Why we need a Death Penalty

[Garrett31212]

As a response to the question "Why do we need a Death Penalty?" I've decided to put together a list of reasons:

1) Some people have proven that they do not deserve to survive their trials

2) It discourages others from commiting crimes

3) It rids society of those who are not discouraged

4) It is the responsible thing to do to dispose of those who are a danger to society

5) No man should have the right to commit a crime such as murder and be allowed to live in the comfort of a modern-day American prison

6) Liberal areas (people who oppose the death penalty) such as LA or NYC have more crime than conservative areas (people who support the death penalty)

7) If the Death Penalty were abolished, then there would be more of a chance that criminals who commit crimes such as murder would receive parole and be given the opportunity to leave prison for "good behavior" and thus making society more dangerous than it should be

If anyone has something to add to the list please add it now.  

[Lord Bitememan]

The only problem I see with your list is that it focuses on a litany of deterrent values, and there have been a number of scientific studies done that suggest the death penalty is not a deterrent. That said, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are all fine points. My personal reasons for supporting the death penalty can be summed up in a coule points.

First, justice is a game of proportionality. Punishments are designed to fit the crime, both in the interest of not overly punishing a petty crime, but also in the interest of not under-punishing a severe crime. Obviously life in prison is too harsh a sentence for someone convicted of stealing a candy bar. In the same vein, probation is too light a sentence for a group convicted of serial gang rapes. Thus, the severity of a crime suggests a severity of a sentence. This means at some level we can only serve the interests of justice in imposing the maximum levy conceivable. . . death. We render justice inadequate in cases such as child serial killings through the imposition of a penalty short of this mark.

Secondly, and this is not wholly unrelated to the first point, society makes a statement about the value it places upon the rights we protect through laws in the guise of the sentences we impose upon transgressions of those laws. We value property rights less than personal security rights, implicitly, because property crimes are punished so much less severely than crimes in which a person is physically harmed. The death penalty is the ultimate statement of our value of the lives of the innocent, because it states that we will kill an offender in the name of that right. When we come up short of such a powerful statement, we stipulate that the rights of the innocent to their lives have less importance than the rights of criminals to their lives. Inasmuch, it biases the system in how it regards the important rights of the law abiding, and this is fundamentally insufferable under our system.

I would say that, and point 3 sum up my support of the death penalty.  

[Garrett31212]

What scientific studies are you pacifically refering too, because I've heard liberals claim the same things? If they were conducted by organizations such as the ACLU they can be easily dismissed as biased.

But I can see how the Death Penalty may not be a deterrent in other crime infested areas, because they do not see it happen. To fix that problem, I think we should return to the old system of public hangings. Back then felony crimes were considerably lower, and the became even lower because everyone that crossed that line received the death penalty. It wouldn't interfere with modernization, and the only thing it would conflict with is the New Left ideaology.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Not that they're unbiased. . . they're biased. . . but the Death Penalty Information Center actually has a number of links addressing the deterrence issue.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

Despite the bias of the site, the particular statistical data that is hard to argue against in terms of deterrence is the comparative analysis of murder rates between the death penalty states and non-death penalty states. The trends show that, while murder rates went down across the boards between 1990 and 2006, they went down faster in the non-death penalty states than they did in the death penalty states, and a large discrepency by percentage exists in the murder rates between the non-death penalty states and death penalty states (as high as 40%).

The one out I can see on it is the site omits a bordering state comparison that didn't hold up to their model. That comparison would be of Michigan vs. Ohio, where Michigan, a non-death penalty state has twice the homicide rate of Ohio, a death penalty state. Other than that many of the border state comparisons tend to be pretty damning of any solid case of deterrent values.

That said, even if you discount deterrence, there are plenty of reasons to support the death penalty. As to public executions, it's a debateable issue. I say as long as we don't accelerate the timetables of executions, the additional public oversight isn't necessarily a bad thing.  

[Garrett31212]

I find that hard to beleive, because here where I live (Texas) we have the Death Penalty and are damn proud of it. And Texas has very, very little crime compared to liberal areas such as LA, NYC, San Francisco, etc.

Besides, like I've said...perhaps returning executions to the public will fix the problem.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Texas also has the distinction of being one of the few states that uses its death penalty with any regularity. That said, you're half right on issues like the murder rate when compared to more liberal polities. California has a higher murder rate than Texas. New York, however, has a lower one. The comparison, though, falls flat since all three have the death penalty on the books. The real comparison you should consider is that of Texas and Michigan. Michigan, the largest and most diverse state with a formal ban on the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than Texas. The Texas-Michigan comparison is a good one since both have large urban areas, diverse populations, very clear cut positions on the death penalty (as opposed to New York, which has a death penalty but does not use it), large rural areas, heavy industrial bases, etc. Most of the states without a death penalty are underpopulated, largely white, relatively oppulent, and mostly non-urban. And the comparative result is that Michigan has the higher murder rate.

The problem, though, is that this comparison only works if you're trying to debunk a notion you will never face in a debate; that the death penalty encourages murder. This is an argument you will never face. Otherwise, the argument of death penalty as a deterrent faces the trouble of the state by state comparison. The best result you can draw from the state by state comparison is that, in essence, there really isn't much difference between murder rates in similar states with death penalties and non-death penalties, and that's the charitable result. It certainly doesn't demonstrate a deterrent factor.

As to public executions, you have to draw a distinction between allowing the public to view executions at will, and placing the executions in very public view to compel the public to view them. The difference is very important. It's one thing to allow more of the public to see them. It's another thing to use the death penalty as a tool of terror against the public, and that's precisely what forcing the public to watch will turn executions into. So, voluntary public viewing, yes. Compulsory public viewing? Hell no!  

[Garrett31212]

I don't think staging executions in the public's sight would qualify as terror, because the United States isn't looking to further a totalitarian agenda, but rather to scare people out of murdering each other.

You may have a point about the murder rates, but I know crime rates in general are certainly higher in New York than Texas. That could be the deciding difference, because it could be a factor in whether people decide to become career criminals or gangsters in the first place.

Then again, perhaps it is possible that a non-public death penalty doesn't really serve as a provacative or a deterrent of crime but rather a means of a retaliation upon the public. Either way it rids the world of criminals who could in the future be released on parole and return to the life of crime.  

[The Hallowed Mouse]

Not suprisingly, I'm very against the death penalty, I'm first of all, my church is very against it (Catholic) and second, although places like NYC and LA have higher crime rates, they also are bearing the bigger crime deterent, the right to bear arms, it is nearly impossible to get the forms to get a weapon for protection in those two cities (but the criminals manage to get them)

In fact, in Georgia there's a city where everyone is required to have at least on handgun in their homes, crime rates dropped drastically, I believe my gov't teacher said they had dropped 70%... that's a big drop in crime!

And your argument between Texas and NYC also has to deal with gun control, texas has little, NYC has it very high!  

[Lord Bitememan]

Actually, I looked up some statistics, and the crime rates are actually higher in Texas than in New York.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

But the two states make for a poor comparison overall. Texas has more people, it has more geographic diversity, it has a larger immigrant population, it's more spread out, etc. Furthermore, New York has a death penalty on the books, which invalidates it on a death penalty vs. non-death penalty comparison.

I think Hallowed Mouse is really on to something, though. Access to the means of defense, empiricallly at least, has been shown to substantially reduce crime rates. This isn't just a blip issue either, rates of burglary, home invasion, and rape are much higher in many places in Europe and Australia where gun control is tighter. So greater access to the means of defense certainly has its statistical argument.

But, speaking as a fully professed Roman Catholic, our world is not the kingdom of heaven. Our world is a place of imperfection where we struggle to obtain spiritual salvation. The attainment of spiritual salvation is best garnered in the stability of society. Man living in savagery clubs his fellow man over the head as a matter of suvival, he steals for sustainance. He takes his neighbors wife by force. In society we enjoy stability and order, and in order morality flourishes. Yet, in our world of imperfection we, from time to time, must deal with situations where the advancement and preservation of society require some degree of immorality. Take, for example, war. The church excoriates war, as it is the organized killing of our fellow man. Yet, certainly in world war 2 the greater immorality would have been the collapse of moral society to amoral fascism. In the case of the death penalty, the need we face is justice. A society devoid of justice loses purpose. It's laws are empty. It is, therefore, the necessity of society in instances where man so transgresses the boudaries of morality in the law that the ultimate justice must be meted out. To do any less risks an emptyness of the law, an arbitraryness of society, a depradation of purpose such as what we see in Europe today. In the US our society is one of the protections and justice of our laws. In Europe society is just a habit, something that is done to no moral purpose, just because.

Furthermore, I'm with Garret. Some people have justified their removal from our presence. Look up some of Richard Speck's last days if you doubt that.  

[The Hallowed Mouse]

Although there are a number of cases where I believe a person should die (such as that man in CA recently who beat a kid to death,) I think that the prison system should be reformed, more torturous... even though some movies make Jail Life seem sooooo horrible, why is it that people don't care to go back. Something has to change, it's supposed to be punishment, not fun! I, personally, feel that a person who deserves to die, shouldn't get the death penalty, that's the "easy way out" in my opinion, especially if you're athiest, such measures would just eliminate you from the earth, but because I'm a christian I believe unless the person decides to change before his death date... he's going to hell... but unfortunately America is not allowed to fight any law placed with religion anymore.

Having the man placed in a prison.... a high lvl prison, such as one where they place terrorists, then he will suffer the rest of his life, which I believe we should do... but instead we just place them in state and county prisons where they have an easy life... I think all prisons should be just as bad as a lvl 1 prison, that will teach people not to break the law!  

[Cunning Malevolence]

To hear that texas has a higher crime rate then new york is a little unsettling, but personaly i support the death penalty, Also, it is a deterrent. but there are also different types of murder. What the statistics dont show is that the murders it deters are ones such as a robbery and the gunman kills someone, or maybe someone beating a homeless man to death. it DOES deter those types of murders. what it doesnt discourage are Emotionally influenced killings, like maybe in the case of a man finding out his wife cheated on him, and then him killing the man she cheated on him with. in that case, the person isnt thinking properly, and doesnt give the death penalty a 2nd thought and proceeds with the actions. Theres a fine line between doing something out of anger and revenge, then senselessly beating someone to death. im not saying that either is ok by any means, but in the case of revenge, it isnt always an innocent person who dies now is it? These arent my reasons for supporting the death penatly though, its just something i wished to point out after reading your argument  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

Also, it is a deterrent.

Quote:

What the statistics dont show is that the murders it deters are ones such as a robbery and the gunman kills someone, or maybe someone beating a homeless man to death.

Do you have any statistics or studies that back these claims up? I've looked, and I don't see any. The closest that I came was a pro-death penalty site that posted a graphical analysis of "executions" vs. "murder rate." The problem with the graph is that, while the execution numbers wildly fluctuate, the murder rates stay on steady trends. This suggests that the murder rate is following a trend independant of actual executions, and the correlation they attempt to draw suggests no real causality.

Aside from this, the non-deterrent arguments Garret brought up are more than sufficient reasons to back the death penalty. Deterrence is, at best, unproven, but these are empirical.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

To hear that texas has a higher crime rate then new york is a little unsettling

I've done some digging on this matter, and I found an even more alraming trend in the data. The murder rate, at least, tends to have a very strong correlation with the size of the minority population of the state. Even worse, the more I crunched the numbers on this, and its all preliminary, you can actually weight the racial composition of a state and come very close to pinning down its murder rate relative to the other states. I'm not happy to have stumbled on this, but there is something to be said for it.

First, here is an image map of America's racial minority distribution by county:

http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/maplib/demogs/race/us/gifs/minoru.gif

A little old, but still largely valid.

Now, here is a ranking of states by murder rate (you'll notice that states without the death penalty are highlighted in yellow):

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169

Compare the map with the chart by rankings and you will notice something; the greener the state, the higher up on that chart it is. One thing to immediately draw your attention to is New Mexico. New Mexico has one of the highest minority populations by percentage in the country, and it has one of the highest murder rates in the country, despite being a largely rural and underpopulated state (it has a murder rate around 50% higher than much more urban New York's).

Now, digging into the census data another observation starts to place things in context. Arizona and Louisiana have comparable overall minority populations, but Louisiana has almost double the murder rate. If you delve into the census data you will discover that Arizona's minority population is largely hispanic, Louisiana's is mostly black. In comparison by comparison you'll note, where the states with hispanic populations have lower murder rates than the ones with black populations. In other words, you can basically tell where a state will rank in terms of its murder rate by the number of blacks in the state plus, with slightly less weight, the number of hispanics. It sucks, but statistically it holds up. North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee all have higher than the national average murder rates, and all are part of that big green belt of black population. The states with large hispanic populations, mostly located along the border area, also find themselves with higher than average murder rates, but generally lower than states with high black populations.

So, these unfortunate mathematical observations in mind, the explaination behind the higher murder rates is Texas is as follows. According to US census data New York has a 17% black population, 16% hispanic. Texas has a 12% black population, 36% hispanic population. The murder rates in the states differ only by a little, with Texas having 5.9 murders per 100,000, New York having 4.8 murders per 100,000. So, the mathematical model would answer that Texas has a slightly lower number of blacks, but a significantly higher number of hispanics and the murder rates differ only by a small amount.

Now, bear in mind, this doesn't pretend to conclude why the murder rates follow these demographic trends, simply saying they do. The answer could be anything from poorly funded minority school districts to simple coincidence.  

[Lord Bitememan]

In a totally new development, I think there's five justices on the Supreme Court who need to be executed.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html  

[Cunning Malevolence]

Lord Bitememan

In a totally new development, I think there's five justices on the Supreme Court who need to be executed.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html

((Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing "evolving standards of decency" in the United States.)) First of all, its not a cruel and usual punishment if someone rapes a child for them to be executed. And if executing child rapists is "indecent" then the country is just ******** up. Our supreme court is senile. and i think its time to rebel >_>