First off...your comments never "muck up" my journal! If I just wanted to hear my own opinions, I wouldn't have any friends. I respect your thoughts on this as well, and I think that your position is certainly the more noble one. We can only go by our own experiences. I do think that there is more to executing someone than simple revenge, though. The whole issue is composed of shades of grey, really...impossible to put it in terms of black & white. So, I think there's a lot more to it than "revenge" and "bloodlust." And I too have heard the argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Frankly, in my opinion, I think that's bullshit. I think there are plenty of crooks out there who think twice before committing a capital crime because they know if they get caught, they'll get the needle. I'm suspicious that the study consisted of going and asking inmates already on death row whether the thought of the death penalty deterred them. Obviously, it didn't. But I can tell you that I know personally of several people who pulled out of a crime because they didn't want to get the death penalty. So it does happen.
I have also seen that it does "help" the families of the victims. And it's not such a simple thing as "bloodlust" or "revenge." My point of view on this is from what I've observed only, but it does give some people a sense of closure, safety, knowledge that no one else will have to be murdered by this person, relief...One woman explained it by saying that every day that the man who raped/tortured/murdered her child is alive is a day that her child goes through the ordeal again. Is that right? I don't know...but I'm not going to presume to tell a victim of a crime what I think "right" is for them.
Regarding the cost efficiency argument, I don't think that should even play into it. Justice should be done without regard to economics. Perhaps the cost of keeping someone in prison is less, but the cost of someone getting out and killing an innocent person again (and it does happen) is the much higher price.
I do think that there are changes that need to be made in the system, for everyone's benefit. But the bottom line for me is that there are certain things that a person can do that should cause them to lose their right to be in this world. I suspect that a lot of people who do not believe in capital punishment are those who have the luxury of insulation from the horrors of what some people can do to others.
I did work on this from the other side at one time. I worked at one time doing death penalty case appeals. I thought that maybe seeing the issue from a different perspective would change my views on capital punishment. I could write a whole book on this, but I can tell you that it only made me more sure that there are some cases where the death penalty is the only just course of action.
Like I said before, it's a complicated issue...and we don't have to agree. I think your opinion is certainly the kinder and more humane one. Unfortunately, the world I see close up (more closely than I would ever want sometimes) is not as gentle.
"bloodlust" was the wrong word to use. I was stupidly going for dramatic effect. sorry about that. Revenge I think still applies though. "eye for eye" is the most obvious applicable principal.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the study was conducted in exactly the way you suggested. It seems fairly obvious that those on death row weren't deterred by the punishment. Punishments do deter potential criminals; for example, I am deterred from driving too fast by all those $100 tickets and high insurance. I would be surprised though to hear that life imprisonment isn't just as strong a deterrent as the death penalty. Both punishments take the person's life away.
No one can say what is "right" for someone else, but we as a society have to decide and agree on what is lawful, and that is always a compromise among all voters (or should I say politicians) about what is "right". Maybe a better system would be one where the victim(s) decide what the punishment will be. Certainly in that case the death penalty would be applied even more frequently as well as various types of tortures no doubt, as long as they weren't judged to be "cruel and unusual". Possibly that would be more just. Things don't work that way though, so as a society we must decide what is right for every single person. You and I have decided what is "right" for that victim by performing our civic duty.
Some people don't deserve to live. I think that's probably true. I don't know if any of us is qualified to tell the difference though. Murderers make that decision without being granted authority... but having that authority granted doesn't make it right to kill someone. again, the question is "what is right"? if someone doesn't deserve to live... if someone in fact deserves to die, is it our duty to kill? the question, like "what is right", can only be answered by the individual asked. it is my opinion that more good comes out of living people than dead people and more bad comes out of killing people than letting them die. the "good" that can come out of executing someone is in giving victims peace of mind (whether that's good is arguable) and it makes the world a safer place (also arguable). The good that comes out of letting people live is less definable... maybe... criminals can experience regret (arguably implicitly good) and can possibly take action to make others stop and think of the consequences. People left alive can have unforseen impacts and while they're in prison that impact can be controlled. if they can't be kept in prison then we have more serious problems.
as for people (like myself ;) being "insulate[d] from the horrors of what some people can do to others". I don't know if there's any insulating going on. murder and other horrors just aren't a big part of peoples' lives, thankfully, and in a peaceful culture they will never be. Who is in the better position to construct the laws? those with a more "normal" experience or those who are more constantly dealing with and possibly being effected by violence? you could argue that the decisions require experience, or you could argue that those with experience have been too much removed from what is normal and humane.
I can see how working with murderers wouldn't make you want to keep them alive. no doubt, almost without exception, they're despicable people. I don't want to be a judge because I'd want to kill 'em all, but only because I'd be angry with what they've done. they can change and killing them deprives them of that chance. I cannot be dissuaded that changing killers would benefit everyone involved (except the deceased). I cannot agree that killing will ever be the only just course of action.
we will probably never agree about this, and I might argue forever. it has been a pleasure discussing it though. Thank you for the discussion and for being so interesting.
Sorry I didn't write earlier. This topic deserves a little think time.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I have also seen that it does "help" the families of the victims. And it's not such a simple thing as "bloodlust" or "revenge." My point of view on this is from what I've observed only, but it does give some people a sense of closure, safety, knowledge that no one else will have to be murdered by this person, relief...One woman explained it by saying that every day that the man who raped/tortured/murdered her child is alive is a day that her child goes through the ordeal again. Is that right? I don't know...but I'm not going to presume to tell a victim of a crime what I think "right" is for them.
Regarding the cost efficiency argument, I don't think that should even play into it. Justice should be done without regard to economics. Perhaps the cost of keeping someone in prison is less, but the cost of someone getting out and killing an innocent person again (and it does happen) is the much higher price.
I do think that there are changes that need to be made in the system, for everyone's benefit. But the bottom line for me is that there are certain things that a person can do that should cause them to lose their right to be in this world. I suspect that a lot of people who do not believe in capital punishment are those who have the luxury of insulation from the horrors of what some people can do to others.
I did work on this from the other side at one time. I worked at one time doing death penalty case appeals. I thought that maybe seeing the issue from a different perspective would change my views on capital punishment. I could write a whole book on this, but I can tell you that it only made me more sure that there are some cases where the death penalty is the only just course of action.
Like I said before, it's a complicated issue...and we don't have to agree. I think your opinion is certainly the kinder and more humane one. Unfortunately, the world I see close up (more closely than I would ever want sometimes) is not as gentle.
From:
no subject
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the study was conducted in exactly the way you suggested. It seems fairly obvious that those on death row weren't deterred by the punishment. Punishments do deter potential criminals; for example, I am deterred from driving too fast by all those $100 tickets and high insurance. I would be surprised though to hear that life imprisonment isn't just as strong a deterrent as the death penalty. Both punishments take the person's life away.
No one can say what is "right" for someone else, but we as a society have to decide and agree on what is lawful, and that is always a compromise among all voters (or should I say politicians) about what is "right". Maybe a better system would be one where the victim(s) decide what the punishment will be. Certainly in that case the death penalty would be applied even more frequently as well as various types of tortures no doubt, as long as they weren't judged to be "cruel and unusual". Possibly that would be more just. Things don't work that way though, so as a society we must decide what is right for every single person. You and I have decided what is "right" for that victim by performing our civic duty.
Some people don't deserve to live. I think that's probably true. I don't know if any of us is qualified to tell the difference though. Murderers make that decision without being granted authority... but having that authority granted doesn't make it right to kill someone. again, the question is "what is right"? if someone doesn't deserve to live... if someone in fact deserves to die, is it our duty to kill? the question, like "what is right", can only be answered by the individual asked. it is my opinion that more good comes out of living people than dead people and more bad comes out of killing people than letting them die. the "good" that can come out of executing someone is in giving victims peace of mind (whether that's good is arguable) and it makes the world a safer place (also arguable). The good that comes out of letting people live is less definable... maybe... criminals can experience regret (arguably implicitly good) and can possibly take action to make others stop and think of the consequences. People left alive can have unforseen impacts and while they're in prison that impact can be controlled. if they can't be kept in prison then we have more serious problems.
as for people (like myself ;) being "insulate[d] from the horrors of what some people can do to others". I don't know if there's any insulating going on. murder and other horrors just aren't a big part of peoples' lives, thankfully, and in a peaceful culture they will never be. Who is in the better position to construct the laws? those with a more "normal" experience or those who are more constantly dealing with and possibly being effected by violence? you could argue that the decisions require experience, or you could argue that those with experience have been too much removed from what is normal and humane.
I can see how working with murderers wouldn't make you want to keep them alive. no doubt, almost without exception, they're despicable people. I don't want to be a judge because I'd want to kill 'em all, but only because I'd be angry with what they've done. they can change and killing them deprives them of that chance. I cannot be dissuaded that changing killers would benefit everyone involved (except the deceased). I cannot agree that killing will ever be the only just course of action.
we will probably never agree about this, and I might argue forever. it has been a pleasure discussing it though. Thank you for the discussion and for being so interesting.
Sorry I didn't write earlier. This topic deserves a little think time.