PDA

View Full Version : Death Sentences Right Or Wrong?



Space_Dude
19-12-2008, 08:54 PM
Is Death sentence the right thing to do to punish criminal and if so why and what is the most humane way to do so?

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2008, 09:05 PM
I am opposed to the death sentence in all circumstances and by any methods, primarily on the grounds that it is irreversible and if a mistake is made (although it is possible to make sure these occur very rarely) you have added one innocent death to another.

Further to this there is something I find a bit disturbing about the whole thing. I do not find it easy to express exactly what it is - it's a feeling there probably isn't a precise word for - but there is something about the whole process of taking a person who you are holding completely captive and forcibly ending their life that I find strangely repugnant, no matter what they have done.

I am also not sure the death sentence is really effective as either a deterrent or a money-saver but I would most likely oppose it even if it was.

I do however support life-means-life sentencing for certain kinds of prisoners.

Space_Dude
19-12-2008, 09:08 PM
I saw on the news that the indonesian government is going to execute an australian man for trying to smuugle 3 kg of drugs oversea. Now that i not a fair punishment for only drug smuggling. im not sure if its death by shooting range.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 02:13 AM
I support capital punishment for capital crimes, i.e. take an innocent life intentionally, you pay with your own life. It should not be used for drug smuggling, but I had no problems with executing the Bali bombers.

Indeed we must be as careful as possible to make sure we have the right culprit. But to abolish is completely on the grounds that some innocents will be executed is not sound. In real life, as Sowell points out (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell061501.asp), there are no solutions but only trade-offs. Executing one innocent person is indeed very wrong, but is it right to ban all executions if this ban results in the killing of ten times as many innocent people by murderers released on a technicality, after serving 12 years of a 'life" sentence, released on furlough by a leftist governor like Dukakis, exchanged for hostages (as has happened in Israel), or in prison itself. And there are many cases of innocent people being saved because of the deterrent of the death penalty. Reagan gave an example in a radio broadcast before he was President, of a man about to be killed by a scumbag telling him, "you'll go to the chair if you kill me" or some such, and he was spared—this was not long after capital punishment was reinstated.

Sowell's book The Vision of the Anointed says (p. 225):

"In short, while saving some innocent individuals from a false conviction is important, the question is whether it is more important than sparing other equally innocent individuals from violence and death at the hands of criminals. Is saving one innocent defendant per decade worth sacrificing ten innocent murder victims? A thousand? Once we recognize that there are no solutions, but only trade-offs, we can no longer pursue cosmic justice, but must make our choices among alternatives actually available—and these alternatives do not include guaranteeing that no harm can possibly befall any innocent individual. The only way to make sure than no innocent individual is ever falsely convicted is to do away with the criminal justice system and accept the horrors of anarchy."

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2008, 01:11 PM
Executing one innocent person is indeed very wrong, but is it right to ban all executions if this ban results in the killing of ten times as many innocent people by murderers released on a technicality, after serving 12 years of a 'life" sentence, released on furlough by a leftist governor like Dukakis, exchanged for hostages (as has happened in Israel), or in prison itself.

All these issues can be either removed or countered:

* released on a technicality - also an issue when you have the death sentence, given the time it takes to exhaust all possible avenues of appeal. That some murderers will now and then be released on technicalities whether you have capital punishment or not is the price of doing the utmost not to punish the innocent. Where exactly that balance should be set is another question.

* after serving 12 years of a "life" sentence - use life-means-life imprisonment for murderers who even may pose an ongoing threat.

* release by governor - remove right of politicians to pardon criminals (really not an issue in Australia).

* exchanged for hostages - most likely if you execute the other side's "murderers" in a conflict situation instead of imprisoning them, they'll kill more people in reprisal anyway. Or just refuse to negotiate with terrorists under any circumstances.

* in prison itself - improve prison security and don't allow people in for short sentences and minor crimes to mix with dangerous lifers.


And there are many cases of innocent people being saved because of the deterrent of the death penalty. Reagan gave an example in a radio broadcast before he was President, of a man about to be killed by a scumbag telling him, "you'll go to the chair if you kill me" or some such, and he was spared—this was not long after capital punishment was reinstated.

Sure, there will be cases where the death penalty serves as a deterrent. But unless it serves as an overall net deterrent that's irrelevant.


Sowell's book The Vision of the Anointed says (p. 225):
[INDENT]"In short, while saving some innocent individuals from a false conviction is important, the question is whether it is more important than sparing other equally innocent individuals from violence and death at the hands of criminals. Is saving one innocent defendant per decade worth sacrificing ten innocent murder victims? A thousand?

It's a moot question unless there is evidence that executing one innocent defendent per decade actually saves ten innocent people who would have otherwise been murdered, or a thousand. Which, unless there is overall evidence that executions are effective in reducing the murder rate, there isn't.


The only way to make sure than no innocent individual is ever falsely convicted is to do away with the criminal justice system and accept the horrors of anarchy."

Indeed, but if you do not execute the innocent individual you have the option of releasing them, and perhaps even helping them recover some kind of quality of life after what they have been wrongly put through. If you execute them you lose this option.

Space_Dude
20-12-2008, 01:17 PM
Do they still use electric chairs??

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2008, 05:20 PM
Do they still use electric chairs??

Very rarely. It is only used now in the USA and most states have banned it. The few states that still have it allow prisoners to choose other methods, or have it as a reserve option only.

Oepty
20-12-2008, 05:33 PM
Kevin. Do you believe there are crimes that should be punished by the death penalty if the prospect of killing the innocent could be totally removed?
Scott

Oepty
20-12-2008, 05:38 PM
Jono. Why do you believe murders should not be given a chance to become Christian and receive forgiveness from God? Surely the death penalty condemns them to hell without giving them that chance.
Scott

eclectic
20-12-2008, 05:42 PM
Surely the death penalty condemns them to hell without giving them that chance.
Scott

the death penalty is being inflicted by the state not by God

what does hell have to do with it?

eclectic
20-12-2008, 05:46 PM
Kevin. Do you believe there are crimes that should be punished by the death penalty if the prospect of killing the innocent could be totally removed?
Scott

if the prospect of killing the innocent were totally removed then the option of inflicting the death penalty on the unborn would indeed be greatly removed

Oepty
20-12-2008, 05:59 PM
if the prospect of killing the innocent were totally removed then the option of inflicting the death penalty on the unborn would indeed be greatly removed

What?? I am not sure what you are trying to say
Scott

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2008, 06:11 PM
Kevin. Do you believe there are crimes that should be punished by the death penalty if the prospect of killing the innocent could be totally removed?

Non-serious response:

Yes, but the only crime I would support this for would be that of messing up a newspaper in a cafe and failing to put it back together again in proper order for other readers.
:P

Serious response:

I would still be uneasy about it but in that case my view would probably depend on the balance of arguments re cost and deterrence. It seems that capital punishment does not deter murderers, but if it saved enough that more lives could be saved using that money than were lost through deterrence failure, I might reluctantly support it ... if that money was actually redirected to saving more lives. There are a lot of ifs and buts in there so probably the answer is still "no".

I think your question for Jono is interesting (though he might say they have the chance to convert before they are executed) because I wonder if theistic views actually make it easier for a person to support the death penalty. On many non-theistic views, including mine, if you are wrongfully executed you have lost everything, while on a theistic one if you are wrongfully executed then God can sort out the mess in the afterlife and send you to Heaven if you have earned a spot there, so while it matters, it is not really quite such a big deal.

Space_Dude
20-12-2008, 06:24 PM
Why do you believe murders should not be given a chance to become Christian and receive forgiveness from God? Surely the death penalty condemns them to hell without giving them that chance.
Scott
Probably cause No matter what as in if he gets released from prison, he would get killed or he'll commit suicide so might as well get him out of his misery. And he might seserve to die as in hes a sociopath and a psycopath.and killed dozens of man, women and children

Oepty
20-12-2008, 06:38 PM
Serious response:

I would still be uneasy about it but in that case my view would probably depend on the balance of arguments re cost and deterrence. It seems that capital punishment does not deter murderers, but if it saved enough that more lives could be saved using that money than were lost through deterrence failure, I might reluctantly support it ... if that money was actually redirected to saving more lives. There are a lot of ifs and buts in there so probably the answer is still "no".

Okay, that makes sense, not that I necessarily agree with it.



I think your question for Jono is interesting (though he might say they have the chance to convert before they are executed) because I wonder if theistic views actually make it easier for a person to support the death penalty. On many non-theistic views, including mine, if you are wrongfully executed you have lost everything, while on a theistic one if you are wrongfully executed then God can sort out the mess in the afterlife and send you to Heaven if you have earned a spot there, so while it matters, it is not really quite such a big deal.

Being wrongly executed does not mean being saved in my opinion and I suspect also in Jono's so being wrongly executed might mean a lost opportunity to convert.
Scott

MichaelBaron
20-12-2008, 11:14 PM
I am generally against the death sentences but when i read about some of the horrible crimes people commit, i am starting to get second thoughts :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 11:32 PM
Jono. Why do you believe murders should not be given a chance to become Christian and receive forgiveness from God?
A murderer facing the death penalty has a greater incentive to do just that than someone facing life imprisonment even if that really means "life" (as if).


Surely the death penalty condemns them to hell without giving them that chance.
By the same token, allowing murderers to kill again (which is likely, as I've said) faces the same problem if the victims are not Christian.

There is a good reason why leading Nazi and Japanese war criminals were hanged after WW2: no chance to keep their evil regimes going or undermining their democratic successors, resulting in far more lives lost (many of whom never knew Christ).

But if you want to argue from the Christian viewpoint (most commendable), then you must start from the biblical teachings not your own "what ifs". The Bible clearly teaches capital punishment for capital crimes in the Noahic Covenant which has never been revoked (Genesis 9), unless God had actually flooded the whole world again.

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul, Jesus' chosen emissary to the Gentiles, teaches "The government does not bear the sword in vain" which is a metaphor for the right to use lethal force for defence and punishment of wrongdoers (Romans 13). Paul also implied the rightness of capital punishment for those who deserve it in Acts 25:11 "If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death".

And one of the malefactors crucified with Christ said that they were deserving of death for their crimes while Christ had done nothing wrong, and Christ commended him.

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2008, 11:40 PM
There is a good reason why leading Nazi and Japanese war criminals were hanged after WW2: no chance to keep their evil regimes going or undermining their democratic successors, resulting in far more lives lost (many of whom never knew Christ).

Locking them up, throwing away the key and totally denying them all contact with the outside world would have also prevented them keeping their regimes going or undermining their successors. So I doubt these were really the primary reasons why they were executed instead of imprisoned.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 11:44 PM
Locking them up, throwing away the key and totally denying them all contact with the outside world would have also prevented them keeping their regimes going or undermining their successors. So I doubt these were really the primary reasons why they were executed instead of imprisoned.
It's notable that Israel has only ever executed one man: Adolf Eichmann. His ashes were scattered into the Mediterranean so his final resting place would not become a shrine. The ashes of the Nazi war criminals executed after the first Nuremberg trial were also dumped. Before then, Göring had delusions that his memorial would become a shrine leading to revival of Nazism.

Sure, the primary reason is that they deserved death, and I see no reason to dissent.

CameronD
20-12-2008, 11:53 PM
Personally, I have no preference either way. As I believe the state has the right of a reasonable death sentence properly applied to dispose of people it has given up on.

Unfortunately, I have absolutely no confidence in the legal system and the games it is reduced, to create correct verdicts, never to mention the problems with juries and its inability to make unbiased decisions.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 11:55 PM
I've posted a poll (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9277).

Oepty
21-12-2008, 07:18 AM
Locking them up, throwing away the key and totally denying them all contact with the outside world would have also prevented them keeping their regimes going or undermining their successors. So I doubt these were really the primary reasons why they were executed instead of imprisoned.

Napoleon escaped, although I don't think he was completely locked up as in a prison. Others have escaped from prison and still being alive might serve to keep followers hoping for a return to power. It might also motivate followers to committ crimes, including organising a prison break.
Scott

Oepty
21-12-2008, 08:06 AM
A murderer facing the death penalty has a greater incentive to do just that than someone facing life imprisonment even if that really means "life" (as if).


Possibly, although this point only applies if there is some time between sentencing and the carrying out of the punishment. I am not sure how quickly prisoner is killed in various countries around the world.



By the same token, allowing murderers to kill again (which is likely, as I've said) faces the same problem if the victims are not Christian.

True.



There is a good reason why leading Nazi and Japanese war criminals were hanged after WW2: no chance to keep their evil regimes going or undermining their democratic successors, resulting in far more lives lost (many of whom never knew Christ).


I don't know enough about why they were hanged to comment on this.



But if you want to argue from the Christian viewpoint (most commendable), then you must start from the biblical teachings not your own "what ifs". The Bible clearly teaches capital punishment for capital crimes in the Noahic Covenant which has never been revoked (Genesis 9), unless God had actually flooded the whole world again.


I have not considered this much before, but you seem to be right. Might come back to this.



In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul, Jesus' chosen emissary to the Gentiles, teaches "The government does not bear the sword in vain" which is a metaphor for the right to use lethal force for defence and punishment of wrongdoers (Romans 13).


Romans 13 is definitely talking about the death penalty, but it more talking about how believers should live under the authority of their countries government. I think this is saying believers must accept punishment from governments when believers do wrong even if it is the death penalty. I don't think it is saying believers should be carrying out the death penalty. I believe God does not want followers to be involved in governments/politics.

I don't know where the defence part comes from, it doesn't say anything like that unless I have missed something.



Paul also implied the rightness of capital punishment for those who deserve it in Acts 25:11 "If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death".


Paul is doing what Romans 13 says a believer should do.



And one of the malefactors crucified with Christ said that they were deserving of death for their crimes while Christ had done nothing wrong, and Christ commended him.

I am not sure this is exactly the same thing. The Bible quite clearly teaches that sin leads to death, and acknowledgement of that is pivotal to being a follower of Christ.
Scott

Spiny Norman
21-12-2008, 10:38 AM
I say, for males ... cut their nuts off ... one at a time ... preferably banging them between two bricks first, for maximum effect.

That's for a first offence. If they re-offend, just shoot them and be done with it.

Ian Murray
21-12-2008, 11:02 AM
...preferably banging them between two bricks first, for maximum effect
Can be very painful.

You need to make sure you keep your thumbs out of the way :)

Adamski
21-12-2008, 11:29 AM
If they re-offend, just shoot them and be done with it. I think that's where I stand on this issue. First offence where death penalty could be invoked - no death. Re-offend at a similar level of gravity: death penalty justified. Hopefully there is a delay between announcement of sentence and carrying out of it so that there is opportunity for true repentance and thus the possibility of eternal life if the person accepts Christ as Lord.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 12:00 PM
Possibly, although this point only applies if there is some time between sentencing and the carrying out of the punishment. I am not sure how quickly prisoner is killed in various countries around the world.
Actually, too much delay, as in America with almost endless frivolous appeals, might remove the urgency.


I don't know enough about why they were hanged to comment on this.
The Nuremberg indictments are clear enough, including "crimes against humanity". Eichmann was executed for his major part in the murder of 6 million Jews.


Romans 13 is definitely talking about the death penalty, but it more talking about how believers should live under the authority of their countries government.
They are not mutually exclusive.


I believe God does not want followers to be involved in governments/politics.
That's a good way to let antiChristians gain control. Yet since government is ordained by God, it is proper for Christians to be involved.


I don't know where the defence part comes from, it doesn't say anything like that unless I have missed something.
That was a major use for the sword. As one late Ukrainian Orthodox Priest used to complain about Jimmy Carter, he had no biblical mandate to turn all our cheeks.


Paul is doing what Romans 13 says a believer should do.
But this presupposes the rightness of capital punishment.


The Bible quite clearly teaches that sin leads to death, and acknowledgement of that is pivotal to being a follower of Christ.
The repentant malefactor wasn't talking about sin in general (for which you are right), but the specific crimes and the government execution for them. But the government has no right to kill for any old sin.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 12:08 PM
Napoleon escaped, although I don't think he was completely locked up as in a prison. Others have escaped from prison and still being alive might serve to keep followers hoping for a return to power. It might also motivate followers to committ crimes, including organising a prison break.
This in fact happened. Israel, ruled as it is by secular lefties, doesn't have the death penalty (except for Eichmann). So even Samir Kuntar, who would fit most people's conception of the foulest kind of murderer as he clubbed a child to death in front of her parents, and shot the father as well (http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law/criminal-offenses-crimes-against/11566938-1.html). Yet he was recently released in an exchange, and even more sickening, it was in return for the remains of murdered Israeli soldiers. So much for "life means life". Now Syria honours this thug, and he threatens more murders (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138180/posts).

Kevin Bonham
21-12-2008, 01:15 PM
Napoleon escaped, although I don't think he was completely locked up as in a prison. Others have escaped from prison and still being alive might serve to keep followers hoping for a return to power. It might also motivate followers to committ crimes, including organising a prison break.


Napoleon was merely exiled to a substantial island (which he was permitted to rule over) rather than imprisoned. It wasn't that hard for him to escape. I'd expect in the modern world that keeping a leader imprisoned is not especially difficult although I guess there is always the risk of a very extreme attack to attempt to secure a jailbreak (crashing planes into prison towers and the like).

Oepty
21-12-2008, 03:23 PM
Actually, too much delay, as in America with almost endless frivolous appeals, might remove the urgency.


Possibly, although even after 10 or 20 years there still comes a point at which death is certain.



The Nuremberg indictments are clear enough, including "crimes against humanity". Eichmann was executed for his major part in the murder of 6 million Jews.

I know what they did. I meant why they were hanged as opposed to some other punishment



They are not mutually exclusive.


I didn't say they were


[QUOTE=Jono]
That's a good way to let antiChristians gain control. Yet since government is ordained by God, it is proper for Christians to be involved.

Different subject so I won't go into more details



That was a major use for the sword. As one late Ukrainian Orthodox Priest used to complain about Jimmy Carter, he had no biblical mandate to turn all our cheeks.


The context is punishing someone. You don't defend yourself when you are killing a prisoner, unless something goes very, very wrong. They are restrained to stop anything untoward happening



But this presupposes the rightness of capital punishment.

I don't think I said capital punishment is right or wrong



The repentant malefactor wasn't talking about sin in general (for which you are right), but the specific crimes and the government execution for them. But the government has no right to kill for any old sin.

If the malefactor had committed a crime worthy of death then he had sinned in doing that crime.
Scott

Spiny Norman
21-12-2008, 06:46 PM
Can be very painful.
You need to make sure you keep your thumbs out of the way :)
Ooooh, so true ... that's very sage advice! :lol:

Oepty
21-12-2008, 08:58 PM
Napoleon was merely exiled to a substantial island (which he was permitted to rule over) rather than imprisoned. It wasn't that hard for him to escape. I'd expect in the modern world that keeping a leader imprisoned is not especially difficult although I guess there is always the risk of a very extreme attack to attempt to secure a jailbreak (crashing planes into prison towers and the like).

My reference to Napoleon was a little cheeky, because I think they just hoped he wouldn't hop on a ship and even if he did he would not have enough support to do anything serious. How wrong they were.
More seriously bribery is a possible option for getting someone out of prison in alot of countries that may have alot more open corruption than western countries.
Scott