Capital Punishment For Murderers

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's not the way appeals work. It is a common misconception that an appeal is a retrial- it is not. When a convicted defendent appeals, they are appealing to a higher court to find fault with the court case, and court in which they were tried, not re-arguing their innocence.

This is why a completely guilty person can win an appeal on a technicality. It is more like the court has to found be guilty of some wrongdoing, rather than an opportunity for the convict to have another descision on their guilt or innocence.

Therefore, if the court did not err in any way- it is quite possible for an innocent person convicted by a jury of their peers to repeatedly lose appeals.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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)

[/ QUOTE ]

On the issue of deterrent value, you cannot cite people who have committed crimes in order to prove that the deterrent value is minimal, as those people were undeterred. There will always be the undeterred.
From that point, the question isn't really "does the death penalty deter" as much as it becomes "are we executing capital punishment in such a way that it serves in its proper deterrent capacity"

Like I said earlier... This question asks to prove an unprovable negative, as do all questions that query about the value of preventive measures.
Prove that if I had not changed the oil in my car, it wouldn't have broken down for 100,000 miles...

As an aside, I do believe that the death penalty is of immeasurable value when it is open and made public for all to see. When it is behind closed doors and done in secret, then it becomes nothing more than a vengeful, spiteful action undertaken by the state.

Another question: Say someone murdered the family member- the mother- of another person. The murderer was convicted, and summarily sentenced to death.

On the day of his execution, while being led from the holding cell to the injection chamber- mere minutes before he is about to be executed- the son of the murdered mother shoots the murderer with a rifle from the field across from the prison yard and kills him a couple feet from the entrance to the executioners pen.

Is the son guilty of murder? If so, then how is the state justified to do the same thing mere minutes later? If not, then what is the value of having the state complete the executions in the first place, if their main value is for the benefit of the families?

[/ QUOTE ]

Change your scenario slightly to this: The law allows a family member of the victim to drop the cyanide tablet/pull the switch/inject the serum.

What is the difference between the two scenarios?

Society as a whole has determined that the death penalty is appropriate, and it is society's responsibility to carry out its wishes.

In your initial example it is still murder (barring insanity/extreme distress and similar defenses), because society has installed itself as a proxy to carry out the family's revenge andthe family member has taken society's role upon himself.

In my changed example he is conforming to society's rules.

(BTW I am pro death penalty and but would not be in favor of allowing a family member to carry out the execution. Distancing the family member from the act itself helps to insulate him from feelings of remorse for the execution, which I believe has more value than the act of execution itself.

[Paul2432]

One needs to distinguish between the death penalty in principle and in practice. For example, as others have pointed out the death penalty as currently practiced does not offer much deterrence. However, thousands of murders occur every year and only a handful of people are executed. One could argue that the DP is not a deterrent simply because the probability of being executed is so low.

Paul

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
One needs to distinguish between the death penalty in principle and in practice. For example, as others have pointed out the death penalty as currently practiced does not offer much deterrence. However, thousands of murders occur every year and only a handful of people are executed. One could argue that the DP is not a deterrent simply because the probability of being executed is so low.

Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

I am highly skeptical of studies showing that the DP doesnt have significant deterrent value. Eg. are those who commit robbery/burglary without weapons surveyed and asked if they would have carried a weapon and used it were it not for the death penalty?

Given human nature I think its preposterous to think that there is no deterrent value in the case of crimes with only financial motivation.

[LandonM]

As someone who has done a little "time" for a non-violent/non-victim/non-dishonesty/non-pervert related technical offense, I can tell you the perspectives of people inside (including the 'dedicated career criminal' types) about the DP are far, far different than those who pontificate about it from ivory towers.

Everyone really should do a little time in prison if they are given the opportunity. It will change your outlook on life in such a way that is so fundamental, it cannot be explained. It wakes you up to certain things, it dispels many lies and grants you an understanding into the human animal that cannot be taught anywhere else.

If I had to assemble a 9 man poker team from math majors at the local university or high-IQ prison inmates, I'd choose the inmates every time.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
As someone who has done a little "time" for a non-violent/non-victim/non-dishonesty/non-pervert related technical offense, I can tell you the perspectives of people inside (including the 'dedicated career criminal' types) about the DP are far, far different than those who pontificate about it from ivory towers.

Everyone really should do a little time in prison if they are given the opportunity. It will change your outlook on life in such a way that is so fundamental, it cannot be explained. It wakes you up to certain things, it dispels many lies and grants you an understanding into the human animal that cannot be taught anywhere else.

If I had to assemble a 9 man poker team from math majors at the local university or high-IQ prison inmates, I'd choose the inmates every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude. Did you just go from pontificating about the futility of proving false negatives to, "...and its a cell block 4 thing, you wouldn't understand."

here's the thing. Noone is saying that the fact that the per capita murder rate HASN'T dropped in any the states that started the DP again PROVES that the DP fails as a deterrent.

There's nothing to support that it is a deterrent is more the issue.

[fasteddy1970]

California, Florida and New York are ones that come to mind.

[Xhad]

That the DP isn't a deterrent doesn't need to be positively proven. Since the only reason it's mentioned is because "We should execute murderers because it's a deterrent!", there needs to be some evidence in that regard before we can act on it.

[LandonM]

[ QUOTE ]


dude. Did you just go from pontificating about the futility of proving false negatives to, "...and its a cell block 4 thing, you wouldn't understand."

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yeah. I did.
The validity of first hand experience doesn't logically correlate to 'proving a negative' in any way.

It is entirely possible for an outlook based on direct, topically focused experience to be more valid than those based on abstract theorems... And it is still impossible to prove a negative.

Show me where the two join up and I'll give ya a cookie.

[RJT]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No, chez is saying tomorrow we might wake up and decide it is hip to kill people who hit one or to outers. Whereas, yesterday I got convicted of murdering the guy who put the bad beat on me.

Chez just likes to [censored] with your head, David.

p.s. glad this isn't the law - Last night I put a nasty beat on some guy in a live NL game. $5-600 pot. (I had outs). Like we said in college "[censored] 'em if they can't take a joke."