Why Would Anyone Support Capital Punishment: Parts III - V

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Parts One (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=55277&highlight=Capital+Punishment) & Two (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=55603&highlight=Capital+Punishment)


Why Would Anyone Support Capital Punishment? (Part III) (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11568596/)

As I have explained in my two previous columns, there are five core objectives of a criminal justice system: incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, and symbolism. In the first column, I showed that incapacitation and rehabilitation are irrelevant as distinctions between execution and life in prison without the possibility of parole (LIPWPP) and that retribution strongly favors execution. In the previous column, I explained why I think capital punishment does not deter, though I strongly support the practice for other reasons. But even if I thought that executing murderers would deter others from this crime, that still would not justify doing so for that reason. Why not? It’s actually quite simple.

People must be punished for their own crimes and not used as utilitarian instruments for the sake of scaring other people.

Why Would Anyone Support Capital Punishment? (Part 4) (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/03/12/why_would_anyone_support_capital_punishment_part_4 )

To this point in our series on capital punishment, we saw that retribution (rather than rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, or symbolism) is both the only valid reason for executing murderers and also an adequate reason for doing so. But, of course, the other side hasn’t yet responded. Their objections fall roughly into three categories: practical, conceptual, or religious.

Practical Objection 1: It’s unacceptable to execute innocent people.

I agree.

< snip , snip >

So if these replies don’t work, how can I respond, especially since I don’t accept the oft-used deterrence argument? (See parts 2-3.) Well, it’s because I believe we can eliminate such mistakes by having two different standards of certainty. Though guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is already a hefty presumption favoring the accused, it’s clearly not enough to avoid all errors. Nor am I interested in raising it for conviction because that would mean acquitting more offenders. But why not a higher standard for sentencing?

Why Would Anyone Support Capital Punishment? (Part 5) (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/03/20/why_would_anyone_support_capital_punishment_part_5 )

In my previous column, we saw that the practical objection about executing innocent convicts can be solved by heightening the capital standard to guilt beyond any doubt. Now, let’s look at some of the conceptual objections.

Conceptual Objection 1: You cannot teach people that killing is wrong by killing.

What punishment could we assess against criminals that wouldn’t be wrong when done to innocent people?

[edgeworth]

Though I have wrestled with it in the past I can say that I do agree with your post HSRS. Giving someone the death penalty serves no pratical purpose in my opinon(unless you talk about the taxation aspect of it.) Its obvious that it does not deter crime as it still runs rampant throughout society. I believe that the majority of people who support it do so because they feel that it is a just thing for someone who has commited a henious crime. However, what is a henious crime exactly? Doesn't it vary depending on the person? Futhermore, wouldn't every victims family think that the crimes that were commited on their loved ones were henious? Wouldn't they also believe that the person who commited the crime deserved to die? If we go by how henious a crime is than wouldn't every murderer have to be put to death? Though I don't support the death penalty per se I do want to be clear that if faced with a situation of someone whom I loved being murdered; it would be VERY difficult for me to not hunt them down to the ends of the earth and exact my own version of the death penalty.:flame: So, thats my two cents on it and I look forward to others responses on this issue.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

edgeworth,
You have obviously made an assumption about me and the articles without asking me or reading the them.

I fully and whole-heartedly support the death penalty. I highly recommend reading ALL of the article parts. They will be quite illuminating.

[The_Elucidator]

Edge..

I use to be completely PRO death penalty until 3 years ago, when our family was personally touched by this issue, as we witnessed in horror, an overzealous DA trying to charge an innocent person with murder. Now, unless you have multiple witnesses that viewed the murder, life in prison with NO chance for parole is good enough for me!!

[edgeworth]

edgeworth,
You have obviously made an assumption about me and the articles without asking me or reading the them.

I fully and whole-heartedly support the death penalty. I highly recommend reading ALL of the article parts. They will be quite illuminating.

Wow, now I feel like a complete and total idiot!:biggrin: I'm deeply sorry about that HSRS. I didn't mean to make an assumption about you or the info you posted. I was simply being dumb and didn't take care to read the entire article, and for that I'm terribly sorry. Now that I know your true feelings on this issue, would you mind telling me why you agree with the death penalty? Again, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding and I assure you that I'm going to read the whole article on anything from now on before I respond to it.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Now that I know your true feelings on this issue, would you mind telling me why you agree with the death penalty? Again, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding and I assure you that I'm going to read the whole article on anything from now on before I respond to it.

edge,
No problem, we have all done it before I assure you. Regarding your question, the last line* answers the question why I agree with the death penalty. It lays out the case in support of the death penalty perfectly, imho.

To boil it down, however, I would say justice must be served. There is only one punishment adequate for the crime of murder -- the murderer forfeits his right to life after terminating another's. We do not live in Utopia -- life isn't perfect, there will be mistakes made, but there is no 100% solution. The death penalty comes as close to justice as can possibly be reached.

[edgeworth]

Edge..

I use to be completely PRO death penalty until 3 years ago, when our family was personally touched by this issue, as we witnessed in horror, an overzealous DA trying to charge an innocent person with murder. Now, unless you have multiple witnesses that viewed the murder, life in prison with NO chance for parole is good enough for me!!

Hey TE, I hope your doing well and I 'm sorry to hear about what happened 3 years ago. If you don't mind me asking, was that person a friend or family member of yours? Also, did they get aqcuited in the end? I hope that they were and that justice was done to the prosecutor who tried to convict him. Sadly, this is the reality of our justice system from time to time. This is also another reason that I'm opposed to the death penalty. If you screw up and get someone convicted for life thats horrible enough. However, if you get somone who is innocent convicted of a crime and the death penalty is given to them that is unexcusable. Unfortunately, our justice system is not perfect though and mistakes happen. That reality is a reasonable reason to me why we shouldn't risk it and shouldn't have the death penalty as an available punishment.

[Wolf Counsel]

Being against the death penalty because of glitches is different from being against the death penalty because you don't believe in second killings, What if it were 100 percent certain on your part that the condemned prisoner is guilty of murder? Would you be 100 percent pro-death penalty then? That is the question.

[edgeworth]

Being against the death penalty because of glitches is different from being against the death penalty because you don't believe in second killings, What if it were 100 percent certain on your part that the condemned prisoner is guilty of murder? Would you be 100 percent pro-death penalty then? That is the question.

My answer would have to be no. As the glitches argument is not my only reason for being against the death penalty. I also question the validity of it. I don't believe that the death penalty really deters crime. My personal belief is the only reason it exsists is for a feeling that justice is done.

[Wolf Counsel]

"As the glitches argument is not my only reason for being against the death penalty. I also question the validity of it." --edgeworth

At least you are truthful and you come out with your real feelings on the death penalty. It's amazing how many weenies come on here and state they are against the death penalty because some innocent may pay with his life. The real reason is they are squeamish and bleeding hearts about taking out the trash.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

My answer would have to be no. As the glitches argument is not my only reason for being against the death penalty. I also question the validity of it. I don't believe that the death penalty really deters crime. My personal belief is the only reason it exsists is for a feeling that justice is done.

It's implemented to deter crime -- it's implemented to be a punishment for a crime committed. For the record, though, I guarantee 100% the criminal who is put to death, NEVER, EVER commits another crime, lethal or otherwise, so in that respect, it's the greatest crime deterrent evah! :smirk:
edge, have you read all the articles yet?

[Wolf Counsel]

"My personal belief is the only reason it exsists is for a feeling that justice is done." --edgeworth

Can you explain why you think it's okay for a murderer to spend the rest of his life in prison in relative comfort at taxpayers' expense, after he has taken an innocent life? You don't wonder what type of justice the dead would accept?

For example, you and your loved one are planning this and planning that, enjoying life as much as you can, looking forward to certain dates, and then out of nowhere, some cold-blooded murderer takes your loved one away. Will you still question the validity of having the culprit suffer loss of his life? Or will you accept that he is in prison alive, your loved one is rotting prematurely in some hole in the ground, and you go about skipping to a happy tune and singing to yourself that nothing can bring your loved one back anyway, but thank goodness at least one more life was not taken?

[edgeworth]

It's implemented to deter crime -- it's implemented to be a punishment for a crime committed. For the record, though, I guarantee 100% the criminal who is put to death, NEVER, EVER commits another crime, lethal or otherwise, so in that respect, it's the greatest crime deterrent evah! :smirk:
edge, have you read all the articles yet?


Hey HSRS. I have a quick question to ask. I have read all the articles that you've posted and have been enthralled by them. I find them emensely fascinating and very informative articles. However, in the last article that you posted he said that he was going to continue his argument for the death penalty in a sixth one. Although,I looked for it on the website I could not find it. Do you happen to have the sixth article somewhere or know where I could get it? If you could help me I'd greatly appreciate it.

[DoctorDoom]

The crux of the issue is in the terms "death PENALTY" and "capital PUNISHMENT". Screw all the extraneous bullshit. A person who commits a capital offense forfeits his/her own right to life, and the state has the authority to carry out the prescribed penalty/punishment. End of argument.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

However, in the last article that you posted he said that he was going to continue his argument for the death penalty in a sixth one. Although,I looked for it on the website I could not find it. Do you happen to have the sixth article somewhere or know where I could get it? If you could help me I'd greatly appreciate it.

As far as I know, it is not published yet. As soon as it is, I will be posting it. I've been following the series since it started, I intend to follow it through until it ends.

[Lubbock]

Until "we" make the Death Penalty mean the DEATH PENALTY, it serves no purpose.

I would be perfectly willing to accept Life Without The Possibility Of Parole and do away with the Death Penalty altogether, if "we" could make Life Without mean LIFE WITHOUT.

Problem is, a Liberal will come along start bleating about how Life Without is Cruel and Unusual, and here we go again.

As we all know, the Appeals Process is the obstacle to the Death Penalty.

That's where the Death Penalty breaks down.

Death Row Appeals is an industry. There is a lot of money in it. Big money.

Until "we" take the money out of it, the Death Penalty will never mean what it is supposed to mean.

Until "we" set the bar for Appeals at ONE YEAR, then execute, your tax dollars and mine will continue to support the Death Penalty Appeals Industry.

One more thing [we've been down this road already]: DNA.

Prosecutors and AGs have got to stop this thing of refusing to test DNA that could exonerate the convicted.

[Wolf Counsel]

"I would be perfectly willing to accept Life Without The Possibility Of Parole and do away with the Death Penalty altogether, if "we" could make Life Without mean LIFE WITHOUT." --Lubbock


Like we don't have enough assholes to feed with our ripped off tax dollars, eh? Or do you wish to voluntarily contribute to the upkeep and care of some bag of trash who took somebody's loved one away?

[Lubbock]

There are figures out there somewhere that show what it cost to keep a prisoner locked up or life, as opposed what it costs for fifteen or twenty years of Death Penalty Appeals, and the last time I looked at the figures, it's infinately cheaper to just lock them up and throw away the key,

As I said, the Death Penalty Appeals Process is an industry.

Don't misconstrue my disdain for the process of putting the convicted to death, with wishing to abolish the Death Pealty.

When I'm made Queen of The World, the first thing I will do is CHANGE THE SYSTEM: The convicted will have one year -twelve months- to prefect an appeal, and then the SOB goes to the gallows.

I will build a scaffold on the grounds of every county courthouse in the nation, and when the convicted goes to the gallows, he will go in the jurisdiction where he commited his crime and where he was convicted.

I will make "Hanging Day" a Picnic Holiday and invite the public to witness the execution. Bring sandwiches and beer and have a PARTY.

No way do I want the Death Penalty abolished. I want the system changed to make the DEATH PENALTY mean the DEATH PENALTY.

The reason the Libs can argue that the DP is not a deterrent to crime is that this day and age, no criminal fears being put to death.

[PrezLeefun]

You know for the longest time I had said that crap line 'you cant each killing is wrong by killing' and 'it wont bring the person back to kill someone else.'

But all that changed when I heard the story Nixmary Brown. People who do stuff like that deserve death plain and simple. I am now pro-death penalty.

[edgeworth]

As far as I know, it is not published yet. As soon as it is, I will be posting it. I've been following the series since it started, I intend to follow it through until it ends.

I see. Thank you.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Why Would Anyone Support Capital Punishment? (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/03/28/why_would_anyone_support_capital_punishment)

Previously (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11571704/), we learned that the distinction between innocence and guilt solves three of the common conceptual arguments against capital punishment. Let’s continue with the remainder of these arguments.

Conceptual Objection: Execution violates the Eighth Amendment by being cruel and unusual.

The wording of the Eighth Amendment is abundantly clear: only punishments which are both cruel and unusual violate it. Thus, no matter how cruel a punishment is, if it is administered with regularity, it cannot be unconstitutional. Likewise, no matter how unusual a punishment is, if it is administered humanely it is constitutional. Since the standards for execution are uniform (at least within a particular state) and the procedure used (lethal injection, most often) is humane (especially when compared to both past forms of execution and the ways murder victims suffer), this objection is a non-starter.

[bannerman]

the death penaity is about eiminating society's TOXINS

[Kathy30]

Anything can be rationalized away. There are rational arguments on why prisons are a bad idea, and locking people up for committing any crime at all is a bad concept. When has a prison sentence ever stopped someone from committing a crime? Never. The recidivisim rate is astronomical. Obviously prisons don't work. Rehabilitation doesn't work. Same reasons. So why bother at all.

Rationalizations don't work. A few years ago, Tookie Williams was executed in California. He was on death row for decades. While he was alive, on death row, he ordered the murders of the witnesses against him and even some jurors on the jury that found him guilty. He planned, organized and arraged these murders. While he was on death row, he planned, organized and executed at least two prison riots which resulted in the deaths of other prisoners and prison guards.

Clearly the problelm of Tookie Williams wasn't that he was executed, it was that the state waited too long to carry out the sentence. Many lives could have been saved had he been executed soon after sentence was pronounced rather than let him run his criminal enterprise from his cell.

Not long ago a man in Texas was executed. He proclaimed his innocence to his last breath. After he was dead DNA evidence was examined by The Innocence Project as this was going to be the poster boy for executing the innocent. Unfortuately for the Innocence Project, the DNA evidence was a match and he was guilty.

I have known people who dealt with death row inmates and still felt that execution was wrong. They are idealogues to whom the principle is more important that any degree of guilt or innocence. I do not know of any reasonable or rational person who can meet and speak with a death row inmate and NOT want them executed.

There is an appeal process. Most of these appeals do not turn on guilt or innocence. They do not involve substantive evidence either admitted or excluded. Most death penalty appeals (I have done more than I care to think about) involve minor and trivial issues of civil rights violations and trumped up attorney misconduct complaints.

There is ONE appeal as a matter of right in a death penalty case. Just one. Where do the rest come from? There are organizations whose goal it is to obfuscate and delay sentence as long as possible. The aforementioned Innocence Project, the ACLU and scores of other organizations who are determined to keep a death sentence from being carried out. They are the ones who make the appeals process exhaustive even when it is known and quite clear that the defendant is guilty beyond any doubt.

[Neil Peart]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/05/06/is_capital_punishment_loving


Previously, we saw that neither forgiveness nor mercy are compelling reasons to abandon the biblical practice of capital punishment. Now, let’s continue with the religious objections.

Religious Objection: Execution is incompatible with love.

Religious Objection: Only God may decide who lives and dies.

Religious Objection: Execution prevents the possibility of repentance and being forgiven by God.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/05/09/difficult_bible_passages_and_the_penalty_of_death)

Previously, we saw how capital punishment is compatible with love, honors God’s sovereignty over life, and encourages the condemned to repent and be saved. Now, let’s finish our discussion by looking at three biblical counter-examples to execution.

Religious Objection: What about Cain?

[DeclinetoState]

A reason to support capital punishment:

http://www.charliemanson.com/graphics/manson-1.jpg (http://www.charliemanson.com/manson-1.htm)

At age 14, he already looked a little creepy. Here he is, later in life:

http://naturalismo.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/charlie_manson.jpg (http://naturalismo.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/the-original-freak-folk/)