Proportional Crime and Punishment

[Homsar]

So this is interesting. (http://www.local12.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=0ce94504-db9d-437f-badf-859b8b0c1ee6)

The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual (and therefore disallowed) when applied to those guilty of raping a child, if the child does not die. I know this has been a hot button issue here, but now it's a law. Any new thoughts?

[Duemellon]

Life is a chance. Whether there's a lot of life left, half, or very little. When people talk about having to carry a lifetime of pain & suffering from surviving an attack, abuse, or other hardship, the alternative is... they could've been dead.

Of course we get those people who still think it's better that some of those survivors of such things are dead. Oh wait... I take that back... they'd never say that. They'd rather say it sucks they have to live with it, but it's a worse life then they'd have to bear if they were dead. Or some equivalent statement with "nuance".

[Buzzstein]

I think the death penalty should be done away with. Period.

[Tweak Tweak]

I think the death penalty should be done away with. Period.

Second that.

[dannyboy]

I've always found it interesting that those with the strongest convictions about the death penalty are also usually those with deep religious convictions, which often center around a deep rooted belief in an afterlife. If there is an eternal afterlife for our "souls" that will ultimately be rewarded or punished based on our deeds in this existence, then what does it matter if one lives or dies as part of their punishment for crimes committed?

[Duemellon]

I've always found it interesting that those with the strongest convictions about the death penalty are also usually those with deep religious convictions, which often center around a deep rooted belief in an afterlife. If there is an eternal afterlife for our "souls" that will ultimately be rewarded or punished based on our deeds in this existence, then what does it matter if one lives or dies as part of their punishment for crimes committed?Their belief systems include details about an afterlife with punishment/reward systems, however, the fact they also support the death penalty is a byproduct of their worldview, not because of their religious beliefs (although they'd confuse it as well).

If you're going to believe there's more than just beneficial/harmful results but actual morality attached to actions even when/if removed from intent of the perpetrators, then you're going to believe in a dichotomous model of Right/Wrong with clear absolutes & punishments/rewards.

Therefore, even though they also tend to believe such judgmental & punishment/reward-based religions, it's how they view how life is as well. So there's no jump of the imagination to say they'd apply that to crime/punishment.

[the_birds]

I've always found it interesting that those with the strongest convictions about the death penalty are also usually those with deep religious convictions, which often center around a deep rooted belief in an afterlife. If there is an eternal afterlife for our "souls" that will ultimately be rewarded or punished based on our deeds in this existence, then what does it matter if one lives or dies as part of their punishment for crimes committed?

Let's expound on that for a minute, because its an excellent point.

Let's say you're a Christian. You were violently abused as a child, by someone close to your Mom, let's say its her boyfriend that she loves dearly. She's constantly choosing him over you, so you think its pointless to tell her. Whatever. You grow up, you have this irrepressible desire to have sex with a child. You push it down to the deep part of your brain, but one day it explodes and you rape a child, you get caught and convicted and sentenced to the death penalty and executed.

Okay, now you're God. You're omnipotent and omniscient. This soul is waiting to be judged and you see that he's a victim of the same action that he's been convicted of, and that he's a Christian and he's asked you for forgiveness and you, having all-knowing ability, forgive him and let him enjoy Heaven free from all burden and guilt for eternity. After all, you're God and you know the cycle of abuse is generational and largely out of control.

Now, what has the jury and justice system done with their conviction and execution of this criminal?

They've given him an express ticket to Heaven.

No matter what, Judges, juries, prosecutors, police and frikken CSI don't know all the facts. The ONLY way to guarantee a convict gets punished for the maximum amount of time, is to let that person rot in jail for the rest of his life, then he dies. Same difference.

You aren't guaranteed giving someone Hell by the death penalty. You don't know.

[lutz]

I think the Classicists had it right when they suggested that punishment should be proportional to the crime, appropriate and swift. Not quite lex talionis style, but fair IMO.

[berzerker]

I'm pro-death penalty, and pro-choice...

Go figure.

[the happy prole]

That stance makes more sense than the two more traditional viewpoints.

I don't really see why religious belief should make a difference.

I mean, from a scientific standpoint we are all born and then we all die. Accelerating a few individual deaths by 30 or so years doesn't make a difference.

[berzerker]

That stance makes more sense than the two more traditional viewpoints.

I don't really see why religious belief should make a difference.

I mean, from a scientific standpoint we are all born and then we all die. Accelerating a few individual deaths by 30 or so years doesn't make a difference.

Biologically, true. Unfortunately, since religion is based on law, and our laws are heavily influenced by religion, they are all tied up together, and you get into issues such as "well, if you put someone to death, they won't have time to redeem themselves," or "how does it affect my own spiritual balance if I 'allow' someone to be killed (however righteously...) and don't do everything I can to prevent it?"

[Duemellon]

I'm pro-death penalty, and pro-choice...

Go figure.So am I. But I'm having problems figuring out when I believe the death penalty should be levied, so in essence... since I believe the death penalty has it's place but can't think of a means to justify it's implementation, essentially I'm anti-death penalty.

confusing eh?

As for the laws be derived from religious laws...[Biologically, true. Unfortunately, since religion is based on law, and our laws are heavily influenced by religion, they are all tied up togetherIf they're religious & believe in a judgmental afterlife with additional punishments/rewards "earned" for behavior (more than just the natural consequences of actions) then they'll support a black/white rule-based law of absolutes, rigidly defined with reciprocity disguised as "justice".

Those who don't view the world in such absolutes/judgment won't have much desire to create or enforce such boundaried responses to behaviors.

So yah, the rigidly religious who believe in a cosmic judgment on behavior will be more inclined to find laws & punishments/awards to be appealing to them. So they would base what they feel the laws should be based on what they already viewed the world to be. They aren't going to change their minds from religion to secular & discard their views along the way.

[akip]

i don't particularly like the death penalty, since it's basically just "revenge," though i can't get too upset when some particularly sadistic killer gets the jolt or the needle.

i think it's tough on the personnel who have to carry it out. i wouldn't do it, therefore i'm not so sure i'd expect somebody else to throw the switch in my behalf.

[dannyboy]

I personally equate "justice" with "restitution". When someone is murdered, what is the restitution for taking that life? I personally don't think that it's anything that can have an attached dollar amount. Therefore, how does executing the murderer pay restitution? The only restitution I can foresee is for that person to become reformed and share their story and perhaps persuade others that are heading down that path to change their ways which ultimately benefits society as a whole. Of course, it's absolutely no guarantee that it will happen like that. However, it is 100% guaranteed NOT to happen if that person is executed, especially if the sentence is carried out relatively quickly. Justice as "revenge" only satisfies a primitive emotional response for a relatively short period of time. Often, revenge begets revenge, even if not on the same level as the initial act. I personally don't think that justice will ever be perfect because we as humans fall short of perfection.

[Duemellon]

I personally equate "justice" with "restitution".Some simply don't see the additional punishments/awards as being artificial, but as a reasonasble consequence. Even though it's a manifestation of emotional response & not really related to the crime, the outcome, attempts at recovery or restitution.

They honestly feel a slap on the hand is directly related to the wrongdoing, not that the slap on the hand is artificially introduced as a means by the enforcer to express dislike or satisfy their own emotional response.

[markalot]

I am currently against the death penalty because I see problems in the justice system that could allow an innocent person to be killed. Once those problems are fixed, say with DNA evidence being required, then I would like to see it applied to more crimes.

[the_birds]

The Death Penalty is more expensive on governments than life in prison w/o the possibility of parole.

The Death Penalty is less punishment than life in prison w/o the possibility of parole.

The Death Penalty is less morale than life in prison w/o the possibility of parole.

I just don't see the point in it. Its stupid.

[classicgrrl]

I am currently against the death penalty because I see problems in the justice system that could allow an innocent person to be killed. Once those problems are fixed, say with DNA evidence being required, then I would like to see it applied to more crimes.

I am currently against the death penalty because it doesn't work.
and it's expensive as hell.

[Duemellon]

originally posted by the_birds
The Death Penalty is more expensive on governments than life in prison w/o the possibility of parole.

originally posted by classicgrrl
...it's expensive as hell.If cost was really your concern (which it's not the only concern you have I recognize) the part that makes it so expensive is the appeal process.

What's funny is that the appeal process is in place to allow the condemned a chance to say they were sentenced in error. So, the process of finding the conviction & metting out the death sentence gives itself this opportunity to be proven wrong.

If the process of finding them guilty & the punishment is so absolute & irrevocable, why put in a "failsafe" option? Why say, "Ok, we could be wrong, so here's your opportunity(ies) to prove us wrong."?

I know, I know, the 1st response is "it's there because people would complain if the appeal option wasn't there". I'm just saying there's a contradiction. If you're going to say in a courtroom that without a doubt the individual bears the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt & the artificial punishment equals the death sentence, then why leave room for a reasonable doubt to come up?

Because you could've gotten it wrong?

Isn't that "could've" enough for you to say to yourself that, yes,... indeed,... it's possible we are killing someone who doesn't deserve that degree of punishment, but as of what we know now they do.

[classicgrrl]

If cost was really your concern (which it's not the only concern you have I recognize) the part that makes it so expensive is the appeal process.

What's funny is that the appeal process is in place to allow the condemned a chance to say they were sentenced in error. So, the process of finding the conviction & metting out the death sentence gives itself this opportunity to be proven wrong.

If the process of finding them guilty & the punishment is so absolute & irrevocable, why put in a "failsafe" option? Why say, "Ok, we could be wrong, so here's your opportunity(ies) to prove us wrong."?

I know, I know, the 1st response is "it's there because people would complain if the appeal option wasn't there". I'm just saying there's a contradiction. If you're going to say in a courtroom that without a doubt the individual bears the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt & the artificial punishment equals the death sentence, then why leave room for a reasonable doubt to come up?

Because you could've gotten it wrong?

Isn't that "could've" enough for you to say to yourself that, yes,... indeed,... it's possible we are killing someone who doesn't deserve that degree of punishment, but as of what we know now they do.

it still doesn't work. doesn't deter anybody from doing anything. criminals, like the rest of us, are over-confident and assume they won't get caught. crime deterrance is a myth.

[Duemellon]

it still doesn't work. doesn't deter anybody from doing anything. criminals, like the rest of us, are over-confident and assume they won't get caught. crime deterrance is a myth.I actually won't accept that as true. If handguns were made illegal there would be plenty of law-abiding citizens who wouldn't violate the law to get a gun. Just like drunk driving. When it was finally made into a law a lot of people have been making the decision not to violate that law.

Yes, plenty of people don't obey the law. Many of them don't believe they'll be caught. Some have no impulse control. Some feel the risk is worth it. There's as many reasons to commit a crime as there are not to commit a crime, but the typical person choses not to commit a crime.

Of course, if we're talking about downloading movies & music, suddenly the lack of effective deterrunt comes back into play.

I guess I think your statement was just a bit too absolute. U'kno?

[classicgrrl]

I actually won't accept that as true. If handguns were made illegal there would be plenty of law-abiding citizens who wouldn't violate the law to get a gun. Just like drunk driving. When it was finally made into a law a lot of people have been making the decision not to violate that law.

Yes, plenty of people don't obey the law. Many of them don't believe they'll be caught. Some have no impulse control. Some feel the risk is worth it. There's as many reasons to commit a crime as there are not to commit a crime, but the typical person choses not to commit a crime.

Of course, if we're talking about downloading movies & music, suddenly the lack of effective deterrunt comes back into play.

I guess I think your statement was just a bit too absolute. U'kno?


law abiding citizens are usually not criminals nor the type of folks that would committ the type of crime that involves the death penalty.

[the_birds]

What's funny is that the appeal process is in place to allow the condemned a chance to say they were sentenced in error. So, the process of finding the conviction & metting out the death sentence gives itself this opportunity to be proven wrong.

If the process of finding them guilty & the punishment is so absolute & irrevocable, why put in a "failsafe" option? Why say, "Ok, we could be wrong, so here's your opportunity(ies) to prove us wrong."?

No, that's not the only reason. The appeal of a death penalty sentence is AUTOMATIC, from the State, not the convict. It serves the multiple purposes like an automatic failsafe to the process for the States, because its the Death penalty, isn't it? You can't bring the victim back if you're wrong. It nullifies any number of potential problems to the due process (pun intended) of a Death Penalty convict. Not to mention, its the only practical way to properly defend the ability to conduct Capital punishments in today's America. Without it, its possible that the backlash would preclude the ability for States to retain it as an option.

Because you could've gotten it wrong?

Isn't that "could've" enough for you to say to yourself that, yes,... indeed,... it's possible we are killing someone who doesn't deserve that degree of punishment, but as of what we know now they do.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, but if you're advocating or stating some kind of defense of an erosion of the Convicts' rights in a Capital punishment conviction, there are plenty of real world examples, like people who are alive and well, because they were railroaded by overzealous prosecutors (see current Dallas county debacle) and any number of other reasons (see Illinois moratorium on executions).

The Death penalty as a viable conviction is broken. There are simply too many chances for Human error in navigating the innumerable actions, hurdles and constructs for there to be cost-effective way to conduct a Lethal injection.

The #1 reason I object to the death penalty, is that I don't think its enough punishment.

The cost-efficacy of terminating the Death Penalty is the best way of reaching out to the conservatives who most vehemently support it.

[The_Deacon]

I hate this forum because it is filled with too much hate and over thinking. Having said that, I have a take on this subject.

Heaven, Earth, Hell, Religion and soul placement have nothing to do with child rape.

You rape a child, YOU FUCKING DIE.

PS - "A Time To Kill" is on of my favorite movies.

[frizgolf]

I hate this forum because it is filled with too much hate and over thinking. Having said that, I have a take on this subject.

Heaven, Earth, Hell, Religion and soul placement have nothing to do with child rape.

You rape a child, YOU FUCKING DIE.

PS - "A Time To Kill" is on of my favorite movies.

Oh, the other prisoners will definitely try.

[dannyboy]

You rape a child, YOU FUCKING DIE.



What if you rape an adult paraplegic, or an autistic adult?

[Mr. Mystery]

What if you rape an adult paraplegic, or an autistic adult?

Or an able-bodied, normally-functioning adult?

Why is the rape of my niece worse than the rape of my mom?

[Duemellon]

law abiding citizens are usually not criminals nor the type of folks that would committ the type of crime that involves the death penalty.By it's very definition, a "law abiding citizen" can't be someone who breaks a law to any degree :þ

I later specified the "typical" person as the ones who don't normally break laws. They do jaywalk, have collegiate-stagetory rape, drink underaged, & download *gasp* media illegally... they are not "law abiding" but they probably won't break laws just to own a gun if they were banned. They won't break the laws to kill someone since murder is banned. They occassionally straddle the fence on more blurry laws (date rape, trespassing, menacing, speeding, harassment, etc.)

The fact there is a punishment associated with disobedience does disuade them from acting illicitly.

[Duemellon]

I don't know what you are trying to say here, but if you're advocating or stating some kind of defense of an erosion of the Convicts' rights in a Capital punishment conviction, there are plenty of real world examples, like people who are alive and well, because they were railroaded by overzealous prosecutors (see current Dallas county debacle) and any number of other reasons (see Illinois moratorium on executions).Uhm,... then you missed the point I was saying.

The fact that an appeal process happens at all shows there's doubt. The idea that the only way a death penalty can happen is if we actively doubt it, repeatedly, pretty much emphasizes how extreme/absolute it is & how uncertain we are.

We're uncertain out of necessity because we realize the gravity of it. However, if the trial was honest, open, & properly conducted, it's decision should be absolute.

As for having examples of times when the death penalty was done with questionable decisions by the judicial system, there's plenty of them. Some which have shown it's usage as a sociopolitical tactic, not just a miscarriage of justice.

[frizgolf]

I agree. There is a significant portion of the population that would run you off the road just to make the next green light if it was legal. There are others who would bump off rivals climbing the corporate ladder, or do in their bosses.
The disincentive of prosecution keeps 'em from doing it.
In the heat of the moment, our brain processes economic decisions in a micro-second. Cost of consequences vs. advantage earned type thing. Most folks come out on the sane side of things. The ones with bad wiring, either through genetics or caffeine abuse, are the ones who make the news.

[Duemellon]

You rape a child, YOU FUCKING DIE.
What if you rape an adult paraplegic, or an autistic adult?

Or an able-bodied, normally-functioning adult?

Why is the rape of my niece worse than the rape of my mom?Some people believe such a thing shows a degree of depravity that is unsalvagable because kids are more innocent & trusting than others.

Some focus on the burden the child will have to carry for the rest of their lives.

Some focus on the fact that someone who is violated later in life had a better opportunity for a "normal" life & can recover easier.

Etc. etc.

The bottom line is that someone who rapes is taking advantage of the fact that the other person was powerless to stop them. Whether they put up a fight, had been conned into it, or capitulated instantly.

[the_birds]

However, if the trial was honest, open, & properly conducted, it's decision should be absolute.

That's crazy. You're dealing with someone's life, you get an automatic review. That part of the Death Penalty is not broken.

[Duemellon]

That's crazy. You're dealing with someone's life, you get an automatic review. That part of the Death Penalty is not broken.Uhm... again,... I think you're looking at my statement under a different context than was intended.

I'm saying the fact that we feel compelled to have an auto-review of the process indicates that we don't even believe ourselves. Why do something that we're going to constantly second-guess when dealing with someone's life?

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that I'm basically agreeing with you for the same reasons you're saying I'm wrong for. ??

[markalot]

I'm saying the fact that we feel compelled to have an auto-review of the process indicates that we don't even believe ourselves. Why do something that we're going to constantly second-guess when dealing with someone's life?

Yep, and I agree. If the original trial was flawed or corrupt it appears, based on many overturned cases, that the review process is also flawed.

[the happy prole]

Should we not have any trials at all then? Because there's an appeal for everything. Going outside of the legal system, should people never double-check their measurements when building things or take another look at the data before acting on it?

An appeal is merely an acknowledgment that people make mistakes, an acknowledgment that should be built into every decision process. The more serious the potential consequence, the more you ought to evaluate/re-evaluate the decision.

[markalot]

Not everything is cut and dry, and I reject the use of the death penalty when you can't prove the guilt of the accused with scientific evidence. When the science can prove guilt the death should be swift.

[Duemellon]

Should we not have any trials at all then? Because there's an appeal for everything. Going outside of the legal system, should people never double-check their measurements when building things or take another look at the data before acting on it?

An appeal is merely an acknowledgment that people make mistakes, an acknowledgment that should be built into every decision process. The more serious the potential consequence, the more you ought to evaluate/re-evaluate the decision.The gravity of the punishment is what auto-triggers an appeal. In all other trials appeals are optional.

To me, having there be an opportunity for doubt for something as absolute & irrevocable is the concern. I'm saying there should be NO doubt to the point where appeals are silly wastes of time.

Because we can't do such in most of those cases, I say never assign the death penalty.

[classicgrrl]

can't we just kill every one who is in our prisons - and kill anyone who breaks any law?

would solve a mess of problems and serve an end to this discussion.

[Dirk]

law abiding citizens are usually not criminals nor the type of folks that would committ the type of crime that involves the death penalty.
Except that every criminal started out as a law abiding citizen. There is always a first crime that someone commits, and until that point they are a law abiding citizen.

As for the death penalty, I am for it in theory, but the practice is so flawed currently I can't support it. I truly believe there are some people that have nothing left to offer society and cannot be rehabilitated, but I certainly don't trust our current system to find those people. I think the death penalty should require a higher standard of proof than just a plain conviction.

[Duemellon]

As for the death penalty, I am for it in theory, but the practice is so flawed currently I can't support it. I truly believe there are some people that have nothing left to offer society and cannot be rehabilitated, but I certainly don't trust our current system to find those people. I think the death penalty should require a higher standard of proof than just a plain conviction.I agree with him. Except to do so I'd have to create a much longer post. Involving fancy formatting & indentations as well as analogies & using a lot more "what I thinks" & such like that. Maybe even insert a few statements about nuances & being novel.

With a separate single sentence to close like this one.

[the happy prole]

The gravity of the punishment is what auto-triggers an appeal.

Right. It's not so much a reflection of the inaccuracy of the initial trial that triggers an appeal but the stakes involved.

I'm with markalot on this. The real problem is not so much the fact that an appeal is given but that even WITH multiple appeals, it still isn't accurate enough.

I think we're all on the same page on this one, you just kind of worded your initial post a bit weirdly, as if it was the appeal that was the problem. That's what the_birds was reacting to as well.