Death Penalty

[MachineSp1rit]

I don't think it's as simple as annihilating all evil and I think improvements are possible in any society today. Looking at history we find that over time murder rates have been dropping as countries become developed. Some people think that murder is something that is intrinsic to humans but the data argues otherwise.

This is an eye opening talk by Steven Pinker about how society has changed over time with respect to violence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1 ... annel_page

I agree that the changes can be made, and have been made for society to get better, in general. This all sounds pretty but i don't think it's achievable nowadays. How exactly can you make society less violent? I'm really curious. the only way i see is making them happy, successful. But things in that sphere getting worse every day. Government may also do, or think of doing some useless things like the propagandas or more brainwashing from religion, forbidding violent movies etc.

I do see the difference but my point is that because these traumas alone are not enough to define someone as a murderer or not the other contributing causes should also be investigated including things like genetic differences. I don't think you were saying that all people who are raped grow up to be killers, my point was until we can understand why some do and others do not there is still more there to study.

EVERY person is formed with following factors: Society, parents, education and also of course the personal genetic information. only these. what else can there be?

The author of the book is Ishmael Beah, it's his autobiography. He grew up in Sierra Leone and spent years as a child soldier.

thanks.

I can't speak for other countries but in the USA it has been a very very long time since anyone escaped from the kinds of prisons we put killers in. We have varying levels of prisons with a set that is reserved for the most violent and disruptive inmates. Even in these prisons we have them designed so that particular prisoners are kept apart from the general population. This means the effect on other prisoners will be tiny is any. It also means the chances of escape will be tiny.

We don't lock non-violent criminals up with serial killers to my knowledge.

To tell the truth i've stopped arguing about death penalty itself. i Argued about details like rehabilitation, because i no longer think that death penalty is reasonable, even though all my arguments here are fair and severe, still there are some factors , and mainly that one, that made me rethink my opinion.

 

[Spase]

I agree that the changes can be made, and have been made for society to get better, in general. This all sounds pretty but i don't think it's achievable nowadays. How exactly can you make society less violent? I'm really curious. the only way i see is making them happy, successful. But things in that sphere getting worse every day. Government may also do, or think of doing some useless things like the propagandas or more brainwashing from religion, forbidding violent movies etc.

Since we seem at least mostly in agreement on the issue of whether the death penalty actually serves a reasonable purpose I'll drop that too.

This begins to wander off topic some but I think it's an interesting question so I'll share my own experiences of how rehabilitation is possible and how the way we decide to treat criminals can at least in some cases directly influence crime rates and the financial burden they put on tax payers. I'd also like to add that some of what I'll say is anecdotal because it's from my personal experience but I've read enough to believe there is supporting evidence which I'll explain.

In California in November of 2000 we passed something called prop 36 which is a treatment over incarceration program for 1st and 2nd time drug offenders who have no non-drug charges. The program doesn't just save us a lot of money because it's a lot cheaper to give people random drug tests and required counseling than it is to lock them up, it also has been show to decrease recidivism - that is, people who are arrested for the same things again later.

For some simplified statistics without much info you can see this pdf:
http://www.prop36.org/pdf/prop36_flyer08.pdf

For a lot more info there's prop36.org
I should mention that this information is probably a bit one-sided but I haven't heard anything contradicting it yet.

Now to try to steer things back to the topic at hand... You're wondering what we can modify in society to influence the rate at which people are exposed to the conditions that breed murderers and I think this sort of program is a good first step. This program has turned a lot of people around in their addictions but more importantly it has meant many people were not taken off the street and exposed to high concentrations of criminals. In my experience our basic psychology is shaped in large part by the culture we find ourselves in and prison or even jail culture is very destructive if you want someone to succeed in life.

This is my experience in the matter:
I'm either an ex-meth addict or a recovering meth addict depending on how you want to define the terms. There was a time when I was a pretty nasty person in some ways and those traits were reinforced by the culture I was immersed in. It's hard for me to explain this without writing you an entire essay but I'll try to make it make some sense... When you're a part of a culture it becomes reality for you in a way I think most people take for granted. I reached a point in my life when I was so far separated from the reality that most people experience that I viewed everything from personal interaction to morality to basic day to day activities very differently.

My point in saying all this is that this sort of program isn't just about preventing people from being "corrupted" by prison culture, it's also about forcing people into a more normal lifestyle that can actually work to deprogram a lot of that learned behavior. I found myself forced into being clean by random drug testing because after being locked up a few times I was tired of not having basic rights. I didn't expect to change anything about my lifestyle in the long term, I was sure I was just stopping long enough to get off probation so that I'd have my 4th amendment rights again which are really critical doing the sorts of things I was doing at the time. What I found instead is months of being forced to stay clean, living with my mom (on of the terms of my release), seeing my friend every day who wasn't involved in any of that began to shift my perspective. I also spent a lot of time on "recovery" forums talking to people about addiction and recovery and eventually I decided to stay clean, and not just for legal reasons.

I'm not suggesting that most people react the way I did or anything like that. I'm just noting that a person's mindset can be reprogrammed with the right inputs/experiences.

I don't think this would work in your "Jack the Ripper" scenario but I think that a lot of people who commit violent crimes (I knew a lot of them) do it after being repeatedly locked up where you learn that physical violence is one of the strongest methods of control. Not only is it a method of control but there's a *lot* of positive reinforcement when you kick someone's ass. The reason this can be unlearned is because violence is a very weak form of control in the world we live in where status and money come from getting along with people. Gang-bangers grow into a culture of us-vs-them where after years of programmed hate and seeing their friends murdered they see murder as the clear choice of what's right. Programs that seek to find where intervention is most effective including; what age, in the home, in the school, after school programs, mentoring, etc; are possible avenues for decreasing the number of murders that happen.

I'd like to add here at the end that I'm not saying "Oh, these poor gang-bangers. they only rob and shoot people because they were raised wrong." I'm saying, "Oh, these poor people being shot and robbed by gang-bangers, wouldn't it be nice if we could prevent these things from happening rather that just locking people up after the fact which does nothing for the victims." People tend to get confused about this... Sometimes I swear they do it on purpose which is why I'm trying to be explicit about this. I'm not suggesting punishment, I'm suggesting solutions... and these solutions are not for the benefit of the perpetrators, they're for the benefit of the victims.

 

[Spooky]

MachineSp1rit here, sorry i can't keep this any longer, i got banned thanks for interesting story though, i appreciate the sharing.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'd like to add here at the end that I'm not saying "Oh, these poor gang-bangers. they only rob and shoot people because they were raised wrong." I'm saying, "Oh, these poor people being shot and robbed by gang-bangers, wouldn't it be nice if we could prevent these things from happening rather that just locking people up after the fact which does nothing for the victims." People tend to get confused about this... Sometimes I swear they do it on purpose which is why I'm trying to be explicit about this. I'm not suggesting punishment, I'm suggesting solutions... and these solutions are not for the benefit of the perpetrators, they're for the benefit of the victims.

Well... I would say that solutions to the causes of crime help society, and that happens to include some criminals. Something that seems to be part of the mindset that goes along with a "violence is the best answer" attitude is the idea that the most important thing is making sure that "undeserving" people never receive any benefit, even if it means screwing over everybody else... even including themselves. They would prefer a recidivism rate of 100% rather than cut the rate to 10%, if cutting crime includes anything that might possibly benefit criminals, like education and rehab.

Fixing problems isn't the purpose of the death penalty or the current prison system... fulfilling a primitive and immature need to hurt other people seems to be the only goal for some folks.

 

[Spase]

Well... I would say that solutions to the causes of crime help society, and that happens to include some criminals. Something that seems to be part of the mindset that goes along with a "violence is the best answer" attitude is the idea that the most important thing is making sure that "undeserving" people never receive any benefit, even if it means screwing over everybody else... even including themselves. They would prefer a recidivism rate of 100% rather than cut the rate to 10%, if cutting crime includes anything that might possibly benefit criminals, like education and rehab.

Fixing problems isn't the purpose of the death penalty or the current prison system... fulfilling a primitive and immature need to hurt other people seems to be the only goal for some folks.

Yeah... I know.

The last part is added not because I don't agree with helping people not throw away their lives but because it's a less solid position morally in a lot of people's minds. Like you say, most people (or many) seem bent on revenge rather than improvement and many of them hate the idea of spending money to fix people who are misbehaving instead of spending money to penalize them because of this idea that it's rewarding misbehavior. My counter is that if you view society as a mechanism for creating a healthy environment for it's components (people) then when you have components that are not functioning you fix them rather than breaking them further.

Why am I typing all this? Yeah I dunno. You seem to be in agreement with me on this.. I'm just rambling.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah... I know.

The last part is added not because I don't agree with helping people not throw away their lives but because it's a less solid position morally in a lot of people's minds. Like you say, most people (or many) seem bent on revenge rather than improvement and many of them hate the idea of spending money to fix people who are misbehaving instead of spending money to penalize them because of this idea that it's rewarding misbehavior. My counter is that if you view society as a mechanism for creating a healthy environment for it's components (people) then when you have components that are not functioning you fix them rather than breaking them further.

Why am I typing all this? Yeah I dunno. You seem to be in agreement with me on this.. I'm just rambling.

No, it is good that you are typing this... it helps get your head around the issue, and it helps me as well.

For instance, thanks to your post I came up with what seems like a pretty good analogy:

What you and I are suggesting amounts to the old saying "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" and the people who are in opposition seem to be saying "if a wheel is squeaking, you should hit it with a hammer, toss acid on it, and throw dirt on it until it quits." We are accepting that criminals are, for better or worse, parts in the machinery that make up our society. When part of a machine is breaking down and making the whole thing less efficient, and you can't simply remove the part, we are faced with three choices: ignore it, beat on it and make it worse, or fix it. Only one of those solutions has any chance of creating a positive outcome.

 

[rulezdaworld0]

Thought: Some pages back tjere was something written about forced labour, and another about serial killers etc... being mentally ill.

Thought: Forced to join the army? If they need to kill, then should we let them? They'll be fuffilling a service to the whole country rather than just that local area.

There are of course risks of them trying to kill other friendly soldiers, and there's not that many serial killers, so they may not make too much of an impact for the costs involved.

 

[Aught3]

Teach them how to kill even more efficiently?

 

[GoodKat]

Thought: Forced to join the army? If they need to kill, then should we let them? They'll be fuffilling a service to the whole country rather than just that local area.

There are of course risks of them trying to kill other friendly soldiers, and there's not that many serial killers, so they may not make too much of an impact for the costs involved.

Don't forget about the danger they would pose to the citizens of whatever country they are posted in.

 

[Savior Of Logic]

It seems no-one has considered the fundamental point of who should decide whether someone gets killed.
after all, in America, if one gang member kills another, and is then cheaply shot with a 5 cent bullet by the opposing gang, that's "murder".
But if the original murderer goes through a lengthly trial, and is then finally killed in a 27 year-long trial costing $1.5 million, that's "justice". This is even worse if you consider who paid for it:
In the 1st example, the gang member paid for the bullet.
In the 2nd, civilians were attacked by police to extract this money, threatened with jail or even death.

The state is nothing more than a massive gang, so how can you trust them to correctly kill the right people off?

 

[Don-Sama]

well I read the first page, but not rest...

I am for the death penalty, for the very extreem cases. the psychotic serial killers, the ones who hold people against there will in there own special room for pleasure.. u know the shit that totally fucks up many people entire lives because of some ass who just wants to have some pleasure.

Now ofcourse there are flaws in the judgement system (more in america then where I come from), but if the suspect has been proven to be the killer on all fronts then it should mean he is the one who did it. Some cases will not proof everything and those ones shouldn't be sent to death.

The suprising thing here that I see are actually 3 steps of compassion.

1, compassion, for the human, not wanting him death.
2, hate & compassion, to end the very scarred psychotic human.
3, hate, to let the fucker rot in jail for the rest of his life.

I'm with 2, it is aswell compassion as hate to end someone.

I'm also for jobs in prison with small earnings, this could be a big part of rehabilitation, or even one of the only ways for the killer to make things for the relatives a little better. it offcourse could make poor people suffer job losses, however it should only be limited to goverment property.

 

[Marcus]

There is no moral justification for the death penalty. People have been released from prison ten or fifteen years after being wrongfully convicted on the basis of new evidence, and even a single, solitary life taken unjustly by the state on my behalf is one too many.

We have to bear in mind the reason for the sentences we give to criminals. These are:

1) To rehabilitate them and turn them into useful members of society.
2) To protect society from them.
3) To force them to give something back to society.
4) As a deterrent to further crimes, either by them or others.

You'll note that punishment doesn't feature on that list. The other principle that must be applied is that the sentence must be proportionate to the crime committed.

When it comes to criminals for whom the death sentence might have been considered, the only other possibility is life imprisonment, with parole only if they can demonstrate rehabilitation. To those who think this doesn't happen, look at a number of murderers who, since release from prison, campaign relentlessly to stop inner city kids from following their footsteps into gang culture.

I'm just glad that the death penalty has been abolished in every civilised country...

 

[kouchpotato]

I agree with the death penalty in certain cases. Things like first degree murder (unless you have a really, really good reason, i.e. they molested your child and you can prove it), rape, child molestation and the making of child pornography. In my mind, these people, serial killers, child molesters, rapists, cannot be rehabilitated to be members of society. The tax payer paying tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep these monsters alive, fed, clothed, etc is disgusting.

Others can probably be let back into society eventually, and there is a chance they won't commit. But in my opinion, some people just can't rehabilitated.

 

[Marcus]

In my mind, these people, serial killers, child molesters, rapists, cannot be rehabilitated to be members of society. The tax payer paying tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep these monsters alive, fed, clothed, etc is disgusting.

Others can probably be let back into society eventually, and there is a chance they won't commit. But in my opinion, some people just can't rehabilitated.

"In your mind" and "in your opinion" people can't be rehabilitated? Well, that's the end of the argument, then, isn't it.

Except it isn't. In the post immediately above yours I mention the examples of former gang bangers who have committed murder and who now campaign tirelessly to keep others from doing what they did. Regardless of your ill informed opinion, people can and do reform. The fact that it isn't common is immaterial - if you kill one person who could have been an ambassador and kept dozens of kids from going into a life of crime, you've cost society.

If you read the rest of this thread (yes, I know it's long) you'll see that your argument about the cost has been thoroughly debunked. It simply costs us more to kill someone than to keep them alive in prison for life.

 

[kouchpotato]

"In your mind" and "in your opinion" people can't be rehabilitated? Well, that's the end of the argument, then, isn't it.

Except it isn't. In the post immediately above yours I mention the examples of former gang bangers who have committed murder and who now campaign tirelessly to keep others from doing what they did. Regardless of your ill informed opinion, people can and do reform. The fact that it isn't common is immaterial - if you kill one person who could have been an ambassador and kept dozens of kids from going into a life of crime, you've cost society.

If you read the rest of this thread (yes, I know it's long) you'll see that your argument about the cost has been thoroughly debunked. It simply costs us more to kill someone than to keep them alive in prison for life.

Well, I don't really think the hostility is necessary. I thought this was a thread for discussion. I never said no one cannot be rehabilitated. I agree many people can, but not all. The reason it costs more to execute them than to imprison them is due to our justice system, where people are kept on death row for dozens of years before being executed.

I do not believe someone who could do such an awful act as rape a child, or even kill a child, could ever be brought back to society. This is probably an emotional opinion, but they deserve death. Same with serial killers who kill for sexual pleasure. You can't change someone's sexuality, and if they're turned on by tying up a person and torturing them to death, that's what they're turned on by.

I stand by my earlier statement. In some cases, in my opinion (I'm not a psychologist, or a criminologist, nor do I have experience with the prison system), that some people cannot be rehabilitated, that there is something wrong with them, and we'd be better putting a bullet in them than putting them in a cell.

 

[Aught3]

I do not believe someone who could do such an awful act as rape a child, or even kill a child, could ever be brought back to society. This is probably an emotional opinion, but they deserve death. Same with serial killers who kill for sexual pleasure. You can't change someone's sexuality, and if they're turned on by tying up a person and torturing them to death, that's what they're turned on by.

Chemical castration.

 

[Marcus]

Well, I don't really think the hostility is necessary. I thought this was a thread for discussion.

I apologise if I came across as hostile, it wasn't my intention. Forceful, yes, but I only attacked your arguments, not you.

I never said no one cannot be rehabilitated. I agree many people can, but not all. The reason it costs more to execute them than to imprison them is due to our justice system, where people are kept on death row for dozens of years before being executed.

Are you saying that there should be a less protracted appeals process? Even with the current one, people are still wrongfully executed. You may be willing to live with the risk of a person being killed for a crime he or she did not commit, but I'm not. So, unless you want to kill more innocent people, the death penalty won't be cheaper than life in prison.

I do not believe someone who could do such an awful act as rape a child, or even kill a child, could ever be brought back to society. This is probably an emotional opinion, but they deserve death. Same with serial killers who kill for sexual pleasure. You can't change someone's sexuality, and if they're turned on by tying up a person and torturing them to death, that's what they're turned on by.

I stand by my earlier statement. In some cases, in my opinion (I'm not a psychologist, or a criminologist, nor do I have experience with the prison system), that some people cannot be rehabilitated, that there is something wrong with them, and we'd be better putting a bullet in them than putting them in a cell.

Do you genuinely think that something as monumental as whether the state should kill people should be decided based on your admittedly emotional and inexpert opinion? Wouldn't you rather have those decisions made based on actual evidence as analysed and interpreted by experts in the relevant fields? There are, believe it or not, convicted child molesters who have been released from prison and who manage to lead relatively normal lives. They still have the same lusts, but they know that acting upon them is wrong, so they just keep well away from kids.

I have the same visceral reaction as you do when I think of people who commit hideous crimes. My emotional reaction is to want these people dead. Fortunately, I make my decisions based on rationality, not emotion, and my choice, based on evidence, the opinion of experts and my own logical ethical thinking is that the death penalty can never be warranted unless and until we can be completely certain that someone committed those crimes and that they will never be rehabilitated in their lifetimes. Since this level of certainty is impossible, the death penalty is never warranted.

 

[kouchpotato]

Are you saying that there should be a less protracted appeals process? Even with the current one, people are still wrongfully executed. You may be willing to live with the risk of a person being killed for a crime he or she did not commit, but I'm not. So, unless you want to kill more innocent people, the death penalty won't be cheaper than life in prison.

If there is overwhelming evidence and not a shred of doubt the appeal process should be between a year and five years, not what we have not with 20+ years from conviction to death

Do you genuinely think that something as monumental as whether the state should kill people should be decided based on your admittedly emotional and inexpert opinion? Wouldn't you rather have those decisions made based on actual evidence as analysed and interpreted by experts in the relevant fields? There are, believe it or not, convicted child molesters who have been released from prison and who manage to lead relatively normal lives. They still have the same lusts, but they know that acting upon them is wrong, so they just keep well away from kids.

I have the same visceral reaction as you do when I think of people who commit hideous crimes. My emotional reaction is to want these people dead. Fortunately, I make my decisions based on rationality, not emotion, and my choice, based on evidence, the opinion of experts and my own logical ethical thinking is that the death penalty can never be warranted unless and until we can be completely certain that someone committed those crimes and that they will never be rehabilitated in their lifetimes. Since this level of certainty is impossible, the death penalty is never warranted.

I would rather someone with more experience in the matter make the decisions. Perhaps in the case of child molesters the death penalty would be too 'inhumane' (though I loathe to consider them humans at all). Chemical castration would be much better. However, I still think certain people whom we know beyond any shadow of a doubt a person is guilty and will never be released (spree killers and serial killers) we gain nothing by keeping them alive.

Take someone like Dennis Rader, the BTK killer. He was sentenced to 10 consecutive life sentences, eligible for parole after 175 years. He admitted to the killings. He described the killings in graphic detail. He'll never be a free man, so what is the point of his continued existence? Why should he be kept alive, when we know beyond the shadow of a shadow of a doubt that he committed those crimes. He costs us money each year to keep alive, he gets luxuries like TV, he gets his own cell. It's ridiculous for the tax payer to pay for these things for a man who murdered an entire family.

 

[Marcus]

If there is overwhelming evidence and not a shred of doubt the appeal process should be between a year and five years, not what we have not with 20+ years from conviction to death

The current standard for conviction of a crime in the first place is "beyond any reasonable doubt". I can't see that you could get much more definite than that, and yet we still have cases where new evidence comes to light which introduces reasonable doubt. You seem to think that we might be actually convicting people when there is a hole in the evidence.

Take someone like Dennis Rader, the BTK killer. He was sentenced to 10 consecutive life sentences, eligible for parole after 175 years. He admitted to the killings. He described the killings in graphic detail. He'll never be a free man, so what is the point of his continued existence? Why should he be kept alive, when we know beyond the shadow of a shadow of a doubt that he committed those crimes. He costs us money each year to keep alive, he gets luxuries like TV, he gets his own cell. It's ridiculous for the tax payer to pay for these things for a man who murdered an entire family.

Because if we kill him we're murderers, with revenge as our only motivation. An economic argument for killing Rader is putting an actual price on a human life. Besides, if you think being incarcerated is fun, why don't you go and commit some crimes with a custodial sentence attached?

 

[kouchpotato]

The current standard for conviction of a crime in the first place is "beyond any reasonable doubt". I can't see that you could get much more definite than that, and yet we still have cases where new evidence comes to light which introduces reasonable doubt. You seem to think that we might be actually convicting people when there is a hole in the evidence.

Most of these people are eventually proven innocent because a witness lied. Someone like Dennis Rader was proven guilty with DNA, a confession, etc. There is no doubt in my mind he's guilty. Mumia Abu-Jamal was seen by several people, and they now say their testimony was coerced with favorable treatment by the police (two were prostitutes, one was on parole for arson and had been fired for being a drunk). I'm less sure of his guilt.

Because if we kill him we're murderers, with revenge as our only motivation. An economic argument for killing Rader is putting an actual price on a human life. Besides, if you think being incarcerated is fun, why don't you go and commit some crimes with a custodial sentence attached?

Never said it would be fun. I'm saying he gets luxuries he doesn't deserve. He took ten lives. He can't give those back so he should pay with his life.