(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I'm going to attempt to argue a theory here; many may jump on me for the real-world practice that goes on, but this is not about that.

In theory, I support the death penalty. This is an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice.
If you take anothers life, delibrately, in cold blood, in a pre-meditated fashion, you have lost your right to live, IMO.

Now, since this penalty is to be administered by the govt, there ought be some strict guidelines. Here is what I propose:

Either:
A) You are caught in the act by the authorities (but the person dies before he/she can be rushed to the hospital)
B) There is overwhelming evidence against you--personally I feel that four criteria would be met for this:

fingerprint
DNA
eye-witness
video of event (audio is a plus, but I feel these four are sufficient to ensure that the guilty party is the one being punished)

These strict requirements, are, to my knowledge, not required anyplace where the death penalty is enacted. Thus my theoretical support of the death penalty does not support the real-world way in which the death penalty is applied in the US (or elsewhere)

I recognize that in the US (and prolly elsewhere too) the death penalty is applied in a biased manner and that in too many cases the wrong person is executed. I feel that the criteria I laid out are sufficient to ensure no wrongful executions -- though, of course, I am open to hear contrary views on that.

Let us put aside issues of economic cost (which vary) and issues of how to execute (which vary) and focus on the question of: "Is execution for murder an acceptable punishment?"

I feel that it is; I feel that one forfits their right to live when they steal that right from another. I believe in human rights that are inherent but not absolute--the human rights that we all have are what we start with, but we do not necessarily retain them forever. We can lose them.

Thoughts?

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with your criteria, as they seem fairly reasonable. Of course, it'd mean anyone smart enough to wear gloves discloses the possibility of execution. Other than that, I'd have a confession stand in for the video/audio tape and eye-witness, so long as it is corroborated by the other evidence and particulars of the crime. I think Tim McVeigh deserved death, and justice was done in giving it to him. It is possible to apply the death penalty justly. It's just not done, in general.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Eh, confessions can be gotten from innocent people; it's tough to have an innocent person on video killing a person as well as leaving DNA/fingerprint evidence behind.

There is still, and always will be, the risk of tampering with evidence. But that risk, I suspect, is lower than the risk of false confession.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

For the record, I'm firmly against the death penalty, but since this is not the point, I won't discuss it now. In rest, your criteria sound reasonable and yes, I think they're sufficient, if followed strictly and with competence. Which, like you said, is not the case in reality.

[zentiger.livejournal.com]

Honestly? This isn't the stupidest thing you've ever posted, but ... it's not very well thought out, either.

Fingerprinting does not work like you think it does. Neither does DNA analysis. Eyewitness testimony is ridiculously unreliable. Video can be tampered with.

Could the death penalty be justly applied? Sure. Is there a way to create a just institution which hands out the death penalty? No.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Do you guys know each other?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I know that by themselves, each of the four things I listed are insufficient to confirm guilt. You will need to inform me (or at minimum link me) to the problems you think I have with my understanding of fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence.

Yes, video can be tampered and eyewitnesses can be mistaken; I know this; I'm not a fool.

But to my knowledge, our DNA is unique, just like our fingerprints. So yeah, if there's a rape-murder victim with John Doe's DNA inside her, his fingerprints on the murder weapon, a survellience video of him committing the crime, and a neighbor who saw John Doe fleeing the scene--I think his guilt can be safely concluded.

And this is *theory* not application.

And hey, what's your stance on the trial of KSM? Or Saddam Hussein? Should Hussein *not* have gotten the death penalty? Should KSM get life in prison?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Yes I know; I included DNA in my list of requirements to make it is as tough as possible to get the death penalty. I'm not trying to kill people left and right here--I want to ensure we get the right people. For simple imprisonment I am willing to accept lower standards than those for the death penalty.

[thies.livejournal.com]

DNA can be planted, eye wittinesses are laughably unreliable.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Good god, I know this already.
Do you have anything substantial to add?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Why does a person deserve to die for killing? If morally, we condemn killing others, doesn't that take away our authority to kill them also? If we want to have the moral ground to condemn it, shouldn't we resist the desire for vengeance ourselves?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What do you think a person deserves for killing in cold blood?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You missed radioactive carbon dating. I could've been there and left my DNA, it doesn't make me the killer. But if it could be combined with carbon dating...

That, and using mentalists.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Of course you could have been there and left DNA, or fingerprints--that's why the video + eyewitness acount is also required.

Everybody seems to be nitpicking and saying: "well this one thing isn't as reliable as you think" and I go "I know this *one thing* is not so reliable. That's why it must be coupled with these other things--since the odds of *all* of them being wrong/tampered with are exceedingly small."

[weswilson]

While those are excellent guidelines, I'm still unsure they provide enough protection. Do you have to have all four? We are sufficiently advanced to remove murderers from society. I see no need to potentially kill innocent people because we don't think life in prison is enough punishment.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Yes, you would need all 4 for an execution.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Even if you do support harsh punishment as a deterrent, the fact is (and I think the Op was trying to avoid it to talk about other specifics) the death penalty does not allow error, and it's impossible for our system to be 100% without error.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No state should have the rights to murder its own citizens. Period. To give that kind of power is a very dangerous one. In fact I would use the term barbaric to describe it.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

"Is execution for murder an acceptable punishment?"

No. When the state kills, it makes all of its citizens murderers.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My God...we agree on something. O.o.

Theory is fine, but in the real world ...

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

In the real world, mistakes happen, bias happens, corruption happens. To my mind, one innocent taking that long walk to the death chamber is one too many.

Do you really trust every cop, judge and governor enough to let them put your fellow citizens to death?

Given life imprisonment, the inevitable mistakes can't ever be fixed so as to give back the victim's (that is, the falsely convicted) time back, but at least he'll still be alive when someone says "oops".

Re: Theory is fine, but in the real world ...

[confliction.livejournal.com]

I've always fancied putting the worst offenders into work camps... menial labour.

This way, if they are later found to be innocent, they can be compensated for their work.

Else, they are contributing to society while living a tedious and unrewarding life.

[redheadrat.livejournal.com]

There is one big flaw with the criteria. It exempts pretty much any professional murder.

A person who orders a murder does not leave any physical evidence, a person who uses a sniper rifle will rarely be implicated either. At the same time getting death penalty to idiots who kill someone in a domestic dispute becomes much easier.

Secondly, there is at least one country where death penalty is legal, but it is used in only the extreme cases. The country is Israel.

I think that a much stricter sentencing system should be made. With single federal court processing any death penalty requests for all federal and state courts.

[schquee.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The crux is the theoretical question, if guilt can be proven absolutely, is it ever just to execute someone for murder?

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

My main reason for opposing the death penalty (vs life w/o the possibility of parole) is the unreliability of the process vs the ultimate nature of the punishment. I think if there were no possibility of error, death could be a justifiable punishment for some crimes.

But even if you some how defined a legal standard of "overwhelming evidence" that was higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- it's still a jury of 12 imperfect, biased humans who make that finding, and an imperfect, biased judge who presides over everything. So without a perfect crime-detecting robot, there's no way to create a system more airtight than it is now, no matter how much thought is put into what the standards "should" be.

[prader.livejournal.com]

I just don't trust the state with that kind of power. And unfortunately, whatever mechanisms we put into place under a hypothetical ethically pure utopian regime with only the best of intentions, that mechanism will be there for someone who desperately wants to appear to be 'doing something' in a re-election bid.

[schquee.livejournal.com]

Certain kinds of murderers, rapists, and people who hurt children should be executed, partly as a punishment, partly as revenge, and partly as an efficient means to remove them from society (including prisons, which should be correctional facilities and not a dumping ground for sadistic sociopaths who can't be rehabilitated). It has nothing to do with deterrence, it's not a deterrent. Well, it deters the executed from doing further harm. I guess we could lobotomize them. But then we'd have to continue to take care of them.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

If it's any consolation, a convicted child rapist won't last long in the joint anyway.

When the government kills,...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... it condones killing. It would be hypocritical for any government that kills people to get its knickers in a twist when any other authority does the same. As every pathetic parent has said, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Good governance serves as a pattern for everyone to follow, not as one to avoid. You promote a brutal sense of injustice masquerading as justice.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

OJ Simpson walked. There was enough circumstantial evidence to erase all doubt in my mind, and the minds of millions of viewers, yet it still wasn't enough to convict on a single charge.

To trust that same court system to rule with the power of death penalty seems to take amazing faith.

Consider that USA is the only first world nation to still serve capital punishment. Not even Russia still uses the death penalty.

[zentiger.livejournal.com]

Well, there was that guy in Texas who got the chair for an "arson" that was an accident. And... well, basically just look at Texas.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I support any theoretical death penalty that kills people I want dead.

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

We can lose them. Yep, too bad people, especially younger people, take their rights for granted. Since they seem indifferent to young and old being oppressed with other governments, they are also missing the fact that their govt. is slowly changing their rights.. Glad you see it too.