Whats your view on EXECUTION?

Do you Agree with Execution?


  • Total voters
    33

JazzedUp

Bench Warmer
Dec 1, 2002
1,688
0
42
London
#21
I'm 100% agains it. We should respect and value life no matter how awful and unthinkable a crime is. I don't see how death penalty is going to help anyone.
 
Oct 18, 2002
6,139
0
Los Angeles, CA USA
#22
There is no clear line that can be drawn. Child rape? Ok, what age? 12? So raping a 13 year old isnt as bad?

What circumstances are punishable by death? Isnt this an arbitrary and subjective line?

Some of you want retribution. If someone killed or raped someone I love, I would rip their limbs off and wear their barely living torso as a backpack. But that has nothing to do with the state run legal system. Retribution has NO place in the criminal legal system. Laws must be to deter and/or rehabilitate. The death penalty does neither. Dont confuse problems with the prison system with the question of the death penalty, they are totally separate.
 

Natural

IPL Player
May 18, 2003
2,559
3
#23
his argument was when you keep someone in prison for LIFE it cost the community , it slowly kills them inside and it could be seen as a form for torture.

Killing another human being is the ultimate form of torture. so if one is concerned with torturing another human being, he should be 1000 times more concerned about killing a human being. I think your friend is being very hypocritical there.
 
Last edited:

Natural

IPL Player
May 18, 2003
2,559
3
#24
well i cant think of a better way to fix it. but i totally agree someone going to prison for LIFE doesn't help anyone !
how can you claim such a thing? jails keep away the criminals from society. so it directly helps everyone.
 

Natural

IPL Player
May 18, 2003
2,559
3
#25
I think one reason and only one reason should turn all the logical minds against capital punishment. and that is human error in any justice system.

How many times have we witnessed a wrong verdict being called, only to be successfully appealed years later. execution takes away that chance for good. if he or she later on is proved to be innocent, there is no way of bringing him/her back and "undoing" the mistake.

Capital punishment is permanent and absolute while human judgment is not.
 
Last edited:

R.BAGGIO

National Team Player
Oct 19, 2002
5,702
0
Toronto
#26
another messed up fact about the death sentence, although this is probably the case for other trials as well.

The average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought. A study found that those defendants whose representation was the least expensive, and thus who received the least amount of attorney and expert time, had an increased probability of receiving a death sentence. Defendants with less than $320,000 in terms of representation costs (the bottom 1/3 of federal capital trials) had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence at trial. On the other hand, those defendants whose representation costs were higher than $320,000 (the remaining 2/3 of federal capital trials) had only a 19% chance of being sentenced to death. Thus, the study concluded that defendants with low representation costs were more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence. The complete report can be found here.
 
Oct 20, 2003
9,345
1
#27
Dear R. Gaggio, I do not think that there is a dispute about the fact that people with money would get better legal representation, a case in point is O.J. Simpson whom many people thought was guilty but had money and hired the best lawyers money can get.
The point is not (at least in my mind) whether it is possible to wrongly convict someone to capital punishment. Rather, the point what would be the approprate punishment for say someone who has raped killed children and his guilt is proven beyond any reasonable doubt thru irrefutable evidence, would it be fit to put such a creature to death as a punishment for his crime, or should he rot in jail?
 

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
0
#28
There is no clear line that can be drawn. Child rape? Ok, what age? 12? So raping a 13 year old isnt as bad?
By this logic all age-related laws are wrong. Who's to say a 15 year old is less able to consent to have sex on film than an 18 year old? What if the 15 year old is really smart and the 18 year old is dumb?...How do we know a 17 year old can drive better than a 16 year old?...ditto for child marriage, child labor, and gambling/drinking laws.

Retribution has NO place in the criminal legal system.
This seems more like an opinion than an absolute principle. I think those who use the term 'paying one's debt to society' have a more retributive definition of the system.

Laws must be to deter and/or rehabilitate. The death penalty does neither. Dont confuse problems with the prison system with the question of the death penalty, they are totally separate.
But jail terms have a great element of retribution to them too. How can we lock human beings in a cement cage for months and even years just because they stole someone's property? Shouldn't we just deter them with a hefty fine and rehabilitate them with ethics lessons on stealing?
 
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
2
#29
How many times have we witnessed a wrong verdict being called, only to be successfully appealed years later. execution takes away that chance for good. if he or she later on is proved to be innocent, there is no way of bringing him/her back and "undoing" the mistake.

Capital punishment is permanent and absolute while human judgment is not.
I agree, and this is my argument against capital punishment too.

It is a more logical argument than the moral line you drew about execution being a form of torture. It is not. If anything, jailing a human being for life is a lot more like torture than a swift execution.
 

R.BAGGIO

National Team Player
Oct 19, 2002
5,702
0
Toronto
#30
Dear R. Gaggio, I do not think that there is a dispute about the fact that people with money would get better legal representation, a case in point is O.J. Simpson whom many people thought was guilty but had money and hired the best lawyers money can get.
The point is not (at least in my mind) whether it is possible to wrongly convict someone to capital punishment. Rather, the point what would be the approprate punishment for say someone who has raped killed children and his guilt is proven beyond any reasonable doubt thru irrefutable evidence, would it be fit to put such a creature to death as a punishment for his crime, or should he rot in jail?
well, my point is that the legal system is not as cut and dry as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. You look at the correlation between money spent and the sentencing, 'reasonable doubt' can be manufactured with the right lawyer or can be squashed with the right D.A. I'm saying we are dealing with people and reasonable is a very subjective term and as we say in Iran 'bashar jayezol khatast'. Although capital punishment might be the kindest thing you can do to a child molester, going to prison would be a much more inhumane punishment.
 
Oct 18, 2002
6,139
0
Los Angeles, CA USA
#31
By this logic all age-related laws are wrong. Who's to say a 15 year old is less able to consent to have sex on film than an 18 year old? What if the 15 year old is really smart and the 18 year old is dumb?...How do we know a 17 year old can drive better than a 16 year old?...ditto for child marriage, child labor, and gambling/drinking laws.

Wrong. This has to do with the age of the victim, not the age of the defendant. They are completely separate and distinct. When it comes to age of the victim, the key issue is not culpability, but rather the level of deterrence and the degree of their crime. There are already laws on the books that have different punishments for the age of a rape victim. My point was that making one punishable by death is a much bigger distinction than simply increasing the number of years punishable.


This seems more like an opinion than an absolute principle. I think those who use the term 'paying one's debt to society' have a more retributive definition of the system.

Actually it has been articulated by many legal scholars and is taught in every law school. Retribution has very little if not zero value to the criminal legal system. "Paying one's debt to society" is not taught in any law school, not practiced in any court (by any reputable judge), and has no meaning outside the public banter.


But jail terms have a great element of retribution to them too. How can we lock human beings in a cement cage for months and even years just because they stole someone's property? Shouldn't we just deter them with a hefty fine and rehabilitate them with ethics lessons on stealing?

What would deter you more? 3 years in prison or a $50,000 fine?
There is no benefit what so ever with having retribution as a part of the criminal legal system
 
Last edited:

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
0
#32
Wrong. This has to do with the age of the victim, not the age of the defendant.
The same logic still applies. Classifying the murder of 10 year old's as child murder relies on the same reasoning as defining the employment of a 10 year old as child labor. Both consider the helplessness and vulnerability of the person involved.

My point was that making one punishable by death, is a much bigger distinction that simply increasing the number of years punishable.
Fair enough.

What would deter you more? 3 years in prison or a $50,000 fine?
First, that's completely subjective. To many career criminals who've been in and out of jail all their lives, prison is a second home. A very famous case is Charles Manson who upon being released at the age of 32, filed a petition to remain in jail. He had spent so much of his life there he had no desire to live in the real world.

But that's a side issue. The point is- when talking about retribution and its place in the legal system -locking a thief in a small cell for months and years seems much more about punishment than deterrence or rehabilitation.
 
Oct 18, 2002
6,139
0
Los Angeles, CA USA
#33
The same logic still applies. Classifying the murder of 10 year old's as child murder relies on the same reasoning as defining the employment of a 10 year old as child labor. Both consider the helplessness and vulnerability of the person involved.
No its not the same logic. Punishing someone who might be less culpable (younger age) and the degree of punishment based on the age of their victim (goes to severity of crime) are COMPLETELY different. Just because it has to do with age and the intricacies of age, does not make the analysis the same. It couldn't be any more different.
First, that's completely subjective. To many career criminals who've been in and out of jail all their lives, prison is a second home. A very famous case is Charles Manson who upon being released at the age of 32, filed a petition to remain in jail. He had spent so much of his life there he had no desire to live in the real world.

But that's a side issue. The point is- when talking about retribution and its place in the legal system -locking a thief in a small cell for months and years seems much more about punishment than deterrence or rehabilitation.
This isnt subjective. It is based on the general sense of society. Some people might like getting a snake shoved up their ass. The point is that there must be some type of deterrence, since that is the best way to keep people from committing a crime. Most people are deterred by the fear of prison. You can call it "punishment", but that alone doesnt further society.

BTW, for someone like Charles Manson, there is no deterrent, a fine isnt going to work either, LOL
 
Oct 18, 2002
6,139
0
Los Angeles, CA USA
#35
Yes, but only for those who commit FIRST Degree murder or is a member of IRI.
Not that simple...

A man's daughter is raped. 2 years later rapist is acquitted because police did not read miranda rights and questioning lead to discovery of evidence used to convict him was thrown out. Man shoots rapist a week later.

A desperate father decides to rob a bank. His gun is not loaded but he uses it to scare teller into filling his bag with money. When fleeing the cops open fire when they see the gun, innocent woman is shot and killed by police.


Both of these are first degree murder (second via felony murder rule). These should get the death penalty?
 
Last edited:

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
0
#37
No its not the same logic. Punishing someone who might be less culpable (younger age) and the degree of punishment based on the age of their victim (goes to severity of crime) are COMPLETELY different.
But why does it have to be? Remember, this thread is about what we believe in, not what is practiced under common law.

I believe the rape of a child should be punishable by death. I also believe it's ridiculous for a pot dealer to serve the same jail term as an armed robber. But it can happen and it's the "law". That doesn't change my belief that it's wrong. That's not what we're arguing here.

Most people are deterred by the fear of prison. You can call it "punishment", but that alone doesnt further society.
That point is if we accept the idea that death is only a retribution for murderers, then jail can also be considered an over-the-top retribution for thieves, since a large monetary fine could be considered quite deterring yet less harsh and 'punitive'.
 
Oct 18, 2002
6,139
0
Los Angeles, CA USA
#38
But why does it have to be? Remember, this thread is about what we believe in, not what is practiced under common law.

I believe the rape of a child should be punishable by death. I also believe it's ridiculous for a pot dealer to serve the same jail term as an armed robber. But it can happen and it's the "law". That doesn't change my belief that it's wrong. That's not what we're arguing here.
Again those are two different things. I am not arguing what the law is. I am arguing the rational of the criminal legal system as a whole. I dont think that ANY drug offense should be criminal. But thats my opinion and neither here nor there.

You dont seem to understand the difference between the two as I have pointed out above.

Culpability (age of defendant) has to do with the mental capacity of the one who commits the crime. Punishing someone that is incapable of making a judgment based on reason (insane or too young) does not serve society because there is zero deterrence due to the fact that the defendants cannot understand the levity of their actions. Hence punishing them has no function as to the rest of the system.

Severity of the Crime (age of victim) only goes to the degree of punishment. Sort of like the difference between petty theft and grand larceny. The analysis is the level of deterrence, harming children is seen as the worst thing someone can do, so the punishments are harsher.

* My point is easy. When it comes to culpability the question is clear, can the defendant reasonably weight right and wrong and does he understand the levity of his actions. The age of 18 has been used because they usually (there are exceptions to this rule) reach a level of maturity around that age. However drawing a line as to the severity of the crime with the death penalty, is arbitrary and rather ridiculous.

That point is if we accept the idea that death is only a retribution for murderers, then jail can also be considered an over-the-top retribution for thieves, since a large monetary fine could be considered quite deterring yet less harsh and 'punitive'.
Again, why are you stuck on this. I never said the death penalty is only retribution. Both Prison and the Death Penalty is a form of deterrence. However, one has been effective and the other has not. Read the literature.

BTW, you have to have some uniformity. Lets say they had fines for many crimes. Rich people do whatever they liked without prison, since any fine is not a real deterrent. If you only fined poor people, then prison would only be for rich people. Doesnt work. Most punishments have both. A fine and Prison, so both rich and poor alike are deterred ;)
 
Last edited:

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
0
#39
Again those are two different things. I am not arguing what the law is. I am arguing the rational of the criminal legal system as a whole.
Which criminal legal system as a whole are we talking about here? The Saudis have a 'legal system' too, and according to their rationale, your hands will be cut off for stealing a loaf of bread.

Again, the whole theme of this thread is our rationale, not that of 'the criminal legal system as a whole'. Based on my philosophy, the rape of a child should carry a much harsher sentence than the rape of an adult. If you disagree with it, fine. But I don't care if the legal system sees it differently. This is a hypothetical discussion.

The age of 18 has been used because they usually (there are exceptions to this rule) reach a level of maturity around that age. However drawing a line as to the severity of the crime with the death penalty, is arbitrary and rather ridiculous.
According to the law, if I have sex with an 18 year old I'm a stud...If I have sex with a girl who is 17 years and 364 days old, I'm a criminal, will most likely go to jail, and will have to inform my neighbors that a registered sex offender lives in their neighborhood! In other words, my life is ruined.

If arbitrary age lines already exist to determine the occurrence of crime, how is it ridiculous to suggest they should exist to determine the severity of punishment?

Again, why are you stuck on this. I never said the death penalty is only retribution. Both Prison and the Death Penalty is a form of deterrence. However, one has been effective and the other has not. Read the literature.
I have. And it's not as conclusive as you think. There are compelling arguments on both sides. Here's just one research arguing for the deterring effectiveness of the death penalty (coincidentally published by an Iranian).:)

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment.pdf
 
Oct 18, 2002
6,139
0
Los Angeles, CA USA
#40
Which criminal legal system as a whole are we talking about here? The Saudis have a 'legal system' too, and according to their rationale, your hands will be cut off for stealing a loaf of bread.

Again, the whole theme of this thread is our rationale, not that of 'the criminal legal system as a whole'. Based on my philosophy, the rape of a child should carry a much harsher sentence than the rape of an adult. If you disagree with it, fine. But I don't care if the legal system sees it differently. This is a hypothetical discussion.

I was using the US model as a basis, but it doesnt matter, it can be hypothetical. I agree, the rape of a minor is worse than the rape of an adult. Hence more deterrence.

According to the law, if I have sex with an 18 year old I'm a stud...If I have sex with a girl who is 17 years and 364 days old, I'm a criminal, will most likely go to jail, and will have to inform my neighbors that a registered sex offender lives in their neighborhood! In other words, my life is ruined.

Its really not that cut and dry. I assure you. Without getting into the specifics, the point of the law is to protect minors from being coerced into sex, when they are not mature enough to understand their actions. There needs to strict line, but there are circumstances that can change the outcome. Also depends on weather strict liability or knowledge is required.

If arbitrary age lines already exist to determine the occurrence of crime, how is it ridiculous to suggest they should exist to determine the severity of punishment?

You over simplify the situation. One law exists to protect children from being coerced. A maturity line needs to be drawn or the law becomes completely ineffective. Its a matter of necessity. The death penalty being imposed on the rape of a 12 year old, but not the rape of a 13 year old, does NOTHING. Also what if the person thought she was 18. You are going to kill someone based on strict liability? Come on...


I have. And it's not as conclusive as you think. There are compelling arguments on both sides. Here's just one research arguing for the deterring effectiveness of the death penalty (coincidentally published by an Iranian).:)

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment.pdf
That study is horseshit. It was written by Econ Professor. Try reading this one, its by Law Professors:

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/DeathPenalty(ALER).pdf