Capital Punishment For Murderers

[jogger08152]

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?)

[David Sklansky]

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

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[David Sklansky]

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.

[DougShrapnel]

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?

[elrudo]

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'.

[Ubertom]

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.

[Borodog]

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.

[goofball]

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.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ 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