MagiStream

It's not justice being done, it's just revenge.

On a personal level, I very much dislike that comment.

I don't like revenge. It seems patently illogical. Shouldn't 'justice' be the attempt to repair emotional andor physical damages done to the injured parties? How does reciprocating harm help anything? How can the infliction of harm on another person, no matter the cause, correct anything? If the infliction of harm is the problem, isn't it our duty to stop the infliction of harm, rather than perpetuating it?

I don't think 'revenge' should be a recognized legal motive.

To compare: A man is murdered. His best friend hunts down the killers and murders them in turn. He would be arrested as a criminal. (If you prefer, you can use a parent and child, or a married pair, or any other close emotional relationship.) The friend would be arrested as a criminal, and he would be a criminal.

In another universe, the same person is murdered, and his significant other takes the murderers to court. They are tried, found guilty, and executed.

The end result is the same, and even the process, to some extent--but in one, the significant other is a criminal, while in the other, he is--not necessarily a 'hero' per se, but considered to be an honorable person. Why is this? I don't understand.

To devil's advocate with A counter example from real world:

A man attempts to commit genocide and repeatedly declares that it was a good and proper decision (including at his trial). He also has declared (publicly before his trial, and less publicly after) his intention to continue that campaign, should he have the opportunity to do so.

~Wolfeyedangel

Note: The statements in the example were made by the individual in question. I am not supporting his position simply relaying the situation and statements.

wolfeyedangel wrote:
@batty: You should still do the research rather than continuing your blanket statements. Find out if the wrong person has ever been executed hard facts will give your argument more weight. ... (edited to reduce length)

~Wolfeyedangel

My point is, and I have to agree with randomname here, that executing one innocent in error is one too many. I will go further and say that state-sanctioned killing is still murder. The Bible says "Thou shall not kill" and we punish breaking that commandment with... killing? Who are we to take someone's life, no matter how loathsome, grotesque and repugnant they are? Deprive them of their freedom, publicity and fame instead.

On this side of the Pacific, we watch in bemusment and distaste as the news reports on yet another execution that shows the people celebrating at the prison gates. You can't tell me that's civilized.

(Here in Australia the last man executed was in 1967. The death penalty was struck from the law books in 1981, and replaced with a "Never to be released" category.)

Batty wrote:My point is, and I have to agree with randomname here, that executing one innocent in error is one too many. I will go further and say that state-sanctioned killing is still murder. The Bible says "Thou shall not kill" and we punish breaking that commandment with... killing? Who are we to take someone's life, no matter how loathsome, grotesque and repugnant they are? Deprive them of their freedom, publicity and fame instead.

On this side of the Pacific, we watch in bemusment and distaste as the news reports on yet another execution that shows the people celebrating at the prison gates. You can't tell me that's civilized.

(Here in Australia the last man executed was in 1967. The death penalty was struck from the law books in 1981, and replaced with a "Never to be released" category.)

That's assuming that the Bible is correct. Not everyone involved with the justice system is religious, nor do they take the Bible to be a document on how humanity should conduct itself. As you had said before, that the death penalty was a punishment that you can't come back from... being a serial killer isn't exactly an issue you can reconcile within you no matter how many times you say you're sorry. Some people are just built without any ability to care about a fellow human being or his or her welfare. This is not something that can be treated in most cases. If it ends up that the person took another's life willingly, and knowing full well what they were committing, then punishment should follow swiftly and equally. Also, the death penalty is the ultimate deprivation of freedom that there is, if you think about it.

Many people are irked that life imprisonment can also mean three square meals a day and sometimes television (even cable) privileges for good behavior. You'll have to do a complete reconstruction of jail and the prison system from the bottom up, including resources that we simply don't have - such as effective rehabilitation centers for criminals that can be straightened out. It can happen, but we're lacking the time, money, and manpower to do it. So we have this slapped together system that takes such a long time to wade through, and where fame and money overrule laws. If there was something useful that we could do with murders and serial rapists that didn't involve the death penalty (if for no other reason than to remove them from society to keep them from harming others) then so be it. Introduce this awesome concept. But until then, we're seemingly going to continue to use this system.

Plus, if you're going to go on the Thou Shall Not Kill, angle, you'd have to argue how killing in defense is or is not okay, or you're creating large, obvious loopholes in your Bible based justice system.

Batty: Please see aforementioned example.

Also you have not addressed the actual meat of my argument which, to be blunt, has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty, only with how to make your argument against it more effective. Your current argument boils down to 'It's just wrong and I don't have to explain why and we don't have to do it that way, because other people don't.'

Bringing in the celebrations at executions is a good start, a better one would be making sure to cite specific examples where the celebrations are, indeed, over revenge, rather than relief at proof that no one is above the law. That justice CAN be meted out to the guilty at the top as well as the guilty at the bottom, that way no one can say 'that doesn't count because they were rejoicing that people who had been untouchable were held accountable.' Or at least you will have arguments at your finger tips to counter those statements. (TS Eliot gives a good philosophical one that is very effective for both sides: "The Last temptation was the greatest treason, to do the right deed for the wrong reason" from his play Murder in the Cathedral)

To use this for the death penalty: The motivation behind the execution must always be to see justice done, and there must be no other appropriate punishment for the magnitude of the crime in question. There are some situations where individuals are incurable and even the slightest risk of escape from a 'never to be released' sentence is too great a danger to put the public in. There are other situations where justice cannot be served with a different punishment, though the common denominator would be that the crime was of such a magnitude either in scope or sadism or both, and no repentance has been show (especially when PRIDE In the actions taken have been shown) that no other punishment is in any way appropriate. Also: Jail often turns a criminal into a celebrity (do a quick search for how many people convicted of crimes got book deals and movie royalties.)

To use this against the death penalty: Leaving aside the 'one is too many argument' (which I have never disputed even as Devil's Advocate), this quote gives you a good way of clarifying your stance. The motivation for a conviction is as important as the actual law. If you wish to further argue it from a biblical stand point (which should be used cautiously with non-Christian or mixed audiences. If you alienate your audience it doesn't matter how valid your points are.) Mark 7:20-23 is a good start and familiarizing yourself with Romans 8 and 10 are also useful, I can dig some more up but this is not a religion discussion and you are intellect and capable of doing your own research effectively. On a secular level, you can cite cases where the death penalty was given on very little (by modern requirement) evidence, and bring into question the motivation of those giving the convictions. You can raise the question (which you have been trying to though with only limited success) as to whether the motivations for such a thing can ever be entirely pure, and that even if the death penalty might be the right answer in a given case, if the motivations of everyone involved are not correct then the results are going to be counter productive. An example from history that would help with this point: The executions after the French revolution. It's not quite a direct parallel, but France took a very long time to recover from that revolution. The Russian revolution is another good example of where revenge takes over and turns into tyranny. So the motivation is as important as the actual action. Connect that back to your main point with more examples of convictions (preferably death sentence, and the more recent the better because laws regarding it have changed over the years and become usually more stringent, so the most current examples are likely to be the most effective.)

Over all the questions both sides have to answer effectively and completely as possible are as follows:
1) What is justice under the law in this case?
2) What will serve those injured best?
3) What is the ideal solution (if there is one)?
4) How can we, with the resources we have available get as close to the ideal solution as is practicable.
5) How will the decision we are planning on making negatively impact all involved?
6) Does the negative outweigh the positive? Under what circumstances?

There should be 'why' explanations attached to each point. This is not an all inclusive list.

~Wolf

A man attempts to commit genocide and repeatedly declares that it was a good and proper decision (including at his trial). He also has declared (publicly before his trial, and less publicly after) his intention to continue that campaign, should have the opportunity to do so.

That's not revenge; I don't see how it relates to my statement.

That man should receive the death penalty. He has stated that he believes himself to be correct, and if released from jail he will continue to commit crimes. Therefore, he can never be rehabilitated or released; the only logical solution is the death penalty, because there is no point in keeping him alive in jail.

I also don't see what you mean by "should have the opportunity to do so." The meaning that I'm getting is that you believe he should have the opportunity to do so, but I think what you meant was that he has stated that he should be allowed to do so. (At least, I hope that was your meaning. The idea that there are rational human being who support genocide is a frightening one to say the least.)

My apologies I didn't catch the typo, it should have been 'should HE have the opportunity to do so.' I will edit so others aren't confused as well.

And yes, that was his statement about his intentions. I was not advocating genocide.

You have taken a hard-line stance AGAINST the death penalty in any case, which would by what you have argued so far, include this case. (By the way he was convicted and executed, and there are still people shouting that it was a 'miscarriage of justice'.) From that stand point how do you (and this question is open to anyone who is utterly against the death penalty) propose to deal with such extreme cases and how do you propose the line be drawn, legally?

~Wolfeyedangel

You have taken a hard-line stance AGAINST the death penalty in any case

...No. No I haven't. I have taken a hard-line stance against the use of the death penalty as a form of revenge. I'm sorry if that's not what I conveyed; I'll try to be clearer in the future.

If a person kills one person (or even a group of people) by accident, he is not a criminal. If one person kills one other person in the heat of an argument, then he should not receive the death penalty. If one man kills one person premeditated, he should not receive the death penalty, unless he does not accept that what he did was wrong.

If a criminal cannot be rehabilitated into a functioning citizen, then and only then should he receive the death penalty.

Batty wrote:On this side of the Pacific, we watch in bemusment and distaste as the news reports on yet another execution that shows the people celebrating at the prison gates. You can't tell me that's civilized.

I am curious, because I've never been there, as to the frequency of crimes and number of convicted criminals who would be given the death penalty here, over there. I'm also curious how they're handled. Are they put away in maximum security enclosures? Does your country attempt any sort of rehabilitation? What are the success rates?

The reason being, no...I don't think the American justice system operates at optimum for just the reasons you pointed out. Innocent people (I was one of them) go to jail. You can say you're going to expunge records, you can say you'll revise the person's sheet, but that stays with you forever. It's never really gone. In the case of the death penalty, being that sort of wrong strikes me as rather permanent. As far as I know, they don't compensate the families wronged either. They simply return the former inmate's things with an "Oops, my bad" statement.

That, to me, is not acceptable.

I personally think the line should be drawn at 'no death penalty whatsoever'. However incurable someone might seem, putting him to death will certainly take any chance at repentance from him. I'm not even religious and yet I think that is wrong from a completely human point of view. We can never know whether someone will not come to regret his ways in the future unless we can prove that he is physically or psychologically unable to change his views. In that case, though, it becomes a medical problem and the question arises on whether someone is fully responsible for his actions if they are dictated by a clinical condition (which is quite rare, actually).
Also, I don't think the relatives will feel better just because a murderer was executed. Seeing another person suffer or die will do nothing to alleviate their loss. In the end, revenge will do nothing to make you feel better, because it will not give you back anything.

As for someone commiting genocide, here we leave law and enter politics, because that usually involves someone in a high government position. You can't really commit genocide without a government behind you that organizes these things, otherwise you are just a serial killer that targets a specific subgroup. If that person is a member of your own government, that usually involves a forceful removal of that government. I don't think killing off your predecessors is a good start for a new government, but it has been a popular solution for that problem in the past.

However, since I happen to know who wolfeyedangel is talking about, we get into the topic on whether war is the correct solution for one country to enforce its interests in another country here, which is not what this topic is about, so I'll refrain from commenting on it.

Out of interest, I did some research on which countries even have death penalty. Interestingly, all of Europe with the single exception of Belarus, doesn't have death penalty. Russia doesn't execute people, neither do Turkey and Israel (those two surprised me). Most of South America has gotten rid of it. Australia and Kanada have both abolished executions quite long ago.

So what's left is mainly China, Japan, India, about half of Africa (the other half mostly still has death penalty in theory but doesn't use it in practice), the Arabian countries and most of Asia. Add to that many of the various Caribbean islands. And the US, of course.


TxCat, as an example: Germany doesn't have death penalty, ever since 1949 (more or less when the country started to get its act together again after WWII). Currently we have roughly 80 million citizens and we had between 800 and 1000 murders a year for the last ten years. That's actual murders, if you include other crimes that lead to the death of someone, it's about three to four times that. That's between 1.0 and 1.25 murders per 100.000 inhabitants, compared to about 5.0 to 5.7 in the US in the last ten years, if my sources are to be believed.
The only possible penalty for murder here is a lifelong prison sentence, which means a minimum of 15 years served and the very real possibility for keeping the convict imprisoned for the actual rest of his life afterwards.