Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

13 (72.2%)

Yes

5 (27.8%)

Total Members Voted: 16

Voting closed: December 13, 2005, 05:15:48 pm

[AlohaDawg]

I have to severely doubt that those three sources can be considered centrist or unbiased.

I understand Cort's comment but in my opinion, I can like apples and oranges and his argument seems to be that I can't like apples and oranges. I don't think there are reasonable connection between the two thoughts; I believe that we should be a culture respectful of life and it's unlimited potential for good -  and when creatures arise in our midst with no respect for life and very limited potential for good we have to deal with them in terms that are certain and absolute.

Without the threat of the death penalty people involved in crime organizations or ongoing criminal enterprises that involve murder would never cooperate with prosecutors to bring down organizations (Sammy "the Bull" and John Gotti). Serial killers or Serial child molester/murderers would not confess to crimes or tell police where the bodies are.  High profile criminals have also cooperated with authorities to avoid 'the chair'.  

As a deterrent, the death penalty may work (it's impossible to measure prevented crimes) but certainly as a tool for leveraging cooperation it has proved very successful.

Death is an absolute; imprisonment in the US is, as Asherdan pointed out earlier, is a lifestyle choice complete with cable and playstations and drugs and sex and zero accountability to anyone except yourself and that is disastrous. When you take someone who has spent several years in a 100% selgiraffe self-preservation environment and release them into society, you find that that individual has very limited ability to negotiate ordinary social transactions and inability to function interdependently with other people. And the only method they have any skill or experience in for resolving the inevitable conflicts that arise from these these two problems is violence.

Any question about why 2/3 of the prison population is on a U-shaped treadmill beginning and ending in prison is answerable to some degree in the above. "Jail" is not a deterrent in it's current incarnation and unless you make prison far more unpleasant, uncomfortable, and difficult the only tool you have to push criminals toward cooperation with authorities and to possibly make them think twice about committing a heinous crime is an applied and credible threat of a death penalty.

[miles]

As a deterrent, the death penalty may work (it's impossible to measure prevented crimes) but certainly as a tool for leveraging cooperation it has proved very successful.

As far as I'm concerned, this might be the death penalty's only useful function, which is interesting, because in the case in which it is used, it is not carried out.  Of course, for it to have any weight when used as leverage, it would have to be carried out, even if very infrequently.

I think it was used in the Green River Killer case to get him to identify more victims.  In this case, I don't know whether it is worth it (although it certainly was to those families, but maybe not to society in general), but in other cases, if it is used to protect victims who are still alive, it might be worth it.

[jough]

I'm of the opinion that the death penalty is "wrong" - but really, who gives a shit if it's right or wrong morally when deciding on whether something should be legal or not?  It's not up to the state to determine mores, only to enforce its laws that protect the sovereignty and rights of its citizens.

ALL of its citizens.  Not just the majority.

What matters isn't the rightness of capital punishment (another fine euphamism for the death penalty, or as they used to say in the U.K., in her majesty's permanent custody) but whether it's useful or not.

What is the purpose of the death penalty?

It sure isn't prevention or deterrance, since we know that violent crime has only increased since the advent of the legal death penalty in most states.

Is it revenge?  Is the purpose of killing convicts to make the rest of society feel better?

Is it a cost/benefits analysis, where it's just cheaper to kill someone now than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives?

I mean, if the purpose is to keep a bad seed from hurting others, then if you imprison them that mission is accomplished.   So why put them to death?

[miles]

I'm of the opinion that the death penalty is "wrong" - but really, who gives a shit if it's right or wrong morally when deciding on whether something should be legal or not?  It's not up to the state to determine mores, only to enforce its laws that protect the sovereignty and rights of its citizens.

I agree, in that deciding whether the death penalty is wrong and deciding whether the death penalty is unconstitutional are different issues.  In fact, I wrote a paper on for a Philosophy of Law class.  However, many disagree with that idea--that the two issues (the morality and constitutionality of a law) are actually that different.  Ronald Dworkin is someone who may argue more along these lines.

What matters isn't the rightness of capital punishment (another fine euphamism for the death penalty, or as they used to say in the U.K., in her majesty's permanent custody) but whether it's useful or not.

This is a specific and perhaps not that widely accepted theory of law.  It's not exactly utilitarianism, maybe, because a utilitarian would argue something like a law is right (morally) because it is useful, but it's close.  I, and many people I know, and I'm sure many on this board, believe that it matters significanly whether a law is morally right.  It might be separate from the question of a law's constitutionality, but it matters in the legislation process.  It matters to the citizens and the state.  I don't believe that there is a wall between morality and state, even if there is one between church and state  (and I'm doubtful of that, too).

It sure isn't prevention or deterrance, since we know that violent crime has only increased since the advent of the legal death penalty in most states.

I think that the jury is still out on this, no?  I know studies have shown that the rate of violence increases in some states after an execution, but I don't know the specifics.  For example, if only muggings went up, but other types of violent crime went or stayed down, the death penalty might still be an effective deterrent.  Don't get me wrong, I agree that it probably isn't that effective as a deterrent, but I think the issue is far from decided.

Is it a cost/benefits analysis, where it's just cheaper to kill someone now than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives?

I mean, if the purpose is to keep a bad seed from hurting others, then if you imprison them that mission is accomplished.   So why put them to death?

Yeah, I guess it's been shown that it's actually more expensive to execute someone than to lock him up for life, at least in the US.  But look at that recent execution in Singapore--I'm sure that it was far less expensive than ones here.  It was comparitively very swift punishment.  Hard-liners here argue that the process should be much less complicated here.  If it was, then it would probably cost much less to execute someone than it would be to lock him up for life.  However, I think most Americans agree that to take someone's life, even a convicted killer's, is a very serious issue, and should be done only careful consideration and strict scrutiny.  This takes a lot of money.

[CortJstr]

I understand Cort's comment but in my opinion, I can like apples and oranges and his argument seems to be that I can't like apples and oranges.

It's more about language. You can like both and you can say you like both. I'm talking about people who repeat that they like all fruit but then say that kiwi suck. It's just part of the inherent danger of always/never/all/none statements.

[Doc]

A-Dawg: I'm not sure I'd agree with you on the point of using the death penalty as a negotiating tool, Australia has not had the death penalty for a good many years now (technically abolished in the mid 80s but not actually used since the late 60s (and not used in my state since 1913 which is odd since we are meant to be the country bumpkins up here)) and (I'm assuming here) our police are still able to negoitate deals and so forth. I think it would be a mistake to act like the most extreme bargaining chip is the only one.

I agree with Jough that the usefulness of a law is more important than it's morality. Not only are morals very subjective but if we judge laws by their usefullness it is easier to argue for a law to be discarded if it no longer serves it's purpose. Laws should be about what is best for the community as a whole when we start using morals as a basis for laws we end up only serving certain groups and victimising others. Not that I'm saying moral based laws are always bad just that they should be useful to the community as a whole as well.

[AlohaDawg]

A-Dawg: I'm not sure I'd agree with you on the point of using the death penalty as a negotiating tool, Australia has not had the death penalty for a good many years now (technically abolished in the mid 80s but not actually used since the late 60s (and not used in my state since 1913 which is odd since we are meant to be the country bumpkins up here)) and (I'm assuming here) our police are still able to negoitate deals and so forth. I think it would be a mistake to act like the most extreme bargaining chip is the only one.

I agree with Jough that the usefulness of a law is more important than it's morality. Not only are morals very subjective but if we judge laws by their usefullness it is easier to argue for a law to be discarded if it no longer serves it's purpose. Laws should be about what is best for the community as a whole when we start using morals as a basis for laws we end up only serving certain groups and victimising others. Not that I'm saying moral based laws are always bad just that they should be useful to the community as a whole as well.

I don't know what the recitivism rate or the violent crime rate is where you live - but I think when we talk about the death penalty, we can agree that we aren't trying to deter jaywalking or plea-bargain with people who commit wire fraud. It's meant to apply to the worst of the worst both contextually and in reality. We're talking about real social monsters like Sammy Gravano or John Wayne Gacy.

To your second point: It is interesting to ponder the origin of law as to whether it makes more sense to come from morality or utility (at least, I think that's where the argument is) when creating law.  I believe that when we gather together as communities, we develop a basic set of mores based on maximizing our ability to function as a group. But do we come to an agreement on 'objective' measures of what's best for the group as a whole (counting 'utils' as it were) or subjective measures for what we think is best for the group (moral feeling or sense of 'good')?

I suspect we (rightly and naturally) do both.

[JorgeFabregas]

My point was that there are a lot of people who claim to be "pro-life" when discussing abortion but who then turn around and support the death penalty. Pro-life means anti-choice, anti-execution, anti-war, and anti-euthanasia/assisted suicide. But the term has been so twisted that many people only associate it with the first one so you've got "pro-life" people who actively want adults to be killed.

See, I went and interpreted that 'pro-life' label as a single issue subject 'cause there's too much room for well reasoned disparity of opinion between the subjects on that list you threw out there for my taste.

'Course, I don't use the pro-life label either.

'Course, I still don't buy your prior statement 'cause redifing the terms someone else is using into another context for interpretation as you're right and their dumb nananaaa is pretty crap and playground.

That was the definition I learned growing up Catholic where all of those issues were seen as black and white. Although I've since learned that pro-choice organizations also use this definition but for snarky reasons.]

You see, it's more complicated than redefining someone else's terms. George W. Bush has cribbed the "culture of life" phrase from the Catholic church (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32959-2005Jan24.html) , but has deprived it of its robust meaning.

[miles]

I agree with Jough that the usefulness of a law is more important than it's morality. Not only are morals very subjective but if we judge laws by their usefullness it is easier to argue for a law to be discarded if it no longer serves it's purpose. Laws should be about what is best for the community as a whole when we start using morals as a basis for laws we end up only serving certain groups and victimising others. Not that I'm saying moral based laws are always bad just that they should be useful to the community as a whole as well.

Who knows where morality comes from, but what you just described is a system of morality.

[Doc]

AD: The level of violent crime over here isn't as bad as what I am lead to believe it is in many parts of america however we certainly have our fair share of organised crime and situations where the death penalty could be used a bargaining chip in the way you describe. Nevertheless it seems our police force are able to deal with it by other means.
I also probably worded my other point badly, what I should have said is that wherever we derive our laws from (and morals have seemed to work in many cases) the fact that morals are subjective mean they are at best an iffy way of judging a law's worth.
Not sure if that was any better, but it's late. From what you said before I think you got me alright.

Miles: Damn those 'should' statements. You're right of course and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with morals being the basis of laws just that since morals are subjective morals alone is probably not quite good enough. Which is another moral statement so there you go.

[AlohaDawg]

I wonder if it also works a little like this -

Early in the development of mankind, when individuals began to come together, there was a good deal of superstition and dependence on some form of deific thoughts to explain natural phenomena and a natural urge also to seek direction from what seemed to be a very powerful supernatural being. "Natural Law" and "Divine Right" was the norm.

The individuals evolved intellectually and also began to refine the spiritual systems too. Rationalism gained ground as science took root. Cause and effect was clearly documented and objective measures for all manner of things became a normal part of everyday life. Law became based on what makes communities work well together (and also the birth of a wonderful thing called 'litigation' was witnessed)

There seem to be perioidic swings between more secular and more spiritual thinking dominating thought and speech now. I wonder if, also, there is a longer cycle of swing between secular and spiritual preponderance in leadership and lawmaking.

I'm glad to be here in America where we have freedom of speech and assembly - these kind of swings usually cause intellectual discomfort for some but not wholesale social upheaval.

[Carlos del Vaca]

Death is an absolute; imprisonment in the US is, as Asherdan pointed out earlier, is a lifestyle choice complete with cable and playstations and drugs and sex and zero accountability to anyone except yourself and that is disastrous. When you take someone who has spent several years in a 100% selgiraffe self-preservation environment and release them into society, you find that that individual has very limited ability to negotiate ordinary social transactions and inability to function interdependently with other people. And the only method they have any skill or experience in for resolving the inevitable conflicts that arise from these these two problems is violence.

Any question about why 2/3 of the prison population is on a U-shaped treadmill beginning and ending in prison is answerable to some degree in the above. "Jail" is not a deterrent in it's current incarnation and unless you make prison far more unpleasant, uncomfortable, and difficult the only tool you have to push criminals toward cooperation with authorities and to possibly make them think twice about committing a heinous crime is an applied and credible threat of a death penalty.

What HAS been shown to most effectively prevent a return trip to jail is education programs and the like, to help convicts actually develop useable skills so they can get a damn job when they get out.  (I don't have stats and such readily available, but could probably dig them up if necessary--I read an article about a prison in Pennsylvania that was really good at this and had the lowest repeat offender rates of any prison of its class in the country.)  But such programs are often cut off, because those who want to make prison "far more unpleasant" think they constitute "coddling" prisoners.  What say you to this?

[AlohaDawg]

I would first defer to Asherdan's statements based on his experiences with convicted criminals in the California Correctional system. He knows that system and he's seen how people succeed (or not) in it.

I agree with you in the sense that a motivated man or woman in a prison who takes advantage of training and education should have a much better chance of creating a legitimate and crime-free life when released.

My experience with formerly incarcerated people tells me, though, that there is a lower success rate than you would want and certainly than you would expect for a lot of reasons, many of which are not in the sphere of control of the released individual.

For the large number of people convicted of crimes related to drug addiction, there is a huge relapse rate. Combine this with the difficulties an ex-con already has getting work and you have huge hurdles for people to overcome. The return-to-prison rate is fueled in part by frustration with dealing with life on the outside because it can be a pretty harsh environment for an ex-con, especially one who may have been marginalized in the first place and now is further marginalized. For others, release from prison means returning to a neighborhood or a family or an organization/enterprise which is engaged in the activities that got them convicted in the first place. It becomes a matter of time.

I don't disagree that a society should try to empower people to improve their chances of success. Tools are useful in the hands of people committed to doing the job - and there are people in prisons who are sincere in their desire to better themselves and never return. Even some of them return, possibly for the reasons above.

I think that there is social change that needs to happen in the neighborhoods and communities beginning at the level of the family. I don't think the education or skills training you can get in prison is any better than that which you might get outside of prison. The difference is the controlled environment. Strong parents and strong communities could accomplish the same education/training goals for young people without the crippling addition of a felony conviction hampering their prospects.

[AlohaDawg]

For example, Cali makes great use of the Fire Camp system. Low end early offenders get to go out and live in camps in the Sierra range and learn applied skills (equipment maintenance, heavy machinery operation, welding, etc.) and with good work and behaviour dudes earn more priveledges. I heard all about how great it was from guys back in for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, whatever time.

I would be interested to know if a shoplifter or guy caught holding went to a Fire Camp, got all these skills and came out with enhanced skills as, say, a car thief or with a cutting torch as a chopper - Skills are just tools and if you give someone with flawed values skills and return them to an environment that fosters bad behavior, how do you expect those skills will be used?

[miles]

I would be interested to know if a shoplifter or guy caught holding went to a Fire Camp, got all these skills and came out with enhanced skills as, say, a car thief or with a cutting torch as a chopper - Skills are just tools and if you give someone with flawed values skills and return them to an environment that fosters bad behavior, how do you expect those skills will be used?

That's a good point, but I think that the idea behind programs like that is that some criminals are criminals because they lack certain practical skills.  Who knows if it's true, but I imagine that was part of the idea.  In a criminology class I took a while back the professor (who worked for the Utah Department of Corrections and did a lot of research in that area) said that some prison systems have tried a program where morality is taught through the study of literature.  I don't remember the details but it sounded interesting.