The Ethics of Capital Punishment

[Si modo]

Ha. I bet a lot of you didn't expect this view from me.

You are going to make skys head explode.

But its your opinion... and i like it just the same.

I bet it will make her head explode.

 

[Si modo]

I'm also aware that there are cases where the convicted murderer was later found innocent.
link please ?

Quite a few to be found here.

of course that link proves the point
NO innocent person has been executed* which is what we are discussing *
those that a reason has been found to give them the benefit of the doubt has been released from prison
the other cases mentioned where not proven innocent just they MAY BE LAWYER TALK

i dont think there any cases of persons executed who should NOT have been
i think there are cases of persons not executed who should have been

I did not see your edit.

Yes, there are cases where someone was executed when they should not have been.

Wiki has a few.

 

[Zander]

Just an aside...

The first season of Star Trek the next Generation had an episode where the planet the Enterprise was visiting had a very simple criminal justice system- all crimes were punishable by death. Commit Murder. Lethal injection. Steal property? Lethal injection. Step on the grass when you weren't supposed to? Lethal injection.

 

[Zander]

Just an aside...

The first season of Star Trek the next Generation had an episode where the planet the Enterprise was visiting had a very simple criminal justice system- all crimes were punishable by death. Commit Murder. Lethal injection. Steal property? Lethal injection. Step on the grass when you weren't supposed to? Lethal injection.

They had no crime. Also the people were happy and fucked all day.

 

[Ropey]

Just an aside...

The first season of Star Trek the next Generation had an episode where the planet the Enterprise was visiting had a very simple criminal justice system- all crimes were punishable by death. Commit Murder. Lethal injection. Steal property? Lethal injection. Step on the grass when you weren't supposed to? Lethal injection.

And what a recidivism rate.

 

[Si modo]

Just an aside...

The first season of Star Trek the next Generation had an episode where the planet the Enterprise was visiting had a very simple criminal justice system- all crimes were punishable by death. Commit Murder. Lethal injection. Steal property? Lethal injection. Step on the grass when you weren't supposed to? Lethal injection.

They had no crime. Also the people were happy and fucked all day.

Good episode, but they were a creepy lot, no?

 

[Dragon]

NO innocent person has been executed

That is impossible to know, and statistically unlikely in the extreme. Once a person has been executed, investigation into guilt or innocence by the courts ceases. A determination of innocence can only be made while the convicted person is on death row.

There are many cases of convictions being overturned before execution, but after conviction. This means there are many cases in which courts have made mistakes. Since the court process itself is clearly not without error, it is unreasonable to insist that the post-conviction investigation process is perfect, as it must be in order for anyone to insist that there have been literally ZERO innocent people executed.

This is the soundest argument against capital punishment IMO. Errors in justice are possible, and will happen, and must always be reversible.

 

[Zander]

Just an aside...

The first season of Star Trek the next Generation had an episode where the planet the Enterprise was visiting had a very simple criminal justice system- all crimes were punishable by death. Commit Murder. Lethal injection. Steal property? Lethal injection. Step on the grass when you weren't supposed to? Lethal injection.

They had no crime. Also the people were happy and fucked all day.

Good episode, but they were a creepy lot, no?

They were creepy.....

 

[Sky Dancer]

Rather thick are we?

I'm not a mind reader. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

in relation to what I might discuss with a 12-13 year old Buddhist child whose parent was murdered.

Speaks for itself.

Buddhist children are able to understand the concept of karma from about age seven onward.

Most of you assume what the content would be of a conversation with a traumatized child of 13 about the loss of a parent to a violent crime.

You haven't asked me what I mean by a conversation about karma in a Buddhist context.

It would NOT be telling a child a parent DESERVED to be murdered because of a past life.

That is a Judeo-Christian, sin and punishment concept, not cause and effect. The questions would come from the child. I would not be introducing topics before the child begins asking questions.

The motivation is to meet the child where the child is in his or her healing process and offer support.

 

[Sunshine]

An eye for an eye. Right or wrong?

I say it is wrong.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

Think about the Golden Rule:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

If a person murders another human being, then he is by default giving permission for himself to be murdered.

 

[Tank]

The motivation is to meet the child where the child is in his or her healing process and offer support.

Are you going to offer support as they pray to Budda for a execution?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The motivation is to meet the child where the child is in his or her healing process and offer support.

Are you going to offer support as they pray to Budda for a execution?

There are several misconceptions inherent in your post. One, that the Buddha is some kind of god one prays to. Two, that the support a Buddhist child traumatized by violence would need would be to pray for more violence.

Buddhists pray, but they pray to their own inherent capacity for love and healing, buddha nature.

What a traumatized child needs in order to heal is love and acceptance, compassion. A traumatized individual needs to be able to process the trauma and all the accompanying feelings while being safe from harm.

A perfectly normal reaction to trauma is intense fear, shock, anger, rage, sadness, and despair. It would not be uncommon for a victim of crime to want to kill the perpetrator. Encouraging homocidal or suicidal ideology is not a therapeutic goal. We do not want the victim to kill themselves or others.

We do not want the traumatized person to be unable to live the rest of their lives. We do not want the trauma to cripple the child forever.

Executing the perpetrator has nothing to do with healing for a young, traumatized child. Out of control adults filled with their own vengeance and rage, will not help a traumatized child by telling the child the perpetrator has been executed.

Adults need to be kind, warm and reassuring to a traumatized child.

A book I recommend, is Too Scared to Cry: Psychic Trauma in Childhood, by LC Terr.

 

[SW2SILVER]

Fuck you, sky. What do you know about ethics? When is the last time you had your life threatened?

 

[Intense]

An eye for an eye. Right or wrong?

I say it is wrong.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

I support the Death Penalty for the most outrageous Crimes. Mass Murder. Torture ending in Murder. I support it when the Convicted Petitions for it.

I think what cheapens the Value of Life is letting Psychopaths back out on the Street. I think when Their Time is fully served, if they are not in a Maximum Security Psych Ward, that is where they should be relocated to for Life. For those Miraculously Cured, a Minimum Security Facility.

We Each have a Right to a Perspective, that alone does not make the perspective right.

I do think that we can learn much in the Field from these people, and that we should take advantage of that.

 

[Tank]

Executing the perpetrator has nothing to do with healing for a young, traumatized child. Out of control adults filled with their own vengeance and rage, will not help a traumatized child by telling the child the perpetrator has been executed.

I'm sure the kid would feel much better if they became pen pals with the person who raped and murdered their mom.

 

[Dragon]

I support the Death Penalty for the most outrageous Crimes. Mass Murder. Torture ending in Murder. I support it when the Convicted Petitions for it.

That last would relate to a right to suicide. I suppose it's the only time I would support it myself.

For the rest, I find that everyone advancing this argument assumes that the convicted are actually guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. If that's true, then the death penalty becomes justifiable. But what if they aren't?

That's the whole problem with execution. It is final. There's no going back. If justice miscarries, there is no way to make it right. If a person is imprisoned wrongly, upon that being discovered he can be freed and the state can pay compensation for the wrongful punishment. But if the person is dead, that option does not exist.

We have rights of the accused, presumption of innocence, due process, all these things to protect the innocent from the power of the state, which is capable of making errors. I suggest that one other thing is needed: the state must not kill convicted criminals, or in any other way punish them where there is no possibility of redress in the event of a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Intense]

I support the Death Penalty for the most outrageous Crimes. Mass Murder. Torture ending in Murder. I support it when the Convicted Petitions for it.

That last would relate to a right to suicide. I suppose it's the only time I would support it myself.

For the rest, I find that everyone advancing this argument assumes that the convicted are actually guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. If that's true, then the death penalty becomes justifiable. But what if they aren't?

That's the whole problem with execution. It is final. There's no going back. If justice miscarries, there is no way to make it right. If a person is imprisoned wrongly, upon that being discovered he can be freed and the state can pay compensation for the wrongful punishment. But if the person is dead, that option does not exist.

We have rights of the accused, presumption of innocence, due process, all these things to protect the innocent from the power of the state, which is capable of making errors. I suggest that one other thing is needed: the state must not kill convicted criminals, or in any other way punish them where there is no possibility of redress in the event of a miscarriage of justice.

That last would relate to a right to suicide. I suppose it's the only time I would support it myself.

Maybe, maybe not. If the Conviction allowed for the Death Penalty, it might not be seen that way.

As far as Suicide, as a general rule, what are they going to do with you if you succeed?

For the rest, I find that everyone advancing this argument assumes that the convicted are actually guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. If that's true, then the death penalty becomes justifiable. But what if they aren't?

I agree with you there when the Conviction is based on No Reasonable Doubt. When the Conviction is 100% Sure, based on Admittance, or 2 or more Witnesses with 100% surety, and the Crime was Heinous, I won't stand in the way.

That's the whole problem with execution. It is final. There's no going back. If justice miscarries, there is no way to make it right. If a person is imprisoned wrongly, upon that being discovered he can be freed and the state can pay compensation for the wrongful punishment. But if the person is dead, that option does not exist.

We have rights of the accused, presumption of innocence, due process, all these things to protect the innocent from the power of the state, which is capable of making errors. I suggest that one other thing is needed: the state must not kill convicted criminals, or in any other way punish them where there is no possibility of redress in the event of a miscarriage of justice.

I think one of the first things a deviant mind would do in setting up a Murder,a crime of any sort, is to pick a Scapegoat to pin the crime on. People are too gullible and sometimes look to the easy route. I believe that the path to Execute needs to be conclusive beyond doubt.

 

[SW2SILVER]

Jesus let himself get nailed to a cross, that was either a suicide or capital punishment. Either/or. We gained something.

 

[Ernie S.]

I support the Death Penalty for the most outrageous Crimes. Mass Murder. Torture ending in Murder. I support it when the Convicted Petitions for it.

That last would relate to a right to suicide. I suppose it's the only time I would support it myself.

For the rest, I find that everyone advancing this argument assumes that the convicted are actually guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. If that's true, then the death penalty becomes justifiable. But what if they aren't?

That's the whole problem with execution. It is final. There's no going back. If justice miscarries, there is no way to make it right. If a person is imprisoned wrongly, upon that being discovered he can be freed and the state can pay compensation for the wrongful punishment. But if the person is dead, that option does not exist.

We have rights of the accused, presumption of innocence, due process, all these things to protect the innocent from the power of the state, which is capable of making errors. I suggest that one other thing is needed: the state must not kill convicted criminals, or in any other way punish them where there is no possibility of redress in the event of a miscarriage of justice.

That is part of the price we pay for being imperfect human beings. Sometimes a jury of 12 gets it wrong. In the vast majority of cases, that error is corrected in the appeals process, making the system nearly fool proof.
Yes, I said nearly. Of course it would be terrible to execute an innocent person, but the odds are so small as to be nearly insignificant, especially compared to the very real possibility of setting a guilty party free.
What do you suppose the ratio of the guilty judged innocent to innocents executed is? Maybe 100,000 to 1?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I repeat my question asked several times in other threads. If there is no death penalty what do we do with murderers already IN prison that chose to kill and kill again?

Only recently there was a story of a man in prison for murder that murdered a guard trying to escape. He wants to be put to death because he states he WILL kill again.