Job Discussion Forums

[Lanza-Armonia]

[leeroy]

People say the death penalty for things like murder is no deterrant (as when you're murdering someone the repercussions to yourself don't figure much in your thoughts, I would suppose...)

But for something relatively trivial like corruption, I imagine that the "death penalty as a deterrant" would work rather well. But, given the very nature of corruption, couldn't some simply bribe their way out of it if caught?

Corruption, to me, seems as much as anything a result of a society's way of thinking. Simply stating "It's bad, don't do it!" is a nice start - but not enough. As I understand it it is very difficult to get far in business in developing Asia without having to resort to bribes at some point. If this is the case, then the corruptors and corruptees (if there is such a word) are not to blame in their singularity - the overall social and business climate is also to blame. And these are notoriously harder to electrocute...

[denise]

Wait--look at our choices in the poll. Can't we be opposed to it without bringing God into the equation?

d

[ls650]

I think that some people commit crimes so heinous they DO deserve to die for what they've done - but I don't think the 'state' should have the power of life and death over individuals, simply because that power tends to be abused for political purposes.

[Dr.J]

The death penalty seems illogical to me, as a dead person hardly realises they are being punished, because they are dead.

So it only has a use as a deterrant. But it seems to have no obvious deterrant effect, if you compare the crime rates of countries with and without the death penalty.

I think that crime is caused more by other motivational factors (such as poverty, drug addiction, mental instability), rather than lack of punishment. If suddenly tomorrow it was legal for me to commit crimes, I wouldn't go around killing people or stealing things.

Having said that, perhaps in developing countries sometimes a certain amount of brutality is necessary to keep order?

[Roger]

For any punishment to be effective,the society must practise strong Cohesion. Do we want to go back to tribal existences where Shaka Zulu has the right to expel any member for disobedience, which inevitably lead to a life in misery, potentially in death through starvation?

A modern society offers you a modicum of privacy and independence; it's based on mutual trust and legal means such as contracts.

We know temptations lurk out there. Some are stronger to withstand them. Most are not strong enough. Remember when the first supermarket came to your neighbourhood? How many people got caught shoplifting then?

Call it "anonymity" if you like. We all have to learn to coexist, cohabit in a modern world. Maybe our moral principles are good, but they cannot survive unless we change our outlook.

That's a job for philosophers and theologians, I suppose, but it's also our duty to adhere to principles elaborated by them.

I personally hate the death penalty, and I think nations that still practise them are backward mentally. CLearly, capital punishment has revenge as its top priority, not reform of the culprit. There is no good to expect from it except a deterrent effect.

But if people have become cynical - as we can observe in democratic societies around the world - they lose respect for, and trust in their law-enforcing institutions. We don't believe law enforcement agencies to be incorruptible and respectful of the same laws that they want us to respect.
That's why the death penalty is a barbarous joke.
Have youseen DEAD MAN WALKING (title?)? Three men on death row being executed one after the other. Each was absolutely guilty, and accepted his guilt.
But they all became model citizens while in prison awaiting their final hour. One raised and trained a mouse to do tricks. There was a symbiosis between the man and the mouse; one of the guards jumped on it to kill it. Another prisoner sort of resurrected the mouse to life, and he helped the director's fatally ill wife recover.
Yet he had to die!

In China, the death penalty is a political instrument to "scare the monkey" into submitting to authority.
Ten years back, a person could get the death penalty for stealing several tens of thousand yuan; now it's several millions (and aggravating circumstances). There are, if I remember correctly, over 60 defined acts of crime that attract the death penalty.

Yet, authorities are trying to "humanise" this grisly act. The lethal injecdtion has been introduced since 2001, in some provinces anyway. In Fujian province, the chief of the execution commando allowed a bunch of murderers and pirates to get drunk before they were shot. For a convict to see his family one last time ibefore his killing is another step towards humanising the process.
Eventually, I think they have to stop executions.

Crime is going to increase in spite of death penalties being meted out.

[Lanza-Armonia]

Sorry 'd', It's the result of too many South American films. Take it as a joke and nothing more!

LA

[guest of Japan]

Roger,
The movie you are referring to is "The Green Mile." "Dead Man Walking" is a different deathrow movie.

[gerard]

Just one thing here I give China credit (a bit) for. They carried out the death penalty on one of their own---a member of the elite.

In the US (to name one) this could not happen-ever. Only the poorest of the poor end up on death row. Anyone from a good family or who can hire a good lawyer would not be executed - ever.

It's a bitter irony that the poor are the ones who support it.

[nik_knack0828]

I am 100 percent against the death penalty. Others have mentioned that it's only purpose is to act as a deterent for future murderers, but that is completely obsurd. When a murder takes place, the idea is to not get caught. That's it. No one about to kill someone else is going to say, "Well, you know, I might get caught and given the death penalty if I kill this person. So maybe I'll just go home instead." And if on the strange chance that does ever occur, what's the difference between "death penalty" or "life in jail?" If someone is going to be detirred by the possibility of getting caught, it has nothing to do with the severity of the punishment (when the punishment is severe to begin with).
That said, I believe murderers are bad. And they deserve to be punished, but there are too many cases of false arrest for this to be a fair and just punishment. One case in paticular deals with Mumia Abu Jamal. A black journalist that has been on death row for over 20 years. For a crime he DID NOT COMMIT. I would suggest everyone look this story up on the internet and read about the huge injustice that his life has become. He was charged with the murder of a police officer. He has published atleast 3 books. I have only read two and they are very insightful.
I especially don't agree with a state supported murder for bribery. What's that? You stole some money, and now we're gonna kill you. I can't see the justice there. If someone stole money from me, it would not be okay for me to go out and inject him with poison. That just wouldn't be allowed. Where's the logic?
So anyways... the whole system is screwed and... You should all read about Mumia. The end.

[nik_knack0828]

Hey
After going off about that whole Mumia thing, I couldn't help myself.
This is the first article I read about his case.
I hope you find it, at the very least, interesting. Maybe as sick and disturbing as I do?

The Case of Mumia Abu Jamal


by Terry Bisson
from New York Newsday, 1995

In 1978, Philadelphia Mayor (and ex-police chief) Frank Rizzo blew up at a press conference, threatening what he called "the new breed" of journalists. "They [the people] believe what you write and what you say," said Rizzo, "and it's got to stop. One day and I hope it's in my career you're going to have to be held responsible and accountable for what you do."

What the "new breed" was doing in 1978, and is still doing today, was exposing police misconduct. A cop had been killed in a confrontation between Philadelphia police and the radical MOVE organization (the same MOVE that was fire-bombed by the city seven years later), and the police version of who shot first hadn't been accepted without question. Rizzo feared a new trend, and he was right.

The trend has continued. Today, the Mollen Commission, the NYPD "party"in DC, the Rodney King case and hundreds of other local scandals have exposed the dark underside of police misconduct nationwide. Ironically, the most prominent of the "new breed" of journalists at whom Rizzo's outburst was directed is awaiting execution on Pennsylvania's Death Row, the victim--many believe--of a police frame-up.

Mumia Abu-Jamal began his journalism career with the Black Panther Party. The Panthers were the original affirmative action employer, and Mumia (then Wesley Cook) was Minister of Information for the Philadelphia chapter at age 15, writing for the national newspaper. A heady beginning for a West Philly kid. After the Panthers fell apart (helped by a stiff dose of FBI harassment) Mumia turned to broadcasting. He had the voice, the writing talent and the ambition, and by age 25, he was one of the top names in local radio, interviewing such luminaries as Jesse Jackson and the Pointer Sisters and winning a Peabody Award for his coverage of the Pope's visit. He was president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists, called one to watch by Philadelphia magazine.

But Mumia was still a radical. The Philadelphia Inquirer called him an eloquent activist not afraid to raise his voice, and this fearlessness was to be his undoing. His vocal support of MOVE's uncompromising life-style lost him jobs at Black stations, and he was forced to moonlight to support his family. The mayor's outburst marked the beginning of a campaign of police harassment that included such subtleties as a cocked finger and a 'bang bang' from a smirking cop, and escalated to a late-night police beating of Mumia's brother on the street.

Mumia was driving a cab that night. It is undisputed that he intervened. It is undisputed that both he and officer Daniel Faulkner were shot, and that Faulkner died. What is in dispute is who killed Faulkner. Mumia says it was someone else, and several witnesses saw another shooter flee the scene. Mumia's legally registered .38 was never decisively linked to Faulkner's wounds.

Mumia's murder trial was a policeman's dream. Denied the right to represent himself, he was defended by a reluctant incompetent who was later disbarred (and who has since filed an affadavit in Mumia's support detailing his delinquencies). Mumia was prosecuted by a DA who was later reprimanded for withholding evidence in another trial. He was allowed only $150 to interview witnesses.

But best of all was the judge. A life member of the Fraternal Order of Police, branded as a "defendant's nightmare" by the Philadelphia Inquirer, Judge Albert F. Sabo has sentenced more men to die (31 to date, only two of them white) than any other sitting judge in America. A fellow judge once called his courtroom a "vacation for prosecutors" because of bias toward convictions.

Sabo wouldn't allow Mumia to defend himself because his dreadlocks made jurors "nervous." Kept in a holding cell, he read about his own trial in the newspapers. A Black juror was removed for violating sequestration, while a white juror was given an court escort to take a civil service exam; in the end all the Black jurors but one were removed. A policeman who filed two conflicting reports was never subpoenaed (he was "on vacation"). Mumia's Black Panther history was waved like a bloody flag: Had he said, "All power to the people?" Yes, he admitted, he had said that. Character witnesses like poet Sonia Sanchez were cross-examined about their "anti-police" writings and associations.

Thus with Judge Sabo's help, an award-winning radical journalist with no criminal record was portrayed as a police assassin lying in wait since age 15. After Mumia's conviction, Sabo instructed the jury: "You are not being asked to kill anybody" by imposing the death penalty, since the defendant will get "appeal after appeal after appeal." Such instruction, grounds for reversal since Caldwell vs. Mississippi, was allowed in Mumia's case.

Mumia's appeals have so far gone unanswered. After being on Death Row for thirteen years, he is now the target of a police-led smear campaign. Last year NPR's "All Things Considered" canceled a scheduled series of his commentaries after the Fraternal Order of Police objected. Mumia's book, LIVE FROM DEATH ROW, has been greeted with a boycott and a skywriter circling the publisher's Boston offices: "Addison-Wesley Supports Cop Killers" Officer Faulkner's widow has gone on TV claiming that Mumia smiled at her when her husband's bloody shirt was shown--even though the record shows that Mumia wasn't in the courtroom that day.

Mumia and his supporters want only one thing--a new trial, with an unbiased judge and a competent lawyer. Defense attorney Leonard Weinglass has entered a motion to have Judge Sabo removed from the case because he cannot provide even the "appearance of fairness." The struggle became a race against time last month, when Pennsylvania Governor Ridge, though fully aware of the many questions in the case, signed a death warrant scheduling Mumia for execution August 17.

Mumia Abu-Jamal was not surprised. Several of the essays in his book deal with America's frantic "march toward the death chamber." As he wrote several years ago in the Yale Law Journal, "states that have not slain in a generation now ready their machinery: generators whine, poison liquids are mixed, and gases are measured and readied."

Unless Mumia Abu Jamal's final petition is answered, and he gets the fair trial he deserves, America will see its the first explicitly political execution since the Rosenbergs were put to death in 1953. Frank Rizzo's angry threat will be fulfilled, for one "new breed" journalist at least. It will stop. We won't hear any more criticism of the police from Mumia Abu-Jamal. Forever.



There you go. That's what's wrong with the death penalty. This man has been in jail for over 22 years. It's outragous and discusting. Do a msn search with his name if you want to know more.

[Roger]

thanks, guest of japan, to set me ight: Yes, it was The Green Mile"!

[Aramas]

In general the death penalty has been absent from civilised countries for decades. Only violent, insular, parochial cultures still cling to it. The purpose of government is to maintain the infrastructure of a society, not murder members of it. They're the janitors of nations.

[guest of Japan]

A few decades hardly qualifies as a measure of civilization. Within the next few decades many European countries may revert to using the death penalty again. All it takes is a few supposed reformed criminals to carry out heinous murders to incite the eye for an eye longings of a scared populace to bring the death penalty back into fashion.

[Aramas]

I disagree. Do you honestly believe that every western country apart from the US has been miraculously free of horrific violent crime for decades? Revenge is a fundamentally primitive response, and is recognised as such in a civilised country. A revenge crime is still a crime. Government employees who are also murderers should spend the rest of their natural life in prison. Their crimes are worsened by the position of trust that they hold.

However, the rest of us should be grateful to the US for providing a model of exactly what a society and government should not be - much like Germany did in the 30's and 40's. Part of the reason that recent US governments have been so 'restless' is that, since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, there is no longer an 'Anti-America', which makes their right-wing extremism somewhat difficult to defend. However, rather than make the obvious paradigm shift toward the centre, they cling to their delusional world view and invent 'evil' to smite - albeit in the form of execution or annexation for economic and political gain. Still, it makes for interesting television, and that's the important thing, right?