Happy Atheist Forum

After watching the poor quality camera-phone video of Saddam Hussein’s hanging, and feeling very little sympathy for the man, I began to wonder if public executions or televised executions would be a good thing.  Would it be a deterrent to crime?  Would it cause states and nations to repeal their death penalty laws?  What effect, if any, would televised executions have on society?

Do prisoners have any expectation of privacy after they are convicted and sentenced to death?  Is it ever right to take another person’s life?  What if a prisoner is executed and new evidence comes to light exonerating them?  Who should be punished?  

What are your thoughts?

I'm against the death penalty because there are cases (probably more than we know about) where innocent people are wrongly sentenced to death...and because I think it would be worse to sit in a crappy (we need to make the prisons not so comfy) prison for the rest of your life than know when you are going to die.

For the reason that an innocent man's death could be televised as a constant reminder of his death to family who shouldn't have had to go through the ordeal in the first place....no, it shouldn't be shown publicly.

I also simply don't like to watch someone die, even if that person did something terrible....but that's not a rational reason to be against a tv broadcast of some one's execution.

What would happen if they showed it on tv?  I think the various methods of execution would have different impacts.  Lethal injection, from what I've read, wouldn't be nearly as disturbing as watching a person be hung or electrocuted.  But, a lot of people who have viewed deaths and executions are still pro death penalty...so I don't think showing it would have much of an impact on stance; but might just serve as an extra deterrent to crime (yet, you'd think current penalties would already be sufficient).

I find public executions utterly barbaric.

Tom62, I agree that executions are barbaric.  I also believe that prison is barbaric...at least in America.  If another nation has a better prison system; and by better I mean one in which prisoners are not raped, beaten, and threatened on a daily basis, and where prisoners are educated and given the opportunity to be reformed, positive, contributing members of society once freed; then I would love to hear about it.  

I think if the general public were able to view executions the death penalty would be repealed.  

As for the various methods of execution, there is suffering in all of them.  Being shot or hanged is painful, or so I would imagine.  The electric chair is not foolproof and can cause much pain.  Even lethal injections can be painful if administered incorrectly.  

QuoteWhen Executions Go Wrong: A Horribly Botched Florida Killing Adds Strong Impetus to a National Reconsideration of Capital Punishment
By AUSTIN SARAT
Monday, Dec. 18, 2006

Last Wednesday, the name of Angel Diaz was added to a long list of persons whose executions have been botched in recent American history. As widely reported in the press, it took Florida thirty-four minutes to kill him, twice the usual time. The needles that carried the lethal chemicals were mistakenly inserted completely through their intended targets--the veins in Diaz's arm--into the flesh of his arms. Thus, instead of being unconscious within the usual three or four minutes after the administration of the first chemical in the execution protocol, Diaz "appeared to be moving twenty-four minutes after the first injection, grimacing, blinking, licking his lips, blowing and appearing to mouth words."

Link:  http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary ... sarat.html (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20061218_sarat.html)

As painful as it might be for family members to watch or know that others are watching their condemned loved-one being executed, I feel there may be something positive to be gained from publicizing executions.

Well I think it'd be all of the above on that. It'd have a huge polar effect. On one hand more people would probably be against it, more states may up theirs to be more barbaric, and maybe it'll deter more crimes.

the idea of public or televised executions scares me a little. this may be unfounded, but I'd hate to see the value of human life degraded in such a way that television stations are going to have to bid to have the rights of broadcasting. This idea reminds me of the glatorial games back in Rome. Sure, it may start out professional and solomn, but it would only be a matter of time before big named murderers or such would have their own hour long special leading up to the execution.It would become more like entertainment than a anti-crime add. We've all seen a hanging or a lethal injection or something in movies, but that doesn't seem to deter people from violent crimes. I just don't think it would have that effect.

Quote from: "MommaSquid"I think if the general public were able to view executions the death penalty would be repealed.  

Technically, we do have public executions.  You did get to see Sadam's hanging, as I did... here, on the net.  As has millions of others.  

I've also watched all these beheading videos, and all it does it add fuel to the fire.

Just as the death penalty is not a deterant to crime, televised execution is not going to lead to a repeal of the death penalty.

Personally, as long as you are one thousand... million...  zillion percent sure you're putting the right person to death, I have no problem with the death penalty.  

But, if there is the slightest doubt, then, you shouldn't do it.

I'm of the belief that there are un-reformable people in the prison system. If you can't be reformed, I have no problem with that individual being put to death.

We had a case here in Arizona (remember seeing this on the news, MommaSquid?) of a man that took his three year old daughter out into the back yard, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire. In my not so humble opinion, he deserves to die.

I agree with mrwitch, though. The death penalty should not be applied unless there is NO doubt whatsoever. Not this "beyond a reasonable doubt" crap. If there is any inkling of doubt, sentence should be provisional life. If evidence surfaces that removes the inkling, you die. If evidence surfaces that exhonorates you, you go free. That should be an automatic. I see prosecutors trying to block exhonorating evidence all of the time. It should not be up to them.

As for the public part, there is no reason to make them public. It's not entertainment, it's punishment.

I liked the Soviet Union's execution method best. Single bullet to the base of the skull, and you didn't know when it was coming. Let 'em sweat (especially someone who sets a child on fire...).

EDIT to add: I must say, I did get a macabre sense of satisfaction watching Sadam's execution. He, Uday, and Qusay were three of the most reprehensible kind of dirtbags to have ever walked this earth.

Saddam's only stupidity was that he annoyed the western world by evading the oil-rich country of Kuwait. Before that war, no-one in the West gave a damn about his crimes against humanity because he was our western ally. Yes, Saddam deserved to die, but by removing him from the gene-pool we created a situation in Iraq that is worse than when Saddam was still in power.

Talking about the death penalty we may have also have to execute George W. Bush, Tony Blair and  Ehud Olmert. After all, these evil warmongers are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. More than half million children died in Iraq alone, due to the economic sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf war. The criminals who were responsible for this attrocity were never punished.

We should also be more careful in selecting our friends, because we are still allied to several dictators who are actually worse than Saddam Hussein. To be "morally right", we should hang these bastards as well. We won't do that ofcourse, because they are our "friends".

Quote from: "MikeyV"We had a case here in Arizona (remember seeing this on the news, MommaSquid?) of a man that took his three year old daughter out into the back yard, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire. In my not so humble opinion, he deserves to die.

Yes, I remember that story.  It made me sick to my stomach.  No parent in their right mind does that to a child; should we put to death people who are mentally ill?

Quote from: "MikeyV"As for the public part, there is no reason to make them public. It's not entertainment, it's punishment.

Execution is not entertainment (in my mind), but neither is a jury trial and they have been appearing on TV for years.

OK, I know I’m going to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but after watching that crappy video phone clip, I can’t be sure that Hussein was actually killed.  Clear, professional video might take that feeling away.

BTW, Tom62 made some excellent points.  He brings to mind the saying, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Yes, I remember that story.  It made me sick to my stomach.  No parent in their right mind does that to a child; should we put to death people who are mentally ill?

The guy in Arizona was mentally ill?  I don't know, I was looking around for an article about it, but couldn't find it.

He was mentally ill?

Quote from: "mrwitch"

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Yes, I remember that story.  It made me sick to my stomach.  No parent in their right mind does that to a child; should we put to death people who are mentally ill?

The guy in Arizona was mentally ill?  I don't know, I was looking around for an article about it, but couldn't find it.

He was mentally ill?

I would think that anyone who could do that, especially to their own child, wouldn't be in a healthy mental state.

Quote from: "mrwitch"

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Yes, I remember that story.  It made me sick to my stomach.  No parent in their right mind does that to a child; should we put to death people who are mentally ill?

The guy in Arizona was mentally ill?  I don't know, I was looking around for an article about it, but couldn't find it.

He was mentally ill?

I don't know if he had a diagnosis prior to killing his daughter (probably not) but sane people don't go around lighting their children on fire.  Sorry about any confusion I may have caused.

I found some more info on the case:

Maricopa County Public Info (http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/publicInfo/rulings/rulingsReaditem.asp?autonumb=103)

Part of his defense was that he had an organic brain disorder, low intelligence, and a troubled childhood.   He was sentenced to death by lethal injection, so I guess his defense didn't convince the jury.

Just because you are handicapped doesn't mean you are free to do bad things.

Quote from: "MommaSquid"I don't know if he had a diagnosis prior to killing his daughter (probably not) but sane people don't go around lighting their children on fire.

No, the first time he had been diagnosed was just prior to the trial. Of course, the defense docs argued that he had organic brain damage either prior to, or after his birth (no shit? When else would one expect brain damage to present?) But 4 defense docs looked at the PET scan and all agreed that he had brain damage. Problem is, they couldn't agree on which part of his brain was damaged. Only 2 of the docs testified, but one wasn't even qualified to read a PET.

Of course, the prosecution's docs argued that there was no damage, or that the most they would say is that the PET was inconclusive.

The defense docs argued that the defendant was retarded. He had consistently scored between 68 and 74 on standardized IQ tests, but the prosecutor's docs pointed out that he was smart enough to get regular employment.

He lied to the arresting officers and made up a false family history, which he maintained for six months. The prosecution pointed out that a retarded person wouldn't be able to do this.

So basically, he quit his job. His girlfriend's mother found out, and told the girlfriend. He then went and got his girlfriend's car, telling her he would wait outside for her to get off work. Instead, he drove to daycare, picked up his daughter, and was going to drive to his sister's. Instead, he went to 7-11 and bought beer and Gatorade. Then he went to Target and bought a gas can. Then he went to another 7-11 and bought a gallon of gas. Then he stopped at a Circle-K and got some matches.

He drove to Meridian and Adobe (about a mile and a half from my house), went out into a field, laid his daughter on the ground, and poured the gallon of gas on her. Kristen, his daughter, then stood up. He stepped back, lit a match and threw it on her. Kristin walked around for about 15 seconds and traveled a distance of about 15 feet before she collapsed. She probably would have gone farther, but she was only two, so couldn't walk very far. She died shortly after from smoke inhalation and third and fourth degree burns over 98% of her body.

Then, the defendant went to the Circle-K where he got the matches. He grabbed some beer, and told the clerk that he saw 3 or 4 kids set a dog on fire in the field where he had killed his daughter. He remarked to the clerk "I can't believe that kids would set a dog on fire. This is what the world is coming to when kids set dogs on fire."

QuoteI found some more info on the case:

Maricopa County Public Info (http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/publicInfo/rulings/rulingsReaditem.asp?autonumb=103)

Thank you very much for the link.

QuotePart of his defense was that he had an organic brain disorder, low intelligence, and a troubled childhood.   He was sentenced to death by lethal injection, so I guess his defense didn't convince the jury.

His defense convinced no one.

If the Arizona Attorney General called me, day or night, I would drop what I was doing to put the needle in this piece of shit's arm myself.

EDIT: He signed his daughter out of daycare using his girlfriend's name. It would appear that he was going to frame his girlfriend for the murder, but I couldn't even guess why.

Insanity is a very tricky thing.   You have to look at it on a case by case bases.  

It's true, in some cases it can be determined that a person committing murder did not know what he/she were doing.  But those are rare instances.

How about Jeffery Dahmer?  Would you consider him insane?  It was all premeditated, he brought men to his apartment with the intention to kill.  You could say it was his upbringing, or a genetic defect,  but how many others can you say that about, who do not commit murder?  

Can it be determined if a person knew what he/she was doing?  Did he/she know right from wrong?  

If the answer is yes, then I have no problem with the death penalty.  

If the answer is no, that person was so insane he/she didn't know right from wrong, then I'd say the death penalty is over the top.  

The problem with society, is that people are so hell bent on retribution, and tiral lawyers have over-used the insanity defence, that people in general don't usually buy into it.  

But it has to be taken on a case by case bases.  

Humans are capable of the most hedious deeds.  Insanity not withstanding.

Insanity is rather rare. I think ever since we as a species have learned more and more about psychology, more people have found a crutch to go on. There are truly insane people who have no idea of the consequences of their actions. They are, however, a small minority and most people know right from wrong by being raised with it generally. I think the death penalty has applications for certain cases. A guy who goes out, rapes and kills a bunch of people in a senseless act should be executed. I believe that it should be limited to where we have DEFINITE proof he or she did it. Say a video or DNA evidence linking them to it.

I'd say the only people who have a legitimate plea for insanity.  Are theists, claiming to act on the will of god.  

God made me do it.

After watching the poor quality camera-phone video of Saddam Hussein’s hanging, and feeling very little sympathy for the man...

I certainly cannot agree with all of Saddam's actions, yet it is quite easy now to understand why he ruled with the 'iron fist'. Three groups of people who hate each other all lumped into one country which was created by the western world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Mesopotamia). He did what he thought was necessary to prevent the chaos that we see in Iraq today. The vast majority of Iraqi's were far better off under Saddam than they are now, or will be for a long time. All my opinion, of course.

I began to wonder if public executions or televised executions would be a good thing. Would it be a deterrent to crime? Would it cause states and nations to repeal their death penalty laws? What effect, if any, would televised executions have on society?

Deterrent, no. Cause to repeal, no. Effect on society? It may cause a small  number of people to change their stance on the death penalty, most changing to being against it.

Do prisoners have any expectation of privacy after they are convicted and sentenced to death? Is it ever right to take another person’s life? What if a prisoner is executed and new evidence comes to light exonerating them? Who should be punished?

Expectation of privacy. I would say yes. The supposed purpose of our legal system is to protect innocent people from the harmful actions of criminals, not to humiliate criminals by showing them urinating and defecating on themselves.
Is it ever right? I'm torn on this question. Part of me says absolutely, if someone is absolutely proven guilty of a horrendous crime, they should be put to death. Part of me says that being locked up for life is actually a harsher punishment, is oddly enough, cheaper for the taxpayers, and allows somewhat for the correction of any mistakes made in prosecution.
The number of cases in which we can be 100% sure of a persons guilt are VERY small, therefore I'm leaning towards the position of abolishing the death penalty... why keep it available if its virtually never going to be used?
What if. If it can be proven that the police or prosecutors intentionally provided false evidence, bring the hammer down on them, hard. Few things are worse than the state ruining (or taking) the lives of innocent people.

I voted Yes, and already I see I'm in the minority (I'm used to that by now ).  The criteria of who should be executed is something that would be beyond me, but a good start would be with repeat offenders of severe crimes.  Seems to me that if the event were broadcasted in a way that people realize that this is punishment for a crime, there may be a chance of some detterence for those future offenders.

And a byproduct would be the saved $30k/person/year in tax dollars giving the criminal a plush imprisoned life.

Wow, my first post and I decide on a difficult subject like this.

Executions cost far more than life sentences. Check it: Economics of Capital Punishment (http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html)

Most people who commit crimes worthy of the death penalty are bat-shit crazy. In my humble opinion, no deterrent is going to work on people like that. If anything, watching an execution might give a few sickos a hard-on to go do some killin' of their own.

I just added to the votes with a "no" vote.  I'll try to explain:

First, we have the death penalty itself.  I've got two problems with the death penalty:

1) If exculpatory evidence ever comes to light, you can't release people you've executed.

2) Even if someone deserves the sentence, I personally wouldn't want to be the one to throw the switch.  So how do I ask someone else to?

Having said that, I believe there are in fact cases where it's beyond improbable that you have the wrong person, and they richly deserve the sentence.  I can live with my problem 2) above, because I'm sure you could find someone willing to throw the switch (they do now, right?  Isn't this creepy?).

Having said that, it seems disturbingly voyeuristic to put the execution on TV.  I'm envisioning crowds chanting "off with his head" around the guillotine platform or something.  At some point, this goes beyond the concerns of the condemned and makes me worry if the society is losing it's humanity.  Wanting him punished with death, okay.  Putting it on TV, prime time with advertising rights and commercials?  Or pay per view?  Yuck.

im against it definately. if its on the internet then the people that want to see it can, but say if its on CNN and your watching the news or flipping channels and see another human being be killed? i mean think of the children. if a father is sitting down watching television and a 4 year old is playing with his toys and happens to look up and see, say saddam hussein's death, itd cause some psychological problems in the future and possibly have another columbine incindent. no televised deaths.

They shouldn't execute people at all, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, Texas and Islam exist, so that isn't an option.