The world is a little better place today

[Denny Crane]

Yes I have very similar concerns as well, which is why I'm probably against it. I certainly think some people deserve it, but I'm afraid of the collateral damage.

If you believe in God, then God gets to sort it out pretty quick

 

[Minstrel]

By definition, the death penalty is an extended form of "societal self defense"

I disagree, since the jailing accomplishes the self-defense. Anything beyond that is unneeded for the sake of self-defense. They're for the sake of people's conception of punishment/vengeance.

 

[Denny Crane]

I disagree, since the jailing accomplishes the self-defense. Anything beyond that is unneeded for the sake of self-defense. They're for the sake of people's conception of punishment/vengeance.

I disagree. They're for the sake of enforcing the law.

 

[Minstrel]

I disagree. They're for the sake of enforcing the law.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If they're arrested and jailed, the laws against violent crime are enforced. I don't see why the death penalty is needed in order to enforce the laws.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If they're arrested and jailed, the laws against violent crime are enforced. I don't see why the death penalty is needed in order to enforce the laws.

If a person is indicted, put on trial, the jury finds him guilty, the statute permits death penalty, and it's awarded, then it's not vengeance or anything but enforcing the law.

If the law has penalties that aren't enforced or are too soft, then the law won't be respected. Respect for the law is important to a nation of laws.

This is not the "deterrent" argument, but something entirely different.

 

[Minstrel]

If a person is indicted, put on trial, the jury finds him guilty, the statute permits death penalty, and it's awarded, then it's not vengeance or anything but enforcing the law.

Aha. That's not quite what I meant, that awarding a statute-stipulated consequence is "vengeance." What I meant is that a society choosing to make death a legal consequence is a choice of vengeance rather than of self-defense, since death of the criminal is not required to protect the society.

 

[MikeDC]

Retribution is explicitly used as a justification for legal punishments like the death penalty. I could get out Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and make an argument against it, I suppose, but nonetheless it's taught as such at law schools throughout the country.

Not sure I buy the "respect for the law" argument. If I understand right, you're saying, basically, "the death penalty is on the books, so if it's not used, then the law won't be respected".

I'd turn that argument on its head and say that in practice it's currently used too frequently but not respected. There's something over 3000 people on death row, and it takes years to carry out an execution.

The result is a situation in which criminals probably don't feel any additional deterrent from the death penalty and no one has much respect for society's abilities to enforce its laws.

Hence, you'd get a lot more bang for your buck by 1) drastically reducing the scope of the death penalty punishment to the smallest number of the most horrific criminals and 2) employing the penalty fairly quickly in those cases. Like, commute those 3000+ people on death row down to life imprisonment, but then go out and execute Charlie Manson, Dick Cheney and Barney Frank quickly and publicly.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Aha. That's not quite what I meant, that awarding a statute-stipulated consequence is "vengeance." What I meant is that a society choosing to make death a legal consequence is a choice of vengeance rather than of self-defense, since death of the criminal is not required to protect the society.

I agree that it is not a choice of self defense. But some would call it justice as opposed to vengeance.

 

[Minstrel]

I agree that it is not a choice of self defense. But some would call it justice as opposed to vengeance.

Sure. Justice works, too. Let me put it another way, it is for an emotional reason (sense of justice being done, revenge, etc) rather than a reason of safety or protection.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Retribution is explicitly used as a justification for legal punishments like the death penalty. I could get out Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and make an argument against it, I suppose, but nonetheless it's taught as such at law schools throughout the country.

Not sure I buy the "respect for the law" argument. If I understand right, you're saying, basically, "the death penalty is on the books, so if it's not used, then the law won't be respected".

I'd turn that argument on its head and say that in practice it's currently used too frequently but not respected. There's something over 3000 people on death row, and it takes years to carry out an execution.

The result is a situation in which criminals probably don't feel any additional deterrent from the death penalty and no one has much respect for society's abilities to enforce its laws.

Hence, you'd get a lot more bang for your buck by 1) drastically reducing the scope of the death penalty punishment to the smallest number of the most horrific criminals and 2) employing the penalty fairly quickly in those cases. Like, commute those 3000+ people on death row down to life imprisonment, but then go out and execute Charlie Manson, Dick Cheney and Barney Frank quickly and publicly.

Interesting take, the idea the death penalty is used too frequently. It may be, but 3000 people on death row is only relevant if compared to how many times the death penalty can be and is ordered in murder cases.

Also someone mentioned due process . . . employing the death penalty fairly quickly may be infringing on their due process rights.

But I get what you are saying ,and I lean more towards life in prison sentences as oppose to the death penalty.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure I buy the "respect for the law" argument. If I understand right, you're saying, basically, "the death penalty is on the books, so if it's not used, then the law won't be respected".

No. I'm saying if the penalty is too soft, then the law won't be respected.

If every time you got pulled over for speeding, the cops let you off with a warning, you wouldn't think twice about speeding all the time. If you get a stiff penalty/fine, then you may or may not be deterred from speeding - you assess the risk and speed sometimes if you choose. BUT the fact they enforce the law keeps most people honest. Again, it's not a deterrent thing, it's the respect for the law that keeps people honest.

EDIT:
Nice info on the Alaska.edu www site about the death penalty, pro and con. I see this is prominent, and not exactly as you described but closer to my statement:

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/issues.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1][SIZE=-1]Death penalty advocates justify capital punishment under the principle of lex talionis, or "an eye for an eye" -- the belief that punishment should fit the crime.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]In my speeding example, the warning is the punishment not fitting the crime.