Poll: Death Penalty

[nicky g]

In the post about the DC snipers legal bill, Tom mentioned he didn't support the death penalty, mainly becaus ehe saw no evidence that it saved lives. I thought it would be interesting to see what others thought, so please post as well as voting. I'm voting no.

[nicky g]

Sorry, assume we're talking about murder cases.

[MMMMMM]

nicky I wish you had made this poll a bit more flexible in terms of choice. For instance I do not support capital punishment except in rare and extreme cases.

For murder: No, I do not support capital punishment in by far the vast majority of all cases of murder, and do not support it unless one of the following conditions are met:

1) The murderer is so criminally insane that he is beyond rehabilitation and will always pose a danger to humans. Examples would be Jeffrey Dahmer, Son of Sam, or Richard Ramirez. These serial killers are beyond hope and will always be dangerous. Also in this sort of instance I do not think it should be considered "punishment" per se but more like euthanasia, rather like when a dog with rabies must be put down, simply because it is too dangerous to be allowed to live. It is generally recognized by psychologists that serial killers never lose the overwhelming urge to kill again (the one exception might be the Green River killer, but that is uncertain). Also interesting is that according to psychologists, child molesters never lose the overwhelming urge to molest again (though I'm not suggesting they be executed). Such horribly sick people are for some strange reason simply not rehabilitable. Why I do not know.

2) The murderer is intent on committing murder again and nothing will dissuade him from this intent. Some Islamic terrorists such as certain fanatical members of al-Qaeda might qualify under this definition. They will always represent a threat to kill innocent people again and as such are an unacceptable menace to society.

3) The very worst of the worst of war criminals and despots. Stalin, Hitler, and some others like Saddam Hussein who did essentially the same sort of things although on lesser scales. The reason I support it in these cases is because I think their crimes dwarf all other crimes, and because the world, and especially the victimzed peoples, need the certainty of relief from such a tyrant and because if there is ever any sort of closure with such things, the death of the tyrant might aid in such closure. The world also needs to make the statement that crimes against humanity on such massive scales are simply intolerable. Saddam Hussein should IMO be hanged in Iraq by Iraqis. Maybe his brutal soul would catch a glimpse of the error and evil of his ways in the few days or moments before his death, and the fact that a huge number of his own countrymen were calling for his death might help him disabuse himself of any delusions that what he had done was somehow acceptable.


As for common murderers, no, I do not think that they should be executed because:

1) There is no recourse later if the verdict is found to be wrong

2) Capital punishment has a brutalizing effect on the collective psyche of society

3) Capital punishment has not been shown to be a deterrent

4) Government's trend towards ever-increasing powers is somewhat disturbing and potentially dangerous

5) The expense is greater than keeping them locked up for life

It may seem that I am calling for capital punishment in a great number of cases, but if you think about the numbers, you can see that I support it only in a very small percentage of cases. Of course with the recent explosion in fanatical Islamic terrorism/murder the ratio may be in the process of changing. And even in some of those cases I would not support it, except for the fact that some of those jihad warriors will be trying to kill innocent people as long as they shall live, and nothing shall ever change their minds about this.

[Ray Zee]

if society is never or almost never going to let this person out. why does it have to house him forever. would the death penalty be more acceptable if it was carried out swiftly and cost efficiently. rather than being a ten year ordeal costing millions.

and what is the obligation to support every person that decides to do harm to others rather than eliminating them as they have done to others.

[adios]

My problem with the death penalty as I said is that I see no evidence that it would save lives. We've touched on this before. The legal process in death penalty cases is very expensive but that's not the main reason for my objection. My objection is that inevitably innocent people will be put to death and I'm sure have been already.

[Clarkmeister]

Great post.

[Wake up CALL]

I object to the death penalty but as brad has pointed out torture is ok. Therefore just tortue them on a regular basis and allow the aggrieved parties to watch for free plus sell tickets on PPV. This should serve a threefold use, one as a possible deterrent, the 2nd to repay the cost of their defense and continued incarceration as well as for victim's compensation. It would make Runaway Man look like a poor imitaion of reality based tv. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ragnar]

Both Tom Haley and MMMMMM state that there is no showing that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. That used to be the case. However, some recent studies have shown that there is a lower murder rate in states where murderers are executed after an execution for a short period of time.

There has always been a flaw in the deterrence argument. The flaw is that you can not measure who is deterred, only who is not. This is analagous to Bastiat's argument in economics regarding the seen and the unseen.

The far more difficult problem is the argument that the state may execute an innocent person. The person whom I consider the most dangerous I ever prosecuted did not receive the death penalty, although he committed a heinous rape murder, had a previous forcible rape conviction, and was probably a serial killer. The evidence was solely circumstantial. The the day before the judge died of cancer he told me that he did not give the death sentence because while he was sure of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he was not sure beyond all doubt. Some states have the concept of residual doubt in which if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond all doubt the jury, and later the judge can decide not to give the death penalty. That is a critical concept, and must be honored scrupulously if the death penalty is to survive in this country.

Ragnar

[ACPlayer]

No death penalty under any circumstances whatsoever.

Better to have them live in misery in solitary confinement with no possibility of seeing sunlight again. That would be torture!

I found the interview on NPR with the step-daughter (i think she is the step and not non-step) of the man killed by Paul Hill on the day before his execution, quite interesting. Where even though she was pressed hard stood by her opposition to the death penalty even tho the victim was a, presumably close, family member.

[andyfox]

Make that person work and support himself. Or use that person's funds if they have any.

If the ultimate crime is taking another's life, how is the state doing anything other than committing the ultimate crime in doing the same thing? Your argument is that keeping someone alive is too costly, so let's kill him.

[Utah]

My objection is that inevitably innocent people will be put to death and I'm sure have been already.

Although I am VERY against the death penalty, your statement above is not sufficent to eliminate it.

We kill innocent people all the time as a government. A government would not be able to function if it didnt snag a few innocents in its death grip occasionally. For example, you could never fight a war.

Why draw the line at death? Why not say as well, "we should never lock people up because we will occasionally lock up some innocent people"?

[MMMMMM]

^

[ACPlayer]

we should never lock people up because we will occasionally lock up some innocent people"

Perhaps because you can unlock an innocent person and find ways to make things right, you can't un-kill a person.

[MMMMMM]

The concept of requiring a conviction based on "beyond all doubt" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" strikes me as crucial to the integrity of capital cases, since there in no bringing the dead back to life should they later be exonerated. I was not aware that certain states had different requirements in this regard, and think it is a shame that all states do not require this.

[elwoodblues]

You provide an interesting perspective. I like the idea of the "reasonable doubt" standard at the guilt phase and "no doubt" at the punishment phase. Are you aware of any jurisdictions where this is actually the rule? I wasn't aware of any. I'd love to look 'em up --
I work for an on-line legal research provider and would love to read through materials on this.

You mentioned that the deterrence argument has a flaw; don't you think that the burden should be on those supportive of the death penalty to provide evidence of a deterrence?

~elwoodblues

[GuyOnTilt]

As a Christian, I am adamantly against capital punishment. According to Gallup Polls, this puts me in the minority of Americans who call themselves "Christians." Church leaders claim that the Bible supports the Death Penalty as a just means of punishment for murder, but I disagree completely. I believe it is morally wrong.

One hundred and twenty years ago, the nation of England had over 200 crimes which were punishable by death. This sentence was employed liberally and applied even to children under ten years of age. When a few compassionate souls had enough conscience to question the current system of “justice”, they were opposed by those who refused to believe that there could be a better way. These people proclaimed that the abolition of the death penalty would be the destruction of the state, and that such an unthinkable thing as to do away it could never come to happen. We now live in a time and society where capital crimes have been limited to a very few and limitations have been put on capital sentencing. But no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that what we are doing is fair and justifiable in our own eyes, we still must come to the realization that opinion does not equal truth. The truth is that the current system of capital punishment is depraved and immoral.

The society we live in has declared this form of reprisal to be an acceptable response to crime, and in the process has demoralized the values that we, as Americans, put on human life in general. Our government has given us their reasons why the death penalty is permitted, but their logic is impaired; their reasoning, marred by inconsistencies. Since capital punishment became prevalent about twenty years ago, our society has attempted to give excuses for its irrevocable behavior and over time has deluded itself into believing its own lies.

The first thing which needs to be examined when talking about the death penalty is the principle of punishment, for without knowing the purposed function of punishment in a society you cannot say whether capital punishment either fulfills or fails to fulfill this role. The fundamental purpose of all punishment is to preserve and enhance the common good. That is the reason laws and consequences were created. They exist for the sole principle intent of producing a better environment for society to exist in. A society which chooses violent death as a solution to a social problem gives official sanction to a climate of violence, and only succeeds in necessitating even more acts of discipline. This is completely contradictory to the purpose of punishment.

Most Biblical supporters of capital punishment would jump up and down and point to such verses as Exodus 21:24 which declares “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” To me this verse is moot. First of all what God is trying to convey here is not a sense of minimum punishment being equal to the crime, but of maximum punishment being equal to the crime. This passage isn’t saying that if I hit someone then I must be hit back, but that the most that should happen to me is that I be hit back. The second reason I see this passage as irrelevant to the idea of capital punishment is because Jesus Christ himself rebukes it. In Matthew 5:38,39 He says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’, but I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Here Jesus speaks directly to this passage rebuking it as part of the Old Covenant Law made to Moses, a law which was applicable to mankind before Jesus came to earth, but not after. There is a much more deeper and important aspect to this point, but we will come back to that later. The point here is that the old “eye for eye” argument is debunked by Jesus Christ Himself and is no longer applicable.

Another question that you must consider when examining capital punishment is what it stands for. Are the principles it represents in agreement with the principles God has laid out for us? We’ve already shown that the covenant made with Moses are not the principles that God intends for us to follow, so what are? The idea of capital punishment is the idea that a man should get what he deserves. It is fueled by human nature and our desire to see evil returned with evil. The old cliché that two wrongs don’t make a right, while overused, actually does apply here! God doesn’t call us to be vigilantes and to go around the world searching for all who have sinned and punishing them with the same sin! No! Instead God calls for us to be forgiving (Eph. 4:32, Col. 3:13), compassionate (Col. 3:12, Jas. 5:11), and merciful (Matt 5:7, Luke 6:36, Jude :22). And these aren’t my opinions of what we should do, these are Gods commands which are given to us plain and clear. Nowhere in the New Testament, which are God’s rules for us to follow, does God tell us that we must, or should, execute evil doers; especially those who are imprisoned. In fact, Jesus says of His coming day of judgement that He will condemn those who do not tend to His people in prison (Matt. 25:31-46). God even tells Ezekiel to write, “Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. ’” (Ezek. 33:11)

So what does the death penalty represent? It represents our blatant rebellion against the will of God. Christians continue to support it for the sole impetus that ‘they want to.’ We are so depraved and corrupted by our sinful human nature that we were born into, that we have come to the point where we try to justify everything. We are simply looking for an excuse to kill people who, in our eyes, deserve to be killed. Capital punishment teaches and sanctions revenge. That’s the bottom line. And while Christians say that revenge is wrong for the individual, by supporting the current system they are saying it is right for society as a whole. This hypocritical attitude and theological contradiction is one which is largely ignored by the guilty party.

Besides the fact that capital punishment is immoral and goes against God’s will for His people, it also is insensible. While many opponents spout claims of how the death penalty is not a deterrent and give statistics to back their claims, I believe that this is a moot point. Nowhere does God tell us to be pragmatic in our principles; whether something works or not does not make it right or wrong. Right and wrong are dictated by morality, and morality by the Word of God. It is a shame that people have tried to justify their point of view by whether or not this system is successful. In the same way, the cost of the death penalty compared to life imprisonment is irrelevant as well. This is an argument that a Christian should never - and I repeat, never - use! The ends should never justify the means, and if a group of God-fearing men and women can attempt to define morality as that which saves them the most money then they should take a closer look at themselves and if they personally are following God’s will before they dictate judgement for the sins of others.

Many advocates for death as the ultimate punishment say that it is necessary in order to safeguard society from a killer or a rapist. The first and most obvious response to this statement is the creation of prisons. People forget that the Israelites were a semi-nomadic people after their release from Egypt. They didn’t have the luxury of institutions such as prisons because they were always on the move. This is part of the reason why, in my opinion, God gave such a strict code on death in Exodus. Death was necessary, not only because Jesus had not come yet, but because there was no other way to protect society. But we are not a nomadic people. We live in a land where we erect buildings which are meant to separate criminals from the public. If we keep a criminal there for the duration of his or her whole life, then aren’t we guarding society against them just as well as if we killed them? Of course we are! Yes, killing the perpetrator would serve the purpose just as well, but it would be a blatant disregard of morality and the value that God puts on every precious human life (not just the perfect ones).

While these issues of whether or not the death penalty is pertinent to punishment are important ones, they are not the most important. Above all we are called to respect human life. This is made clear throughout the scriptures from beginning to end. In the beginning…in Genesis we are told that all humans, not just the perfect ones or the ones who don’t commit the “big” sins, are created in God’s image. In the middle…in Psalms David writes that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. In the end…in Revelation we read that God judges us all by the same measure and that we are all equals in His eyes. Now, even a Christian who can ignore all of the above arguments and still claim that, “we must kill those who kill to show killers that killing is wrong” (which is the basic argument of those in favor of capital punishment), cannot contend that innocent men and women should be killed in the same way as murderers. And although the system did not intend for it that is exactly what is happening today.

Those who have taken time to look into the issue of the death penalty undoubtedly know about the case of Furman v. Georgia. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court stuck down the death penalty as unconstitutional for two reasons. The first was that it violated the 8th Amendment of cruel and unusual punishment, an argument which I am not willing to make, as it is one filled with holes (such as ‘if it is the unusualness of the punishment which makes it unconstitutional, then using it more, and thus making is usual, would make it not in violation of the law?’). The second reason it was stuck down, and the most important in my mind, is that it was inconsistent. The word that the legal system likes to use to make it sound like they’re smart and well-educated is arbitrary. A prime example of this is the case of Randal Dale Adams. In 1977, he was tried and convicted of shooting and killing a police-officer, and was given the sentence of death. For twelve years he demanded a retrial insisting he was innocent, while those in favor of a quick and harsh penalty of death demanded his execution. In March of 1989, he was acquitted of all crimes, on the grounds that a man had come forward at his retrial and confessed to the murder in question. That man was then given 13 years in prison. The exact same crime, but two very different sentences dealt out. This is a prime example of how the death penalty is handed out randomly and inconsistently.

With that established, are we willing to have the blood of innocent men on our hands? I personally am not, which is one reason that I would not support a system which allows for innocent men and women to be wrongly killed, which is (by definition) murder. The ends does not justify the means - just because it makes society safer does not justify the murder of innocent human beings. There have been 684 executions in the United States since the death penalty became prevalent in the early 1980’s. Twenty-three of those executed have been found innocent post-mortem. These people were your mothers, your fathers, your sisters, your best friends: men and women who had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, yet were forced to die by a system that 81% of Americans believe is just. That is absolutely unacceptable to anyone who values human life.

While all of these are good reasons as to why the death penalty system is morally wrong, there is one final reason which is unfairly overlooked. For most of us who grew up in Christian homes, we have heard all of our lives that the death penalty is right and that it is God’s will for us to kill killers. We’ve heard this so much that we have, over time, come to believe it as truth without actually investigating ourselves.

Today’s Christian society claims that killing a killer is justifiable, but that the rest of the Old Covenant law that God made with Moses is not applicable. “Crimes” such as cutting your hair or working on the Sabbath are not deserving of death in today’s society. And although most Christians believe this, they fail to ask themselves why they believe this. Why is it that we believe that section of the Old Testament is no longer applicable to our lives today? The answer is Jesus.

God made a covenant with Moses, who ironically was a murderer himself (Ex. 2:12). This covenant law was God’s solution to mankind’s problem of sin. “For the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).” Someone had to die for all these sins that are listed in Exodus and Leviticus. So it was agreed upon by God that the perpetrator himself would be the one to pay. This is the same reason for which animal sacrifices were made in the Old Testament. But then something happened which changed all of that: Jesus Christ came to earth and lived a life without sin, something which had never before been accomplished, and died for the sins of the whole world. After that it was no longer necessary for anybody to die for their own sins as a punishment anymore. “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous (1 Pet. 3:18).” That word ‘once’ is singular, meaning that only one death was necessary to cover all sins that could ever be committed. Jesus Himself told us that he came, “not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it”! He is the death that is imposed in the Old Covenant law; He is the fulfillment of those laws! His sacrifice on a cross negated any need for death as a penalty for sin anymore. That’s not to say that punishment is no longer need, but only that death as a punishment is no longer needed. Even though most Christians don’t know it, that is the reason that they no longer see those Levitical laws as applicable to their own lives today.

So if the Old Covenant law is no longer needed because Jesus fulfilled all of the sacrifices necessitated by that law, then why do we still enforce part of it? That is a question I wished the present Christian society would ask itself. Why do we believe that the Old Covenant law isn’t needed anymore, and yet take a law in the same code that is written three sentences before the ‘contempt of parents deserves death’ law and insist that it be instated in our society today? If we truly desire to be Christ-like and God-minded these are questions which we need to investigate and find answers to.

These are the reasons which I believe capital punishment to be wrong. I see no reason why Christians should insist upon the death penalty being put into effect today, and definitely not with the blood-lusting fervor that the right-wing expresses. Yes, it did used to be necessary, but Christ came and preached to us a message of forgiveness and compassion and second chances; not because we deserve it, because we don’t, but because He was willing to take all of those laws which required death and to pay the price for us. All of us that have sinned deserve to die; no wrongdoer is exempt. But His gift to us was His blood, and who are we to say that the blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient to cover ALL sin, including murder? That, to me, is to say that salvation is not achievable through the acceptance of Christ as Lord. It is a shame that the Christian community has given this exact statement to the world by their view of capital punishment.

It is not God’s will for His people, nor should it be ours.

[adios]

If you could prove to me that the death penalty saves a statistically significant number of lives, I would endorse the death penalty. For arguements sake say a statistically significant number was 50,000 lives. Furthermore let's assume that all lives are equal which I think is a reasonable assumption. If we save 50,000 lives but execute 10 innocent people isn't the death penalty worth it? Why should 10 people dying because they're innocent preclude saving 50,000 lives?

[adios]

[Wake up CALL]

Very good post but I thought I should add a correction. GuyOnTilt wrote:

Those who have taken time to look into the issue of the death penalty undoubtedly know about the case of Furman v. Georgia. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court stuck down the death penalty as unconstitutional for two reasons.The first was that it violated the 8th Amendment of cruel and unusual punishment, an argument which I am not willing to make, as it is one filled with holes (such as if it is the unusualness of the punishment which makes it unconstitutional, then using it more, and thus making is usual, would make it not in violation of the law?). The second reason it was stuck down, and the most important in my mind, is that it was inconsistent.

Actually the Georgia statute was ruled unconstitutional since it was mandatory as well as having no guidelines for judges and jurors to follow and therefore was considered cruel and unusual punishment. This was later corrected by the Georgia legislature.

[Ray Zee]

the problem is you cant make them work or produce enough to support their costs. plus no one has mentioned that those kind of killers also tend to kill in prison. in prison no one is really apart from the general population completely. so by letting a cold blooded killer live you may in fact be sentencing some petty thief to death. and sometimes like today one escapes and maybe gets to kill again before he gets caught.

so all the dogooders that spout religon or compassion or maybe they didnt do it crap. when one escapes and comes into your home, i hope you feel for him.

[GuyOnTilt]

Ray,

This post makes it sound like you believe pragmatism is a good enough reason to kill people.

the problem is you cant make them work or produce enough to support their costs.

So we kill them because their too much of a pain to support? Do I murder my mother when she gets too old because she isn't able to support her own costs anymore? Is that justifiabe as well? The above statemnt is by no means justification to kill somebody.

plus no one has mentioned that those kind of killers also tend to kill in prison. in prison no one is really apart from the general population completely.

I don't exactly know what you mean by "those kind" of killers, but you make a good point. However, the fact that the only way to ensure that somebody doesn't commit a crime ever again is to kill them does not make it right. It may be practical and pragmatic, but that doesn't mean it's justifiable.

so by letting a cold blooded killer live you may in fact be sentencing some petty thief to death.

I hope you plan on retracting this statement. You're obviously attempting to stretch the facts.

so all the dogooders that spout religon or compassion or maybe they didnt do it crap. when one escapes and comes into your home, i hope you feel for him.

What does this have to do with whether CP is right or wrong? It sounds like you want to debate this issue based on emotions, not ethics.

[MMMMMM]

When guys in prison have life sentences with no possibility of parole they have nothing left to lose (except their temporary prvileges, if any). That means that those who are predatory can exploit, intimidate, and contribute to the problems of rape, violence and even murder while in prison. Truly violent, predatory offenders can be a problem everywhere they go including in prison unless they are kept in solitary all their lives. By the way, the problems of gang violence, intimidation and rape in some prisons are very severe and no laughing matter. Also prison rape can be an AIDS death sentence.

[Ragnar]

elwoodblues raises two issues based on my post. I was unclear in my explanation of how the concept of residual doubt works in Arizona. It is a mitigating factor that the jury (previously the judge) can use to spare the defendant. Beyond all doubt is not the burden of proof in the sentencing phase. I think that it could be switched to that system, but I know of know jurisdiction that does that.

The issue of burden of proof on deterrence is interesting. elwood claims that proponents of capital punishment should bear the burden of proof as to whether deterrence is effective. Since my position is that capital punishment is appropriate in limited circumstances for reasons of retribution and restraint I don't have to deal with that issue. I was merely responding to an argument based on lack of deterrence by pointing out that there is additional recent evidence to the contrary, and the impossibility of measuring it. If deterrence can be shown empirically to be valid it could be the basis of a good argument for the death penalty. I do agree that the proponents of capital punishment should have the burden of proof.

Ragnar

[Ray Zee]

its a question of life in prison or death. has nothing to do with mothers. and its not murder to put to death a killer rather than give him a life sentence in a cage.

those kind of killers meaning the ones that would normally get the death sentence. and it is justifiable. the decision is left to the judge or the jury and should be carried out.

the facts are there. killings in prisons are not rare.

it is emotions concerning the death penalty. isnt that what you are debating on. and i wasnt posting at anyone in particular. i am sorry if it sounded that way.

[nicky g]

Well I'm glad I posted this, as there have been some very eloquent responses, especially M's and GuyonTilt's. I agree with M that the poll doesn't offer enough possibilities; I intened to offer a variety of choices/circumstances, but when I started I didn't know where to stop, so gave up and just offered "murder". It is slightly simpler for me as I oppose the death penalty under all circumstances, but obviously it's a complex issue.

I sympathise with M's point about the execution of genocidal tyrants offering closure to the people that suffered under them; I think that's probably true. Nevertheless I oppose it on two grounds - that all killing other than in self-defence is wrong, in my opinion, and undermines the sanctity of and right to life; and, more specifically, because it encourages revenge-killings/vigilanteism against more minor cogs in the dictatorship that have to eventually be reintegrated into society after the transition.

Ray's point that those people may kill again in prison is interesting. It's true that murders in US jails aren't rare; that isn't the case everywhere, however. Jail-rape too is a horrific problem, but also one that can be tackled, if not eradicated. I don't get the impression that the US prison system is trying very hard to fight these problems, although I'm sure it varies from prison to prison and state to state. Serila killers and the like would be put in a very high security psychiatric prison-hospital over here, not left to consort with petty thieves and the like. There are security measures that can be taken.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If we save 50,000 lives but execute 10 innocent people isn't the death penalty worth it? Why should 10 people dying because they're innocent preclude saving 50,000 lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you make the same argument if instead of executing the killer we execute, for example their spouse or child. We would still only be killing 1 person, but the deterrent effect would be huge saving, perhaps, 50,000 lives. Your argument rests on the assumption that all lives are equal...extending that argument it would be worth it to execute 49,998 innocents, plus the killer if we were to save 50,000 lives.

The key distinction, I think, is who is doing the killing of the innocents. In one case, the killing is done by the criminals. In the other, the killing is done by you and me. I am not comfortable with the killing of innocents done in my name.

I'm going off on a tangent...fair warning...

This is part of the reason I have a hard time supporting various military actions; it isn't because we don't have legitimate national interests, but rather I don't want the blood of innocents on my hands. People living in a democratic republic bear more personal responsibility for the acts of their government than individuals in other governments.

[MMMMMM]

"The key distinction, I think, is who is doing the killing of the innocents. In one case, the killing is done by the criminals. In the other, the killing is done by you and me. I am not comfortable with the killing of innocents done in my name.

I'm going off on a tangent...fair warning...

This is part of the reason I have a hard time supporting various military actions; it isn't because we don't have legitimate national interests, but rather I don't want the blood of innocents on my hands. People living in a democratic republic bear more personal responsibility for the acts of their government than individuals in other governments."

If only the depraved suicide bombers and jihad warriors, and their despicable organizers and supporters, would share some of your sentiments.

[ACPlayer]

No doubt because it is because i have not been through it directly, but I have never understood the concept of closure. As a victim's fmaily member, whether a result of genocide or murder, the punishment of another appears to little for my personal grief. Punishment of the crime is to my mind a societal solution, rather than a personal solution.

Coming to terms with anger agaisnt the perp is best handled through therapy.

[ACPlayer]

This is part of the reason I have a hard time supporting various military actions; it isn't because we don't have legitimate national interests, but rather I don't want the blood of innocents on my hands. People living in a democratic republic bear more personal responsibility for the acts of their government than individuals in other governments.

Well put!

[nicky g]

Not having experienced anything comparable, I don't know how I would feel. I can understand though that having lived under a reign of terror, you could put the period behind you more easily knowing the tyrant was dead and never coming back. Although of course one tyrant is easily replaced by another, but people are still bound to personalise their experience. I'm not really sure how "closure" is best achieved but I do think it's an important concept; I know even from relatively minor things that one of the worst feelings is thinking you're never going to get over something. If you can truly believe that eventually you'll move on, it makes you feel a lot better. If you think a bad experience will be hanging over you forever, it's miserable.

[MMMMMM]

The difference between personal closure--if there can ever be such a thing (I like "coming to terms with" better than "closure" in the personal sense)--and closure in the sense of a country no longer living under tryanny are two very different things. The feeling of absolute certainty that Saddam's regime is never coming back would be bolstered by his death; if he is merely captured and imprisoned, it might be a long shot, but-- he could potentially escape, and with remnant die-hard state security goons combined with rabid Islamist terrorists, attempt to regain power and re-institute his reign of terror over the Iraqis. This could conceivably take place in the coming years after U.S. forces leave Iraq. If he and the top Iraqi Baathist thugs are dead however there is no chance of this. And with fear running so very, very deep for decades in Iraq, I think the common Iraqi people need to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that this time the Baathist terror machine is gone for good, and that they can go about the business of rebuilding Iraq and creating a good, stable government for the Iraqis.

[nicky g]

If only everyone shared those sentiments.

[MMMMMM]

Not exactly.

War is one thing, terrorism is another (although sometimes there may be some overlapping).

The suicide bombers expressly target innocents. They and their supporters are the most depraved.

Also, wars to remove tyrants or to defeat aggressive countries, such as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, necessarily involves the killing of some innocents, but I don't think one can logically conclude that therefore all wars--especially such as defense against Nazi Germany--are always wrong. However targeting innocent civilians as the suicide bombers habitually do is not only wrong it is also depraved. Therefore the comment is especially in regards to them.

Obviously if nobody took aggressive actions in the first place, nor forcibly oppressed any citizens within their own countries, wars would never occur. But human beings on average are far too primitive at present for this to be a reality. Also there are far too many massively defective individuals on the face of the Earth such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Saddam Hussein --sadists with no conscience, evilly sick people who should never have been born in the first place. If there is an afterlife I do not wish them hell, but instead permanent dissolution of their constituent physical and spiritual elements, so that their evil spirits can no longer exist to attack and terrorize others.

[adios]

"Would you make the same argument if instead of executing the killer we execute, for example their spouse or child. "We would still only be killing 1 person, but the deterrent effect would be huge saving, perhaps, 50,000 lives."

Nope didn't say that at all. Again you're putting words in my mouth.


"Your argument rests on the assumption that all lives are equal...extending that argument it would be worth it to execute 49,998 innocents, plus the killer if we were to save 50,000 lives."

Would you call 2 lives out of 50,000 statistically significant (it isn't)? I'm going to ignore your responses to my posts since you've continued to put words in my mouth i.e. state points that I've made that I haven't made.

Anyway the current legal process in arriving at who shall suffer the death penalty in the United States almost certainly results in innocent people being put to death at best very rarely or at worst occasionally. The frequency that this happens I am not sure of but I would guess closer to very rarely. If maintaining this process results in a statistically significant number of saved lives, I am for maintaining this process. Sorry if this process saves 50,000 lives (and I see no evidence that it does) and you are for aboloshing this process then YOU do have the blood of 50,000 innocent people on your hands.

[ACPlayer]

Without lingering on the question of whether "closure" is achieved for a popultion that has been living under tyrants. On a personal level, I find that talking to a good therapist is the best way to move on. So, if the issue was a personal loss brought about by a tyrant or mad man or random mugger, I suspect that closure and moving for me would be understanding my feelings rather than killing the perp. Hence the therapist.

I strongly suspect that if Saddam is killed (to pick up on MM's example) that may make some Iraqi's happy for about 10 minutes, then they will go back to trying as best as they can to live in their war ravaged country.

Something most westerners cant understand is that in third world countries, the biggest problem is making sure that there is a tomorrow (food, shelter, security the necessities). Niceties about govt usually come well behind these concerns. In the US and UK, the necessities are not usually a problem, so we spend our effort proselytizing about democracy, freedoms etc. Instead of just setting a good example that the rest of the world can follow.

[MMMMMM]

"Something most westerners cant understand is that in third world countries, the biggest problem is making sure that there is a tomorrow (food, shelter, security the necessities). Niceties about govt usually come well behind these concerns. In the US and UK, the necessities are not usually a problem, so we spend our effort proselytizing about democracy, freedoms etc. Instead of just setting a good example that the rest of the world can follow."

What I think you are failing to take into account, ACPlayer, is that the political systems these impoverished countries use is generally the cause of their country's poverty. Is any Democratic Constitutional Republic impoverished today? (exclude say Afghanistan whose government is too new to be a meaningful measure as of yet). Are countries where there are any dictatorships rich today (average income I guess not just the ruling powers)?

Also the Arab states with their immense oil wealth would be far richer today if they had truly developed, balanced economies...and one main reason they don't is their backwards ideologies and backwardss political systems.

So when we "proselytize" about democracy etc. there is good reason for it--even that it better fills the bellies of the common man than any other system yet tried.

Also, for countries to "follow our example" can be hard to impossible to do when the ruling clique has all the money and military force. So your statement, IMO, is long on fuzzy wishfulness and short on pragmatism.

[adios]

This is two posts now where you've basically said I want to do away with the US Constitution and do away with the legal system. Apparently this type of smear is SOP for you when you don't share someone's viewpoints. I find these tactics disgusting but typical of certain people in this world. Adios.

[ACPlayer]

Pragmatic policies have led to our support of Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

Pragmatic policies led to our support of the dictator of Iran.

Pragmatic policies led to our support of Saddam in the 80s.

You want me to go on how our pragmatic policies have bettered the world?

Pragmatic policies have led to our becoming a terrorist target.

If we were a little more idealist and hands off and less "pragmatic" we would be safer from these Jihadi's that so terrify you.

[elwoodblues]

Wow...someone has thin skin. And you accuse me of putting words in you mouth? Do you seriously not think that I raised legitimate questions/issues? If you don't think they were legitimate I completely understand your response. If they were legitimate then your labelling them as "smear" and "disgusting" seems a bit much. Is this SOP for you if you disagree with someone else's opinions?

Let me summarize the two "main" posts:

Post 1: You attach an article about the defense costs in the Sniper case and ask the question "Is there something wrong with this picture?" I respond (in an admittedly sarcastic way) outlining why I would expect the costs to be a lot, then you claim I put words in your mouth.

Post 2: You say that you find it reasonable to kill innocents through capital punishment as long as it saves a statistically significant number of non-innocents (I hope I'm summarizing your point correctly). I question the bounds of "statistically significant" and question whether that would include the intentional killing of innocents if it accomplished the same goal (saving a larger number of innocents) and you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

Questioning the bounds of ones arguments are how consenses are built. By determining where the extremes are as well as where our opinions overlap, we can end the discussion on a high note, instead of a low. Too often people claim one side of an argument and fail to look for ways in which they agree with the opposition (I am surely as guilty of this as anyone). As a society, we've polarized ourselves into believing that every question has 2 possible answers. Democrat/Republican, Pro-Life/Pro-Choice, Pro Death Penalty (you get the idea....) I would suggest that with most issues common ground can be found (even the tough ones like abortion).

~elwood

[elwoodblues]

Let me just say up front that I am really curious about this, I'm not trying to goad anyone (though I suspect that my inclusion of the previous sentence might actually goad someone)...

Are there democratic republics in countries whose natural resources are such that they have issues with malnutrition and drought? I don't know if their are...I am seriously curious.

The reason that I ask is...it's kind of a chicken/egg thing. Does prosperity (loosely defined) lead to democracy or does democracy lead to prosperity. Are there examples of countries that were impoverished...became democracies...then flourished?

~elwood

[ACPlayer]

I would say it was disingenuous of MM to suggest that there are no poor democracies. India, the biggest democracy in the world is still a very poor state. S. Africa a new democracy is a very poor state (though very rich in resources and has almost a first world financial infrastructure).

My point about people who have trouble feeding themselves are far less interested in political structure then well fed Americans looking to improve the world. To a hungry person a benevolent dictatorship would be just as good.

Now from a societal point of view wealth comes not from democracy per se, IMO, but from free markets (the two are inter-related ofcourse). Free markets lead to increasing capital formation which lead to wealth and prosperity. So, a dictatorship that can find a way to foster the enterpreneurial spirit and allow people to gather wealth could work (but of course no dictator would allow that).

To address your question, democracy appears to the ideal way for formation of wealth in a society. India is a good example of a country that is working towards that goal. Whether it gets there or not, still is an open question.

[MMMMMM]

"Questioning the bounds of ones arguments are how consenses are built."

Yet you aparently don't like questioning how much money should be allocated by the state for capital defenses.

Also, although you did question certain bounds in your post, you also rather implied some negative things about Tom's views which did not necessarily follow from his statements or questions--if not in that one post, then in others.

[MMMMMM]

Totally off-topic from the point I was making. Do you think you could respond to one point before jumping away to another?

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, it was not disingenuous of me; the example of India simply didn't occur to me in that on-the-spot post. Sorry I can't think of every possible example within a 3-minute time frame while writing a post (maybe longer as I fielded a couple phone calls at that time too). Didn't I phrase it as a question anyway? Anyway I think the point is generally true even if there are rare exceptions. Also I believe India's economy and standard of living has risen a lot as their citizens have become more expert in various technical and professional fields.

So democracy and propsperity seem to generally go hand-in-hand along with liberal free markets. Therefore our proselytizing of democracy is a very good thing for the people and countries were are proselytizing it to.

[MMMMMM]

Go look it up if you are that curious.

[elwoodblues]

Thanks, very helpful. I actually thought that the collective wisdom of the group might save some time researching (I must have mistakenly thought that was part of the point of a board like this).