 |
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara Right now, he is innocent. He hasn't been found guilty. |
True, but when a person confesses to a murder and leads you to the missing body it's tough to argue that that person didn't kill the girl. Maybe there's information that we don't know, but he appears pretty guilty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Confessions mean nothing. |
No, they don't necessarily prove anything. However, I think that a confession in which the suspect leads authorities to the body is a confession that cannot be easily dismissed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Problem with your view Wycoff is that it can be refuted in a couple of sentences.
Yours appears to be a consequentialist theory of punishment, but we all know that the death penalty doesn't deter offenders and takes up too many resources within the justice system (far more than keeping the person alive and in prison). |
That's not really what I'm arguing. I'm not concerned with the deterrent value of capital punishment. To me, it's irrelevant whether or not having capital punishment as an option deters crime.
My view is more of a "societal-custodial" view (for lack of a better term). Society is cleansing itself of people that have acted in ways that are so abhorrent and contrary to the laws and morality of society that they have, in effect, revoked their right to live in that society. It's not right that they absorb resources that people who are still part of that society could be using, nor is it right that they still benefit from connections with that society, however tenuous. I think that it's acceptable for a society to choose to execute those people if it so wishes. There are a variety of reasons: permanently removing a murderous, anti-social threat from society, permanently freeing up resources that that person would otherwise absorb and reallocating them to others more deserving, and yes, forcing that person to pay the ultimate price for his heinous acts, a price that cannot truly be paid by a lifetime behind bars.
Deterrence of crime really isn't a factor. People willing to commit crimes of the magnitude I'm describing know that what they are doing will merit serious punishment, yet they do it anyway. IMO, deterrence is only an issue when people are "on the fence" about committing a crime, and then it's only of crimes of lesser magnitude; if someone is perfectly willing otherwise to commit a capital crime, they're already so anti-social (and "messed up in the head") that fear of punishment is not going to stop them. These people are outside of society, and thus society has nothing to gain from keeping them alive. Nothing would have deterred them, thus the fact that they weren't deterred by a possible capital punishment sentence is irrelevant.
The resource issue is another matter. To me this is the result of keeping potential capital liability too broad. I would never issue a death warrant on a case solely decided by circumstantial evidence, as the potential for error is too great. The system recognizes this, and, even though the jury supposedly found the suspect guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's implied that the system doesn't fully trust their judgment in matter of life or death. That's why so many appeals are allowed.
I would limit the scope of capital punishment so it only included the most flagrant 1st degree murder cases. This would be a purely legal question, answered by a panel of judges. It would be reserved for cases like a John Wayne Gacy, where the murderer had the bodies of his victims under his house or otherwise knew where they were located, had clearly tortured, raped, or otherwise mutilated them, etc. The case against a criminal such as this isn't based on circumstantial evidence. After the Gacy-like criminal had his trial, if found guilty, I would allow him two weeks. If there were no new angle for his defense, no legal reason to stay the execution, then he would be executed.
The high cost of DP cases results from the numerous appeals. Remove all but those with the clearest evidentiary standards (as decided by a panel of judges) and the cost of a DP situation would fall significantly below that of keeping these worthless people in prison for the duration of their lives.
Last edited by Wycoff on 20-03-2005 at 06:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
while I may tend to agree with this statement in spirit, I think the need for justice and punishment outweighs the concern about the power of the state... |
I don't think there's any justice in capital punishment. It's just vengence.
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
I could just as easily say the state has no right to decide whether an individual should be imprisoned. IMHO, imprisonment, especially in America, is a greater display of state power than the application of the death penalty. |
Of course, you could say that 
My view is imprisonment serves two purposes: rehabilitation and isolation of criminals from the society. DP doesn't do any of these.
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
At least with death, the state does not control what happens to one's soul/consciousness. Better to be killed by a painless lethal injection (the only method of execution I support) than to be trapped in a box for the remainder of one's "natural" life. |
I don't feel like getting into the metaphysical on this one. 
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
I'd like to consider myself a critic of big government, or abuse of government power. However, I am pragmatic enough to realize that putting such evil individuals to death is better for society than a fruitless attempt at rehabilitation. Or a wasteful expense such as lifetime imprisonment. |
I feel it is dangerous to let the state have the power to decide whether an individual has the right to live. For starters, there is almost some degree of uncertainty if a particular person has committed a crime. The progress in science has been reducing the chance of nabbing an innocent person, but the DP is irreversible. Secondly, once the state has this ultimate power, it could be abused.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-03-2005 02:45
. 
Attachment: 
|
