Still believe in the death Penalty?

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes I've heard statistics before from the anti-death penalty side that show there are less first degree murder convictions when the death penalty is in place. Nobody wants to commit an error that costs someone their life.

Again if the problem is with the legal system than that is what you fix. We shouldn't use it as an excuse to not have capital punishment. Governments can and do enter into unnecessary wars which cost countless lives. That doesn't mean Canada should disband their military. It means that the government should be called to a high accountability when they entertain any declaration of war.

You're assuming the opposition to the death penalty is singularly administrative. It is that, but it's also moral, philosophical, and policy-driven.

Even if your military analogy was apt - and I don't think it is - it still doesn't address the oppositions others have raised. When a governing institution does something immoral, you don't alter the governing body to accomodate that immoral behaviour. You stop them from doing it, and prevent them from doing it again. That would be the anti-capital punishment retort to your hypothetical.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

in regards to those worried about executing the wrongfully accused: you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette

That's a rather callous disregard for human life.

You are going in circles. On the one hand, human life is so sacred that a murderer should go to the electric chair,but at the same time executing innocent people isn't really all that bad, and can be dismissed with a cliche.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by fatso

You're assuming the opposition to the death penalty is singularly administrative. It is that, but it's also moral, philosophical, and policy-driven.

Even if your military analogy was apt - and I don't think it is - it still doesn't address the oppositions others have raised. When a governing institution does something immoral, you don't alter the governing body to accomodate that immoral behaviour. You stop them from doing it, and prevent them from doing it again. That would be the anti-capital punishment retort to your hypothetical.

I agree that the other issues are really a distraction to what separates most on this issue: I don't believe that it is immoral for the State to administer capital punishment. You and others see capital punishment as immoral and murder. No amount of discussion is going to change these core beliefs because they are based upon different world views. Your views of the role and limitations of government and the progression of mankind are not mine and vice-versa.

[fatso]

That's true - fair enough. So let's stick with the administrative concerns.

What would be an infallible system of proof? Knowledge is always subject to historical conditions - and what seems 'true' and 'obvious' now can be totally subverted 50 years as people's viewpoints and technology changes. DNA evidence comes to mind. But just think about things like who can testify and in what capacity they can be witnesses, and how much that's changed in the last 100 years. Think about hearsay evidence. Think about systematic judicial biases against particular groups. You might argue that it's just a matter of system refinement. But when do you know the system has been sufficiently refined?

I remember when there was that Central Park jogger case about, oh, 20 years ago I think. I was in New York at the time and it was scary. In the end, it was a group of black teenagers that had attacked a white woman and beat her to within an inch of her life. The perpetrators even confessed. Case closed. Airtight, right? Except it wasn't. They were teenagers coerced into a confession because the cops wanted to close it fast. 15 years later the actual attacker came forward and exonerated the youths who were wrongly accused and imprisoned. This was confirmed through DNA evidence. Seemed like an open-and-shut case, meeting all the burdens of evidence... 15 years is a long time to rot in a jail cell... but at least they're still alive.

But let's just say you have a murderer's identity that is 100% undoubted. OK, cold-blooded murder merits the death penalty. But what about being recklessly criminally negligent to the point of virtual homicide? Or what about the issue of age? Or what about mental illness or the mentally challenged? Where do you stop the sliding scale of who merits death? Next thing you know, you're back in 17th century Salem, which seemed pretty logical to a community afraid of witchcraft and its harm on society.

I'm not saying a criminal justice system without the death penalty is perfect. It's anything but that. But opening the door, even if it was morally correct, necessarily creates the possibility of error and regret.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[quote=North East Goon;1381635]

Originally Posted by evman150

It's actually quite a bit different than the abortion argument. I can understand both sides of the abortion argument. I can't understand the other side of the state murdering argument. You are against some murders but for some murders? How is that not an inconsistent position? But we're murdering murderers so it's okay? So who murders the government who has now become a murderer? After all, they're murderers as well and are now deserving of being murdered.

quote]

If the death penalty possibility stops one person from murdering - then it is a success. For the record, I am for no murders state sponsored or random psycho.

What if the death penalty murders one inoccent victim?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

in regards to those worried about executing the wrongfully accused: you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette

You know flames gimp, I had a fair amount of respect for you coming into this thread. But some of your comments throught have made me re-think that.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by fatso

That's true - fair enough. So let's stick with the administrative concerns.

What would be an infallible system of proof? Knowledge is always subject to historical conditions - and what seems 'true' and 'obvious' now can be totally subverted 50 years as people's viewpoints and technology changes. DNA evidence comes to mind. But just think about things like who can testify and in what capacity they can be witnesses, and how much that's changed in the last 100 years. Think about hearsay evidence. Think about systematic judicial biases against particular groups. You might argue that it's just a matter of system refinement. But when do you know the system has been sufficiently refined?

I remember when there was that Central Park jogger case about, oh, 20 years ago I think. I was in New York at the time and it was scary. In the end, it was a group of black teenagers that had attacked a white woman and beat her to within an inch of her life. The perpetrators even confessed. Case closed. Airtight, right? Except it wasn't. They were teenagers coerced into a confession because the cops wanted to close it fast. 15 years later the actual attacker came forward and exonerated the youths who were wrongly accused and imprisoned. This was confirmed through DNA evidence. Seemed like an open-and-shut case, meeting all the burdens of evidence... 15 years is a long time to rot in a jail cell... but at least they're still alive.

But let's just say you have a murderer's identity that is 100% undoubted. OK, cold-blooded murder merits the death penalty. But what about being recklessly criminally negligent to the point of virtual homicide? Or what about the issue of age? Or what about mental illness or the mentally challenged? Where do you stop the sliding scale of who merits death? Next thing you know, you're back in 17th century Salem, which seemed pretty logical to a community afraid of witchcraft and its harm on society.

I'm not saying a criminal justice system without the death penalty is perfect. It's anything but that. But opening the door, even if it was morally correct, necessarily creates the possibility of error and regret.

All good points. I guess in my mind (seeing as I believe it is the morally correct thing to do) it is worth both the trouble and risk.

I think one could avoid a lot of the mistakes if there was a panel of Judges who would automatically review any death sentence to see if that high level of proof had been achieved. I realize there is appeal processes in place today but, they are only allowed to address errors in procedure and possible new evidence. Often these questionable convictions have social and race implications: Sometimes blatant and other times subtle. The questions of mental competence and accountability could also be readdressed by them. This would mean that the accused would have to have been found guilty twice: Once by a jury of his/her peers and once by a group of professional judges. Justice is only as fair as the people administering it.

[Thor]

I'm the atheist here, and I'm the one hoping people can forgive or at least not let vengeance and revenge be law.

No matter the case, no matter how emotional we are about this; we should not condemn others to death in order to bring about justice.

Its barbaric.

Let them rot in prison, people seem to think prison is some joy ride, you try 1yr, 5yrs, 10yrs, all your life in prison... Its hell.

If I hear anyone again say "oh but its cheaper to put them to death than life in prison..." Have you looked in the US at the costs of appeals and the typical cost to the system for death row inmates?

IF that was a factor, your argument fails.

But ultimately, it should not be our judicial system that condems people to death, this was something our ancestry did in barbaric times and times of ignorance.

We'd like to hope we have moved somewhat forward in our thinking, but obviously in America and somewhat here we are lacking.

At least the rest of the free world, the western world, people are disgusted by the idea of capital punishment; so there is hope for this continent yet

[J pold]

Musician Steve Earle has always had a strong opinion when it comes too the death penalty and it shows in his music

Ellis unit one: (What they call death-row in Texas)

I was fresh out of the service
It was back in ‘82
I raised some Cain when I come back to town
I left to be all I could be
Come home without a clue
Now, I married Dawn and had to settle down
So I hired on at the prison
Guess I always knew I would
Just like my dad and both my uncles done
And I worked on every cell block
Now, things're goin' good
But then they transferred me to Ellis Unit One

Swing low
Swing low
Swing low and carry me home

Well, my daddy used to talk about them long nights at the walls
And how they used to strap ‘em in the chair
The kids down from the college and they'd bring their beer ‘n all
‘N when the lights went out, a cheer rose in the air

Well, folks just got too civilized
Sparky's gatherin' dust
‘Cause no one wants to touch a smokin' gun
And since they got the injection
They don't mind as much, I guess
They just put ‘em down at Ellis Unit One

Swing low
Swing low
Swing low and carry me home

Well, I've seen ‘em fight like lions, boys
I've seen 'em go like lambs
And I've helped to drag ‘em when they could not stand
And I've heard their mamas cryin' when they heard that big door slam
And I've seen the victim's family holdin' hands

Last night I dreamed that I woke up with straps across my chest
And something cold and black pullin' through my lungs
‘N even Jesus couldn't save me though I know he did his best
But he don't live on Ellis Unit One

Another really powerful song on the subject, Billy Austin:

My name is Billy Austin
I'm Twenty-Nine years old
I was born in Oklahoma
Quarter Cherokee I'm told
Don't remember Oklahoma
Been so long since I left home
Seems like I've always been in prison
Like I've always been alone
Didn't mean to hurt nobody
Never thought I'd cross that line
I held up a filling station
Like I'd done a hundred times
The kid done like I told him
He lay face down on the floor
guess I'll never know what made me
Turn and walk back through that door
The shot rang out like thunder
My ears rang like a bell
No one came runnin'
So I called the cops myself
Took their time to get there
And I guess I could'a run
I knew I should be feeling something
But I never shed tear once
I didn't even make the papers'
Cause I only killed one man
but my trial was over quickly
And then the long hard wait began
Court appointed lawyer
Couldn't look me in the eye
He just stood up and closed his briefcase
When they sentenced me to die
Now my waitin's over
As the final hour drags by
I ain't about to tell youThat I don't deserve to die
But there's twenty-seven men here
Mostly black, brown and poor
Most of em are guilty
Who are you to say for sure?
So when the preacher comes to get me
And they shave off all my hair
Could you take that long walk with me
Knowing hell is waitin' there
Could you pull that switch yourself sir
With a sure and steady hand
Than Could you still tell youself sir
That you're better than I am
My name is Billy Austin
I'm twenty-nine years old
I was born in Oklahoma
Quarter Cherokee I'm told

I was at his concert last night and he talked on this issue using words like, barbaric, backward, evil, and inhuman

I have always agreed with Mr. Earle

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by driveway

I appreciate the arguments that people make in favour of the death penalty, but I remain convinced that creating another victim of murder does not bring justice to past victims.

I would vehemently and actively oppose any move to re-instate the death penalty in Canada.

I find it funny that you have a Clint Eastwood/The Good. the Bad and the Ugly avatar; they sure were for the death penalty in those movies...

[FireFly]

I think it's funny that those who are calling the practice barbaric and that we shouldn't be looking for revenge and vengence are then saying we should "let them rot in a jail cell".

[Dr GonZo]

I haven't read all the messages, but I'm missing the argument that capital punishment will at least stop the individual's opportunity from repeating his/her offence, and second it may also deter others from pursuing a capital punishment worthy offence as the thought of their exection scares them into rationality.

Just a thought.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I think it's funny that those who are calling the practice barbaric and that we shouldn't be looking for revenge and vengence are then saying we should "let them rot in a jail cell".

why? Because all forms of punishment are equal? Because those against the death penalty cannot still want harsh justice? Because those against the death penalty want convicted criminals to have an easy time? Give me a break...

The rhetoric in your example may be harsh, but I have no problem refining a system that imposes strict and harsh punishment for various offences. My point is simply that the system cannot - and should not - be refined to the point of enacting the totally irreparable punishment of death.

I have absolutely no problem with letting a nutjob like Bernardo rot in prison for life. To be honest, I'd like to see that guy dead. But the negatives to society, to freedom, to law, to justice, to our cultural identity, and to other, future prisoners far outweigh any benefit that could be derived from killing that sicko.

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by fatso

But the negatives to society, to freedom, to law, to justice, to our cultural identity, and to other, future prisoners far outweigh any benefit that could be derived from killing that sicko.

Ironically, I and many others see it the other way around. The benefits to society, to freedom, to law, to justice, to our cultural identity, and to other, future prisoners far outweigh teh negatives that could be derived from killing that sicko.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Dr GonZo

I haven't read all the messages, but I'm missing the argument that capital punishment will at least stop the individual's opportunity from repeating his/her offence, and second it may also deter others from pursuing a capital punishment worthy offence as the thought of their exection scares them into rationality.

Just a thought.

Clearly this isn’t the case, From the article: Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, FBI data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. A state-by-state analysis found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/092200-01.htm

I’m re-posting hit article, it was brought up earlier on in the thread

Also wouldn’t sending someone too life in prison drastically reduce there ability to re-commit a capital offence?

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Dr GonZo

Ironically, I and many others see it the other way around. The benefits to society, to freedom, to law, to justice, to our cultural identity, and to other, future prisoners far outweigh teh negatives that could be derived from killing that sicko.

I didn't realize that. Maybe we should have a thread about it where we argue back and forth for 4-5 pages. Kidding...

If you're talking about killing Bernardo specifically... I can at least see where you're coming from. If you're talking about implementing the death penalty as a principle that has to be fleshed out into a policy, then no.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by fatso

why? Because all forms of punishment are equal? Because those against the death penalty cannot still want harsh justice? Because those against the death penalty want convicted criminals to have an easy time? Give me a break...

The rhetoric in your example may be harsh, but I have no problem refining a system that imposes strict and harsh punishment for various offences. My point is simply that the system cannot - and should not - be refined to the point of enacting the totally irreparable punishment of death.

I have absolutely no problem with letting a nutjob like Bernardo rot in prison for life. To be honest, I'd like to see that guy dead. But the negatives to society, to freedom, to law, to justice, to our cultural identity, and to other, future prisoners far outweigh any benefit that could be derived from killing that sicko.

No no, it's the hypocrisy in saying that we shouldn't want vengence or revenge and then turning around and saying that you want him to 'rot in jail'. There are less barbaric ways of phrasing things... You could want the person to 'serve their time' or 'pay their debt to society' but rather you'd prefer if they 'rot in jail'...

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by J pold

Clearly this isn’t the case, From the article: Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, FBI data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. A state-by-state analysis found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/092200-01.htm

I’m re-posting hit article, it was brought up earlier on in the thread

Also wouldn’t sending someone too life in prison drastically reduce there ability to re-commit a capital offence?

Originally Posted by J pold

Also wouldn’t sending someone too life in prison drastically reduce there ability to re-commit a capital offence?

Drastically? Perhaps a tad. Other than a murder in the prison, escape or early parol, which are all very realistic situations for murderers.

Second of all, it's hardly valid statistics to compare different states in different punishment environments. Living standards, crime rates in general, weapons per capita ratio are all variables that are significant to such a comparison. The only true way of comparing the impact of caplital punishment (I won't use the acronym for obvious reasons) is by comparing murder rates directly before and directly after (maybe a time span of a few years) it's introduction/termination in the same area.

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by fatso

I didn't realize that. Maybe we should have a thread about it where we argue back and forth for 4-5 pages. Kidding...

If you're talking about killing Bernardo specifically... I can at least see where you're coming from. If you're talking about implementing the death penalty as a principle that has to be fleshed out into a policy, then no.

I guess what I'm saying is that we'll never agree as we use the same arguments for the exact opposite reasons.

There are a lot of sickos out there.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No no, it's the hypocrisy in saying that we shouldn't want vengence or revenge and then turning around and saying that you want him to 'rot in jail'. There are less barbaric ways of phrasing things... You could want the person to 'serve their time' or 'pay their debt to society' but rather you'd prefer if they 'rot in jail'...

so it's a rhetoric or diction issue then... I see. I'm not sure what your endgame here is. Are you trying to show the anti-death penalty crowd up to be hypocrites because they occasionally use incorrect or inappropriate language? That is, if they are going to talk in certain ways, they might as well alter their aims?

The point isn't that victims and society should not 'want' vengeance or revenge. I don't know if those feelings can ever be repressed or stopped. THe point is that vengeance and revenge should not form the principles upon which social justice is achieved. I'm not against the death penalty to protect Bernardo. I could care less about him and his ilk. I'm against it to protect the potentially wrongfully accused, and to try to develop an ethical society. I didn't realize this was compromised by my word-choice in an informal discussion.