Death Penalty And Pro Life

[Ice_nine]

I don't entirely believe anymore that being under the constant threat of rape and other bodily harm, solitary confinement/social alienation, and generally being treated like a piece of poo or an animal is more merciful than putting a bullet through someone's head. Some people are sociopaths, and the chance of rehabilitation is essentially zero for them. In fact rehabilitation often has negative effects because it gives an anti-social person more tools to manipulate others, rather than engendering a sense of empathy. In fact studies show astoundingly low physiological responses to fear EXCEPT when they themselves are in physical danger (for example, showing a picture of someone getting killed registers little to know autonomic response, whereas showing a picture of a gun pointed at the subject is a different story).

I know that convincing people to repent via fear is not the most romantic and pc (added for Soc) conversion story, but for people who generally have zero empathy, nothing says "you better change your ways son" then "your execution date is coming." In fact sometimes that is the ONLY way for certain people (i.e. sociopaths).

The problem is I also don't believe our justice system is capable of handling putting dangerous criminals to death. There have been people exonerated of charges after they've been put to death, and innumerable cases where there is a substantial shadow of a doubt. I don't think every violent criminal is a "lost cause." Of course murder is always wrong and a grievous crime, but there's a huge difference between someone who tortures their victims just for shiggles and someone who commits a crime of passion or sees killing opponents as a necessary means for survival or other logical, but still evil, reasons.

Again, just to emphasize for those not paying attention, murder is always a horrible horrible crime for which there is no excuse, but not every killer is an irredeemable sadist.

tl;dr I used to be staunchly against the DP on principle, but I've since altered my stance. However, I think it should only be used as a last resort. Rehab should be the primary focus and goal, but we shouldn't delude ourselves thinking everyone can be rehabbed because that's just not the case unfortunately.

[Annie12]

Just some interesting facts I got from my local news channel.

In 2010:
54 prisoners were executed
36 by lethal injection
9 electrocution
3 lethal gas
3 hanging
2 firing squad

So my question is why doesn't this count as cruel and unusual punishment? I mean if the point of execution is to protect society and not to get revenge, why is there death by firing squad, hanging and all the rest? Supposedly it's supposed to be humane in the way they kill them. I'm not so sure anymore.

[Ice_nine]

Firing squad is probably the quickest method of execution, although it's also the messiest. Would you rather have a drug that stops your heart, or a bullet that will shut down your central nervous system immediately? I don't know if there's much of a difference from the subject's viewpoint, but I think in many cases where it's not lethal injection, the criminal has a choice as to what method he (or she, rarely) prefers. .

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1345927459' post='2474181']
Firing squad is probably the quickest method of execution, although it's also the messiest. Would you rather have a drug that stops your heart, or a bullet that will shut down your central nervous system immediately? I don't know if there's much of a difference from the subject's viewpoint, but I think in many cases where it's not lethal injection, the criminal has a choice as to what method he (or she, rarely) prefers. .
[/quote]

I have read about cases where the drugs do not function as expected, or where there are mistakes made during the procedure (which is easy, because afaik most if not all doctors will refuse to actually play an active role), and one or more of the drugs do not work properly, causing the person to die in excruciating pain, though since he's paralyzed nobody realizes until afterwards.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1345907084' post='2474067']
Just some interesting facts I got from my local news channel.

In 2010:
54 prisoners were executed
36 by lethal injection
9 electrocution
3 lethal gas
3 hanging
2 firing squad

So my question is why doesn't this count as cruel and unusual punishment? I mean if the point of execution is to protect society and not to get revenge, why is there death by firing squad, hanging and all the rest? Supposedly it's supposed to be humane in the way they kill them. I'm not so sure anymore.
[/quote]

some times prisoners can still request their own method of execution.

[Basilisa Marie]

I just don't believe there are any cases within our current legal system in the United States that justify use of the death penalty, as it is outlined in the Catechism. How is the governor who signs the act of execution or the medical specialist who pushes the plunger on the syringe truly any different from the mother who decides her life would be better without her child, and the doctor who performs the abortion?

I believe the Church's position on the death penalty is nuanced because there are plenty of places in the world that don't have the facilities to prevent a murderer (or whomever) from continuing to being a danger to society. Places like the US, which are blessed enough to have the resources to contain our criminals, should not have the luxury of the death penalty.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"How is the governor who signs the act of execution or the medical specialist who pushes the plunger on the syringe truly any different from the mother who decides her life would be better without her child, and the doctor who performs the abortion?"

even if one disagrees with the use of the death penalty except as a deterrent or as the only means... one should at least recognize, i'd argue, that there's a difference between that and abortion.

but i don't think there's much difference if one were to ask the rhetorical question... how is the guy who puts the syringe in etc any different than some joe on the street who enacts his own revenge.
jesus did say governments have their authority only by God, and perhaps we're not to go that far... but it's not like joe on the street has no rights necessarily. and one could reasonably, plausibly ask... how is it any different?

[Basilisa Marie]

I'm under the impression that a person's life is worth the same whether or not he or she is an innocent child or a sociopathic serial killer.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345941381' post='2474264']
I'm under the impression that a person's life is worth the same whether or not he or she is an innocent child or a sociopathic serial killer.
[/quote]
Worth the same, yes, but that does not necessarily mean that killing a person is, in and of itself, a repudiation of the value of that person's life. It might be a recognition and defense of the equal value and greater innocence of the life of a third party.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"It might be a recognition and defense of the equal value and greater innocence of the life of a third party."

well just because a person is of greater innocence doesn't mean they are any more worth saving of their life when all control is within society on the matter

i never really thought about it in such stark yet simple terms,
"I'm under the impression that a person's life is worth the same whether or not he or she is an innocent child or a sociopathic serial killer."

a life is a life, and if we don't assume they forfeit their life, or find we have no real basis to conclude that... abortion might not really be any different.

i won't say i stand corrected, but i do stand at a point of reconsideration of a more liberal (read, less death penalty oriented) position on this.

Edited August 26, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

We have two people with equally valuable lives. One is innocent, and one is not, because the not-innocent one is trying to murder the innocent one. If we, the third party, attack the not-innocent person, then that attack does not somehow imply that the not-innocent person's life is worth less than the innocent person. It simply means that the person is not innocent.

[Basilisa Marie]

No, the not-innocent one is no longer trying to murder someone, because the not-innocent person has already killed someone and is in jail. The not-innocent person is no longer capable of killing people.

Many people argue that in the case of abortion, it's immoral because a person's right to life trumps anyone else's right to living the preferred kind of life, or comfort, or anything else. I argue that a murderer's right to life trumps our right to live a lifestyle that includes the comforting knowledge that the state killed the murderer.

[Nihil Obstat]

Simply a proof of concept. Someone else can do the heavy lifting here.

[Lilllabettt]

You know what I never can get about Republicans (many if not most)?

These people, who claim to be conservatives, recoil from trusting the government with their money and their guns. But they gladly hand over the power of death to this same government, to be wielded over themselves, their neighbors and their children without exception.

And sometimes even a cheer goes up among them when the state raises its hand against a citizen!

I do not understand.

[Ice_nine]

Just to be 100% clear I do not trust the government to handle doling out the death penalties. I don't trust the government in rehabbing and/or containing criminals, or its ability to prevent crime. I don't celebrate when someone is put to death by the state. In fact most of the time it is an unnecessary tragedy (there is NO way anyone should ever be executed based solely on eyewitness testimony, for example).