Do you think capital punishment is moral?

In my opinion, it is wrong to take a human life. Period.

I oppose capital punishment because there’s always a minute chance that an innocent person was wrongly convicted.

Better to let a guilty person go free (or get life in prison) than to murder an innocent person.

As for the justice towards the person who committed the crime I agree that it is moral. Killing anybody for any other reason I believe is immoral without a doubt.

Yes, as long as the correct person is indicted and convicted of a capital crime. once executed, no one has to worry about this person commiting the same crimes over and over again.

No, it is not moral. The whole idea of an eye for an eye was that people were brutal in those days, you poked out my brother’s eye, so i’m going to kill you. An eye for an eye meant you couldn’t do that, you could do no more than was done to you. We have moved beyond that now. We are not perfect enough to hand out the death penalty, as @HungryGuy noted, and I would add that the chance is not so minute. Many innocent people have been freed from death row in recent years due to DNA testing, how many died before? I’m pretty sure it is a non-zero number. And even DNA testing doesn’t make us perfect. We can keep people safe by locking criminals up for life with no parole. We are actually quite good at keeping people locked up now. It is cheaper, and there is no chance that you have killed an innocent man.

This is a subject I am really torn on but I lean towards thinking no, it’s not moral. Even if I was ok with the idea of capital punishment I certainly wouldn’t be able to pull the switch.

No, I do not believe it is. I do not believe it is because I don’t believe the government has a right to kill someone. I don’t think it’s a good thing to have a government that can kill someone. I don’t believe most people should ever kill someone unless in self-defense. Not to mention, as people have already said, there are always going to be innocent people executed. If you must have execution, at least save it for murder only, and at least only execute people where there is hard evidence convicting them of the murder. Even so, I don’t support the death penalty. People always say that the prisons are overcrowded, so we should execute the dangerous criminals. Maybe we should focus instead on getting “drug offenders” out of prison and saving prison for the truly dangerous criminals. Just a thought…

However, I will note that people’s opinions do in fact change sometimes when they are affected by crimes such as murder. There have been people who have been against the death penalty their whole lives, but when their loved one gets murdered, they wish to see the murderer die. Not always, of course, but this does happen to people. I do not know how I would react if a loved one was murdered. Hopefully, I will never know.

I oppose capital punishment due to the chance that the person is innocent.

I also believe to take a life is wrong.

@Leanne1986 I definitely agree that even if I was ok with it I wouldn’t be able to do it myself.

Another thought – essentially, it is immoral to kill when there is another alternative. Life without the possibility of parole fulfills the state’s duty to protect its citizens, and it’s really a pretty crummy way to spend the rest of your life. That means we have a good alternative, so the only reason left for killing is to make the families of the victims feel better. Killing the perpetrator will not make them feel better. It may give them a momentary bit of pleasure in thinking their loved ones have been avenged, but in the morning they will still be grieving, and the murderer will be feeling nothing.

I think whether it is moral or not is beside the point. It is utilitarian to the extent that it allows the victims of capital crimes to get their revenge and retribution. That’s why we do it, and every other rationalization is sophistry.

That having been said, the way it is currently applied in the US is horribly unfair, imbalanced, thoughtless, dangerous, racialist, sexist, biased heavily against the poor, and indefensible.

Moral? I don’t know about that. Here is what I’ve been taught. Human life is sacred, never to be purposefully killed.In fact, it is the duty of yourself to protect your very life = self defense. Here’s where I’m going with this. If a criminal, where there is no reasonable doubt, is convicted of murder, then he gets life in prison. But now he murders within his captivity. It is the duty of the state to make sure he can’t kill. You do this by isolation. Sometimes, though, this doesn’t even work. The only way, then, to preserve human life, is to eliminate the cause of death. In other words, execution.
Capital punishment, however, must be the VERY LAST RESORT. Only when everything else fails should this be used.
Usually, though, capital punishment is a threat technique DAs use to get a confession. And it usually works. If they confess, they only get life, not death. (No pun intended.)
So that’s what I think.

With all due respect, those of you who approve of capital punishment are saying that it’s okay to kill an innocent person occasionally if it prevents a killer from killing an innocent person (except when the person you killed isn’t the killer who’s doing the killing of innocent people). Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense to me :-/

@pdworkin The notion of revenge and retribution as the purpose of punishment is archaic. Frankly, you are not entitled to revenge or retribution, and even if you were, killing won’t do it. If your daughter were kidnapped, tortured, and raped for days and then cut up alive and eaten, do you think lethal injection would satisfy your need for revenge? And if we actually tortured people for murder, well that would be even more immoral, and ultimately, you still might not feel adequately avenged. Some people might feel more avenged at the thought of the murderer spending his life behind bars than at the thought of him quietly passing away. And ultimately, this is why revenge is not an acceptable motivator for state action – because it’s all about how you feel, and the state cannot possibly predict how they will make you feel, how they will make other victims feel, how they will make the murderer’s family feel, how they will make the murderer feel, or how they will make the executioner feel. The state is not responsible for your feelings.

A marvelous thing about Fluther is that it encourages me to think about tough issues I sometimes prefer to avoid. I’m horribly conflicted about the death penalty, believing on the one hand there should be a punishment worse than prison (even a life sentence) for the most heinous of crimes, yet on the other, a subscriber to the idea that killing people who kill people seems the worst of all ways to demonstrate that killing people is wrong.

My other answer did not make it, so i will try again. i believe in capital punishment. if a person is indicted and convicted by a jury for a capital crime, if executed, this person will never again be able to repeat his criminal acts.

@john65pennington I think you’re experiencing some kind of Fluther glitch. Your other answer is there near the top. In fact it was there three times right after you posted it, but is only there once now.

A few of questions:

A. To let a confirmed murderer live…isn’t that kind of like saying his or her action is ok? That to kill is not a serious crime?

B. Many people on here are saying to take a life under any circumstances is wrong. Well, the murderer took a life. He gets 20 or more years in prison or maybe parole after only five years. He still gets to live (relatively comfortably as well). How is that fair to the person he killed? It seems that is to say the murderer’s life is worth more than the that person he killed.

C. Isn’t there always a danger of a convicted murderer murdering again and being a danger to the community?

D. What about a serial killer? One that has a pattern: when released from prison he goes out and kills more people – every time he is released and “reformed.” Is capital punishment still wrong in that case?

I don’t give much thought to if it’s moral or not but I do believe in it to remove dangerous people who are unrepentent and/or beyond rehabilitation, remove them away from the rest of us they’d prey on and Yes, I’d flip a switch or fire off some bullets.

@Snarp I’m wondering how you feel about partial birth abortion… and ‘born alive’ abortions? Before you ask… I myself am pro abortion up to 3 months.

2nd Answer: i am giving my 2nd answer, from a police officers view. if you or your family have not been involved in a capital crime, i am thankful. but, i would like to tell you how it feels to many of the familes that had their spouse innocently killed, or their children kidnapped and raped. its absolutley horrible the torture these families go through. how one human can treat another human has always baffled me. i have seen mens heads decapitated. they leave behind a wife and family with no father. if this were your husband or dad, how would you feel about capital punishment now? many people can sit back and voice their opinion about capital punishment, but unless you have been directly involved in a similar incident, you have no idea what a capital crime does to your family and your life. its never the same. i believe in capital punishment. i believe a person that is convicted of a capital crime, like homicide and other crimes, should pay for their actions.

@Spinel
A. See @Austinlad‘s final sentence above.

Also, it’s not like we’re just sending them home. Twenty years in prison is no walk in the park.

B. Prison is not “relatively comfortable”, particularly not for violent offenders.

Sentences should have some flexibility, basically, if you are convicted of a truly heinous crime you will likely get life without parole. That really means without parole, you are not getting out, ever. That’s pretty good punishment in my book. Some people, on the other hand, despite the horror of their crime, are redeemable. What kind of society are we if we say no one has the right to try to redeem themselves? What does that do for prisoner behavior?

C. There’s always a danger. Some murderers are never caught, some are caught and released and never kill again. Some can’t be convicted even though they were caught. Some thieves are released and later kill. Somewhere along the line judgement has to be used to determine how much of a threat someone poses. If they are a clear threat, they should stay in prison, if they are not then release may be an option. More importantly, I would rather some murderers be released on the street than that the state execute an innocent man. We can’t eliminate all risk, that’s just one we’ll have to take. And remember, no one is letting out Ted Bundy here, someone like that gets life without parole and never sees the light of day again.

@Tomfafa Sorry, not interested in that discussion.

Yes it is moral. However, having a corrupt government system in charge of it is immoral.

This is one of those questions that, after working with remains and cold cases and looking over files, I… can’t decide. I feel that some people should not be alive, and that they’ve done something so horrible they’ve invalidated their right to exist in this society. That said, I don’t believe in the death penalty because the chance and likelyhood that you do it to someone who is actually innocent.
Or what if the person is mental disabled in a way that caused them to do horrible things? Is it their fault? Is it their responsibility? If they remain a clear danger to themselves and those around them, is it better to die peacefully than be locked up and tied down with their demons or medicated beyond oblivion?

There’s not necessarily an answer.

@john65pennington I don’t doubt anything you’ve said about how victims’ families feel, but not all families feel the same way. There are many families of victims of horrible crimes who do not want to see the killers executed. Some have even communicated with the killers and forgiven them. Some have happily seen them executed, and felt completely differently, even regretful afterwards. I have seen them interviewed, I have seen a death row warden who regretted every bit of it interviewed. We cannot do anything to make these people whole again, or to make up for their loss. We cannot know how the execution will really make them feel, and we can’t go back again once it is done. Finally, the decision should be society’s (or at worst, a judge’s) the victim does not decide the punishment.

@Snarp I understand… I know the answer.

Executions shouldn’t be about punishment to the offender or any feelings of justice, revenge, etc. for family/friends of the offended. Executions are to remove people from doing further harm to the rest of non offending society, penning them up in jails and prisons seems inhumane to me yet spending more and more money to support people who do more harm than good seems unfair also- I don’t want to pay towards.

@pdworkin Do you think utilitarianism always trumps moral absolutism, and could this ultimately lead to consequentialism? Why don’t you think the deontological approach applies here? Are you a proponent of situational ethics and moral relativism? I hope I’m not being a gadfly here, but I am interested in your response.

yes i do. my uncle was a social worker and some nut came in and shot him and 2 other people and they just gave him the needle it’s total right

And all you folks who approve of capital punishment have no problem with, occasionally, killing innocent people if it prevents some murderers from killing other innocent people????

3 people are dead bc of him

well, my answer to this question depends literally on what day you ask me. today, i would have to say it is hypocritical to say ’‘don’t kill people or we will kill you’’.

i don’t see why a total stranger should be allowed to kill someone just because they killed someone. on the other hand, if they where to let the victims family pull the lever i would have much less of a problem with it. but as i say, this question really will get different answers depending on the day you ask me and what mood im in. some times i see people do things so messed up, i think our soft executions are too good for them, some people really do need to be fed to wild dogs. but i think ill always have a problem with the killing being done by the state. take them to court, try them, convict them and then hand them over to the victims family for them to do with as they please.

@HungryGuy: Yes, I have a problem taking the chance of executing an innocent. My feelings are strictly for the beyond-a-doubt offenders, I’m willing to start with them while the others are being sorted out.

@hungryhungryhortence – But there are no beyond-a-doubt offenders! Fingerprints are unreliable. I remember a show on 60-Minutes when I was a kid about a guy who was in prison for rape and because all the victims all pointed him out in court and said he did it. Years later, DNA exhonerated him (and even DNA has proven to be less than 100% reliable). The real rapist was a dead-to-rights look-alike who lived in the same town. He’s what everyone would call a beyond-a-doubt offender. And so you’d have murdered that innocent guy just to feel some sort of revenge against the rapist who is still on the loose???

@poisonedantidote – Read my reply to hortence, then: Suppose the victim’s family member pulled the lever. And supose that executed man was exhonerated post-humously a few years later. Should that victim’s family member, now, be executed for murdering an innocent person?

I never said that I require revenge or retribution, I said that’s why we continue to have the death penalty. All other rationales are bunk.

@HungryGuy not at all. they should go free. in one case you are killing a person for committing what is believed to be a premeditated act. in the other case you are killing someone for a mistake.

i know two wrongs don’t make a right. but in a world where innocent people die every day for all kinds of causes, the possibility of the person being innocent would personally not be enough to stop me from pushing the button if i truly thought that person had hurt a member of my family. i would be more concerned that he had not suffered enough of been scared enough before i killed him.

on the other hand, i really cant say, if you ask me again tomorrow i would probably not do it. so i guess ill never know unless it happens.

@poisonedantidote: Earlier in 2009 a drunk driver killed one of my family and 3 other friends who were in the same car with him, I didn’t wish death on the drunk even though he had multiple DUI offenses. In my head, he could be rehabilitated and had physical value and years to make amends to the families of the dead.

I think it will be interesting to see if there’s any commonality between the way people answer this question and how they might answer this other question.

Sometimes it’s the moral thing to do, and sometimes it’s not the moral thing to do. This is one of those issues that is very hard to cover with one moral blanket. The people who say it’s immoral because an innocent person could have been convicted are right in saying that it’s wrong to kill an innocent, but I’m pretty sure most of us would agree with that. It’s the killing of the guilty that is more troublesome, ethically speaking.

On one hand, the dead were cut down early and had no choice in whether or not to go – does the murderer deserve better? On the other hand, the murderer may one day be a healed, better person, who works to right the wrong he did another (like the murderer in my family, who married a woman with four kids and helped to raise them right, after he got out of prison for killing his own father). It’s hard to tell, and it’s a case-by-case decision. What are the odds?

For those who think a government shouldn’t kill people, I will add that it’s been a hallmark of governments as long as civilization has existed, to monopolize the privilege of doing violence. Citizens are either not allowed to kill (murder is illegal) or, if they do kill, need a good explanation (self-defense, wartime). Otherwise, the government levies justice in the name of the greater good.

@pdworkin I guess my questions boils down to: Do you feel that in some cases the ends justifies the means? I kind of get that in your answer or am I off base?

@laureth – That’s other question isn’t quite the same. In the case of the death penalty, you have a person who may, or may, not be guilty of something that happened some time ago and you have to rely on telltale evidence and eyewitness accounts. In that terror scenario (or even an intruder in your house) there’s somebody right then and there trying to kill you…of course you have the right to use whatever means you have to defend yourself, including killing the bastard.

Not for me, but I believe that as a society we have come to tolerate that idea. Especially in Texas, it would seem.

Can anyone produce a real number that accurately indicates how many innocents are actually sentenced to death in comparison to the number of truly guilty that are?

@Blondesjon – Such a real number cannot possibly exist because if someone was known to be innocent, they wouldn’t have been sentenced to death… But we know for a fact that the number of people put to death is non-zero because people have been exhonerated whilst serving jail time, and even awaiting execution.

@Blondesjon maybe 1

@HungryGuy . . . i said sentenced

@Blondesjon – If some innocent people are sentenced to death, it follows that some of those are actually put to death.

that still doesn’t answer my question. . .

Capital punishment is a necessary evil. A human life should never be taken lightly, but there are among us those who have no sense of morality, or perhaps they have no conscience, or perhaps they have no ability to control their anger. Perhaps what sense of right and wrong they had has been erased by drugs. Regardless of the reason, they have committed acts beyond the pale and can no longer be tolerated in society. The question then becomes: “Incarcerate or execute?”

“Rehabilitation” has been shown repeatedly to be ineffective. Recidivism rates change almost not at all after rehabilitation, as opposed to simple incarceration. And both rehabilitation and incarceration are expensive and must be paid for out of tax revenues from the largely law-abiding.

There is also a genetic component among those with a tendency toward violence which cannot be ignored.

Thus, until such time as we have discovered a “cure” for violent tendencies, execution is the most viable option.

@Spinel – A few of answers:

A. Maybe the murderer might thnink so, but why should we care what a murderer thinks? As long as he’s locked up for life, he can’t kill anyone again. And if he turns out to be innocent, he can be set free.

B. I doubt that life in prison is comfortable, relatively or otherwise. If someone kills, he shouldn’t be let out of prison…ever!

C. Not if he’s locked up for life.

D. If you kill someone in premeditation, you should never be released. Problem solved!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Yes, they are immoral. As long as there are innocents killed by the state, which there are according to some DNA comparison results carried out post mortem in the last ten years, they are also criminal. As we as a society can vote by referendum to stop executions, I hold that we also carry responsibility for them. I always thought that executions should be shown live and in color on national TV. Since we share responsibility, we should have the balls to witness the results of our policies. It might change things.

@pdworkin . . . Vita est non mediocris quod nunquam ero.

In fact, I think that trying to achieve such is where many of our societal woes originate.

I’ve pretty much said my piece on this elsewhere. Basically I agree @pdworkin . Necessary evil, Society has to provide an adequate level of punishment and retribution for all crimes, else people will take the law into their own hands.

@Blondesjon I wrote an essay on capital punishment for school, and the number of innocents that were on death row – according to later DNA tests – was shocking. Before the technology to test things like that was implemented, imagine how many innocents were actually murdered on death row. Even now, sometimes DNA tests aren’t even administered when there is a question of innocence, because people don’t want to take the time and money to do it.

I have the numbers of how many innocents on death row were released throughout a specific number of years, but in comparison, I don’t think I have the numbers of how many actual guilty people were killed, unfortunately. The number of innocents released was very high, however, which indicates that before we had the ability to test for DNA, innocents in the high hundreds were murdered, if not more.

Now, to answer the question. This is also something that I have been torn on. If we had a better system in place, I do not think it would be necessary for capital punishment to exist. That said, most murderers in the United States face the chance of parole after serving, on average, eight short years in prison. This is why I’m torn. If murderers – those of a sound mind, without some kind of mental disability – served an automatic life-sentence… I would oppose the death penalty 100%. But because we have a very flawed, very corrupt system, eight years in prison for murdering someone is not enough. Keep in mind, on top of that, that the United States has extremely bad or practically non-existent rehabilitation programs set in place, and literally, the murderer who went to prison in the first place is probably going to be the same murderer that gets out of prison, unchanged and just as uncaring as before.

However, in my heart, I cannot support any kind of system that murders innocent people. It’s hypocritical and pathetic, and almost even worse. The number of innocents killed compared to the number of those who are actually guilty does not matter to me. More innocent people die in the name of revenge than the one person who was murdered to begin with. It’s completely nonsensical and illogical.

@DrasticDreamer – Bravo!!!!

@DrasticDreamer

What about the innocents killed by those who murder? What about the innocents killed as “collateral damage” in warfare? What about the innocents killed by accidents and disease and maltreatment or neglect?

Life is not fair. Innocence is no guarantee of equitable treatment. I consider myself relatively innocent, yet I am dying of cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure brought on by exposure to a defoliant we were told was harmless. Does this make my case somehow different than the case of someone innocent of the crime for which they were convicted?

Kudos to everyone on this thread for discussing one of the toughest issues that will ever come up in Fluther… and doing so in such a reasoned and civil way.

@hungryhungryhortence well, it all depends on the case. i dont think i would seek revenge over a drunk driver, im more talking of premeditated murder, child abuse and other planned wrong doings. however, i would probably give him the kicking of his life.

An eye for an eye for an eye… for an eye does not interrupt vicious circles of violence. Radical ultraorthodox Jews and Muslim fundamentalists for example will always hate each other. This hate will never end and the violence will never end as long as these groups exist and keep their way of thinking. It’ll be an eye for an eye forever. Unless…

Our only hope is that new generations of children will be taught mutual respect and appreciation instead of hatred. It can work. For centuries Germans and French people were at war with each other. Eventually the eye for an eye chain was interrupted. There was forgiveness. There was a new beginning. Today we share the same currency and people from both countries fall in love with each other.

@Blondesjon Of course it’s impossible to come up with that number, because we don’t know for sure how many are really guilty. But this year 9 people were released from death row because they were proven innocent. They were lucky. I think it is quite safe to say that before DNA evidence we were executing innocent people regularly. But there are many cases where there isn’t adequate DNA evidence to test, and those people may be innocent too. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that they actual innocence is not a constitutional claim, so they will not hear those cases. So if you can’t get lower courts to review your case, you can still be executed even if DNA proves your innocence.

Oh, and as of December 11 the United States executed 52 people in 2009.

@Tomfafa What are you, psychic?

@Snarp Nah… but you are soooo transparent. In your answers across the board.

The time will come when killing any breathing life will seem so barbaric to humans (it does to me now)... when we evolve! To evolve we must STAY alive in the face of ancient evolutionary primordial evil that is hard wired into our brains in order to keep us alive. Giving in to those bad impulses is just too easy for too many… until we evolve…

@Tomfafa We’ll check back in another two hundred million years and see if you’re right. In the meantime, we’ll just have to make do with these aggressive monkey brains that we’ve been using for the last hundred thousand years.

@pdworkin Which is why I am pro capital punishment!

Because you have a monkey brain? That would make sense.

@pdworkin Primordial means much more ancient than monkey… that would mean more years than you got fingers and toes… I should wait for you to evolve before I could explain to you. If you marry right… you should be ready in 5 or 6 generations.

Holy crap. Again, I tend not to read everything in detail. I don’t consider capital punishment retribution or revenge. It’s like self defense. You know he’ll kill again, so you must protect yourself. And if the only way to do that is execution, then so be it. But he has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m not saying kill an innocent person. I’m saying executing a known killer. Not for punishment, but for safety.

The only way anyone could be for capital punishment is for primal revenge.

Life imprisonment without parole for ANY premeditated murder solves the problem of a killer being free to kill again – and it also allows for the release of someone who is exhonerated.

Again, if you’re for capital punishment, you favor occasionally killing innocent people just to feel primal revenge against the guilty.

@HungryGuy How dare you? I have explained myself twice. I am NOT for killing the innocent. I am RARELY for the execution of a murderer. And I have said, twice, that the only way I would ever support this punishment is for these conditions: A)isolation in prison fails with the convicted, B) they are guilty numerous times beyond a reasonable doubt, C) to prevent him form murdering again
Notice that I said they guilty , not innocent. And I have no revenge. Perhaps a grudge against some peers of mine, but not blind hatred. Got that one? Or do you still criticize me?

@CaptainHarley Yes, your case is different. Maybe when you were told the defoliant was harmless, people truly thought it was – maybe they didn’t know the danger existed. To kill an innocent person in the name of an innocent person being killed is hypocritical and ridiculous. You’re right, life isn’t fair. However, in terms of capital punishment, that’s not random chaos happening – it’s people being in control of whether or not another human being dies. And when a lot of the people who have died and will die are innocent, sometimes knowingly, that’s not randomness – it’s not that life isn’t fair. It’s people being fucked up and not giving a shit, it’s people choosing to ignore something that could easily be changed – it’s murder. It’s hypocrisy at its best.

@Maximillian Not to speak for @HungryGuy, but your justification is purely hypothetical.
A. No escapes from modern maximum security prisons. Life without parole really does mean you are not getting out. No one can kill anyone else from isolation, and they can’t escape isolation either.

B. The justice system can not be certain that anyone is guilty. Many confessions are false, eyewitness testimony has been shown to be deeply flawed due to the way the brain modifies memories, even DNA can be faked if you have a profile and want to frame someone.

C. See A. above.

@Maximillian – If you’re not for killing the innocent, then you’re against capital punishment. Thus, you and I have no quarrel with each other (My comment was directed not at you but only at someone who favors capital punishment, to whom I might say “How dare you risk killing an innocent person just to feel a sense of revenge! You can guarantee your safety equally well with life-without-parole, and allow for the release of someone who is exhonerated.” )

@Snarp – Bravo!! Feel free to speak for me :-) Well said!!!

@DrasticDreamer – Bravo to you too!!

@HungryGuy My apologies. As you can see, I tend to overreact way too much. No, I am not for killing the innocent. Which brings up my next point
@Snarp There are many incidents when convicts in isolation still cause harm to the prison guards. In other cases, they find ways to cause harm to other inmates. And what if suspect was not seen less than 8 hours ago? Is the evidence still stained? And are all DA’s corrupt? They all frame people?

Why is it that people think “life without parole” means that a murderer will never murder again? People murder each other in prison, too.

@Maximillian Sometimes witnesses are dead on accurate, but as a general rule eyewitness testimony is highly error prone. Not all DA’s are corrupt, most are not. Same goes for police. But in all these cases the issue is that you cannot know which eyewitness testimony is good or which cases might really involve a frame up. We expect judges and juries to make good decisions, and we have to let them, but it’s not a perfect enough system to justify a punishment from which their is no going back. It can’t be. We’re human. When we’re perfect, then we can kill people.

@laureth Yes, people murder each other in prison all the time. Most of them had never killed anyone before. Our prison system is worse than our court system and lots of things go on that shouldn’t. But you can’t predict which prisoner will kill someone. You can make a reasonable judgment as to when someone is too dangerous to be in the general population and put them in high security or isolation as needed, there’s no need to kill them.

And yes, prison guards are harmed by inmates in isolation (and everywhere else), but most people on death row are not that kind of inmate. The systems used in isolation and high security areas can be improved, but ultimately being a prison guard is a dangerous job. Those working with the most dangerous inmates are well trained and well protected, they are not likely to be killed.

But we can prevent all prisoners (murderers or not) from ever killing anyone. Just execute everybody, because that’s the only way to prevent recidivism. Maybe we should figure out what brain structures and chemical imbalances lead people to becoming serial killers and preemptively execute them. But guess what, there will still be crime and there will still be murder. The world is not perfect, but I advocate a system that recognizes and deals with imperfection instead of pretending we can make perfect judgment and create a perfectly safe world.

@Maximillian – Apology accepted :) This is a hot topic after all :)

@laureth – Right. Prisoners will still kill each other in prison, but that still doesn’t give us on the outside the right to risk killing an innocent person when life without parole will give us the same degree of safety that we want. Are you really saying that you’re concerned more about one killer killing another killer in prison, than possibly executing an innocent person? Not to be rude, but that doesn’t strike me as a rational position…

@HungryGuy – I wasn’t making any other judgments with that phrase than to say that murderers don’t necessarily stop killing once they’re locked up. That’s it.

@DrasticDreamer

No system is perfect. Even after DNA testing was instituted for condemed prisoners, there were cases where no DNA was available. If you pursue “the greatest good for the greatest number” as an ideal, then executing violent felons, even when the possibility of executing the occasional innocent exists, is still the best option.

@CaptainHarley If I pursue the ideal “the greatest good for the greatest number”, killing the occasional innocent is not the best option. As a matter of fact, one can not follow that ideal at all if one believes that killing the occasional innocent is acceptable. By definition of that ideal, it isn’t possible to believe that. Especially because killing the occasional innocent is completely avoidable. It’s not a necessary evil of the system. It’s laziness, lack of sympathy, and lack of true justice.

Well, it seems like this topic is like most others- no one can change another person’s mind. But that’s why we’re here, right? To debate the non debatable. Go Jellies.
@HungryGuy I read one of your stories. Funny as hell.

Killing is killing. I’m sure there are people here who have said that killing isn’t killing, but I’m not going to read all 80+ posts. I just wanted to express my minimalist view on the topic.

@DrasticDreamer… It’s only “avoidable” if you don’t mind the violent killing the occasional innocent. We have a choice: terminate the violent who comitt crimes of violence, or allow them at some point to continue killing the innocent. Given the choice, I would much prefer not having to pay for the upkeep of some animal that had threatened my grandchildren, for example.

@CaptainHarley Your premise is flawed. Executing criminals is more expensive than locking them up for life without parole. Life without parole with judicious application of high security and isolation serves the same purpose as execution just as well at less cost. The possible death of innocents can be ignored only if one underestimates the cost of executing the innocent. But even if you do ignore it, execution is no more effective and much more expensive than the readily available alternative. It is not utilitarian. It does not provide the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

@Snarp

When I see a wel-designed, definitive study on the expenses of executing violent criminals versus incarcertaing them, then I’ll give serious consideration to that aspect of the issue. In my opinion, getting the violent offender out of society and making it impossible for him to get back in is of paramount importance.

@Snarp @CaptainHarley Yes. I would like to read these studies as well as the result that you’ve described are to me surprising. As an opponent of capital punishment, this would be a valuable resource in future discussions.

It doesn’t take a well defined, definitive study. This isn’t a scientific experiment. We know how much it takes to house a prisoner and we know how much a death penalty prosecution costs. (OK, I admit, I don’t specifically know the exact numbers). No one knowledgeable about the death penalty argues this. Prosecutors who seek the death penalty will tell you that it costs more.

@CaptainHarley, @Espiritus_Corvus Start here.

”“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.”

That first paragraph is from the report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, established by the California Senate and consisting of a former United States attorney, judges, law professors, and law enforcement officers, among others.

OK. That’s a start, but where’s the citation, where did this come from? Who is reporting this? I want to track down the study protocol, I want to know exactly how they came up with these figures. “Rough projections,” even conservative ones, aren’t very helpful in argument. And were there studies done in other states beyond California? This is an article of unknown origin (to me) about the study. I need the study itself, not somebody’s interpretation of the study.

@Espiritus_Corvus I said ”Start here.” Does your browser not work with hyperlinks? Kansas, original of California reports, Washington, Maryland.

Yes it does. Take it easy. Thanks for the info.

@Snarp I just went through these. This is very good information and it will be useful in the future. It is counterintuitive to what a lot of people think. Thank you very much, Snarp.

@Maximillian – Thanks! I’m glad that I was able to give you some enjoyment in my own small way :-)

@CaptainHarley – Okay. you’re going to flame me for this, I know, but here goes… If you think it’s “the best option” to kill the occasional innocent person to get revenge aginst some murderers, then you’re no better than those murderers. Yes, how dare I? I know…

Now, I agree with you that keeping them from hurting anyone ever again is of paramount importance. But life without parole will provide that as well as execution. And if you’re saying it’s a matter of cost of prison vs the cost of execution? Well, arguing the cost of execution vs. incarceration is irrelevant!!! I can’t believe anyone would justify murdering innocent people because it’s the cheaper alternative! That argument for the death penalty is just abhorrent to me!

@HungryGuy

Playing to the bleachers, are we? That sort of decision is made constantly at almost every level of society, by people from all walks of life, although not usually in a criminal context. Besides, cost is only one factor. The most important factor is… drum-roll .. the death of innocent people. They’re called victims. The criminal justice system has never been perfect, but the only sure-fire way of ensuring that violent criminals never again take innocent life is execution. It would be very interesting to see just how many people are killed by recidivists, as opposed to how many “innocents” are inadvertantly executed by the state.

@HungryGuy Cost should never be an issue, and when cost is used to determine how to judge someone….then it becomes immoral. But you must also understand that capital punishment is not for revenge. It is for the protection of other lives. I know we’ve gone over it, but, I say again. Life without parole and isolation don’t always work. And when it doesn’t, the last resort is death.

@CaptainHarley Not true. If life in prison was the only option for murderers, they would never again walk free or have the ability to kill innocent people. People have to change it – that’s it. If they did, no innocent people on the street or off, would be killed by someone with a prior record. And yes, it’s a lot cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to execute them. When I wrote my essay, cost was something that I researched and included in the paper.

Although, in my mind… Cost shouldn’t even be a factor when our “justice” system is murdering innocent people. Killing the “occasional innocent” shouldn’t matter, either. One innocent life is just as valuable to me as one hundred.

And now a word fro @DrasticDreamer

@DrasticDreamer… “One innocent life is just as valuable to me as one hundred.” If you believe that, you and I don’t even live on the same planet.

@CaptainHarley When I was younger, I convinced myself I was an alien. Maybe that explains it…

Sacrificing one innocent life for another is hypocritical, and illogical. It’s stage props and glitter – things that make reality appear better and prettier, when in truth, it’s just as ugly.

To murder one innocent life for an entire nation is wrong.
Unfortunately, this topic is not about that. It isn’t about saving a nation by killing an innocent civilian. Its about the preservation of life by executing a murderer, who isn’t innocent.

@DrasticDreamer

So carrying this thought to its logical conclusion, we never should have gone to war against the Japanese because the possibility of killing innocent Japanese wasn’t worth saving at least twice that many innocent Philippinos, or Chinese, or Americans, or any other nationality?

@CaptainHarley Oh captain, my captain. This may go on for a while. That was war. Civilian casualties are a part of it. You of all people should know this. (I’ve read some of your profile.) The military targets the insurgents, or the enemy, or what have you. They do what they can to avoid the innocent. But accidents do happen.
And in case anyone is confused, military personal are by definition not innocent during war.

@Maximillian And sometimes, more often than should be acceptable, that “murderer” isn’t actually a murderer. The death penalty is not a necessity. Life in prison would work just as well as stopping murderers from killing again.

@CaptainHarley War, ah. That’s a topic in and of itself. I’m against war, no matter the people, no matter the nation. It’s an extreme ideal to have in this kind of society and world, which I’m perfectly aware of. But I do realize that sometimes, in very rare circumstances, war may be viewed as necessary. However, bombing Japan in the manner our government did? Immoral, unjustifiable and evil – in my own sense of the word. That specific decision was not necessary, and it was disgusting.

War, however, can not and must not be compared to executing prisoners. It is entirely different. Execution of prisoners is entirely controlled, predictable. There’s no chance of the prisoner fighting back, there’s no chance surprise. The prisoner is already captive and subdued. In war, it’s not the same. Civilian casualties are unavoidable. In prison, avoiding killing innocents is completely avoidable.

@DrasticDreamer Not true, my friend, not true. Capital punishment and war are very identical. Before I go any further, let me say something. Like I said, accidents do happen. Sometimes we do get the wrong guy. But when that guy is known for killing many, and is going to kill again, it is necessary to execute him. Life in prison doesn’t always work. I think I’ve said five times now.
Now, back to war. War is the self defense of a country. Now you’re going to say what happens when we attack. Its called preemptive strike. Get them before they get us. You see, war and capital punishment are both forms of self defense.
(By the way, the bombing of Japan was wrong. I believe that the mass destruction of cities is wrong. However, before we realized that, we were given almost no choice but to do so. If we had continued the war the way we did, more American [and Japanese] lives would have been lost. More than the bombings, in fact. In fact, the US gave one warning before Fat Man. We then again delivered an ultimatum before Little Boy [correct me if those names are wrong.] And then only did Hirohito surrender.)

@Maximillian This is the second time I’ve asked you: How doesn’t life in prison always work? I’m talking about if prisoners were sentenced to life in prison, with no chance of parole. How does that not work? Parts of the system need to be changed, no matter what stance you hold, but saying the death penalty is necessary? No, far from it.

And a preemptive strike is self defense? Um, no… That’s an attack. Should people walk around shooting or stabbing everyone they think is a threat? And a threat to what? A way of life? Because you think they’ll hurt you physically?

Estimated invasion force casualties were over one million. Estimated civilian casualties were even higher. We did the Japanese nation, our own nation, and even the world a favor by ending the war by whatever means possible.

Okay. Why didn’t we drop bombs on Germany the same way we dropped them on Japan, then??

We didn’t drop bombs on Germany because of two main reasons: the Manhattan Project was not complete, and Germany surrendered.
Now to your earlier question: inmates are some of the most creative people. They find ways to do just about anything. Including murder/harm to others. And I also said earlier that death is only a necessary after all else fails.
Preemptive strike is totally different from shooting random people. The military has this thing called the CIA, which provides detailed information on who pose a threat. For instance, the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK was about to pull the trigger if the USSR didn’t leave. They attack only when we enter into certain situations that will cause us harm. And what do you mean threat to what? If we don’t attack first, we get hurt. Yes, physically. We failed one time at NOT doing a preemptive strike: it’s called 9/11.

@DrasticDreamer

Because we’re all racist, war-mongering pigs. Jeeze!

I’m out of this conversation for awhile. Going to watch the movie I ordered: “300.” It’s about 300 warmongering Spartans who held off almost a million peace-loving Persians trying their best to lay waste to all of Greece… with swords.

@CaptainHarley HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love that movie!

@CaptainHarley – I’ll ask the same question that @DrasticDreamer asked: How is life-without-parole not a sure-fire way of insuring that violent criminals never kill another innocent person? Putting somebody inside a cell made of steel bars for the rest of their life sure seems sure fire to me as long as the laws are written to truly mean life without parole. If we can write executuions into the law, we can as easily make the life imprisonment laws mean just that.

@Maximillian – I respectfully disagree that execution is for protection of other lives. Life without parole serves as such protection equally as well as execution. Therefore, IMHO, the sole purpose of execution is as a means of revenge, not protection.

@HungryGuy I may be a little retarded here: what is IMHO? Nevermind that. No system is perfect. Not even the life without parole. Things will happen. There is no such thing as zero tolerance. And, the state does not look at the execution as revenge. They see it as self defense. The people who suffered from his crimes see it that way.

@Maximillian – IMHO means “In my humble opinion.” It’s a friendly way of saying I disagree with you :-)

Haha. I get it.

@CaptainHarley and @Maximillian

If only my life were so black and white!
I might not suffer at all, or stay awake nights.
Justice for all;
an eye for an eye!
To kill is to kill,
and to die is to die…

This isn’t justice in the eyes of the courts. Its self defense. Already said it. Its not revenge. Already said it. And the courts are indeed black and white. Remember, prosecutors represent the state without any prejudice or passion.

Yeah… Without prejudice or passion. Right.

What do you mean, yeah, right? That is what lawyers are taught at law school. Now, if you watch Law and Order, totally different. But yes, without prejudice or passion.

Okay.

Moral? I really don’t know. Humane, maybe. I mean if a dog had rabies you would put them down before it harmed anyone else or another animal. It would be inhumane to watch it get ill and cage it up till it died. So lets move this up the human scale. If a human being is beyond repair and will forever pose as a threat to society. Is it humane to keep him/her locked away in a cell for years. Some prisoners are so violent you can’t let them be with other prisoners. Some people just don’t have any sense of what morality is (what some call a soul) and derive pleasure from hurting others. So, how would locking them away for 40 to 50 years till they die be any more moral than the death penalty. I think in some cases its an act of kindness they don’t deserve. I know if I was going to be locked away till the day I died, than I would perfer to have my life taken away. I mean, what is life if you have absolutely no hope.
The only concern I have is that at times the death penalty is given to someone who is proven innocent years later because of zealous prosecuters and cops, who are looking to quickly end a case.