Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

I believe that the issue can be decided without emotions or high falootin philosophy or religion. Assuming we are talking about cold blooded murders, committed by "sane" defendents, I see the following four things as objective reasons to be for or against the punishment, as opposed to life without parole.

1. Will it dissuade others from committing murder?

2. Is there more than a micro chance that the life sentence will allow an eventual release or escape?

3. Does it cost more to keep him alive?

4. Is there more than a micro chance that the defendent is innocent?

There may be other factors that deserve consideration that I haven't thought of but I doubt it.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
There may be other factors that deserve consideration that I haven't thought of but I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about human fallability?

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming we are talking about cold blooded murders

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine a cold blooded murderer? Oh, you have a math formula for that. I see. No possibility of mistakes in your court, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
committed by "sane" defendents

[/ QUOTE ]

Judged to be sane by who? lol

[ QUOTE ]
Does it cost more to keep him alive?


[/ QUOTE ]

What a wonderful reason for making a life and death decision.

Ahmmm.

leaponthis

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

5. This murderer will not commit another murder.

We know 1. doesn't work.

2. and 3. are good reasons for capital punishment.

4. Only DNA evidence is acceptable for proof in capital punishment cases.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

1) Surveys and statistics have shown that it does not discourage people from killing.

2)In most states, no one sentenced to death has ever been released unless they were proven innocent.

3)In the more expensive states the trial and appeal process (usually 13 to 20 years) costs between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 sometimes a bit more.

Keeping him alive cost around $35,000 per year (again I'm talking in the more expensive states on the two coasts) and that price is going up every year.

Keeping him alive from average age of commitment (25) to average age of death of (75) ends up at around the same price as trial, appeal and execution if you count inflation and the huge increases in medical costs associtated with older prisoners.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) Surveys and statistics have shown that it does not discourage people from killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what survey that is... Is it a survey of murderers, or a survey of people who are planning to murder??

To ask what preventive impact Capital Punishment has is asking one to prove a negative. Of course, such is the nature of preventive "anything".

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

5) Will the death sentence make the victim's family feel better.

6) Is there a chance the murder will kill again whilst in prison? People don't place a lot of value on other convicts lives but they do have rights. So do prison gaurds come to think of it.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

In states where the death penalty has been rinstituted after years of being banned, the murder rate has not dropped even slightly. Not just when the dp was brought back but even after the executions started.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

5) Yes, most families feel better.

6) Yes there is chance but believe it or not, it happens rarely.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

"4. Only DNA evidence is acceptable for proof in capital punishment cases."

Not true. The standard of evidence is identical to any non death penalty murder case.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

5. guilty as charged but later its decided that what they were guilty of shouldn't have been a crime (or such a serious crime).

chez

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

3. (Should be rewritten as, does it cost more to execute the prisoner, or to keep him alive. This is a bit of a dangerous notion, though, as it might lead states to decide to make additional currently non-capital crimes, capital instead, in order to save money.)

X. Is there a chance for actual rehabilitation of the prisoner? (And if so, should he be released?)

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

Cmon. That's the same as 4. I thought you were cured of those kinds of replies.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cmon. That's the same as 4. I thought you were cured of those kinds of replies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry looks different to me but as long as you include people correctly found guilty under the current system as possibly innocent then fair enoough.

I think many, including the courts would see them as entirely distinct.

chez

Bad Reasons
 

1. Its Barbaric

2. Its Justice

3. Its Closure for the families

4. The families wouldn't want it.

5. Its God's work, not man's.

Etc.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

David I don't know why I'm replying since you would like this type of stuff left out, but

I would see them differently as well.

I am also having a hard time wraping my brian around a "sane", cold blooded murderer. But I was going to let it slide. If we completely understand the reasons for the murder, and the murderer seems sane. Perhaps ones time and energy is best spent on changing the circumstance that lead to sane murders.
So I guess number 6. Are there better methods at our disposal for dealing with sane muderers?

Re: Bad Reasons
 

5) does having capital punishment or not prevent or encourage committing multiple murders.

I imagine that a death penalty for committing one single clodblooded murder makes murderers feel 'beyond the point of no return'.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

From society's perspective, what is the effective difference between a guilty cold-blooded murder being executed and being permanently removed from society into prison?

I think the only relevant question here is how much chance there is that they are actually innocent. Executing someone convicted with multiple eyewitnesses, video evidence, or DNA evidence is less of an issue than someone convicted with less than conclusive evidence. Unfortunately, I don't know how to determine the point statistically where the line can be drawn. I would, though, assume that someone convicted and then "re-convicted" for lack of a better word after 3 or 4 appeals is very likely to be conclusively guilty.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

Number 4 is the only one that matters for me. Given who is in charge of the justice system, the answer is an emphatic yes.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

1. I would guess not. I think most murderers either a) think they'll get away with it and/or b) aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions

2. To the best of my knowledge, no.

3. If one is judged to be morally preferred to the other I think this is unlikely to matter.

4. This is the crux of it for me - irreversibility in case of error.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Will the death sentence make the victim's family feel better.

[/ QUOTE ] So there's an obvious preference for killing people who have no immediate family.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a chance the murder will kill again whilst in prison? People don't place a lot of value on other convicts lives but they do have rights. So do prison gaurds come to think of it.

[/ QUOTE ]In other words, execute the defendant because of the fallibility of our prison system. (Because whenever a murder is committed inside a prison, it primariyl denotes a failure by the system.)

Mickey Brausch

Re: Bad Reasons
 

I actually think victim's families feelings are a good reason for capital punishment. I'm assuming the default is to wish to see it carried out and if they disagree, I'm sure most governors would be grant clemency.

Economic considerations either way seem to me to be awful arguments.

Micro life
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Will it dissuade others from committing murder?

[/ QUOTE ]Capital punishment is obviously not a serious deterrent. I don't think one needs to scare up the stats to show this.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is there more than a micro chance that the life sentence will allow an eventual release or escape?

[/ QUOTE ]That's almost the same as the argument posed by mikechops above, i.e. "Is there a chance the murder will kill again whilst in prison?" We cannot be punishing someone else for our failings. A prison system is supposed to protect guards and other inmates from murderous inmates. It is also supposed to prevent escapes.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Does it cost more to keep him alive?

[/ QUOTE ]Keeping a person alive essentially means feeding him, sheltering him and guarding him -- in a prison context. On the other hand, there's a cost tagged to the procedure of executing someone by the state, since there is a prescribed procedure. (We could, of course, choose again the cheapest procedure of execution, were we to strictly adher to the "cost logic" of David. Just whack him on the head repeatedly with a baseball bat or sumethin'.) The PV of the expenses for keeping him alive down the road would indicate that it pays to commit a crime in a relatively advanced age.

But why should cost be a factor only in murder cases, David?

If you'd answer "because a murder is involved", you'd slip into the high falootin' pit of arguing about the nature of the crime itself.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Is there more than a micro chance that the defendent is innocent?

[/ QUOTE ]Even the DNA tests do not come with probability 1.

Mickey Brausch

Re: Bad Reasons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Economic considerations either way seem to me to be awful arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this is because you know the difference in cost to be very small. On the other hand, if you're implying that any difference in cost cannot possibly add up to enough to rightfully change one's decision, then which other consideration do you have in mind that is of ultimate importance, or is it all of them?

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
In states where the death penalty has been rinstituted after years of being banned, the murder rate has not dropped even slightly. Not just when the dp was brought back but even after the executions started.

[/ QUOTE ]

What states were those?

Re: Bad Reasons
 

I'd say cost shouldn't be a factor because we can afford it. If we had 10% of the population locked away for life or on appeal for 15 years, I'd likely change my mind.

The other arguments don't seem very compelling to me either. I don't believe you can prove either way whether the death penalty is a deterent - there are too many other factors influencing crime rates to sort a signal from the noise. Practically speaking if someone is sent to prison for life, they don't escape. If they are convicted of murder and various appeals fail, I'd be 99.999999999999% certain they are guilty.

If someone close to you is murdered, wanting revenge is a perfectly natural, healthy response. Obviously we don't want people going around trying to avenge family memebers, so in a civilized society, we have the state do it. Locking someone up forever doesn't seem quite as satisfying as executing them - like the state has done a half-assed job of the vengence. So I guess that's why I'm in favor of capital punishment. It might seem a bad reason to some, but it feels right to me.

Re: Bad Reasons
 

Is he sorry?

Re: Bad Reasons
 

Would public executions be a deterrent?

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
5) Yes, most families feel better.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a misconception that most people seem to have, so I just wanted to point out that it is not actually true in most cases. Forget for the moment whether or not this should be criteria for or against the death penalty. I am not saying that the families of victims do not seek revenge. Most of them will say they want revenge, closure, etc, and a lot of them think the death penalty is suitable for that. In the Oklahoma City Bombing, for instance, most of the families of the victims said they wanted Timothy McVeigh put to death. They said it was the only suitable consequence. However, once he was put to death, almost none of the families of the victims, even those who were there to witness the execution, said they felt avenged. They didn't say he got what he deserved. Many of them even expressed disappointment that the execution didn't give them the feeling of closure and vengence they wanted. And after a while, when those families were interviewed again, most of them said they didn't feel any better at all. Some even said they felt worse and that it didn't accomplish anything, it only caused another death.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

The goal should be to maximize social utility. This is dependent upon the culture of society.

For right now:

Kill convicted murderers that cannot contribute more to society than cost of keeping them alive. Take into account all costs and benefits of keeping the convict alive and the probalities of those events. Adjust all future values with a projected discount rate.

examples of costs of keeping a convict alive:
- value of murderer performing a harmful act
- controlling and maintaining the convict

examples of benefits of keeping the convict alive:
- labor
- value of not killing someone innocent
- value of reforming the convict and creating a productive unit to society

For those that have a benefit greater than cost, put them to do work until the utility of their work falls below the threshold, then kill them. Killing should be done in the most efficient manner as possible.

wiki link to capital punishment

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Will it dissuade others from committing murder?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may dissuade some, but the overall number of murder despite the capital punishment speaks for itsself. There are probably more cases in the US than in all of Europe together. Also you cannot dissuade mental cases.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is there more than a micro chance that the life sentence will allow an eventual release or escape?

[/ QUOTE ]

Release can be stopped by law, escape can be stopped by "technology". In the latter case, it could always be better, so the micro chance for escape exists. On the other side, it doesn't matter. Capital punishment is mainly punishment for the past and not for the future, otherwise you shouldn't execute all those criminals who converted to priests or became philosophers and wrote poems while waiting for it.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Does it cost more to keep him alive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this does not matter at all. Justice cannot have a price. Whatever it costs, it's the price the community has to pay. Last but not least, everyone is willing to pay it anyways, because nobody want's to be killed himself if there is a slight chance that he was innocent. The cost of lifelong sentence is our insurance against mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Is there more than a micro chance that the defendent is innocent?

[/ QUOTE ]

In many cases there is. Most cases don't happen in front of national TV and even then we couldn't be sure.


My own opinion is that there is no way to kill a human without pain or a huge mess. Since painful or dirty work is barbaric, our ideal representative with rolemodel function - the state - cannot do it. We may very well sentence someone to death, but the execution has to wait until the perfect method has been found. This may take a few 100 years...

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Does it cost more to keep him alive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this does not matter at all. Justice cannot have a price. Whatever it costs, it's the price the community has to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justice most certainly has a price. That price is paid every day by inequality in resources and meaningful time delays under a system with finite resources provided by the community (taxes). Nor do we pay 60% of our income in taxes so law enforcement can catch that last marginal criminal. "Justice" vs. "Dollar" decisions are very real and practiced considerations.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) Yes, most families feel better.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a misconception that most people seem to have, so I just wanted to point out that it is not actually true in most cases. .... [Oklahoma City Bombing]

[/ QUOTE ]

One example is proof for "most cases"? Moreover, it's not even a good example. When someone kills in mass, it's hard for each victim's family to truly feel the personal connection to the punishment that would be necessary to achieve vengeance or closure. It's just a news headline that your family happened to be collaterally involved in. The truth is, there is no "justice" for situations like this. So you're just stating the obvious when you say the victim's families didn't feel satisfied.

Personally, I think things that would be referred to as "cruel and unusual" punishment should be legal options (particularly for situations such as McVeigh, where the painless ending his life does very little to avenge the horror he caused).

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

1. No
Nobody has ever thought about the punishment regarding certain crimes before committing them. Everyone thinks they won't get caught therefore punishment for crimes is completely meaningless as a deterrence. (especially so from a life vs death sentence difference--is there really one in a criminal's mind? I doubt it)

2. I hope not. It's very rare for a person to change who they are.

3. Depending on court costs I think life is cheaper than death in some states (heck maybe all with the appeals process).

4. Yes, there's always more than a micro chance. The prosecution is hell bent on a conviction and especially if the defense is under funded and/or overworked that a jury would be easily mislead to a wrong conclusion if that's the case.

I'd support life because of these factors as long as the chance of parole (unless they are proven innocent)/escape is as minimal as possible but I certainly don't oppose death penalty for people that we can prove 100% committed such an offense worthy of it.

edit--of course what 100% consitutes varies greatly from person to person

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

Capital Punishment has a couple of drawbacks:

A) A lot more murderers will go free in society! Why? Well, if the court feels that it need to be 100% sure to kill the prisoners, every now and then a murdrere will not be found guilty, because of fear of a 1% mistake. But that 1% risk is ok to take if locking in someone for good...

B) A murderer will not fear killing again, for example the polices chasing him, since he is "already dead"

C) A few killersa uses the Capital Punishment as "suicide by others", letting the police/court kill them instead of comitting suicide

D) I myself would fear living in a small box for 50+ years more than being killed...

Sorry for my bad english, but I hope you understand my points.

Re: Bad Reasons
 

Bad reasons:
[ QUOTE ]
1. Its Barbaric

[/ QUOTE ]

It's debatable whether or not capital punishment can be considered "barbaric".

Do you disagree with the general idea of banning "cruel (1) and unusual punishment" as the U.S 8th Ammendment (and many other countries constitutions) do?


Notes: (1)first internet definition of barbaric was cruel, see:

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/barbaric.html

though the second definiton fits more with the roots of the word" "uncivilized: uncivilized or unsophisticated when compared to highly developed civilizations"

DY

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

From what Ive read so far, I have to say Im very in agreement with fasteddy.

1. Current statistics lead one to believe that the death penalty doesn't deter people from committing capital crimes at all.

2. From what I know of life sentences, they can be worked off. I think Nevada statutes have a mandatory 30 years, no matter how good the behavior (for the level that crimes which would get the death penalty fall under). But the sentencing can give multiple life sentences to run in succession- so then 3 life sentences would be a minimum 90 years.

3. I think fasteddy has a valid point here. The legal battle required to put someone to death is pretty hefty- and defendants sentenced to death receive free legal representation throughout the process. That said, I dont know if it comes out anywhere near housing a convict for the rest of their life... I cant imagine it does.

4. Damn straight there is. I dont remember which state, but two years ago a govenor pardoned all of death row because dna tests showed that 19% of prisoners they had put to death in prior years were innocent of the crime to which they were sentenced.

The lawbooks have not been altered as a result of dna evidence. The burden of proof on the state is still the same as it was before dna tests...and bear in mind THE STATE is who is doing the dna testing in the first place.

Also, I question the obvious race and gender biases of death sentences. There is a noticably higher percentage of minorities sentenced to death than are convicted of capital crimes- and women are almost NEVER convicted to death.

mikechop's #5: I don't agree with providing the death penalty for the purpose of appeasing the family of the victim's. It has to many weird moral implications and does just as much to counter any purpose it may serve- imo.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
4. Is there more than a micro chance that the defendent is innocent?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're reluctant to execute somebody because you think they might be innocent, shouldn't you be equally reluctant to send them to prison for life?

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Surveys and statistics have shown that it does not discourage people from killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what survey that is... Is it a survey of murderers, or a survey of people who are planning to murder??

To ask what preventive impact Capital Punishment has is asking one to prove a negative. Of course, such is the nature of preventive "anything".

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the years, Texas has sentenced more people convicted of a capital crime to death than any other state. They have also shown one of the largest increases in capital crimes committed over the course of those same years.

Im not saying that means that the death penalty didn't deter people from committing capital crimes in Texas...it could be something in the water.

Re: Capital Punishment For Murderers
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a bit of a dangerous notion, though, as it might lead states to decide to make additional currently non-capital crimes, capital instead, in order to save money.)


[/ QUOTE ]

lol...I want to be at that state senate meeting. "Given the way people proven guilty of heroin addiction just end up back in jail over and over...it would financially behoove us to elevate it to the level of a capital crime so that we can just inject them once and for all. All in favor say ay!"

Re: Bad Reasons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think victim's families feelings are a good reason for capital punishment. I'm assuming the default is to wish to see it carried out and if they disagree, I'm sure most governors would be grant clemency.

Economic considerations either way seem to me to be awful arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

The victim's family's feelings are a very bad reason to kill someone. Often, they want to see someone killed out of a (understandable) desire for revenge. However, after the executiion, there loved one is still gone, and they usually don't feel much better.