Connecticut appears to be the next state in line to abolish the death penalty – the 17th state to be exact.
I have two questions, though: 1.) What took us so long? 2.) And what are the other states waiting for?
Oh, I’m not worried, I know the death penalty will eventually be abolished across the entire United States. History has shown us that the human race keeps moving toward a more compassionate and civilized society. We definitely have a ways to go, but we’re on the right track. We’re making good progress as a society, I just wish the process didn’t take so long.
So what is taking so long? If we stop for a moment and ask why we have a “death penalty” in the first place, perhaps we can find an answer there. The reasons that come to mind for me are: revenge/justice, deterrence, removing threats from society, and “that’s the way it's been done for thousands of years.”
Justice/Revenge:
Justice is defined as, “just behavior or treatment” or “the quality of being fair and reasonable.” Revenge is defined as, “the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for a wrong suffered at their hands.” Unfortunately, too many times “justice” is used when what is really meant is “revenge.” So much so, that the two terms have become rather interchangeable in our society.
People talking of “justice” often cite the Biblical passage of “an eye for an eye.” However, this statement is not speaking of justice, nor does it actually speak to inflicting harm on someone because they inflicted harm on another as so many seem to think. The phrase "an eye for an eye" is a quotation from several passages of the Hebrew Bible in which a person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to pay compensation. Here, the Bible is actually speaking of paying for the value of an eye or a tooth in monetary terms, not of inflicting the same or worse treatment on a person for a crime.
Of course, in the moment when we are hurting most, it’s probably fair to say we all initially want revenge. That’s why we have a system to create our laws while outside of a traumatic environment. And fortunately, there are many examples of family members that while grieving from horrific losses at the hands of another, publicly forgo the need for revenge. While many would like us to think so, revenge is not the appropriate response to harm inflicted by another. It is an uncivilized need to try to set things "right" in the mind of the wounded party. Of course, these kinds of things can never truly be set "right."
Imagine a parent openly instructing their 8-year old child to go and seek revenge against another child who they felt did them wrong. I believe most parents would rightly recoil from such a thought. I use this technique a lot – and call it the Child Test. If we wouldn’t openly teach it to our children, and be proud of doing it, then we as adults shouldn’t engage in that behavior either.
Deterrence:
It’s difficult to understand how some people still believe that having the death penalty on the books is a deterrent for aberrant behavior when both history and overwhelming research proclaims otherwise. For the average citizen, the death penalty simply does not work as a deterrent. Of course, we’ll always have unbalanced individuals like psychopaths to deal with, but the death penalty will never be a deterrent for these individuals. Nor will it be a deterrent for “acts of passion or rage.” By their very definition, people in these states of mind are not thinking about the long term consequences of their actions, which would be required for the death penalty to act as a deterrent for them. Just a little bit of studying will show that it is painfully apparent that the death penalty does not deter violent crime.
Removing a Threat:
If killing someone is the best we can come up with in order to prevent someone from repeat offenses, then we must have missed a few things. Personally, I could never get past the thought that killing a person that kills another somehow teaches society that killing is wrong and unacceptable.
I’ve also never been a fan of the idea of locking a person up in a jail cell for the rest of their natural born lives. There’s both the absurd cost involved in this approach and the moral question about acknowledging a person’s dignity.
Yes, I know that sending all the criminals to a "penal colony" was tried in Australia and it didn’t work so well. But that was a very long time ago and a lot has changed since then. While many find this notion completely off the wall, I’ve always been a fan of the “Escape from New York” approach. In this movie, violent offenders were removed from society and placed in Manhattan, which had been converted into a maximum security prison. Don’t start typing yet, I’m not suggesting Manhattan, but we easily have the technology to set up an area, perhaps an island, that "inmates" couldn’t escape from where they can be sent to fend for themselves. Basically, if they don’t want to live here by society’s rules, then they can go live somewhere else.
That’s the way it's been done for thousands of years:
Doesn’t even deserve an explanation.
My point in all of this is that surely, there has to be a more civilized and less hypocritical way to handle the people we currently plan to put to death for crimes against society. There is and we will get there. I know we will get there because when I look to history, although there are many examples of individuals and groups that fought to their very deaths to prevent – and actually as it turns out, merely to forestall – positive social evolution, positive social evolution finally won out. We abolished slavery, gave women the vote, stood up for interracial marriage, stopped requiring African Americans to sit at the back of the bus, enacted equal rights, and the list goes on and on.
It takes time for society to embrace change at these levels. I’m not worried – just a little impatient.
"Siwanoy I do speak for my generation." - No you certainly do not, not only does no 1 person speak for any generation, but I know many people in the same generation as you who don't agree with you. "It brings me great pleasure to see that this frustrates you." - Very mature of you. "Well let me make this a little easier to understand for you. Democrats run studies that show that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Republicans run studies that show that the death penalty is a deterrent. People who are neither run studies that show both. Ultimately, the best way to figure this out is as follows. "Would you be more or less likely to do something to someone, somewhere if you knew that you would get the death penalty or no death penalty?" - Very easy, I'd much rather die then spend the rest of my life in prison with no parole, i'd be ass raped much of the time, unless i was put into solitary confinement, where i would surely go absolutly crazy and try to kill myself. "It is the same exact logic that asks the question "would you be more or less likely to rob someone or break into someone's house if you knew they had a gun and knew how to use it?"" That is entirely different, its likely that someone with a house worth to rob already has weapons
That being the case, i would target a house and obviously assume they have a gun and be prepared. "My answer to both questions would be "It is less likely that I would commit a crime as these are definitely deterrents to that action."" - It doesn't matter AT ALL what your answer is or mine... its a question to many many many people. Ever take a statistics class? What would your teacher or professor say about using a sample size of 1 person, or 2?
Where's the data that shows states and countries without the dealth penalty have more murders? Where's the data that shows states and countries with the dealth penalty have reduced murders? Should be pretty simple for you Andrew. Don't shy away now.
Would you rather face repeated rape in jail, or a quick death?
It's not being able to say anything to the CO there because he turns a blind eye to it. It's knowing that you'll be in there for every day until you day, and there is nothing you can do about it.
88 percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide Source: A study published by Northwestern University, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf info about the study: The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research.
China Iran= North Korea YemenUSA Saudi Arabia Libya Syria Bangladesh Somolia Some great company we're in.
You say our judicial system doesn't work well, yet you trust it to kill someone? You must be aware of the mounting DNA cases that set people free on death row? Is it worth it to kill an innocent human being? Wouldn't it be better to have them in jail for the rest of their lives and if DNA evidence clears them they can be set free, instead of saying "sorry"? I'm sure you've also heard about the Casey Anthony trial, many lawyers have agreed that had the prosecution gone for life without parole that they would have had a better chance at conviction. For a jury member, you're more likely to put someone in jail for the rest of their lives and if you were wrong they go free, then to have your mistake lead to an innocent persons death.
My point is that you are wrong. There are numerous examples of criminals who are in prison for life without parole committing additional crimes including murder. These crimes are typically committed against others within the prison population, and occasionally against guards.
factually is moreso then life in jail.. then PROVE It, all you do is talk, but you don't back it up.
You cleary have no idea what your talking about, the internet is already censored. And the google results you see are different then the ones I see even when we put in the same information, don't kid yourself.
Ideally we want a system that is as simple as possible that can protect the innocent and expose the guilty. Right now we have a system that is so complicated, so expensive, so poorly run, and so corrupt that short of abolishing hundreds of thousands of laws and regulation of all sorts of BS, you can't even touch one single thing. It's a giant tangled web that was made so by the enemies of a free and open society. Everyone should be able to see this and the anger and frustration should be directed squarely on the politicians that constantly create new laws to bolster their record.
True, but that system is also going to be run by human beings working with the government, so it's going to be fallible, especially when politics are involved (politicians love appearing "tough on crime"). I don't see why people who feel the government screws everything up are fully welcome to allow the government to have the power to deprive its citizens of life. We know the government makes mistakes, and Innocence Project and other forms of research show that many people have been wrongfully put to death by the government. Since capital punishment is unlikely to save lives through deterrence, and it is likely to wrongly take lives through mistakes in the system, I can't support it.
Also keep in mind, when someone signs up to be a corrections officer, they know they'll be dealing with criminals, some of which might be violent.... that's like saying, why should we have to subject our police officers to criminals, or why should we have to subject the military to terrorists. It's part of the JOB they are PAID to do. and judging by the job market, i'm sure they're more then happy to be doing it as opposed to not having a job.
Civilization has always enforced capital punishment, simply because time, money, and effort shouldn't be wasted on the wasted.