What are your opinions on the Death Penalty and why?

I am personally against it. I live in MA, a state without the Death Penalty. My reasons in a nutshell come down to my moral belief that it is ineffective as a deterrent, more costly than life, and most importantly in my mind mistakes are made and innocent people die.

I have more to say, but I want people to respond first.

(March 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: What are your opinions on the Death Penalty and why?

I am personally against it. I live in MA, a state without the Death Penalty. My reasons in a nutshell come down to my moral belief that it is ineffective as a deterrent, more costly than life, and most importantly in my mind mistakes are made and innocent people die.

I have more to say, but I want people to respond first.

Im against. Crucially because innocent people would be executed.

I don't believe that the death penalty is inherently immoral or anything like that ... I can't because I believe force (military, police, law etc.) is an essential component of society. Without someone to maintain the peace, someone to stand the watch none of us would have the freedoms, the perceived "rights" we have. Also, if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that someone actually was genuinely guilty of a crime abhorrent enough to merit death, I'd be fine with it ... that's not entirely true as will become clear .

The reasons I have issues with the death penalty are simple enough ...

Firstly, certainty: Nothing is that certain: I've been a juror twice and I don't suppose anyone will be too surprised if I say I was the gobby one and I was elected to be foreman on both occasions, LOL. Jurors are not the upstanding citizens twelve men good & true, they are reputed to be ... they are just people, people with their own expectations, hopes, fears, biases, prejudices and narrow minded stupidities. Were I "the accused" finding a juror of my peers would be near impossible, that most jurors have made their minds up before the trial starts, certainly before it ends, are more concerned with their own problems than they are with those of the person on trial and don't want to be there anyway. Jeremy Clarkson was right when he wrote about the jury's being scarier than the criminals and now I recognise a number of things ... that most jurors should not be allowed to evaluate the fate of a banana let alone a human, indeed anyone who reads "The Sun", "The Sport", "The Mirror" or "The Daily Heil" should be denied the right to vote. My experience of the law from (from both sides) has been rather negative and I finally realise that the law is about anything but truth, it's simply about winning.

Second, justice: The law is inherently unjust ... it's based on the concept of gladiatorial combat (both accused and accuser have champions who fight their case for them) and, whilst it may well find the truth on a number of occasions, it is not about truth but about winning.

Thirdly, truth: If the law it's not about finding the truth, then mistakes will get made and if later evidence reveals that the wrong person was convicted then it is not possible to rectify the mistake. Quite apart from being fairly unpleasant for the victim of the wrongful dispense of "justice" it isn't "justice". On the basis of innocent unless proven guilty I would rather 10, 20 or a million guilty people go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted ... it is important that "justice" is seen to be "just". It's for this reason that I feel it is important to continue to fight against police corruption (I know this exists but I feel, no proof, that the majority of police are basically good people ... I might be wrong) and other forms of governmental corruption etc.

Fourth, retribution: I have issues with the idea that if someone kills someone we kill them as a punishment (revenge?) ... does that not mean we are lowering ourselves to their level? Though it does not change the final effect I feel that it would be far more acceptable to say that someone was too dangerous to society to be allowed to live within it ... exile is impractical, life imprisonment costly & pointless so death is the only other option I guess.

Fifth, execution method: I realise that killers often kill in horrendous ways but again I feel it lowers us to kill them in a horrible fashion ... if death penalty were to again become part of the legal system I would have to favour a painless & humans method.

Finally, the statistics don't support the claims that the death penalty works.

So, no, I'm not specifically anti-DP (certainly not for moral reasons), I simply don't see it as a viable or just option.

Kyu

I'm against the death penalty.

First off, if a person commits such a horrible crime that they get put on death row, I think a more reasonable punishment would be to keep them alive in their miserable prison life. Honestly if that were me I would WISH I was dead.

Second, I think the death penalty was first created so that guilty people would die and go to hell. But if hell isn't even there, and they wish they were dead anyway, then the executioner would be doing the criminal a favor by killing them.

Third, no death penalty would keep innocent people from being killed.

(March 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I don't believe that the death penalty is inherently immoral or anything like that ... I can't because I believe force (military, police, law etc.) is an essential component of society. Without someone to maintain the peace, someone to stand the watch none of us would have the freedoms, the perceived "rights" we have. Also, if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that someone actually was genuinely guilty of a crime abhorrent enough to merit death, I'd be fine with it ... that's not entirely true as will become clear .

The reasons I have issues with the death penalty are simple enough ...

Firstly, certainty: Nothing is that certain: I've been a juror twice and I don't suppose anyone will be too surprised if I say I was the gobby one and I was elected to be foreman on both occasions, LOL. Jurors are not the upstanding citizens twelve men good & true, they are reputed to be ... they are just people, people with their own expectations, hopes, fears, biases, prejudices and narrow minded stupidities. Were I "the accused" finding a juror of my peers would be near impossible, that most jurors have made their minds up before the trial starts, certainly before it ends, are more concerned with their own problems than they are with those of the person on trial and don't want to be there anyway. Jeremy Clarkson was right when he wrote about the jury's being scarier than the criminals and now I recognise a number of things ... that most jurors should not be allowed to evaluate the fate of a banana let alone a human, indeed anyone who reads "The Sun", "The Sport", "The Mirror" or "The Daily Heil" should be denied the right to vote. My experience of the law from (from both sides) has been rather negative and I finally realise that the law is about anything but truth, it's simply about winning.

Second, justice: The law is inherently unjust ... it's based on the concept of gladiatorial combat (both accused and accuser have champions who fight their case for them) and, whilst it may well find the truth on a number of occasions, it is not about truth but about winning.

Thirdly, truth: If the law it's not about finding the truth, then mistakes will get made and if later evidence reveals that the wrong person was convicted then it is not possible to rectify the mistake. Quite apart from being fairly unpleasant for the victim of the wrongful dispense of "justice" it isn't "justice". On the basis of innocent unless proven guilty I would rather 10, 20 or a million guilty people go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted ... it is important that "justice" is seen to be "just". It's for this reason that I feel it is important to continue to fight against police corruption (I know this exists but I feel, no proof, that the majority of police are basically good people ... I might be wrong) and other forms of governmental corruption etc.

Fourth, retribution: I have issues with the idea that if someone kills someone we kill them as a punishment (revenge?) ... does that not mean we are lowering ourselves to their level? Though it does not change the final effect I feel that it would be far more acceptable to say that someone was too dangerous to society to be allowed to live within it ... exile is impractical, life imprisonment costly & pointless so death is the only other option I guess.

Fifth, execution method: I realise that killers often kill in horrendous ways but again I feel it lowers us to kill them in a horrible fashion ... if death penalty were to again become part of the legal system I would have to favour a painless & humans method.

Finally, the statistics don't support the claims that the death penalty works.

So, no, I'm not specifically anti-DP (certainly not for moral reasons), I simply don't see it as a viable or just option.

Kyu

Heavy.
Your para 1 is scary..it justifies cp.
Para 2 is scarier. Invoking Jeremy Clarkson as a parable of wisdom is baffling. I work in the criminal justice system and I will defend the jury system until something better is suggested.
Para 3 Our system is based on the premise of " innocent until proven guilty " long may that be so.
Para 4..I agree that innocence equals non-conviction.
Para 5 you are sanctioning cp.
Para 6 your conscience is creeping in...does it make you feel that much better?

Overal Kyu, I disagree with you.

(March 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I don't believe that the death penalty is inherently immoral or anything like that ... I can't because I believe force (military, police, law etc.) is an essential component of society. Without someone to maintain the peace, someone to stand the watch none of us would have the freedoms, the perceived "rights" we have. Also, if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that someone actually was genuinely guilty of a crime abhorrent enough to merit death, I'd be fine with it ... that's not entirely true as will become clear .

I disagree with that sentiment. To be clear, I don't think there is a way to 100% convict someone, that's why it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" so the usual arguments against the death penalty like mistakes and statistics showing it's more costly to execute, etc... are strong enough on their own.

However let's say we can prove absolutely that someone was guilty of a heinous crime, and let's say it was raping and killing a 6 year old girl. I think a lot of people have a gut reaction that someone like that deserves to die. I personally don't. My belief is that if we take the position that killing is inherently wrong than even government sanctioned killing is wrong. I don't agree with war in pretty much all cases. I realize avoiding war at this stage is unrealistic but I take an idealized view that we should work towards a peaceful solution always and use force as a last means. I think in this day and age we are quick to use deadly force, too quick.

The only time I feel killing another human is okay is when your life is in danger and the only way to save it is to kill the person threatening it. I realize this can be stretched out to war and can also incorporate the idea that killing a murderer protects human life he might take in the future. Ignoring the war issue because it's a whole different topic I think the latter argument doesn't work because we have the ability to lock up murderers for life.

Now the argument can be made that that system is imperfect and murderers can and have gone free to kill again. But we have to recognize that all man-made systems are imperfect. We do the best we can with what we have, I think we need to always strive for perfection but there are bound to be errors that will result in innocent people being put to jail/death. But how many people put to death can be released when it's found out later they were guilty.

Kyuu, I agree with your sentiment about the Jury and about the cases being a lot about winning and losing. I've been on a jury and while it was for a lawsuit, I totally get where you're coming from. This adds an inherent flaw in the system that will always result in some wrongful convictions.

There is definitely a visceral reaction to say a child killer. I think we need move past that and realize our system isn't perfect and death is a permanent punishment that can never be reversed when proven wrong. I think morally as a society we are slowly moving past the idea of death as a reasonable punishment, and not because maybe people deserve death but because the risk of killing an innocent is more important. I have an 11 year old sister. If something like that happened to her, do I think I could continue to hold this position? To be absolutely honest, I have no idea. I can completely understand where a person is coming from who has lost a loved one like that and wants capital punishment. But like I said, I think morally we need to move past that, overcome our gut reaction with a more reasoned one.

I also reject the notion of any supernatural karma. I accept the reality that innocents suffer and guilty people escape justice. I think in death there's nothing, no hell. I find hell to be a horrendous belief to have, I don't think ANY crime is worth ETERNAL punishment. I think in general we need to do everything to protect and help the innocents rather than hunt down the guilty because there is a trafeoff and I think the former is more important.

Wow, this became long and rather tangential.

I think our gut visceral

Jeremy Clarkson is like a modern philosopher of our times.

Overall, I agree with Kyu. I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons, but a very good argument can be made against it from other angles. I think the jury system is the best system we have, and the fact that everyone must agree before a verdict is met is a good idea. I think perhaps a little more regulation is needed though, perhaps having a recording or a review session of the jury whilst it is working out a verdict. I'm not entirely sure how it all works at the moment though.

(March 23, 2009 at 9:09 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Jeremy Clarkson is like a modern philosopher of our times.

Now that's just plain vicious.

---One could wade through Mr Clarkson's deepest thoughts without getting one's ankles wet.

Hehe, he does say some pretty awesome stuff though, and I agree with him

(March 23, 2009 at 10:53 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Hehe, he does say some pretty awesome stuff though, and I agree with him

There we differ.

I read his column every week,it's witty. I watch Top Gear,where he's entertaining until he starts making fatuous comments about climate change for example. He also has a deeply refined flair for the obvious,and the ability to express it wittily.

I think Jeremy's wit is clever,facile and flippant, but that he has the depth of a petrie dish. That's just fine as long as he sticks to cars,although even then he tends to spoil things with his inane elitism.

Jeremy Clarkson puts me in mind of Eleanor Roosevelt's observation:

"The third class mind talks about people

The second class mind talks about events

The First class mind talks about ideas"


That's all just fine. The man is an entertainer,not a philosopher. Nothing wrong at all with agreeing with his opinions. However, I draw the line at describing anything I've read or heard him say as 'awesome'.*


Disclaimer:This post is half serious. I leave it to you to decide which half
--like seeing him on "Grumpy Old men" and chortling,although not actually agreeing with what he says in any serious way.

NO I am NOT a 'grumpy old man! I've also passed curmudgeon, having become a fully qualified reprobate last year.



*I no longer speak adolescent,so "awesome" means "outstanding,stunning, inspiring awe" to me, not "I quite like it [today]"