On the issue of execution?

Question

The judgement of a court of law is based on the convincing of (lying) attourneys and prosecutors, (biased) jury officials, and a possibly biased judge, none of which were ever at the scene of the crime and therefore know about as much as the people watching the case on television. Not that all court cases are this way, but too many of them for comfort. And while a court of law isn't 100% accurate, execution is 100% final, even after it's found out that the victim of the execution was innocent.

My question, I guess, is what is the purpose of execution? What purpose does it serve, besides the mere assumption that you've done the right thing, and, given they did said act in the first place, they won't do it again?

Alanninn, you do realize what you've said, right? You've just stated that the court system is 100% right. Based on that arguement, the 8th amendment has no purpose, since if they're proven guilty by a court of law, they have to be guilty.

Answer 1

The appellate system is not designed to "do right" but to maintain the dignity of the court system.

The judicial sytem isn't even designed to "do justice", so much as to keep the peace. And see the exchange between Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and the young Learned Hand: http://snurl.com/learned

A couple of months ago a Y! Q/A participant on the French list asked the following: "Qui, au 19° siècle, avait proposé d'abolir la peine de mort, et, à la place, de crever les yeux du condamné ?" ("Who, in the 19th Century, proposed abolishing the death penalty and, in its place, plucking out the eyes of the condemned?")

The Asker, a secondary school teacher in France, got no replies and so he gave his answer: Jules Ferry. Ferry was French minister of education in the 19th Century, and a lot of streets and schools are named after him -- after all he instituted free, secular education for all. I haven't been able to track down such a proposal on any site, French or otherwise, and I note that the Asker has since deleted his question. Still, plucking out eyes isn't so final as the guillotine, is it?

Answer 2

I used to be 100% in favor of the death penalty. As I got older I changed my mind for the following reasons:
(1) If there is ANY doubt that we have executed an innocent person, I would rather give all Life without parole to protect that one innocent person. DNA has already proven that some innocent people have been wrongly convicted.
(2) I don't know if the following is true, but I read that it actually costs more to pay for the appeals, the public defender, etc... for a person on death row for 15 years or so, than it does to just pay to incarcerate an individual for life without parole.
(3) The Deterrent factor doesn't work well because offenders usually think they're smarter than others and won't get caught.
(4) I think it is more punishment to know that for the rest of his or her life, they will never, ever be free. They get to spend the next 50+ years looking at bars and concrete.

Of course, if someone murdered my child and admitted it, even bragged about it. I would probably want them killed but that would be based on emotions not reasoning.

Answer 3

The laws of justice says that punishment is set for 3 purposes, ranked in priority:
1. Retribution
2. Correction
3. Deterrence

They are ranked in that way as retribution is inevitable, but whiel correction and deterrence are important too, they do not always work as effectively.

In layman's term, I'd say the purpose of capital execution is to punish creeps for mudering/raping/abusing innocent people. If that is not reason enough, what is?

Answer 4

lawyers, prosecutors and jury are not bias, they have to base their decision on evidence presented, that is the time when one who is accused of a crime, needs to get a good lawyer to be able to have himself defended.
as to your question - the purpose of execution is to have the decision FINAL AND EXECUTORY which means once a decision of execution was rendered, or if there was no appeal taken, the decision of the court must be complied with, the rationale of this is, it has to end and stop somewhere.otherwise on case will be end or terminated if the court will not put an end to the controversy of the case

Answer 5

Jury members aren't officials.

Official - –noun 1. a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties.

They are neither appointed nor elected. They are randomly chosen group of peers who listen to and decide a case.

I would suggest you learn some basic civics before posting.

Answer 6

In South Africa, the moment the death penalty was abolished, our violent crimes and murder rates shot through the roof. I think the only way to bring down those levels is to reinstate the death penalty. Right now convicted murderers are sitting in prison, not working, and are being fed and housed on tax payers money. The same tax payers whom they so easily murder. Do you think that is fair?

Answer 7

1. Revenge
2. It wins votes
3. It's cheaper than keeping a prisoner alive for the remainder of their natural life

Answer 8

Your own biases undercut your arguments. All attorneys lie, all jurors are biased and the judge might be biased? So then should be not prosecute criminals as at all? Perhaps you have a better system to suggest?

Answer 9

justice for the families for one! we have a appeals system that takes on the average 15 years to kill someone..and to date can you name one who was killed that was innocent? no you cant! there is 13 people who decide whether or not he gets life or death..sounds fair to me!