Why does the USA and Japan still have capital punishment?

Maybe it’s a good idea?

nations don’t advance morally at the same pace.
besides, Japan orignated as a warrior culture and the US from Puritanism.
So you can blame ancient culture on one side and backwards religious dogma on the other.

I cannot comment on the culture of either nation, but I believe the only reason a country would retain capital punishment is because the people have a lust for vengance that outweighs their perceived need for justice.

@NewZen I wouldn’t say so. A person has the right to the ownership of their life, and that right should not be taken away from them.

@doggywuv I said “Maybe” – I don’t know why it is – and I personally do not condone violence of any kind. Except maybe rapists and murderers. Yeah, they can go to hell faster for all I care. But that’s it.

@NewZen I disagree, as a society we created these monsters, they are our responsibility. I feel like execution isn’t really addressing the problem.

@Capt_Bloth Let’s discuss this civilly at the club. We can agree to disagree. Cocktails at 7?

@NewZen For sure, I’ll pick up the tab.

To guarantee the offenders never commit their crimes against society again?

Cleaning the gene pool to an extent?

Interesting how the OP words his question as though capital punishment isn’t advanced.

It’s because they know the difference between advanced and decadent.

The people who make the laws in these nations still believe that killing prisoners is effective an effective crime deterrent, which capital punishment is not.

Not an effective deterrent? Explain how an executed murderer kills again.

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Bible stuff. And Christians are always happy to tell ya that America is a Christian nation even though it’s not founded on Christian values even though it wasn’t. There’s also the idea that maybe people don’t want to support murderers for life in their cushy, gold plated prisons even though they aren’t living a life of luxury like drinking prison hooch and getting shivved over a cigarette. Don’t forget, if they took a life, the proper thing to do is to take theirs because murder is wrong.

And finally, my favorite, the one I actually believe? If you took a life, that person is dead forever and their family will never get them back. Remind me why they should have the privilege of continuing to live?

@proXXi That person wouldn’t have committed any more crimes against society anyway because if not for capital punishment, they would still be locked up for life.

Crimes are by committed mostly by people who aren’t thinking about the consequences of their actions.

Actually, crimes are committed behind bars on a daily basis.

@laureth We don’t kill them. Just the death row ones.

Not all convicted murderers are locked up for life.

Some victim’s families are certain that execution is the only way to come close to getting justice or closure. How would I dare argue with that?

Because they have not realised yet that by doing the same to them that they did to others makes them the same as them. They have not realised that the moral thing to do is to turn the criminals into valued members of society. That is more valuable to society and the victims.
They still have a lot to learn.

The question could have just as easily been worded: Why are countries other than America and Japan bein so slow to readopt capital punishment?

The original question and many of the comments here boil down to the posters self image. They imagine that they are too civilized and enlightened for capital punishment, others (victim’s families and potential victims) be damnned.

@proXXi Because victim’s families are not qualified to make decisions on who lives and who dies despite what you may think.

I am not sure where I stand on this subject because

1. A life sentence often does not mean life it means x number of years until they get paroled.

2. I hate to see my tax dollars spent supporting someone to hang out and lift weights, get fed, clothed and a roof over their head while they are waiting to be paroled while I am working 7 days a week. This does not sound like punishment, it sounds like a paid vacation in a not so great motel.

And if there is some magic method to rehabilitate these folks, it must be a secret because the recidivism rates of parolees is not impressive.

And I’m pretty sure I don’t want the rapist, murderer, child molester moving into the house beside me while we see if the magic method has worked or not.

Just a couple of the many things to consider before I decide.

@rooeytoo It costs you, the taxpayer, more to kill them.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic Good Answers! Keep it up :)

@proXXi “To guarantee the offenders never commit their crimes against society again?”

We can also guarantee absence of subsequent offenses, by changing them from evil people into healthy and good members of society. This requires putting them in correctional institutions for a very big duration.

“Cleaning the gene pool to an extent?”

I definitely oppose killing people because they’re unfavorable, it’s unnecessary and unjustified killing. Killing people is necessary when it’s the only option that prevents more death or a great amount of suffering (e.g. the Allies going to war with the Axis).

“Interesting how the OP words his question as though capital punishment isn’t advanced.”
I did so intentionally, because I’m confident in my belief that capital punishment is wrong. It’s our responsibility to change evil people into healthy and good members of society. The act of killing them is a primitive way to solve the problem of evil people, and means that we are not using sophisticated methods to solve the problem.

@doggywuv GA as well :)

The United States still has capital punishment. And we in the states seem to believe that what is good for us must be what is good for everyone else, so I don’t think I can judge them.

@RedPowerLady Thanks (:

society does not turn anyone into a muderer. Why can’t anyone these days have the balls to tell it like it is – at some point, they make a choice to end the life of an innocent person, and once you’ve made that choice you are a worthless piece of shit not deserving of sympathy. If you want to have sympathy for someone, how about for the innocent victim instead of the killer? I used to be anti death penalty, until I started studying crime. There are people in this world who are so selfish, and have such a complete disregard for human life that they serve no purpose in society and should be eliminated from it.

This graph always sheds light on prison issues to me. The US has a rate of imprisonment that is so much higher than any other nation, in fact it is double most other nations. This is not because we have more crime. There are obviously other factors going on that lead us to put people away. This bias does affect death row inmates many of which have later been found to be innocent, scary.

Check it Out

@The_Compassionate_Heretic I’ve heard that it costs more to kill criminals – don’t understand how tho.

Why not?

@NewZen I think it is a combination of several factors.
– The death penalty costs more because the judicial process for death penalty cases is extremely expensive, much moreso than life imprisonment.
– Most death row inmates spend many years before being executed. The average for one state is approximately 12 years however many inmates have been known to spend 20+ years in prison before execution. So you are adding the cost of a long prison sentence to the cost of execution.
– Also most death row inmates will appeal their cases and ask for injunctions and such which is also very expensive. Apparently they do so more vigorously than other inmates. This is actually a required process. After the death penalty was re-instated by the Supreme Court they did so with certain safeguards. Those safeguards mean mandatory appeals and such.
– The execution itself is quite spendy. ”$14,000 to $17,000, as of 2007 in the mass.”

Here is one bit of info I found: Since the death penalty was reinstated in Cali the taxpayers have spent 2 billion more dollars annually than when it was not in place.

@RedPowerLady but whats the cost to society in terms of innocent people killed, injured, or traumatized by violent repeat offenders?

It’s not characteristic for liberals to be concerned about monetary costs.

But they claim to if it serves their argument…

IMO.

I do not agree with capital punishment for 2 main reasons. 1) you never know when someone is innocent. If you have to have capital punishment, at least reserve it for crimes where there is overwhelming hard evidence for the murders (the only crime I think capital punishment should be allowed for if it’s going to be allowed) committed. 2) I simply do not like the idea of a government that can take the life of other people; it’s not their job. I do not believe in mandated killing like that. I do not like killing; I want it to be avoided as much as possible. I agree with @doggywuv in that killing is only justifiable if it prevents more killing (and I do believe that it’s okay in self-defense).

However, I do not believe in the idealistic concept that every criminal can turn “normal” again. I’m sure some of them can, but I’m sure some of them can’t and are better off being locked up for the rest of their life. So many times I see things about how prisoners are released from prison and then commit the same crime again; I think we all know that prisons are not rehabilitative. Maybe that’s what we want them to be, but that’s not what they are.

And I also disagree with the “always blame society” route. People need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions. Yes, I’m sure society plays a part in it, but it isn’t the only thing to “point the finger at”. It’s always “blame someone else”…no one wants to take responsibility for their actions. But if they truly think they can change, I think it’s about time they started.

The United States and Japan still have it because they believe that some crimes are heinous enough that they should be punishable by death. It’s not an inhuman feeling. I’ve seen stories where a person was anti-death penalty up until the point when their loved one was killed and simply did not care if the perpetrator died or not. You never know what can change your outlook. I’m not saying everyone will change, I still remain against the death penalty and am confident that my view will not change.

I don’t know but I sure do wish John Wayne Gacy was still alive.

LOL, John Wayne Gacy and Hitler:

The world robbed of two incredibly gifted artists…

@hookecho The argument is for keeping them in prison for life vs. killing them. Not letting them on the streets.

I would rather see tax payer dollars being spent on raising the level of below average public schools, on all of the social welfare programs that are underfunded. I just can’t muster a whole lot of sympathy for murderers and rapists.

And nobody said if they want them parolees as neighbors.

Is it more humane, if we are going to worry about being humane to murderers and rapists who were not humane to their victims to lock someone up in a prison for the rest of their life, well if we really kept them in prison for life?

If the judicial system is so flawed that so many innocent people are being unjustly convicted and sentenced, then we damn better do something to repair the judicial system. Because innocent people shouldn’t be convicted in the first place. It’s like somehow that is not an issue, it is only a problem if they are executed.

As I said I am not sure where I stand on this issue but people saying there should be no capital punishment, what do you do instead. And if you say rehabilitate, how do you do actually do this? If it were so simple and possible to rehabilitate people, not just criminals, then why isn’t it being done? And it is no good saying, pour more dollars into it, there are plenty of wealthy people who can afford the best treatment who can’t seem to be rehabilitated from their problems.

@rooeytoo

And if you say rehabilitate, how do you do actually do this? If it were so simple and possible to rehabilitate people, not just criminals, then why isn’t it being done?

In actuality rehabilitation programs provide lower recidivism rates so it should be being done. Why isn’t it? The prison industrial complex.

As far as fighting the judicial system so innocent people are not put in jail in the first place. Well we’ve been doing that for centuries and it has yet to make a significant difference. Look at the case of “Leonard Peltier”:

”And if you say rehabilitate, how do you do actually do this? If it were so simple and possible to rehabilitate people, not just criminals, then why isn’t it being done?”

Psychological treatment. You know, psychologists pretty much know how humans tick.
It isn’t being done because prisons are paid for incarceration, not rehabilitation. Rehabilitation means prisoners can be released earlier and are less likely to be incarcerated again, which to the prisons mean, less money. And they love money, more than they like doing the right thing.

Alright rehabilitate is the answer. I have been in a lot of groups with a lot of mentally unstable people, (and we do assume that rapists and murderers are unstable or mentally ill, they aren’t just killing and raping because they like it?) and the cure rate has not been that great. A lot, maybe most are still addicts and ocd, etc.. Why is treatment going to be so much more successful on murderers and rapists than it is on ordinary neurotic non criminals?

If a bunch of non mentally ill educated people cannont reform the judicial system in centuries, how can you reform rapists and murderers in a couple of years? And how do you know if they are really “cured?” It was in the news here just recently where a man who had been released after serving his time for murdering a young woman, raped and killed another within months of his release.

And do you want the rehabilitated rapist, murderer, child molester moving into the house beside yours?

@rooeytoo
http://www.healthieryou.com/mhexpert/exp1082701a.html

“The improvement rate at the end of treatment was 65%” and that study is 20 years old, so because techniques have improved since then (so i assume) i would expect a higher success rate today.
seems effective enough.

And do you want the rehabilitated rapist, murderer, child molester moving into the house beside yours?
Keep your fear mongering in your drawer please. I might be a little worried about the murderer, but apart from that I would not be too worried, no.

and we do assume that rapists and murderers are unstable or mentally ill, they aren’t just killing and raping because they like it?

The majority of people fit into this category. However there are a few people who are deemed sociopaths. They can’t simply be ‘rehabilitated’ and may be best left under supervision for the rest of their lives.

Why is treatment going to be so much more successful on murderers and rapists than it is on ordinary neurotic non criminals?

It depends on the type and duration of treatment. You are spot on that if people don’t get the right treatment it isn’t going to help. But if they do get the right treatment it can make a life-changing difference. Having said that you can’t always alter someone so they are completely ‘normal’ but you can make it so they are a functioning member of society. There was one culturally based treatment program that underwent research. They had only 2 people re-commit crimes. That is amazing. I know it’s been too long now to find that article online but I kept it in my files somewhere. It really was an innovative therapy though.

If a bunch of non mentally ill educated people cannont reform the judicial system in centuries, how can you reform rapists and murderers in a couple of years?

Because you are talking about helping change an individual vs. changing an institution. History shoes us that the former is quite possible while the latter can take ages.

And how do you know if they are really “cured?” It was in the news here just recently where a man who had been released after serving his time for murdering a young woman, raped and killed another within months of his release

Well this man obviously did not undergo rehabilitation for one. Secondly you don’t just ‘release’ someone. There is a process of supervision that is necessary. That probably needs reformed as well. I’m not arguing that the system works how it is. I’m saying we need a different one.

And do you want the rehabilitated rapist, murderer, child molester moving into the house beside yours?

I, in fact, know many people who have been convicted of felonies and are now upstanding citizens. If they told you themselves about their crimes you wouldn’t believe it. I am happy to call them my friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc..

Okay no one is changed, reformed, rehabilitated unless they want to be. What makes you think all these murderers, rapists and child molesters want to change?

And while we are busy spending tax payer dollars on the criminals, what is happening for the victim or families of the murdered ones? I do get completely sick of hearing what society owes the criminal but never about who pays to rehabilitate the victim who has had their life, literally or figuratively, taken from them. Do you care at all about them? Should we feed, clothe, and house them for the rest of their lives? Or do they just get a pat on the head?

I stated in the beginning I am not sure where I stand on capital punishment and I’m still not. Don’t you get tired of working your butts off while these poor misguided criminals sit in a cell and watch television. Sometimes a couple of months in one of these country club jails sounds like a nice rest.

Okay no one is changed, reformed, rehabilitated unless they want to be. What makes you think all these murderers, rapists and child molesters want to change?

Actually this is a misconception. A huge amount of counseling/therapy cases are due to mandated cases. That means people are forced into treatment. It can work and it does all the time. It’s just a bit more difficult from the counseling perspective.

And while we are busy spending tax payer dollars on the criminals, what is happening for the victim or families of the murdered ones?

Well once again it costs more tax dollars to kill them than to leave them in prison for life. But I am a proponent of victim advocacy as well. I do not believe life is black and white, so to speak.

Don’t you get tired of working your butts off while these poor misguided criminals sit in a cell and watch television.

Absolutely not. Did you see my graph about how many people the US puts in prison? It is insane, we obviously have other agendas moving. Our society does very little to prevent crime. Until we start doing that I will not be surprised that there are criminals.

Sometimes a couple of months in one of these country club jails sounds like a nice rest.

I’m not sure which jails/prisons you are talking about. Have you ever even visited one? It sure is no freaking country club.

If shrinks can now use some sort of therapy that compels people to change whether they want to or not, it is amazing there are still so many cases of drug, alcohol, nicotene addiction around. And why is there still a need for psychiatric hospitals? You make it sound as if anyone can be cured of anything. If this is indeed true, then let us first cure the innocents, not the criminals.

With regards to victims, do you think we should build places for them to live, to be fed clothed, medical and dental needs attended to until they get over the trauma caused by the murderer, rapist, child molester? What exactly does a victim advocate advocate?

I personally am tired of working to provide for criminals. I would rather see my dollars go to people who can’t care for themselves. If indeed it costs more to execute than support and counsel someone indefinitely, there is something wrong with the system again. And if the USA has too many people in prison, I guess there are too many people committing crimes, or all they all innocent?

All jails are not nice, yes I have been inside mens and womens prisons, but some of the country club ones for white collar criminals are really quite nice. And that is crazy, white collar criminals should be sentenced to a lot of hours of public service and gigantic fines, not sent to cc jails which shouldn’t even exist in the first place. If jail is not to punish, then you advocate criminals not being punished for their crimes?

If shrinks can now use some sort of therapy that compels people to change whether they want to or not, it is amazing there are still so many cases of drug, alcohol, nicotene addiction around.

Not everyone is mandated to get help. In fact most people aren’t. Also some who are mandated quit therapy. Obviously criminals wouldn’t have that choice.

You make it sound as if anyone can be cured of anything.

No I am making it sound like a possibility that deserves some attention. Rehabilitation has already shown to reduce recidivism so there really is no reason for this part of the argument.

With regards to victims, do you think we should build places for them to live, to be fed clothed, medical and dental needs attended to until they get over the trauma caused by the murderer, rapist, child molester? What exactly does a victim advocate advocate?

Absolutely not (meaning I don’t think they should be ‘put away’ but rather cared for in a better manner). In fact we have lots of victim rights programs that are currently in place. Our society is driven towards victims rights. I really don’t see how victims rights are in opposition to rehabilitating criminals. If you told me your viewpoint I might be able to respond more intelligently.

And if the USA has too many people in prison, I guess there are too many people committing crimes, or all they all innocent?

There are three reasons:
1. The prison industrial complex meaning we make money by having criminals (so there are laws like making possession of marijuana an automatically jailable offense that have been proven time and again to be non-effective but we still uphold them to fill jail cells).
2. We have no prevention and very little rehabilitation programs. So we aren’t stopping people from committing crimes in the first place and once they do and we release them we aren’t rehabilitating them so they won’t commit crimes again.
3. Ya some people are innocent or are targeted using racial profiling etc.. Of course this is the smaller of the three arguments as it accounts for the smallest number of people in jail when considering the other two I just listed.

And that is crazy, white collar criminals should be sentenced to a lot of hours of public service and gigantic fines, not sent to cc jails which shouldn’t even exist in the first place. If jail is not to punish, then you advocate criminals not being punished for their crimes?

Actually I simply argue that we should be revising our system so it isn’t as fallible as it is now. And I also think White Collar criminals should be sharing the same jails and prisons as everyone else. My argument here was that these white collar jails do not make up the majority of the prison/jail population.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic, Who is better qualified to say than the loved ones of the victims?

Capital Punishment: Where law and justice intersect.

Who is better qualified to say than the loved ones of the victims?
A lot of people.
Mainly those trained in the laws whose judgement is not clouded by emotions. Which naturally excludes a victim’s relatives or friends.

Capital punishment: Where law and revenge intersect. Justice is something else.

LOL, emotions.. I will ask you to be honest and tell me how your opposition to capital punishment is free from emotional bias.

Not getting my hopes up.

@proXXi I doubt anyone has an opinion on capital punishment that is free from emotional bias or any controversial issue for that matter. We are human beings and thus subject to our emotions.

There is one group whos emotional bias is not only understandable but applicable:

The loved ones of the victims.

@proXXi Of course that is true but fortunately we don’t live in a society where the emotions of victims can decide whether or not someone dies or else we would have a lot more deaths on our hands. Of course their emotions are justified, I am not saying that they are not by any means.

@proXXi Near a town where I used to live, there was a rail crossing marked with bells, lights and a few hundred metres of road humps that made the car vibrate when approaching the crossing. The terrain is perfectly flat, and the road takes a 90 degree bend on either side of the crossing. When my parents and I would drive through the crossing, I used to wonder why all these precautions were in place, when just the bells and lights would be enough.
A few years back, five young guys in a high powered car were coming along that road, and from all accounts were racing the train – which travels at around 130km/h (30 over the speed limit for cars on that road). They were hit, and all five tragically died. Dozens of witnesses from the train said they were racing the train, pointing at it and travelling far above the limit. The parents were not convinced however, and insisted that the intersection was not safe and it was just an accident. The council subsequently spent millions of dollars (a huge amount for a country town, pop. ~50k) building an overpass.

No one can ever refuse the demands made by a crying mother who has just lost her son. It is just this influence that makes the families of victims unable to pass judgement on criminals. Their loved one is placed on a pedestal, as if they were the greatest person ever to live, even if they were simply ordinary.
Justice therefore, should not be delegated by victims, but by someone in the most impartial position attainable. In this discussion, people tend to forget that the criminal is a human too, and capable of remorse and future positive contributions to society. Murdering criminals does not undo the wrong, but appeases the lust for vengeance harboured by those with a one-eyed view of events.
In determining justice, we should pursue a system that will provide maximal benefit to society in general – that is, a system that deters criminals, prevents re-offending, and recognises the rights of all humans. The most effective way to prevent offences is not to kill offenders, it is to educate and rehabilitate them so the cycle of crime is broken. How many executed criminals have friends and family in crime? All these will be alienated from the law if one that they love is destroyed in a rash act of vengeance, and so will have no regard for the law when they engage in future criminal activities.

The law must be respected if it is to be followed, and respect is not gained by bowing to a minority howling for blood like a pack of savage beasts.

@FireMadeFlesh
a fantastic retort. GA

Let me see if I have it right:

- After one tragic incident, people who lost loved ones demanded that all measures be taken to ensure that what happened to their kids couldn’t happen to anyone else in the future, absolute proof that families of crime victims are hysterical, irrational loons who should be ignored.

- Decent, productive members of society have very little value. Society should make it a priority to see that criminals are afforded the love and care they’re entitled to.

- What matters is that the families of murdered aren’t alienated from the law. Relatives of victims can go to hell.

Darn @Jack_Haas, you beat me to it. Well said.

@FireMadeFlesh, a moving and well written post. However I think your still missing the point. The victims in your story brought their destruction upon themselves. Their end was entirely avoidable. The engineer was in no way at fault. This is very different from the story of victims of a calculating and heartless sociopath.

Were our victims perfect citizens? Not the point. They were in all likelyhood far more of a blessing to society than their killers were.

“and respect is not gained by bowing to a minority howling for blood like a pack of savage beasts”.

I would submit that some of us here are doing a better job at imagining the loved one’s anguish and thirst for justice than others.

@Jack_Haas:
– After one tragic accident, friends and relatives develop an irrational view of the situation that precludes their objectivity. In the same way, I would preclude death row groupies from passing judgement.

- The morality of society is often a thin veneer over primitive instincts. A good example is the tribal warfare in Somalia etc. When we start to deny the most basic of human rights (a right to life, sustenance, shelter and peace) we start to degenerate to the vindictive society of our past.

- What matters is that justice is dealt, not vengeance. A computer analysis of death row victims found that the most prominent common trait was a lack of good education (New Scientist, the exact issue escapes me). Capital punishment encourages the cycle of crime, and prevention is what matters. Relatives of victims should have a say, and I feel for them as much as anyone, but that in itself does not grant them a right to determine the consequences of the actions.

@proXXi You raise a good point, but my intention with the story was not to draw parralells in every feature, only that relatives of those suffering a tragic death do not see the situation clearly regardless of the means.

I was not attempting to sympathise with victims’ families with my last statement; I was referring to those who advocate capital punishment without being directly involved. Talk of putting someone to death for crime reeks of Taliban methods such as severing the hands of thieves.

In the case of murder, the victim is lost and the murderer survives. However unjust that is, it is not our place to turn events to how we think they should have been. Our role, as a third party delegating the consequences of the murder, is to improve the moral standard of our population so it does not happen again. Chopper Read is a good example – he was a violent gang member, who in other countries would doubtless have been handed multiple death penalties. His work with the underprivileged has wrought far more benefit than his death would have.

All I have to work with is your assertion of what happened, and based on the recurring theme that clearly comes through your writings, I’m not likely to believe these folks acted irrationally. Maybe something looked fishy in the police report, maybe they found inconsistencies in the witness accounts, etc…

Here’s an anecdote: one of my best friends was accused by 4 people of hitting a biker with his car. The “eyewitnesses” said he was driving like a maniac and didn’t even try to stop or swerve to avoid the bike. Here’s the problem: my friend was waiting for the light to go green. He wasn’t moving at all when the accident occured. The “eyewitnesses” “saw” my friend’s aggressive looking Porsche idle at the light near the bike after the accident, so they assumed he was responsible and a raging speeder. The pavement was wet, the biker was coming on too fast, lost control, and crashed near my friend’s car. Eyewitnesses eh?

But hey what do I know, at least today I learned that “capital punishment encourages the cycle of crime”... right, just like showing terrorists you mean business perpetuates the cycle of violence, appeasement is what matters!

No matter how you try to sugarcoat your arguments, I always see the same recurring, awfully familiar fheme lurking behind.

I try not to make my arguments personal, but you seem to be judging my ability to assess a situation based on my opinion of it. You disagree with me, and so assume that I have misinterpreted the situation because you must be right.

As for the eyewitnesses, how can you mistake a car travelling 30+km/h over the speed limit, on a flat road, for several kilometres? I am aware of perception errors, but I cannot see an alternative scenario.

The theme is plain enough to see, but I’d like to summarise without analogies or a ‘sugar coating’.
1. Killing criminals ignores the rights they deserve as a human.
2. Capital punishment does not act as a sufficient deterrent, as an immoral law does not lend itself to respect.
3. Understanding of the motive behind crime allows for preventative education – capital punishment attacks the symptoms, not the pathogens.
4. No one has a moral right to judge the life of another. I see the death penalty as one small step from eugenics; both are wilful killing of part of the population judged unfit to live.