The Capital Punishment

[Galleleo]

Excuse me for starting an attempt at a serious topic, I don't know what I am thinking really, but what the hell.

[Warning]Sorry for making such a long post, it is mainly to give you some information and different points of argument, to (hopefully) prevent any opinions based on misconception and to further inform you about this subject[/Warning]

I am just wondering what your stance is on the Death Penalty, or Capital Punishment.

It is a quite complicated subject, and at one point in time all of our countries have done it. Now it's not so common anymore in most parts of the world, but there are still alot of countries who have it.

Map of countries wich use the Death penalty

Blue: Abolished for all crimes
Green: Abolished, except for crimes commited under certain circumstances (such as crimes commited in wartimes)
Orange: Abolished in practice
Red (kinda): Legal form of punishment

As you can see, still a lot of countries use the Death Penalty and especially in Asia. But of course America being the most well known to still use it. Tho twelve states have so far abolished the Captial Punishment as a punishment. Tho there is always a chance the Federal Government could still go after the alleged criminal for the highest sentence possible. America is the most well known country for having the Death Penalty but it’s no the country with the most Death Penalties.

	Country	        Executions	Executions per 100 million residents
1	China		3,400+		260
2	Iran		159+		230
3	Vietnam	        64+		77
4	United States	59		20
5	Saudi Arabia	33+		130
6	Pakistan	15+		9
7	Kuwait		9+		400
8	Bangladesh 	7+		5
9	Singapore	6+		140
10	Yemen		6+		30
11	Egypt 		6+		8
12	Belarus	        5+		48

This was for 2004. The + refer to the fact that not all executions are known and that there were probably more.

According to Amnesty International's annual report on official judicial execution, in 2004 there were 3,797 executions in 25 countries. Nine of every ten executions took place in the People's Republic of China (PRC) which carried out at least 3,400 executions. From 1990 to 2003, there were an average of 2,242 executions per year, reported Amnesty. The PRC has executed at least 20,000 people from 1990 to 2001, with 1,781 people executed from April to July 2001 in a "Strike Hard" crime crackdown. The higher total in 2004 resulted from a change in Amnesty's method of estimating executions in China. Both methodologies are suspected of under-estimating.

The Death penalty isn’t only used on murderers but also on other crimes, during history it has been common that the Capital Punishment has been used on crimes varying from: Murder, theft to treason. And in the Military it has been given for cowardice, insurbordination, desertion and mutiny. But even now it isn’t only for murders.

According to the United Nations Secretary General's quinquennial report on capital punishment, the highest per capita use of capital punishment from 1994 to 1999 was in Singapore: 13.57 executions per million population. The death penalty is meted out for what are considered the most serious offences. Of the 138 persons sentenced from 1999 to 2003, 110 were convicted of drug-related offences, the rest of murder and arms-related offences. Executions by hanging occur on Friday mornings in Changi prison, and are seldom publicized.

Arguments for and against the Death Penalty from different points of view.

The Utilitarian Argument

- Prevention and deterrence

It can be argued that a killing is justified if such an act could save another life. In the pre-modern period, authorities had neither the resources nor the inclination to detain someone indefinitely. For this reason, the death penalty was usually the only means to prevent a violent criminal from re-offending. Moreover, where there were no standing police forces, the rate of detection for some crimes, such as banditry, were low. In these instances, it was considered necessary to make examples of a few to discourage the rest. After the institution of modern penal systems where criminals could be detained for the rest of their lives, the argument of deterrence versus prevention has become more heated. Some studies have shown a negative correlation between the death penalty and murder rates. This statistical "correlation" means that either the death penalty increase murder rates (for example, by brutalising the society) or higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. It is not possible for statistical research on murder rate to prove or disprove that capital punishment deters potential murderers or terrorists because such studies would only demonstrate correlation not causation.

- Economical

Opponents of the death penalty point out that capital cases usually cost more than life imprisonment due to the extra costs of the courts such as appeals and extra supervisions. Proponents counter this argument by stating that the severity and finality of death as punishment demands that the extra resources be expended. When some death row inmates are freed on appeal or their sentence is reduced, that is a demonstration that the system works thanks to the extra expense of the judicial appeal system. The opponents argue that such reversal is proof that the system doesn't work, especially at the initial trial. For example, in the U.S.A., the accused is allowed to plead guilty so as to avoid the death penalty. This plea requires the accused to forfeit any appeal arguing innocence on material or procedural grounds. Furthermore, by waiving the threat of the death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against other defendants, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims. Proponents of the death penalty, therefore, argue that the death penalty significantly reduces the cost of the judicial process and criminal investigation. However, the use of a plea bargain is banned in many countries because it can encourage the innocent to plead guilty and the guilty to testify against the innocent hence increasing the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

The “Justice” Argument

- Miscarriage of Justice

It is not disputed that criminal proceedings are fallible. Some people facing the death penalty have been exonerated, sometimes only minutes before their scheduled execution. Others have been executed before evidence clearing them is discovered. This has been particularly relevant in cases where new forensic methods (such as DNA) have become available. Since 1973, 122 people in 25 US states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. In the US, over 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation and end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are sometimes weak. Because of this it could be argued that the prosecution has an unfair advantage. Proponents of the death penalty point out that criminal trials not involving the death penalty can also involve mistakes. The opportunity to correct these mistakes exists only during the life of the accused and this window can be short - particularly if the defendant is old. Rarely would anyone accept long incarceration in prison in exchange of monetary compensation. If someone spent a life in jail for a crime he or she did not commit, it could be argued that this is more cruel than the death penalty. Obviously, few suggest that society should abolish prison such that no innocent could be wrongly incarcerated. Proponents of the death penalty argue that the fallibility of criminal proceedings only provides a justification for the improvement of such process whilst opponents believe that the abolition of the death penalty is an essential safeguard against serious miscarriages of justice. Some opponents to the death penalty indeed argue for the removal of punishment/retribution elements from the criminal justice system where the incarceration is only for the purpose of rehabilitation. In such a system, any rehabilitated criminal would be freed no matter how heinous the crime was and, theoretically, the condition of prison should be somewhat comparable to the outside civilian life because the incarceration is done not for the purpose of punishment. This principal is indeed applied in the case of juvenile criminals. This would somewhat remove the theoretical dilemma surrounding miscarriage of justice although no country has explicitly adopted this principle.

[Galleleo]

- Retribution and Vengeance

For opponents of the death penalty, execution itself is a violation of human rights. It brutalizes society by sending out the message that killing people is the right thing to do in some circumstances and it denies the possibility of rehabilitation. In most Western nations, retribution, or any benefit to the victim, is not stated as a purpose of the criminal justice system. Similarly, proponents of the death penalty argue that people who have committed the most heinous crimes (typically murder) have no right to life and the abolition of the death penalty is a violation of the victim's rights. The death penalty shows the greatest respect for the ordinary man's, and especially the victim's, inviolable rights and it provides "closure" for victims' families. In modern democracies, most murderers are not executed. The court only imposes the death penalty in case of multiple homicides or unusually horrendous murder. In such cases, the proponents argue that it is the closest and arguably the only acceptable form of justice whilst the opponents argue that vengeance is not justice.

Arguments Against

Some of the main Arguments against the death penalty:

· The death penalty is not a deterrent; those who are against the death penalty claim that recent studies in the US do not support the view that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. It is also argued that anyone who would be deterred by the death penalty would already have been deterred by life in prison, and people that are not deterred by that would not be stopped by any punishment. This argument is typically supported by claims that those states that have implemented the death penalty recently have not had a reduction of violent crime. A stronger variant of this argument suggests that criminals who believe they will face the death penalty are more likely to use violence or murder to avoid capture, and that therefore the death penalty might theoretically even increase the rate of violent crime.
· The death penalty is unnecessary. This view, espoused by Pope John Paul II, an outspoken critic of capital punishment, holds that modern prisons are secure enough to reliably protect society from further harm by death row prisoners, whereas in centuries past, life imprisonment may not have been feasible. Therefore, the death penalty serves no purpose to society and violates the sanctity of human life.
· Criminal proceedings are fallible. Some people facing the death penalty have been exonerated, sometimes only minutes before their scheduled execution. Others have been executed before evidence clearing them is discovered. While criminal trials not involving the death penalty can also involve mistakes, there is at least the opportunity for those mistakes to be corrected. This has been particularly relevant in cases where new forensic methods (such as DNA) have become available. Since 1973, 122 people in 25 US states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. The Houston Chronicle reported on November 19, 2005 that a man named Ruben Cantu probably was innocent of the crime for which he was executed in Texas in 1993.
· Death penalty as armed forces' disciplinarian means usually has the opposite effect than desired, eroding the morale of the troops rather than improving it, and striking a wedge between the commissioned and enlisted servicemen as the latter are likely to consider shooting their own as murder. In extreme cases death penalty may lead to fragging incidents.
· Capital punishment usually costs more money than life in prison due to the extra costs of the courts such as mis-trials, appeals, and extra supervisions. Additionally, many (if not a majority) of death sentences are overturned on appeal. So the cost is incurred, regardless of the result.
· In the US, over 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation and end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are sometimes questioned.
· It denies the possibility of rehabilitation. Some hold that a judicial system should have the role of educating and reforming those found guilty of crimes. If one is executed he will never have been educated and made a better person. A Christian variant of this argument would be that no one can place themselves beyond salvation, so society should never give up hope of rehabilitation.
· Some argue that the death penalty is a violation of human rights primarily Article 3 and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some assert that it violates the "natural rights" laid out by 17th-century English philosopher John Locke who set out many of the foundations of American law. The American Declaration of Independence also includes the "right to life" as the first listed of the natural rights. While those against capital punishment might claim this as an irrevocable right, proponents may claim that, as protection from abuse is the basis of such rights, that the right was forfeit by the seriousness of the crimes.

Arguments for

Some of the main Arguments for the death penalty:

· Retribution — In modern democracies, most murders do not get the death penalty. The court only imposes death penalty in case of multiple homicides or unusually horrendous murder. In such cases, the proponent of death penalty argue that it is the closest and arguably the only acceptable form of justice.
· Deterrence — Many econometric studies have shown a negative relationship between the death penalty and murder rates. In most survey when those who support death penalty were asked the reason(s) for his or her support, retribution is listed as the main reason while deterrence comes next. (See above section for reference to statistics)
· Means of maintaining discipline in the armed forces. This can be best summarized by statement of Leon Trotsky: An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death penalty in its arsenal. So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements — the animals that we call men — will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the inevitable one in the rear.
· Prevention — it prevents offenders from ever returning to society (life sentences hold out the possibility, however remote, of eventual release), thereby preventing them from committing further crimes.
· It shows how seriously society looks at the most heinous crimes. People who have committed the most heinous crimes (typically murder) have no right to life. The death penalty shows the greatest respect for the ordinary man's, and especially the victim's, inviolable value.
· It provides "closure" for victims' families.
· It is less cruel than prolonged imprisonment, especially under the conditions that might be popularly demanded for heinous criminals. Depending on the State, prisoners spend about six to twelve years on death row.
· It provides extra leverage for the prosecutor to deal for important testimony and information.
· It enjoys popular support (in countries where this applies).
· Life imprisonment is very expensive.
· Just as the virtuous deserve reward proportionate to their good deeds, so too the vicious deserve punishment proportionate to their bad deeds. One might even hold, with Kant, that respect is shown to the criminal as someone who has chosen a particular path in life by visiting the appropriate punishment on the criminal.
· Criminals may be led to rethink and reconcile their lives by the pressing expectation of death.
· It upholds the rule of law, because it discourages vigilantism on the part of the victim's family or friends (in the form of lynching or retaliatory murder). If not controlled, such actions can lead to extremely destructive vendettas or blood feuds.
· Without the death penalty, a person already serving a life sentence may have no reason not to kill in prison.
· If the death penalty were abolished, a criminal would have little or no reason not to kill potential witnesses during the commission of a robbery (assuming that robbery would earn the criminal a life sentence or a very lengthy prison sentence).
· By waiving the threat of a death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against their co-conspirators, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims. The threat of the death penalty can be a powerful mechanism for greasing the wheels of justice.

[Galleleo]

My own opinion on it

I don’t have a black and white opinion on the death penalty. On the one hand, I think that you should have to be able to have the death penalty as a means to punish someone with it. But on the other hands, what right do we have to take someone’s life? Sure what right did he/she have to take someone’s life? But wouldn’t be stooping down to their level and be doing exactly the same thing? If so aren’t we being criminals too? I am kinda torn on the subject myself. For one part of me thinks, screw immoral, they killed then why should they be allowed to live. But on the other hand, using the words of Gandalf the Grey: “Some that live deserve to die, but many that died deserve to live. Can you give them their life back? Then don’t be so hasty to judge about who should die”

I think my stand on it would be: Against the death penalty, no one should be allowed to judge over who deserves to live or die. But a part of me does say, that in rare and extreme cases you should be able to use it, on say a mass murderer. Someone who has killed over and over again. I am however of the opinion that the Death Penalty should ONLY if ever be used on someone who has killed, not for other crimes. But then again, when you think about it, wouldn’t spending the rest of your life in prison be much worse then getting the death penalty? I for one, if I had to chose between life in prison or the death penalty, would rather chose the death penalty and get over with it, then spending the rest of my life wasting away in prison.

For me it’s a tough subject to really say: No or Yes to, but if I really had to make a choice, I would go will go with No.

[Raver420]

Im for it!

Old Picture I posted

[Facetious]

i would be for the death penalty in very few situations, if, and only if, our justice system was fair and always correct. since it's neither, i wish they would abolish it. if abortion somehow goes by the wayside, and they keep the death penalty, im just going to go on a rampage.

[Exotic]

what do you think about that kid(18 years old) who killed his girlfriends(14 years old) parents? should the death penalty be brought upon him? i need input

[stark]

You probably could have just said your third post, because chances are 90%+ of the people won't read the first two posts, but say how they feel anyways.. and it still gets your point across. I mean, if anyone wanted statistics, I'm sure they could look it up themselves, they're not completely helpless. Generally this is one topic people have personal beliefs because of how they feel about life and death. Some people feel that life should never be taken away... that two wrongs don't make a right. Others feel "they took a life away, now they should be punished for it." There's always gonna be people who feel "what if they're wrong... once you take a life away, you can't get it back." And that's true. Numerous studies can be done about deterrance and the likes, but that's not going to change generally how people feel about it. Cost, another issue, can be a problem. People may generally think "if they're not alive, they're not taking up prison space or eating prison food" and things like that. And yeah, it's true... years and years later after, as stated above all the appeals are done and so much time is wasted in the courts and things of that nature. It does, undoubtedly, cost less to keep them imprisoned. Anyways, what it really boils down to is opinion, and generally how one values life.

[DoTheFandango]

Who gives a shit.

This fucking arguement has been strungout for years and wont stop until everyone is dead.

So don't start it here, don't fucking bring this shit up.

[Galleleo]

dtf, no one is forcing you to even open this thread, so please don't if you don't want to read about it. Seriously, sometimes you just seem to be on the same intelligence level as Ratty.

And I know most people won't read the first 2 posts, but I just wanted to be informed well enough myself, as well as bring more then just opinions to the table. It's there if you want to read it, but I am not forcing anyone.

[Bioture]

I approve that my home country China is still doing it the old fashion way - bullet to the head. Life sentences cost too much money and we just have too many people to do that shit.

[geekbot]

But on the other hands, what right do we have to take someone’s life?

*We* don't have the right. That is not the same as a government having the power to do it. It's not exactly the same but your sentence sort of sounds like you might be considering it the same.

I didn't know those statistics. I feel better about the US death penalty seeing that. But:

	Country	        Executions	Executions per 100 million residents
1	China		3,400+		260

WTF, that's effed up!

@#$&#@^@

That pisses me off.

Maybe the US should get rid of capital punishment just to get off that list. The political reasons and our ability to speak about other countries human rights violations would be improved. That's gotta be worth it.

[Kolar]

i would be for the death penalty in very few situations, if, and only if, our justice system was fair and always correct. since it's neither, i wish they would abolish it.

Same here. Cost is not a factor, you can't justify murder because you don't want to spend the money to lock people away or rehabilitate them.

For Paul Bernardo and his kind where his/her guilt is clear and disgustingly excessive, and the whore he sold him out for the 10 year luxurious prison stay and is now free: I hope both die sooner rather then later.

[froedrick]

Who gives a shit.

This fucking arguement has been strungout for years and wont stop until everyone is dead.

So don't start it here, don't fucking bring this shit up.

This IS the General discussion board right?

[Arikel]

One of the things that amazes me the most is the lack of dignity that the said country of freedom has when it comes to the Death penalty issue.
If you look at that list you will not find any country with a solid democratic regime as the US, and just by being on that list the US seems to be on pair with dictatorial regimes when it comes to such an important issue as this one. This fact alone should make every american ashamed, the sole fact that america appears on that list goes against everything into wich your regime is based upon, the same regime for wich countless americans died in bloody battle fields so that america could be a country of free though and free will, and not a place in wich someone can be executed in the name of a false sense of justice; turning the american judicial system into a mockery of what it was intended to be...

[RATTY...]

dtf, no one is forcing you to even open this thread, so please don't if you don't want to read about it. Seriously, sometimes you just seem to be on the same intelligence level as Ratty.

I'm sure you aren't even studying or educated, or maybe you're studying to become a kindergarden uncle or some shit.

Cause I don't like you doesn't mean that you're smart, you're still a dumb kid.

Lifetime in Norway is 21 years, and a year in prison isn't a regular year, and you get to get out earlier when you're nice.

Kill the ones who kill people in cold blood.

EDIT: No one bothers to read that shit, most reply after reading the thread title.