Illinois abolishes death penalty

[Chino]

It's such an arbitrary punishment though. How do you decide when someone 'deserves' to die rather than get a prison sentence?

Stories like this are why I believe the death penalty needs to stay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGug6ISfna8

[Cool Chris]

That said, the whole concept of a "debt to society" is ridiculous.  The criminal has a debt to the victim and no one else. 

True in a sense, but I think people owe it to society to not go around killing people.

Having been on the wrong end of the justice system, I feel like the punishment was a good deterent for me to not fuck up any more. But my issues were small, and I was able to complete my 'punishment' and still be on my feet.

And whil ephilosophically I could see wanting the punishment to be more in the hands of those who suffered, I think there needs to be some sort of standardization across the board.

[ehra]

Punishment in general is an outdated foundation for any modern justice system IMO.

What sort of alternative are you thinking of?

[ResultsMayVary]

Call me crazy, I don't care. But, if someone kills someoneelse with obvious intent to do so, they should get the death penalty, IMHO.

[rumborak]

The obvious cases are never the problem. It's the grey area where it still gets applied despite the case not being obvious. Those are the issue. I mean, the fact that people get exonerated from death row shows that the death penalty gets applied too liberally. And that will always be the case when it's available.

rumborak

[7StringedBeast]

The obvious cases are never the problem. It's the grey area where it still gets applied despite the case not being obvious. Those are the issue. I mean, the fact that people get exonerated from death row shows that the death penalty gets applied too liberally. And that will always be the case when it's available.

rumborak

going back to before, it was applied too liberally.  Remember people stay on death row for a long time.  I do think that it is not sentenced nowadays unless there is 100% proof of guilt. 

Like that kid who shot Gifford.  Death penalty for him.  I hope anyways.  Guy does not deserve to live any longer.

[7thHanyou]

Good post.  One of my problems is that while revenge might be an acceptable motivation to some, very few people have the balls to describe it as such.  People want to downplay that aspect with terms like justice or closure.  There's a lot of hypocrisy in capital punishment.  

Thank you.  That's how I see it, as well, but I'd like to add that those who do not believe in punishment should be free not to pursue it.  I just don't understand what the motive for life imprisonment is if not punishment.  Is it simply to keep dangerous people away from society?  If that's the case, then guilt need not be a factor at all; but no one would advocate throwing someone in prison for having a proven "dangerous" psychological condition.

If punishment is to function as a deterrent, then ought we refuse to punish at all unless we are sure it will deter crime?

The fact is, the "guilt" status actually changes one's standing in the justice system.  And it seems as though most people don't actually have a problem with that.

Punishment in general is an outdated foundation for any modern justice system IMO.

Mind explaining why?

And "outdated" really says nothing about whether it is right or wrong.  I may concede the point that it is outdated, but disagree that it is wrong.

This is very good news. Justice should be about removal of harm, not satisfying blood needs.

I missed this early on.

When someone steals something, demanding that they return the stolen item or, in absence of specific performance, pay for what they stole, can be considered just, right?  The victim is probably entitled to a little extra as well for any harm suffered in the process--certain items may have more than a base monetary value.

This simply can't be done in the case of a murder or rape.  The degree of harm inflicted on the victim is incommensurable, and there is no means of returning what has been stolen.  "Removing harm" simply isn't an option.  We might demand some monetary value in return (and I think that should be an option), but would it ever be enough?  In these sorts of cases, what repayment can be offered except punishment of some kind?  Indeed, any form of repayment would be viewed as punishment, because specific performance or something equivalent to it is impossible.

Should our justice system demand proportional compensation for the stolen or broken china, but no such proportional compensation for the murder of another human being?  Now, I have already stated that I think completely proportional compensation is impractical in such cases, but to remove punishment from the justice system entirely would mean that no compensation could be offered at all.  The victim would have had something taken from them, while the aggressor would be subject to...well...self-improvement at worst.  That is not "justice."  I think philosopher John Locke said it best:

If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what kind of a peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine, and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors.

[XJDenton]

Punishment in general is an outdated foundation for any modern justice system IMO.

What sort of alternative are you thinking of?

Rehabilitation primarily followed by permanent confinement/separation of those that can not be rehabilited. Punishment isn't the goal of the justice system, its just a method (and imo an outdated and unsatisfactory one) to achieve the primary goals of a) ensuring the perpetrator does not commit again, either through physical confinement or mental rehabilitation and b) repairing the damage caused by the crime to both the immediate family and society in general.

[Adami]

Why is removing harm "simply not an option"? The family of the victim doesn't lose anything if the person doesn't die. No one loses anything in fact.

[El Barto]

Should our justice system demand proportional compensation for the stolen or broken china, but no such proportional compensation for the murder of another human being?  Now, I have already stated that I think completely proportional compensation is impractical in such cases, but to remove punishment from the justice system entirely would mean that no compensation could be offered at all.  The victim would have had something taken from them, while the aggressor would be subject to...well...self-improvement at worst.  That is not "justice."

You're seriously misconstruing the American penal system if you think that imprisonment isn't punishment.  It serves all the necessary purposes.  It removes the bad guy from society.  It provides an opportunity (although a pretty crappy one) for rehabilitation.  It is revocable should it turn out that there was a mistake with the conviction. 

[Cool Chris]

I think punishment needs to be an element to all this though. There needs to be repercussions to actions considered detrimental to a society and its laws, beyond rehab and confinement.

That being said, confinement is pretty much punishment, whether or not it is regarded as such, or merely as ‘keeping society safe…” But by the same token, some criminals don’t mind the “three hots and a cot.” For some it beats trying to earn a living and supporting yourself.


Edit - dammit EB.

[yeshaberto]

based on the biblical precedent that God has given the government the authority to bear the sword (though they will be held accountable for their misuse of it), I am all for it.
the reason it is ineffective in US is that we take decades to follow thru. 
I understand the fact that we want to make sure they are innocent and allow for appeals, etc.  but when there is no doubt that someone is guilty of a capital crime, it needs to be done pronto.  this allows the full effect of it (ie. threat to others who are tempted to commit same crime) to take effect. 

[El Barto]

One thing that I've always found quite striking is that it's the religious who seem to support the death penalty and the humanists who find it wrong for a variety of reasons.  Of course there are always exceptions, but this seems to be the general trend.   

[7StringedBeast]

One thing that I've always found quite striking is that it's the religious who seem to support the death penalty and the humanists who find it wrong for a variety of reasons.  Of course there are always exceptions, but this seems to be the general trend.   

Also the religious tend to be anti abortion and pro death penalty.  Save the innocent, punish the guilty.   

while the non religious tend to be on the side pro abortion, save the guilty, kill the innocent. 

Just an interesting side-bar to add to El Barto's observation.

[Sigz]

I still haven't heard a good reason as to why death penalty is a better solution than life without parole. It saves money, always allows for the wrongly convicted to be released, and keeps the guilty out of society just as effectively.

[j]

Punishment in general is an outdated foundation for any modern justice system IMO.

What sort of alternative are you thinking of?

Rehabilitation primarily followed by permanent confinement/separation of those that can not be rehabilited. Punishment isn't the goal of the justice system, its just a method (and imo an outdated and unsatisfactory one) to achieve the primary goals of a) ensuring the perpetrator does not commit again, either through physical confinement or mental rehabilitation and b) repairing the damage caused by the crime to both the immediate family and society in general.

I agree, but rehabilitation entails "punishment" to some degree, partially because it isn't going to be done voluntarily.  And although I haven't put too much thought into it, I think that innate link could actually do some good by keeping some level of "deterrent" in place.

-J

[7StringedBeast]

Just because you haven't seen a good reason, doesn't mean a good reason hasn't been posted.  You just don't agree with the death penalty.  You just don't feel that some people deserve to die.  While others do believe some do deserve to die.

I would like to see figures showing that death penalty costs more though.  I don't see why a guy getting life can't do appeals for the remainder of his life.  Considering if he is wrongly accused he'd want out just as bad as he'd want to not die.

[Ravenheart]

One thing that I've always found quite striking is that it's the religious who seem to support the death penalty and the humanists who find it wrong for a variety of reasons.  Of course there are always exceptions, but this seems to be the general trend.   

Also the religious tend to be anti abortion and pro death penalty.  Save the innocent, punish the guilty.   

while the non religious tend to be on the side pro abortion, save the guilty, kill the innocent. 

Just an interesting side-bar to add to El Barto's observation.

Except that abortion carries a lot of baggage that factors into the decision to conduct one. The "lol killing the innocent" is a pretty weak caricature of abortion. As for punishment for crime, the guilty are being punished even if they aren't being killed. It's not hard to understand.

[Sigz]

It's not a matter of whether or not you or I think they deserve to die; that's entirely subjective and hardly a good basis for the law. It's a matter of what's being accomplished by executing them that couldn't be done another way.

[7StringedBeast]

One thing that I've always found quite striking is that it's the religious who seem to support the death penalty and the humanists who find it wrong for a variety of reasons.  Of course there are always exceptions, but this seems to be the general trend.   

Also the religious tend to be anti abortion and pro death penalty.  Save the innocent, punish the guilty.   

while the non religious tend to be on the side pro abortion, save the guilty, kill the innocent. 

Just an interesting side-bar to add to El Barto's observation.

Except that abortion carries a lot of baggage that factors into the decision to conduct one. The "lol killing the innocent" is a pretty weak caricature of abortion. As for punishment for crime, the guilty are being punished even if they aren't being killed. It's not hard to understand.

I didn't say "lol kill the innocent" but essentially abortion is killing an innocent life form.  for the record I am pro abortion and pro death penalty.  

I also believe that punishment has to be as severe as the crime.  You kill 100s of people, and life in prison in my eyes is "getting away with it"

[j]

You just don't feel that some people deserve to die.  While others do believe some do deserve to die.

Who passes judgment on which individuals "deserve" life or death?  And what gives them the capability and authority to decide?  That's a lot of power to give to anybody, be it a single person or a group of justices.

-J

[Ravenheart]

One thing that I've always found quite striking is that it's the religious who seem to support the death penalty and the humanists who find it wrong for a variety of reasons.  Of course there are always exceptions, but this seems to be the general trend.   

Also the religious tend to be anti abortion and pro death penalty.  Save the innocent, punish the guilty.   

while the non religious tend to be on the side pro abortion, save the guilty, kill the innocent. 

Just an interesting side-bar to add to El Barto's observation.

Except that abortion carries a lot of baggage that factors into the decision to conduct one. The "lol killing the innocent" is a pretty weak caricature of abortion. As for punishment for crime, the guilty are being punished even if they aren't being killed. It's not hard to understand.

I didn't say "lol kill the innocent" but essentially abortion is killing an innocent life form.  for the record I am pro abortion and pro death penalty.  

I get that, but different circumstances surround pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

I should make note that I'm torn on both the issues of abortion and the death penalty. I'm just seeing why some people think this or that.

[Implode]

Also the religious tend to be anti abortion and pro death penalty.  Save the innocent, punish the guilty.

Really? Maybe it's just Catholics, but I was taught that Christians are against the death penalty and abortion.

[El Barto]

I would like to see figures showing that death penalty costs more though.  I don't see why a guy getting life can't do appeals for the remainder of his life.  Considering if he is wrongly accused he'd want out just as bad as he'd want to not die.

The figures are everywhere since nearly every state that has capital punishment on the books has done studies.  Here's a blurb from deathpenaltyinfo.org

Legal costs: Almost all people facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. The state must assign them two public defenders, and pay for the costs of the prosecution as well.

Pre-trial costs: Capital cases are far more complicated than non-capital  cases. Experts will probably be needed on forensic evidence, mental health and the social history of the defendant.

Jury selection: Because of the death penalty question, jury selection in capital cases is much more time consuming and expensive.

Trial: Death penalty trials can last over four times longer, requiring juror and attorney compensation, in addition to court personnel and other related costs.

Incarceration: Most death rows involve solitary confinement in a special facility. These require more security  and other accommodations as the prisoners are kept for 23 hours a day in their cells.

Appeals: To minimize mistakes, every inmate is entitled to a series of appeals. The costs are borne at taxpayers' expense. These appeals are essential because some inmates have come within hours of execution before evidence was uncovered proving their innocence.

In Texas it's about 3 times as much ($2.3 million) to execute somebody than to imprison them for 40 years, and we've got the whole death penalty thing down to a science.  Other states have it much worse.

[yeshaberto]

Also the religious tend to be anti abortion and pro death penalty.  Save the innocent, punish the guilty.

Really? Maybe it's just Catholics, but I was taught that Christians are against the death penalty and abortion.

personally, I don't base my authority on what other Christians think, but on Scripture.  It is emphatically clear that God alone has the power of life and death, and to those he authorizes that right (which is governmental authorities - Rom 13).  If he hadn't given them the right to bear the sword, they wouldn't have the right to take a life.

[rumborak]

I didn't say "lol kill the innocent" but essentially abortion is killing an innocent life form.  for the record I am pro abortion and pro death penalty.  

If I recall correctly, a common argument against abortion is that only the Lord has the right to give and take away life, not humans. By putting yourself as the "first instance", i.e. deciding who is eligible for God's higher judgment of life and death, and who is not, you're putting yourself above God's judgment.

rumborak

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Also the religious tend to be anti abortion and pro death penalty.  Save the innocent, punish the guilty.

Really? Maybe it's just Catholics, but I was taught that Christians are against the death penalty and abortion.

personally, I don't base my authority on what other Christians think, but on Scripture.  It is emphatically clear that God alone has the power of life and death, and to those he authorizes that right (which is governmental authorities - Rom 13).  If he hadn't given them the right to bear the sword, they wouldn't have the right to take a life.

Thankfully, however, our Government isn't based on the Bible.

[Adami]

Also the religious tend to be anti abortion and pro death penalty.  Save the innocent, punish the guilty.

Really? Maybe it's just Catholics, but I was taught that Christians are against the death penalty and abortion.

personally, I don't base my authority on what other Christians think, but on Scripture.  It is emphatically clear that God alone has the power of life and death, and to those he authorizes that right (which is governmental authorities - Rom 13).  If he hadn't given them the right to bear the sword, they wouldn't have the right to take a life.

Does that include governments that persecute against christians? I only ask because that seems like a very dangerous rule, unless there are restrictions as to which type of governments we have to obey, or else we'd still be british.

[yeshaberto]

good question.  interestingly the book of I Peter was written to Christians being slaughtered by Nero.  The message is emphatically clear that they were to "submit" to their government.  Nero will undoubtedly be judged for his abuse of authority, but it doesn't change the fact that the authority is God-given

[Adami]

good question.  interestingly the book of I Peter was written to Christians being slaughtered by Nero.  The message is emphatically clear that they were to "submit" to their government.  Nero will undoubtedly be judged for his abuse of authority, but it doesn't change the fact that the authority is God-given

But they didn't submit.

[yeshaberto]

good question.  interestingly the book of I Peter was written to Christians being slaughtered by Nero.  The message is emphatically clear that they were to "submit" to their government.  Nero will undoubtedly be judged for his abuse of authority, but it doesn't change the fact that the authority is God-given

But they didn't submit.

not all of them, but many of them did  not love their lives even unto death

[hefdaddy42]

I'm pretty much against death in general.  It doesn't make it more acceptable if it is a government administering death instead of a criminal.

[Ben_Jamin]

When they give them the death penalty. They're actually doing the criminals a favor by giving them death. Its a cheap way of revenge, id rather let them rot in a prison.

The thing is, when people get hurt and want the death penalty for the criminal, yet they're religious is pretty ironic, since forgiveness and treating the criminal nice will make them confused and wonder why they're being treated nice.