Originally Posted by c.erl

Plus, right wingers will be pleased to know that executing people costs more than incarcerating them does! That should please the fiscal conservatives in our midst...

While I agreed with everything you wrote, I gotta say I don't believe this last statement. How can executing someone cost more than keeping them alive for 25 years in jail?

Originally Posted by PTGregD

While I agreed with everything you wrote, I gotta say I don't believe this last statement. How can executing someone cost more than keeping them alive for 25 years in jail?

It was mentioned earlier in this thread why the dealth penalty costs more.

Its the lengthy appeals process that goes on when someone is sentenced to death. All the costs incurred by the state really add up.

Hmm, its funny. The two main things that I came into here to post have already been said (those being that it is cheaper to imprison for life, and how well countries like Singapore function with the death penalty). Luckily some interesting points were made, so I still have things to talk about. Wall of text warning...

Originally Posted by c.erl

If we start killing people because they have killed people, then we are all murderers. Then we enter the moral dilemma of having our designation of people as 'killers' carry no legitimacy since it is essentially the pot calling the kettle stainless steal.

There is a huge difference between someone taking an innocent life, and taking the life of someone to protect others. I think we can all agree that killing in self defence is fine, yet we don't classify someone who kills in self defence in the same category as someone who kills people for say, financial gain, or out of a psychological compulsion. (If you do, please correct me).

So its not the act of killing, but the act of killing without justifiable cause that the death penalty would attempt to deal with. The two are not moral equivalents.

Originally Posted by c.erl

All people have the inalienable, fundamental and undeniable right to life, regardless of their own recognition (or lack of) to that right.

I would disagree. There's a relatively well known saying that my right to swing my fists around stops at your face. Why not my right to live stops when I take the life of someone without justifiable cause?

Originally Posted by c.erl

At least one side has to have some morals and stand up for what's right.

I won't even eat meat because I disagree with the taking of innocent life, yet I'm all for the death penalty. There is a huge moral difference between taking an innocent life, and taking a life in protection. Capital punishment is a protection against criminals both as a deterrent and as a method to keep them from re-offending.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Plus, right wingers will be pleased to know that executing people costs more than incarcerating them does! That should please the fiscal conservatives in our midst...

Of course, the only reason it costs more is because of the high cost of appeals. To me that means we need a reform of the appeals system, not that we should do away with capital punishment.
-------------------

I think the main issue that this breaks down to is your view of what the justice system is supposed to accomplish. To me, the only purpose of it is to protect us from criminals.

So then the issue breaks down to how that goal is best accomplished. At first it would seem that there is no difference between a life sentence and a death penalty in terms of protection, since both (in theory) would keep the person from harming anyone else.

However, there are more factors to consider. Jail breaks is one of them. You run the risk of these people escaping, which puts them back onto the streets, where they can start harming others again. While this is most likely statistically insignifigant, when dealing with murderers and rapists every percentile counts.

The other large factor is the issue of a using the death penalty as a deterrent. While this isn't very effective in places like America where the death penalty is so rarely enforced in the states where it is legal, it is VERY effective in countries like Singapore where their courts are not bogged down by a terrible appeals system.
--------

There is only one good logical defence against the death penalty, which is the issue of wrongful convictions. And it is indeed a serious issue, taking an innocent life is not a small thing. Courts and judges have in the past shown that they are capable not only of making errors but of being intentionally malicious, railroading people just to end investigations, ignoring evidence that proves innocence, etc. There have been quite a few cases in the news lately of people who were sentenced to death, and are only still alive because the appeals system took long enough that DNA testing could be developed far along enough to prove innocence.

In the end, there isn't exactly a good way to reconcile that point. You can take the utilitarian approach and argue that more people are saved than would be wrongfully convicted, and you would technically be right. But sacrificing one innocent person to save other innocent people is still not a good situation to be in, and quite a few people would consider in morally inexcusable. I would probably be among them.

I guess the only thing we have to hope for is that science and surveillance can get to the point where we won't have any wrongful convictions. Potentially a pipe dream, but I guess we can hope. Till then though, the path with the least innocent victims would be the one I would tread.

tl;dr- Meh, not going to bother summarizing for anyone. If you care about the debate, you'll take the five minutes to read it. If not, you wouldn't care about the point anyways.

This was like, 2 pages back, but it suddenly crossed my mind...

Originally Posted by katie_batt

Its not the prisoners who try to get appeals in the case of capital punishment, its the government that REQUIRES them, and many of them, before they will execute a criminal. They have to be absolutely sure.

Wait? They were already convinced enough to sentence someone 25years-life in a god-awful prison ('cause, you know, "25 years to life" is a very large chunk of someone's life) but need to be "more convinced" before they kill them? :S

It's been like 3 years since I took law and some stuff might have been forgotten but what happened to the whole "beyond reasonable doubt" thing? The judicial system can cut corners as long as someone's life wouldn't be cut short? o_O

Short and sweet:

Do the risks really outweigh the benefits?

Okay, I meant to post this like two days ago but haven't had access to the Internet. Also, I'm on my phone so excuse any mistakes.

About the argument that death penalty is more expensive:

It is ONLY more expensive because of the lengthy appeals neededAFTER the criminal has been sentenced to death.

Let's say that 2 people are being charged for the same crime. Their legal fees are identical, or close to. One has been charged with life, the other with the death penalty (for arguments sake).

The cost to imprison smeone for life far outweighs the cost of the 15 dollar 9mm bullet.

But some people are arguing the opposite because they are considering the costs of the appeals to make absolute sure that this person is innocent. To me, this is absolute bollocks. Last I checked, in a fair society, everyone should have access to the same legal rights and defence. EVERYONE should be entitled to the same lengthy appeal processes that these death-sentenced criminals are entitled to. EVERYONE should have the right to be found 2000% guilty/innocent instead of just 80-100% guilty.

If everyone got the same level of legal defences, as they should/are entitled to, then the death penalty is cheaper.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

The cost to imprison smeone for life far outweighs the cost of the 15 dollar 9mm bullet.

Im pretty sure bullets are way cheaper XD.

Originally Posted by syaseen

Im pretty sure bullets are way cheaper XD.

Irrelevant considering the death penalty in Canada and the US that were are discussing isn't administered using a bullet. It's called lethal injection.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

If everyone got the same level of legal defences, as they should/are entitled to, then the death penalty is cheaper.

The problem with debates is that sometimes people forget that when you change the rules, more things change than what you desire. Observe:

1) Assume we live in a universe in which everyone has the exact same costly appeals process.

2) In such a universe, money is now a non-issue. Why? Because if we've made a conscious effort to spend this extra money, then we have enough money to go around. (in other words, if 'saving money' was a priority, we would never spend it in this way...so money must not be an issue)

3) Yes, the death penalty is now cheaper.

4) This means F-All however, since money is now a non-issue.

Wanna learn how to rhyme, you betta learn how to add, iss Mathematics. (Mos-Def)



In other words, I'm saying you can play around with the rules and bend things into your favour...but unexpected changes occur.

Originally Posted by syaseen

Im pretty sure bullets are way cheaper XD.

Sorry Sinan, I don't have too much experience with guns. D:

Originally Posted by sew12

Irrelevant considering the death penalty in Canada and the US that were are discussing isn't administered using a bullet. It's called lethal injection.

Kay so, a hundred dollars. Or still cheaper than jailing someone for 25 years (or however long till they get out through an appeal).

Originally Posted by Mowicz

The problem with debates is that sometimes people forget that when you change the rules, more things change than what you desire. Observe:

1) Assume we live in a universe in which everyone has the exact same costly appeals process.

2) In such a universe, money is now a non-issue. Why? Because if we've made a conscious effort to spend this extra money, then we have enough money to go around. (in other words, if 'saving money' was a priority, we would never spend it in this way...so money must not be an issue)

3) Yes, the death penalty is now cheaper.

4) This means F-All however, since money is now a non-issue.

Wanna learn how to rhyme, you betta learn how to add, iss Mathematics. (Mos-Def)



In other words, I'm saying you can play around with the rules and bend things into your favour...but unexpected changes occur.

I wasn't trying to bend things in my favor, I was just trying to explain why I find that particular argument moot. And pointing out more flaws in our justice system. xD

BUT, in all seriousness, I don't understand your rebuttal. Can you re-explain yourself? (I'm blaming it on the fumes from the Raid >_<)

I totally took the time to read the whole thing, because I love this debating stuff. So here goes:

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

There is a huge difference between someone taking an innocent life, and taking the life of someone to protect others. I think we can all agree that killing in self defence is fine, yet we don't classify someone who kills in self defence in the same category as someone who kills people for say, financial gain, or out of a psychological compulsion. (If you do, please correct me).

Killing is always wrong, regardless of the context it is done in. Killing in self defense is still killing, but the act is often looked upon more favourably than if done for other reasons, simply because one person was going to die or be injured anyway. It does throw one into a moral dilemma, because it depends on your values system. I personally fall into the category that believes all killing is wrong, so it should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

So its not the act of killing, but the act of killing without justifiable cause that the death penalty would attempt to deal with. The two are not moral equivalents.

Again, that all depends on your values. In Canada, we have two very basic collective ideas on this issue and the majority are in agreement that all forms of killing are wrong and the death penalty is an unacceptable form of punishment for deviance (with 49% of Canadians opposed, 48% in favour concerning the death penalty as of a 2004 Gallup Poll)

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I would disagree. There's a relatively well known saying that my right to swing my fists around stops at your face. Why not my right to live stops when I take the life of someone without justifiable cause?

Because, to put it bluntly, humans should not play God. God, of course, can be interpreted to mean anything, but in this instance, it means natural law. I stated this before: if one person kills, enough deviation from the natural order has occurred, we need not exacerbate the problem by killing more people!

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I won't even eat meat because I disagree with the taking of innocent life, yet I'm all for the death penalty. There is a huge moral difference between taking an innocent life, and taking a life in protection. Capital punishment is a protection against criminals both as a deterrent and as a method to keep them from re-offending.

A fellow vegetarian! High five! Naw, capital punishment is no deterrent to crime. Texas and Florida both have higher execution rates than most any state in the union, but both have substantially high crime rates. If you're tough enough to kill, you're tough enough to not worry about being killed. Plus, locking prisoners up also prevents them from re-offending!

Plus, since the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, 8 convicted murderers whose sentences could have been death instead of life in prison have been found innocent of their crimes. So then it really does take into account the moral issue of taking an innocent life.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Of course, the only reason it costs more is because of the high cost of appeals. To me that means we need a reform of the appeals system, not that we should do away with capital punishment.

Prison and appeals reform are a must, I totally agree. Prisons are nothing but glorified criminal schools and need to be reformed excessively to ensure the public is safe, criminals are re-socialized and deviant behaviour is curbed. And prison isn't the only way to stop crimes. Look at the massive success of diversion programs here in Hamilton for at-risk youth and programs like restorative justice. There is such a miniscule re-offending rate that the programs are being hailed as more effective than prison!

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I think the main issue that this breaks down to is your view of what the justice system is supposed to accomplish. To me, the only purpose of it is to protect us from criminals.

And thats a fair enough view. My personal view is that the justice system is meant to be a tool in which the citizens of a society can correct deviant behaviour in the most humane, equitable, progressive manner possible.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

However, there are more factors to consider. Jail breaks is one of them.

Very, very rare. Tried to look up stats on the issue, but all I kept getting were links to "Prison Break" the show. Eff it, if it happens, just go all Great Escape on them...lolz

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

It is VERY effective in countries like Singapore where their courts are not bogged down by a terrible appeals system.

Remember though, Singapore's justice system closely mirrors that of the Third Reich: No trial by jury, no freedom of speech, frequent execution of foreign nationals, inhumane prison conditions, execution of minors, trials where essential evidence is omitted at the judge's request and judicial decisions based on criteria like "sub-normal intelligence in the accused" (the actual words used, look up the Amnesty International report on Singapore).

In the end, its personal opinions that influence this debate. There are statistics out there supporting either side of the argument, but its a question of morals and values more than of economics and efficiency.

I suppose its my Catholic schooling and socialist tendencies that have lent me my opinion on the matter. Even the most vile and terrible criminal has rights and I cannot ever condone maltreatment. No torture, no unfair trial, no execution. That is my Canada.

I was raised Catholic and have very socialistic ideas.

Kinda made me giggle. XD

Edit: O_O I just looked at your pic. You were in my poli sci 1G06 class. xD And my tutorial.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Plus, since the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, 8 convicted murderers whose sentences could have been death instead of life in prison have been found innocent of their crimes. So then it really does take into account the moral issue of taking an innocent life.


Prison and appeals reform are a must, I totally agree. Prisons are nothing but glorified criminal schools and need to be reformed excessively to ensure the public is safe, criminals are re-socialized and deviant behaviour is curbed. And prison isn't the only way to stop crimes. Look at the massive success of diversion programs here in Hamilton for at-risk youth and programs like restorative justice. There is such a miniscule re-offending rate that the programs are being hailed as more effective than prison!

I suppose its my Catholic schooling and socialist tendencies that have lent me my opinion on the matter. Even the most vile and terrible criminal has rights and I cannot ever condone maltreatment. No torture, no unfair trial, no execution. That is my Canada.

Your first point is my main reason for leaning more towards an anti-death penalty stance. I read wrongful conviction articles too much to be solidly pro-capital punishment. If even one person is wrongfully convicted and killed b/c of such a penalty that would be a travesty. Its bad enough that wrongful convictions exist and people have to spend years of their life in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Killing them would be an offense too awful to fathom on behalf of the government and then what do you tell their family? Ooops sorry we killed your father for killing someone else's father except he didn't really do it. Until humans become infallible and every conviction is solid the death penalty just isn't a reasonable option.

I totally agree on prison reform too. As I said earlier none of this free education crap. The bare minimum to sustain life and a lack of malicious, cruel treatment (no matter how much any heinous criminal might deserve it) is all that should be maintained.

That said I disagree somewhat on the rehabilitation angle. Many of the most terrible, dangerous criminals (like pedophiles) simply cannot be rehabilitated. It's a sad state of affairs but there's just no course of treatment. The sentences for these types of criminals need to be changed. Letting them out after a slap on the wrist (light sentence) into a neighborhood with restrictions and parole is not enough. I firmly believe anyone at a high risk or even definite risk (as it is with pedophiles) should be locked up forever. If an evaluation is done and it is determined that people, especially children who cannot protect themselves are in any potential danger than these people should not be allowed out of a locked facility. Perhaps after they serve their prison term they could be moved to a different, less harsh facility but they shouldn't be allowed back into the community. The minute you destroy someone's life (either by taking it, or abusing them in any way) you have given up your right to live in a community with other civilized human beings who wouldn't dream of killing, raping, molesting etc other adults and/or children. You've proven you are incapable of functioning within humanity.

I agree on maltreatment no matter how much I'd personally like choke a pedophile until they stop breathing. It's so hard to have compassion and empathy for such a disgusting waste of oxygen like a vile criminal but it's impossible to condone the government mistreating them. Just imagine if the government is allowed to mistreat them how far down the line will it progress. If they can take away basic rights from some criminal maybe one day they'll take yours away too. It's a little conspiracy theory but you get the picture. If you condone maltreatment of any other human being, even a vile one who probably shouldn't be classified in that category than you are condoning mistreatment of people by the government period.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

I wasn't trying to bend things in my favor, I was just trying to explain why I find that particular argument moot. And pointing out more flaws in our justice system. xD

BUT, in all seriousness, I don't understand your rebuttal. Can you re-explain yourself? (I'm blaming it on the fumes from the Raid >_<)

In any discussion, you always 'bend things in your favour.' You attack a point, give an analogy, or somehow reduce an opponents argument to garbage. "Tipping the scales" so to speak...that's all I meant, haha.

Lots of people do this by changing the situation entirely...which is a perfectly valid tactic. In this case, you're doing this by saying ("If the situation was different") "If everyone received the same costly appeals process" then yadda yadda.

The problem is that by 'changing the situation' so to speak, you change more than you bargain for...again, this is a perfectly reasonable debating tactic, you just have to be careful because it might come back and make it a moot point.

In this particular case, you're saying everyone receiving the same appeals process implies that the death penalty is cheaper.

However (it's not exactly so much a rebuttal as it is just a direct challenge to your logic) I'm pointing out that if everyone received the same appeals process, then financially, the world must be much better off...since that would cost a fortune.

The world must 'have' said fortune in order to be able to spend it...and if that's the case, then money's not really that big a deal...so the fact that the death penalty is cheaper would be a moot point, and wouldn't be leverage for or against the death penalty.

I also love debates of this nature. I just wish that it wasn't during Welcome Week, I'm exhausted >.< But I'll try to hold up my end.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Killing is always wrong, regardless of the context it is done in. Killing in self defense is still killing, but the act is often looked upon more favourably than if done for other reasons, simply because one person was going to die or be injured anyway. It does throw one into a moral dilemma, because it depends on your values system. I personally fall into the category that believes all killing is wrong, so it should be kept to an absolute minimum.

I don't want to present a straw man argument here, but by that logic killing in self defence would be something you consider morally wrong? If I'm drawing the wrong conclusions here, please correct me.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Again, that all depends on your values. In Canada, we have two very basic collective ideas on this issue and the majority are in agreement that all forms of killing are wrong and the death penalty is an unacceptable form of punishment for deviance (with 49% of Canadians opposed, 48% in favour concerning the death penalty as of a 2004 Gallup Poll)

Just because the majority may hold one opinion, doesn't make it the right one. I might hold certain values, but unless if I can't logically support them then there would be no reason at all for them to be valid and worth practising. What logic is there behind the idea that killing is always wrong?

Originally Posted by c.erl

Because, to put it bluntly, humans should not play God. God, of course, can be interpreted to mean anything, but in this instance, it means natural law. I stated this before: if one person kills, enough deviation from the natural order has occurred, we need not exacerbate the problem by killing more people!

In the first season of Dr. Who (the modern one), Rose and the Doctor travel back in time and end up stopping the death of her father. The "natural order" was not followed. The end result was that time found that the easiest way to correct this deviation was to destroy all life on earth.

The point is that you can't really predict what the natural order is. That one person dying could change so much about the potential future, that the easiest way to keep the future closest to the path it would have followed could very well be more killing. But we can't know that without time travel, and should not worry about things like that. What the "natural order" is can't be a factor in this sort of a decision.

Originally Posted by c.erl

A fellow vegetarian! High five! Naw, capital punishment is no deterrent to crime. Texas and Florida both have higher execution rates than most any state in the union, but both have substantially high crime rates. If you're tough enough to kill, you're tough enough to not worry about being killed. Plus, locking prisoners up also prevents them from re-offending!

The higher crime rates of those states aren't relevant due to a point I already addressed: death won't be a deterrent if people know that even if they are found guilty they will likely not be executed for a couple of decades of appeals. Locking prisoners up can keep them from re-offending, but can't provide the same deterrent that swift guaranteed death upon a guilty verdict can.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Plus, since the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, 8 convicted murderers whose sentences could have been death instead of life in prison have been found innocent of their crimes. So then it really does take into account the moral issue of taking an innocent life.

I've acknowledged the problem of incorrect verdicts in my previous post. It is the only logical argument against the death penalty, and a huge problem even if the number of people executed in this manner is low. But the path with less innocent lives being taken is the best, and the number of murders that would not have happened if the death penalty HAD existed in Canada would most likely have been much higher than 8. Obviously this statement is just an assumption that can't be proved (and the number of people later proved innocent might have changed had the deterrent existed, since the crimes might not have been committed).

Originally Posted by c.erl

Prison and appeals reform are a must, I totally agree. Prisons are nothing but glorified criminal schools and need to be reformed excessively to ensure the public is safe, criminals are re-socialized and deviant behaviour is curbed. And prison isn't the only way to stop crimes. Look at the massive success of diversion programs here in Hamilton for at-risk youth and programs like restorative justice. There is such a miniscule re-offending rate that the programs are being hailed as more effective than prison!
And thats a fair enough view. My personal view is that the justice system is meant to be a tool in which the citizens of a society can correct deviant behaviour in the most humane, equitable, progressive manner possible.

The only reason to focus on re-socialization would be if that were more effective at preventing harm to others. Which is extremely unlikely, based on the points made by Stefanie. If you're talking about drug dealers or tax evaders, that may very well be the case. When you are dealing with Murderers, Rapists and Pedophiles though, there is a huge difference. You can't prevent these with diversion programs because it is a deficiency in the person, not in the situation. (Although I would very much like to see the stats behind the at risk youth programs).

Personal views are irrelevant if they can't be logically supported.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Very, very rare. Tried to look up stats on the issue, but all I kept getting were links to "Prison Break" the show. Eff it, if it happens, just go all Great Escape on them...lolz

I would rather kill all the Murderers, Rapists and Pedophiles than risk having a single escape and loss of an innocent life.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Remember though, Singapore's justice system closely mirrors that of the Third Reich: No trial by jury, no freedom of speech, frequent execution of foreign nationals, inhumane prison conditions, execution of minors, trials where essential evidence is omitted at the judge's request and judicial decisions based on criteria like "sub-normal intelligence in the accused" (the actual words used, look up the Amnesty International report on Singapore).

They have way too much power, but they are doing a heck of a good job with it so far. I can't logically support them because of what would happen if they started misusing their power (the same for any gov't). But it is hard to argue with their results.

Originally Posted by c.erl

In the end, its personal opinions that influence this debate. There are statistics out there supporting either side of the argument, but its a question of morals and values more than of economics and efficiency.

Morals and values are inseparable from economics and efficiency, since all are (or should be, since we see so many theories lacking) based in logic.

Originally Posted by c.erl

I suppose its my Catholic schooling and socialist tendencies that have lent me my opinion on the matter. Even the most vile and terrible criminal has rights and I cannot ever condone maltreatment. No torture, no unfair trial, no execution. That is my Canada.

Both me and lawleypop had quite a bit of Catholic schooling as well I did Jk-12 in Catholic schools, and she did at least 3-12 (Cheri, correct me if I'm wrong here, lol).

With rights come responsibilities. There isn't an exception. With your right to property comes the responsibility to acknowledge other people's property rights. With the right to free speech come the responsibility to other people's free speech. With the right to life comes the responsibility to acknowledge other people's right to life. If you don't acknowledge that you are a danger to others that needs to be dealt with, and capital punishment is the most efficient way to prevent deaths.