Capital Punishment: Justified or Not?

Many have been executed and many are yet to be from Jesus to Ken Saro-Wiwa to Saddam.

Is there any crime/action the justifies execution?

Yes! If someone has killed more than one human being, I think such a person deserves execution.

"He who lives by the sword must die by the sword".

His/her life isnt more precious than the ones s/he has taken. If he doesnt value other peoples lives...his shouldnt.

But not before a fair trial in which is has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the offence was committed. Life imprisonment is better, except when the person is really an animal. For example, serial killers.

One thing about me is that I might call for "death penalty" in response to a gruesome act of murder, but if you put me in a jury and ask me to vote, I will always vote for life rather than death. I'm pro life, I really don't believe in killing people in law, war, mobs, or private life.

Life is irreplaceable and once it's gone it's gone. Let's treat it reverently.

Thnx for callin me to order (indirectly)..was just coming from the other thread (d 12 yr old boy who was murdered). reason why i made d previous posts.

I'm Pro-Life too. I wish everyone is. Life imprisonment is better than death penalty. Its same gravity (except in sum cases when amnesty international help grant sum convicts pardon).
I vote for Life Imprisonment.

Someone who is prepared to take a life should be prepared to give up his/her own..

It's the only way you can remain accountable.. I may understand the sentiments of the "pro-lifers" but disagree with the logic..

When people are prepared to face the repercussions of their actions, then shall they treat people and life with the dignity it deserves...

murdering someone unfairly justify execution of that person.

Really depends on the crime...................
Serial Killers, child molesters, Dr Death, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (fictional character in Silence of the lambs who killed humans and ate their flesh) I believe they should be gotten rid of.

Sorry if i offend anyone with my post, but its just my opinion.

yes

@ CimonJorr, you said it already. Somebody who took a life must be ready to die too. Especially when the victim is a minor, a child or they raped their victim before. HANG THEM ALL AND SHOW NO MERCY !

IMHO All human life is sacred.

True, but what punishment should be given to a man who defiles children and kills them slowly?

@fabian - cut their "things" off and make them jump into a basin full of sharks

I cannot see when it would be permitted. Capital punishment is not even a real punishment as it relieves the perpetrator of the crime from his pain. Life imprisonment is much more appropriate.

Serial Killers and the like are usually people with a serious personality disorder that goes unchecked by society. When there are a lot of barbaric killers or serial killers in a society that can commit their horrible acts, it tells us more about the difunctions in society than about these killers. You will always have people on the fringe that have abnormal behaviour, it's how you deal with it that makes the difference.

A possible solution would be chemical castration for extra violent criminals (it's usually men anyway) so that these [i]animals [/i]don't produce any offspring and that we have less of these people in our future generations.

I support that. Some of these people may be suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder and who knows if they'll pass it to their children?

"Research has shown that individuals with APD are[b] indifferent to the possibility of physical pain[/b] or many punishments, and show no indications that they experience fear when so threatened; this may explain their apparent disregard for the consequences of their actions, and their lack of empathy when others are suffering."

"Central to understanding psychopaths is that they do not appear to experience true human emotions, or at least, they do not appear to experience a full range of human emotions. Emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. This is to mask their sociopathic tendencies from others."

The fact that it's more common among men suggests that, evolutionally, this disorder favors men more than it favors women. This suggests to me that male psychopaths are 3 times more attractive to women than female psycopaths are to men. We men are less likely to choose psychopaths as our partners. Go, men, go!

Interesting issues raised...

But lets look at this...

Life inprisonment.. Does that usually punish the offender.. I look at it more like a case of someone being on a paid holiday.. at the tax payers expense.. They hardly suffer any punishment, under the guise of people not wanting to descend to the level of the offenders.. and the victims are usually dead or scarred for life.. (physical or emotional scars or trauma).. So, what would be the best punishment for such offenders...

Secondly... The issue of progeny of such people.. Are we now trying to say that someone's behavioural characteristics are genetic, and as such inherently hereditary .. By making this assumption, are we not condeming to death people who's lives haven't even started..
Or to look at it from another perspective, isn't leaning in such a direction or bias tantamount to playing GOD ...

I most definitely believe that if someone knows his own life is at stake when attempting to take the life of another, the person would most likely think of the consequences of his actions.. And in this case I'm not refering to only the sociopaths, but the hooligans and yobs and all manner of such characters that get away with such violence leading to the loss of another's life (mob-lynchers inclusive...)..

When they know they can be held accountable for their actions, they will think twice before commiting mayhem..

My only fear are the innocent ones which get caught up in the system.. And this definitely does happen..

CimonJorr:

Interesting issues raised...

But lets look at this...

Life inprisonment.. Does that usually punish the offender.. I look at it more like a case of someone being on a paid holiday.. at the tax payers expense.. They hardly suffer any punishment, under the guise of people not wanting to descend to the level of the offenders.. and the victims are usually dead or scarred for life.. (physical or emotional scars or trauma).. So, what would be the best punishment for such offenders...
My only fear are the innocent ones which get caught up in the system.. And this definitely does happen..

Interesting indeed. The points you raise are very valid, but that doesn't make a case for the death penalty (except for the tax payers' money issue).
The death penalty is a form of ritualized revenge. You do not set straight the crime, you only give the victims or their relatives instant emotional gratification, but that only goes skin deep. What happends afterwards?
The fact alone that innocent people get caught in the system should be reason enough not to accept the death penalty

CimonJorr:

Secondly... The issue of progeny of such people.. Are we now trying to say that someone's behavioural characteristics are genetic, and as such inherently hereditary .. By making this assumption, are we not condemning to death people who's lives haven't even started..
Or to look at it from another perspective, isn't leaning in such a direction or bias tantamount to playing GOD ...

That is, if you believe in God.
Anyway, most of the broad character dispositions of people are genetical. If you're a parent, you will understand that you cannot possibly change the character of your child, you can only work at the margins and offer a stimulating environment that brings out their potential.
The most important aspect of our criminal system should be the protection of society. If an offender commits a horrible crime, preventing that person from having children is exactly the kind of punishment, together with taking that person out of active society, I would propose.

CimonJorr:

I most definitely believe that if someone knows his own life is at stake when attempting to take the life of another, the person would most likely think of the consequences of his actions.. And in this case I'm not refering to only the sociopaths, but the hooligans and yobs and all manner of such characters that get away with such violence leading to the loss of another's life (mob-lynchers inclusive...)..

Many studies show that capital punishment does not scare of potential murderers at all (I'm too lazy to look up the sources, but Google is your friend - if you want that kind of friendship

CimonJorr:

When they know they can be held accountable for their actions, they will think twice before committing mayhem..

My only fear are the innocent ones which get caught up in the system.. And this definitely does happen..

See above

Many studies show that capital punishment does not scare of potential murderers at all

"Research has shown that individuals with APD are indifferent to the possibility of physical pain or many punishments, and show no indications that they experience fear when so threatened. Central to understanding psychopaths is that they do not appear to experience true human emotions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

So while it is true that mose people will avoid murder if there's the risk of capital punishments, psychopaths (the worst kind of killers) are not "most people". They are not afraid of the consequences of their actions and they do not feel bad for their victims. The fear you want to create by capital punishment is wasted on them!

chemical castration for extra violent criminals? How about chemical castration for extra stupid people? retarded people? whores on the street?

allonym:

chemical castration for extra violent criminals? How about chemical castration for extra stupid people? retarded people? whores on the street?

You can only punish people for their actions, not for what they are or what they think.

And why do you add whoring into this?

I don't understand? You call castration a punishment? I thought you were for castration so that they could not create children of the same type.

So, are you saying castration is a punishment for a crime?

Or castration is a solution to future bad people?

If you are saying the first, then how exactly does chemical castration punish anyone - other than robbing them of the ability to procreate?

If you say the second, then what was wrong with what i said?

@ allonym...

I can see where you're coming from.. you've thrown a new twist into this.. as in, not only punishing the offender, but in addition making sure that like-offenders are not made in future..

But I still believe that these offenders are not genetically made that way, but rather are products of environmental factors and circumstance.. I do not believe ones genes pre-dispose one to commit crimes... So, going to the extent of saying that preventing such people having progeny would act as a form of punishment, to me doenst really cut it as per adequate punishment..

To me, such people should be tortured, repeatedly... and make to suffer, prior to being put to death.. But our "civil society" would frown on such attitudes as barbaric..

Life imprisonment to me would not be adequate as a form of punishment.. cos in the final analysis, the victim is "dead", and the offender has his/her life... Life imprisonment assumes that such people can be reformed after a considerable period of time.. FOr some crimes, reform in not the answer, but accountablility for their actions and crimes..

allonym:

I don't understand? You call castration a punishment? I thought you were for castration so that they could not create children of the same type.

So, are you saying castration is a punishment for a crime?

Or castration is a solution to future bad people?

If you are saying the first, then how exactly does chemical castration punish anyone - other than robbing them of the ability to procreate?

If you say the second, then what was wrong with what i said?

Its is actually both a punishment and a (possible) solution. Chemical castration not only robs the men of their ability to procreate, but also of the other advantages from testosterone, such as a sex drive, finding pleasure in sex and the health benefits testosterone gives to men.

CimonJorr:

[SNIP]

But I still believe that these offenders are not genetically made that way, but rather are products of environmental factors and circumstance.. I do not believe ones genes pre-dispose one to commit crimes... So, going to the extent of saying that preventing such people having progeny would act as a form of punishment, to me doenst really cut it as per adequate punishment..

Of course they are also a product of their environment, but people usually don't believe that genetical factors play a much bigger role in shaping one's personality than the environment. The genes actually set the boundaries of personality development and those boundaries get narrower and narrower as research progresses. An interesting introduction into this subject is Blank Slate: Denying Human Nature in Modern Life by Steven Pinker
(see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141885858/qid=1130796387/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-9068849-6947066)

Specifically concerning adequate punishment, I do disagree with your position. The goal [/b]of the [b]justice system is not to punish people, but to protect society. Wanting to use severe punishment may be emotionally satisfying, but it hardly solves the problem.

CimonJorr:

To me, such people should be tortured, repeatedly... and make to suffer, prior to being put to death.. But our "civil society" would frown on such attitudes as barbaric..

See above. I understand your position, but I consider it a futile gesture to make things right that are beyond repair

CimonJorr:

Life imprisonment to me would not be adequate as a form of punishment.. because in the final analysis, the victim is "dead", and the offender has his/her life... Life imprisonment assumes that such people can be reformed after a considerable period of time.. FOr some crimes, reform in not the answer, but accountablility for their actions and crimes..

Tell me, what exactly do you solve with capital punishment? I dread the fact that a society uses barbary to [i]solve, redeem or redress [/i]barbaric acts. If one sets such low standards for oneself, conditions may arise that make them feel it's justified to kill.

I was not advocating chemical castration as a solution to any problem. I was attempting to point out how ludicrous that idea - or any similar ones are.

allonym:

I was not advocating chemical castration as a solution to any problem. I was attempting to point out how ludicrous that idea - or any similar ones are.

Ludicrous? You haven't made any case for it being ludicrous. Maybe you don't agree with my motivation or presmisses, but it certainly isn't ludicrous

The gargantuan premise for the aforeseen situation as regards infant mortality and corporal punishment, when advanced with the theorems regarding chemical castration, capital punishment, and other melodramatic accomplishments of martial law and criminal di-empowerment, are a nullity!

Problems reading the above paragraph? That is what it's like to follow these complex debates between nferyn and allonym!

Seun:

The gargantuan premise for the aforeseen situation as regards infant mortality and corporal punishment, when advanced with the theorems regarding chemical castration, capital punishment, and other melodramatic accomplishments of martial law and criminal di-empowerment, are a nullity!

Problems reading the above paragraph? That is what it's like to follow these complex debates between nferyn and allonym!

The difference, Seun, is that I'm trying to get a point across. And that I'm trying to formalize my arguments a little so that allonym, as an engineer, can easily follow my line of thinking. On the other hand I would be glad to explain anything I wrote if it's not entirely clear. So just fire away the questions

But - and here's the big but - you need a little understanding of the methodology of social sciences to get into the argument. Too much research in this area is so-so and I hate it when people are trying to press their politics using scientific arguments, while their whole research is anything but scientific.

Actually this last paragraph is about another discussion I have with allonym on the arguments against living together before marriage

Culling the gene pool of the future by selectively castrating people who we feel are supremely deviant is not an acceptable solution to the problem. While you may be able to show me some evidence which ties genetics to behavior, there is lots more stronger ties between behavior and environment. Further, a society which accepts chemical castration as a solution to a problem is a society which will breed someone who feels that the solution to HIS problems is chemical castration of everyone else. And this society is not one which I am willing to help create.

allonym:

Culling the gene pool of the future by selectively castrating people who we feel are supremely deviant is not an acceptable solution to the problem. While you may be able to show me some evidence which ties genetics to behavior, there is lots more stronger ties between behavior and environment. Further, a society which accepts chemical castration as a solution to a problem is a society which will breed someone who feels that the solution to HIS problems is chemical castration of everyone else. And this society is not one which I am willing to help create.

Actually, I'm not talking about people who we feel are supremely deviant, but rather people who have committed a horrible crime. Big difference.
Let's get back to my argument. The boundaries of behaviour are determined by genetical factors. the exact expression thereof is mainly influenced by the environment. This differentiates rates of behaviour across societies and shows which policies are successful. As long as you do not tackle the ultimate determining factor in behaviour (genetics), you cannot possibly [i]solve [/i]the problem, you can only contain it

And, all in all, chemical castration is a less drastic and more humane solution than capital punishment.

You last statement does not logically follow from your previous arguments, so whether or not you're willing to help create it is irrelevant as long as you have not established your last statement

I must appologise here, but I still do not agree with this statement or premise, because it only leads to re-inforce the presumption that people do not have free will to make certain choices.. I still subscribe to behaviour, and the boundaries thereof, being a consequence of environment and/or circumstances..

In life, we all have the ability to exert our free-will, that's what makes us the higher species of the animal kingdom.. By trying to assert that one's behaviour is a determinant of one's genetic make-up, we tend to allege that one becomes pre-disposed towards certain behaviour and actions as a result of one's genetics.. This now removes free-will from the equation.. This is not the case, we choose to commit a crime or not... we choose to take a life or not.. it is not a compulsion as a result of one's genetics..

Adolf Hitler tried to espouse theories along similar lines.. [the superiority of a certain race as a result of their genetic superiority].. the world has proved him wrong today.. (the last comment is not meant in any derisory way, but just to highlight the flaws in such an approach to construing the problem of genetics being a pre-cusor to ones actions)..

All in all, I believe that only fear of experiencing a similar fate as one's victims would be the only way to check one's actions and behaviours in society.. And I'm not referring to the extreme hopeless cases of deviancy like the "Anti-Social Personality Dis-order" mentioned earlier, but crimes committed by Joe Public, who he feels he can get away with...

nferyn:

Actually, I'm not talking about people who we feel are supremely deviant, but rather people who have committed a horrible crime. Big difference.
Let's get back to my argument. The boundaries of behaviour are determined by genetical factors. the exact expression thereof is mainly influenced by the environment. This differentiates rates of behaviour across societies and shows which policies are successful. As long as you do not tackle the ultimate determining factor in behaviour (genetics), you cannot possibly [i]solve [/i]the problem, you can only contain it

And, all in all, chemical castration is a less drastic and more humane solution than capital punishment.

You last statement does not logically follow from your previous arguments, so whether or not you're willing to help create it is irrelevant as long as you have not established your last statement

CimonJorr:

[SNIP]
In life, we all have the ability to exert our free-will, that's what makes us the higher species of the animal kingdom.. By trying to assert that one's behaviour is a determinant of one's genetic make-up, we tend to allege that one becomes pre-disposed towards certain behaviour and actions as a result of one's genetics.. This now removes free-will from the equation.. This is not the case, we choose to commit a crime or not... we choose to take a life or not.. it is not a compulsion as a result of one's genetics..

This is a common flaw in the argumentation against the impact of genetics. No one every said that one's genes are the sole determining factor leading to a certain behaviour or that free will does not play it's part. On the level of the individual, it certainly does and that's why there is individual responsibility. On the aggregate level of the population, we can very clearly see the impact of the genes in an almost mechanical fashion.

Please read the book I mentioned. [b]Pinker [/b]can certainly express the argument way better than I can.

CimonJorr:

Adolf Hitler tried to espouse theories along similar lines.. [the superiority of a certain race as a result of their genetic superiority].. the world has proved him wrong today.. (the last comment is not meant in any derisory way, but just to highlight the flaws in such an approach to construing the problem of genetics being a pre-cusor to ones actions)..

Don't even think about bringing Hitler into the discussion. It is a meaningless appeal to emotion. I can pick this argument apart untill there's only dust left. PLease let it rest before this discussion ends up less civilised

CimonJorr:

All in all, I believe that only fear of experiencing a similar fate as one's victims would be the only way to check one's actions and behaviours in society.. And I'm not referring to the extreme hopeless cases of deviancy like the "Anti-Social Personality Dis-order" mentioned earlier, but crimes committed by Joe Public, who he feels he can get away with...

Then you're not talking about the type of crimes that could possibly justify capital punishment. What scares Joe publis is irrelevant in this case, although it certainly is relevant for [i]small [/i]crimes .