The death sentence.

[Lalaith_Elf]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Who is "they"? Do you mean the Iraqi people? How would my objection, or IR's objection amount to a hill of beans if the Iraqi judicial system found him guilty and sentenced him to death? I don't see your point on this. Could you clarify your question?

If the American government, with the support of the Iraqi people found him guilty and he was sentenced to death - even if your view point doesn't make any diffrence - what would your view point be on it. Would you agree with America and Iraq and say that he deserved it, or would you think that it was wrong and unfair and think that he should have some other punishment?

[sun-star]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think it's also a case of a society making a statement on the value of a human life - IOW, a society saying that a human life is SO valuable that when another human intentionally, maliciously, and selfishly plans to kill another person, then the STATE has the right to require their life, after LOTS and LOTS of careful analysis. And the execution is neither malicious nor selfish.

To me this is the core of the argument, and I think we're coming at this from the same angle. However, I think there may be a contradiction in that argument. I'll try and explain, though I'll probably fail - I normally do

If we all agree that taking a human life is wrong (which of course we do), and this is something society will utterly condemn, isn't it hypocritical, in a way, of that society to respond to illegal killing with legal killing? The crime being condemned is murder - but the punishment is itself a kind of murder. A kind which, as you say, is neither malicious or selfish, but which is none the less carried out deliberately and in cold blood. For me, that seems almost to condone the very thing you're trying to condemn. If human life is valuable beyond measure, this must apply to every human life - I don't see that you can ever forfeit the value of your life by committing a crime, however terrible. Life in prison is also a way of the state requiring someone's life (when a life sentence does actually mean life), but it doesn't try to give the state, and the fallible people of which a state is made up, the right to choose who should live and who should die. That's the punishment I prefer for murder.

For future reference: I did not mention the US in this post. Nor will I in future posts. The particular system in the US or any other country does not interest me. I do not care how the US runs its justice system. My intention is to discuss the rights and wrongs of the death penalty. Thank you

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
Ruinel,

Some Christians favor the death penalty. The best translation (as I understand it) of the original text to 'Thou shalt not kill' is 'You shall not commit murder'. So it's generally not taken as a prohibition against either killing in war or execution of criminals (because God also commanded those very same Israelites to do both of the latter). Christians today still debate the propriety of serving as a soldier - and capital punishment... so there isn't one definitive 'Christian' viewpoint on either of those - there's room for both viewpoints.

Tell that to the Quakers. My roommate is a Quaker, from a long line of Quakers. Quakers are exempt from military service (ie, the draft) because of their religious beliefs.

I myself have flip-flopped on capital punishment a few times in my life. My family was pretty conservative, so I grew up in favor. Later, out of compassion, I would spare lives. Then, don't know if I got jaded (there IS so much evil out there!) - but I became more 'in favor' again. More recently, with some things that happened in Illinois, and what we continually hear about statistics regarding capital punishment - I have taken the opposition viewpoint again, as a matter of 'social justice'

I'm not really sure where I stand. On the one hand, I am disturbed by the 'state' taking the life of the 'citizen'. On the other hand, I think the person who gets the death penalty has forfeit his life when he/she commits the crime. At that point, is it really the 'state' that takes the 'citizen's' life? Or is it the representation of the people's will that takes it? Do you see the dilema?

My posts IR mentioned were probably in the 2nd or 3rd page of the thread about the mechanic who killed the girl in Florida. I'll verify the page and edit my post if necessary... or maybe I can figure out how to post a 'link' (Oooooooh! ) to them.

Copy the url.... then come back here and post it with tags around it... like this ...
[url.]www.whatever.com[/.url]
of course, without the periods. Or I think the urls get parsed automatically if you check that box in 'options' below your post box. Not sure.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lalaith_Elf
If the American government, with the support of the Iraqi people found him guilty and he was sentenced to death - even if your view point doesn't make any diffrence - what would your view point be on it. Would you agree with America and Iraq and say that he deserved it, or would you think that it was wrong and unfair and think that he should have some other punishment?

I would absolutely not support that. The American government has no right whatsoever to put Saddam Hussein on trial, even with the support of the Iraqi people. We do not have that authority.

If anyone should put Saddam Hussein on trial, it should be his own country... and no one else. It doesn't matter how much support or pressure the Iraqis put on the US to do so, it should NOT be done. Let them do their own dirty work!

[Ruinel]

I found this site. Sorry, it's quite obviously "pro-death penalty" because of the url. I have to get on my studying right now. But if someone would like to fish through it to find information, please do.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/

[Lalaith_Elf]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I would absolutely not support that. The American government has no right whatsoever to put Saddam Hussein on trial, even with the support of the Iraqi people. We do not have that authority.

If anyone should put Saddam Hussein on trial, it should be his own country... and no one else. It doesn't matter how much support or pressure the Iraqis put on the US to do so, it should NOT be done. Let them do their own dirty work!

Okay so if the Iraqis put Saddam on trial and found him guilty and sentenced to death, with no input from America, would you agree or disagree with them?

Speaking generally now:
Should people be condemmed to death or should they be spared and left to think about what crimes they have commited? Even if they don't regret that crime, such as murder.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Tell that to the Quakers. My roommate is a Quaker, from a long line of Quakers. Quakers are exempt from military service (ie, the draft) because of their religious beliefs.

I'm not really sure where I stand. On the one hand, I am disturbed by the 'state' taking the life of the 'citizen'. On the other hand, I think the person who gets the death penalty has forfeit his life when he/she commits the crime. At that point, is it really the 'state' that takes the 'citizen's' life? Or is it the representation of the people's will that takes it? Do you see the dilema?

Copy the url.... then come back here and post it with tags around it... like this ...
[url.]www.whatever.com[/.url]
of course, without the periods. Or I think the urls get parsed automatically if you check that box in 'options' below your post box. Not sure.

Ruinel -

Don't know if you saw my edited post (it ended up on the bottom of a page - eternal obscurity for any post... ), but those other posts of mine were on page 4 of that 'mechanic...' thread.

Quakers - yes, they're one of a number of pacifistic Christian groups. My own church is a little different in that it has no statement calling for pacifism - but will suport individual members who seek 'conscientious objector' status... so even my own denomination allows for both of those views.

I understand the uncertainty. I'm not 100% opposed myself - and get especially worked up when I hear about a particularly heinous crime like that one in Florida. Still, as a general rule, I'm inclined to be against for the reasons I outline on the other thread.

[brownjenkins]

i don't really concern myself with the sanctity of human life issue... or the revenge or deterrence... i'm more pragmatic

what i do know is that people who commit extreme violent crimes (rape, murder, child abuse) can never be definatively rehabilitated, whether judged as sane or insane, and as such should never be allowed to be in the position to commit such a crime again

what i also know is that mistakes get made

ideally i'd like to see a criminal system which would put people accused of such crimes away from society forever after the first offense (this would include physical separation from fellow inmates), with no exceptions, no parole and no chance of escape

i don't think this is impossible... our army seems to be doing a good job of it in guantanamo bay

if this was done, capital punishment would be a moot point

that said, in our current system, which is very confused and inconsistant state to state and crime to crime... i am willing to accept the death penalty because i believe the slim chance that an innocent person might be put to death is far superior to the much greater chance that a criminal not put to death will be back out in society again

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BTW, Gaffer, does the UK still have the postpartum depression exemption for when moms kill their infants?

Not as far as I know; didn't know that it ever did. What someone in that situation would do is mount a defence of "diminished responsibility". There's no first or second degree murder either (again, AFAIK); I think second degree = manslaughter in our system.

That's an interesting perspective on how to reconcile supporting the death penalty with the First Commandment.

I've always thought it was odd how people who are anti-abortion are often pro-death penalty. (Not pointing the finger at you, here Rian; I don't even know your views on abortion. You just jogged my raddled old brain a bit there) Would I be right in saying that this type of position means that you think that life has greater value in some people than in others?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer

I've always thought it was odd how people who are anti-abortion are often pro-death penalty. (Not pointing the finger at you, here Rian; I don't even know your views on abortion. You just jogged my raddled old brain a bit there) Would I be right in saying that this type of position means that you think that life has greater value in some people than in others?

I don't really see that as odd. If anything, I see the reverse as odd. I would rather spare the innocent and allow killing of the guilty - than kill the innocent and spare the guilty.

Although I see sparing both as a viable option.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Rian
BTW, Gaffer, does the UK still have the postpartum depression exemption for when moms kill their infants? It's not first-degree murder, IIRC. A sad but interesting situation ... I don't think the US has it, and post-partum depression is rare, but real, IMO.

Yes, they're a kind of special case. Some bits of this article on the BBC website explain how it works:

In the 1800s, the hot topic for doctors and judges were the hundreds of new mothers who killed their children while apparently in the grip of post-natal madness. Their sympathetic approach to these women paved the way for liberal legislation that is still in place today to protect women who suffer severe mental illness after they give birth.

Puerperal psychosis is now a well-recognised event, affecting perhaps one in every 500 births in the UK. The law was changed (in the 19th century) to accommodate such women, with the introduction of the Infanticide Act - creating a whole new legal definition of this kind of killing. That Act remains in force today.

...

Dr Roch Cantwell, a researcher in perinatal mental illness at the University of Glasgow, says that the courts remain sympathetic in this country to obvious cases of infanticide. "These women are often charged with manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility - but the sentencing available to the judge is more or less exactly the same, and people are more familiar with this charge.

"However, I think the police and courts show great sympathy to women in this position."

This is not the case everywhere - for example a case in the 1990s of a British woman whose baby died shortly after she gave birth in a New York hotel room... women have been given long jail terms in the US for offences that would be classed as infanticide in the UK.

You're right, it's an interesting question

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
I don't really see that as odd. If anything, I see the reverse as odd. I would rather spare the innocent and allow killing of the guilty - than kill the innocent and spare the guilty.

Although I see sparing both as a viable option.

it does, however, imply that mankind has the authority to judge who is and is not fit to live... i'd wonder how many would still insist upon the death penalty if life in prison was truly "life in prison"

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i am willing to accept the death penalty because i believe the slim chance that an innocent person might be put to death is far superior to the much greater chance that a criminal not put to death will be back out in society again

so you are saying its ok to kill these people because our system is too imperfect to keep criminals from getting out of jails? I just have a problem with ANY statement that starts with ITS OK TO KILL INNOCENTS BECAUSE.... Maybe its just me though.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lalaith_Elf
Okay so if the Iraqis put Saddam on trial and found him guilty and sentenced to death, with no input from America, would you agree or disagree with them?

Whether I agree with them or disagree is a mute point.

Speaking generally now:
Should people be condemmed to death or should they be spared and left to think about what crimes they have commited? Even if they don't regret that crime, such as murder.

I think that's what this thread is about, isn't it?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
Ruinel -

Don't know if you saw my edited post (it ended up on the bottom of a page - eternal obscurity for any post... ), but those other posts of mine were on page 4 of that 'mechanic...' thread....

I saw your post, but I was hoping for a link to the information so I could read more about it.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I saw your post, but I was hoping for a link to the information so I could read more about it.

Sorry - I don't really know how or where to find old news stories like that. I just read it in the Chicago Tribune as the news unfolded. Never really used the information superhighway to find that much information ... would a Trib website likely have archives? If these clues help... our previous governor, George Ryan, was in office - and he placed a moratorium on the death penalty in response - and even commuted the sentences of other death row inmates to life. He was governor from Jan 1999 to Jan 2003. There was a Northwestern University professor who was instrumental in getting much of the DNA testing done... sort of a 'man on a mission'... you'd think a law prof, but I believe he was actually journalism.

As for the general stuff, I saw the statistics posted on the death penalty (was it by JD?) - are there further statistics that do racial breakdowns... or percentage of those given the death penalty by race when convicted of certain crimes? I usually hear these things on the radio, or read them in a newspaper/magazine article - and remember the general idea better than the exact numbers.

Dunno if any of that's helpful...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
so you are saying its ok to kill these people because our system is too imperfect to keep criminals from getting out of jails? I just have a problem with ANY statement that starts with ITS OK TO KILL INNOCENTS BECAUSE.... Maybe its just me though.

think about this though...
what if we didnt put some guilty guy to the death penalty, and he gets loose; and kills innocent people.
and this: we could put this guy to death; and risk the chance of him bieng innocent; to prevent innocent people from bieng killed if this guy escaped.
I think thats whats bjenkins was talking about; that its better to risk it bieng an innocent guy, than to risk havig other innocents die.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
Sorry - I don't really know how or where to find old news stories like that. I just read it in the Chicago Tribune as the news unfolded. Never really used the information superhighway to find that much information ... would a Trib website likely have archives? If these clues help... our previous governor, George Ryan, was in office - and he placed a moratorium on the death penalty in response - and even commuted the sentences of other death row inmates to life. He was governor from Jan 1999 to Jan 2003. There was a Northwestern University professor who was instrumental in getting much of the DNA testing done... sort of a 'man on a mission'... you'd think a law prof, but I believe he was actually journalism.

Here is a CNN news article. There are a number of articles on the web about Illinois. I remember it occuring. I think there were better ways of handling it, such as retrials or take them on individual cases.

'Blanket commutation' empties Illinois death row

As for the general stuff, I saw the statistics posted on the death penalty (was it by JD?) - are there further statistics that do racial breakdowns... or percentage of those given the death penalty by race when convicted of certain crimes? I usually hear these things on the radio, or read them in a newspaper/magazine article - and remember the general idea better than the exact numbers.

Here is the numbers you were looking for...

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976




This is supposed to indicate that race is a motivating factor in the death sentence...

[Hemel]

Just as interest, are there other breakdowns of the characteristics of people executed? Things like, for example, where they come from, their ages, what their background financial status is?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
I think thats whats bjenkins was talking about; that its better to risk it bieng an innocent guy, than to risk havig other innocents die.

Yes. However, if you accept that it's inevitable that a mistake will be made at some point in the future, this translates as "it's better to definitely execute an innocent person than maybe have some guilty persons commit murder at some point in the future."

Is it right to punish a person for a crime they haven't yet committed??

EDIT: You can't say from statistics like this that there is definitely a race bias in sentencing, but it would be hard to prove that anyway. However, these stats would be consistent with the proposition that there is such as bias, since the US population is 11% black.

Given the evidence we've seen over here about bias in the justice system, it would be surprising if there wasn't similar bias elsewhere.