Death penalty

[triumphguy]

Actually, deterrence of the death penalty or other sanctions is clear cut. They do deter, as reviewed in detail, with none of those rebutted.

What isn’t clear cut is the measurement of that deterrence, as reviewed. It never will be.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some, an unrebuttable trusim, as well as my list of other support, none of which you rebutted.

There is a constant within all jurisdictions – negative consequences will always deter some. Whether a jurisdiction with high murder rates or low ones, rather rising or lowering rates, the presence of the death penalty will produce fewer net murders, the absence of the death penalty will produce more net murders. prodpinnc.blogspot.ca/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

To rebut this argument.

OK - I’ll grant you that there may be some tiny few who are deterred by the death penalty (though an insignificant amount if taking into consideration that more than 80% of homicides are committed under the influence of drugs, alcohol, rage etc where deterrence does not play a role). Also try proving who was deterred! We could do a poll. Has the death penalty deterred you from killing another person - frequently - sometimes - rarely - never.

However - I do not believe you can prove that “the absence of the death penalty will produce more net murders.”

I believe that having the death penalty does something to society. It cheapens life. It causes the state to commit homicide in the name of the people. It creates an apparatus and bureaucracy of death. It allows easy answers - a life for a life. It makes justice black and white. It ignores important societal issues like poverty, education, and racism.

 

[Ender]

If we are to look at what Blessed John Paul and Pope Benedict say about the death penalty prudentially, then prudentially the deterrence argument weighs a very insignifcant amount in the death penalty debate.

The fact that the last two popes believed that societies were better off without capital punishment says nothing whatever about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. In fact, given that the use of this punishment is predicated on the protection of society, should it turn out that the deterrent effect is significant that would argue for extending its use.

This is one of the problems with the current position: it is based not on moral doctrines but rather on entirely practical concerns … and thus the position can change as more knowledge is gained. It may seem strange to find the Church’s position dependent on the work of social scientists but there it is. Regarding deterrence, if capital punishment should provide none at all that would be no objection to the practice since it is only a secondary objective anyway (quite like defense) but should it prove to be very effective then that would argue strongly for its use given the criterion specified.

In any event it is quite mistaken to claim that deterrence is an insignificant objective. The Church’s teaching on this point has not changed; the four objectives of punishment are what they have always been and if studies show conclusively that capital punishment is in fact a significant deterrent then the same argument 2267 makes to oppose it would in fact defend its use.

Ender

 

[The_Bucket]

I’d concur with your first statement Ender and then I’d say that whether the death penalty is a statistically significant deterrent against future crimes is irrelevant.

2267 is black and white and so I’ll restate the final passage in it:

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

This presumes a functioning state of course. If you’re talking about a country with prison systems that are notorious for their lack of security then I imagine the Church would be fine with a more liberal use of the death penalty. You can’t securely lock up murderers and rapists in third-world countries. You just can’t.

When it comes to first-world countries, we can certainly render most, if not all, prisoners impotent. You could make an argument that terrorists and gang and organized crime leaders represent too great of a danger even in maximum security facilities because they can call shots or come up with plots from inside the prison and pass them outside. But your run of the mill cop-killer or guy who murdered a couple of people in a fit of rage? No way. They are no longer threats to the rest of society once they are in maximum security facilities.

It is more humane and less expensive to simply give most of these prisoners life without parole. When it comes to shot-callers… it’s a tougher decision. I do not believe the Church would condemn the execution of a gang leader with a history of proscribing hits from within prison, even in a first-world country.

 

[Ender]

I’d concur with your first statement Ender and then I’d say that whether the death penalty is a statistically significant deterrent against future crimes is irrelevant.

The sole justification for the use of capital punishment given in 2267 is when it is necessary for the protection of society but that can be brought about in at least two ways: by eliminating the possibility of convicted murderers repeating their crimes as well as discouraging the commission of murders among those who have never been convicted. One murder is the same as another so there is no argument that it is better to physically prevent one than to deter one so if it turns out that capital punishment has a significant deterrent effect then the protection of society criterion would demand it.

2267 is black and white and so I’ll restate the final passage in it:

It is the final passage that is the weakest part of the section since it is entirely subjective. It is claimed that modern societies have the ability to safely incarcerate prisoners but nowhere is the term “effectively prevent crime” defined, let alone supported with evidence. There is nothing very black or white about a vague, undefined term. Anyone who thinks the term means something specific should be willing to state how many recidivist murders are acceptable so we can distinguish between the effective and ineffective prevention of crime.

It is more humane and less expensive to simply give most of these prisoners life without parole

In what way is it more humane? If you argue that life without parole is more humane than execution would you not also have to accept that life with parole would be more humane still? The problem with this argument is that if “more humane” is the criterion that determines the punishment then wouldn’t no punishment at all be the most humane sentence?

Ender

 

[The_Bucket]

No no no Ender, I’m not one to play that game. I’m not the kind of person who wants to start a slippery slope with the death penalty so that one day we’ll get to life with parole or even maximum sentences for any and all crimes to prevent people from being locked up forever. Absolutely not.

We should give people up to the point of their natural deaths the ability to repent. There’s absolutely no reason we should, however, endanger the lives of innocents by letting murderers and serial rapists back on the streets ever again. By the way, this is actually more humane for the prisoners as well. At least for some of them. Some are just sick people who really enjoy killing. Others are addicted to violence the way that some are addicted to drugs. Limiting their ability to commit acts of violence (at least among the general public) removes or somewhat at least blunts that slavery to violence. Limiting their choices and environment gives them more of an opportunity to repent.

Trust me, my natural instinct is to slice the genitals off of rapists and summarily execute murders after their trials and limited appeals are completed. Just take 'em out back and shoot 'em is what my gut tells me. But my gut is wrong and the Church is right.

 

[Ender]

No no no Ender, I’m not one to play that game. I’m not the kind of person who wants to start a slippery slope with the death penalty so that one day we’ll get to life with parole or even maximum sentences for any and all crimes to prevent people from being locked up forever.

Avoiding a question is not the same as responding to it. You are stuck with the slippery slope problem as soon as you remove the well defined line that allows this but not that. If you wish to argue that the more humane penalty is the one that should always be applied then how can you object when I note that there are more humane penalties than the one you wish to impose?

We should give people up to the point of their natural deaths the ability to repent.

Why? On what teaching do you base this? The Church has never taught this.

Trust me, my natural instinct is to slice the genitals off of rapists and summarily execute murders after their trials and limited appeals are completed. Just take 'em out back and shoot 'em is what my gut tells me. But my gut is wrong and the Church is right.

I agree: the church is right … and this is the traditional teaching of the church: “the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”
Ender

 

[The_Bucket]

Avoiding a question is not the same as responding to it. You are stuck with the slippery slope problem as soon as you remove the well defined line that allows this but not that. If you wish to argue that the more humane penalty is the one that should always be applied then how can you object when I note that there are more humane penalties than the one you wish to impose?

Because I would argue that life with parole or maximum sentences is NOT humane to either the prisoner or society at large. Letting a serial killer back into society, for instance, is only going to tempt him to commit those crimes again. I don’t care that he served 30 years. You think the lunatic in Norway would go back into society all fine if he got out in 24 years? I think not. And by the way, he’s totally sane. He’s just evil.

Why? On what teaching do you base this? The Church has never taught this.
I agree: the church is right … and this is the traditional teaching of the church: “the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”
Ender

You can’t pick and choose which to follow Ender. And neither can I. Government authorities absolutely have the right to inflict capital punishment.

But right after teaching comes this one, which I will again quote.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

To that end, life without parole does indeed effectively protect people against unjust aggressors that have no ability to reach people on the outside. ADX in Colorado does a fine job of locking up the most dangerous of all criminals. Now, not all prisons can be like Supermax. It’s way too costly.

And not every country has a functioning prison system that keeps criminals in and away from the innocent populace. In those cases and in those nations I can absolutely support capital punishment for murderers and rapists.

Here? Not so much. Life without parole and solitary confinement effectively neuters the vast majority of offenders. It’s also cheaper than the capital punishment process. When it comes to mob and gang bosses who can order hits or terrorist leaders who can plot in prison and might pass on messages that are later translated into attacks… yes even here in America those people might earn themselves the death penalty.

Your average guy who held up a liquor store and then shot the owner? Not so much.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Like orthodox pro-life Catholics? That’s how they think.

Pope Benedict XVI disagrees with you. He said, “…There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty…”

BTW I grew up in a very conservative pro-death penalty household too. I guess getting a law degree, studying theology and working in prison, and working with homeless kids helped change my mind.

I am studying criminal justice and that helped reinforce my opinions on this issue. I guess seeing the effects of crime on the victims makes you feel more sorry for the victims who deserve your sympathy and less sorry for the monsters who made them victims.

 

[Ender]

Because I would argue that life with parole or maximum sentences is NOT humane to either the prisoner or society at large.

Is the criterion then to be what each of us believes is the most humane sentence? Suppose I claim that execution is more humane - how is it to be decided which of our opinions is valid? If “more humane” is the criterion then wouldn’t that necessarily lead to extreme disparities in punishments for similar crimes? Wouldn’t that argue for no punishment at all for those who are truly sorry for their crimes and are unlikely to repeat them?

But right after teaching comes this one, which I will again quote.
"if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."

Yes, I’m familiar with this assertion. The problem with it is that it is not accurate since the church never had this caveat. It should be apparent to everyone that there is a problem somewhere when two catechisms, published not five years apart, have two different descriptions of the traditional teaching of the church. The passage you cited was from the 1997 edition while my citation was from the one that came out in 1992 - and they are plainly different.

To that end, life without parole does indeed effectively protect people against unjust aggressors that have no ability to reach people on the outside.

Define what it means to “effectively protect people against unjust aggressors.” How may recidivist murders are allowed before we can say we are not effectively protected?

Your average guy who held up a liquor store and then shot the owner? Not so much.

And this is where our disagreement really lies: society has lost its sense of the enormity of the crime of murder. We don’t punish murderers severely because we no longer see murder as that big a deal.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

Pope Benedict XVI disagrees with you. He said, "…There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty…"I am studying criminal justice and that helped reinforce my opinions on this issue. I guess seeing the effects of crime on the victims makes you feel more sorry for the victims who deserve your sympathy and less sorry for the monsters who made them victims.

Diversity of opinion = it is ENTIRELY orthodox to be anti death penalty in a Catholic pro-life stance. Pope Benedict HIMSELF has intervened and asked for clemency in the Troy Davis case.

Secondly - I worked WITH monsters, and found that everyone of them had been horribly abused as children too. It’s not about feeling sorry for them - I am no sentimentalist - but desiring justice and an end to the cycle of violence and abuse, which requires FAR more than a black and white hang-em-high attitude. It demands education, fairness, a transparent justice system and real social justice etc etc. If you want less victims then reduce the amount of potential perpetrators: education is a great place to start.

I haven’t just studied criminal justice, I have worked IN the system. AND have a Law Degree.

 

[triumphguy]

Final thought on deterrence:

According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies, 88% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Lacock, 2009)

A report by the National Research Council, titled Deterrence and the Death Penalty, stated that studies claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are fundamentally flawed” and should not be used when making policy decisions (2012).

Consistent with previous years, the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, had lowest murder rate.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

 

[starshiptrooper]

Diversity of opinion = it is ENTIRELY orthodox to be anti death penalty in a Catholic pro-life stance.

Diversity means difference. Therefore Pope Benedict also implied that one can be pro-death penalty and still be a good Catholic.

Pope Benedict HIMSELF has intervened and asked for clemency in the Troy Davis case.

I was not impressed by that, I was scared. I am studying to be a police officer and letting a cop-killer get away with his crimes sounds like a great way to encourage more cop-killers to me.

Secondly - I worked WITH monsters, and found that everyone of them had been horribly abused as children too.

So, some people who are abused turn into monsters and some turn into ordinary decent citizens. My former boss is a great example, he had a really terrible childhood, however, he owned a company that made soda, employed many people, sold a quality product, and made alot of money. In other words, he was a classic American success story. Having a good or bad childhood does not turn you into a criminal.

It’s not about feeling sorry for them - I am no sentimentalist - but desiring justice and an end to the cycle of violence and abuse, which requires FAR more than a black and white hang-em-high attitude. It demands education, fairness, a transparent justice system and real social justice etc etc. If you want less victims then reduce the amount of potential perpetrators: education is a great place to start.

I disagree, most people act their own self-interest. If you want to reduce crime you raise the cost (punishment) for crime so high that most people can see that committing a crime is not in their best-interests.

I haven’t just studied criminal justice, I have worked IN the system. AND have a Law Degree.

I am supposed to believe a lawyer’s words about criminals? (insert obvious lawyer jokes here)

As for your post on deterrence, perhaps the South’s higher crime-rate is related to the presence of more minority groups, and so they are forced to use the death penalty because of their higher murder rates.

 

[triumphguy]

Diversity means difference. Therefore Pope Benedict also implied that one can be pro-death penalty and still be a good Catholic.I was not impressed by that, I was scared. I am studying to be a police officer and letting a cop-killer get away with his crimes sounds like a great way to encourage more cop-killers to me. **That’s rhetoric - you are better than that - not executing someone does not mean letting them get away with their crimes. **

So, some people who are abused turn into monsters and some turn into ordinary decent citizens. My former boss is a great example, he had a really terrible childhood, however, he owned a company that made soda, employed many people, sold a quality product, and made alot of money. In other words, he was a classic American success story. Having a good or bad childhood does not turn you into a criminal.
I bet he wasn’t used as a wager in card games of pedophiles when he was 6 like one inmate I counselled who became a child abuser was. I’m not talking about a few beatings here and there but horrific acts of abuse and perversion.

I disagree, most people act their own self-interest. If you want to reduce crime you raise the cost (punishment) for crime so high that most people can see that committing a crime is not in their best-interests.I am supposed to believe a lawyer’s words about criminals? (insert obvious lawyer jokes here) Obvious lawyer joke ignored since I quit the law and became a religious for 6 years before becoming a prison chaplain, and then a teacher of street kids.

Again - you will find if you become a LEO that most crimes are committed in the heat of the moment and deterrence is not even a factor.

As for your post on deterrence, perhaps the South’s higher crime-rate is related to the presence of more minority groups, and so they are forced to use the death penalty because of their higher murder rates. ** Or not. Maybe it’s systemic racism. These are the things that as a police officer you will need to discern.**

Not killing someone doesn’t equate to let them go free.

 

[BroomWagon]

guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/japan-executions-resume-three-hangings

Japan still has the death penalty.

 

[The_Bucket]

As for your post on deterrence, perhaps the South’s higher crime-rate is related to the presence of more minority groups, and so they are forced to use the death penalty because of their higher murder rates.

That is absolutely ludicrous. Crime rates are almost always directly correlated to income rates. Poor people tend to commit more crimes and, sadly, more violent crimes. That’s why you see areas like Philadelphia, the south side of Chicago and nasty areas of Los Angeles with crazy high crime rates. The crime rate in New York City, conversely, has plummeted because income has risen substantially there.

The south is typically poorer than the north. It always has been. So you get a higher crime rate, even in rural areas. Metro areas in the south are not much different than metro areas in the north.

 

[BroomWagon]

That is absolutely ludicrous. Crime rates are almost always directly correlated to income rates. Poor people tend to commit more crimes and, sadly, more violent crimes. That’s why you see areas like Philadelphia, the south side of Chicago and nasty areas of Los Angeles with crazy high crime rates. The crime rate in New York City, conversely, has plummeted because income has risen substantially there.

The south is typically poorer than the north. It always has been. So you get a higher crime rate, even in rural areas. Metro areas in the south are not much different than metro areas in the north. The south just tends to execute more people because, well, there are more Republicans in the south and Republicans tend to support the death penalty.

What you are saying could be calumny, Clinton did not grant a death sentence pardon, Republicans have not been in control of the South for long and not as long as the death penalty has been in effect, those are very vile words and really no less than a smear totally unsubtantiated and uninformed. Why is Louisiana one of the top states to have the death penalty? The Democrats have maintained control for decades until recently. Same for Georgia. Even Texas wasn’t Republican until not that long ago, Ann Richards was Governor.

 

[The_Bucket]

What you are saying could be calumny, Clinton did not grant a death sentence pardon, Republicans have not been in control of the South for long and not as long as the death penalty has been in effect, those are very vile words and really no less than a smear totally unsubtantiated and uninformed. Why is Louisiana one of the top states to have the death penalty? The Democrats have maintained control for decades until recently. Same for Georgia. Even Texas wasn’t Republican until not that long ago, Ann Richards was Governor.

You know as well as I do that a huge chunk of those who were southern Democrats 20-30 years ago are Republicans today. It’s semantics. But yes, it’s more accurate to say that the South has historically been far more conservative in the north and conservatives tend to support the death penalty more than moderates or liberals.

Clinton was nothing but a man of politics. He knew well that if he started issuing pardons he’d have been run out on a rail. He ran as a “New Democrat” in 1992, which included a “tough on crime” stance to distance himself from Dukakis after he got slaughtered courtesy of the Willie Horton situation.

 

[BroomWagon]

You know as well as I do that a huge chunk of those who were southern Democrats 20-30 years ago are Republicans today. It’s semantics. But yes, it’s more accurate to say that the South has historically been far more conservative in the north and conservatives tend to support the death penalty more than moderates or liberals.

Clinton was nothing but a man of politics. He knew well that if he started issuing pardons he’d have been run out on a rail. He ran as a “New Democrat” in 1992, which included a “tough on crime” stance to distance himself from Dukakis after he got slaughtered courtesy of the Willie Horton situation.

Yes, you are playing a semantic game, only Democrats hung people from trees. Get Real!

 

[BroomWagon]

Democrats today, support Abortion as a whole, as their party platform says, in the past, segregation and slavery were supported. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Yes, they supported evil yesterday and tomorrow.

 

[BroomWagon]

You know as well as I do that a huge chunk of those who were southern Democrats 20-30 years ago are Republicans today. It’s semantics. But yes, it’s more accurate to say that the South has historically been far more conservative in the north and conservatives tend to support the death penalty more than moderates or liberals.

Clinton was nothing but a man of politics. He knew well that if he started issuing pardons he’d have been run out on a rail. He ran as a “New Democrat” in 1992, which included a “tough on crime” stance to distance himself from Dukakis after he got slaughtered courtesy of the Willie Horton situation.

No matter what you say, James Ear Ray, Bull Connor, all Democrats. I guess you would make some sort of excvuse for slavery too.

How odd, blame people for laws enacted they had nothing to do with, if they even enacted such laws after the Supreme Court of the US declared states’ rights to execute people.