Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Today's discussion on the death penalty piqued my interest. I was somewhat surprised to find such a post on the Board. I wanted to make some comments regarding Black Sheep's list:
1. The punishment needs to fit the crime, not be cost effective. Should someone commit an offense worthy of the death penalty, we should not relax their punishment simply because it is cheaper. If we are to consider capital offenses the worst, they should be given the greatest attention.
2. I really get annoyed when I hear this argument. Politicians use this flawed argument all the time, that punishments the define in law will create a deterrent to crime. This is just political rhetoric to get them elected. The fact of the matter is, when someone commits a serious crime, they generally are not thinking about the consequences. If they are, the often take the steps necessary to sufficiently create a disconnect between themselves and the crime. A police officer I know once said "we don't catch the smart ones." It is the crime committed by those not thinking of the consequences who get convicted. In addition, the death penalty does act as a deterrent to crime. Perhaps not for someone else, but it does act as a deterrent for the person convicted. It prevents them from committing murder again.
3. Another thing which really annoys me is when statistics are used in this fashion to establish some form of causality. This is suggesting that a statstical correlation (or lack of correlation) means there is causality, when the two things are not the same.
4. This sadly is true. Some people convicted and sentenced to death row fall into this category. However, the system is not perfect. I do not think the Lord is going to hold us responsible in this case. We were acting in the best interest of our society, and being imperfect, we did the best we could.
5. This is an entirely different argument. Society has provided the opportunities for education to everyone. However, it is not society's responsibilty to force them to learn. Like the old saying says "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Nor do I think it wise to force such. Our society has failed to teach the connection between agency and responsibility. This is why you see uneducated people in our prison system. They failed to learn that their actions have consequences.
6. Again, I feel this is another sad flaw of our system. I have worked very closely with people with severe mental and physical disabilities and know they often cannot connect the consequences they face. The Law of Moses was one of the first codes in history which introduced the idea of mitigation of guilt, the idea that you can commit an offense, but not be guilty of it due to mitigating circumstances. But just as #4, we just need to make sure we are trying our best to not make mistakes.
7. Again, turning a statistical correlation into a causality. Sure, many people have poor representation, but that is why we have an appellate system in the US.

So, there is my rant, take it for what it is - a rant.

My re-rant (mostly because I think this is an interesting topic and I like picking at arguments)

1. Who gets to decide that someone is worthy of death? I understand the reasoning behind the death penalty, but I have serious issues with being able to decide that someone will die. I would never be able to do it. If someone has taken a life (or multiples), does that mean you get to take theirs? To some people it's obvious that you do, to others of us it isn't.
2. It's ok, I get irritated when people chalk arguments up to nothing more than political spin stories. It's not clear whether or not there is a direct correlation between the death penalty and murder rates. There are a lot of other variables to consider.
3. It's true that the statistics don't imply causality, but it's still an interesting question: the probability that a black person will be convicted against the probability of the same for a white. Just because the stats TBS used don't imply causality doesn't mean there isn't any.
4. I shudder the indifference to human life you're implying. Killing innocent people is no small matter. An imperfect system isn't an excuse. It's a reason to do something about it and make it better.
5. I agree that it's an entirely different argument, but I don't agree with your horse and water analogy. I used to, and then I lived in the inner city and spent time in the projects and dark places of the world and realized that there are a lot of people who really don't have the opportunity for education. They are given up on before they're given a chance. They live the life they know, which often isn't one we would consider good. Education isn't important to them because there's no need for it. There are some horses that refuse to drink, but there are a lot of horses that aren't offered the water in the first place. That is something we <i>can</i> do something about that will have an impact on crime rates.
6. You're dang straight we need to do our best.
7. I don't have the faith in the appellate system you do. The good lawyers make the big bucks and won't touch death penalty cases. The seedy ones seem to get the lion's share of them. It's an interesting issue that would be hard to accurately examine. You really wouldn't be able to do an effective control case.

crmeatball wrote:The punishment needs to fit the crime, not be cost effective.

Why shouldn't cost be a consideration? It seems my tax dollars already go toward taking human life with two wars going on. I don't think anyone's advocating letting murderers go off scot-free; I think some writers are questioning whether the death sentence is a viable means of punishment in today's society, though. On what basis are you arguing this? "Eye for an eye"?

I say ship them all to Australia!

Portia,

I think that werf was just saying that the punishment should fit the crime, and not be determined by some outside factor such as cost. After all, the cheapest way to deal with crime would be to shoot criminals dead on the street and leave their bodies there as an example. Then you wouldn't have to have any jails or courts, and punishment would come at the cost of a bullet, mere cents.

However, I think that we all agree that that would be a terrible policy, as the punishment doesn't (necessarily) fit the crime, and there is no due process. (As well as hidden costs.)

A Link, even if just for me, cuz' I forget too easily what it is we are talking about

My re-re-rant (mostly because I agree that that this is an interesting topic and I also enjoy picking at arguments)

habiba wrote:1. Who gets to decide that someone is worthy of death?

Me. Us. Anyone who happens to have it within their power.

habiba wrote:I would never be able to do it.

I hesitate at blanket statements, perhaps at this stage of your life you have thankfully never been exposed to a situation that would ask you to so do.

habiba wrote:If someone has taken a life (or multiples), does that mean you get to take theirs?

I'd say that is very situational. I think that most agree that if "someone" means "an Israelite in 700 BC Cannan" and "you" means "the Elders of the church" then yes. If "someone" is the worst serial murder in New York's system, and "you" means "Tao, the board writer" then I sure hope everyone would say no.

My own response to TBS's #1 is a wondering what exactly makes death row cost more than I will ever make in a year? What differentiates it from a year in max security?

habiba wrote:2. It's ok, I get irritated when people chalk arguments up to nothing more than political spin stories. It's not clear whether or not there is a direct correlation between the death penalty and murder rates. There are a lot of other variables to consider.

Not even going to touch this one. I don't know the facts, or the statistics that people are using for support. And I would need to see a fair amount before I'd be willing to say that with any conviction that we know one way or the other. I agree most fully with habiba's last statement: too many variables, we really don't know on this one.

habiba wrote:3. It's true that the statistics don't imply causality, but it's still an interesting question: the probability that a black person will be convicted against the probability of the same for a white. Just because the stats TBS used don't imply causality doesn't mean there isn't any.

Uhh... I really think I'd be wanting to lean toward the "correlation doesn't imply causality" bit right about now if I were wanting to show racial discrimination in the death penalty. Look at the stats again. The percentages of white to black executions are 57 - 34 respectively, whereas current death row population is 45 -41. At first blush, that seems to imply that if you are black you are more likely to get off of death row alive. The interracial murder numbers are quite disparate, but end up much less so after you look at the victim race percentages just above it. there were only 242 black victims, as compared to 1331 white victims. A much more telling statistic would be a ratio of cases to executions, not just a raw count of executions.

habiba wrote:4. I shudder the indifference to human life you're implying. Killing innocent people is no small matter. An imperfect system isn't an excuse. It's a reason to do something about it and make it better.

Agreed. 100%. go back and re-read that one, notice how it could be used by someone arguing either side of this particular issue.

5. I must say, this one confused me. The percentages aren't that far off of a truncated population curve. (their stats are 2006, I was looking at the 2000 census, close enough.) What this tells me is that having all of the factors that culminate in a college experience severely curbs the likelihood of getting caught and convicted of a violent crime, either by non-commission or by cash or cunning.

habiba wrote:6. You're dang straight we need to do our best.

Yup. (on a not-very-related-note; anyone think of the implications of this on the other end of the bell curve?)

habiba wrote:7. I don't have the faith in the appellate system you do. The good lawyers make the big bucks and won't touch death penalty cases. The seedy ones seem to get the lion's share of them. It's an interesting issue that would be hard to accurately examine. You really wouldn't be able to do an effective control case.

I rather think this is common to the entire criminal system we currently have, not just capital punishment. For my opinion pretty much see #2.

Portia and Fredjikrang: as you have pointed out, cost is a two edged sword. Since for some reason death row is more expensive than life in prison, either do away with it, or assure that those on death row aren't there longer than the increased costs would have payed for the rest of their stay in maximum.

Tao wrote:

habiba wrote:1. Who gets to decide that someone is worthy of death?

Me. Us. Anyone who happens to have it within their power.

habiba wrote:I would never be able to do it.

I just realized I was not very clear in this as I could have been. I have been in a similar discussion with a man who was adamantly opposed to war, in every way. One day our discussion followed something of a choose your adventure, which I will attempt to summarize here.

You are on the edge of town, walking back to your car after an evening out with friends. Just as you approach the lot, you hear screams from a side ally. Upon a quick assessment, you discover a man assaulting a young woman, forcing her to strip at gunpoint. You can:

A)Confront him. B)Call the cops. C)Quickly get to your car and go home, the neighborhood is obviously not safe.

We both agreed, and I think many, if not most, would, that A was too rash and C was too callous. Call the cops, regardless of your next actions.

So you call, and dispatch informs you that all available units have been called to a bomb threat/ potential hostage situation at the school across town, and that a squad is on it's way, ETA 30-45 minutes. Well, you've taken care of B, choices now are pretty much A and C.

While untried in this manner, I think I would be the type to choose A, knowing that by the time the authorities arrived, the young woman would likely have been raped and possibly killed, and her assailant could very well get off scott-free, endangering who knows how many others until he is finally caught. So: confrontation. What do you do? I am average sized, relatively athletic, with some minor training in Jujitsu. With my strength, speed, knowledge, and surprise, I am fairly confidant I could disable an armed man, as long as he doesn't exceed me in more than two of those categories. I would endeavor to do so, disarming or disabling him in whichever order comes easiest, keeping in mind the safety of the young woman, who is a random factor beyond conjecture at this point. As long as there is one man, and the safety of innocents is relatively assured, I would disable him and keep him so until the police arrive. Let the law decide on punishment, no real moral questions there. But say that just as you jump the perpetrator, you hear an accomplice of his call out to him, mentioning something about having finished off the rest of the family. Submission holds only last as long as leverage is maintained, and unconsciousness is only reliable for 3 to 7 seconds, how are you going to deal with two of them? You don't have time to tie the first one up and still have a chance at the second, they appear more than willing and able to kill, and backup is still half an hour away. In those microseconds, you have just become Judge, Jury, and if you so decide,, Executioner to one or both of these men. To me, the answer is simple. Not simply arrived at, by any means, but simply the only viable option that I can see at that point: crush the trachea of the first man, gain control of his firearm if possible, and, best case scenario, find concealment for you and the victim, to escape or ambush, as the situation demands. Worst case scenario, the firearm has been lost or otherwise rendered useless in the scuffle, and no concealment offers itself. Then use whatever you have to keep surprise on your side, have the young woman try to escape while you try to get close and engage the second man as best you can; either stopping him or at the very least, causing him to spend time and ammunition on you that won't be used on anyone else.

The scenarios are countless; the kidnapper holding your child at gunpoint, the students gone nuts on campus, anytime you have the capacity to kill you might be faced with a situation that potentially asks if you use it. Police officers undertake that responsibility every time they put on their badge. To me, use of lethal force in a shootout, hostage situation, or bomb threat differs from capital punishment in the timing of an authority figure's arrival. At what point does the line get drawn? Is killing in self defense as in defending yourself from a serial murderer, killing in the defense of another as in a police action, and killing in defense of future or past victims really that different? Shall we outlaw guns? they'd still end up in the hands of criminals. Cease the production and importation of firearms? You would have people holding up banks and convenience stores with knives or bombs. Outlaw sharp objects and chemicals that could be combined to make an explosion? Best of luck in that.

Well, that was fun. And way too much typing. Must be getting late again...

I quite agree. In an emergency situation you've got to do what's necessary to keep people from being hurt. I meant sitting on a jury or as a judge and having to decide to take someone's life. I'm not sure I could do that. Especially if their family were there.

And who decides to become an executioner anyway? "How was your day honey?" "Oh great. I killed three today."

habiba wrote:And who decides to become an executioner anyway? "How was your day honey?" "Oh great. I killed three today."

"Where do you see yourself in five years?" "Oh, I hope to be a JE with a good start on becoming a Senior Executioner, but I don't know if I'll be able to pass that KNOT* exam"

*Knots, Nooses and Other Techniques

I always thought these versus of the Book of Mormon were interesting, in that they show that Alma thought the death penalty was just, if it took the life of the guilty, and not his brother. Alma 34:11-12

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

The Nephites practiced this law.

vorpal blade wrote: The Nephites practiced this law.

The Nephites were also practicing the Law of Moses at that time.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:

vorpal blade wrote: The Nephites practiced this law.

The Nephites were also practicing the Law of Moses at that time.

Are you implying that the death penalty is part of the Law of Moses, or that it was done away with at the time of Jesus?

vorpal blade wrote: Are you implying that the death penalty is part of the Law of Moses, or that it was done away with at the time of Jesus?

Yes, sort of, and no. I say yes because a life for a life is in the Law of Moses, but I don't imply that we have the death penalty solely because of the Law of Moses. Ancient Babylonian law also had the death penalty.

As for it being done away with, I don't believe there any evidence for or against it being done away with by Christ.

I merely point out that it is something worth noting.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:

vorpal blade wrote: Are you implying that the death penalty is part of the Law of Moses, or that it was done away with at the time of Jesus?

Yes, sort of, and no. I say yes because a life for a life is in the Law of Moses, but I don't imply that we have the death penalty solely because of the Law of Moses. Ancient Babylonian law also had the death penalty.

As for it being done away with, I don't believe there any evidence for or against it being done away with by Christ.

I merely point out that it is something worth noting.

Okay, thanks for pointing that out.

On my mission I talked with a lot of people that had the idea that God was unforgiving, harsh, and unloving. Then he came down to earth, saw how things were, and became a Christian. So, they reason that the law of Moses was sort of a mistake God made. I was wondering if this was the direction you were taking the discussion.

vorpal blade wrote: Okay, thanks for pointing that out.

On my mission I talked with a lot of people that had the idea that God was unforgiving, harsh, and unloving. Then he came down to earth, saw how things were, and became a Christian. So, they reason that the law of Moses was sort of a mistake God made. I was wondering if this was the direction you were taking the discussion.

Which is why I am glad that I was not a missionary preaching to a bunch of hippies in the sixties.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:

vorpal blade wrote: Okay, thanks for pointing that out.

On my mission I talked with a lot of people that had the idea that God was unforgiving, harsh, and unloving. Then he came down to earth, saw how things were, and became a Christian. So, they reason that the law of Moses was sort of a mistake God made. I was wondering if this was the direction you were taking the discussion.

Which is why I am glad that I was not a missionary preaching to a bunch of hippies in the sixties.

LOL

Well, they weren't hippies in Italy. But you are right, it was the sixties.