Capital Punishment

iBrian

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Scotland
When it comes to Capital Punishment there's certainly an emotive debate to be had. After all, one of the principle laws of civilised society is that the taking of life is wrong. Therefore what to do with those who themselves take life?

There's a strong concern that the killing of a killer therefore presents a moral paradox, and one to be avoided.

However, where such moral concerns present themselves, should it not be the path of most practical value that is considered first?

By this I mean: as Capital Punishment is the more practical solution - cheaper in the long run - then isn't it a good idea to therefore make the choice of punishment based on this practical reality, rather than any theoretical moral concerns?

A starter for discussion. :)
 
We condemn those who kill. If we kill also then we also condemn ourselves.
If practical value is cost then the real problem is the impractical justice system. Death-Row prisoners are usually there for years after conviction. The physical punishment is joined with psychological torture.
Also many people are released on terms that would sicken others. Payrole after a third of the term served? That is freedom from punishment.
Maybe I'm in a bad mood tonight about politics.
 
I sometimes find myself wondering what thoughts went through Christmas Humphries' mind when Timothy Evans was finally pardoned.
I know what went through mine.

Christmas Humphries was the successful Prosecuting Counsel at Mr. Evans' trial, and he was also a leading light in the Buddhist community in this country.

Warmest Regards
 
Peace,

Under a practical point of view, there's something else to be considered.
In the U.S. only, at least 25 innocent people have been recognized to be innocent after the execution.
Mistakes can always happen and since here the punishment is irrevocable, it shouldn't be applied.

In my opinion, one dead innocent is worse than 50 free guilty.
 
I was thinking about this one guy who was in prison for 17 years (arrested sometime within a month after his youngest was born) for sexual assault. He was innocent of the crime (the real perp is in prison for another sexual assault and won't be tried for this one) but he missed out on seventeen years of his youngest child's life, time that he pretty much completely missed out on (first words, first steps, first day of school, first bike, etc.)

I'll admit the guy wasn't a saint (a record for burglary which he was guilty of) but still... Anyway, he's not allowed to sue the state for habeas corpus (I think that's how it's spelled) even though he went through that hell (sorry for the language, but how else can one describe being convicted of a violent crime, locked up for most/all of your children's childhoods, being pretty much branded as a deviant pervert, when the actual perp is in the same cell block?)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching on this subject...

LXXIV [74] Death
If those others constantly see
that Death offers little more terror than Life
then there can be no threat of Death.
And,
even if Death could be made to seem
more fearful than life
And,
we took those who were Evil and killed them
maybe those others
would be deterred from Evil.
However,
if a path of punishment by Death is followed,
then there needs to be an executioner.
But,
since this earthly executioner
is really not the True Master
of Life and Death
Then this earthly executioner
could err in ways beyond redemption.


The point being, IMHO, that letting those on earth in their imperfection pass unrecoverable punishment is not too cool.
 
I cannot see how capital punishment works, in any shape or form as mentioned earlier: surely if you kill someone for taking a life you are just as guilty.

My next point comes about all the people that are found guilty and "punished" for there crimes, whether it be life imprisonment or anything else. How can that be also the same as there you are locking someone away in a psychological prison - but then again, would you want to leave your door open at night if you knew they were your neighbour. This often presents a vicious circle.

On the whole theory about one dead innocent being the same as fifty guilty walking free, this is bringing in a whole different range of things. In wars or conflicts hundreds, thousands or millions of people are directly killed by fighting, then the after effects of refugees and people not being able to live afterwards and a series of complications. To me this is equally as guilty a crime as people who order these "just wars" to take place are condemning thousands to die with only the stroke of a pen at the start. This is just as large a crime but how many people are convicted? The only person I know being tried is Milosevic - but who has killed more people directly or indirectly in the last 10 years: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Serbia or the US? To me corporate crimes are just as awful as the person at the bottom of the ladder responds to those from the top.

It is because we know and see the crimes that makes those in our area more evil and vindictive but which are? People who have not even had a chance to live, to dream, to wander are killed without a second minutes notice and recorded as a statistic which brings to mind a famous Stalin quote:

'One death is a tragedgy; a million is a statistc'
 
Namaste all,

as a Buddhist, i am sure i don't need to explain my position on this matter :)

it is my opinon that this practice stems from the Abramahic proscription of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". it's revenge in its most socially acceptable form.

it seems to me that the people that are advocates of this penalty have never had a loved one be falsely arrested and convicted of a crime that they did not commit.

the killing of the criminal does not restore the life of the dead person, nor does it bring any relief to the suffering family, unless they derive the basest joy from the death of another. however, even that is passing.

how's the old saying go? two wrongs don't make a right.
 
I have to admit, though, that there is a great deal in the criminal justice system at the moment that seem wrong. Somehow it seems like a choice between the frying pan or the fire. I find neither acceptable.
 
The Fool said:
I have to admit, though, that there is a great deal in the criminal justice system at the moment that seem wrong. Somehow it seems like a choice between the frying pan or the fire. I find neither acceptable.
Click to expand...

Namaste,

agreed.

there are many laws that seem archaic and outdated... i'll give you a for instance... in the state in America that i live, it is illegal to bathe a mule in a bathtub.

i'm not sure how often that happens, but doesn't that seem like a very silly law in the 21st century?
 
desuetude of law and captial punishment

Vajradhara said:
Namaste,

agreed.

there are many laws that seem archaic and outdated... i'll give you a for instance... in the state in America that i live, it is illegal to bathe a mule in a bathtub.

i'm not sure how often that happens, but doesn't that seem like a very silly law in the 21st century?
Click to expand...

Desuetude of a law, does it not prescribe the law, in the sense that a law is revoked or abrogated automatically, owing to non-enforcement for a number of years or for being totally irrelevant.

For example, sexual crimes are getting to be more and more irrelevant, like fornication between consenting single persons. What about consenting sex between homosexuals; no longer prosecuted, isn't it?

I have to ask the law experts here about desuetude of law.

About capital punishment, it is supposed to be the worst fate? But there are fates worse than death, like shame. Put convicts sentenced to death in a very embarrassingly shameful situation in public from which with modern technology they cannot escape, but will continue to stay alive and lucid.

What are these shameful situations? Use your imagination. But would such punishments be against the idea that penalties should not be inhuman or inhumane?

Susma Rio Sep
 
Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep
What about consenting sex between homosexuals; no longer prosecuted, isn't it?
Well, within the past six months, President Bush's former state (Texas) prosecuted two men for homosexual activity, and ended up the defendant in a major case (since the two men were not entertaining each other in public and they were both consenting adults and a couple of other minor items) that (I think) the Supreme Court told Texas (and a few other states) that the law was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there are still state lawmakers that feel that they know what is best for their constituents (read: "morally best") even though they (the lawmakers) haven't got a clue in some of these circumstances.

Am I making any sense, or do I need to borrow a "Cliff's Notes for posts" writer. :confused:

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
A particular point on the issue of capital punishment is that without capital punishment, many offenders are not seen to be "properly" punished.

By that I mean that the most serious offenders here in Britain are seen to live a life of relative luxury, in accomodationlike plush private flats set up landscaped grounds, with a great number of mod cons available - TV, video, PC and internet. Better conditions and amenities than many ordinary working class people in Britain have.

Add to that the fact that the British Criminal Justice system does not read "life imprisonment" as that, means that to the public perception many offenders can be freed on parole after 15 years.

This perception is further soured by high-profile cases of how the policing of such innates implicitly fails - such as at Rampton, where paedophiles and child killers were able to access blackmarket porn videos, and even go on private walks with small children, brought to visit them.

all things considered, it's not surprising that for many Capital Punishment itself is seen as the only viable punishment for such pre-meditated crimes.

And, if I may say so, when the issue of Capital Punishment is raised, most groups opposed to the policy are almost overwhelmingly interested in defending the rights of the perpetrator. It is very very rare indeed that any real attention is focussed on those of the victim - or potential victims.

Points for the continued discussion...
 
Sounds like the issue of Capital Punishment should really be penal reform. Reminds me of a time many years ago now when the PM of Canada implemented overnight conjugal visits for prisoners, in relatively nice accomodation (such as you describe). The media and public did not take kindly to that - especially when it was publicized that the prisoners were getting steak every Friday as well - better than I was eating at the time, being right out of college and trying to budget in an apartment of my own. I believe that conditions have changed somewhat since, but have no intention of finding out for myself.
 
I can certainly associate with that. Especially galling when in the mid-90's the British government (surprisingly, a Conservative one) was awarding foreign holidays to prisoners - on the grounds that it showed them what they could achieve on the straight and narrow. Incredible, really.

And you're quite right - a particular and sometimes obscured point at the heart of this whole debate is one of penal reform. The punishment has to be seen to fit the crime. Capital punishment is seen as an easy way to implement that.
 
fat reducing and sliming center

brucegdc said:
Sounds like the issue of Capital Punishment should really be penal reform. Reminds me of a time many years ago now when the PM of Canada implemented overnight conjugal visits for prisoners, in relatively nice accomodation (such as you describe). The media and public did not take kindly to that - especially when it was publicized that the prisoners were getting steak every Friday as well - better than I was eating at the time, being right out of college and trying to budget in an apartment of my own. I believe that conditions have changed somewhat since, but have no intention of finding out for myself.
Click to expand...

I have never spent one night in prison. But I think that in a prison sentence specially of the chained gang labor kind, such a set-up would be most propitious for reducing fat and sliming down -- except for the cruelty of prison staff and sadism of fellow inmates. But make that temporary for people who like to enjoy the fat trimming opportunity there. No, I am not a fat guy; but people are pointing out that millions are spent by fat people to reduce their girth, but futiely mostly. The chained gang labor prison, that's failsafe.

Honestly, I would opt for early retirement in a jail detention compound: one gets free board and lodging, medical care. laundry taken care of, and conjugal or girlfriend visits in privacy to boot. There must be also ample Internet access as there are library facilities. I read somewhere that there are resident psychiatrist and philosopher in big prison complex. How's that for on-hand in-person direct chat?

With my wife's consent I would like to apply for prison detention to volunteer my service of companionship to convict prisoners. Brothers and sisters in this forum, please let me know of such employment opportunities, token salary is more than enough. One condition, no sadistic prison staff and guaranteed protection from similar inmates.

Susma Rio Sep
 
I am morally opposed to Capital Pusishment. Howevr, even if I take my emotions out of the equation, I have this concern... The justice system in the US is very good - but by no means perfect. If one of my sons were accused of a murder they did not commit & convicted and sentenced to life in prison, then years later they were proved innocent, they would be able to walk away from jail & although their life may not ever be what it would have been had the horrible mistake not been made to begin with, the fact remains that they would still have a life. Now if my child was convicted & sentenced to death, & it was later found that he was innocent, then his life is gone - my child would not have any other chances... That is a situation that I do not believe anyone should have to go through. Some may say that this situation does not happen a lot - and maybe not (I don't really know). However, it only has to happen to you or someone you love once for it to appear flawed...

I find that if the event is personalized, that one is less likely to vote for things which, if happened to them or their family, would be absolutely devastating & ir-reversible. I look at many things that way - war for instance... I can't help but wonder if Bush would have attacked Iraq if his daughters were in true danger of being killed for no other reason than 'being at the wrong place at the wrong time'. Controversy becomes very clear for me when I think "what would I do if it were my child in harms way?"... but that's another post....

Fern
 
Everyone sits round a table and cries "justice; justice!" - to me the concept of justice died a long time ago.

In fundamentalist Islam people are mutliated and executed for crimes, in traditional Christianity (both original protestantism and catholicism) the same happened. Is this justice and still the same? Religion aside, is locking someone up carrying justice. Is someone living in better conditions justice?

To me you can't actually carry justice across the board until their is social and political justice carried out. For instance, the rich buy their way to bail on forty million dollars whereas the poor rot in prison because they can't afford it. Criminals are seen and treated as second class citizens, whether that is stealing 70 million dollars in fraud of killing people in cold blood. In my eyes there is no use trying to carry justice in that way when their is no justice in the real world - it's ultimate hypocrisy.

For there to be real justice (killing Saddam Hussain compared to those locked away in Guantanamo bay...) then there needs to be a real sense of it - not blood lust and vengance. People need to sit down and actually set the facts straight. Recently there have been crimes where people have been found guilty by the media before they are put on trial - is this justice? To me the concept is either foreign or dead at present and so cannot be treated as a certainty. This is yet another reason why killing someone for murder is as hypocritical as giving "aid" to other nations in the form of national debt.
 
Fate worse than death

Capital punishment should be replaced by a fate worse than death, of course not consisting in physical pain but in psychological discomfort, like shame and embarrassment.

Since the convict deserving of capital punishment would not live peaceably in a civilized society, then he should be accorded no respect otherwise universally due to any human.

My suggestion: put him to hard labor or very demeaning menial jobs like cleaning public bathrooms, day in and out, before everyone’s gaze, in a prisoner's uniform, with the inscription of his crime.


To Anzac, I agree with your sentiment completely. But the rule of the powerfully ruthless and self-righteously megalomaniacs like Bush and his thugs (I take that back), is more and more on the decline. Observe the abolition of slavery in the U.S., and now equal access to everything for blacks there, and even compensating access.

Didn’t the UN withhold its go-signal to the U.S. for its unjust war on Iraq? What Iraqis wanted was for the U.S. to help them to topple Saddam themselves; but Bush and company preferred for their own interests to invade and occupy Iraq.

And the whole civilized world, except for mercenary politicians, condemn the U.S. or more properly Bush and his plutocratic buddies.

Susma Rio Sep
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top