Death Penalty?

[Daithí]

Coming from Ireland, the debate always arises on the death penalty.

What are your thoughts?

I'm on the verge of both yes and no. I won't get into the ''legal'' system we have in Ireland.

[Phædrus]

For the very, very worst crimes; yes. Serial murderers, mass murderers, things like that. Maybe certain types of treason (I don't want no Quislings). Also those responsible for genocide.

For example, Jeffrey Dahmer or Tim Bundy would get the death penalty, but your average murderer would not.

It comes down to a question of degree.

[Enver]

The only context in which murder is justified is self-defence.

Capital punishment obviously doesn't fit into this category so is therefore (very) wrong, in my opinion that is.

[Phædrus]

The only context in which murder is justified is self-defence.

Capital punishment obviously doesn't fit into this category so is therefore (very) wrong, in my opinion that is.

Unless you take it in the context of protecting society from extremely bad people. I think society needs protection from the likes of Dahmer and Bundy and even Quisling.

[quirk]

I only agree with the death penalty in during a revolutionary situation when to keep alive the person may encourage resistance from reactionaries or else in the case of the revolutionaries not having access to prisons.

In all cases where a state is stable and has prisons I oppose it.

[Enver]

Unless you take it in the context of protecting society from extremely bad people. I think society needs protection from the likes of Dahmer and Bundy and even Quisling.

Imprisoning someone keeps them away from society.

What if you get it wrong (a distinct possibility)?

Serial killers like that or sex offenders have clearly got serious mental problems or defects that they might not be able to control. They should therefore be helped not murdered.

[Viv]

I am against it, although Phaedrus' comments make so much sense it gives pause...

On humanitarian grounds, I cannot support the death penalty.

Convicted murderers are, too often, subsequently found to be innocent and that is too much of a risk and an injustice.

If it means feeding and watering someone for twenty years, so be it. I will pay for that with taxes, even if they emerge as guilty in the final analysis, because if the person turns out to be innocent and has been executed...we are all murderers. And there is no possibility of redress. Death is irretrievable.

It is understood though, that U.S. posters may feel differently. I am not sure why this is the case, may be due to larger number of convicted murderers under consideration or just societal approach... I would welcome U.S. views on this.

[Enver]

I only agree with the death penalty in during a revolutionary situation when to keep alive the person may encourage resistance from reactionaries or else in the case of the revolutionaries not having access to prisons.

In all cases where a state is stable and has prisons I oppose it.

What constitutes a revolutionary situation and how can a revolutionary movement receive a mandate for such actions? I think that's a slippery slope comrade. It's difficult, however, to see how else you would deal with informers etc.

[quirk]

What constitutes a revolutionary situation and how can a revolutionary movement receive a mandate for such actions? I think that's a slippery slope comrade. It's difficult, however, to see how else you would deal with informers etc.

Of course every case has to be judged on its own merits but for example during the revolution in the Soviet Union I think they were justified in executing the Tsar as left alive he would have been a used as a symbol to rally counter revolutionaries. The way they went about it however was wrong. Also executions of certain people during WW2 was justified when the USSR was on the verge of collapse.

Thats one case and the other of course would be groups like the IRA and INLA executing informers which although a terrible thing is nonetheless necessary for such groups to do.

[Enver]

Of course every case has to be judged on its own merits but for example during the revolution in the Soviet Union I think they were justified in executing the Tsar as left alive he would have been a used as a symbol to rally counter revolutionaries. The way they went about it however was wrong. Also executions of certain people during WW2 was justified when the USSR was on the verge of collapse.

Thats one case and the other of course would be groups like the IRA and INLA executing informers which although a terrible thing is nonetheless necessary for such groups to do.

I suppose.

[Phædrus]

Imprisoning someone keeps them away from society.

What if you get it wrong (a distinct possibility)?

Serial killers like that or sex offenders have clearly got serious mental problems or defects that they might not be able to control. They should therefore be helped not murdered.

What's the point of keeping someone in a dark cell for fifty years, paying for food and water and heating and even medical treatment until the day they die, when you could kill them right off the bat and save the trouble? I am against killing in almost all non-defense cases, but some people are just too dangerous to keep around, even in prison.

As for rehabilitation, I doubt you could rehabilitate Dahmer or Manson if you worked at it every day for decades. People like that just ain't wired right.

[quirk]

What's the point of keeping someone in a dark cell for fifty years, paying for food and water and heating and even medical treatment until the day they die, when you could kill them right off the bat and save the trouble? I am against killing in almost all non-defense cases, but some people are just too dangerous to keep around, even in prison.

As for rehabilitation, I doubt you could rehabilitate Dahmer or Manson if you worked at it every day for decades. People like that just ain't wired right.

Make them do productive work.

[Phædrus]

Make them do productive work.

They'll kill each other off.

Actually, good idea, glad you thought of it. :P

[Gareth]

It's our responsibility as citizens to allow for forgiveness, rehabilitation and a second chance for these people who could do some tangible good in our societies.

[quirk]

It's our responsibility as citizens to allow for forgiveness, rehabilitation and a second chance for these people who could do some tangible good in our societies.

What about those who cant be reformed. Serial sex abusers for instance?

[Gareth]

People can always be reformed, be it through psychological or other methods people can change. Theres no negative to this, it just takes effort. Perhaps if people aren't caring enough to spare the extra tax euro.

[Viv]

People can always be reformed, be it through psychological or other methods people can change. Theres no negative to this, it just takes effort. Perhaps if people aren't caring enough to spare the extra tax euro.

I agree with most of what you say in this thread, but have to differ on one point...IMO people cannot always be reformed.

Ted Bundy, for example, constituted a clear threat and had already escaped from a jail cell to kill again. Phaedrus has a point that people like him...may be the exception...distasteful as that may be.

In the case of serial killers, it is to be expected there will be sufficient physical evidence to exclude wrongful conviction or mistaken identity. Maybe they are a special case.

Political prisoners though, even if they are responsible for multiple deaths, are quite different.

[Phædrus]

People can always be reformed, be it through psychological or other methods people can change. Theres no negative to this, it just takes effort. Perhaps if people aren't caring enough to spare the extra tax euro.

No man should have any other stir around in their brain without consent. If a criminal agrees to psychological rehabilitation, that's fine and dandy, but if they say no, then no. A man's mind is his most precious possession--his self--and no one should alter it without his permission.

So no touchy the egg salad!

[bay]

My problem with the death penalty is if you find out later they had the wrong person, yoiu can't give that person his or her life back. You can always let someone out of prison if the evidence shows they were unjustly convicted. but you can't resurrect them from the dead and say, oops I'm sorry, we f...cked up

Maybe in this day and age of DNA testing there is less likelihood of such an error, but it still could happen.

like every other big issue, it's so not black and white, there are always gray areas.

[Phædrus]

My problem with the death penalty is if you find out later they had the wrong person, yoiu can't give that person his or her life back. You can always let someone out of prison if the evidence shows they were unjustly convicted. but you can't resurrect them from the dead and say, oops I'm sorry, we f...cked up

Maybe in this day and age of DNA testing there is less likelihood of such an error, but it still could happen.

like every other big issue, it's so not black and white, there are always gray areas.

Of course, but with mass murderers and serial murderers/rapists there's little doubt as to who the perpetrator is. If they have enough physical evidence to bring him to trial, they have enough physical evidence to be arbitrarily close to certain.

[Mono Tejano]

I completely agree with Phae.

Obviously, here in Texas we have gone WAY too far in terms of the number of people on Death Row and the number of state sanctioned killings (thanks W). And likely the number of people wrongly accused in the first place.

But when there is a clear body of evidence which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that a person is guilty of a terrible crime(or has a long history of terrible crimes), their life is not worth trying to reform and their continued existence may well cause undue misery to the family of their victims.

Also, with the example of Jeff Dalmer, if they are allowed to continue living in prison, anothe prisoner is likely to kill them anyway.

Bottom line, put the WROST offenders out of their (and our) misery. And by 'worst', as Phae mentioned, I mean serial killers, mass murderers and the leaders of genocide, only.

[bay]

well shit, mono, in texas you can shoot people if you feel threatened, they don't even have to be physically in your home like they do here in kansas! LOL, that should take care of the problem so the authorities won't have to fill up death row with inmates.....

just being facetious here...

this of course brings up a whole new debate, gun laws... sigh....and yes, that's one good thing about amerikka, a nice white girl can walk into a sporting goods store and walk out a half hour later with a 9mm.

how many other countries in this world can that happen legally?

[Phædrus]

That's not even true here most of the time. In Maryland, for instance, you have to wait a week while Uncle Same processes your request for a gun.

[bay]

Must be Maryland's laws, not Uncle Sam's. Or else Bass Pro in Kansas City bends the rules, which i doubt they do.

[Enver]

Make them do productive work.

Do you mean waged or slave labour like in the US?

[Enver]

What's the point of keeping someone in a dark cell for fifty years, paying for food and water and heating and even medical treatment until the day they die, when you could kill them right off the bat and save the trouble? I am against killing in almost all non-defense cases, but some people are just too dangerous to keep around, even in prison.

As for rehabilitation, I doubt you could rehabilitate Dahmer or Manson if you worked at it every day for decades. People like that just ain't wired right.

That's an extremely reactionary stance to take.

All human life is equal and the right to life should be respected. Perhaps not everyone can be reformed, but trying to help them is not a waste of time. With each new prisoner or patient or whatever our knowledge of psychiatric problems which lead people to commit horrendous acts will increase and we will be better prepared to deal with it in the future.

[quirk]

Do you mean waged or slave labour like in the US?

No I mean working for the good of society and giving back to society for the their crimes. I don't know exactly what but they could be employed in public works.

[bay]

hey quirk we agree on something!!!!!!

actually in the US a lot of prisoners do public works jobs and give back to society.

and Enver, ouch!!!! the alternative to waged labor (slave???????) is to work for the state and the state decide what's best for me. I'm not likin that idea either.

I have enough trouble dealing with authority. I at least want to choose my own pitiful ass job and earn my own shekels to spend as I please on shit that's of value only to me.

[Enver]

No I mean working for the good of society and giving back to society for the their crimes. I don't know exactly what but they could be employed in public works.

Only if they so wish and are paid a fair salary.

[quirk]

Only if they so wish and are paid a fair salary.

This is actually what happened in alot of cases in the USSR. Prisoners worked within society and kept their salary. Of course the picture painted by western "historians" is something completely different.

[Enver]

and Enver, ouch!!!! the alternative to waged labor (slave???????) is to work for the state and the state decide what's best for me. I'm not likin that idea either.

No the alternative is for workers to take control of the productive forces and manage them through a participatory democracy for the benefit of everyone within a society. All waged labour would be abolished and people could work as often or as little as they liked ("Each according to his ability, to each according to his need").

[bay]

That is the ideal, Enver... having come of age in the era of hippie communes, I'm familiar with that theory.

The reality tho is that human beings have egos and self will and and the utopia never lasts.. someone always takes control and f..ks up the system. And you just end up with another group of haves and have nots.

the only place it ever really worked was Nicaragua. The Sandanistas got it right and that scared the beejeebers out of the US govt. So rightly or wrongly, Ortega didn't stay in power long enough to f..ck it up. And maybe he didn't stay in power long enough because he wasn't egomaniacal enough, he actually did give the power to the people, what a novel idea!

Long live the Sandanistas!

of course all of the above is just MHO. that and a dollar won't buy me a cup of coffee anymore.

[Enver]

That is the ideal, Enver... having come of age in the era of hippie communes, I'm familiar with that theory.

The reality tho is that human beings have egos and self will and and the utopia never lasts.. someone always takes control and f..ks up the system. And you just end up with another group of haves and have nots.

the only place it ever really worked was Nicaragua. The Sandanistas got it right and that scared the beejeebers out of the US govt. So rightly or wrongly, Ortega didn't stay in power long enough to f..ck it up. And maybe he didn't stay in power long enough because he wasn't egomaniacal enough, he actually did give the power to the people, what a novel idea!

Long live the Sandanistas!

of course all of the above is just MHO. that and a dollar won't buy me a cup of coffee anymore.

Indeed.

The Libertarian Revolution in Spain in the mid-1930s was always a relatively huge success. Certainly there are many criticisms one could make of the decisions taken by the trade unions and various other Anarchist groups, but the joint attack by the rest of the political spectrum had more to do with its downfall than shortcomings in the workers revolution.

The same goes for Latin America; it's very difficult to conduct a radical transformation of society under such extreme external and internal pressure. Hopefully we'll overcome all of this someday. :)

[bay]

Point taken Enva

[xJoe3x]

For the very, very worst crimes; yes. Serial murderers, mass murderers, things like that. Maybe certain types of treason (I don't want no Quislings). Also those responsible for genocide.

For example, Jeffrey Dahmer or Tim Bundy would get the death penalty, but your average murderer would not.

It comes down to a question of degree.

I agree with that.

As for what if we kill an innocent.
I see that as not a problem with the punishment, but a problem with the system.
It is an acceptable cost of having a justice system that there will be innocents wrongly convicted. Without the system there is just vigilante justice. We should just do the best we can to not mis-convict.

[Diuretic]

Coming from Ireland, the debate always arises on the death penalty.

What are your thoughts?

I'm on the verge of both yes and no. I won't get into the ''legal'' system we have in Ireland.

I'm about to read the thread. No.

Innocent people are executed.

Now I'll read the thread.

[Diuretic]

The only context in which murder is justified is self-defence.

Capital punishment obviously doesn't fit into this category so is therefore (very) wrong, in my opinion that is.

If it's self defence (necessity) then it's not murder. It's still a killing of course, but murder is closely defined and if a defence can be mounted on the grounds of necessity then it's probably manslaughter (at least in common law jurisdictions) and must be seen accordingly.

[Diuretic]

I only agree with the death penalty in during a revolutionary situation when to keep alive the person may encourage resistance from reactionaries or else in the case of the revolutionaries not having access to prisons.

In all cases where a state is stable and has prisons I oppose it.

In the wake of revolution, for example, the Cuban revolution, is it just to execute those who not only resisted the revolutionary forces but who also may present a threat to the spread of revolution?

[Diuretic]

What constitutes a revolutionary situation and how can a revolutionary movement receive a mandate for such actions? I think that's a slippery slope comrade. It's difficult, however, to see how else you would deal with informers etc.

There are always revolutionary tribunals after the revolution. You only have to see what Che Guevara ordered in the wake of the overthrow of the dictator Batista.

[Diuretic]

Of course every case has to be judged on its own merits but for example during the revolution in the Soviet Union I think they were justified in executing the Tsar as left alive he would have been a used as a symbol to rally counter revolutionaries. The way they went about it however was wrong. Also executions of certain people during WW2 was justified when the USSR was on the verge of collapse.

Thats one case and the other of course would be groups like the IRA and INLA executing informers which although a terrible thing is nonetheless necessary for such groups to do.

In the wake of revolution there's no law, at least until the new regime establishes it law. There have to be summary executions in order to rid the new regime of opponents and also to ensure that the new regime is seen to have power and authority.

Execution of informers is murder because it's an offence against the the law of the dominant regime. It might be necessary on utilitarian grounds from the pov of the revolutionaries but that doesn't alter the formal definition of the act.

[Diuretic]

What's the point of keeping someone in a dark cell for fifty years, paying for food and water and heating and even medical treatment until the day they die, when you could kill them right off the bat and save the trouble? I am against killing in almost all non-defense cases, but some people are just too dangerous to keep around, even in prison.

As for rehabilitation, I doubt you could rehabilitate Dahmer or Manson if you worked at it every day for decades. People like that just ain't wired right.

John Stuart Mill argued much the same thing in the English parliament. But the problem is that the criminal justice system can too easily execute an innocent person.

[Diuretic]

It's our responsibility as citizens to allow for forgiveness, rehabilitation and a second chance for these people who could do some tangible good in our societies.

Mature penal policy takes these into account. I don't think 'forgiveness" comes into it though, I'm more inclined to agree with the 19th Century Christian reformers who argued that there should be real contrition before redemption could be achieved. And like it or not some criminals don't deserve to be let out of prison, some should die there.

[Diuretic]

People can always be reformed, be it through psychological or other methods people can change. Theres no negative to this, it just takes effort. Perhaps if people aren't caring enough to spare the extra tax euro.

No they can't. We can do our best but we can't reform everyone. I am definitely in favour of rehabilitation programmes (Canada does it well), but there are some who can't be rehabilitated for various reasons (usually we don't know how to rehabiliate them - eg paedophiles) so they should stay in prison.

[Diuretic]

No the alternative is for workers to take control of the productive forces and manage them through a participatory democracy for the benefit of everyone within a society. All waged labour would be abolished and people could work as often or as little as they liked ("Each according to his ability, to each according to his need").

I think that might miss social duty. What if you're a doctor? Should you do only enough work to get you a new boat?

[Diuretic]

That is the ideal, Enver... having come of age in the era of hippie communes, I'm familiar with that theory.

The reality tho is that human beings have egos and self will and and the utopia never lasts.. someone always takes control and f..ks up the system. And you just end up with another group of haves and have nots.

the only place it ever really worked was Nicaragua. The Sandanistas got it right and that scared the beejeebers out of the US govt. So rightly or wrongly, Ortega didn't stay in power long enough to f..ck it up. And maybe he didn't stay in power long enough because he wasn't egomaniacal enough, he actually did give the power to the people, what a novel idea!

Long live the Sandanistas!

of course all of the above is just MHO. that and a dollar won't buy me a cup of coffee anymore.

Nicaragua chose to take itself out of the sphere of influence of US corporations. As soon as that happend the corporations ordered the US government to change the government. Read about United Fruit and Honduras.

[Diuretic]

I agree with that.

As for what if we kill an innocent.
I see that as not a problem with the punishment, but a problem with the system.
It is an acceptable cost of having a justice system that there will be innocents wrongly convicted. Without the system there is just vigilante justice. We should just do the best we can to not mis-convict.

I can't accept that utilitarian formula. To avoid executing an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit it's necessary to remove the death penalty.

[bay]

Nicaragua chose to take itself out of the sphere of influence of US corporations. As soon as that happend the corporations ordered the US government to change the government. Read about United Fruit and Honduras.

yes, good point.

[xJoe3x]

I can't accept that utilitarian formula. To avoid executing an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit it's necessary to remove the death penalty.

Heh, I have never been called that before, utilitarian. I was caught off guard a bit by it.

The same argument could be used for imprisoning, fining, or any other penalty.
It is a just punishment for certain crimes. We entrust our justice system to properly punish crime. We are not perfect we will make mistakes, but that does not mean the punishment is wrong.