Capital punishment

[Mycernius]

I have recently watched a TV programme on How to kill a human being, part of the new Horizon series on BBC 2, in which Michael Portillo seeks to find out if there is a humane way to kill a person on death row. Finding out that all current forms of execution used in the US can cause pain, extreme stress and particularly gruesome, and are therefore not humane (they are the gas chamber, lethal injection, hanging and the electric chair). He also mentions that Vietnam, which uses firing squad, have declared as inhumane and are trying to find a better way. He does evetually find a way which is to deprive the brain of oxygen via the breathing in of nitrogen, similar to altitude sickness, that can induce euphoria and slowly losing consciousness without any resistance or stress. Discovered by a British scientist as a humane way to kill animals in an abattoir, he takes it the idea to a leading pro-death penalty advocate in the US who dismisses it as not good, as he believes the executee (is there such a word) should suffer some form of pain as part of the punishment.

Now I am completely against the death penatly, for any crime. I see it a barbarous and for so called civilised countries to still practice it as a by product of a darker time in their past. If you want a prisoner to suffer for his crime, then let him suffer knowing that the rest of his/her life is going to be spent behind bars, never feeling the freedom that we all take for granted. There are, after all, some cases that the prisoner wants to be executed. Timothy McVeigh wanted it so he could be a martyr under his own ideas, and there are others with that mentality. To deny him that would have been a better punishment, just to let him rot in jail.

Don't get me wrong, if such people are killed or mortally injured in the carrying out of the crime, then good, that is part of the risk of doing a capital crime.

There are plenty of pros and cons for capital punishment and this thread is for thoses who wish to address those.

Some cons:
Prisoner could be innocent
Murder is murder whether is it state sponsored or not
It is inhumane
Cost
It doesn't act as a deterrent
Cause trauma to the prisoners immediate family
Some pros
Cost
Victims family have closure
Deterrence
It removes the violent from society

Some links of the death penalty:



File:Death penalty statutes in the United States.svg - Wikimedia Commons

Wikipedia's entry:
Capital punishment - Wikipedia

Please note that on the poll, questions 3a and 3b need not be answered if you are against the death penalty.

 

[Sarapva]

I think it's wrong to knowingly kill another human being (unless in self-defense or in some cases a "mercy killing"). Whether it's an individual killing another or a government killing a criminal, I think purposeful killing isn't right.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Killing another human being is murder. The only way I can see that as excusable is in the case of self-defence.

I see capital punishment as almost an endorsement of the murderer's methods - an eye for an eye.

How can a civilised state set an example saying "murder is wrong" by going ahead and murdering it's own citizens? If you're in any doubt that capital punishment is murder, check the definition of the word: murder

 

[scorpion da black]

some times capital punishment is acceptable...
like a rapist who raped many..
a serial killer
a cold blooded proud killer...

that is for two reasons...
the first is to set an example for other criminals that this is what is waiting for you if you commit crimes...
the second is : every one against capital punishment looks at the criminal as a human being and forgets to look ate the victims as human beings .....what about the the people who were killed.....it is their right to have their killers killed so that other people wouldn't have to suffer the same fate....??

 

[Mars Man]

Meditatively killing another human being (and we could extend that to any sentient life form) is an element of existence, it cannot be denied, however that, in and of itself alone, hardly proves such an act as being productive and with positive outcome. The death penalty is something that our human societies should be able to get over about now. Life-long imprisonment is the way to go--along with social programs which act to hold down the level of serious crimes.

We could concede that nature itself, is just that...dog eat dog-built. It could be argued that since life forms do make a continuum, why hold the act of killing in disdain? Big fish eats little fish is the way nature works.

Well, it is nature that has endowed us homo sapiens with a noticeably larger brain along with the spindle cells which only a few of the great apes, some whales, and probably dolphins have--those cells being very important in empathetic thought/decision processes. It is also through this means that we have developed these higher structured social units, and in building and better structuring these we can concieve of more productive and positive in outcome ways and means.

All the while balancing this knowledge with that of the essence of nature, even, we can come to understand the 'roll with the punches' idea of 'live and let live.' We can come to grips with the hard cold facts of eventual natural outcome, and strive for the continuity of the life form--animate or inanimate, human or not. In that the macro is the objective, the micro can be seen to be a movement of molecular instance, thus we can hold emotions of revenge in check. The ancient 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' mentality must be put in the history books and left there.

A person may kill another person or another animal meditatively, but it can well be argued to be less productive and to have negative outcome to meditatively kill that person or animal. Putting them securely out of the realm of social contact or presence, may well be the best choice, and is the one I personally tend to support.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

the first is to set an example for other criminals that this is what is waiting for you if you commit crimes...

Doesn't it also send the message that it's OK to kill people?

the second is : every one against capital punishment looks at the criminal as a human being and forgets to look ate the victims as human beings .....what about the the people who were killed.....it is their right to have their killers killed so that other people wouldn't have to suffer the same fate....??

Well, a murderer is still a human being. Again, I think killing a murderer is legitimising their methods. I think it's more tribute to the memory of a victim that their murderer spend his life behind bars with the knowledge of what he has done - and that we won't stoop to his methods.

 

[Mycernius]

Let me take these one at a time

some times capital punishment is acceptable...
like a rapist who raped many..

A serial rapist usually shows signs of a mental imbalance. Sometimes it is a result of abuse as a child. Unable to reconcile the abuse as a child it manufests itself into abuse of others. There is also how the child was raised. If raised in a household where the male parent is dominating towards the females in general, they would feel that such actions are not as serious as you or I would deem them. Society also can have a hand in this. If you live in a very much male orientated society then rape, although not fully acceptable, is not punished as much for the man as it would be for a woman. For example the recent rape of a woman in Saudi Arabia. She was the victim yet condemed to death becasue she was out with a man by herself.
There is also the case that many rape victims are not killed. To kill a criminal for rape when the victim is not dead is not an eye for an eye.

a serial killer

Again a serial killer is usually a sign of a mental disorder. Psychotics are not usually put to death in countries with capital punishment as it is seen as they are not fully aware of what they are doing. In any case putting to death such meople can set a precednt for the general euthanasia for people with violent mental disorders. A case of cut away the problem before it becomes a problem.

a cold blooded proud killer...

Would putting to death such a person deter others like him? No, because their own pride is their downfall, Such people do not even think that they will be caught. A death penatly in a country will not stop these type of killers.

that is for two reasons...
the first is to set an example for other criminals that this is what is waiting for you if you commit crimes...

There are pros and cons for the deterent arguments. The pros say it does work and will often cite statistics to show how it works. Singapore has a low murder rate because of the death penalty therefore the threat works as a deterent.
The cons will then point out, so does Sweden, a country with no death penalty, in fact one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.
The deterent is only part of it, it also comes down to the culture of the country. If the population is raised with a general discouragement towards violent crime then does it matter whether captial punishment is on the statute books or not?

the second is : every one against capital punishment looks at the criminal as a human being and forgets to look at the victims as human beings .....what about the the people who were killed.....it is their right to have their killers killed so that other people wouldn't have to suffer the same fate....??

False assumption. A killer put away for life will ensure that others will not suffer the same fate. Sorry to sound cruel, but a person who is already dead cannot feel anything towards the killer, they are dead. The relatives of the victim might be looking for revenge, but does that bring the victim back to life? Does it always bring closure to the victims family? There might even be the possiblity that the victim might have been against the death penalty. How would they have felt, if still alive or able to communicate their thoughts to others, that the killer would be killed? It is the state that is assuming the wishes of the dead.

 

[scorpion da black]

what you said makes sense but lacks an important thing if the judicial system fails to give punishment to the criminal. the victim's family will seek revenge and have the criminal killed them selves...
as mars man said, basic human instinct ...
if i was to have my brother; lets say ; killed i would kill the criminal..i would seek revenge...i raised my brother only to see him die.....(that is an assumption) ...punishment will not bring the dead back to life but it will definitely give me peace.

most of you (and i apologize) to say this are having a point of view which is hypocritical...wait until you are in such situations where your loved ones are killed and you will involuntarily seek revenge. revenge is a bad habit in human behavior so it is better to have the court rule who is guilty and so assign the punishment.

i know how it feels to have loved ones killed....and it is not pleasant...
mars man san i don't need proof for that....i experienced it my self...
as to what you would call experimented on one's self

 

[Mycernius]

what you said makes sense but lacks an important thing if the judicial system fails to give punishment to the criminal. the victim's family will seek revenge and have the criminal killed them selves...
as mars man said, basic human instinct ...
if i was to have my brother; lets say ; killed i would kill the criminal..i would seek revenge...i raised my brother only to see him die.....(that is an assumption) ...punishment will not bring the dead back to life but it will definitely give me peace.

most of you (and i apologize) to say this are having a point of view which is hypocritical...wait until you are in such situations where your loved ones are killed and you will involuntarily seek revenge. revenge is a bad habit in human behavior so it is better to have the court rule who is guilty and so assign the punishment.

So if you seek revenge you then become the criminal and you face the death penalty. The family of your victim would want revenge the way you wanted revenge. It is a never ending cycle. The only way is to excersie the humanity in yourself to break the cycle of violence. You are making yourself as bad as the person who committed the original crime. Going down to their level of nature. You are becoming what you hate.

i know how it feels to have loved ones killed....and it is not pleasant...
mars man san i don't need proof for that....i experienced it my self...
as to what you would call experimented on one's self

I know you live in Lebanon and you have experienced things that most people on this fourm have not experienced, but does the cycle of violence solve anything?

 

[Haruspex]

My opinion is that capital punishment is well... it doesn't make much sense. Isn't it like lex talionis exactly as Mars Man said above? Someone does something nasty, and you punish him by inflicting something of equal or similar value. Now how the hell does that come into today's jurisdiction? I mean normally a person would pay a heap of cash or do public work or whatever to make up for his deeds, but death penalty serves no purpose. A dead person is simply dead, he won't atone AT ALL.
Sure, I do feel like there's a need to kill off certain people, but at the same time I know its just some dumb instinct.

As for avenging a dead relative... hmm. If I could get away 100% I'd go kill the person to satisfy my instincts, but seriously, I wouldn't go as far as killing the person at all cost. But surely, I'd give him a nice beating with something blunt. Its worth the cash.

 

[scorpion da black]

as i said mycernius san
revenge is a bad habit from the human behavior......and we need the court to decide the punishment..that will seize the act of revenge in society...

however if the court doesn't give the criminal the punishment he deserves i would gladly do that instead.

 

[Haruspex]

however if the court doesn't give the criminal the punishment he deserves i would gladly do that instead.

As a however to however, you would get into prison, that worth it?
Im not getting all morally messed at the thought of killing someone, but no, it is stupid to do that so openly, and since modern society nowadays doesn't really allow you to do it behind the scenes, its wiser to leave things as they are. Besides, I really wouldn't want a murderer's family to be howling for blood, roaring after my neck, no, no.
Just imprison people for a nice while, until they rot in prison and let them regret it for their whole life.
At the same time, lifelong imprisonment is good for the criminal as well. People imprisoned in normal prisons have a chance to calm down and meditate on their lives, also it protects them from the bloodthirsty relatives.

 

[scorpion da black]

As a however to however, you would get into prison, that worth it?
Im not getting all morally messed at the thought of killing someone, but no, it is stupid to do that so openly, and since modern society nowadays doesn't really allow you to do it behind the scenes, its wiser to leave things as they are. Besides, I really wouldn't want a murderer's family to be howling for blood, roaring after my neck, no, no.
Just imprison people for a nice while, until they rot in prison and let them regret it for their whole life.
At the same time, lifelong imprisonment is good for the criminal as well. People imprisoned in normal prisons have a chance to calm down and meditate on their lives, also it protects them from the bloodthirsty relatives.

haha don't worry about that...
i don't go down that easily..nor does the ones who stand beside me ...i know what you will say..typical gangster talk or childish..but it is true...things here don't go the same way as in your part of the world..

as for going to prison..well lets put it this way....if a father had his son killed..what more of life does he want??
i think he will be willing to put an end to both his life and the killers life.
(not that this is the right thing to do)

 

[Mars Man]

...as mars man said, basic human instinct ...

I appreciate your understanding there, scorpion da black san, (and others too, of course) yet sense that you may have missed the larger point made--namely that as a single world society (which as you may recall from my posts on the Compromise for the Middle East as well as the USA biggest threat to world peace thread) we ought to have over come that by now.

Quoting my earlier post:

It is also through this means (the nature endowed spindle cell network which allows the far greater number of homo sapiens to have empathy) that we have developed these higher structured social units (as opposed to older social structures, those of today where we can focus more on fairness and ethical matters from the viewpoint of a far greater data base telling us what life is, and what it isn't) and in building and better structuring these (that is into a newer, single world social unit) we can concieve of more productive and positive in outcome ways and means. (to handle crimes in which an individual has been meditatively killed--murdered. {as opposed to accidental killed--negligent manslaughter}​

Then, again quoting from that post:

In that macro is the ojbective, the micro can be seen to be movement of molecular instance, (that is, the goal is to protect life as a force entity--a miracle of sorts, in the universe--and by focusing our mind's eye on that objective, we can understand and accept those sacrificies of unforseen occurance) thus we can hold emotions of revenge in check.① The ancient 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' mentality MUST be put in the history books and left there.​

(underline added here)

The larger stress had been, therefore, that in spite of nature's being the 'big fish eats little fish' format, it has endowed the human with the potential to over ride that. It does take knowledge, sagacity, and determination, however, but it is possible for the human animal to do so.

As Mycernius had been driving at, if we allow the raw emotion of revenge (regardless of the circumstances) to prevail, we would be wrong in considering war to be a negative thing--because it is simply the macro reflection of the micro. Putting those who murder (meditative killing) or who even simply commit manslaughter (though not of the neglegent kind) out of society is punishment enough, and yet stimulates the impetus of and preservation of the life force on society--and that is the objective! ②

It would be better, for sure, to put away the old world frame of mind that is prevalent in older cultures (social groups) and make effort, one by one, example by example, to renew and improve.




① It reminds me of a song by a friend of mine who I used to do music with. He is an American of Jewish background and had gone to live on a Kibutzu for a while and wrote that song, in which the characters who had had the bad end of unforeseen occurance kept the attitude of, 'Hey, glad it was me, rather than someone else, 'cause I can take it.' Understanding that attitude of the victim, friends and relatives need to harbor no emotions of revenge. (he eventual got fed up with such prevalent attitudes there, and left.) ②There will be those few instances of varied weight which must yet be decided on in more personal circumstances, however, such as euthanasia or abortion.

 

[Revenant]

I believe that there must be some fairly vast differences between those that commit crimes that some people consider punishable by death, and those that don't. Perhaps it's a poor childhood coupled with poorer impulse control (the prefrontal cortex is definitely smaller in a lot of prisoners than they are in the average population), and much higher testosterone levels (making people a lot more aggressive). That's just an example, but I believe that we would get a lot further in studying the differences that set us apart, especially in regards to psychology and neuroscience, than we would in simply putting them to death.

A psychopath may lack some of the neurochemicals that most people have, and a person who's got some problem with the amygdala (center for anticipating pain), may not be able to anticipate what negative consequences flying into a rage would bring. These findings I'm sure are just the tip of the iceberg, and the info gathered would I'm sure enable us to prevent similar crimes in the future.

As to the death penalty bringing about closure, I have no evidence to back up the following opinion, but I don't believe it would bring the closure the angry grievers hope for. A woman who was raped and tortured often fantasized that the rapist and torturer was killed. The rapist was killed later in some accident, and he lingered on in pain before passed away. The woman who fantasized about his death didn't find the closure or relief that she was hoping for, and she decided that she must seek some other way to overcome her pain.

 

[karlyboo]

Hm, a tricky question. I'm a great believer in the old adage that you can tell everything you need to know about a society from how it treats its prisoners.

I am also hard pushed for a reconciliation to the simple conundrum:

1. Murder is wrong
2. The state will therefore punish people for murder by murdering them
3. Who will punish the state for transgressing point 1?

And that's without throwing into the mix the chance that you may be executing an innocent person.

It's also fair to say that (some) countries which do not exercise capital punishment enjoy very low crime rates, such as Canada. That said other countries also enjoy low crime rates which do sanction Capital Punishment, such as Japan.

That said, as I'm very much a pragmatist, I don't rule out capital punishment (the same way, much as I despise it, I don't rule out war) just as there may be a circumstance where it is the only and last alternative given the circumstances.

For example, a little British history, Oliver Cromwell executing King Charles. Charles had raised taxes ridiculously and had effectively disbanded parliament to further his own power; parliament raised up against him and won. Cromwell made it perfectly clear to Charles that he wanted the monarchy and wanted him back as King... but he had to be reasonable and not bleed the country to death. Charles refused, citing he was chosen by God to be King of England, and as long as he lived there would always be an army of supporters to fight his corner. Cromwell did the only thing he realistically could do given that situation and the climate he was living in.

So, in short, I think all murder is an abhorrence however I cannot rule in all circumstances the state may encounter whereby the execution of an individual may be the only choice.

Mmm, this fence is comfortable...

 

[Tsuyoiko]

most of you (and i apologize) to say this are having a point of view which is hypocritical...wait until you are in such situations where your loved ones are killed and you will involuntarily seek revenge. revenge is a bad habit in human behavior so it is better to have the court rule who is guilty and so assign the punishment.

Interesting use of the word "involuntarily". I agree, in such situations we might not be responsible for our actions. I've led a very sheltered life compared to you, but I have completely lost it many times, although only one of those times involved physical violence against another person - and arguably they deserved it. In hindsight I know it's no solution.

It just has to be wrong to justify killing another human being based on how we would act under extreme duress! You could justify almost anything like that. Decisions like this have to be emotionless. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

I mean normally a person would pay a heap of cash or do public work or whatever to make up for his deeds, but death penalty serves no purpose. A dead person is simply dead, he won't atone AT ALL.

That comes somewhat closer to what I think might give me some closure if I were in this situation. The idea that the criminal is giving something back to society to pay for his crimes. Aside from all the other arguments, I feel like the death penalty lets the murderer off the hook. Let him give back something tangible instead.

 

[karlyboo]

As an extra thought, and a tick against the death penalty, is it leaves absolutely no possibility for the individual to change. A person can do bad things and a person can make terrible, terrible mistakes. I feel there are some circumstances where a person must certainly pay for what they have done, but also as a human deserve the chance to change.

 

[Haruspex]

Revenge and jurisdiction are different things. Taking revenge is carried out by an individual at times with the help of his in-group. Society disagrees obviously, simply because it is wrong, feels necessary when under the control of overflowing feelings, but it should be obvious that its wrong.
Now death penalty is to accept that very institution of taking revenge. This is where human stupidity comes into the picture. If a bunch of people retaliate thats wrong, but when everyone decides to allow retaliation its alright.
How is this unclear? I mean, yeah, when a person does it on his own, thats a no, but how does it differ when it is carried out by a "higher organ" or whatever?
Im not saying that this is right or wrong. The animal we call human is a paradox itself, but certainly sooner or later we will somehow decide upon what we find right (funny but do we honestly know it after researching every aspect of capital punishment?).

Now, my subjective opinion is that either:

a, Allow both capital punishment and the practise of lex talionis, so we can properly sink back into the antique ages.

b, Abolish capital punishment, give it a shot so we can see how it goes.

I vote for the second. Certainly the first sounds a bit twisted and unlikely, but people must make a choice, we can't have both. Its time for us to clear this paradox.

 

[Mars Man]

I would fully agree to the second option too. That, along with social programs and education upgrades (which would also optimumly deal with family planning among many other things) would surely be moving in a more productive and positive-in-outcome result in the long run.

 

[Kinsao]

I disagree with the death penalty. I think that the person likely suffer more by being imprisoned for their whole life, than with death. (That is, providing the prison is not like the Ritz...!)

If I wanted revenge on someone, I rather they suffer for a good long time than get it all over with death.

 

[Haruspex]

I'd put it like this: Its up to them whether they suffer or suffer and atone at the same time.

 

[DoctorP]

As an extra thought, and a tick against the death penalty, is it leaves absolutely no possibility for the individual to change. A person can do bad things and a person can make terrible, terrible mistakes. I feel there are some circumstances where a person must certainly pay for what they have done, but also as a human deserve the chance to change.

Ok...so let's take a murderer for example. Does his victim have the same chance to live and change his/her life? What makes that murderer's life more valuable than the life/lives he/she may have taken?

 

[Rioneru]

I lost faith in the judicial system quite awhile ago. There are so many innocents convicted, as there are the guilty who receive little to no punishent. If, for example, my five-year old brother was kidnapped, raped, and murdered and the murderer got away scotch free, I'd feel nothing in dedicating my life to finding him and exacting revenge.

Furthermore, I wouldn't exactly feel to keen on the murderer being sentenced to life to either atone or feel nothing. Anyone who has been to prison would know that there is ample opportunity to became even more callous, cold, and animalistic. The murderer may never feel sorry for what was done and continue "rotting" away with a cot, 3 square meals, reading, conversing with others, breathing, etc. Many are able to enjoy the basic functions of life that the victim can no longer. Yet, we have homeless that are passed up on a daily basis that can barely find their own meals or live a relatively healthy life style.

Justification for stomaching the above can be found in many differing religions and philosophical views, but overall, the pain is there for all involved. Question is, what is the best course of action to follow in spite of this pain we feel whenever these horrid situations occur? I personally could care less about being seen as admirable in the face of the aforementioned. I would feel very much at peace ending the life of such perpetrators to my loved ones and that is that.

If an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, I suppose I should get acquainted with my braille.

 

[Haruspex]

You are feeling that way as an individual, for the whole society that is bad, might console an individual, but on a larger scale that is the real "rot". I can understand how people would want to take revenge, hell yeah, its an amazing feeling to hate someone with all your being, and yes, I consider it a positive feeling. But think about the outcome. Would be a nice comfortable world with people owning up each other for a stolen chicken.