Syzygys said that he would explicitly refute the claims in the websites I posted.
I thought I did. You summarized the website's main arguments and I went with it. I don't see a problem. I also added other frequent arguments. If I missed any important ones, fire away.
Instead, his posts so far have discussed generalities.
I told you this is about universal DP, thus general approach. I don't see the point being specific, unless an example comes up.
Another major problem with Syzygys's arguments so far is that they discuss some kind of imaginary, ideal form of the death penalty, and do not look at the death penalty as it is actually applied in practice.
Again, what's the problem? I never said the system was perfect, but I argue that instead of throwing it out, let's make it better. Also, we are (at least I am) talking about general application, not specific cases. Let's say we argue about the electric car in 1995. Just because back then it wasn't ideal that doesn't mean 10-20 years later it can not be. (or at least better than the combustion engine)
If it would be so easy to reform the death penalty to make it fairer and more workable, why hasn't that been done?
Who said it hasn't been? Your approach is too America -centric. I bet DP issues in Japan has fair less problems, than here. Half of your arguments don't apply to Japan. And just because let's say it hasn't been done, it doesn't mean it can not be.
The simple answer is that the death penalty doesn't work.
This is a meaningless sentence, thus no response.
The aims of criminal sentencing include:
I just would like to note, that I don't necesserily agree with all these aims. These are generic goals that might or might not be achivable.
1. Retribution
This is simple "just desserts",
This is not an argument, so please try to restrain in the future making meaningless statements.
the idea that criminals deserve to be punished for their actions.
That idea happens to be one of the oldest and most common not to mention also very popular.
It is also "an eye for an eye".
You are trying to imply that anything is wrong with that. I say there is nothing. This is a debate about morals and responses to certain moral mistakes. Morals are subjective, so please restrain yourself making personal moral judgements as universal.
Problems with retributive punishment
Almost all punishment are retributive. And by the way I say it should be 1.2 eye for an eye. After all 1 for 1 would be just payback and we need at least 20% for retribution.
In the case of the death penalty, factors such as the financial means of the criminal, the criminal's race, and the criminal's political views can result in the death penalty being applied where it otherwise may not have been.
Those applied all the time in lots of justice systems without DP. That doesn't mean you throw away the punishment itself, but try to make it more even and fair.
The punishment sends a message that society will not tolerate the particular criminal activity.
...and I don't see any problems with that. Again, personal ethical differences.
It is not clear, however, that the correct message cannot be sent with any punishment other than the death penalty.
Evidence? Since you like to ask for evidences, might I too? And since you say, it is not clear, that indicates you don't have one.
Long prison terms for serious crimes serve equally well to denounce those crimes and to show that justice is being done.
Says you. Evidence would be welcomed. On the other hand a well executed hanging usually is a clearer message.
..and the public is therefore protected.
The death penalty amounts to permanent incapacitation of the criminal. However, it seems obvious that life imprisonment for serious crimes serves equally well.
Except you CAN NOT guarantee that a criminal behind bars:
1. Don't kill again.
2. Don't order to get someone outside killed.
3. Others don't kill for him (hostage situation)
(plenty of examples for all 3)
Thus just for these reasons, there is simply no valid argument against the "dead man kill no more" argument.
There is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective as a general deterrent for serious crimes (e.g. murder) than is a life sentence.
Then why the military/police use "shot to kill" orders in emergency situation, when deterrence is very important? Getting the message accross? I am talking here laws against looting in natural catastrophies.
"Looters will be shot dead." is usually a better deterrent than "Looters get a long and boring prison sentence, cabel TV provided."
And many crimes are committed on impulse, without thinking through the likely consequences.
You are again arguing against points I never made. Sure, DP is not a deterrent all the time. Specially not in crimes of passions or economic needs. Even looters will risk being shot dead when they are looting for food and water. But in certain areas (white collar crimes, or premediated serial occurances) it can be. The problem is that it is almost impossible to measure.
YOUR view maybe that criminals should be rehabilitated. Generally I don't have a problem with it, except in certain areas the crime passes the treshold of being able to rehabilitate or it is not desirable. Then the DP is the solution. See Green River killer.
What message does it send if we rehabilitate a serial murderer? That anyone can get away with it, they just have to find Jesus and say they are sorry?
The aim here is to reform the offender so that he or she can rejoin civil society.
Except for those whose crime is so serious, that we can not give them a second chance. What if your rehabilitated criminal does another very serious crime? Then YOU personally say you are sorry? Sometimes society just can not take the chance.
Obviously, the death penalty offers no chance for that.
This is an argument on my side. DP is for unrehabitable people.
6. Reparation
The aim here is to compensate victims of crime.
This doesn't apply to homicide. But see the organ donation idea, the most lively, most exquisite and most valuable reparation any criminal can do. Now there are just so many organs you can donate as a live person.
The death penalty does nothing for reparation.
Alright, you want specifics? Here it is one:
Your son got kidnapped, for 2 weeks repeatedly sexually molested and tortured and after that he was left in a cold and dark cave without food and water. The criminal was captured in time (your son was still alive) but he decided not to disclose the location of your son, thus he died a long and painful death of starvation and thirst, alone in a dark cold cave. Not in a few minutes but in DAYS.
Now we could put the perpetrator behind bars for the next 4 decades OR after executing him we could donate his organs to 10 members of society who actually deserves to be called as such.
Wouldn't you rather think of your son's death as an event that eventually saved 10 people's life as REPARATION, instead of think of the criminal watching TV and being taken care of for the rest of his life and your son's life was good for nothing but to statisfy a pervert's needs?
Be honest.....No hurry...
I would like Syzygys to tell me which of the aims of sentencing he has in mind when he claims that no other punishment would be sufficient.
Reparation for one as we saw it from the example above. (payback to society, because the victim is dead)
Denounciation (sending the message).
Retribution. (eye for an eye plus 20%)
Incapacitation. (it is hard to commit another crime when one is dead)
Rehabilitation (if I can use the religious argument, criminal can be rehabilitated in the afterlife)
Deterrence (specially in the military in wartimes let's say for desertion)
Society is safe from criminals who are imprisoned for life,
The oldest person executed in California was a gangboss who ordered outsidered to be killed. That's why he was executed. End of story. I only need to prove/show one counterexample. So society wasn't safe with him behind bars.
Says you. What are you going to say to the family of his next victim if he happens to kill again? You are sorry?
Escapes from modern prisons, especially high security ones that would house criminals to whom the death penalty could apply, are extremely rare,
How are the prison situations in Albania or Malaysia? Are you sure about that high security? We are arguing universally, not DP in the Western societies, after all.
and most escapees are quickly recaptured.
You really want me to quote examples? Also, can you guarantee that they can be recaptured quickly enough? You can not.
The proportion of criminals who can order further crimes from inside the prison is minimal,
1. Minimal doesn't equal zero. You could have agreed to DP for those few criminals.
2. I could use the exact same argument for executing innocents. You wouldn't like even small numbers, I bet.
4. The death penalty is simple to apply.
In practice, the death penalty is extremely costly to apply.
I didn't say cheap, I said SIMPLE. We can argue about the type of execution, but once is dead, he is dead. Simple. With lifelong impprisonment there are all kind of complications what makes the sentence way more comlicated (what type of prison, what kind of rights,what kind of punishments, when getting old is it still worthy to keep him incarcerated, etc.etc.)
A quick execution is just SIMPLER than 4 decades of prison, we can agree on that.
Experience shows that criminals typically stay on death row for years,
Not everywhere. Just because the US system is screwed up, that doesn't mean it is like everywhere.
But I will note that where the cost of the DP is less than the lifelong imprisonment, you are FOR the DP.
6. The death penalty is less cruel than a life sentence.
Syzygys has supplied no evidence other than anecdote for this claim.
Because it is selfevident? But you could supply evidence to the contrary, if you want to rebute it.
By the way this point is a question of personal POV. Pain and torture-wise it is obvious. A quick and specially painless execution is less cruel than lifelong suffering behind bars.
It is considered unethical
To use illegal drugs, being naked in public,etc. Unethical is what society DECIDES to be not ethical. If society realizes and decides that there is no point in wasting lots of healthy organs when thousand are waiting for it, then it can be a law. Dead man need no organ anymore.Since the criminal belongs to the state, why shouldn't his organs???
But Syzygys goes a step further here - he is advocating actually killing people for their organs.
Nope, I didn't do such a thing. I didn't say let's kill a criminal for his organs. I said, since the executed criminal doesn't need his organs anymore, we might as well use them.
BIG difference. There is a danger of abusing the system, but again, I am arguing how it should be done.
8. Religions approve of killing, and criminals will go to hell faster if killed early.
Even if this is accurate (and again we have no sources), antiquated religious notions have no place in a modern secular state.
Your website brought up the religious argument, so I just ran with it. It does make sense though, if you believe the premise.
9. Criminals will be more likely to plea bargain if threatened with the death penalty.
There is no evidence that this criminals will be any more likely to give the police information or whatever in exchange for avoiding the death penalty than they are in exchange for avoiding a long prison term.
This is not the argument you wanted to make. You should have said this: (logically)
Instead of DP as negotiating power, the justice system could use other punishments (like solitary confinement, torture,etc.) as threat. Unfortunately, they would be inhuman, cruel...
When the criminal gets the maximum sentence automaticly (life without parole), there is simply nothing what he can be threatened to try to negotiate. In these cases the prosecutors' hands are tied. But when there is the ace, the DP, most criminals go for the deal.
10. Families want the death penalty to get "closure".
Again, no evidence has been provided for this claim,
1. I didn't say all, I think I said most families.
2. There is no hard data worldwide on it, if so quote it.
and my links show that the reverse tends to be true - families do not feel that the long, drawn-out process of applying the death penalty helps them.
Again, was that data from the US? So I guess the Alban families are different because they execute the criminals in 3 months. (just made it up but you got the point)
11. Killing people is human, so we ought to have the death penalty.
This is a silly argument.
But saying that it is silly is NOT an argument itself. The point here I was making is that it is perfectly natural for humans to kill, contrary to missconceptions.
Since rape is not uncommon in human society, maybe we ought to use rape as a form of punishment for criminals too.
Actually a good idea, I am sure lots of rape victim could agree with it. Since we are at it, I could argue that criminals should be executed the same WAY as they commited their crimes. You know, that eye for an eye thingy, and being equal and even....
12. Most people are in favour of the death penalty.
About two-thirds of Americans say they support the death penalty for murderers.
You are not supposed to help me. By the way if they heard my arguments I am sure even more would agree and not just for murder.
Here, let's say we actually can put a monetary value on an average human life. For simplicity, let's say 1 million dollar. Now let's say the crime isn't murder, but bodily harm to several people. We can also put value on bodily harm. So if the premeditatedly caused bodily harm multiplied by the number of victims is bigger than this million (or whatever value we put ) then the only equal and just punishment would be the DP. So if the eyesight of a person let's say is worth 100K, and you after poisoning the foodsupply caused 10 people to get blind, well, then you die.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
I thought I already executed (pardon my pun) this Big Book of Laws in my previous post. No man shall pass laws for all mankind. And that is a law. (pardon the oxymoron)
Now for the sake of logic, I could point out that DP could be favoured by only 45% or whatever, I still could make a logical and factual case for it. The bottomline is:
1. Societies should be able to decide for themselves their stand on DP without external pressure.
2. Why there is no DP in societies where most people (51+%) favours it???
3. Societies are different thus their laws should be too.
There is no evidence that most people support the death penalty.
I would state the opposite, I might do a search on it noting that hard data doesn't exist for all people on it.
One more thing: If the % of the people opposing the DP is a valid argument against DP, then the opposite also should be true, the % of people wanting DP is a valid argument FOR the DP. Thus in countries (such as USA) where MOST people want the DP, DP should be practiced.
13. Killing criminals is a good method of general population control.
This argument fails for the same reasons as #7.
Forgot what #7 was, but since people understand examples better, let's have one:
There is a small tribe on an island in the Pacific. The food supply is very limited, and every member of the society has to work hard just to survive. Now, since they don't have the manpower, if criminals get in their bamboo jail and do nothing (they don't have manpower for guarding them either), but they still eat the limited foodsupply, that basicly means either criminals can not be punished by incarceration or the tribe is going to be extinct soon. But with DP the criminals can be removed from the users of the foodsupply and punished at the same time...
There you have it...
P.S.: I hate these long posts, hard to edit and follow.