[Avatar]

As it was mentioned a few times in the abortion thread, I figured it was a topic which deserves a discussion thread of its own. As a starting point for discussion, this is a fairly balanced view of the pros and cons of capital punishment.

Personally, I'm against it. There's all kinds of reasons for this - moral and ethical - but in the end, singer-songwriter Steve Earle might have said it best: "I object to the damage that it does to my spirit for my government to kill people, because my government's supposed to be me, and I object to me killing people. It's really simple."

[Cristofle]

As I said in the abortion thread, I'd be lying if I said there were some criminals who have gotten the death penalty that I cried over (I can't say I'm sorry Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy are dead), but overall I'm against it. I don't think "reasonable doubt" is enough to kill someone, because "reasonable doubt" is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Also, there are inherent racism issues with our death penalty system, and it costs more to kill a criminal than to keep them in prison for life (with the astronomical legal fees and the heightened security on death row). On the whole, I lean toward thinking the death penalty should be abolished because there are just too many problems and concerns in the system.

[Tomorrow's skies]

I'm for it, but not in every case. Criminals have to be found guilty beyond a doubt, and I don't even mean courts necessarily. (Some court cases have video/photographic proof and are tossed out due to politics)

I don't even see it as a 'punishment', but more like removing truly despicable people. Cases involving children and rape (in general) will always make my head go to death penalty. Self-defense cases I wouldn't see as punishable by jail at all, and crimes of passion wouldn't warrant death penalty.

Killing a murderer is never and will never be anything like killing an innocent.

[sunnykerr]

I fully respect people's belief in capital punishment. I don't think my opinion is necessarily the right one just because it's mine.

I want to make that very clear.

Because, the thing is, even though I've come up across a bunch of exceptions I'd be okay making, I cannot support capital punishment.

It's a spiritual thing for me, so I can't exactly justify it using logic and actual arguments. I'll just say this: I fundamentally believe in karma. And I believe it's wrong to interfere in another person's karmic journey, so to speak. So, while I don't think we should treat murderers like they're good people or any such thing, I do believe taking their lives is involving ourselves in their own karmic thing.

That probably makes no sense, and that's okay with me.

----------------------------------------

At any rate, thank you Dan for starting the thread. This could potentially make for some very interesting conversation.

Just a word to everyone, though: Once again, respect of your fellow posters is the cardinal rule on this board. As a moderator, I reserve the right (in consultation with my highers-up, of course), to close down any thread that devolves into chaos. But I don't want to do that, so please play nice.

Also, this is a fantastic topic, but threads die fast if they're not fed with participation and material (such as articles). So, you know, please feel free to contribute.

[Gray Ghost]

I think the capital punishment issue should be dealt on a case by case perspective. Serial killers and terrorists should at the top of death row in my opinion. Serial killers and terrorists in a way have to be put down in order for the public to find some peace and try to move on. Tim McVeigh is good example of that. He had to be put down. There's no way he would have survived a life in prison sentence. A guard or inmate would have killed him. I'm sure he was under tight security while detained but you never know.

[Cristofle]

If he'd gotten life in prison, he probably wouldn't have been under such tight security. Jeffrey Dahmer's death was more or less a prison-sanctioned hit- they knew exactly what was going to happen to him when they put him in the general population.

[Tomorrow's skies]

When it comes to pedophiles in prison I'm more than fine with other inmates getting their hands on them

[Avatar]

I saw a rather novel take on it in this article: ""If we occasionally, very rarely, execute an innocent person, if the death penalty is more deterrent than life without parole, on balance we will have saved innocent lives."

Granting the premise that it is bigger deterrent than life without parole (which I'm not sure of) - what do we think about this? Is the state - us, by extension - killing an innocent person worth potentially saving ten others? I would say no, mostly due to the Steve Earle quote I posted above, but it's an interesting topic for discussion.

[Cristofle]

I find that pretty callous- it's all but suggesting human sacrifice, killing one to supposedly save others (and there isn't any good data that suggests the death penalty actually IS any kind of deterrent, anyway).

[Tomorrow's skies]

Some people will kill regardless, that's true--but others in situations that are just violence going too far could potentially be deterred and rehabilitated before acting out in this manner.

Canada is ridiculous because co-called life-sentences are 25 ****ing years! And they can serve multiple sentences at one time! Life in prison means they die and rot in that prison not having a vacation for 25 years. Concurrent sentencing is a sick and twisted joke.

I'd probably be less inclined toward the concept of death penalty, if real sentences were served and if this jail time reflected the crimes committed.

[Cristofle]

I do find it concerning when life sentences aren't actually life sentences- some people should simply never get out of prison, for safety issues as much as justice.

Regardless, I'm never comfortable with justifying the killing of innocents, because that doesn't really make us any better than the people we're killing. I don't think there IS a justification for when the death penalty goes wrong- it's an awful, horrible miscarriage of justice that we can never take back.

[sunnykerr]

Just to clarify, in Canada, people who are emprisoned for life are eligible for parole after 25 years (it can be before, in cases of second-degree murder). It doesn't mean they'll get parole.

And the crimes that life imprisonment cover are, theoretically, pretty wide, too. According to the Criminal Code I studied about five or six years ago when I took the Criminal Law class, People found guilty of treason, piracy, mutiny, highjacking, murder, endangering the life staff on an airplane or in an airport, endangering the safety of a ship or fixed platform, robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking, attempted murder, accessory to murder after the fact, involuntary homicide through drunk driving or street racing or criminal negligence, killing a child in the process of being born (presumably on purpose) and aggravated sexual assault all carry lifetime prison sentences with them.

Of course, they're not manditory sentences. I believe that list is rather short: if you kill a police officer or prison guard or someone you know to work in a prison (like, say, the nurse), you go to jail for life, no passing GO on that one. That's the deal that was struck with the police and prison unions when the death penalty was removed from the Criminal Code here in Canada.

So the laws are there, it's the application that falls through. And, to be clear, when we had the death penalty, we weren't using it much of at all either.

And that's perfectly fine with me. You may need to break a few eggs to make an omelet, but I do not believe in extending that metaphor to human life.

[Cristofle]

I wasn't so much thinking of Canada, although I know that was an example- one of the most notorious serial killers in history, Pedro Lopez, was released from prison in Columbia after just 15 years (this man was believed to have murdered more than 300 girls across South America) because of their lax "life in prison" laws. Also, the perpetrator in the Norway shootings can't get more than 20 years even though he killed 85 people. To me, that's just crazy- those kind of people can never be redeemed.

I do believe in life in prison without the possibility of parole, though, and I don't think parole should be offered in some cases- as I said above, there ARE people who can never be redeemed, and you never know when a parole hearing might just go wrong.

[sunnykerr]

Sorry, I was actually addressing someone else's concerns. I should have made that clearer.

I don't mind parole being an option. I don't think it should be granted all the time, but I don't mind having it be something that could happen down the line.

Because I do people can change. Maybe no all people, but some people.

So the option should be there, and obviously there should be people enpanelled to consider the option on a case-by-case basis, so that it only goes to people who have been truly rehabilitated.

Because I have no problem with locking some people up and throwing away the key. None whatsoever.

[Cristofle]

Oh, in many cases- even in some cases of murder- I don't necessarily mind parole. I think something could happen and a person could snap, and maybe never do it again. They obviously have to pay for that, but they don't necessarily need to be locked up forever. I'm actually more inclined to think pedophilia should require a life sentence with no possibility of parole- there is absolutely zero evidence that pedophiles can be reformed, and a devastating rate of committing the same crime upon release.