Life, Death, Justice and the Meaning of Words
From the desk of George Handlery on Thu, 2007-02-22 12:58
The ethical legitimacy of capital punishment is an emotional issue separating political camps and also nations. Both sides have good points, so the positions taken do not necessarily separate the idiots from the brainy, the blood-thirsty from the civilized or the resolute from the softie. While in individual instances these labels fit and as their mud sticks, they are habitually slung. This is the juncture when the keyboard tempts one to add to a debate in which nearly all has already been said. However, doing so would distract from a related issue that surfaced through recent news.
Let us begin by recalling an aspect of the argument. It is not the main cannon in favor of the eradication of the death penalty but certainly a large torpedo fired in its support. The abolitionists like to claim that capital punishment has an equally severe but humanitarian alternative: a life sentence. The practical implementation of capital punishment has produced a number of tragic embarrassments. And that was not only because the measure has an inherently dangerous inadequacy. However, as shall be argued later, abuses also occur in the application of life sentences.
News that has received only inadequate analytic coverage provoked this essay. In the forefront stand two cases that are before a parole board, respectively became the subject of a request for clemency. In both instances the fates of condemned (Communist) terrorists are at issue.
Here the background: In the 1960s in West-Germany it became clear to radical leftists that they cannot take power by becoming a majority in free elections. A response might have been to adjust their platform to rally a majority. Instead, the revealing reaction was the APO, the Extra Parliamentary Opposition. Later, as a step implied by the APO’s name was taken. The arrogant Leninist élite founded the RAF, the Red Army Fraction. The RAF carried the APO’s street violence to its logical, terrorist conclusion. The system the radical Left could not overthrow with ballots was to be destroyed by a political gang using other means. That was terrorism designed to strike the nerve-centers of a feebled democracy. The collapse of the edifice, once deprived of its supporting beams, was expected to follow.
Accordingly, in the Seventies blood flew in the streets and dramatic assassinations, kidnappings and plane-hijackings challenged democracy. Ultimately the “Bonny and Clyde” of German politics were apprehended. After exploiting the instruments that a democracy gave them to conduct their defense and to rally their prominent arm-chair supporters, the RAF’s surviving leaders landed in jail.
Here the narrative needs an addition. One of the RAF’s chiefs, a Monica Mohnhaupt was released in 1977. Thanking for the lenience she went immediately underground. With the goal to extort the release of incarcerated terrorists, Mohnhaupt reorganized the RAF to practice violence on an elevated level. She led the ensuing actions of the RAF’s “war” and frequently acted as its executioner-in-chief. Finally, however, in 1982 the RAF’s struggle ended when she got caught. As a consequence, in 1985 Mohnhaupt, now 57, got five times life and an additional fifteen years. Christian Klar, an accomplice also got five-times life and will become eligible for parole in 2009. The number of the years in jail get us to a new chapter of the story whose conclusion might already have occurred to the reader.
By some ways of thinking Mohnhaupt and Klar have suffered enough. Moreover, as a letter (Der Spiegel, 6/07) puts it, “Can a human being that has taken life atone? Thinking the Christian way we [emphasis added] must be able to forgive...” The prisoners as well as a vocal minority are now active to achieve two goals.
One of these is to reduce the punitive consequences of nine assassinations to a singe, ho-hum murder. Second, a long stretch behind bars is qualified as inhuman and unusual punishment. By this way of thinking, while originally the sentence might have fit the crime, with the passing of time the judgment became iniquitous. This is the case because the growing present suffering of the convict, whose life lacks fulfillment, outweighs the fading interests of the lost-in-the-forgotten-past victims. Therefore the central issue becomes the burden imposed by the time served and the (partially age related) estimated probability of a relapse. Additionally, but given this standard not surprisingly, it is argued that it is irrelevant for the decision on early release whether the convict (1) shows remorse, (2) apologizes to the victim’s kin, (3) has clearly broken with his past (4) cooperates to clear still unsolved homicides. In the RAF case at issue this is crucial as neither Mohnhaupt nor Klar have done any of the above. In general, the circles inclined to argue in favor of their release, like to claim in another context that prison purpose is resocialization (and not punishment or revenge). If this standard is applied then M&K have not adjusted to society, its norms and are therefore not rehabilitated to be returned to it.
While this was written a court has decided to free Mohnhaupt on parole. Klar’s request for clemency is before Germany’s President. It is safe prediction that, since Klar will be freed now, he will not have to serve till 2009 when the minimal time required would expire.
The discrepancy between the sentences and the time actually served – even in cases involving terrorism – is not a German problem alone. In Spain an ETA-leader’s case is getting attention who got 3,000 years in 1987 for 25 murders. For good behavior he was to be release after 18 years – a net saving 2982. In a new case, a court gave the still-inmate twelve years for issuing new death threats. A recent decision reduced the sentence to three years which means that the man will soon be free.
It is hoped that having shaken your head repeatedly and having lost your patience, you will still be in the mood to follow the writer to a brief conclusion. The hither presentation, regardless of calling attention to a scandal which could happen “anywhere”, was only meant to serve as the foundation for a general observation.
Let it be assumed that replacing capital punishment with life sentences leaves society with a sanction that serves its interests and justice adequately. By implication “adequate” means “equal to” or “higher than”. Additionally, let us ignore arguments that speak for and against capital punishment. According to the proposition, as a sanction a life in jail is to replace the taking of a life. A question arises at this juncture that every individual and also societies and their political classes must answer. Is a life sentence in lieu of death an honest equivalent once “life” in practice means fifteen years or reaching an age at which jail becomes unpleasant?
Not only the concrete cases presented suggest that, when “life” is presented as an alternative, not that is meant what seems to be claimed. Even if the diverse related issues are overlooked, ”life for fifteen-to-twenty years” is misleading and therefore dishonest. Unless, of course, by clarifying their position, the advocates make it clear that they mean not what seems to be implied, namely that “life” is “life time” but that they suggest instead “for a longer time” only. Society has a right and some, albeit not necessarily totally compelling reasons, to approve of long-term incarceration as an alternative to capital punishment. The writer’s complaint against the practice is only that societal consent for the abolishment of capital punishment has been secured by allowing the common man to believe that certain words will mean what they signify in their common sense context.
Update:
Europe’s Death-Wish: Life, Discreet Lies and a Post Script, 7 March 2007
unwanted history
Submitted by George2 on Tue, 2007-02-27 23:33.
Looking at the postings below, the question of the death penalty is debatable.
What is not debatable for me is the fact that leftist media fail to mention the root cause of the RAF, ETA, CCC and their other European (Italian, Greek etc) sister organizations: leftist terror groups simply killing people because they are deemed to be representatives of capitalism. In Europe, rightist skinheads have to organize dance parties in a very secretive way. They are marginalized by the leftist media. But the same leftist media fail to mention the true color of the terrorist groups. They know how many American soldiers were killed in Iraq. But they do not know how many people were killed by these leftist terror groups over the last decades in Europe. Every fart of a skinhead is documented because he belongs to the right. Leftist killers are forgotten.
The leftist media just love to ‘herald’ the Nazis and their dirty history. And the history of the leftist terror groups? This unwanted history is rewritten with blanks or simply forgotten by the leftist media.
Yes, the death penalty is debatable. The rewriting of history is not.
Further Analysis
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2007-02-27 16:44.
@ Amsterdamsky
It would appear that I wil have to direct my posts to you (after all you have involved yourself) because the 'captain' obviously cannot stand the heat, and wants to shut me up. Need any further evidence (together with the growing number of 'European' laws that violate free speech rights) that it is Eurabia (rather than the USA) that resembles more Saudi Arabia and Iran?
1) In his first point (the story about the one mother of a victim versus the thousands of protesters) the captain confirms (unwittingly) that the opposition of European politicians to the death penalty is not based on great moral 'principle', but rather on "temporal considerations" of what is "easier". I always suspected as much.
2) In his second point he asserts that "human beings are quite adept at changing their abstract moral values" . Again, I always suspected as much. Thus, in the case of postmodernist and moral-relativist European politicians, I certainly agree.
3) In his third point he reveals his intolerance for Longun's alternative vision of the concept of "civilised". He obviously does not want to tackle my objection to imposition of uniform ideology from above and my insistance on tolerance of opinion diversity as indicators of "civilisation".
4) In his fourth point he is simply factually incorrect. Moreover, he reiterates again that the 'European' position on the death penalty is one of 'convenience', and not of principle. If "cowardice, desertion, treason, espionage" would truly be grounds for the death penalty, then there must be an epidemic of ongoing executions today in Europe.
5) Indeed, capital punishment remains in federal use in the USA. At least theoretically, because I cannot recall any practical use of it in recent times. Not even in the case of Hanson, a decade or so ago, and that was a case of "espionage" with incalculable real costs involved. But, theoretically it remains "in use" at the federal level, under very restrictive conditions. Perhaps, for instance in the case of murder of federal judges? Could come in handy in times of murderous intimidation by radical islamists, when judging and persuing "justice" may truly require "courage".
6) Finally, Amsterdamsky, I am disappointed that you say that you liked "BOTH" posts. Particularly the captain's Part II was an unmitigated emotional rant of insults, unworthy of "liking" by any serious person with an 'open mind'.
MarcFrans vs. de Kapitein
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Tue, 2007-02-27 13:24.
I actually like BOTH of your posts please don't shred each other to ribbons. Save it for the fundies.
In Response Part II - Conversations with a Clown
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2007-02-27 10:16.
MarcFrans: "...it should be clear that it is the USA that is "civilised" and Europe that has more in common with "Saudi Arabia and Iran"."
An unbelievable statement. Nor is it a counter to my earlier statements as I only linked the United States with those Third World states in the context of Longun's claim that civilisation was based upon use of capital punishment. You are truly a fool and I have lost all respect for your opinions.
MarcFrans: "After all, in the continent-wide USA, different states have different penal codes, and some do allow for a death penalty (under limited circumstances) and others do not. The number of US states, on either side, tends to fluctuate over time. Fifteen years ago (after high crime periods) the trend was in the pro-death penalty direction. Currently it is again in the other (naive-left) direction, at least it will be for a while."
Nevertheless, capital punishment remains in federal use.
In the future, please refrain from responding to my posts for they are intended for individuals with IQs greater than that of a rock, and here I must apologise for offending rocks. You are a windbag and a clown with too much time on his, her or its hands. Go to the United States, get a life...I don't care what you do but keep your posts to yourself from now on.
In Response Part I
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2007-02-27 10:14.
MarcFrans: "Your starting point is questionable. You claim that some governments (facing actual or imaginary low crime rates) can "afford" to abolish the death penalty. This is an amazing statement. First, it validates the argument that some PRoponents of the death penalty often make, i.e. that it can act as a deterrent against serious crime. By linking the penalty to the actual (or purported) crime RATE you are indirectly supporting an argument of death penalty supporters, namely that it is 'needed' in some cases (and implicitly not in others, where they can "afford" to do without it). Clearly, this is unintentional on your part."
No. I am referring to temporal considerations, namely one mother of a murder victim protesting on the grounds of the legislature versus thousands of mothers protesting. It is far easier for governments to heed the counsel of "human rights" jurists when faced with only one protester.
MarcFrans: "Second, the essence of the pro death penalty position has nothing to do with whether one can "afford" it, or not. It is a matter of 'justice', not a matter of affordability. It all hinges on one's conception of the terms "justice" and "society". On a practical level, it comes down to whether society's rules should focus on helping to making the victims of crime 'whole' again (to the extent that that is possible at all) or whether these rules should focus on preserving the possibility of 'rehabilitation' of serious criminals. It is a matter of whether one has an 'old testament' conception of "justice" or, perhaps (stress on perhaps!!), a 'new testament' one. It is ironic that anti-christian secular Europeans seem to have been strongly influenced by a naive interpretation of the New Testament. The latter preaches 'forgiveness' (a state of the individual's mind), but not necessarily absence of 'appropriate' consequences (for criminals)."
Transcendental justifications aside, decisions are based upon realities on the ground; human beings are quite adept at changing their abstract moral values, or bringing different facets to bear, depending on the situation.
MarcFrans: "Given your reflexive (European) anti-Americanism, you must have enjoyed the umpteenth 'dig' at the USA by listing it together with "China, Suriname, various African states etc..."."
I was pointing out the ridiculousness of Longun's statement. If you truly believe that the use of capital punishment is indicative of a society being "civilised" than I advise you as well to study those other "civilised" states which Americans should therefore seek alliances with rather than those backward and primitive societies of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.
MarcFrans: "But, that is of course nonsense. The USA is NOT the only "western" state that has room for a death penalty in its penal code, and certainly not the only "first world" state."
Other Western states that have the death penalty on the books have abolished it in practice. Because states may find themselves in a crisis, emergency, war or under martial law, all states really retain capital punishment in theory i.e. as penalties for cowardice, desertion, treason, espionage, etc.
@ Analysing the 'captain'
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2007-02-26 23:07.
@ Kapitein Andre
1) You claim that some governments "appeal to temporal and transcendental...standards" in their opposition to a death penalty. This is misleading. Under a strict 'literal' interpretation, standards cannot be at the same time "temporal" and "transcendental". But, you probably mean to say that these governments appeal to both temporal standards and to transcendental standards. Either way, it is more likely that they do not follow "standards" at all, but simply 'feelings' that are often misguided, but not necessarily always so.
2) You are certainly right that these standards are only "seemingly objective" (to some people), because they have nothing to do with 'objectivity', and everything with subjective feelings/opinions.
3) Your starting point is questionable. You claim that some governments (facing actual or imaginary low crime rates) can "afford" to abolish the death penalty. This is an amazing statement.
First, it validates the argument that some PRoponents of the death penalty often make, i.e. that it can act as a deterrent against serious crime. By linking the penalty to the actual (or purported) crime RATE you are indirectly supporting an argument of death penalty supporters, namely that it is 'needed' in some cases (and implicitly not in others, where they can "afford" to do without it). Clearly, this is unintentional on your part.
Second, the essence of the pro death penalty position has nothing to do with whether one can "afford" it, or not. It is a matter of 'justice', not a matter of affordability. It all hinges on one's conception of the terms "justice" and "society". On a practical level, it comes down to whether society's rules should focus on helping to making the victims of crime 'whole' again (to the extent that that is possible at all) or whether these rules should focus on preserving the possibility of 'rehabilitation' of serious criminals. It is a matter of whether one has an 'old testament' conception of "justice" or, perhaps (stress on perhaps!!), a 'new testament' one. It is ironic that anti-christian secular Europeans seem to have been strongly influenced by a naive interpretation of the New Testament. The latter preaches 'forgiveness' (a state of the individual's mind), but not necessarily absence of 'appropriate' consequences (for criminals).
4) Given your reflexive (European) anti-Americanism, you must have enjoyed the umpteenth 'dig' at the USA by listing it together with "China, Suriname, various African states etc...". But, that is of course nonsense. The USA is NOT the only "western" state that has room for a death penalty in its penal code, and certainly not the only "first world" state. And even if it were (which it isn't), so what? If we posit the criteria of (a) tolerance for opinion diversity and (b) accountability of government to the people, as valid criteria of "civilisation", then it should be clear that it is the USA that is "civilised" and Europe that has more in common with "Saudi Arabia and Iran". After all, in the continent-wide USA, different states have different penal codes, and some do allow for a death penalty (under limited circumstances) and others do not. The number of US states, on either side, tends to fluctuate over time. Fifteen years ago (after high crime periods) the trend was in the pro-death penalty direction. Currently it is again in the other (naive-left) direction, at least it will be for a while. By contrast, the EU does not tolerate opinion 'diversity' and imposes uniformity (of ideology) on its members in this respect. Moreover that uniformity is not imposed under 'accountable' conditions, but has been declared from above. Which European state dares to ask its people directly? If they did, the results would show true 'diversity' in Europe, and thus 'civilisational tolerance'.
Pro-Death
Submitted by flynn on Mon, 2007-02-26 18:47.
@Amsterdamsky
Since I am certain that you are not an American citizen...or...a taxpaying citizen of a U.S. state that votes for the death penalty, you should concern yourself with some of the problems in your own country.
Flynn
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Mon, 2007-02-26 17:33.
Not really disagreeing with you Flynn but the Governer of Illinois commuted all death sentences to life maybe two years ago after finding serious problems. Not much protest that I know of.
"So much for the intelligence of the Dutch women!"
Yeah but they make up for it in bed. Just tell them that your are a Socialist or a Green Party member and try to keep your mouth shut if you are drinking. Politically Dutch women are the worst of the worst just that Dutch men seem to have more balls still than Swedes and know when to tell them to shut the F up.
Pro-Death
Submitted by flynn on Mon, 2007-02-26 15:41.
@Amsterdamsky
You misunderstand my comment. By 'control' over death row, I meant that the citizens have voted for the death penalty to be a law. Believe me, if the governor of the State of Texas began to give pardons to everyone on death row, he would soon lose his job!
I always found it amusing that when executions were taking place at the Walls in Huntsville, there were always some 'Dutch' woman there wailing and protesting the execution of her pen pal lover who had been on death row. So much for the intelligence of the Dutch women!
In Response
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2007-02-26 08:07.
Longun45: "Any society that is truly civilized understands the need for and uses the death penalty."
Based on this definition the "civilised" world would be limited to:
Interestingly enough, the United States is the only Western and first world state that retains the death penalty; I suppose it has more in common with Iran and Saudi Arabia than it does with Canada or the United Kingdom.
Abstract moral values vs. Realities
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2007-02-26 04:37.
In those states with very low crime rates, especially serious crimes such as murder, governments can afford to abolish capital punishment and then justify their decisions by appealing to temporal and transcendental but seemingly objective standards.
arguments for the death penalty
Submitted by Gilbert De Bruycker on Sun, 2007-02-25 19:35.
A summary of arguments that the death penalty is an important tool to fight crime and might, in fact, be the appropriate sentence can be found on the web-site http://web.telia.com/~u15509119/summary.htm.
It brings forth the greatest possible justice for society and the victim of crimes. Punishment must be held in proportion to the crime for justice to be served. And justice - not humanity - must be the cornerstone by which ruthless violent criminals and murderers shall be judged.
It shows the greatest respect for the ordinary man’s - and especially the victim of crimes - inviolable value. Society acknowledges and exalts the value of the lives of victims of crime on the most visible way by punishing violent criminals and murderers with death.
It defends man’s dignity in the strongest way. Man’s - the victim of crimes - dignity is also determined by the punishment that is imposed against violent criminals and murderers. To treat violent criminals and murderers mildly deprives victim of crimes of their dignity.
It recognizes man’s natural sense of justice. It has been put down in man that the the most heinous outrage must have the most severe punishment. Capital punishment satisfy that feeling more than any other punishment.
It expresses - more visible than other penalties - sympathy and empathy with all victims of crime and their relatives. The severity of the death penalty exists because of love for the victim of crimes. But a more or less mild imprisonment simply instead reflects empathy for the criminal.
It gives many of us - and especially many victims of crime and their relatives - peace of mind and brings a more visible closure to the crime. On the other hand, violent criminals and murderers in prison will always pose an anxious threat against people and are a constantly open wound which causes people pain.
It confirms and highly values all ordinary men’s "right to life". On the other hand, heinous violent criminals and murderers are not embraced by this right and neither are prisoners by the "right to freedom". The right to life is a 'human right' concept which from it’s beginning approves of capital punishment.
It effectively stops violent criminals and murderers from committing more crimes. The brutalizing of society decreases. On the other hand, imprisonment gives cause to more crimes - in prison, at leave, at escapes, and after release.
It is the most effective deterrent of violent crime and murder. There are scientific studies which confirm that. Also, common sense and common judgment confirms that the threat of death deters considerably more than the threat of imprisonment.
It creates a little more safety in society for all citizens. When violent criminals and murderers are gone forever, a more peaceful society will be crated. Impisonment can never bring about that kind of safety.
It shows how seriously society looks at the most heinous crimes. The death penalty reveals the dreadful gravity of a crime in a way no other penalty can.
It is a witness of highest morality and righteousness. The moral evil in the worst of violent crimes can not be revealed in a more visible way than when such crimes are punished by death.
It recognize man’s natural demand for retribution, which is a sound instinct deep in men’s soul. Retribution is accomplished when the judical system imposes stiff penalties in proportion to the severity of the crimes. The death penalty brings about such concept the best, in cases of the most heinous crimes.
It comfirms the punishment as such, and do that in a more visible and more powerful way than any other penalty. And it confirms the simple thesis that there are criminals which simply deserve death.
It strikes fewer "innocent persons" than alternative penalties. Because among imprisoners and ex-prisoners there are many who relapses into new crimes which strikes "innocent persons".
It is supported by a wide number of people. (And its support would be even higher if media could treat capital punishment objective and just. But that is not the case today in Europe.)
It removes, from an economical viewpoint, all the offensive element that are found today in alternative penalties to capital punishment.
Death penalty and the Media
Submitted by Armor on Mon, 2007-02-26 00:46.
I agree with the summary given by GDB, especially with this:
"To treat violent criminals and murderers mildly deprives victim of crimes of their dignity."
And it denies the value of their lives. The media like to suggest that supporters of the death penalty are sick in their minds. Actually, support for the death penalty often comes from quiet, dispassionate, rational minds. It does not mean we enjoy the idea of violent retribution, and it does not mean we think the murderer is not a human person. The lack of rationality is to be found in the leftist media. The way they routinely engage in sick moral relativism and sick moral inversion makes death penalty even more necessary to protect society from murderers... and from far-left ideology. Too much leniency for the wrong people is a sign of moral failure and causes more defenseless people to be murdered.
Today, we can use the death penalty sparingly because the police have become better at catching culprits, and we have more money to keep people in prison. But ruling out the death penalty completely is a nihilistic decision.
One reason the loony left wants to abolish the death penalty is so they can self-congratulate: how nice we are, how morally superior! They will pompously say that the abolition of death penalty is a big step forward for humanity, even though it flies in the face of common sense and popular opinion. In fact, they are morally irresponsible frauds.
The death penalty
Submitted by longun45 on Mon, 2007-02-26 06:24.
There are many situations where the person has proven that he cannot be in society and must be removed permanently. The only effective method is the death penalty. Life sentences are commutable by politically motivated idiots for the cause de jur. A civilized society allows for self defense as a natural right and does not penalize a free person for defending himself.
Any society that is truly civilized understands the need for and uses the death penalty.
@Amsterdamsky
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sun, 2007-02-25 19:33.
Yes. Many media outlets implied that Schwarzenegger had personally ordered Williams' execution, when in fact he had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers. If he had pardoned Williams, he would have been interfering in the California legal system.
Governors do control death row
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Sun, 2007-02-25 13:58.
from Flynn"When Bush was running for president, it was reported (falsely) around the world that during his time as governor, he had control over Texas death row. "
The Governor can issue a pardon for any reason so thus the Governor has control over death row. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been officially disowned by his home town for not granting a pardon to such nice prisoners as "Tookie" (nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize if you can believe it. As long as the victims are white or asian multicultists do not appear to consider it murder more like justifiable homicide) among others.
Pro-Death
Submitted by flynn on Sat, 2007-02-24 10:49.
Quote from a pro-death site:
'If you search the internet via search engines for "death penalty", you are likely to find thousands, if not tens of thousands of "hits" to web sites related to the topic. With very few exceptions, these sites are anti-death penalty. Is this because the majority of people are against the death penalty? Not according to recent surveys. It is simply because people who are adamantly opposed to the death penalty tend to take an activist stance and become involved in working to stop the death penalty. For the most part, people who support the death penalty do so quietly, in their own minds and feel no need to do so in any public fashion. It is the law and they expect it to be carried out.'
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
Once again I will state the fact that in Texas, it is the citizen and taxpayer who vote for the death penalty. When Bush was running for president, it was reported (falsely) around the world that during his time as governor, he had control over Texas death row. The majority of Texans want to ensure that the victims have rights, and not the scumbags who commit these horrendous crimes. Too many people jump on the bandwagen to rally against the death penalty, but how many of them take the time to research the horrible details of the crime. These animals earn the right to die.
death penalty pro/con
Submitted by JimMtnViewCaUSA on Fri, 2007-02-23 17:43.
An interesting discussion. To sum up--
With the death penalty, it is possible to execute an innocent.
With no death penalty, it is possible that the murderer can get out and kill again, or that the murderer can be used as a bargaining chip ("if you don't let them out of jail, we'll kill these innocent hostages"). Though a lesser consideration, incarceration is not cheap.
Finally, with no death penalty you run the risk that citizens will despair of obtaining justice from the legal system and take matters into their own hands.
As I weigh up the factors above, I come to a clear conclusion--the People should be allowed to decide (perhaps through their elected representatives, perhaps by direct vote). It seems a bit simple-minded to claim that one approach is "civilized" and the other "barbaric". Either approach can lead to the death of innocent victims.
Any bets?
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Fri, 2007-02-23 15:54.
"In 50 years from now we will have sharia law all over Europe."
Any bets who falls first in the west? I put money on Sweden or Canaduh. Even Dhimmi Belgium seems to be backpaddling a little while the Swedes especially storm ahead to multiculturalist utopia. At least the Russians are smart enough to realize that democracy will not work with a 20% muslim population.
@amsterrusky
Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2007-02-23 16:34.
"At least the Russians are smart enough to realize that democracy will not work with a 20% muslim population."
That must have been a very recent discovery then.
The Chechens were happy to improve Russian society by leaving it. By doing so they would have lowered the 20% a little. But those well mannered Russians were so fond of those Chechens; they didn’t want them to leave… Instead, all within the high standards of Christian tradition they send over some highly qualified and equipped help. Of course, in their effort to civilize those Barbarians, the Russians had to sacrifice a few of them.
Nevertheless I’m still deeply touched by so much altruism going over and forth.
But as you point out so well; it’s because those poor creatures are Muslims the fruits of the high standard Russian democracy, don’t seem to fall. Not even after all the effort and good intentions these Russians have shown. Such a waste. Makes me wanna cry.
i bet that europe will not fall... instead it'll end up with WW3
Submitted by perfektm on Fri, 2007-02-23 16:26.
i think europe will not fall but it will end up with WW3...
where global right wings will unite against central axis of left and islamofacist...
and for sure later or sooner left will end up with the same fate of Gandhi, that of Gandhi.
problem is leftist people think, pecifism is solution... but infact pacifism is a grave mistake..
when they show example of Gandhi, then they forgot that gandhi was supporting Nazis and Amin al husseini... it was those radical hindus supporting British to fight nazis.
sharia
Submitted by Rock2000 on Fri, 2007-02-23 14:22.
Death Penalty lovers: just be patient. In 50 years from now we will have sharia law all over Europe.
Capital Punishment is Wrong and Barbaric
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Fri, 2007-02-23 08:28.
Capital punishment is wrong and barbaric - It's not nearly painful enough for these scumbags. This said I think Texas executes too easily.
From Kapitein Andre
" Certainly there are situations in which firearms can allow for self-defense, but on the whole, their possession by private citizens only results in higher crime rates and ultimately in a society that is more dangerous. F.e. altercations in nightclubs and road rage take on whole new meanings when those involved are packing heat.
"
Hmmmm.... I was held up at gunpoint in Paris two months ago. France has very restrictive gun laws but clearly criminals have no problems with finding guns.
@Kellyr1
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2007-02-23 04:11.
Kelly: "Capital punishment is to deter criminal acts and demonstrate the consequences of intolerable behavior."
Agreed. However, so too does incarceration and it does so without the possibility of executing an innocent person, even if wrongful conviction can result in many years behind bars. Secondly, the death penalty clearly does not deter criminal behavior any more than 30 years of incarceration, so long as the latter is not reduced; indeed, the long appellate process means that death row inmates spend considerable years in prison before their executions. I think George Handlery was referring to the reduction of incarceration terms for serious crimes rather than weighing in on the controversial death penalty debate.
Kelly: "What is so hard about killing a criminal who is destined to die anyway?"
The Pro-life movement would argue that it is God's decision when, where and how a person dies. Furthermore, your argument could apply to the killing of anyone as we are all "destined to die."
Kelly: "Western culture needs to be realistic and have its social priorities straight."
For reasons of history, intellectual traditions and current circumstances, namely relative peace, prosperity, individual liberty and democracy, Western cultures are quite forgiving and nurturing. However, as circumstances change and as Western civilisation adapts to tackle new challenges, there is the possibility for a sea change.
Kelly: "I would always want to live in a state with execution punishment and comforted to know that we have limits of tolerance and it results in executions."
I would always want to live in a society in which private firearm ownership is prohibited or severely restricted. This is not to say that I would be pleased to live in a Soviet-inspired police state or a failed state along Somalian lines; however, it is clear that the state is here to stay and until the anarchist (libertarian or leftist) option becomes viable, the state must have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Certainly there are situations in which firearms can allow for self-defense, but on the whole, their possession by private citizens only results in higher crime rates and ultimately in a society that is more dangerous. F.e. altercations in nightclubs and road rage take on whole new meanings when those involved are packing heat.
Capital punishment
Submitted by Kellyr1 on Fri, 2007-02-23 03:40.
Capital punishment is to deter criminal acts and demonstrate the consequences of intolerable behavior. To relax the punishment is to tolerate the crime, like the nine Mohnhaupt assassinations over two rampages. That is why our western culture is vulnerable to crime and terrorism of increasing scope.
Everyone dies, and the act of execution is to accelerate that moment to coincide with the punishment for a dastardly deed. What is so hard about killing a criminal who is destined to die anyway? A premature inconvenience for him?
Western culture needs to be realistic and have its social priorities straight. Innocent citizens deserve the protection of a prescribed death penalty to deter and punish criminals who mock the lenient justice that cares for the criminals above the tragedy imposed on the innocents.
I would always want to live in a state with execution punishment and comforted to know that we have limits of tolerance and it results in executions. USA
Agreed!
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2007-02-22 20:38.
Truly the judiciary is not acting together with the police services, indeed while cops "book 'em," judges "let 'em go." Where violent and related (e.g. issuing death threats), sentences should not be reduced. Furthermore, "life" should mean "life." While capital punishment may not be necessary except in a state of emergency, there certainly needs to be stronger incarceration sentences that cannot be commuted at a later date, unless a conviction is overturned. Unquestionably those "serial" criminals (i.e. serial rapists and murderers) and pedophiles should be incarcerated for the remainder of their natural lives.
These exact polices, Supreme
Submitted by dll2000 on Thu, 2007-02-22 16:39.
These exact polices, Supreme Court invalidation of capital punishment, a focus on rehabilitation over punishment, etc., are what led to the U.S. crime explosion in the 70's.
It gave inspiration to movies like 'Death Wish' and "Dirty Harry', essentially hero vigilantes taking justice into their own hands because the state refuses to act.