For and against the death penalty

[Big Lin]

There are lots of arguments for and against the death penalty. Some seem (IMHO of course!) quite good, others a bit iffy. Should we use it at all or stick it in the filing cabinet with a lable marked 'history' on the drawer?

I'll try and list the various arguments for and against the death penalty. I'll begin with the pro case.

Pro death penalty arguments:

1 Finality - the murderer will never be able to kill again.
2 Deterrence - execution will deter other people from killing.
3 Retribution - the proper punishment for murder is execution - a life for a life.
4 Maintenance of law and order - execution helps to keep the peace.
5 Costs - execution is cheaper than life imprisonment.

Anti death penalty arguments:

1 Cruelty - the death penalty is cruel because it inflicts suffering on others.
2 Morality - killing is wrong even if the state does it
3 Innocence - innocent people may be executed
4 Finality - if an innocent is executed, restitution is impossible
5 Revenge - execution is based on revenge which is an unworthy motive
6 Cost - execution costs more than life imprisonment.

Both pros and antis use the finality argument but with strikingly different takes upon it. Pros stress the inability of a murderer to kill again; antis stress the impossibility of undoing an error. Both arguments have a lot going for them. Pros do (MHO overlook the fact that finality only means the criminal is dead and to say that an executed killer can't kill again means no more than that an executed thief can't steal again. Antis tend to exaggerate the number of innocents who have been executed, pros tend to deny that it happens (or at least to grossly underestimate the numbers).

The most common argument I've heard from pros is the deterrence one just as the most common one I've heard from antis is the innocence one. Both have serious problems at best and are downright dubious at worst.

The deterrence claim is NOT supported by the evidence and the statistics actually show that murder rates are HIGHER in states WITH the death penalty than those without it. The innocence claim is often used dishonestly by some antis who rely upon a deliberate confusion between TECHNICAL exonerations and GENUINE innocence. It also grossly overplays the numbers of innocent people who have been executed.

Both pros and antis produce statistic which they each claim prove that the death penalty either does or does not cost more than life imprisonment. Because it seems impossible to settle this one (as Disraeli said, 'there are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics) I'll let it go.

For what it's worth I DON'T believe that justice should be based on cost but upon what's morally right.

A highly dubious argument put forward by some pros is the claim that the death penalty helps to maintain law and order. Even if that was true, it isn't obvious that imprisonment couldn't do the job equally well. Worse still, it looks unlikely that it IS true because otherwise how come states WITH the death penalty have HIGHER murder rates?

Let's now look at the idea that the death penalty is cruel because it involves inflicting suffering on others. If we still burned people at the stake, flayed them alive, crucified them or used similar types of gory punishment, that might be true.

It's difficult to take the same view about hanging, guillotining or lethal injection.

On a personal level, I'm not so sure that I agree that revenge IS necessarily an unworthy motive. I'm a mother and I know if either of my kids was murdered and I caught the murderer in the act I'd cheerfully kill him or her on the spot myself.

You can call it revenge but I'd call it anguish and grief.

I could say a lot more but this post is already longer than it ought to be.

I'd very much like to hear members' views on the subject.

[debs]

The Death Penalty. I suppose I should be considered an 'anti' because of Arkie, but I don't believe I am. I don't believe there's room on this Earth for Serial Killers, for one thing, or they should even be wasting money on the Appeals Process for these people. They most definitely shouldn't be allowing them access to media or general public prior to their execution.

The deterrent argument is wasted, in that 'they'll never kill again'. They'll never kill again if they're securely imprisoned, and Corrections staff run just as much risk of being assaulted or killed by someone in General Population, as they do a Death Row inmate.

Neither does execution help to keep the peace. As you stated Lin, the rates for murder are higher in the DP states. It's no coincidence that many states that have the DP have high unemployment, very little medical assistance, and kids that don't attain a full education. Money is being allocated to the Justice system that would be better spent elsewhere, and the only people who really profit from this are the lawyers and those involved within the justice system. Defendants certainly don't, and nor do the victim's families - they're dragged through a lengthy and painful process for years. Prosecutors wear their successful DP trials as Badges of Honour and cite them as reasons to be re-elected, or to progress onto Judges.

One small fact that seems to be overlooked is how can it be said that execution is a deterrent when those that this 'deterrent' is aimed at - generally come from the lower levels of society where they don't possess a PC, or are even able to read the news of being someone being given the DP? Arkie's own family come from this level - country people, impoverished. The result of this was when they were told that he'd already been executed in 2003, they took it in blind faith for over five years. As his aunt said, sure we watch the news with the big stuff like the tornadoes, but we don't buy newspapers, why would we? Newspapers are for people with money who have time to read, and can read, and the news is about them, not us. Consequently, all the time that Arkie's sixth trial was going on - they had no idea of anything that was happening. Crime can be a way of life when you're on that level - who really believes that someone who lives that way is going to even care about getting the DP when he or she believes that they have a chance of not getting caught to begin with? And they don't have much to aim for, or lose?

As to the Innocents executed - we shouldn't even be talking in terms of numbers. ONE person sent to their death, innocent, is one person too many.

The cruelty issue is not about the inmate - they did the crime, they take the punishment. It's about those that are left behind, their own families, and even the victim's families. Too many of them are convinced by a zealous prosecutor that the death of someone will make them feel better, and then discover that it doesn't. I'm with you on the issue of someone touching my kids - now we're getting into the realms of human emotion. Anguish and grief are strong emotions - so are jealousy, anger, and rage, three of the main emotions that can bring about a murderous instinct to someone that you normally would not ever believe to have that capability. Child Killers and Serial killers - yes, death. But the other cases, it needs to be far more accurate. I don't believe that someone who's been convicted under the Law of Parties should be considered as the 'worst of the worst' when it's patently obvious that they were unable to stop the crime, were in terror of their own life, or weren't even aware that circumstances were about to bring about a death.

[debs]

Aug 14, 2010 16:41:48 GMT Big Lin said:

For what it's worth I DON'T believe that justice should be based on cost but upon what's morally right.

Lin, I opened up an email this morning and came across this: -

Letter to Editor in Missouri Attacks Prosecutor for Saddling County With High Cost of Death Penalty

When a Missouri county prosecutor decided to up charges and seek the death penalty for two men, residents of that county complained that he was comitting them to at least three-quarters of a million dollars in unnecessary costs. Here is a letter to the editor that ran in the News Leader in Springfield, Mo.

Walmsley: Prosecutor's priorities deserve scrutiny in lean times
July 3, 2010

More than one month ago, a group of concerned citizens wrote a letter asking Prosecutor (Darrell) Moore why, after more than a year, the charges for Rusty Amos and William Reed were increased from first-degree murder to capital murder. We received no response.

In Kansas, a recent study revealed that litigating death penalty cases cost $750,000 more than first-degree murder cases. In one of the most recent cost studies, The Urban Institute estimated the additional cost of a death penalty trial in Maryland to be $1.9 million. So why, in the midst of a statewide budget crisis, is Mr. Moore asking Greene County taxpayers to fork over the money for two death penalty trials?

This last legislative session, $12 million was cut from public school busing and $6.9 million to the Parents as Teachers early childhood development program. Greene County teachers are facing cuts in pay and their pensions. Budget cuts have been made to health care, social programs and universities and next year could be even worse.

So why seek the death penalty now, when we can least afford it?
We strongly encourage the News-Leader to address this question to Prosecutor Moore. Perhaps investigative news reporters can get the answers we were unable to obtain.
As citizens and voters of Greene County, we will be footing the bill for these trials and we deserve an explanation for this recent decision.

We're still waiting, Mr. Moore.

Editor's note: The letter to Prosecutor Moore included a dozen additional signatures

[knittina]

Isn't the high cost because of all the legal complications. It is rather simple just to take someone out after a trial and simply hang her or him from a nearby tree or overhead beam, or even a post. Then it is just the cost of a rope and security for the few hours required. And it could be made into a revenue source.

The better response is to simplify the incredible complexity and cost of the legal system.

[debs]

Aug 16, 2010 17:05:40 GMT knittina said:

The better response is to simplify the incredible complexity and cost of the legal system.

But then the lawyers don't make as much money, and lose some of their mystique, and powers of intimidation with us lesser mortals...

[knittina]

And then don't we all ex lawyers, benefit.

[debs]

Aug 17, 2010 3:19:32 GMT knittina said:

And then don't we all ex lawyers, benefit.

I guess it all depends on why you're an ex lawyer.

[knittina]

Hi Debs: I meant excluding lawyers. We'd then need less lawyers. Some even suggest that practicing some types of law be classified as a capital crime. We can probably argue which, but recently the judge rendering the verdict that attempted piracy is not piracy could be an example. www.rttnews.com/Content/MarketSensitiveNews.aspx?Id=1396465&SM=1

[sandra]

I am pro death penalty. After being attacked and surviving a serial killer he got free room and board at an exerberant cost to the tax payers. I the victim got $10,000 in compensation for lost wages and pain and suffering for the rest of my life. Most of his victims died.

[debs]

Aug 18, 2010 19:05:17 GMT knittina said:

Hi Debs: I meant excluding lawyers. We'd then need less lawyers. Some even suggest that practicing some types of law be classified as a capital crime. We can probably argue which, but recently the judge rendering the verdict that attempted piracy is not piracy could be an example. www.rttnews.com/Content/MarketSensitiveNews.aspx?Id=1396465&SM=1

Hear, hear. Judging by the performances of some lawyers that have personally encountered in thepast, am with you 100% on that one!

[debs]

Sandra, my respect for you is without limits. It's awful that you went through this experience, and £10,000 is appalling for what you went through. There's no amount of money in this world that could even begin to cover the pain you've suffered.

[knittina]

Sandra, I found myself shivering when I read your posting. I know vengeance is politically incorrect these days, but maybe it is needed in cases like yours and should be swiftly exercised in public.
Tina

[Big Lin]

Aug 19, 2010 16:12:05 GMT knittina said:

Sandra, I found myself shivering when I read your posting. I know vengeance is politically incorrect these days, but maybe it is needed in cases like yours and should be swiftly exercised in public.
Tina

I prefer the word 'retribution' to vengeance.

Basically I remember Sandra speaking of her trauma on another board and it moved me to tears.

Yes, the guy ought to have been executed in my view.

He was a serial killer for goodness sake!

[Novak]

This is Canada we are talking about. We let most serial killers out.

The justice system is too flawed. We punish a murderer for a crime he committed just against society. If we punished for a crime committed against another person AND society, he surely would have been executed.

The victim of the original crime simply doesn't matter. Instead, now we have a murderer, who by no means is a victim, becoming a victim by circumstance of the prison system. Again, their rights trump over a person brutally murdered for no reason.

Do you know how hard it is to get victim compensation in Ontario?

In my criminology course, there was an example of a woman, 27, who was brutally raped and tortured. She was left for dead in winter, completely naked, but someone found her. The police came to talk to her, but she was so traumatized by what had happened she couldn't speak about it.

Part of the criteria for getting compensation is helping the police. Also, you have to submit your claim within the year( is a year enough time to be able to relive something so traumatic on a piece of paper?) to get money, and even then the board has to make the decision.

The 27 year old, because of her being traumatized and not cooperative (in their eyes) was unable to get the full amount of money that normally would have been offered, instead she only got half.

[sandra]

My attack happened in Windsor, Ontario. The serial killer crossed the border from Michigan. He tried to kill another woman in Windsor. There were at least three others who got away. When he was caught, he confessed to killing me and the other woman in Windsor. He wouldn't talk any further unless the Canadian Government gave him immunity. The government said no to the immunity so the serial killer didn't talk any more about the Windsor attacks.

Yes it is extremely hard to get compensation in Ontario and probably everywhere else. I waited almost 5 years for my hearing.

There were photos of me in the ER and just after I came out of the hospital. I did not want to look at them. It was bad enough I looked in the mirror that night and every time my wounds were being cleaned I would look in the rail of the hospital bed to see what my wounds looked like. After the hearing I ran as fast as I could out of the building to get away from reporters and because I was panicking.

I recently had surgery and panicking the whole night before. When they were taking the breathing tube out I was panicking and was trying to fight them off of me. They kept calling my name telling me I was safe and my surgery was over with. This is what I have to live with every day of my life.

At least got some justice when he died in prison September 21 2007.

In cases like this I definitely believe in capital punishment.