Where do you stand on capital punishment?

[BradStevens]

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

And murder is wrong.

I’m against it in EVERY circumstance.

In reading this thread, I began to think of this from a different angle:

Let's suppose we can end the life of the murderer quickly and painlessly (at the time of the execution). Now let's also suppose the mother and grandparents and other loved ones of these kids are looking at a lifetime of pain and suffering imagining the murderers of these two innocents living and not being executed, thinking justice had not been done.

Shouldn't we want to help salve the suffering of those who have already suffered so much?

I guess you can respond and say "**** utiles" or "society will be worse off by executing these people because . . . it'll value human life less? Be calloused by the killings?" What else?

Killing and murder, by the way, are not equivalent. Killing people in a time of war, for example, is acceptable, as is killing in self defense. State executions are not murder (in the legal sense and have never been thought of as morally wrong until recently in history, I don't believe).

Readings - History Of The Death Penalty | The Execution

A History of the Death Penalty from Laura E. Randa's Society's "Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty."

www.pbs.org

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In reading this thread, I began to think of this from a different angle:

Let's suppose we can end the life of the murderer quickly and painlessly (at the time of the execution). Now let's also suppose the mother and grandparents and other loved ones of these kids are looking at a lifetime of pain and suffering imagining the murderers of these two innocents living and not being executed, thinking justice had not been done.

Shouldn't we want to help salve the suffering of those who have already suffered so much?

I guess you can respond and say "**** utiles" or "society will be worse off by executing these people because . . . it'll value human life less? Be calloused by the killings?" What else?

Killing and murder, by the way, are not equivalent. Killing people in a time of war, for example, is acceptable, as is killing in self defense. State executions are not murder (in the legal sense and have never been thought of as morally wrong until recently in history, I don't believe).

Readings - History Of The Death Penalty | The Execution

A History of the Death Penalty from Laura E. Randa's Society's "Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty."

www.pbs.org

Just war theory rests ultimately on the idea that violence may be necessary to avert a grave injustice. For example, I don't think most of us would disagree that going to war against the Nazis was morally justified.

You can make similar arguments in favor of the legal killing by the state of individuals, as well. For example, one might realize that a police officer who, in the line of duty, kills someone who is an imminent threat to the life and limb of innocent bystanders is committing a morally justified killing.

However, at least in the modern world, I don't think this argument carries over to capital punishment. It can be found in traditional theories of punishment, within, I think, two of the four traditional justifications for punishment: deterrence and prevention. The other two, in my opinion, cannot apply. I don't think retribution is ever morally justified (because I agree with the maxim that two wrongs do not a single right make), and obviously whatever rehabilitative effect punishment has is irrelevant in capital punishment.

So, deterrence and prevention. In the modern world, escapes from prison are so rare that I don't think prevention can be used to justify the ultimate punishment (it could be applied to situations where someone obviously dangerous to society will be set free for technical reasons, but we'd have to give up on due process to make use of that, and I'm not willing to do that). So that only leaves deterrence, and as far as I know, there is no solid research that shows capital punishment actually serves any value as a deterrent.

Sorry, that was very rambling. Short version: I've thought about this a lot already, and I don't think the moral justification for state sponsored violence in the realms of war or public policing can adequately transfer to the use of capital punishment in a modern western society.

 

[Bloom.]

There's a recent story about China's execution of a father and mistress who threw two toddlers off a 15 story balcony, purposely. I personally think China got this one right, assuming the facts as reported are accurate. This is about as heinous and selfish as it gets. That being said, I've always supported the death penalty, among harsher punishment generally.

China executes couple who threw two children to deaths from 15th-floor apartment

Zhang Bo and Ye Chengchen had been found responsible for falls in Chongqing in case that caused national outrage

www.telegraph.co.uk

Do you agree with China's decision given the facts in the article? If not, do you support capital punishment under any other circumstances?

I'm in favor of it, but it would have to be pre-meditated or something twisted, like what you described.

The worry would be convicting the wrong person. The groups that seek to over turn wrongly convicted people should be afforded any and all evidence, considered and not considered. Let them take up the mantle if there is any traction to it. I don't think too many attorneys are too interested in digging up additional information once their client is convicted. I could be wrong on that.

 

[BradStevens]

Just war theory rests ultimately on the idea that violence may be necessary to avert a grave injustice. For example, I don't think most of us would disagree that going to war against the Nazis was morally justified.

You can make similar arguments in favor of the legal killing by the state of individuals, as well. For example, one might realize that a police officer who, in the line of duty, kills someone who is an imminent threat to the life and limb of innocent bystanders is committing a morally justified killing.

However, at least in the modern world, I don't think this argument carries over to capital punishment. It can be found in traditional theories of punishment, within, I think, two of the four traditional justifications for punishment: deterrence and prevention. The other two, in my opinion, cannot apply. I don't think retribution is ever morally justified (because I agree with the maxim that two wrongs do not a single right make), and obviously whatever rehabilitative effect punishment has is irrelevant in capital punishment.

So, deterrence and prevention. In the modern world, escapes from prison are so rare that I don't think prevention can be used to justify the ultimate punishment (it could be applied to situations where someone obviously dangerous to society will be set free for technical reasons, but we'd have to give up on due process to make use of that, and I'm not willing to do that). So that only leaves deterrence, and as far as I know, there is no solid research that shows capital punishment actually serves any value as a deterrent.

Sorry, that was very rambling. Short version: I've thought about this a lot already, and I don't think the moral justification for state sponsored violence in the realms of war or public policing can adequately transfer to the use of capital punishment in a modern western society.

I was theorizing a utilitarian, or more generally consequentialist, theory that justifies retribution as doing the most good, not taking deterrence or prevention into account.

I think one also has to contend with the notion that an extreme bad actor’s utiles/feelings might count much less than an innocent’s.

I think both those propositions fit many people’s moral intuitions.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I was theorizing a utilitarian, or more generally consequentialist, theory that justifies retribution as doing the most good, not taking deterrence or prevention into account.

I think one also has to contend with the notion that an extreme bad actor’s utiles/feelings might count much less than an innocent’s.

I think both those propositions fit many people’s moral intuitions.

I agree, I think, even if I don't arrive at the same point as you. I think the problem here is that I am splitting a very fine hair that perhaps I don't really have the right to split: I'm a moral absolutist in theory, but a utilitarian in practice. As I said above, I can't morally justify capital punishment, but neither can I deny the potential value in the state's ability to mete out such a punishment (even if I don't find the traditional arguments all that convincing). I much take the same squishy view of abortion: I can't morally justify the act of abortion, but I also see the utilitarian value in keeping it legal. And immigration: morally, I think the only justifiable stance is completely open borders everywhere, but for obvious reasons, I think that's simply not a workable policy. And drugs: I can't morally justify telling someone how to whack out his own brain, but I certainly see the social value in preventing the use of certain drugs. And so on.

That may actually make me a rather poor utilitarian; I'm not sure. Or perhaps even on this I'm backwards, and it actually makes me a poor moralist. At any rate, it makes my stance rather confused in some fashion, for sure. On a whole host of issues, I feel a strong tension between where a consistent moral logic would take me, and where a view on social utility would lead me.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

I'm in favor of it, but it would have to be pre-meditated or something twisted, like what you described.

The worry would be convicting the wrong person. The groups that seek to over turn wrongly convicted people should be afforded any and all evidence, considered and not considered. Let them take up the mantle if there is any traction to it. I don't think too many attorneys are too interested in digging up additional information once their client is convicted. I could be wrong on that.

Depends on how wealthy their client is

 

[td75]

There's ALWAYS cases in which the death penalty is appropriate...Take the case of the Jeffersonville, Indiana man that ate his girlfriend's brain. I won't link it but you can look it up; he had murdered a girlfriend in Utah prior to the Indiana massacre.

He should've been hanged at high noon immediately upon his arrest. They had him dead to rights with the knife in his possession and a frying pan with organs in it. Hollywood couldn't conjure the scene they walked into; so yes, there's a few cases that are custom made for the death penalty.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

There's ALWAYS cases in which the death penalty is appropriate...Take the case of the Jeffersonville, Indiana man that ate his girlfriend's brain. I won't link it but you can look it up; he had murdered a girlfriend in Utah prior to the Indiana massacre.

He should've been hanged at high noon immediately upon his arrest. They had him dead to rights with the knife in his possession and a frying pan with organs in it. Hollywood couldn't conjure the scene they walked into; so yes, there's a few cases that are custom made for the death penalty.

Do we know she didn’t deserve it??

 

[jet812]

There's a recent story about China's execution of a father and mistress who threw two toddlers off a 15 story balcony, purposely. I personally think China got this one right, assuming the facts as reported are accurate. This is about as heinous and selfish as it gets. That being said, I've always supported the death penalty, among harsher punishment generally.

China executes couple who threw two children to deaths from 15th-floor apartment

Zhang Bo and Ye Chengchen had been found responsible for falls in Chongqing in case that caused national outrage

www.telegraph.co.uk

Do you agree with China's decision given the facts in the article? If not, do you support capital punishment under any other circumstances?

Capital punishment should be expanded to include more violent crimes than just murders.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Capital punishment should be expanded to include more violent crimes than just murders.

Like looting private stores. I'm only partially joking. They know better.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Like looting private stores. I'm only partially joking. They know better.

Blocking traffic

 

[hoot1]

I agree, I think, even if I don't arrive at the same point as you. I think the problem here is that I am splitting a very fine hair that perhaps I don't really have the right to split: I'm a moral absolutist in theory, but a utilitarian in practice. As I said above, I can't morally justify capital punishment, but neither can I deny the potential value in the state's ability to mete out such a punishment (even if I don't find the traditional arguments all that convincing). I much take the same squishy view of abortion: I can't morally justify the act of abortion, but I also see the utilitarian value in keeping it legal. And immigration: morally, I think the only justifiable stance is completely open borders everywhere, but for obvious reasons, I think that's simply not a workable policy. And drugs: I can't morally justify telling someone how to whack out his own brain, but I certainly see the social value in preventing the use of certain drugs. And so on.

That may actually make me a rather poor utilitarian; I'm not sure. Or perhaps even on this I'm backwards, and it actually makes me a poor moralist. At any rate, it makes my stance rather confused in some fashion, for sure. On a whole host of issues, I feel a strong tension between where a consistent moral logic would take me, and where a view on social utility would lead me.

Goat, you obviously have thought long and hard about the dilemma society faces regarding capital punishment.

For starters, I don't see us eliminating capital punishment in my lifetime so it isn't something I stew over.

Nevertheless, my thinking on the subject leads me to believe the following about capital punishment. It doesn't prevent murder, it doesn't save money, and it doesn't provide justice for those who have lost a loved one.

Having said that, I do realize the great majority of us don't accept my conclusions which is why I realize capital punishment is going to be part of our justice and punishment system for many years to come.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Blocking traffic

That one is simple. Pull up in a F250 Diesel with a gallows on the bumper hitch. Do it all right there. Roll'um over in the flower bed near by. Then get back to work. Done.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

There's ALWAYS cases in which the death penalty is appropriate...Take the case of the Jeffersonville, Indiana man that ate his girlfriend's brain.

They should have sentenced that guy to hang around this board. He would have died of starvation pretty quickly.
Justice.

 

[Bloom.]

Depends on how wealthy their client is

That's fair, and I don't expect lawyers to work for free. Unless there is an obvious appeal, it would seem in what I'm describing the lawyer wouldn't have an awareness. There are sometimes when experienced people can't see the forest through the trees.

I guess I'm saying any sentence for execution would be pushed to an outside review panel, which would be these non-profit groups that take up cases of innocent people being convicted, automatically.

The price to imprison someone is pricey. That's a lot of resources for someone who is on life without parole. However, in some cases, I'd imagine the victim's family would want the killer to waste away in prison. Pre-meditated murder, the family should have a say in the sentencing, not final say, but a say.

 

[UncleMark]

Nevertheless, my thinking on the subject leads me to believe the following about capital punishment. It doesn't prevent murder, it doesn't save money, and it doesn't provide justice for those who have lost a loved one.

Yeah, but think of all the boners the tough guys get.

 

[Bloom.]

That one is simple. Pull up in a F250 Diesel with a gallows on the bumper hitch. Do it all right there. Roll'um over in the flower bed near by. Then get back to work. Done.

I'll be there in my tank to protect them.

Swing bigger!

 

[TommyCracker]

I lean against it not because I'm a tree hugging, snowflake but for two reasons:

1. We naturally crave lynchings, always have, which leads to massive human error to please the public. A really good documentary on HBO called 'Mind Over Murder' goes through the whole ordeal. Spoiler (since no one will watch it) a sweet, elderly lady was brutally raped and murdered in the 80's in a small town in Nebraska and the town blamed a group of young weirdos on it.

It covers everything, the horrible murder, the lynch mob reaction, the rounding up of the weirdos based on loose accusations. When things stalled a cocky investigator came in and got a couple of the weirdos to confess (highlighting questionable investigation techniques and lack of investigation accountability that's prevalent) and the town got their lynching that they wanted, the investigator was deemed a local hero.

Only to (spoiler alert) find out it was a drifter passing through the town, got off the bus and it was freezing, his next bus was a couple hours away, grandmas apartment was right there with an open lobby, hers was the first one and....he robbed, raped and killed her and then hopped on his bus and left town.

Oops.

The second reason is I believe life is more painful than death. Think about John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer. Gacy I believe had a peaceful lethal injection who's last words were 'kiss my ass' before he fell asleep. Dahmer had his skull repeatedly crushed by a bar bell.

Who got the worst of it...the dude sentenced to death or the dude sentenced to life?


I'm all for Guantanamo level prisons for those convicted of executable crimes, say a Batman kind of prison from the last movie. Life is way more miserable than death. As Bane in Batman said to him after he broke his back, 'You're not allowed to die. I'll tell you when you have my permission to die' (or close to it).

So I tend to want the worst to stay alive but live a terrifyingly, miserable life.

Death is too quick and easy (and yes I'm against painful deaths. I'd rather them have a painful life).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Goat, you obviously have thought long and hard about the dilemma society faces regarding capital punishment.

For starters, I don't see us eliminating capital punishment in my lifetime so it isn't something I stew over.

Nevertheless, my thinking on the subject leads me to believe the following about capital punishment. It doesn't prevent murder, it doesn't save money, and it doesn't provide justice for those who have lost a loved one.

Having said that, I do realize the great majority of us don't accept my conclusions which is why I realize capital punishment is going to be part of our justice and punishment system for many years to come.

I agree it's not changing any time soon. And I actually don't think about the death penalty specifically all that often. This moral conundrum I'm describing, I think about it in the context of issues like abortion and immigration far more often.

 

[Spartans9312]

There's a recent story about China's execution of a father and mistress who threw two toddlers off a 15 story balcony, purposely. I personally think China got this one right, assuming the facts as reported are accurate. This is about as heinous and selfish as it gets. That being said, I've always supported the death penalty, among harsher punishment generally.

China executes couple who threw two children to deaths from 15th-floor apartment

Zhang Bo and Ye Chengchen had been found responsible for falls in Chongqing in case that caused national outrage

www.telegraph.co.uk

Do you agree with China's decision given the facts in the article? If not, do you support capital punishment under any other circumstances?

There is no excuse for a lapse, of say, 30 years between conviction and execution. That is no longer a rational punishment. At that point it is a seeking of revenge that has no deterrent value.

Public hanging should be the mode

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

It’s time to start adding these people to the capital punishment list. They’re trying to destroy every great artifact.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

It’s time to start adding these people to the capital punishment list. They’re trying to destroy every great artifact.

View embedded media

I think looking like a couple of absolute dumbasses is punishment enough

 

[BradStevens]

It’s time to start adding these people to the capital punishment list. They’re trying to destroy every great artifact.

View embedded media

Looks like a fraternity prank. Morons.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I'm serious. If the public is going to kill people, do it out in the open for all to see. Deterrence, baby.

I don't think CP provides any deterrance regardless of how dramatically it is done.

It doesn't affect or influence the mentally ill or the suddenly enraged.

It is revenge. And if you ask those that were the victims loved ones...pretty empty revenge at that.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

No kidding. I had a colonoscopy a short time ago. They pushed the syringe and I was out like a light immediately. They could have pushed another dose of fentanyl or something and been done with it.

I called and stopped it.

 

[UncleMark]

I don't think CP provides any deterrance regardless of how dramatically it is done.

It doesn't affect or influence the mentally ill or the suddenly enraged.

It is revenge. And if you ask those that were the victims loved ones...pretty empty revenge at that.

It's barbaric. But if we're going to be barbarians, let's at least be honest and open about it.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

It's barbaric. But if we're going to be barbarians, let's at least be honest and open about it.

I follow, but it does no good regardless of the stage.

 

[UncleMark]

I follow, but it does no good regardless of the stage.

Of course it doesn't. But it gives guys like JDB and DANC wood, so there's that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I can't say I oppose the death penalty in its entirity. I think we were right in the WW2 trials to put Germans and Japanese to death for their war crimes. So I don't have a fundamental disagreement. I accept there is a social contract, in that we agree to live inside certain parameters to allow society to function. If someone kills, say 10 people, they have violated the contract to an extreme.

But I think it should be very rare. It must involve mass casualties, and it must be as close to certain as certain can be. Not just "reasonable doubt" and we have convicted a lot of innocent people "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[BradStevens]

I can't say I oppose the death penalty in its entirity. I think we were right in the WW2 trials to put Germans and Japanese to death for their war crimes. So I don't have a fundamental disagreement. I accept there is a social contract, in that we agree to live inside certain parameters to allow society to function. If someone kills, say 10 people, they have violated the contract to an extreme.

But I think it should be very rare. It must involve mass casualties, and it must be as close to certain as certain can be. Not just "reasonable doubt" and we have convicted a lot of innocent people "beyond reasonable doubt".

Disagree re mass casualty requirement. That Chinese couple who threw the guys baby off a balcony deserve death as much as anyone.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No kidding. I had a colonoscopy a short time ago. They pushed the syringe and I was out like a light immediately. They could have pushed another dose of fentanyl or something and been done with it.

Same for me. They said, "we're going to start the anesthesia" and the next thing I know I'm waking up in another room.

 

[jet812]

It’s time to start adding these people to the capital punishment list. They’re trying to destroy every great artifact.

View embedded media

Should have been dropped with a taser right there.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Of course it doesn't. But it gives guys like JDB and DANC wood, so there's that.

It would make me feel better, yes. Barbarians we are!

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Should have been dropped with a taser right there.

Deserved a bullet to the head given the stupidity.

 

[DANC]

It’s time to start adding these people to the capital punishment list. They’re trying to destroy every great artifact.

View embedded media

lmao Great security - they didn't want to get the red shit on their nice clean uniforms.

Now, if they'd have had MAGA hats on, shooting them would have been justified.

 

[GetFreshCrew]

It’s a slippery slope….

 

[DANC]

Of course it doesn't. But it gives guys like JDB and DANC wood, so there's that.

You're just jealous we can still get it up.

 

[DANC]

I can't say I oppose the death penalty in its entirity. I think we were right in the WW2 trials to put Germans and Japanese to death for their war crimes. So I don't have a fundamental disagreement. I accept there is a social contract, in that we agree to live inside certain parameters to allow society to function. If someone kills, say 10 people, they have violated the contract to an extreme.

But I think it should be very rare. It must involve mass casualties, and it must be as close to certain as certain can be. Not just "reasonable doubt" and we have convicted a lot of innocent people "beyond reasonable doubt".

Include 'killing children' and 'torturing helpless victims before death' and I totally agree.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I saw Jeremy Clarkson wrote a column critical of the US stance on capital punishment. He is considered fairly far right in the UK. Here is his quote, "Because let's face it, a state should not be entrusted with the power of life and death when it can't even mend potholes."

 

[BradStevens]

I saw Jeremy Clarkson wrote a column critical of the US stance on capital punishment. He is considered fairly far right in the UK. Here is his quote, "Because let's face it, a state should not be entrusted with the power of life and death when it can't even mend potholes."

It's a fair point, but of course, we entrust the state with the power to wage war, so . . .