Social Justice
Submitted by Betsy on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 09:17
In one of my university classes (many moons ago), we had to pair up and debate a hot issue for the class. We were encouraged to debate FOR the side of the issue that we were personally opposed to.
My partner and I chose capital punishment.
We researched our respective sides separately for weeks.
I debated in favour of capital punishment.
It was a very eye opening experience for me.
I learned of the horrific crimes committed by many convicted murderers of the day....Ted Bundy, Clifford Olsen.
Torture, murder, withholding information on the whereabouts of victims pending financial settlement. It was disgusting.
I remember doing this research and wishing that I could be the one to flip the switch that would wipe these horrible people away...to pay them back for the dispicable things they did to others.
My passion scared me.
If that kind of passionate hate for these acts could have won a debate, I would have been a shoe in at this debate.
In fact, I was able to convince a few left wing thinkers to see that capital punishment is just (i was quick to clarify in the end that I was not in agreement to everything I'd just argued....some didn't believe me)
In the end I could not convince myself ....a hand for a hand...an eye for an eye....I really didnt believe that this kind of justice was really effective.
Punishment is supposed to deter crime. I could not prove through any research from North America that capital punishment is a deterrant to committing these crimes.
The sad, sick, disgusting truth is that sick minds who rape and kill and mutilate other human beings don't really care if they might be put to death if they're caught.
Capital punishment is not necessarily a deterrant.
It might save a whole lot of tax dollars...we wouldn't have to support these murderers in our jails for the rest of their days.
But that's pretty much it...apart from the satisfaction it might give us to off the bastards. What's the use in that? It kind of scares me.
What scares me more is the solution I gave to my class after the debate was over....I suggested that we might satisfy our need for revenge by having the punishment for such crimes be putting them in the general population in a prison and not protecting them....maybe knowing that if they are convicted of their sick crimes they'll have to spend their days answering to other inmates who have wives and children on the outside...maybe that might deter them?
yep, that scared me then...it scares me now.
Capital Punishment
I am going to try and recreate this comment that was inadvertently erased however I can't guarantee it will be as good as the original. First of all welcome back.
I believe in capital punishment. It is a deterrent which has been documented many times by criminals that have used it in their trials as a means of defence to gain lower sentences. It certainly doesn’t pertain to the type of socio-paths that you mentioned of course but it does deter some. If punishment doesn’t deter, logic would ask why do we have it for any crime. Our criminal justice system was originally developed on this premise (English history) but over the years it has been modified and watered down dramatically. Sixty (60) years ago when we did have the death penalty violent crimes and specifically murder were much lower on a per capita basis. But over the years so much emphasis has been placed on rehabilitation and lighter sentencing that the cost benefit ratio has been biased towards the criminal and his crimes. For instance if you shoot and kill someone today the chances of receiving a life sentence is zero, nil, nada. Canada doesn’t have life sentences only 25 year sentences which in and of themselves are very rare. Most sentences range from 5 to 15 years with many parole opportunities. The poor girl that was sitting having coffee in Toronto a few years back and was shot and killed would have been amazed to find out that our society only put a value of 8 years punishment on her untimely death. One of the stronger arguments against the death penalty is the chance that an innocent person would be wrongly executed. This is a very valid argument considering some of the cases seen since the advent of DNA testing. The answer however isn’t to abolish the penalty it is to try and make the system failsafe through DNA and any other technology available to the justice system. Politicians can manipulate data on crime to spin whatever story they are pitching that month but common sense should tell you that our streets are getting more dangerous and violent crime is rising. I will agree that tougher sentencing and the death penalty are not the only answer but it is an answer. Our system is broken and until it is fixed we must, as a society, take measures to protect our citizens. I also have compassion but it is reserved for the victims of violent crime and their families who mistakenly believed in a justice system that was supposed to protect them.
Capital Punishment
I'm not following your "proof" that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder because its "been documented many times by criminals that have used it in their trials as a means of defense to gain reduced sentences."
I can only imagine that a person on trial for murder or already convicted of murder will say anything they have to in an effort to avoid execution or have their punishment reduced. That's my first reason for not buying your argument that capital punishment is a deterrant.
Secondly, I think maybe you are (mistakenly I think) assuming that because people naturally fear their own death more than anything else, then that alone will serve as a deterrant. Given that most murders are committed in the heat of passion, or by crazy sociopaths, I really can't see how fear of death is a strong indicator that capital punishment deters.
It seems to me that you are assuming that murderers have the capacity to weigh the consequences of their actions before they commit them. I doubt a murderer stands there with a gun saying "well if I shoot him in the head he'll die and I'll be put to death, but if I shoot him in the kneecap I'll just go to prison for a few years."
These are not rational thinkers.
I also have trouble with your claim that "violent crimes and specifically murder were much lower on a per capita basis" over 60 years ago.
You're failing to take into consideration that the availability of guns has increased dramatically and that, indeed as you pointed out, time served for violent crimes has decreased and so that gives the murderer a greater opportunity to reoffend.
You mention one of your only concerns with capital punishment is that someone may be wrongfully convicted. That was in fact my opponent's strongest point against capital punishment during our debate. However, that was 20 years ago and as you mentioned yourself, technological advancements have improved so much that, for me, that's not a strong argument against it.
For me, the strongest argument against capital punishment is that if we can't prove that it is a deterrant, then we're doing it as vengeance. To me, this just isn't right.
I just can't find the research to support that it is a proven deterrant to murder.
One statistician, Isaac Ehrlick, looked at national murder rates between 1930 and 1970 in the USA. His research showed that it was a deterrant. But not one researcher since then has been able to duplicate his results.
In fact, in several studies done in the US between states that have capital punishment and those who don't, there is no significant difference in the murder rate.
Further, there have been studies done in states that did not have capital punishment and then implemented it. The murder rates showed no significant decrease after implementation.
I'm not saying our justice system doesn't have flaws. Its criminal that a murderer can serve 8 years and then be released into the public....possibly to reoffend.
But that doesn't mean that the solution is killing them.
We need to look at our justice system, our education system, our social welfare system and our mental health care system.
Only then might we find a solution to this madness.
Capital Punishment
First, I concede that I am only talking about some potential killers who would be affected by the death penalty because no one person is the same and therefore there are different types of killers who also kill for different reasons. However you seem to be making broad generalizations about all killers and how they think and no one can obviously know that. My point on the court documentation is that there is factual testimony in some cases supporting my premise. Because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it untrue.
However since neither of us are mind readers let’s set aside these opinions on what and how people think and go back to factual information. The violent crime levels have increased over the past 60 years (on a per capita basis). Access to guns has become much easier and there is no doubt of this as well. But statistics show that all violent crimes, attempted murders and murders have risen including those that don’t relate to guns. Therefore while it may have a bearing in facilitating murder I submit banning guns and making them more difficult to get, won’t be a deterring factor in violent crime. People will find something else to use (they already have i.e. knives etc.
I have not seen the data that you mentioned but I have seen plenty of it on both sides right up to the current day and I guess depending on what you believe, you can choose the numbers that fit. But I like to keep it simple and use basic human behaviour that is well known over generations and history verifies it time and time again. First, cause and effect, action and reaction whatever you want to call it. A child puts their hand in a fire and gets burned. Most likely they will not do it again. Thankfully most parents will teach the child that doing this will result in a bad effect before they actually do it. Our justice system has this same logic. You commit a crime and viola! this is the punishment and you are now forewarned! If you do away with the punishment or the severity of the punishment (example the hand doesn’t burn or no death penalty) then it makes it easier to do the crime because while you may get hot you won’t get burned ( or executed). Secondly, let’s take your point about vengeance. The immediate victims may want vengeance but I don’t really believe the justice system operates on this premise now, nor did so when the death penalty was in effect. I haven't seen any evidence of this and I also do not believe that society on average has or would think this way either. To me it is more to do with putting a higher value on human life. If we all believe that life is the most precious thing each person has then a murderer should pay the ultimate price if they take it away from someone in a premeditated way.
Finally it always amazes me that the plight of murderers and the banishment of the death penalty are so high on society's list of taboos when other "life" issues have lost so much ground. The lives of unborn children are legally terminated (and please don’t take off on a tangent about abortion because I’m not advocating either side of the issue), we facilitate the death of the elderly because they are clogging up nursing homes and hospitals, put to death mentally challenged people (i.e. that young lady that was starved to death in Florida) and help potential suicide victims complete their task in a orderly manner. Once again, my point here is not to argue the right or wrong of any of the above issues. It is just a fact that as a society 50 years ago “life” had a higher value as the things I mentioned above weren't accepted regardless of any argument.
Capital punishment isn't the only answer but everything else that has been tried has failed. It should be a part of the solution and I agree with you that there are many other places to look for answers as well.