So, serial killers and murdering pedophiles should be forgiven and no

[Dr. Shane]

Yeah, that was my reaction: killing people because they're 'too expensive' doesn't seem like a potent moral argument for breaking a Commandment... I think we need something stronger than that.

In the US, it is cheaper to lock someone up for life than execute them. In other countries that may not be true but in the US it is.

Executing isn't Commandment breaking. If it is, than God commanded Noah and Moses to break the Commandment. That couldn't be so.

I only support the death penalty in cases of 1st degree murder where there are two witnesses or DNA evidence which connects the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not sure why this highly political thread is in Townhall.

[Bravus]

I guess maybe it's political, though not intrinsically so, and it's not really party-political. The discussion is also much more about the ethics and morality than the politics of the issue.

As I said earlier, I can understand and accept that there exists a principled, reasonable case for the use of the death penalty in cases where (a) the crimes are particularly heinous and ( guilt is absolutely certain.

I have extremely high standards for the second, though: a few examples have been given that I think meet those standards, but there have been an *awful* lot of men imprisoned for 20 years for crimes that the DNA evidence has recently showed they didn't commit. Had the law been different, some of those would have been executed by now: and innocent men have definitely been executed in the past. And in my opinion one innocent man is one too many.

I agree that I over-reached in using the shorthand of 'breaking a commandment', and that the commandment applies to murder rather than judicial execution. It was a careless mistake rather than malicious.

I also find myself unable to subscribe, for myself, to the case for the death penalty. I can respect those who do, to the extent that they are willing to recognise that allowing it at all includes the possibility of executing the innocent.

(I still think advancing cost as an argument for execution is morally heinous.)

So, what are the grounds for opposing the death penalty? Once we posit that guilt is certain, that issue is taken off the table.

My reasons are essentially that we get better as a society by being better than our worst denizens. When we descend to killing killers, we become a more savage society. When we take killers off the street for good, but do not ourselves kill, we have risen to a higher moral standard than those we imprison.

All the research shows that the death penalty is *not* an effective deterrent. So that can be taken off the list of reasons for supporting it. That leaves retribution as the only reason: "you did this to someone, therefore we will do this to you".

That also leaves aside the question of who does the executing, and the effects on that person.

As I say, for myself I cannot support it. I can understand those who do support it, but fear that their enthusiasm tends to cause them to overstate the benefits and understate the risks and problems.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

In the US, it is cheaper to lock someone up for life than execute them.

"There is no dispute that the death penalty is expensive. Of course, sentencing someone to life in prison is also very expensive. But death penalty costs are accrued up- front, especially at trial and for the early appeals, while life-in-prison costs are spread out over many decades. A million dollars spent today is a lot more costly to the state than a million dollars that can be paid gradually over 40 years.

But the most expensive system is one that combines the costliest parts of both punishments: lengthy and complicated death penalty trials followed by incarceration for life. Surprisingly, research has shown that that is exactly what you can expect from the death penalty. In most cases where the prosecution announces that the death penalty will be sought, it is never imposed. And even when it is imposed, it is rarely carried out.

Death penalty cases are clearly more expensive at every stage of the judicial process than similar non-death cases. Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more so:

• more pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial

2 . R. Gold, “Counties Struggle with High Cost of Prosecuting Death-Penalty Cases,” Wall St. Journal, Jan. 9, 2002. 3 . See, e.g., F. Butterfield, “As Cities Struggle, Police Get By With Less,” N.Y. Times, July 27, 2004 (cities with budget shortfalls are closing innovative law enforcement units that helped reduce crime). Cleveland laid off 250 police officers. Meanwhile, Ohio has 206 people on death row.

Costs of the Death Penalty

• more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered

• more experts will be hired

• twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution

• jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered

• two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment • the trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death

penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials

• and then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row.

These individual expenses result in a substantial net cost to the taxpayer to maintain a death penalty system as compared to a system with a life sentence as the most severe punishment. It is certainly true that after an execution the death row inmate no longer has to be incarcerated while the life-sentence prisoner remains under state care. But that partial saving is overwhelmed by the earlier death penalty costs, especially because relatively few cases result in an execution, and, even those that do occur, happen many years after the sentence is pronounced.

A study at Columbia University Law School demonstrated how few capital cases actually result in an execution: the study found that 68% of death penalty sentences or convictions are overturned on appeal.5 The serious errors that are discovered require that at least the sentencing phase be done over. When these death penalty cases are re-tried, approximately 82% result in a life sentence. Thus, the typical death penalty case has all the expenses of its early stages and appeal; it is then overturned, and a life sentence is imposed, resulting in all the costs of a lifetime of incarceration. Nationally, only about 12% of people who have been sentenced to death have been executed."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pdf

[Dr. Shane]

The argument is made that it is not a deterrent because (1) it is not used often enough, and (2) often times those committing such crimes are drunk or high and thus not thinking about the consequences.

Even when we recognize that it is not a deterrent, that doesn't leave retribution as the only reason. The other reason is justice.

There is the thought out there that killing a killer places us on the same level as the killer. That is, it make us as bad as he (or she) is. However there is a competing thought out there.

The other thought is that life is so valuable that when a person takes the life of another, the only way justice can be served is for the killer to give his own life. Think of it like this, if I run over someone's cat with my car how much should I be fined? Let's say $100. Now let's say I accidentally kill a farmer's milk cow while hunting. How much should I be fined? Well, a milk cow is worth more than a cat. So the fine needs to be more. Let say $1,000. The greater value the life has that I have taken, the higher the penalty. Now let's say I commit pre-meditated murder. How much is that life worth? What do I pay? 20 years in prison? Life in prison? Or is the value of the other life so great that I must give my own life? Mercy may be granted in cases of 2nd degree murder and certainly in cases of manslaughter. However when a murder is planned and intentional, to sentence the murderer to anything less than capital punishment is to devalue the life of the victim. I think that is why God told Noah that the life of the murderer must be taken. It is not about revenge. God will get revenge on judgment day. It is about justice.

[LifeHiscost]

1. All the research shows that the death penalty is *not* an effective deterrent.

2. I can respect those who do, to the extent that they are willing to recognise that allowing it at all includes the possibility of executing the innocent.

As to #1: H.M.S. Richards once commented, it is a deterrent to the criminal whose life is forfeited for the crime they committed.

As to #2: Not as great a risk as to the innocent lives that are in danger of being lost to the convicted murderer during the 20 years incarcerated and often then released to prey upon the general public again.

Regards!!

[SivartM]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

Should the families of the victims carry out the executions, like they did in the Bible?

There are victim's family members that would be happy to oblige. And if nobody wants to do it, then perhaps a life sentence, or maybe have a computer do it.

And that is what scares me about the death penalty. Let's just go back to the stone age completely.

[Gerr]

Quote:

I have extremely high standards for the second,

And so do I because I have the utmost value for human life.

Quote:

though: a few examples have been given that I think meet those standards, but there have been an *awful* lot of men imprisoned for 20 years for crimes that the DNA evidence has recently showed they didn't commit. Had the law been different, some of those would have been executed by now: and innocent men have definitely been executed in the past. And in my opinion one innocent man is one too many.

There is no doubt that innocents have been executed in the past and the guilty set free, especially in the days when prejudice was overtly rampant. But as I have already stated, the death penalty should only be imposed where guilt has been established beyond a shadow of doubt.

Quote:

(I still think advancing cost as an argument for execution is morally heinous.)

Once guilt is established beyond doubt, what possible justification can you advance to spend scarce resources to keep the guilty alive? That is morally reprehensible, imho.

[Gerr]

My reasons are essentially that we get better as a society by being better than our worst denizens. When we descend to killing killers, we become a more savage society. When we take killers off the street for good, but do not ourselves kill, we have risen to a higher moral standard than those we imprison.

[Bravus]

I think the numbers rudywoofs quoted above make the case eloquently: as well as its moral problems, the cost argument is just wrong on the facts. It's cheaper to keep a prisoner alive than to execute.

[Gerr]

Quote:

All the research shows that the death penalty is *not* an effective deterrent. So that can be taken off the list of reasons for supporting it. That leaves retribution as the only reason: "you did this to someone, therefore we will do this to you".

I find those statistics rather laughable. As it is currently practiced in the USA, the death penalty is not much of a deterrent for the following reasons:

1) Justice is not swift. It takes years after the original verdict followed by appeals ad infinitum before sentence is finally carried out. If we want death penalty to be a deterrent, justice must be swift, appeals limited, unless the appeals are due to doubts about guilt.

2) Death is made as painlessly as possible, and done in the dead of night when only a few are witnesses. Again, if we want it to be a deterrent, let the punishment of the guilty be as he/she has done to his/her victim/s. And let it be done on TV at primetime.

3) As someone has already pointed out, it is a deterrent for at least the one executed. That is the one thing about those suicide bomber terrorists, they perish with their victims and will not live another day to do it again.

Quote:

That also leaves aside the question of who does the executing, and the effects on that person.

As I say, for myself I cannot support it. I can understand those who do support it, but fear that their enthusiasm tends to cause them to overstate the benefits and understate the risks and problems.

There will be family members of the victim who will be happy to oblige, and even unrelated persons who will volunteer. If all else fail, let a computer do it.

[Bravus]

A society that tortures its prisoners to death (as some of them did to their victims) live on prime time TV is not any society I want to be a part of.

[Gerr]

A society that tortures its prisoners to death (as some of them did to their victims) live on prime time TV is not any society I want to be a part of.

I am not suggesting that that is what we should do, but I don't want to hear the argument about the death penalty not being a deterrent when in fact it is sanitized so that it could not be a deterrent. If the death penalty is to be a deterrent, then let it be something to be feared.

Many years ago, we had some neighbors that went to Saudi Arabia. They said one could leave their valuables in their hotel rooms without fear that they would be stolen. Why? Because if the thief is caught, his hand would be chopped off. So who would want to risk a limb for a few hundred dollars?

Now some may argue that this is barbaric. But what is more barbaric, a society where property and life are safe? Or whether a society where neither is safe? I'm not saying I would prefer to live in Saudi Arabia, their treatment of women and personal freedom is more than I can stomach. But I sure would like to be able to walk the streets any time of day without fear that some barbarian will mug me or even take my life for a few bucks.

[Dr. Shane]

I think the numbers rudywoofs quoted above make the case eloquently: as well as its moral problems, the cost argument is just wrong on the facts. It's cheaper to keep a prisoner alive than to execute.

The question then becomes, if putting a prisoner to death is the right thing to do morally, do we do that despite the cost? That is the issue I have long pondered.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I am not suggesting that that is what we should do' date=' but I don't want to hear the argument about the death penalty not being a deterrent when in fact it is sanitized so that it could not be a deterrent. If the death penalty is to be a deterrent, then let it be something to be feared.

I wouldn't be afraid to bet the farm that televising the execution on prime time tv would make a great deterrent.

Quote:

Many years ago, we had some neighbors that went to Saudi Arabia. They said one could leave their valuables in their hotel rooms without fear that they would be stolen. Why? Because if the thief is caught, his hand would be chopped off. So who would want to risk a limb for a few hundred dollars?[/quote']

I worked for a family that did construction work in Saudia Arabia. The woman was sitting in some public place.When she left she forgot her purse. Two Saudia Arabians saw this,grabbed the purse and went running after her,They were scared to death someone would come along and grab it and they would get the blame. They definitely have a deterrent to theft

[Gerr]

I think the numbers rudywoofs quoted above make the case eloquently: as well as its moral problems, the cost argument is just wrong on the facts. It's cheaper to keep a prisoner alive than to execute.

I did a little Google searching. Apparently the statistics are not as straightforward as it appears. Which of the two costs less is debatable. So it depends on whose statistics you believe.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Quote:

I am not suggesting that that is what we should do' date=' but I don't want to hear the argument about the death penalty not being a deterrent when in fact it is sanitized so that it could not be a deterrent. If the death penalty is to be a deterrent, then let it be something to be feared.

I wouldn't be afraid to bet the farm that televising the execution on prime time tv would make a great deterrent. [/quote']

While it would not be a 100% deterrent, I would be shocked if murder cases did not plummet. I have never known a child or anyone who has ever accidently touched a hot stove intentionally touch it again, much less hold it.

[Dr. Shane]

I did a little Google searching. Apparently the statistics are not as straightforward as it appears. Which of the two costs less is debatable. So it depends on whose statistics you believe.

Back in to 1980s Minnesota was debating if they wanted to pass the death penalty. Their House of Representatives decided against it because it would cost too much money.

[SivartM]

And let it be done on TV at primetime.

It would be more likely to just turn into entertainment than a crime deterrent. Remember the Coliseum?

Maybe we could have public stonings like they did in Bible times. We could even make it a family event. Parents could throw big stones and children could join in with smaller ones.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

And let it be done on TV at primetime.

It would be more likely to just turn into entertainment than a crime deterrent. Remember the Coliseum?

Maybe we could have public stonings like they did in Bible times. We could even make it a family event. Parents could throw big stones and children could join in with smaller ones.

What might be needed is to pay more attention to the victims and to not exaggerate what has been said concerning the guilty.

For those contemplating the rape,assaults,torture of their next victim,watching one of them be led to the gurney knowing in minutes he would be dead likely would not be seen as entertainment.

Your suggesstion of making it a family event is obscene.For those that have spent weeks,months and sometimes years not knowing where their loved one is or what has happpended to them is not looking for entertainment.

Perhaps it would not be quite so hard for the families left behind if their feelings and loss received as much consideration as the monster that killed their loved one.

[LifeHiscost]

[SivartM]

Perhaps it would not be quite so hard for the families left behind if their feelings and loss received as much consideration as the monster that killed their loved one.

I thought the entire debate about the death penalty was concerning the what to do with the guilty, not the victims. My bad. Can we only choose one to care about?

[phkrause]

I have to agree with Sivart, only because it seems that many do the things they do for the purpose of being on TV. I've said many times that if we didn't show these terrorist on TV they probably would eventually stop, but they know that they will be on TV. The influence of TV is very powerful. Each mass murder just gets more and more. The next guy just wants to leave with a bigger kill than the one before.

[SivartM]

I have to agree with Sivart, only because it seems that many do the things they do for the purpose of being on TV. I've said many times that if we didn't show these terrorist on TV they probably would eventually stop, but they know that they will be on TV. The influence of TV is very powerful. Each mass murder just gets more and more. The next guy just wants to leave with a bigger kill than the one before.

On a slightly related note, in a book I just read about the Secret Service, I learned that most people who try to assassinate someone do it for recognition, not necessarily because they dislike the person.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

And let it be done on TV at primetime.

It would be more likely to just turn into entertainment than a crime deterrent. Remember the Coliseum?

Maybe we could have public stonings like they did in Bible times. We could even make it a family event. Parents could throw big stones and children could join in with smaller ones.

Okay. You first.

[phkrause]

And if it costs more to put someone to death than actually keeping them in prison, there seems to be something wrong with that picture???? Personally I don't believe that for one minute.