Top level “lifer” prisoners operate almost unfettered in and from prison. They torture guards and staffers. Injuries are commonplace. Turnover is high. Recruiting and training are very difficult. If the prison does not have adequate staff, what is our society to do?
.How many guards are needed to escort a killer-lifer for their daily exercise?
Bears repeating!
This is actually inconclusive. There are in fact numerous studies which show that it has a significant deterrent effect. If lesser penalties deter some crimes why would anyone assume that the greatest penalty alone is not a deterrent?
What fails to recognize the dignity of human life is not holding someone accountable for his actions.
It is God’s decree.
Not in all places. Virginia, for example, is quite efficient with its processes. This is a purely political problem.
The claims of innocents executed are like the claims about deterrence: they are inconclusive.
You misunderstand the nature of punishment and the function of retribution. It is nothing less that what justice demands.
.Not in Singapore.
Eight have been alleged to be innocent by anti-death penalty groups, and even this number required the claimants go back as far as 1915.
Non-violent criminals tend to not require much supervision, already.Your not understanding what I’m saying
I’m saying that if there are less white collar criminals put in jails altogether then there will be more guards available to escort the violent criminals because they won’t be preoccupied with the non violent prisoners (white collar or otherwise).
I would argue with that logic. The point of the death penalty is not to deter crime, it is to punish murderers. However, even given that, this statement still doesn’t make sense. The death penalty is applied in less than 3% of cases where a person is convicted of murder. Punishment that isn’t applied consistently never has a deterrent effect. Try it at home with your kids. Only put your kids in time out every fourth or fifth time they are warned for breaking the rules. See how much of a deterrent effect it has on their behavior. Lastly, can you demonstrate through statistics how many people who have undergone capital punishment have committed violent crimes after their sentence was imposed? I’m scratching my head here, but I’m pretty sure its zero.
It actually upholds the inherent value of human life by demonstrating to society that the unlawful taking of life will be punished. That is why God instituted the death penalty.
This is an administrative issue more than it is a reflection on the efficacy of the death penalty. Rather than fix the administrative issues surrounding our justice system we have chosen to abolish the punishment of egregious violent criminals. That is a completely irrational response.
I have no issues with this. Some decisions have irrevocable impact. Not all criminals deserve the chance at rehabilitation. Once again, that’s why God instituted the death penalty.
Disagree. Cruel and unusual punishment in the context of the law means punishment that exceeds impact of the crime. “Eye for Eye” concept. So I punch you, and the law executes me would be cruel and unusual. Executing capital punishment for someone who has committed murder is not an asymmetric response. Cruel and unusual also means that the punishment is calculated to inflict undeserved, prolonged suffering, or punishment without due process. That also does not apply in the case of capital punishment. Capital offenders are afforded a trial by jury where conviction is based on evidence as well as numerous appeals (far too many appeals if you want to be honest about it). This idea is a drastic redefinition of what cruel and unusual punishment has always meant and it makes no sense.
The problem is also that the definition of “cruel and unusual” punishment can be subjective.
As you say, we cannot be sure that an innocent person won’t be executed. We can be very sure, however, that quite a number of innocent people will be murdered by recidivist killers we refused to execute.
People are responsible for their actions. Yes, some very small number of individuals could, for whatever mental reasons, be held to be not responsible, but to look for that excuse in all of them is to fail to treat people as moral agents. It reduces them to the level of animals.
I don’t agree with either of these claims. It seems unreasonable to assert that the only punishment that doesn’t provide any deterrence is the most severe punishment of all. I see no justification for such a belief. The church justifies capital punishment when it is necessary for the protection of society. It seems apparent to me that many more citizens will die if capital punishment is abolished than if it was more liberally applied.
Again, retribution is the only just reason for any punishment. We punish because someone deserves it. We don’t arbitrarily punish people to make them better citizens or even as preemption to prevent crime. We are not to relish the opportunity, or to hate the criminal, but we are to punish him because he deserves it.
Actually, the concept of proportionality with regard to murder is quote proportionate, if not lenient. What do I mean by this? Life for a life. There is nothing subjective about it. It can be applied evenly across the board which removes subjectivity from the conversation.
Honestly, who cares about the neurological and psychiatric state of the offender? Why is that even an issue? Why would we provide excuse for murder?
It has been an issue since God instituted the death penalty for murder: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Yet the gravity of murder demands action in his eyes. Criminal trials were far less certain about evidence required to convict someone of a capital crime. We live in a daywhere the justice system typically favors the defendant, requires a high standard of evidence, and we have scientific techniques that provide far more certainty than ever before to support a conviction.
If there are issues within the justice system, address the justice system to ensure equity. However, the suggestion to do away with the death penalty both avoids the issue and sends a negative message to society that murder is tolerated.
I would disagree here. The argument with regard to whether the death penalty is a deterrent as stated before is a red herring. The death penalty is imposed very sparsely, in less than 3% of murder cases. At best, you can say the data is inconclusive. But again, the purpose of the death penalty is not primarily as a deterrent. It is retributive and that isn’t a bad thing. Every other punishment issued by the law is retributive, so I don’t understand why you would make a special case for murder.
catholicstand.com