Death Penalty (poll)

[Mr.Cat]

[center]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment[/center]

[b][1] Should capital punishment (death penalty) be abolished or abandoned?[/b]

[u]Abolished[/u] – In this question meaning that it is made an illegal form of punishment and cannot be used by the government.
[u]Abandoned[/u] – In this question meaning that it is still a legal form of punishment but the government voluntarily does not exercise this form of punishment.


[center]Note: These images may be a little old...

[img]http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/map/T304192A.gif[/img]
[img]http://stuhasic.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/deathpenaltymaplarge.jpg[/img][/center]

Edited April 21, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[dairygirl4u2c]

first, the obligatory note of how the poll is somewhat flawed. i would say if execution would deter them from murdering, or prevent them from murdering by escape etc, then sure. that aspect isn't captured in "murder" in the third response.

second, the CC teaches execution is sometimes justified. PPII to my understanding tried to push that it should only be used when there's no other option, like if they could escape or something. i think the newest catechism says something similar. both i think say that it's hardly ever needed, because of that.

also, there's many people who die wrongly. blacks die more than whites proportionally, perhaps indicating inequitable use of it. maybe not, but probably at least some. people are often released after a daring soul attempts to prve them innocent. for these reasons, one might argue just play it safe.

most criminal books say it doesn't really deter people, so the only reason you'd use it is for revenge. if that's your only purpose then that's not cool. maybe "justice", but again, not much of a basis given everything metioned.

it can become a very fact contingent situation, depending on empiracal data that says how effective it is in deterring crime etc etc if this is a premise you'd like established. without that empiracal data, i'd use my good judgment to say i doubt it deters given people never know what htey'll get when they kill someone. it's up in the air as laws are not consistent or if they are they odn't look like it, and they are confusing to a lay person.

it's always funny to watch conservatives robots, who are conservative in everything they can posisly be without infringing on the CC, and think that they are justified in having a liberal use of the death penalty, despite all the teaching saying only limited situations. verifying that they are indeed sheep. but, anyway.

Edited April 21, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[kujo]

I think that the death penalty should only be used in circumstances when keeping the convicted alive presents a danger to the public safety. In America, these circumstances would be few and far between, but still possible, thus meaning that the death penalty should be retained but refrained from.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote]First, the obligatory note of how the poll is somewhat flawed.[/quote]Only if you explained why.. .To keep this user informed, there are also Non-Catholics that will be responding to this poll and some who are speaking from more of a political opinion than Church moral doctrine. However, it could be pointed out the poll is rather vague to the circumstances of who, who, where, when, why, and how. This however is not a flaw since this is polling a user’s formed opinion and [b]not[/b] asking of an intellectual ideal of how to come to an opinion.

[KnightofChrist]

For very violent rapist, and certainly child rapist capital punishment should be considered.

Edited April 21, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[cmotherofpirl]

Treason and murder.

[Deb]

Governments should not be in the business of killing people for criminal acts. Life with no parole is more of a deterrent than anything else and keeps the evil ones away from the public.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Deb' post='1506184' date='Apr 21 2008, 11:35 PM']Governments should not be in the business of killing people for criminal acts. Life with no parole is more of a deterrent than anything else and keeps the evil ones away from the public.[/quote]
Why not? The death penalty is a proven deterrent.

[rkwright]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1506205' date='Apr 21 2008, 09:40 PM']Why not? The death penalty is a proven deterrent.[/quote]

I believe deterrence should never be a reason for criminal punishment. If it has deterrent effects, thats a positive effect, but it should never, ever, be the reason for punishment.

If deterrence is the reason for a punishment, there may be cases where the deterrent effect outweighs any justice. Making an example out of someone serves only utilitarian goals and ignores that persons fundamental right to justice.

[goldenchild17]

I believe the death penalty should absolutely not be abolished. I believe it is valid for any serious crime that a lawfully appointed government deems worthy. I don't believe it should be enforced for anyone under 18 but I might be swayed otherwise by a good argument. I also don't believe it should be used for crimes by people who are mentally insane or incapable of making a right decision. I go back and forth on temporary insanity because I believe lawyers try to apply it WAY too many times, but I wonder if sometimes it is actually a valid reason. I believe it is a valid measure for punishment and should be allowed to be used as a punishment, that it's primary effect should be punishment and not only a deterrent. The deterrent effect is secondary and a good outcome, but is not the purpose of the Death Penalty.

Serious enough crimes deprive one of the right to life:

Pope Pius XII -
"Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life."

Edited April 22, 2008 by goldenchild17

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='kujo' post='1505996' date='Apr 21 2008, 08:20 PM']I think that the death penalty should only be used in circumstances when keeping the convicted alive presents a danger to the public safety. In America, these circumstances would be few and far between, but still possible, thus meaning that the death penalty should be retained but refrained from.[/quote]

Can you give an example of a possible scenario in the U.S.?

Sounds kinda like Bill Clinton's "safe but rare" pro-choice argument.

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1506497' date='Apr 22 2008, 04:09 AM']Serious enough crimes deprive one of the right to life:

Pope Pius XII -
"Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life."[/quote]

FWIW, this isn't an infallible statement, so we are free to disagree. Probably also worth considering the context of this, in time, society, technology. Plus, even if an offender deprives themselves of the right to life, it doesn't mean we necessarily must take it. There would be no wrong (and great mercy) in allowing them to live.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1506497' date='Apr 22 2008, 04:09 AM']I believe the death penalty should absolutely not be abolished. I believe it is valid for any serious crime that a lawfully appointed government deems worthy. I don't believe it should be enforced for anyone under 18 but I might be swayed otherwise by a good argument. I also don't believe it should be used for crimes by people who are mentally insane or incapable of making a right decision. I go back and forth on temporary insanity because I believe lawyers try to apply it WAY too many times, but I wonder if sometimes it is actually a valid reason. I believe it is a valid measure for punishment and should be allowed to be used as a punishment, that it's primary effect should be punishment and not only a deterrent. The deterrent effect is secondary and a good outcome, but is not the purpose of the Death Penalty.

Serious enough crimes deprive one of the right to life:

Pope Pius XII -
"Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life."[/quote]
EXactly.

[CatherineM]

As to deterrent, it is a deterrent for the executed prisoner certainly. You can't kill anyone else if you are dead. I can't remember the stats off the top of my head, but in states that don't use the death penalty, I wonder if their murders per capita are more or less than death penalty states. Problem with that kind of stat is that where the murder rate is higher, people may be more willing to allow executions, and even clamor for them, so it might seem that the death penalty isn't a deterrent in those jurisdictions. Very few murders are actually carried out with pre-planning, so the idea that they might think twice if there is the death penalty doesn't follow.

[Deb]

This is from the University of Vermont Study in 2001:



One argument in support of capital punishment is that the threat of death deters murder more effectively than prison. However, research indicates that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than the punishment of life in jail. States with the death penalty on average do not have lower rates of homicide than states without the penalty. The average murder rate per 100,00 people in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5 and the average murder rate among non-death penalty states was 3.6 (US Dept. of Justice, 2001). A study examining executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997 found that the murder rate was steady and that there was no evidence of a deterrent effect. The number of executions was found to be unrelated to murder rates (Sorenson, Wrinkle, Brewer and Marquart, 1999). Furthermore, a survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association shows that the overwhelming majority of these experts do not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect (Radelet and Akers, 1995). Additionally, Attorney General Janet Reno stated at a Justice Department news briefing, "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." (US Dept. of Justice, 2001).

ON the Financial Aspects of it:



A study found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life (Cook & Slawson. 1993). On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $700 million dollars spent since 1976 on the death penalty.

What many Americans do not realize is that the death penalty is more costly than incarcerating an inmate for life. A murder trial takes much longer when the death penalty is being pursued. The taxpayer is paying the salaries of the judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court officials, and the cost of briefs. "A 1982 study showed that if the death penalty were reintroduced in the state of New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more then double the cost of a life term in prison" (Bright, 1996). The Duke University study estimated that a death penalty trial takes about four times longer than a non-capital murder trial (Bright, 1996). And, of course, not every death penalty trial results in a death sentence. Based on the experience in North Carolina, the authors found that less than a third of capital trials resulted in a death sentence.

Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution ([i]Miami Herald[/i]). It costs six times more to execute a person in Florida than to incarcerate a prisoner for life with no parole. In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years ([i]Dallas Morning News[/i]). The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total incurred at the trial level ([i]Sacramento Bee[/i]). The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually. To illustrate the cost, it is estimated that the money it would take to implement the death penalty in New York for just five years would be enough to fund 250 additional police officers and build prisons for 6,000 inmates (Lacayo, 1987).

So, if no deterrent and costs less to let them sit in prison and think about their crime til they die, the only reason I could see that we would kill people is for vengeance

[kujo]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1506560' date='Apr 22 2008, 10:58 AM']Can you give an example of a possible scenario in the U.S.?

Sounds kinda like Bill Clinton's "safe but rare" pro-choice argument.[/quote]

Yeah, poke holes in my opinion of when to preservation of human life by likening it to an opinion on when to end human life. Right on dude.

Anyway, I think that imprisoning Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein (and others) would be a magnet for the sort of danger that I speak of. These people would call for their followers to set them free. It would be like dropping a lollypop on the ground. How long would it take for the ants to come and crawl all over it?

[quote name='Deb' post='1506711' date='Apr 22 2008, 02:46 PM']This is from the University of Vermont Study in 2001:
One argument in support of capital punishment is that the threat of death deters murder more effectively than prison. However, research indicates that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than the punishment of life in jail.

So, if no deterrent and costs less to let them sit in prison and think about their crime til they die, the only reason I could see that we would kill people is for vengeance[/quote]

WORD! Thus, the Catechism states:

"The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when [b]this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor[/b]. If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. [b]Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/b] - CCC #2267

Edited April 22, 2008 by kujo