The death sentence.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer

You were comparing the total population of a country to the prison population. I'm trying to say that I do not believe that a person commits a crime based on what 'race' that person is. One doesn't decide to be a murderer because one is white, or black or hispanic or asian. One does so because that is who one is... a criminal.

What you suggested is that justice should be handed out according to one's 'race' and I believe justice should always be blind in that regard. If criminal A commits a horrible mass murder, he/she should have a punishment that fits the crime, regardless of what 'race' that person happens to be. And regardless of whether the prison population already has it's quota of that particular 'race'.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
yes... i try to always put pragmatism over idealism

as i said... in our real world it is much more likely that a criminal will get out and perform a violent crime again than that an innocent person will be put to death

I have a real issue with that logic because I mean how often do death row inmates escape from death row? We arent talking about someone in jail with a certain year sentence. We are talking about death row inmates. People who have already been sentenced to death. Theres only so many of them. Id really like to know the numbers of escaped death row inmates that kill other people while escaped. I cant imagine its as high as those innocent people who have been convicted of a capital crime.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel

What you suggested is that justice should be handed out according to one's 'race' and I believe justice should always be blind in that regard. If criminal A commits a horrible mass murder, he/she should have a punishment that fits the crime, regardless of what 'race' that person happens to be. And regardless of whether the prison population already has it's quota of that particular 'race'.

I dont think he was suggesting convicting people based on race at all. I think what was said was just pointing out that the percentage of minorities that are convicted of a capital crime is much higher then their representation in the population. So that leads us to ask well why is that? Now that may not be a question that needs to be answered only by the criminal justice system. The focus may be more social and cultural and national. But it opens up questions like is it because minorities tend to be more among the poor then non-minorities (and therefor cant afford equally qualified representation)? Is it because there is racism within our society? Is it because minorities are inharently more likely to commit crimes because they are lessor humans? Yeah I know that last one is a red herring but quite a LOT of people silently believe that every time they see a news story about a black person going to jail for murder and anyway the point is that we need to investigate WHY this huge disparity occurs. Ideally (if i can use that word in this context) we should be killing criminals at the same rate that they occur racially in the population right? If not then we need to accept that either there are differences in race or that some races are more at a disadvantage then other races in this country and therefore we need to ask is it really just to have a death penalty where some people are more likely to be executed?

[Nerdanel]

I just read in my Amnesty-magazine (sp?) that the U.S. is the country that gives (?) most death sentences to children (<18 years). I think that is very wrong.

Sorry if you've had a discussion about this earlier, I'm just too lazy to read all those pages..

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I have a real issue with that logic because I mean how often do death row inmates escape from death row? We arent talking about someone in jail with a certain year sentence. We are talking about death row inmates. People who have already been sentenced to death. Theres only so many of them. Id really like to know the numbers of escaped death row inmates that kill other people while escaped. I cant imagine its as high as those innocent people who have been convicted of a capital crime.

i'm not talking about escaping from death row... i'm saying, if there was no death penalty, there would be no death row... so these people would end up like most murders/rapists... serving 15-30 years and then getting released (and if i could be assured they would never be released... then i would be against the death penalty)

i will try to get numbers at some point... but i think the amount of people who perform a serious violent crime (and this doesn't have to mean murder), go to jail, are released, and then commit a seriously violent crime again far outweigh the amount of innocents killed via the death penalty... i would not be surprised if the numbers even outweigh all people killed in the us via the death penalty (guilty or innocent)

the bottom line is that i am putting what is good for society above what is good for the individual... it's a tough choice, but in certain cases, like violent crime, i think it must be made

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
(and if i could be assured they would never be released... then i would be against the death penalty)

So when you can't guarantee they won't commit crimes again, it's a lot safer to execute them? That doesn't sound either logical or moral, since you can never prove the criminals will commit new crimes.

Originally posted by Nerdanel
I just read in my Amnesty-magazine (sp?) that the U.S. is the country that gives (?) most death sentences to children (<18 years). I think that is very wrong.

Considering the US is one of the biggest countries in the world and one of the few countries in which minors are sentenced to death, it isn't strange that they're in the lead.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
in my mind, both ways will lead to the death of innocents... the question is, which way is likely to lead to more deaths of innocents

Yes, good point - and kinda what I mean by there is no "right" choice, just one that is better than another.

And it may be a different choice for different societies, too, IMO. I don't have a prob. with other countries NOT having the death penalty. I would say their own populace should decide.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Falagar
You know RÃ*an, of the last 9 posts you've posted 7.

Oh my goodness!

I'm only being polite, you know - I'm answering people that "spoke" to me ... um, yeah ... *checks post count*

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
but i think the amount of people who perform a serious violent crime (and this doesn't have to mean murder), go to jail, are released, and then commit a seriously violent crime again far outweigh the amount of innocents killed via the death penalty...

but wait. yer comparing two different things. yer saying that since people who go to jail for something less then a capital offense sometimes escape or ar released and kill people that we should have a death penalty. Well having a death penalty (unless you vastly increase the sweep of who gets sentenced under the death penalty) would not insure that these less then capitally sentenced escaped murderers dont kill innocents. ONLY if you killed a LOT more people would you decrease the number of innocents killed by guilty people ("innocents" being people killed by former criminals not "innocent" criminals killed by the state). So are you saying we should increase the scope of the death penalty to include anyone we deem a possible killer?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*gives Rian a good smack*

Oh, sorry Rian, it's that time of the month for me.

Oh, that's ok - let's go do our toenails and be brainless

[Rían]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
As for considering your crime, you could easily argue that spending the rest of your natural life in a cage leaves more opportunity for that and, in spiritual terms, for redemption.

This was definitely a new thought I was playing with, and not well-thought-through yet. I understand your point, but there's still something that I can't put my finger on about how facing your death is somehow different .... do you know what I mean? I'll have to think about it some more .... tough issue!

Nice to see you back in top form, by the way

thanks - gettin' there!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
Why should anyone of us have the right to put ourselves in a position to decide whether another person has the right to live or not? Yes, I know that all murderers have placed themselves in that position, but we believe that to be wrong, is it not then also wrong for us? The death penalty is hypocritical, imo. [

This is such a tough issue, Artanis, and I'm not 100% sure. But there's something about the fact that the penalty is known ahead of time that, to me, makes a difference.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
If criminal A commits a horrible mass murder, he/she should have a punishment that fits the crime, regardless of what 'race' that person happens to be.

Absolutely.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I dont think he was suggesting convicting people based on race at all. I think what was said was just pointing out that the percentage of minorities that are convicted of a capital crime is much higher then their representation in the population. So that leads us to ask well why is that? Now that may not be a question that needs to be answered only by the criminal justice system. The focus may be more social and cultural and national. But it opens up questions like is it because minorities tend to be more among the poor then non-minorities (and therefor cant afford equally qualified representation)? Is it because there is racism within our society? Is it because minorities are inharently more likely to commit crimes because they are lessor humans? Yeah I know that last one is a red herring but quite a LOT of people silently believe that every time they see a news story about a black person going to jail for murder and anyway the point is that we need to investigate WHY this huge disparity occurs. Ideally (if i can use that word in this context) we should be killing criminals at the same rate that they occur racially in the population right? If not then we need to accept that either there are differences in race or that some races are more at a disadvantage then other races in this country and therefore we need to ask is it really just to have a death penalty where some people are more likely to be executed?

Great post!

[Rían]

OK, Falagar, I've answered everyone, I think, and now I have to log off so my son can finish his science report. How'd I do?

[Hemel]

A quick question - is it right that most states in the US would not only permit the death sentencing of minors, but also of people who are mentally handicapped?

brownjenkins
so these people would end up like most murders/rapists... serving 15-30 years and then getting released

We had a report over here recently that suggested that a surprising number of those who'd been gaoled for serious crimes re-offended after release from long-term sentences. So that is a possibility, and a real consideration. But I'm still not convinced that the fact that we fail in assessing these people properly should be a reason for a death penalty.

brownjenkins
the bottom line is that i am putting what is good for society above what is good for the individual... it's a tough choice, but in certain cases, like violent crime, i think it must be made

I can't quite place it - but there's something that worries me about this. Actually, it's what I think happens a lot of the time, in general, that what's good for society supercedes what's good for the individual (going to school was definitely not good for me! ) ... and yes, it's good for society not to have violent and nasty people roaming about - but at the same time ... I suppose I'm thinking that we're getting into degrees of innocence here, with the assumption that someone who's been touched by the legal system is less likely to be innocent than someone who hasn't. But I'm not sure that that necessarily carries, simply because there are flaws in a legal system, and also because it's a bit of a slippery slope scenario. I'm not sure also, that the idea of killing an innocent potentially to protect an innocent is a convincing argument ... especially as in this instance there's no justice of equalisation served, we're just looking at possible deterrence effects.

sorry, this is a bit rushed - gotta go out. I hope it makes sense

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
but wait. yer comparing two different things. yer saying that since people who go to jail for something less then a capital offense sometimes escape or ar released and kill people that we should have a death penalty. Well having a death penalty (unless you vastly increase the sweep of who gets sentenced under the death penalty) would not insure that these less then capitally sentenced escaped murderers dont kill innocents. ONLY if you killed a LOT more people would you decrease the number of innocents killed by guilty people ("innocents" being people killed by former criminals not "innocent" criminals killed by the state). So are you saying we should increase the scope of the death penalty to include anyone we deem a possible killer?

i'll give a basic hypothetical to explain why i feel the way i do about it... the numbers are made up, but i think they represent the realities in a general way

1) People found guilty of the rape and murder of a child are sentenced to death
ten people are put on death row and executed for this crime... later one is found to have been innocent... one innocent person has been killed

2) People found guilty of the rape and murder of a child are sentenced to life in prison
ten people are sentenced to life in prison... after 20-30 years eight of these are released on good behavior... of those eight, three go on to rape and kill another child... three innocent people have been killed

granted, if you look at any individual criminal you could say, as jonathan does, that you can never be sure which of those ten will commit a crime... but if you look at criminals as a whole, the question becomes not will they commit a crime, but how many will commit a crime

as a result, if i was the activist type, i would not spend my time fighting for or against the death penalty... instead i would push for mandatory unparolable life sentences... and i would expand it to include more crimes... including violent rape that does not involve the death of the victim

and yes, there are racial and economical inequities... but these should be dealt with by promoting equality and prosperity... not by compromising our legal system

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
granted, if you look at any individual criminal you could say, as jonathan does, that you can never be sure which of those ten will commit a crime... but if you look at criminals as a whole, the question becomes not will they commit a crime, but how many will commit a crime

just as it comes down to not WILL they execute innocents but how many will they execute. And essentially you are saying the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. In other words lets sacrifice some innocent people so that we can increase the safety of other innocent people.

as a result, if i was the activist type, i would not spend my time fighting for or against the death penalty... instead i would push for mandatory unparolable life sentences... and i would expand it to include more crimes... including violent rape that does not involve the death of the victim

so then you are diverging from what you were saying originally which is the death penalty is a good thing because it saves more innocents then it kills. Obviously if we have true life terms and we expand them for lesser crimes you wont have to worry about paroled murderers killing children. But then why do you still need a death penalty at all if you have this kind of system? Also from what I understand the economic viability of undertaking such a thing quickly becomes self defeating. I think I read once that if we were to keep criminals jailed for life for all violent crimes that based on life expectencies and the rate of crime, you would need more square footage of jail space then the entire state of Delaware within just 25 years. Quite shocking if you think about it. So then does the answer become killing a lot more people? There by increasing the numbers of innocents you will kill?

[brownjenkins]

i'm not diverging... this is what i originally said (bold added):

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 (clarification: i would be against capital punishment if the above was true)

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

yes... i am willing to sacrifice a few innocent people if it means that many more innocent lives will be saved as a result... until we come up with a better system as i layed out above

in terms of economics... for something like this that involves human life, cost should not be an issue and i would be more than willing to spend the money it takes, even if it came out of my own pocket

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
just as it comes down to not WILL they execute innocents but how many will they execute. And essentially you are saying the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. In other words lets sacrifice some innocent people so that we can increase the safety of other innocent people.

both ways lead to innocent deaths... whether by execution or crime... the question is which leads to less innocent deaths