The Death Penalty

[Aravis]

Justice or barbarism?

[Arancaytar]

Barbarism.

Anyone disagreeing/willing to be devil's advocate? It's no use debating otherwise.. ;D

[camillofan]

Surely those aren't the only two possible answers?

[Arancaytar]

It's what the affair boils down to, I would say. I take a "Shades of Grey" attitude to most things, but this is different.

One argument that splits it up to more options is that the penalty might be made conditional for certain crimes.
There's a slippery-slope reasoning involved here, of course, but I believe that you cannot successfully draw a line at any crime - if you allow the death penalty for one crime it will find its place in society and eventually be utilized for other crimes.

The other proposition I am aware of allows the convict to voluntarily choose the death penalty over a life sentence - making it a sort of assisted suicide. (Naturally, that can't happen: The Far Right is always careful to kill people against their will; making it voluntary would be a sin.)

But I am suspicious of that and other propositions for assisted suicide for any other reason than terminal illness. That suspicion is based around one little problem: WHO can we trust that the decision is voluntary? Consider it just for a moment.

---

As example, I will bring up a quote from the nanowrimo novel an friend of mine wrote this year. To give you the necessary background, this is set in a world where everyone wears a device at the back of their heads that modifies their short term memory for the good of society.

The following is a dialogue between an arrested "rebel" and an interrogator.

"Martin, you have been accused of conspiring to cause damage to property, conspiring to cause grievous bodily harm, attempted murder, murder second degree, murder first degree, theft, fraud, unauthorised access to government facilities, assault, assault of an officer of the law… and so on. Offences which may put you in jail – supposing you neglect the termination option – for a total of…"

He arches an eyebrow, and keeps reading.

"Five thousand four hundred and sixty-seven years. How do you plead?"

Martin spits the words at him.

"Not bloody guilty, bastard!"

>REP[LACE]: "Not bloody guilty, bastard!" -> "I plead guilty."

The inspector returns a a strange look.

"Is that a confession? I remind you of the severity of…"

"What do you mean a confession? I said not guilty!" Martin goes pale, and his hands take hold of the chair's armrests.

>REP[LACE]: "What do you mean a confession? I said not guilty!" -> "Yes, I confess, and am willing to sign a document to that effect, including the clause that I did so of my own volition, not under any duress."

The inspector shrugs. "Fine by me. I always figured you were weird people. Makes my job a lot easier, then. You really want to confess to EVERYTHING?"

"No!" Tears appear in Martin's eyes.

>REP[LACE]: "No!" -> "Yes."

"There, there. I'm afraid remorse isn't worth much in this sort of case. [...]

The inspector blinks, tears a handful of sheets from his clipboard and continues. "In any case, it doesn't matter. So, let's deal with the other stuff. Which is it to be? Termination or jail?"

Martin seals his mouth shut.

>INS[ERT]: And decides to open it again. "Termination," he says, and closes his mouth again.

"Understandable," the inspector says. "The guilt must be killing you."

---

The point is: How do we know that the person has really chosen this voluntarily? If there is real evidence that they did so - how do we know if they were pressured into saying that? How do we know they would have wanted to choose that option even if it had not existed?

Because that, of course, is the point to such an option: To be there for people who want it anyway, like euthanasia. Anything else would be tantamount to coercion into suicide.

[Aravis]

I don't believe that inmates would be coerced into this option. However counselling could be provided prior to the decision. This could be followed by the passing of some time (months) for the convicted one to consider his decision. A final review would then be conducted to make sure that the death penalty is still the prisoner's favored option.

Here in CT. we have a man who has been on death row for many years. There has not been an execution in this state for decades. This man has come forward and requested that a date be set for his execution. He feels that he has made peace with his life and is ready to get it over with. As far as I know the state had no plans to actually implement his sentence. Now they have to. As per his request his execution has been set for January. In this state the Governor does not have the ability to commute his sentence. She has ordered the lawyers to try to find some way out of executing the man, and he is actually getting annoyed with her for doing it! He just wants it over with. He isn't depressed; he's cheerful when interviewed. It's all very strange.

[Arancaytar]

I can imagine. But then, CT is deep blue.

The real problem I have with the penalty does not lie within the principles that can be set down in constitutions and lawbooks. It lies with the degree to which they can be enforced and their observance ensured.

The counselling you mention, and the review is a good idea in theory, but who can guarantee it is implemented as it should be? I heard another story, the truth of which I am unsure about: Texas has never executed a mentally ill convict. Why? Because they never test a convict for mental illness.

To give a person - any person - authority over Life and Death, carries risks that cannot be eliminated.

[Wyndham]

I don't have to play devil's advocate on this one. I'm well prepared to consider the death penalty for some crimes. Shoot: I'd pull the lever myself, if necessary, for some criminals (our own Paul Bernardo for one).

You are right Aran that you have to consider implications. What are the implications of not considering life sacred, and not simply important? To my mind some crimes amount to the renunciation of human status, and the criminal therefore loses the right to the consideration normally afforded a human being. They become, essentially, something like mad dogs and can be treated accordingly. Doing away with them isn't a crime, or even much regrettable: its hygiene.

In military law, the death penalty is essential for some crimes. Up here, we've recently done away with that too, but how can you have a system in which 'treasonous correspondence with the enemy' or, in some cases, 'cowardice' are not capital crimes? Issue here is that if the guilty man doesn't die, many others will.

I think the test should be high. You can't execute ethically where there are competence issues, or when the evidence isn't absolutely irrefutable. When, however, there isn't any question, why waste tears for the perpetrator? Our Paul Bernardo, for example, filmed himself engaged in rape/torture/murders, as did (I think the name is correct) your Nelson Ng. Not too much doubt there, and any tears would be wasted.

And ethically as well. We make life and death decisions all the time. Close a homeless shelter: people die. Send the Army, anywhere, to do anything involving force, and soldiers will be killed. Why get squeamish about this?

[Arancaytar]

While I disagree with that viewpoint, I find it far less disturbing than when I see the Christian Right use it, because they are supposed to be all about "redeeming".
Rationally, I say that there are criminals who deserve death, and who are a danger to society if left alive. There are criminals like that here in Germany too and I would feel safer if I knew they were dead - since they break out of the mentally-ill prisons on a regular basis and murder people again.
But emotionally, I feel that it should not be allowed to kill a person lawfully, against their will.
One thing that I cannot ever agree with is an execution to serve "justice". To harm an individual for any other reason than as a deterrent is senseless; it gives no benefit to anyone involved. What good does revenge do?

I remember reading that the five countries with the highest execution rates included the US and four third-world nations...

[Wyndham]

Want to keep my options open too. Nobody's ever harmed one of mine sufficient that I want to see them dead. Not difficult for me to imagine, however, a situation in which simple 'revenge' sounded pretty sweet.

[pinkozcat]

I refuse to play the devil's advocate here regarding suicide, euthansaia and the death penalty but I personally know of a case in which a man committed murder simply to invoke the death penalty.

He was from a family which carried the Huntington's Disease gene, a condition from which almost all of his siblings died.

The psychiatrists at the hospital where I worked (and who eventually had the care of most of the family) felt that he had recognised the beginnings of the illness in himself and did not have the courage to take his own life. Thus he made sure that someone else did it for him.

There is also "death by cop" which is a fairly common occurrence. This is the modern equivalent of the above story of suicide by death penalty now that the death penalty has been abolished in most of the civilised world.

As both of these forms of suicide, as well as that carried out by people throwing themselves under trains and cars, involve other people perhaps there is a place for an easy means of suicide in certain circumstances, even if not for assisted suicide.#nosmileys

[GreenEyedLady]

When I feel it's warranted, the death penalty is viable and necessary, whether it be for a heinous crime or to be free of certain medical diseases. (I believe strongly in exercising the option of personal freedom :ie ending one's own life when sane.) I also believe just as firmly in the precious gift of life and quality of life.

However, I wish there were alternatives (that I feel do "justice) in our society to death as a form of punishment, that fundamentally is not the answer. Killing as a form of punishment disturbs me and feels barbaric; however, there are circumstances where I feel there is no other choice, for the sake of others in society. (If locking someone up for a life sentence, truly solved the reason for the death sentence to be considered, I'd prefer that; however, it does not ALWAYS do so; too many escape from our prisons.

Currently, rehabilitation just does not "cut it" for certain abominable individuals. There are many social and legal changes I want to come about. So much more scientific and behavioural research must be done so that humankind is human, not monsters. I'm an idealist, an optimist, but also a realist....

Although I support the death penalty for certain cases, employing it, does not eradicate the genetic/social cycle that caused a certain individual to commit this act. This is the case whether it is a heinous crime, suicide, or assisted suicide.

[Tenarke]

In the news today; the Supreme Court, in a very close decision, has ruled that the death penalty can no longer be applied to those younger than 18. They consider this to be “cruel and unusual”.

This complements last year’s decision to exempt the retarded.

I understand that there are presently 72 now on death row for crimes committed when younger than 18.

[Aravis]

Yes, I think it's wonderful what has happened.

The fact that it has Scalia foaming at the mouth just puts a bigger smile on my face. ;D

[john]

Malvo of the D.C. Sniper fiasco is one of the young men, since he was 17 at the time. Interestingly enough, he is willing to tell what 'really' went on since the death penalty is now off the table.

[Tenarke]

I heard a newscast last week that the several Catholic bishops of the United States have agreed to oppose the death penalty on moral grounds.

This will make them on of the few pro-life groups to be at least consistent.

I note that this opinion does not come from the Pope himself and therefore lacks the status of infallibility.