[BlackGriffen]

The Saddam Hussein arrested thread borders on discussing the death penalty in general, but that specific issue blurs it a little. Rather than drag that thread completely off topic, I thought it would be good to make a thread to discuss the death penalty in general. Should it exist be used? If so, when should it be used? How do we guarantee that it isn't applied to innocents?

My own opinion is this: yes I support the death penalty, but only under very specific circumstances.

For starters, I feel it necessary for me to state the purpose of having a criminal justice system at all. To me, the system is there to ensure that destructive or harmful elements are not able to rome free in society.

Given that goal, incarceration would seem to fit just fine. Incarceration of destructive elements, though, given the risks of escape, is only preferable to death in two cases: one, if there is a slight chance that the incarcerated is innocent; two, if there is a chance of reforming the incarcerated. Incarcerating destructive elements, in fact, runs counter to the second goal.

So, what do I consider "destructive elements?" Simply put: child molesters and murderers. Do I believe that child molesters and murderers should be put do death upon conviction? No, not at first anyway. Basically, I think that those who are guilty of said crimes should be reformed, if possible. If such people have demonstrated that it is not within our ability (whether through lack of our skill or through lack of ability or willingness on their part) to reform them, then they should be put to death. So, what it comes down to, is if someone is convicted of a capital class crime, released, and is convicted of a new capital class crime committed after the release, then they should be put to death.

Now, don't misconstrue this for abolishing life sentences. I'm perfectly willing to grant that their are people convicted of crimes heinous enough that we wouldn't want to take the chance of releasing them again. What I'm saying is that the death penalty should be limited to those who have been convicted multiple times (not just multiple convictions, but multiple trials with different prosecutors, judges, and, if the defendant desires it, different defense attorneys). Given that requirement, I think that the probability of executing an innocent person would be low enough as to be negligible. What are the odds that a person could be falsely convicted for separate crimes before separate judges and juries, with separate attorneys as long as the person's previous conviction is not permitted to enter the consideration of the court (mistrial if it does)? It seems to me to be in the realm of impossibility that the person would be innocent of both crimes, since being guilty of either is, IMHO, enough reason to put someone to death.

So, given that it such a system should be extremely unlikely to execute an innocent, and that such a system would only apply to people who have been legally demonstrated to be irreformable by their pattern of behavior, I feel that such a system is perfectly reasonable.

Now, this would also require changes to our prison system in order to improve its ability to reform people, and should the day ever come where we have the guaranteed ability to reform people, the death penalty would be effectively abolished, but I think that the former should be something we should do anyway, and the latter is a good thing too.

BlackGriffen

[The Ayatollah]

No to the death penalty. It's not really a penalty, but a relief for the evil-doers out there.

Put them to hard labour for the rest of the pathetic, worthless lives. If Saddam needs a job, he can come to this desert wasteland I'm in and polish the rocks in the 54°C (130°F) summer temperatures.

[BRussell]

I like your idea of upping the standard of proof. I'd like to see the standard of proof increase when the jury gets to the sentencing phase. To get the death penalty, increase it to "beyond the shadow of a doubt" or whatever, implying virtually 100% certainty. Eyewitnesses and confessions and fiber evidence just ain't good enough. Perhaps DNA evidence should be required. Right now, most juries are just asked to decide things like whether the defendant is likely to commit further violence, which - guess what - can't be reliably predicted anyway.

Also, stop selecting capital juries differently than other juries. If they get an anti-death-penalty person on the jury, so be it; there aren't too many anyway.

Also I'm not sure how you draw the line at "murderers and child molesters." If you have child molesters, what about rapists? And why include child molesters (not that I like them or anything, but I'm just curious how you came to your line)?

[Logic]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
No to the death penalty. It's not really a penalty, but a relief for the evil-doers out there.

Put them to hard labour for the rest of the pathetic, worthless lives. If Saddam needs a job, he can come to this desert wasteland I'm in and polish the rocks in the 54°C (130°F) summer temperatures.

Can someone check the temperature in Hell? I agree with Ayatollah..............

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Also I'm not sure how you draw the line at "murderers and child molesters." If you have child molesters, what about rapists? And why include child molesters (not that I like them or anything, but I'm just curious how you came to your line)?

First, because child molesters tend to be incurable/non-reformable. Second, because they require special protection from those the other people in lockup. Even to murderers and rapists, child molesters are the lowest of the low.

It isn't the nature of the crime alone. It's the nature of the crime couple with the nature of the victim.

I suppose I should say that I don't include statutory rape in the child molester category. Statutory rape is sick, but when the victim is beyond underage into pre-pubescent, that's beyond effing sick.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
No to the death penalty. It's not really a penalty, but a relief for the evil-doers out there.

Put them to hard labour for the rest of the pathetic, worthless lives. If Saddam needs a job, he can come to this desert wasteland I'm in and polish the rocks in the 54°C (130°F) summer temperatures.

I suppose I should address this, too. I'm not in to pointless torture. That's just sadistic and it's sick.

Well, I might as well elaborate one something I was trying to hold back. To me, successful reform and the death penalty are actually equivalent. Either way, one individual is coming to an end. The latter is preferable, though, because the individual has the chance to do it willingly (the only kind of reform we can achieve, at the moment) and the individual is replaced by another. There's that, and it avoids inspiring a visceral reaction in people.

So, for me execution isn't a penalty so much as it's a washing of the hands.

BlackGriffen

[slow moe]

I'm a Lib, so I only support it if there is a late term fetus envolved.

[zigzag]

I'm all for pointless torture, but I oppose the death penalty for the simple reason that the system is too flawed and I'd rather err on the side of caution. I don't see how anyone can look at the record we have of convicting innocent people and support the death penalty in its present form.

I agree in principle with the idea of raising the standard of proof for capital punishment. It's just that even DNA evidence is not 100% reliable - it requires a number of assumptions about the chain of evidence. The hair sample might match, but you still have to assume that the presence of the hair is proof of the crime, that the hair wasn't planted, that the lab is honest, etc.

That said, I would allow for exceptions where the evidence is irrefutable, e.g. videotaped evidence, corroborated confessions, brutal dictators, etc. Otherwise, I'd just as soon do without it. The benefits (which clearly do not include deterrence) don't justify the risks, and there are viable alternatives, e.g. life imprisonment. My state hasn't had the death penalty for many years and it hasn't made a dime's worth of difference.

[The Mick]

You cannot kill a killer without becoming a killer.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
First, because child molesters tend to be incurable/non-reformable.

That's a myth. Thieves, muggers, fencers, arsonists, etc. have a much higher recidivism rate than child molesters. But it depends on the nature of the crime: Men who molest girls in their families tend to not recidivate, whereas men who molest boys outside of their families do.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
fencers . . . have a much higher recidivism rate than child molesters.

Not surprising.

[OldManMac]

The death penalty is not about justice; it's about revenge. It is not a deterrent, as those who commit heinous crimes are operating in a different world than you and I, one where anger, rage, extreme jealousy, and other overpowering emotions rule, instead of logic. I'm always amazed that the state can tell people it's wrong to kill, yet kills its own citizens.

Two wrongs have never made a right, and never will, except to those who operate out of hate and anger, including those who would pass the ultimate judgement on another.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The death penalty is not about justice; it's about revenge. It is not a deterrent, as those who commit heinous crimes are operating in a different world than you and I, one where anger, rage, extreme jealousy, and other overpowering emotions rule, instead of logic. I'm always amazed that the state can tell people it's wrong to kill, yet kills its own citizens.

Two wrongs have never made a right, and never will, except to those who operate out of hate and anger, including those who would pass the ultimate judgement on another.

I can't say I agree. I couldn't care less about the "pay-back" element, and if execution aka. capital punishment is used to "punish" or for revenge, then it's wrong. Much like a tumor is removed from a body, capital punishment should be prudently used to remove destructive, unreclaimable elements from society.

Torture, torment, and punishment have no place in a corrections system. It's all about reform or removal. I personally advocate military boot camp type facilities in most instances, compounded with intense physical work and equally intense mental/emotional therapy. If the preponderance of evidence is irrefutable to warrant that person's "removal", then it should be carried out swiftly, economically, and without prejudice.

In the case of Saddam, if/when he's found guilty of the crimes he's alleged and is sentenced to death, I wouldn't have any problem with personally giving him a lethal injection, "flipping the switch", or putting a .45 slug behind his left ear.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
No to the death penalty. It's not really a penalty, but a relief for the evil-doers out there.

Put them to hard labour for the rest of the pathetic, worthless lives. If Saddam needs a job, he can come to this desert wasteland I'm in and polish the rocks in the 54°C (130°F) summer temperatures.

I say we make Saddam live with Zimphire.

That would be adequate revenge (if not a bit cruel for his crimes).

Saddam will wish he could live in that spiderhole.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's a myth. Thieves, muggers, fencers, arsonists, etc. have a much higher recidivism rate than child molesters. But it depends on the nature of the crime: Men who molest girls in their families tend to not recidivate, whereas men who molest boys outside of their families do.

Recidivism is about getting caught, not reform. So, if R is the recidivism rate, then 1 - R > reform rate (theoretically there's the possibility of equal to, but that presumes a 100% ability to unearth and prosecute crimes).

Child molestation cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, and also notorious for being hard to discover. It's not surprising that you'd see less recidivism among incestuous molesters because: family members tend to be trusted, and no guardian in their right mind would let a molester back in their home.

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

An interesting theory, but I think you'd agree that one must offer some positive evidence that it's true, don't you?

And what we do know about child molestation prosecutions is that it's notoriously easy to obtain convictions with them, regardless of the actual guilt of the accused.

[saab95]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
My own opinion is this: yes I support the death penalty, but only under very specific circumstances.

The reason the current capital punishment is so flawed is that it has become absent of principle. There are too many so-called mitigating circumstances utilized to spare the life of a killer.

When a man kills another in an unprovoked attack, he is depriving that other man of the most important right- the right to his life.

It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the death penalty is justifiable as punishment for such heinous act.

There is the valid concern of executing those who could later be determined to be innocent, however.

My opinion- the more flawed and weakened of principle the justice system is, the more likely the execution of innocents would be.

[MacGorilla]

Put them to hard labour for the rest of the pathetic, worthless lives. If Saddam needs a job, he can come to this desert wasteland I'm in and polish the rocks in the 54°C (130°F) summer temperatures.

I agree. The death penalty is the easy way out. Life imp[risonment with hard labor eight hours a day is more fitting in cases such as this.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
An interesting theory, but I think you'd agree that one must offer some positive evidence that it's true, don't you?

And what we do know about child molestation prosecutions is that it's notoriously easy to obtain convictions with them, regardless of the actual guilt of the accused.

You're the one trying to make a case about recidivism ~ reform. You find the statistics to bolster your claim. Without evidence that the recidivism ~ reform, your claim is moot, and I don't have to do squat.

Plus, please find evidence from before things like publishing the names of sex offenders was put in to place, seeing as how that distinctly breaks any possible equivalence between the recidivism rates of that versus other crimes.

Also since molestation is the kind of crime where you have to earn someone's trust to pull it off, you should probably compare it to other treacherous crimes instead of ones that can be committed against any random person.

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You're the one trying to make a case about recidivism ~ reform. You find the statistics to bolster your claim. Without evidence that the recidivism ~ reform, your claim is moot, and I don't have to do squat.

Plus, please find evidence from before things like publishing the names of sex offenders was put in to place, seeing as how that distinctly breaks any possible equivalence between the recidivism rates of that versus other crimes.

Also since molestation is the kind of crime where you have to earn someone's trust to pull it off, you should probably compare it to other treacherous crimes instead of ones that can be committed against any random person.

BlackGriffen

No you don't have to do squat, but normally when one makes a claim such as "child molesters tend to be incurable/non-reformable" you back it up in some fashion. But hey, this is the internet, so anything goes!

And if you take a criminal justice course or the like, you'll hear that this idea of the "incurable child molester" appears to be a myth. But if you have some new evidence, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I'm being picky with you mainly because, during the 1990s, we went through an awful child molestation hysteria that resulted in many innocent people being prosecuted and convicted. And just this week, we have the Michael Jackson case as well as the largest-ever settlement of a false conviction case in New York for child molesting, so maybe it's not over yet.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
No you don't have to do squat, but normally when one makes a claim such as "child molesters tend to be incurable/non-reformable" you back it up in some fashion. But hey, this is the internet, so anything goes!

And if you take a criminal justice course or the like, you'll hear that this idea of the "incurable child molester" appears to be a myth. But if you have some new evidence, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I'm being picky with you mainly because, during the 1990s, we went through an awful child molestation hysteria that resulted in many innocent people being prosecuted and convicted. And just this week, we have the Michael Jackson case as well as the largest-ever settlement of a false conviction case in New York for child molesting, so maybe it's not over yet.

Ha! I should have known we had a wack-o Jack-o fan on our hands.

I understand the desire to avoid witch hunts. That's precisely why I think the bar for executions should be set so high.

That said, I don't think anyone is inherently incurable, but I also think that it is beyond our present technology to reform pedophiles.

*shakes head*
I changed my mind, and decided to do some digging. I'm holding you responsible for some of the whacked anti-homosexual propaganda I came across. Including a site that euphamistically called electroshock therapy, "ferradic aversion therapy."

That said, here is some of the most credible stuff I found:

“At one time, the majority of people you would ask would have felt it might be possible to cure pedophilia,” said Frederick Berlin, a psychiatrist and one of the founders of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Behaviors Unit. “Now, we look at it more the way we learned to look at alcoholism. We can teach them ways not to succumb to these temptations. It’s a very different view than a cure. This is an enduring vulnerability.”
[...]
Yet, critics say none of these methods can assure that a patient does not offend further, and even caregivers concede the numbers aren’t there to prove effectiveness in a court of law.

“We have no decent data on treatment outcomes,” Prentky said. “There are a whole mishmash of results recorded. I don’t think it tells us very much.”

Excerpts from a Boston Globe article hosted here

Here's a really good one. With an excerpt:

The question may be simple, but the answer is elusive. Given the illegal, not to mention shameful, nature of sex offenses, you can't just ask offenders. "There are special problems with sex offender research," says Grossman. " How do you know if they recidivate unless there's an arrest or conviction record? But approximately 97 percent of sex offenses don't come to the attention of police, and fewer are convicted."
[...]
Three studies used the most reliable technique: randomly assigning offenders to treatment or a comparison group. One produced a highly effective OR of 0.22. Treated men in the second were more likely to reoffend, although the conclusion was not statistically reliable. The third found no difference from treatment!

Now, about letting old sparky give Jack-o back his natural skin color. </tasteless joke>

BlackGriffen

[wang_himself]

What ever happened to "kill them, kill them all, let god sort them out"?