# Why is Capital Punishment used?



## .   1

Hello cultur@s,
Why is Capital Punishment used?
What benefits are obtained from Capital Punishment and who obtains such benefit?
What is the cost of Capital Punishment and who pays?

.,,


----------



## invictaspirit

It always interests me that the only developed, Western nation that retains capital punishment has the highest homicide rate of any developed, Western nation.

So it doesn't work*, whatever the rights and wrongs.

*Unless of course you are one of those people who sees no need for the criminal-justice system to *deter* crime, simply to punish it when it occurs. Such people exist.


----------



## caballoschica

I completely agree invictaspirit.

It's used because some people do believe in eye-for-an-eye punishment.

Benefits? I'm honestly not sure of those. 

Who pays? The innocent on Death Row, minorities, the places where they have it because the homicide rates are greater.


----------



## Markus

I don't believe in Capital Punishment, but I'll bite and play devil's advocate here.

First, let's look at the point of prison. Prison has several purposes: protection (for the rest of the citizens), deterrent, and punishment / revenge. The government has a responsibility to keep dangerous people away from law-abiding citizens, thus we put them in prison. We also want our prisons to be somewhat unpleasant so that people will not commit crimes in the first place out of fear of going to prison, thus the deterrent. Finally, prisons are also meant to be unpleasant so that the victims of crimes will feel some satisfaction in knowing that the perpetrator is suffering for what they did.

It doesn't take much to extend these three principles to capital punishment. It's just the next step in the shaded line of how severely we want to punish our criminals. The idea is that the harsher the punishment, the greater the protection of the country's citizens (as they don't have to fear those who commited the crime coming back), the greater the deterrent for those thinking of commiting crimes, and the greater the satisfaction for the victims. After all, if the person who killed your child is dead, you should be able to move on, knowing that justice has been served.

It actually does make sense in theory. It just doesn't work in practice; it leaves everyone bitter and unsatisfied. I think the "why" of that is more a spiritual question than a political one, depending on your beliefs.


----------



## Thomsen

. said:


> Hello cultur@s,
> Why is Capital Punishment used?
> Capital Punishment is a product of human instinct at the lowest level with some of the trappings of civilization.  Basically, it's the triumph of emotion over reason.
> 
> What benefits are obtained from Capital Punishment and who obtains such benefit?
> A very "real" course of action taken by politicians to show constituents they are "hard on crime."
> 
> What is the cost of Capital Punishment and who pays?
> Humanity.
> 
> Ironically, i've heard (though I won't quote it is gospel) that is even more expensive to execute someone than imprison them for life in the USA because of the associated costs.  Not electricity... but legal costs for various motions and challenges in court.
> .,,


----------



## Miguelillo 87

. said:


> Hello cultur@s,
> Why is Capital Punishment used?
> *I supposed is used because some crimes are unforgivebles, ans some persons are so mad or are so dangerous for the society that is better to have them 6 feets under than to feed them until they died*
> What benefits are obtained from Capital Punishment and who obtains such benefit? *I believe the victim or the relatives of the victim, find a "solution" or"justice" by doing that*
> What is the cost of Capital Punishment and who pays?
> *Talking economically, I suppose the cost is cover by the governament and I'm sure it has to be cheaper than  mantain a prisioner untill he dies.*
> 
> .,,


 
Well I thimk capital punishment has to be done when the crime is so hard as in a murder or kidnapping even raping, why? `Cause if they do it once they can do it twicem besides these persons are personas who are not good for society and they will never be. I have to say that in my country this punishment doesn't existm and it's good, Contradicttory? Maybe, but justice in my country is weirs and not trustable, I mean in Mexico you're guilty untill your inocence will be prove. So imagine if they kill you fisrt, and it was a mistakem nothing could be done,
But in cases where the rapist, kidnapper ot murderee will be so obvious and no doubt of the crime is held, I supposed to kill a person as this, It's a relief for those who walk in the streets


----------



## .   1

Markus said:


> I don't believe in Capital Punishment, but I'll bite and play devil's advocate here.


I do not agree with some of your assumptions and I can not understand the rest.
It is difficult to argue with the devil's advocate and not ultimately argue with the devil.

.,,


----------



## TRG

. said:


> I do not agree with some of your assumptions and I can not understand the rest.
> It is difficult to argue with the devil's advocate and not ultimately argue with the devil.
> 
> .,,


 
I agree with Markus completely. I'm not sure what assumptions you are referring to. He appears to have succinctly stated the reasons why we have capital punishment in some places. I agree that it doesn't work and is at best problematic.


----------



## Alicky

Markus said:


> I don't believe in Capital Punishment, but I'll bite and play devil's advocate here.
> 
> First, let's look at the point of prison 1. Prison has several purposes: protection (for the rest of the citizens), deterrent, and punishment / revenge. The government has a responsibility to keep dangerous people away from law-abiding citizens, thus we put them in prison. We also want our prisons to be somewhat unpleasant so that people will not commit crimes in the first place out of fear of going to prison, thus the deterrent. Finally, prisons are also meant to be unpleasant so that the victims of crimes will feel some satisfaction in knowing that the perpetrator is suffering for what they did.
> 
> It doesn't take much to extend these three principles to capital punishment.2 It's just the next step in the shaded line of how severely we want to punish our criminals. The idea is that the harsher the punishment, the greater the protection of the country's citizens (as they don't have to fear those who commited the crime coming back), the greater the deterrent for those thinking of commiting crimes, and the greater the satisfaction for the victims. After all, if the person who killed your child is dead, you should be able to move on, knowing that justice has been served.
> It actually does make sense in theory. It just doesn't work in practice; it leaves everyone bitter and unsatisfied. I think the "why" of that is more a spiritual question than a political one, depending on your beliefs.
> .


 

I know you said you were going to play devil's advocate, but here I go anyway.

1. I don't think that is exactly the point of prison. Prison protects both the law-abiding citizens and those who have commited crimes. And I really don't think that they make a god job of being deterrent. Crime rate doen't have a relation to the state of the prisons.
And,this is just my country, the Constitution says that prisons ought to be clean, and they serve only to house criminals while they are serving their sentences (deprivation of liberty). 
Prison is not the punishment.

2 Which brings me to this. As I find the above untrue, it's only logicall that I also don't have the same opinion about capital punishment.
I don't think that it works a deterrent good enough, I don't think that living in a country where capital punishment is allowed would make me feel safer. And, I'm pretty sure of this, I know that knowing that the person who hurt me or my family is dead won't feel like justice to me.

And this last sentence brings me to this:
What calls my attention the most is the fact that we are talking about punishment all the time. Why is that we equate punishment with justice?
What I mean is that once the person who commited the crimes is dead, what kind of good it does to society? My idea of justice is repairing the damage done. Of course I realize that if someone killed your child, there's nothing anyone can do. But killing the person who did it won't bring you justice. Peace? Perhaps. You may feel that the world is safer, but I don't think that is justice. As markus says: "It just doesn't work in practice; it leaves everyone bitter and unsatisfied"

Why we use capital punishment?
I agree with what Thomsen said. I'ts allowing our basest insticts to rule us. It's aplying "an eye for an eye". 
What benefits are obtained from Capital Punishment and who obtains such benefit? In my opinion, none. 
What is the cost of Capital Punishment and who pays?
You are taking a human life. That's the cost. You are killing someone. Only that you have the approval of society. Or at least a paper that says you can do it.


----------



## Cecilio

I would say capital punishment has been present throughout history in all civilizations and in all continents, in one way or the other. Its eradication from a large number of countries, especially in the Western world, is a relatively modern phenomenon. Will it ever be completely abolished everywhere? It looks very unlikely. Why does it exist? As I said, I think it's basically a relic of the past, like many other things.


----------



## Etcetera

Hanging a criminal is much easier than sending them into prison and guarding them for several years. Safer and quicker. 
You know, I don't like the idea of capital punishment. But there are criminals who simply don't deserve anything else. Think of the terrorists who tortured children in Beslan, for instance.


----------



## djchak

Hmm.

I agree with Markus (great post), but end up with Etceteras conclusion.

There are SOME criminals that are totally beyond redemption, or even punishment, that are clearly guilty, with ample evidence.

The best American example I can give is Jeffrey Dahmer.

"several corpses were stored in acid-filled vats, severed heads were found in his refrigerator, and implements for the construction of an altar of candles and human skulls were found in his closet"

Uh, yeah, I think that capital punishment should be used in that case.

Strangely enough, in that case it wasn't. He died in prison anyway though.


----------



## don maico

Cecilio said:


> I would say capital punishment has been present throughout history in all civilizations and in all continents, in one way or the other. Its eradication from a large number of countries, especially in the Western world, is a relatively modern phenomenon. Will it ever be completely abolished everywhere? It looks very unlikely. Why does it exist? As I said, I think it's basically a relic of the past, like many other things.



its there because it responds to one of our most basic emotions- the desire for revenge.
If someone took someone who was very dear to me, my anger would be extreme and my desire for revenge ( disgiused as justice) would be present. Having said that I would prefer the criminal to spend his days in prison contemplating on his crime and seeking repentence.


----------



## Victoria32

djchak said:


> Uh, yeah, I think that capital punishment should be used in that case.
> 
> Strangely enough, in that case it wasn't. He died in prison anyway though.


Erm, he was murdered...
But that is a nonsensical example. The guy was clearly howling-at-the-moon barking mad (insane). Killing him would really have helped! Not! 


don maico said:


> its there because it responds to one of our most basic emotions- the desire for revenge.
> If someone took someone who was very dear to me, my anger would be extreme and my desire for revenge ( disguised as justice) would be present. Having said that I would prefer the criminal to spend his days in prison contemplating on his crime and seeking repentance.


Exactly, Don Maico! My feeling too, is that no one is beyond (eventual) redemption. 

Vicky


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> its there because it responds to one of our most basic emotions- the desire for revenge.
> If someone took someone who was very dear to me, my anger would be extreme and my desire for revenge ( disgiused as justice) would be present.


And is our desire for revenge satisfied when the court makes its pronouncement on guilt?
What happens to those who think that have had revenge, but who later discover that the wrong person was jailed? Has anyone ever interviewed the injured party in this sort of case? I'm talking of the type of case where someone has done ten years or so and then it is discovered that someone else actually committed the crime. How do the injured parties feel about what they felt at the original sentencing?
It's a fascinating subject.



don maico said:


> Having said that I would prefer the criminal to spend his days in prison contemplating on his crime and seeking repentence.


But do they do these things?
What percentage of jailed, guilty persons contemplate their crime (as against their having been caught) or seek any from of repentance/redemption?

By all accounts it appears that prison doesn't work. The recidivism rates we hear of are usually quite high. (Ireland - 27% back inside within a year, 50% back inside within four years.)

So, if we're not going to kill them, what should we be doing with those guilty of serious offences?


----------



## Qcumber

There are Western countries where a man caught in the act and convicted of murder is only condemned to 8 years in jail, sometimes less, particularly if the victim is a Christian and the murderer is not. This means a human life is not much worth in such countries. For barbarians, a human life is worthless. If you agree with that, you are naturally bound to regard a murder as a trifle.


----------



## maxiogee

Qcumber said:


> There are Western countries where a man caught in the act and convicted of murder is only condemned to 8 years in jail, sometimes less, particularly if the victim is a Christian and the murderer is not.


 
Would you care to name some of these places?
I'm particularly interested in the concept that some Western countries are valuing Christian lives less than the lives of members of other religions or none.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

maxiogee said:


> And is our desire for revenge satisfied when the court makes its pronouncement on guilt?



It might be, but it would in that case only be a side-effect. Justice isn't about getting revenge. 



> What happens to those who think that have had revenge, but who later discover that the wrong person was jailed? Has anyone ever interviewed the injured party in this sort of case? I'm talking of the type of case where someone has done ten years or so and then it is discovered that someone else actually committed the crime. How do the injured parties feel about what they felt at the original sentencing?
> It's a fascinating subject.



Indeed it is. But what if we take this scenario and imagine that the person in question had been sentenced to the capital punishment and executed before their innocence had been discovered. I can't imagine what I'd feel if this had happened to me.



> So, if we're not going to kill them, what should we be doing with those guilty of serious offences?



The ideal thing would, of course, be to come up with something that could help rehabilitating them. But in lack of good methods for this, I think keeping them protected from society (and thuse society protected from them) is the best thing we have to offer.


----------



## mirx

"A man who kills another man is a murderer, a man who kills hundreds of them is a HERO"

Absolutely under no circumsances should capital punishment be applied or applicable. Not even the most horrendous crimes must get death as an answer.

It only degrade us as society and laughs at us and what we call civilization, it brings us back to living in the caves and acting no much differently than animals.

If what the victims need is revenge, killing the agressor won't do, if you want him to suffer, than let him live. Don't  kill him and let him become a hero.

Capital punishment is just a clear example where emotion took over reasoning, and to top it all of Was legalized.

I have to admit though that it is a practical way out for this "practical" world, kill him and forget about keeping him imprisioned, feeding him, watching him, and all the expenses that running a prision brings along. But then I wonder, if it is so practical. Why not to kill all the criminals? why not to invest the funds spent in prisions in something else?

Perhaps, because if we did it we would be going several thousand years back into time? Ain't that practical?


----------



## cuchuflete

Please do not use this thread to state your reasons for opposing the death penalty.  There are a number of other threads aimed directly at that topic.

Before posting, please read the first post, and either respond directly to the questions it poses, or write about other aspects of the death penalty in the many other threads that discuss it.

The topic of this thread is *Why is Capital Punishment used?*

The topic of this thread is not, _should it be used or not?_


----------



## timebomb

cuchuflete said:


> The topic of this thread is *Why is Capital Punishment used?*


Well, I live in Singapore, a country that is believed to have the highest rate of executions per capita in the world.  We're a population of about 4 million people and over the last 30 years or so since independence, hundreds have been hanged.  Mostly, they were drug traffickers but the laws here are such murderers, kidnappers, armed robbers all face a mandatory death sentence if convicted of their crimes.  For less serious crimes like vandalism, rape, molest, offenders face mandatory caning.  

I wouldn't say we are a vengeful lot.  Revenge isn't the motive.  We hang criminals because the government thinks it's the most effective deterrent against crime.  Long jail sentences could be just as effective but nothing scares them as much as the noose.  

If you visit Singapore, you will find that we are probably one of the safest, if not the safest, city anywhere in the world.  A survey a couple of years ago revealed that we are the country with the lowest number of people who die from gunshot wounds.  In most years, the number was zero.  Yes, you read that right.  Zero, not a single person died from a wound from a firearm.  Here, mere possession of a gun can get you the death sentence.  In other words, you don't even have to fire it.  Once they catch you with the gun in your possession, you're dead meat.


----------



## maxiogee

Lemminkäinen said:


> Indeed it is. But what if we take this scenario and imagine that the person in question had been sentenced to the capital punishment and executed before their innocence had been discovered. I can't imagine what I'd feel if this had happened to me.


But as we are looking at this from the point of view of the injured party, you would only be affected by the state's execution of the wrong person if you had actually accused the wrong person, or if you had actively pleaded for their execution.
Otherwise there is no difference to the injured party in the innocent person being wrongly imprisoned or wrongly executed. Either way the innocent has suffered. My point was that the injured party would have 'rejoiced' in some way at the guilty verdict - they would have achieved a form of closure on their experience - only to have that taken back from them in the form of the beleated discovery of the non-guilt of the accused.

On the subject of why death penalties are imposed I can only assume that they are a hangover from a different time, when life and liberty were viewed very differently - and where one owed one's life to the monarch/state/church and they could dispose of you as they wished.
I don't know why we still have them.
I can only presume that they are a lazy way out of looking at the whole topic of justice for wrongs done.
It would be interesting to propose a fresh debate on criminal justice and see what justifications - apart from historic - proponents of the current systems might come up with.


----------



## LV4-26

> why is capital punishment used?


Maybe as a substitute for self-revenge, a substitute that is admittedly much less dangerous for society.

That, of course, is probably only part of the answer, and only moves the issue one step backwards.


----------



## Qcumber

maxiogee said:


> Would you care to name some of these places?
> I'm particularly interested in the concept that some Western countries are valuing Christian lives less than the lives of members of other religions or none.


Of course not! I'm not courageous enough! Anybody with some common sense does know them.


----------



## .   1

I was obviously not thinking clearly when I opened this thread and I am now deeply sorry that have done so.
Some parts of us as people are not perfect and I am tired of reading vile stories and constant use of the most exaggerated and flamboyant cases to justify one side or the other.
To those who tried to contribute I give my thanks.

Robert
I will be unsubscribing to this thread and I hope that it will be allowed to die in peace.


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> I was obviously not thinking clearly when I opened this thread and I am now deeply sorry that have done so.



These threads are not like babies - we are only responsible for starting them. We can take no responsibility for what happens after we shut the door on them.


----------

