easy way out. The non-insane ones who can actually understand the gravity of their crimes - or even the ones who just don't care - made the choice long ago that this was the way they were going out. In this respect, the death penalty should be abolished. They should spend the rest of their days in a padded cell with no human contact.. period. They'd torture themselves with their own minds.

That is a far worse punishment than death.

I also can't stomach the fact that there have been past mistakes, and innocent people have been put to death.

I've thought that there should be a choice for the prisoner, either life in prison without possibility of parole or lethal injection whenever he wants it.  

I don't subscribe to the idea as using our societal safety procedures to punish a criminal.  Murder isn't like a child's naughtiness which punishment can cure.  People selected for death row are beyond fixing with our current psychological treatment options.  Punishing them only serves to feed the bloodthirsty impulses of the public.  

To those who might say I don't know how the victim feels or how the victim's loved ones feel, they are incorrect.  I lost a close, dear friend to murder in September of 2006 and was myself a victim of a murder attempt that left me in a coma for nine days.  My only desire is for the perpetrators to be put away somewhere to keep everyone safe from them, not to torture them to pay for what they did to me or for my friend's killer(s) to pay for what they did to him.  It's not a debt that can be paid.  More savagery doesn't negate savagery.

Hey karadan,

Humorous observation: A person can only torture themselves with their own mind if they actually have a mind in the first place.  ;)  

I'd also point out that to convict these people, we're only calling upon the absence of "reasonable doubt".  We don't require 100% certainty to convict --- but if we require 100% certainty to justifiably execute, then isn't there a problem here?

I am against the death penalty. You can never really be 100% sure of guilt and even if you could be, I would still be against the death penalty. The crimes committed that make a person eligible for the death penalty are absolutely horrible, I'm not trying to minimize them. But I don't think it's right to end their life. Lock them up with no parole. Yeah it costs money but everything does.

Quotehem up with no parole. Yeah it costs money but everything does.

Agreed.  Of course what you do with them while they are captive is still contentious.  Some have mentioned isolation from human contact.  This would likely drive them bonkers if they are not at that stage already.

Quote from: "Willravel"There is no circumstance in which it is appropriate for a state to murder anyone. Even if they're 100% guilty.

I sort of don't want to agree. But then I do agree. This is really, really idealistic. Almost too much for me to stand. A government cannot be held accountable the way an individual can for abuses. However a government is only as sinister as the people that make it up. The government is only a collection of its citizens. When a murderer is executed his blood is on all of our hands.

I don’t see executing murderers as a deterrent, or as a cheap may of punishing people. For me, the death penalty allows society to feel some form of justice has been carried out.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I think society in general would be happier with the execution of a murdering paedophile than letting him/her stay in prison with access to libraries, internet, playstations, healthcare, drugs, sex etc.

From the perspective of property rights (especially estoppel), a person who has murdered someone has forfeited their right to rationally object to being killed.  Their victim's heirs have a right to demand the life of the murderer, in fact the worst thing about it is that the murderer cannot give up TWO lives (one the victim owned and one the killer has forfeit).  The argument on the 'death penalty' stops right there for me.

Quote from: "Vichy"From the perspective of property rights (especially estoppel), a person who has murdered someone has forfeited their right to rationally object to being killed.  Their victim's heirs have a right to demand the life of the murderer, in fact the worst thing about it is that the murderer cannot give up TWO lives (one the victim owned and one the killer has forfeit).  The argument on the 'death penalty' stops right there for me.

Crap... I agree with you about something.  ARGH!    :shock:  

Estoppel has no application regarding death penalty cases. As you mention,  it is generally applicable to property or contract law, so it's relevance to death penalty cases is not firmly established as far as I know.  Can you cite a Supreme Court case in which estoppel is focus of the decision?

I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court thinks about anything.  I was giving my theory of what law ought to be, which is nothing more than an application of my view of morality.