|
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KHF
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 100
Location: ON, Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The purpose of laws can be interpreted in many ways. Personally, I believe it is primarily used to separate criminals from the society. Nevertheless, using it as an indirect method to exert vengeance is certainly not one on the list (though it is usually what the victim or his relatives expect). Why bother going all the way for expensive lethal injections? Letting the victims' relatives hold the guns and shoot the man in the face would be a much better way to exert vengeance first hand. This is occasionally practiced in the middle east by the way, and there's a reason why none of the democratic nations actually does the same.
As for who we should be, I guess a better question is who we *shouldn't* be and cannot be. To me, we shouldn't be killers and cannot be anything above human. That's enough said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob S.
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KHF wrote: |
| using [the death penalty] as an indirect method to exert vengeance is certainly not one on the list |
I disagree. The State has a social contract to provide those services the governed cannot do for themselves and those services the State has an interest in the governed not doing for themselves but still need doing, i.e. building and maintaining roads and infrastructure, combatting foreign enemies for the national interest, and dispensing justice. When the State fails in its duty to perform these services, it will lose the consent of the governed who have the right to change the government if necessary. Either that or they will begin to ignore the ineffective government altogether.
Which leads us to...
| Quote: |
| (though it is usually what the victim or his relatives expect) |
Right! We all have a basic sense of fairness. When we have been wronged, we don't want the scales to be rebalanced and righted, our sense of fairness demands it be tipped further in the opposite direction. That is vengeance. The whole concept of punitive damages in law suits is not only about teaching a lesson but also about monetary vengeance to make them hurt beyond the real monetary damage that may have been done.
So, given that we are all potential victims of violent crime (though statistically not likely), if the State is generally competent in providing for Safety, the people will be more trusting about it tempering our need for vengeance by administering justice in the form of punishment as it deems fit. If the State is incompetent in providing a general feeling of Safety, it is reasonable and fair that the people demand more vengeance blended in with their justice.
| Quote: |
| Letting the victims' relatives hold the guns and shoot the man in the face would be a much better way to exert vengeance first hand. |
That would certainly seem most fair, but the State has an interest in not allowing us to seek our own vengeance. Society would too easily degenerate into a bunch of Hatfields and McCoys. The State is a faceless soulless entity and powerful enough that an individual clan cannot easily engage in perpetual vendetta. The state of California is neither Blood nor Crip. Who is Tookie's homies gonna bust a cap in in revenge for offin' their bro? If the existing government cannot defend itself against a bunch of gang banger hoods, it doesn't deserve to rule.
| Quote: |
| To me, we shouldn't be killers and cannot be anything above human. |
WE are not killing. The State, our collective representative, is. And to do its job, we trust it to be both god and demon when necessary.
| Hayde wrote: |
| That is the scariest thing I have ever heard. |
That's not scary. Whoever hurts my family will learn a whole new definition of fear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hayde
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 177
Location: Icheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok Bob S.
I am going to stay away from all the emotional facets of this topic cause I get a feeling it will be like arguing with a fundamentalist.
1) 100 people were just let off of death row due to complete lack of evidence to warrant it, or current evidence showing that they are actually innocent. Now, there have been about 1000 people put to death since 1973. So, there are 3,455 people on death row, 100 have been let go. That is 3.5% of the people. There have most definitely been people put to death by accident and is still happening. DNA can't account for everything. What do you think about those people? It would suck for your family if you were convicted and executed for no reason, don't you think?
2) Humans are faliable (sp?). To make a decision with such irreversible consequences is foolhardy at best.
3) "Since the death penalty was reinstated, over 80% of all executions have occurred in the South, the region with the highest murder rate. The Northeast, the region with the lowest murder rate, has accounted for less than 1% of the executions."
I know humans are emotional and the need for vengence is strong, but the death penalty doesn't really help deter crime at all.
4)
| Quote: |
| WE are not killing. The State, our collective representative, is. And to do its job, we trust it to be both god and demon when necessary. |
collective representative means they support your views and are doing what you want. You have laws against hiring hitmen that give just as harsh a penalty to the employer as the actual killer. These two things contradict eachother.
5)I am assuming with the last comment, you mean if someone hurts your family on purpose, and not by accident. There lies the other problem, sometimes it is not so clearcut the difference between an accident and on purpose.
Total Number on Death Row as of January 1, 2005: 3,455 (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/10/krone.htm
_________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stellara
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 583
Location: germany
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
i agree with you, Hayde.
| Hayde wrote: |
3) "Since the death penalty was reinstated, over 80% of all executions have occurred in the South, the region with the highest murder rate. The Northeast, the region with the lowest murder rate, has accounted for less than 1% of the executions."
I know humans are emotional and the need for vengence is strong, but the death penalty doesn't really help deter crime at all. |
yeah, that's what i meant before. so much to the statement that death penalty would lower the murder rate. or in any way preventing future murderers from their crime.
| Bob S. wrote: |
| WE are not killing. The State, our collective representative, is. And to do its job, we trust it to be both god and demon when necessary. |
no, in the end WE are killing, though. as you said, the State is our collective representative so it should do what we want it to do. so if the State decides to execute someone, it does that because it thinks it's what the people would want. or the majority of the people, at least. in some way, we are responsible for what our State decides. Because we elected them.
greets 
_________________
Don't cry because it's over - smile because it happened!
MOKEY ROCKS!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philanthropist
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 39
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stellara wrote: |
| no, in the end WE are killing, though. as you said, the State is our collective representative so it should do what we want it to do. so if the State decides to execute someone, it does that because it thinks it's what the people would want. or the majority of the people, at least. in some way, we are responsible for what our State decides. Because we elected them. |
True, I agree with you, stellara.
I've stated before that I'm against capital punishment, but I'd like to add that it's actually a pretty dirty business. Believing that the state is responsible for "seeking justice" (whatever this means....) sounds like giving them the power to do anything. In the end, nobody is responsible for killing s.o., the state does it for the people, the executor does it because he was told to do it - nobody has to have a sleepless night because he/she was the killer.
And as it has been said several times, it's something irreversible. I agree that it's something bad to smuggle and sell drugs, but death penality seems totally out of proportion! Can't you imagine that if those people would be let go after serving several years in prison, they'd honestly want to change for the better???
It isn't something I make up here, but one of my professors told us (so there is certainly enough research behind that statement) that in certain cases (more than you might think) it is better to let s.o. out of prison earlier because of its positive effect (it's hard to explain; it's not really gratitude, but if a criminal serves his/her full sentence they might think then that they have done their duty - but if they are let go earlier, it's different. Do you understand what I am trying to say?). Moreover, I was told (I study law, you know) that a punishment has also the purpose to educate each individual delinquent.
In general, I'd say that the state shouldn't try to be too severe. I wouldn't want to live in a country full of killers, even if it's the state who kills.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob S.
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hayde wrote: |
| 1) 100 people were just let off of death row due to complete lack of evidence to warrant it, or current evidence showing that they are actually innocent. Now, there have been about 1000 people put to death since 1973. So, there are 3,455 people on death row, 100 have been let go. That is 3.5% of the people. There have most definitely been people put to death by accident and is still happening. |
Most definitely and statistically likely are two different things. Statistically you are right, there should be at least one! And I concede that in the past there must have been many more innocent men framed and falsely convicted and sentenced to death (hey, I read To Kill a Mockingbird too). But that's why we have a long appeals process now that can take 20 years. Anti-death penalty advocates have yet to come up with the name of one person executed since 1973 who was completely innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.
| Quote: |
| 2) Humans are [fallible]. To make a decision with such irreversible consequences is foolhardy at best. |
Which IMHO is one of the better arguments against the DP on an individual basis, but not as a general policy. Human fallibility is rarely an adequate excuse for us not to try something. But in your favor, I will say that as a general policy of the DP as a deterrence, there are better options than the DP I think, and I'll explain below.
| Quote: |
| 3) "Since the death penalty was reinstated, over 80% of all executions have occurred in the South, the region with the highest murder rate. The Northeast, the region with the lowest murder rate, has accounted for less than 1% of the executions." |
Your facts are correct, but where they lead is erroneous. It is far more complicated than that.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the New England, Mountain, and West North Central regions do have the lowest rates of homicide while the South does have higher rates, but there are other factors to consider. The South also has a prevalent gun culture resulting in a higher fire-arms homicide rate, PLUS areas of greater homicide and crime in general also have higher poverty rates. And crime and poverty go hand-in-hand like a dysfunctional old married couple.
To estimate the true impact of the death penalty as a deterrent, you need to compare apples to apples. You'd need to compare states with equivalent incomes, education, and poverty rates but different approaches to capital punishment and see what their homicide rates are. I'm sure the data is out there, but I'm supposed to be working now. Hey, philanthropist is a law student, maybe we could assign him (her?) some homework? 
| Quote: |
| I know humans are emotional and the need for vengence is strong, but the death penalty doesn't really help deter crime at all. |
I definitely agree that the death penalty as applied now is no deterrent. Consider that since 1976, there has been approximately more than 600,000 murders in the U.S. (taken from the previous USDoJ site assuming an average population of 270M people for the years given) but only 1,000 executions. That means if you commit a murder, there is about a 0.15% chance of you being arrested, convicted, AND executed. Not much of a deterrent (but better than nothing IMHO). To be a credible deterrent, the threat of execution would need to be a far more real risk for anyone caught and convicted of murder.
That being said, crime rates today in the U.S. are actually lower than they have been in decades! And it appears they have been going down since the institution of Three-Strikes laws, NOT (and this is in favor of your argument) since the re-institution of the DP.
If society wanted to truly reduce crime, the best approach would be to reduce poverty. But, from the previous web site, the two key factors involved in poverty are education and family structure. And that is a fact across all ethnic groups. Sadly, such problems do not have easy solutions. You cannot easily force teenagers to stay in school and study if they do not wish, and you cannot force young men to marry the girlfriends they impregnate. If you could, both poverty and its associated crime rate would drop. But people are free to NOT do the right thing and free to screw up their lives. It's a lot easier unfortunately to say lock up the bad guys and gas the worst of them. That way we can preserve our right to do the wrong thing even if it results in the hellish chaos of places like South Central L.A. (just 10 miles from where I live BTW).
| Quote: |
| I am assuming with the last comment, you mean if someone hurts your family on purpose, and not by accident. |
Of course. If someone ran over my kid, the degree of punishment I'd want meted out would depend on whether they were monentarily distracted (a serious but understandable OOPS!), recklessly drinking and driving, or trying to score points a la Death Race 2000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hayde
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 177
Location: Icheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I won't requote all that, getting long. I agree with a lot, especially the poverty issue.
I still don't agree that there have not been people put to death. Statistically, if you flip a coin 50 times, you should come up with 25 heads. If you flip a coin 500000 times, you will come up with 250000 heads. Statistics is a science (and I don't mean surveys that people do which are incredibly biased, I am talking pure mathematical statistics). Most definitely and statistically are the same at the moment (when dealing with pure mathematical statistics). And until we reach the level of completely perfect beings, the death penalty will most definitely, if not already, be used on an innocent person. If only one innocent person has been or will be put to death by accident, we have already killed too many.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed
While this is a biased organization (hence the web address) it's hard to refute everything on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philanthropist
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 39
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hayde wrote: |
| If only one innocent person has been or will be put to death by accident, we have already killed too many. |
True...
Am I right, Bob S., that you are FOR capital punishment? I mean, it's sometimes difficult to say whether one is pro or con (everything isn't black or white), but you seem totally convinced of it  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob S.
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hayde wrote: |
| I won't requote all that, getting long. |
Yeah, a bit of diarhea of the mouth (or in this case, keyboard) on my part.
| Quote: |
| until we reach the level of completely perfect beings, the death penalty will most definitely, if not already, be used on an innocent person. If only one innocent person has been or will be put to death by accident, we have already killed too many. |
Let me see if I understand you right. Your argument against the DP is not that the gov't doesn't have the right to take the life of murderers but rather that as administered there is too great a chance of an innocent person being caught up in it and killed? Hmm, I can appreciate that. As George Will once noted, the best argument against the DP is that it is a government run institution, so they are bound to screw it up.
| philanthropist wrote: |
| Am I right, Bob S., that you are FOR capital punishment? I mean, it's sometimes difficult to say whether one is pro or con (everything isn't black or white), but you seem totally convinced of it |
I am for it in that philosophically I believe the State does have the right to deprive a person of life if so granted by the consent of the governed, and there is some small small small deterrence factor knowing it is out there as a possibility.
If the State were to ban it again, I wouldn't protest provided there was some alternative to life in the prison system as it operates now where prisoners can get conjugal visits, the right to sue their victims' families just for kicks, access to drugs, where the strong can prey on the weak (in the form of homosexual rape), where petty criminals come out hardened and violent, joining gangs they would never imagine joining before just for protection, and so on. Put them all in solitary, send them to penal colonies on the Aleutians, something where the victims' families can say "Yup, that SOB is getting a punishment he deserves and doesn't need killing." Because ultimately it should be about justice for the victims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cristi
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 223
Location: Costa Rica
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to Michael Moore:
| Quote: |
"A shocking recent death penalty study of 4 578 cases in a twenty-three-year period (1973-1995) concluded that the courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 capital sentence cases that were fully reviewed during the period. It also found that death sentences were being overturned in 2 of 3 appeals. the overall prejudicial review error rate was 68 percent.
Since 1973, some ninety-five death row inmates have been fully exonerated by the courts that is, found innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced to die. Ninety-six persons have been released as a result of DNA testing.
And what were the most common errors?
1. Egregiously incompetent defence lawyers who didn't even look for, or missed important evidence that would have proved innocence or demonstrated that their client didn't deserve to die.
2. Police or prosecutors who did discover that kind of evidence but suppressed it, actively derailing the judicial proccess."
Stupid White Men and other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, pages 204-205, Harper Torch/Regan Books's edition |
According to myself:
Say no to death penalty, period!
_________________
�PURA VIDA! Carpe Diem
"Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear--not absence of fear."
Mark Twain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hayde
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 177
Location: Icheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob S. wrote: |
| Quote: |
| until we reach the level of completely perfect beings, the death penalty will most definitely, if not already, be used on an innocent person. If only one innocent person has been or will be put to death by accident, we have already killed too many. |
Let me see if I understand you right. Your argument against the DP is not that the gov't doesn't have the right to take the life of murderers but rather that as administered there is too great a chance of an innocent person being caught up in it and killed? Hmm, I can appreciate that. As George Will once noted, the best argument against the DP is that it is a government run institution, so they are bound to screw it up. |
This will sounds quite theoretical, and hard to explain, but I will try.
I am against it totally, but could I be wrong. Yes. Until we are "perfect" which I think is a theoretical impossibility, there is a chance we might make a mistake. Since the mistake at the moment is irreversible, we can't take that chance. Who knows, if we ever became perfect beings, maybe execution would seem clear and appropriate (though I doubt it, I never completely close my mind to things).
I am totally against it because I am totally against the fact that we are even close to perfect. If I was perfect then I would know if execution is ok or not. I don't. I don't know if dating a coworker is a good idea or not, no matter how attractive the idea might be But if it screws up, it can be fixed.
_________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stellara
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 583
Location: germany
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hayde wrote: |
This will sounds quite theoretical, and hard to explain, but I will try.
I am against it totally, but could I be wrong. Yes. Until we are "perfect" which I think is a theoretical impossibility, there is a chance we might make a mistake. Since the mistake at the moment is irreversible, we can't take that chance. Who knows, if we ever became perfect beings, maybe execution would seem clear and appropriate (though I doubt it, I never completely close my mind to things).
I am totally against it because I am totally against the fact that we are even close to perfect. If I was perfect then I would know if execution is ok or not. I don't. I don't know if dating a coworker is a good idea or not, no matter how attractive the idea might be But if it screws up, it can be fixed. |
You've met my opinion quite exactly, too. i could never forgive myself if i'd let a criminal be killed and afterwards it turns out that he was innocent.. even if this would happen only once, it's definitely too much. but you point of view, Bob, is also understandable.. i think, it's pretty difficult to make a decision whether DP is right or wrong, considering all the facts and arguments..
| Cristi wrote: |
| According to Michael Moore: ... |
as for my opinion, you can't count on the correctness of Micheal Moore's statements. I'm sure that he researched nearly everything he states but he shows just one side of the issue so you can easily be misleaded. So before you form an opinion, go through other sources which also show the other side.
greets 
_________________
Don't cry because it's over - smile because it happened!
MOKEY ROCKS!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manuel
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 139
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm against everything related to death. I don't care if he was a murderer. Nobody disurbes to be killed, not even if you're the worst criminal, but what I hate most, is when you use the name of God to justify these decisions.
We can barely handle Life. So, let's not try to handle Death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
