Death penalty - the uncontroversial part

[Astrid]

So a few months back we had a very heated discussion about the death penalty - i cant find the original thread so that is why im making a new

It was a good discussion for the most part but i always felt like we didnt quite end it so well - We more or less just agreed to disagree...
However today i watched a TED talk by death row lawyer David R. Dow called "Lessons from death row inmates" (link to video: http://bit.ly/Mi3wz8 )

Here he talks about the uncontroversial things that even the most fantic anti-death setence activist and most hardcore pro capital punishment supporter can agree on and how those things can maybe help us to have less lives lost to murder.
It was very good for me to be reminded that we need to focus on what we can agree on and work from that instead of focusing on what we will never agree on

I hope you will see the same when you watch it

[DJ Droood]

Is there debate about it in Sweden? I assume you don't have the death penalty and haven't in a long time. Canada abolished it in 1976...although a recent poll suggests that 65% of the country support some sort of limited reinstitution....I think they run these polls when a particularly grisly murder is in the news and exploit the emotions of anger and revenge. I really cannot foresee it every coming back, and if it does, I would see it as a sign of our societal collapse.

[Astrid]

Is there debate about it in Sweden? I assume you don't have the death penalty and haven't in a long time. Canada abolished it in 1976...although a recent poll suggests that 65% of the country support some sort of limited reinstitution....I think they run these polls when a particularly grisly murder is in the news and exploit the emotions of anger and revenge. I really cannot foresee it every coming back, and if it does, I would see it as a sign of our societal collapse.

Indeed in Denmark the last person to receive the death penalty was in 1950 and the law was put away in 1951.
In Sweden it was removed as punishment for civil crimes in 1921 but military people could still receive it. 1975 they made death penalty illigal in the Swedis constitution.

In genral we are very anti-death sentence up here - but as you say bring out a flamboyant axemurder who kills and rapes children and you will see a good spike in the pro death sentence. However i do think that those polls are all emotion and if they actually had to vote on it most would not vote it through - I think when you dont have death penalty in you country or in you nabouring countries you forget how serious a punishment the death penalty is and you might be a little "light" on it when they call from the statistic bereau.

Obviously I agree with you that death penalty is not a way forward and that it speaks well of us that so many countries dosnt have it anymore. However as we pretty much established in the last debate we cant really agree on this matter.

What we can agree on, as the good Mr. Dow says, is that the best case scenario would be if there was no murder to receive the death penalty for in the first place. So thats what we should focus on - how do we help these potential murders before they become murders?

[DJ Droood]

So thats what we should focus on - how do we help these potential murders before they become murders?

I'm afraid that is a bit too utopian for my imagination..I think there will always be murders caused by jealous/angry lovers, mental defectives and criminals of various sorts...for me, it is mostly about limiting the damage they can do...that is why I support strict gun control (another hot button issue!)...it is better to limit the damage to a couple of bodies, than a couple of dozen. The Anders Breiviks of the world will always try to find a way, but at least it should be made difficult for them, with plenty of chances to trip-up. As a tax-payer, I accept that part of the cost of doing business will be warehousing killers and other violent criminals and those who commit economic and environmental violence. Perhaps they can let a few pot smokers out to make room.

[treegod]

So thats what we should focus on - how do we help these potential murders before they become murders?

That's a good question, getting to the roots of murder.

I disagree with DJ that this is too utopian, because if each human has the potential within them to murder, by not murdering and by not choosing circumstances which could lead us to this action aren't we already answering this question? Each person can answer this question by their own choices and actions. Although I agree that it is utopian to think that this issue will be resolved any time soon for everyone.

A lot of people get through life without killing anyone (I mean directly, not indirectly, that's a whole other matter), so I don't feel it's impossible.

The main problem being that people will not change if they do not want to change or do not see the need to change. And I don't think it's possible to change someone without their cooperation, and any change affected is a change on the surface, not deep down. Perhaps political policy can maintain some semblance of "murderless" peace, but it won't resolve it.

My own "utopian" view of how this is resolved is that it depends on the cooperation of each and every person on this planet's to make any underlying changes in our psychological makeup (and murder, I believe, is a psychological problem). It's an issue resolved person by person, by each person working on themselves and their own psychology. That is a bit utopian, so I'm not depending on other people to do this. I do my bit and cooperate with the people that are effectively walking parallel to me in this. It's what works for me.

[Astrid]

So thats what we should focus on - how do we help these potential murders before they become murders?

I'm afraid that is a bit too utopian for my imagination..I think there will always be murders caused by jealous/angry lovers, mental defectives and criminals of various sorts...for me, it is mostly about limiting the damage they can do...that is why I support strict gun control (another hot button issue!)...it is better to limit the damage to a couple of bodies, than a couple of dozen. The Anders Breiviks of the world will always try to find a way, but at least it should be made difficult for them, with plenty of chances to trip-up. As a tax-payer, I accept that part of the cost of doing business will be warehousing killers and other violent criminals and those who commit economic and environmental violence. Perhaps they can let a few pot smokers out to make room.

Well i'll just excuse myself with being young an idealistic then However we could start with the 78% he talks about in the video and then figure out what to do with the Anders Breiviks after that?

I disagree with DJ that this is too utopian, because if each human has the potential within them to murder, by not murdering and by not choosing circumstances which could lead us to this action aren't we already answering this question? Each person can answer this question by their own choices and actions. Although I agree that it is utopian to think that this issue will be resolved any time soon for everyone.

I don't think anyone with some marbles left belivies it will be resolved any time soon - but it is a bit like the climate change issue in my opinion. Maybe there is nothing we can do to effect it at this point BUT we got to atleast try if nothing else we can look out great grand kids in the eyes and tell them we didn't sit idle by. An the thing about the issue of murder and death penality is that all improvement will mean lives saved - That is a very concrete benefit an much worth the effort at least for the individual and their loved ones.

The main problem being that people will not change if they do not want to change or do not see the need to change. And I don't think it's possible to change someone without their cooperation, and any change affected is a change on the surface, not deep down. Perhaps political policy can maintain some semblance of "murderless" peace, but it won't resolve it.

You can only help the willing and some experiences are so traumatizing that maybe there is no coming back from it. However that is also why Mr. Dow makes the argument that we need to get to these people as soon as possible - we need to get to them before there is need for this change - We need to get to them before their skizofrenic mother chases them trough the house with a butcher knife trying to kill them at 5 years old.

I realize I'm sounding very idealistic but i think its important to establish the end destination before you start the journey - That we reach it in my lifetime is not important - its important that we make progress towards it

[Bart]

I allways wondered what would be more humane: kill them or keep them as a prize pig in a few square meter room for the rest of their live. Keeping them in the hope they will regain senses and become an asset to society is an utopy. They will grow accustomed to their live and will resist changes.
Getting to them before they derail: shall we put every mother on neighbourhood watch, because she might get child birth psychosis. Or every teenager for the fear of them becoming psychotic. We cannot prevent atrosity, the only question is: how far do we go to prevent the somewhat preventable. Better gun control with psychological and criminal screening (who is to pay, I don't need a gun and I don't want to pay for the other guy's hobby) Get a shrink to screen every teenager for potential homicide/suicide (I think 80% will be locked up, teenage years are screwed up)

Homocidal axe killers are rare (luckily) so do you want to organise society on fear for the tiny event? I think your society will be a 1984 novel.

[Astrid]

I allways wondered what would be more humane: kill them or keep them as a prize pig in a few square meter room for the rest of their live. Keeping them in the hope they will regain senses and become an asset to society is an utopy. They will grow accustomed to their live and will resist changes.
Getting to them before they derail: shall we put every mother on neighbourhood watch, because she might get child birth psychosis. Or every teenager for the fear of them becoming psychotic. We cannot prevent atrosity, the only question is: how far do we go to prevent the somewhat preventable. Better gun control with psychological and criminal screening (who is to pay, I don't need a gun and I don't want to pay for the other guy's hobby) Get a shrink to screen every teenager for potential homicide/suicide (I think 80% will be locked up, teenage years are screwed up)

Homocidal axe killers are rare (luckily) so do you want to organise society on fear for the tiny event? I think your society will be a 1984 novel.

Well I hardly think i was suggestion that but i get you point we wont always be able to catch bad things before they happen - but we can improve what we do. The example i used in the previous post is from the TED video of a man named Will who received the death penalty. No one could have known that his mom was a sizofrenic until that event maybe but as a society we could have ensured that he got psycological help after and wasnt bounced around until finally ending up living alone at age 8... do you know what i mean?

Im not proposeing we monitor every one and screen people for how likely they are to commit crime. Im just proposing that we invest more in helping each other.

Im idealistic yes but i dont consider myself blue eyed - we can't create a perfect system but we can create an outstanding one

[treegod]

Probably the best investment in creating a world without murder (yes, let's be that ambitious) is education; more specifically, education of the next generations: how we relate with them; the ideas we share with them; the balance between guiding them and letting them create their own way.

we could have ensured that he got psycological help after and wasnt bounced around until finally ending up living alone at age 8... do you know what i mean?

There's always going to be the odd one "under the radar", no matter the good intentions we have of preventing this. The best we can do, perhaps, is each one take responsibility for our own and working on that.

I think responsibility is an individual thing, not one that belongs to "us" or "society". I can't rely on any "collective" to solve anything, because it's the collective that has/is the problem. The level that creates the problem cannot solve that problem; it's at the level of the collective that this problem is created (murder is a problem of not being able to relate with others creatively, probably because their has been a lack of healthy relationships), so it's better to resolve this issue individually, piecemeal.

I think it would be better and more effective to talk about what each of us individually in answer to this problem than what "we" could/should be doing. Now, if it turns out that we are working along the same lines, that's something different and we have something on which "we" can work together.

This is giving me food for thought. Might write a few blogs, so this is useful for something.

[DJ Droood]

Maybe you are thinking of something like this?

A map of a city is marked up with small red squares, each indicating a 500-by-500-foot zone where crimes are likely to take place next. A heat-map mode shows even more precisely where cars may be stolen, houses robbed, people mugged.

The program is called PredPol, and it calculates its forecasts based on times and locations of previous crimes, combined with sociological information about criminal behavior and patterns. The technology has been beta tested in the Santa Cruz, California police department for the past year, and in an L.A. police precinct for the past six months, with promising results.

Predictive-analytics software is the latest piece of policing technology working its way into law-enforcement stations around the country, although it's going up against tight budgets, bureaucracy and a culture still clinging to its analog ways.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/tech/inno ... ?hpt=hp_c1


Personally, I think the best plan would be to slash police budgets by about 50% to encourage them to refocus on "core" crime issues...they currently seem to have a load of spare time to waste on citizen's life-style choices and protesters...perhaps software like this would help them to do their jobs more efficiently with less.

[treegod]

Minority Report much?

[DJ Droood]

Minority Report much?

*that's* the name of the movie...I knew it had Tom Cruise..it was bugging me.

[Frog]

I allways wondered what would be more humane: kill them or keep them as a prize pig in a few square meter room for the rest of their live. Keeping them in the hope they will regain senses and become an asset to society is an utopy. They will grow accustomed to their live and will resist changes.
Getting to them before they derail: shall we put every mother on neighbourhood watch, because she might get child birth psychosis. Or every teenager for the fear of them becoming psychotic. We cannot prevent atrosity, the only question is: how far do we go to prevent the somewhat preventable. Better gun control with psychological and criminal screening (who is to pay, I don't need a gun and I don't want to pay for the other guy's hobby) Get a shrink to screen every teenager for potential homicide/suicide (I think 80% will be locked up, teenage years are screwed up)

Homocidal axe killers are rare (luckily) so do you want to organise society on fear for the tiny event? I think your society will be a 1984 novel.

Well I hardly think i was suggestion that but i get you point we wont always be able to catch bad things before they happen - but we can improve what we do. The example i used in the previous post is from the TED video of a man named Will who received the death penalty. No one could have known that his mom was a sizofrenic until that event maybe but as a society we could have ensured that he got psycological help after and wasnt bounced around until finally ending up living alone at age 8... do you know what i mean?

Im not proposeing we monitor every one and screen people for how likely they are to commit crime. Im just proposing that we invest more in helping each other.

Im idealistic yes but i dont consider myself blue eyed - we can't create a perfect system but we can create an outstanding one

This is a thought provoking thread Astrid; thanks!
It is a very complicated subject - and I don't believe that there are any uncontroversial parts.
We commit criminals to jail with the intention of rehabilitation so that they can return to "normal" society and take an active part in such. However, where we have a case that this system would not enable rehabilitation (because they are either unable or unwilling to contribute positively to the society) what is the answer?

Where someone is unable - a proved mental instability - then as a modern humane society I think we are duty bound to support them. However, when their cognitive sense indicate this is not the case - then what?

The wider issue now is that this planet is starting to creak at the seams with human population growing exponentially - is is "fair" or "reasonable" to continue to support those members who choose to live outside of society's morals?


As I noted; this is something which does not have any aspect of it that is "uncontroversial" IMO.

Blessings
Frog

[DJ Droood]

We commit criminals to jail with the intention of rehabilitation so that they can return to "normal" society and take an active part in such. However, where we have a case that this system would not enable rehabilitation (because they are either unable or unwilling to contribute positively to the society) what is the answer?

This is where the idea of a death penalty falls apart for me. I'm not actually opposed to the execution of a person truly guilty of an exceptionally heinous crime...we can all think of many examples...but I have no faith in our "system" and do not trust it *not* to kill innocent people. There is too much human ineptitude, corruption and personal agenda entangled in our massive justice systems.

[Selene]

This is where the idea of a death penalty falls apart for me. I'm not actually opposed to the execution of a person truly guilty of an exceptionally heinous crime...we can all think of many examples...but I have no faith in our "system" and do not trust it *not* to kill innocent people. There is too much human ineptitude, corruption and personal agenda entangled in our massive justice systems.

Bingo—my opinion, too, DJ. Capital punishment is awfully permanent and when the inevitable mistake happens, all the apologies in the world (assuming they are forthcoming at all) aren't going to undo the horrible miscarriage of justice.

[treegod]

"Prevention is better than the cure."

The "uncontroversial part" of this subject isn't what we do to people who murder but what can we do before to prevent murders (or rather, stop people becoming murderers in the first place), something that "even the most fanatic anti-death sentence activist and most hardcore pro capital punishment supporter can agree on."

What are the roots of the problem of murder and what do we do (individually or collectively) to resolve this issue before it happen?

[Frog]

"Prevention is better than the cure."

The "uncontroversial part" of this subject isn't what we do to people who murder but what can we do before to prevent murders (or rather, stop people becoming murderers in the first place), something that "even the most fanatic anti-death sentence activist and most hardcore pro capital punishment supporter can agree on."

What are the roots of the problem of murder and what do we do (individually or collectively) to resolve this issue before it happen?

Thought provoking indeed.
Much as I think we do consider ourselves "an evolved species" we are still have the animalistic tendancies regarding pack, tribe and territory. Similarly, we also allow our emotions to guide some of our actions - so crimes of passion are typically violent in nature.

The largest problem is (as you note) how to identify the potential problem. The premeditated action would typically have a root cause as would the crime of passion; similarly, what would the difference be between someone who goes to rob a bank, but in the heat of the crime panics and shoots someone? They didn't intend to do so, but instead to have the gun to provide additional leverage. It is certainly a very complicated subject.

[DaRC]

This is where the idea of a death penalty falls apart for me. I'm not actually opposed to the execution of a person truly guilty of an exceptionally heinous crime...we can all think of many examples...but I have no faith in our "system" and do not trust it *not* to kill innocent people. There is too much human ineptitude, corruption and personal agenda entangled in our massive justice systems.

Bingo—my opinion, too, DJ. Capital punishment is awfully permanent and when the inevitable mistake happens, all the apologies in the world (assuming they are forthcoming at all) aren't going to undo the horrible miscarriage of justice.

Yep - I remember seeing an interview with a Republican Senator who was pro capital punishment as long as you could have 100% faith in the system...

I tend towards the mad-dog theory, i.e. for proven serial killers, where there is no hope of rehabilitation. Prison in this case means society ends up using a lot of resources, which should be used in education, keeping them locked up.
The mad-dog theory is that some dogs turn (particular breeds seem to be be prone to this) and become violent - as a dog owner in all morality you cannot sell a dangerous dog to anyone else so you can either chain & muzzle the dog at all times or take it to the vet and humanely kill it. Arguably the latter is better for the dog's quality of life.
However, re-examining my theory in light of the Anders Breiviks of this world, there is a problem - they can become martyrs if their serial slaying is politically motivated.

[DJ Droood]

Ok, I finally watched this from start to finish...I like his idea that if society positively intervened in the lives of some very troubled individuals early on, tragedies could have been averted. As he says, "our Society could have intervened in their lives". I suppose one could still take a side as to *how* society should intervene in people's lives. I favour a non-intrusive approach...offering help to your neighbours, being kind to people, volunteering, donating, not supporting violence pop culture.

[treegod]

I favour a non-intrusive approach...offering help to your neighbours, being kind to people, volunteering, donating, not supporting violence pop culture.

Yes, definitely.

I don't agree with "our Society could have intervened in their lives", because society isn't responsible for the individual, and it's better that it doesn't.

Either Society is the Mass (of people), in which case there is no help. It is the Mass that causes problems in the first place, we become unthinking slaves. Brains work better if each neuron is well defined and not just a blancmange. Societies work better if each individual is well-defined and not just "fused" with others.

On the other hand if by Society we mean bureaucracies organising some system of help for individuals, I don't trust that one either, it won't work. And it undermines the value of the people it is trying to help, because bureaucracy is a machine and it treats people as "cogs".

Neither Blancmange Society nor Machine Society can help people. Now, if we're talking of a Society of self-actualised people that have taken responsibility of their own lives and follow the promptings of their conscience in helping people in whatever way they can, and that some sort of collaboration is possible between people, I think that could work.