Then again, maybe we're just running out of guys to kill

by Prometheus 6
November 15, 2004 - 5:24am.
on Justice

The quote of note for this one comes from Amnesty International.

The Death Penalty

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

It violates the right to life.

It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

As an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights, Amnesty International (AI) works for an end to executions and the abolition of the death penalty everywhere.

The progress has been dramatic. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes. Today the figure stands at 80.

Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2004, was co-sponsored by 76 UN member states, one more than in 2003 and the highest number ever.

Death Sentences Hit 30-Year Low in U.S.
Activists See Shift in Juries' Attitudes

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 15, 2004; Page A02

The number of U.S. convicts imprisoned with death sentences dropped in 2003 to its lowest level in 30 years, helping to provoke the third straight annual decline in the nation's death row population and signaling the continuation of a slow trend away from state- and federally ordered executions, according to data released yesterday by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The data stirred activists to speculate that support for the death penalty is dropping among jury panels, which in many states now are the only groups eligible to impose it. Only 144 new inmates incarcerated in 2003 were sentenced to execution, well below an annual average of 297 between 1994 and 2000, the bureau's report stated.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Publicola (not verified) on November 15, 2004 - 9:28pm.

AI. They aren't entirely correct in their statement.

While the Right to Life is or should be considered Absolute in terms of government interference I cannot say that there are no exceptions to it. Now it seems like a contradiction but my concept of Absolute is not an absolute Absolute, but rather an action or inaction based Absolute. Any Right loses it's Absolute quality if the exercise of that Right poses an immediete & unjustifiable threat to another person's Right. So the Right to Life is Absolute as long as a person does not threaten another person's Right to Life, Liberty or Property. (Yes, Jefferson's phrase was more poetic, but Locke was a bit more correct). Hence if you try to kill me, I'm gonna kill you. I'd expect the same if I was the aggressor. That is not violative of the Right to Life, but defensive of it.

As far as the death penalty not preventing any crimes; BS. I can guarantee you that any murderer who has been killed will not be murdering again. So in specific cases it is the most effective deterent we have.

That being said I have some concerns about the way the death penalty is conducted, namely the fact that a percentage (perhaps small but noticable nontheless) of innocent people, or people not deserving of death, are executed. & it's a serious problem that I don't have any solution for - at least on the judicial level.

But AI - if they were the champion of Human Rights as they claim, then why are they at best silent & at worst opposed to the Right of Self Defense? They have some good ideas I'll grant, but their detriments are not slight.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on November 15, 2004 - 11:19pm.

It seems your objection to Amnesty International is they don't do enough, i.e., there are methods of protecting one's rights they aren't interested in supporting. That's probably true, but

  • They can't do everything. No one can.
  • What they've chosen to do is of universal value

There are those that do not want AI acting as watchdog for human rights. There is no convincing them. I don't try.

As for dead murderer never killing again, well duh. But most murders are crimes of passion. No jail threat can stop those because they're more reflexive than anything else. And everyone else thinks they'll get away with it.

Submitted by Hannetos (not verified) on November 18, 2004 - 2:02pm.

Hi

IMHO
the death penalty defies the very purpose of punishing a crime. If you
punish someone for doing something by inflicting the same onto him, you
automatically rid yourself of the moral ground you pretend to be standing on.

It's as simple as that.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on November 18, 2004 - 4:23pm.

But what is the purpose of punishing a crime? A lot of folks feel it's deterrence; to them, the death penalty fits right in there.

It also fits the views of those who want restitution, making felons work off their debt.

In Texas, I think it's eugenics.

Finally, the most popular view of punishment--vengeance--demands capital punishment be available.

The only useful motivation of those four is deterrence, and in this case it just doesn't work. There's nothing you can do about crimes of passion but if you think about it, all the planned murders have some kind of economic motivation at their root.