Death Penalty in NH (costs, statistics, ranked)

[Burgermeister]

If someone loses a loved one in a murder, and then decides to shoot the murderer - they are a criminal who is eligible for the death penalty.

While this may be technically true; it wasn’t always so. It used to be the duty of the male members of the family to supply the justice required. The reason we (as a society) require a trial before the carrying out vengeance is because we may have been mistaken or there may have been mitigating circumstances. Not taking these things into account is what is wrong with just killing someone who has committed a crime against our “loved one[s]”.

Killing as a form of retribution still makes us killers.

This is why we have authorized the fictional entity called the State to execute justice after a trial in our place. By carrying out the Death Sentence the perpetrator is put to death and not murdered because these are legal definitions not religious ones. In any event, such a sentence is completely consistent with the Christian ethic upon which this country was founded. The reason that the fear of punishment is not the deterrent it should be is to be found in the caprices nature of its implementation. If the death penalty was carried out more often and for a wider range of violent crimes, the deterrent effect would be magnified. And just to be clear, I do not think a police officer's life is more valuable than a store clerks. Both of them provide a service to the community and deserve equal consideration (and protection) under the law. In fact, one could argue that placing the lives of certain public servants above the rest of us is un-American, and actually sends the message that some of us are expendable. In addition, once upon a time a violent career criminal was declared an “outlaw” which placed him beyond the pale of legal protection and anyone who “killed” or otherwise abused him was not committing a crime. In my opinion we need to return to that system. It worked very well and the criminals were more afraid of the store clerks than the store clerks were of them.

Some people have compared the so called “conservatives” support for the “death penalty” with their opposition to abortion. This is like comparing apples to oranges. One is a punishment applied to someone culpable and found to be guilty of committing a crime against society while the other is the willful (non-medically required) termination of an innocent human baby in its mother’s womb (an act if committed by anyone other than a “medical professional” and without the mother’s permission, would be considered “murder” by the courts). Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that it is the “liberals” who are inconsistent by supporting the conflicting ideas that an innocent human baby can be killed as long as it has not been born (if the mother desires it), but a person who has been declared guilty of a capital crime needs to be kept alive because “all life is sacred”. An amusing contradiction if it wasn’t so tragic. Just for the record, I am neither a conservative nor liberal, I am an American and I was not born with a label and I only vote for fellow Americans which means that I haven't voted for a long time.

[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

[Dwatted Wabbit]

Originally Posted by Gaffer

I like the maricopa county sherrif. Let them sleep in tents in the desert and eat balogna sandwiches. Why should our criminals live better than our troops in Iraq and Afgahanistan?

My thoughts exactly. This sheriff has it right. No coffee, no tv, no radio, no baloney.
Oh yeah, baloney for brunch. Two meals a day. Get used to it.

[Verseau]

Originally Posted by Burgermeister

While this may be technically true; it wasn’t always so. It used to be the duty of the male members of the family to supply the justice required. The reason we (as a society) require a trial before the carrying out vengeance is because we may have been mistaken or there may have been mitigating circumstances. Not taking these things into account is what is wrong with just killing someone who has committed a crime against our “loved one[s]”.

And yet the justice system is not foolproof either. Innocent people have been executed before.

Originally Posted by Burgermeister

In any event, such a sentence is completely consistent with the Christian ethic upon which this country was founded.

That's a pretty bold claim. While "Christian ethic" does allow killing for self-defense when absolutely necessary, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, "given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'"

Originally Posted by Burgermeister

If the death penalty was carried out more often and for a wider range of violent crimes, the deterrent effect would be magnified.

Then why do states with no death penalty at all have fewer violent crimes? I don't see much evidence to support this claim.

And while I agree that there are major differences between the issues of capital punishment and abortion, there's nothing illogical about the "liberal" position if one does not believe that an early fetus (one that cannot survive outside the mother's womb) is equivalent to a human being. That's not necessarily my personal belief, but I don't see what's so unreasonable about it.

I think the real tragedy here is the widespread feeling in this country that not executing criminals is somehow "soft" or "weak." That "Christian ethic" you cited commands people to show compassion and clemency, because it is usually the harder thing to do. It's easy to want to kill murderers. People just want reasons to justify that base desire.

[CometVoyager]

Originally Posted by Verseau

I do find it interesting that people who are anti-abortion for religious reasons are often pro-death penalty. Apparently they choose to overlook passages like Matthew 5:38-48 or John 8:1-11.

Sorry but this argument merits the years best award for Ludicrous Logic. The argument assumes only people who are religious are anti abortion and pro death penalty. Further it assumes most of us who are not religious are pro abortion and against the death penalty.

Inferring the taking of a defenseless human life of an unborn child can be equated with that of an evil cold blooded murderer is completely absurd and only reflects a twisted logic. This line of thinking does not even believe the term evil is appropriate and that no one is truly evil. Furthermore, this mindset believes a victims family should suffer for decades because this arrogant mindset can be judge and jury and find a victim's exasperation and desire for revenge as a justice of a primitive nature. It more so truly reveals how decadent our society has become as is illustrated in how our judicial branch has become so obscure and completely sequestered from what is truly humane.

[notdancingqueen]

Originally Posted by Burgermeister

I only vote for fellow Americans which means that I haven't voted for a long time.[/font][/color][SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

Just curious -- what sort of person qualifies as a fellow American and what sort does not? Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean by that and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[rmcewan]

Can we agree that the capital punishment and abortion, regardless of opinion trends, are different issues and just leave it at that? The topic is NH's death penalty and the discussion is civil.

[Verseau]

Originally Posted by CometVoyager

Sorry but this argument merits the years best award for Ludicrous Logic. The argument assumes only people who are religious are anti abortion and pro death penalty. Further it assumes most of us who are not religious are pro abortion and against the death penalty.

When did I ever say that only people who are religious are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty? I was only using those people as an example. Obviously there are people who are not religious who have the same positions. I don't appreciate a personal attack on my logic based on such a baseless assumption.

Originally Posted by CometVoyager

Inferring the taking of a defenseless human life of an unborn child can be equated with that of an evil cold blooded murderer is completely absurd and only reflects a twisted logic.

While I am also pro-life in principle, this argument would suggest that the current laws in this country are based on "twisted logic." Early fetuses are not legally considered human beings. There is no flaw in the logic, then, that criminals - who are legally considered human beings - should be entitled to the right to live. The only difference in the two belief systems is the point at which the unborn child can be considered a human being - at conception, or at the point when it can survive outside the mother's womb.

Originally Posted by CometVoyager

This line of thinking does not even believe the term evil is appropriate and that no one is truly evil.

Absolutely not. This line of thinking says that every human being, no matter what sins they have committed, should be granted the basic dignity of life.

Originally Posted by CometVoyager

Furthermore, this mindset believes a victims family should suffer for decades because this arrogant mindset can be judge and jury and find a victim's exasperation and desire for revenge as a justice of a primitive nature.

Do you really think that a victim's family stops suffering once the murderer is killed? Do you think it eases their suffering at all? What possible motivation is there for execution other than a desire for retribution? There's no question that this desire is a natural human reaction, but I believe that we must put ourselves above these desires. It takes a much bigger person to show compassion and forgiveness. That, in my opinion, is the best form of retribution, because it shows murderers how low they truly are.

That's just my belief. It may not be yours, but please do not attack my logic, since it is clear that this issue comes down to how you feel, not how you think.

[Burgermeister]

Originally Posted by notdancingqueen

Just curious -- what sort of person qualifies as a fellow American and what sort does not? Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean by that and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I would have voted for Ron Paul if he had won the primary and even if he had run as a third party. I would also vote for anyone like him should they appear on the scene.

[Burgermeister]

Originally Posted by Verseau

And yet the justice system is not foolproof either. Innocent people have been executed before.

True, but it beats lynch mobs which is where we are heading if the Criminal Justice Industrial Complex doesn't start to provide the necessary sense of justice that the victims require.

Originally Posted by Verseau

That's a pretty bold claim. While "Christian ethic" does allow killing for self-defense when absolutely necessary, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, "given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'"

Doctrinal semantics; depending on where one looks one can find "Christian" justification (or prohibition) for just about any desired act. In the case of the founding of America, I think history speaks for itself regarding the founders’ enthusiasm for sending heretics’ and other criminal miscreants to their deaths. And generally speaking, Catholicism had very little influence during the founding days of the North American Plantation. Calvinism and the Episcopalian church ruled with an iron hand.

Originally Posted by Verseau

Then why do states with no death penalty at all have fewer violent crimes? I don't see much evidence to support this claim.

Demographics

Originally Posted by Verseau

I think the real tragedy here is the widespread feeling in this country that not executing criminals is somehow "soft" or "weak." That "Christian ethic" you cited commands people to show compassion and clemency, because it is usually the harder thing to do. It's easy to want to kill murderers. People just want reasons to justify that base desire.

By not executing criminals, the State is showing weakness and encouraging future crimes; it is also evading its duty to provide justice. And base desire or not, the psychological need for revenge is a natural one, so unless human nature itself changes, there will always be pleas to balance the scales of justice.

[Verseau]

Originally Posted by Burgermeister

True, but it beats lynch mobs which is where we are heading if the Criminal Justice Industrial Complex doesn't start to provide the necessary sense of justice that the victims require.

Where are the lynch mobs in Europe, where the death penalty has been universally banned?

Originally Posted by Burgermeister

Doctrinal semantics; depending on where one looks one can find "Christian" justification (or prohibition) for just about any desired act. In the case of the founding of America, I think history speaks for itself regarding the founders’ enthusiasm for sending heretics’ and other criminal miscreants to their deaths. And generally speaking, Catholicism had very little influence during the founding days of the North American Plantation. Calvinism and the Episcopalian church ruled with an iron hand.

I will agree that it's easy to find justification for lots of things in scripture, but the fundamental message of Christ is pretty clear in the Gospels: love your fellow man, including your enemies, and always show them compassion and forgiveness.

As for the "founders" - I think it's pretty important to make a distinction between the the fundamentalist Puritans of the 17th century and the founding fathers of the late 18th century, who were largely Deists. At any rate, it seems a bit silly to base a policy decision on the mores of 300-400 years ago.

Originally Posted by Burgermeister

Demographics

Care to explain?

Originally Posted by Burgermeister

By not executing criminals, the State is showing weakness and encouraging future crimes; it is also evading its duty to provide justice.

How is it showing "weakness"? Is a non-violent punishment somehow "weaker" than a violent one? This is the kind of thinking I simply don't understand. If anything, resisting the desire for retribution is showing strength.

And "encouraging future crimes"? I would ask you to provide some data to support that claim, because from what I've read, the majority of criminologists and legal experts agree that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent.

Finally, I don't see how "justice" (which in itself is a rather abstract and subjective concept) has anything to do with it. If we assume that the duty of the justice system is to punish offenders and protect the general public, then letting someone rot in prison for their entire life satisfies those requirements pretty well, doesn't it?