Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Death Penalty and the Enlightenment
After studying the Enlightenment, especially the philosophy of Beccaria, what are your thoughts on capital punishment today? Please read a description of Beccaria’s major philosophical ideas to remind you(http://www.iep.utm.edu/beccaria/) as well as a news article from the LA Times about an upcoming issue for the Supreme Court on limiting life prison terms for the young (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2009/11/us-supreme-court-considers-limiting-life-prison-terms-for-youths.html ). What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I do understand Beccaria's view against the death penalty and pro life sentences, I still believe in the death penalty. Beccaria said that the government should do whatever is best for society. If someone murders someone else, then who is to say that they wouldn't do it again. Obviously, to commit such a crime, one must be aware that they are taking away the life of another human being, and they must have some knowledge as to what the consequences are for their actions; for the murderer, it was more important to kill the victim and suffer jail time for it than to not commit the crime. Even if they are given a life sentence, there is a possibility that they might get parol because of overcrowding in prisons. If they do get let out early, they are a threat to society because there is no way in telling that they learned from their mistake, especially if they weren't afraid of breaching the law in the first place. On the other hand, if they do end up serving for life, they are just taking up more space in jail and possibly preventing someone else who committed a less severe crime from serving their full sentence. Moreover, they don't really learn their lesson in jail and it does not take away the fact that they took away another person's life.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Florida law that allows children to serve life sentences without parol, I believe that some situations justify a child serving a life sentence while others don't. I base my opinion on the circumstance, the maturity of the child, and how aware he or she was while committing the crime. Depending on the type of crime committed, I believe that the jury should consider the severity of the crime and how it has impacted members of society. If the jury comes to the conclusion that the child will always pose a threat to society, then the child should be sentenced for life.
I do believe in the death penalty because if we did not kill all of the convicts who committed capitol crimes we would have no room in our prisons for the convicts who we are trying to rehabilitate and put back into society. Also if you are deciding weather or not to commit a capitol crime knowing that the consequences are death you would most likely be more discouraged on committing that crime than if you would be in jail for the rest of your life having all of your simple needs met, with no need for any income. I do not believe in giving the death penalty to youths because i believe that you can change a youths perspective and make them learn a lesson with less sever punishment for breaking the law than by killing them. I am not sure how you would judge the "cut of date" for being a minor though i think that it would be up to the juries to determine if the convict should be tried as a minor depending on their previous record and other factors.
ReplyDeleteCapital Punishment is an extreme act of violence. Some of the time it is put to good use, but other times it is not. I believe that everyone deserves a second chance. If you were to execute the prisoner on the spot, i feel that he has no chance for redemption, something that even the worst criminals deserve. Everyone is capable of some good in this world, no matter how small, and you never know who has that capability. What if one mistake cost you your entire life? How would you feel about that? i would sure like to have that opportunity to redeem myself. This is why the death penalty should only be sentenced if the crime was reoccurring. How could one learn a lesson from the death penalty? I know that it is supposed to instill fear among the community, but fear of dying is not the reason to become good. Through rehabilitation processes, I'm sure that criminals can be changed, no matter how bad the crime. Also, with the children, how could u sentence a kid for life? That is just unethical and unmoral. How is a jury of adults supposed to determine a child's life with one decision?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Shana...
ReplyDeleteHow is a jury supposed to determine whether a child will always pose a threat to society? With kids and adolescents, a change of heart is very easy to accomplish with the right rehabilitation and mentoring. Also, friendships can change a kid from good to bad. So I don't know if I'm okay with sentencing a child to a life in jail? Would any child want that?
I believe, kind of like what Charlie said, that the death penalty is in order for repeat criminals and I believe a life time sentence, especially for those who are young, should only be when someone proves they can't learn their lesson. No matter how bad something somebody does is, they deserve to learn from their experiences. If after being put through the justice system they still can't coexist safely with others then jail for life or the death penalty is in order. I think everyone deserves a fresh chance no matter how bad they mess up at a young age but if they fail at their second chance then they can be punished severely.
ReplyDeleteI agree that if a person has committed a capitol crime they deserve to die for it. Like Shana said, if they were serving a lifetime sentence then we would have overcrowding in our prisons and the criminal would take the spot of another criminal, and that person would be released into society possibly before they have rehabilitated and are mentally ready to return to society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the people in that article that a life sentence for non murder crimes is unconstitutional for youth. I believe that a if a youth is sentenced to jail for a non murder crime they will be able to learn from their mistakes and should have the right to start again. Maybe they could even be sentenced to life but be guaranteed parole. I just think it is totally unfair for them to have to think/ know they are going to die in prison and not have a chance to learn from their mistakes. When it comes to youth coming murder, i really don't have a say on what should happen. And for capital punishment, i do believe in it. If someone committed a crime that took away someone's life they should be punished for it. However, I it is shocking to hear about the people that got executed and were found innocent, so the judicial system really needs to be careful with their decisions. I don't think youth should be able to be sentenced to the death penalty. ( i don't know if that is already a law) If a kid is convicted for murder then they should be sentenced for life but not executed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Rebeccas that people do deserve a second chance, especially the young who have their whole life to learn from their mistakes. If you were to just take away a young persons life, what good comes from it? No one learns a lesson and it is just not right. I believe with what rebecca h said about reoccurring crimes. If a youth fails to learn from their lessons and does another crime, then it is time to create a greater punishment. But even then i don't believe that they should be sentenced to death, however a life time in jail might be appropriate depending on the level of crime.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rebecca
ReplyDeleteI do agree that killers can be mentally unstable but I also believe strongly that if you know you are going to be killed for your crimes or take up space and use up taxpayers money in jail then you would pick a life in prison almost every time. I also think that the families affected by the convicts would receive closure from knowing that the person who ruined their lives is dead. Although some believe a life in jail is a larger punishment than death I still do not believe that we should abolish the death penalty.
I agree and mostly disagree with the points of Beccaria. I agree wit his point that punishment should be instilled in a society to prevent more crimes to happen. However, I believe most of the other points Beccaria made are unethical and out of date. His point that "swiftness of punishment has the greatest impact on deterring others" may be true; but, now there are so many factors of why the crime was made and how to punish that individual. I believe capital punishment is somewhat necessary for today's society, but there are still so many questions and issues of whether or not a human should be guilty of the death penalty. On the point of children having life sentences, I believe that is OUTRAGEOUS. Of course children are going to make mistakes. I guarantee that almost all the children who made those heinous crimes either had terrible influences from others, or were in a state of desperation. Truthfully speaking, if I lived an impoverished life and was desperate for food. Most definately I would steal and probably carry around a weapon (well that is if I had the courage). I believe children have the ability to change their opinions and lifestyle a lot more easily than a grown,mature adult.
ReplyDeleteI feel that obviously a murder is something that should never be committed. Therefore if someone chooses to do so they may or may not have the intention to repeat the crime. The goal of the justice system is to protect our citizens. The way to do that would be through removing that offender from our society, whether through a death sentence or simply life sentence in jail. I understand the major issue of overcrowded jails yet I feel what is necessary for our country to do it shall do, whether that means increasing prison space or asylum capacity. We all deeply respect Gandhi and I strongly stand by his reminder that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". There is a reason we protect our citizens from being killed. We want them alive. Who is to say that person A or person B shouldn't be alive when both have the opportunity to do so? I can comprehend some saying that the murderer has voided their mutual contract with our society for life protection. However as long as they're removed from our society how does it directly affect us? We the innocent citizens of our country are still safe either way. Except in one manner we remove a life from Earth and in another we prolong it just like we have tried to do for everybody for thousands of years.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Andrew
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point on life sentences costing a lot of the taxpayer's money. It does billions of dollars to keep hundreds of thousands of criminals in jail for years and years, but it does not mean we should use the death penalty as a way to ease the stress on capital. I believe the death penalty is necessary, but I think it is currently being used enough. I hope the use of this capital punishment does not increase whatever the reason is. I really do not want the US government to start guillotining everyone like the French :(
In response to Andrew...
ReplyDeleteObviously one can never know the thoughts of another. So how do I know, how do you or anybody know the thought process of a killer. The murderer may be mentally stable enough to analyze their future or maybe they are too far insane to comprehend any consequences. I understand your point about families wanting closure which is very common and I would probably feel the same yet does not the murderer also want "closure" with his kill. Although you may think it's different because he started it, isn't it the same. You are still murdering an innocent(or maybe not innocent) person because of some reason. Simply because one is devoted to carrying something out does not justify it. If everybody killed somebody to "justify" an issue and everybody else retaliated what would become of society? Would every death be justified because it was for "revenge" or "closure"? We ourselves evolve to reach civilization and beyond, and now must we slide back?
ok so Becarria as I understand was all about rehabilitating men to help reform society, and create a more peaceful state. Locking up those who have just become teenagers for heinous crimes, probably isnt the best thing to do. I am not saying that I agree in anyway with what these young men have done, and they should for some period of time have to serve a prison sentence, but if its for the rest of their life then whats the point? Clearly they have come from bad homes or have had some childhood issue, so in an attempt to keep a peaceful state maybe we should spend more time trying to keep the children of america away from things that would cause them to do this, and really all children in general. If your young and still figuring out how the world works, and commit such a crime and get a life sentence without paroll whats the point to your life? Beccarria would want programs to help these children and allow them at some point back into society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Charlie, How can a child be sentenced when there not even finished growing into who they are. ok yes some of these children could grow into horrible people and should have to check in with a parole officer of some sort after released, but some of the kids are just down on their luck and not well off. Why sentence a child to life in jail with no chance of living a life outside of bars. The laws of minors need to be altered, and the laws for minors being tried as adults to as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that juveniles should not be tried for crimes the same way adults are. I do think that a teenager should be sentenced to life in prison if they commit a murder, but if they commit a possibly non-violent crime such as rape or robbery, they should be given a second change. Throughout adolescent years, teenagers' opinions change frequently, and they start to learn from their mistakes. I do think that a juvenile should spend enough time in prison to fully understand how they got to prison in the first place, and what they did wrong. Also, if a child commits murder, they should be sentenced to life in prison, but not death. I think that death would be the worst punishment, and at least someone could try to live out their life in prison. Many teenagers end up commiting crimes out of desperation or because they are trying to find a way out of their terrible life at home or with their family, and this is understandable. If I needed food or shelter, I would do anything I could to help myself.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Andrew...
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Andrew in that if we didn't kill convicts who committed a capitol crime, we would run out of room in prisons. I do believe that the prisoners who committed less important crimes should be able to be rehabilitated in prison so they can be released. If someone kills someone else, they deserve to be killed as well. If a prisoner can understand their mistakes and know what they did wrong, they should be able to have a second chance with their life, instead of it just being wasted away in a prison cell.
Beccaria was against the death penalty because by killing someone for their crime, that is committing a crime in itself, but I disagree. I feel for adults who have committed murders, it is just for the death penalty to be an option for their punishment. As for minors, I feel if they are convicted of murder, a life sentence without parol is a very extreme option, but may be the correct punishment depending on the specific situation. As of now, I can only think of murder as a reason for a life sentence without parol for a juvenile, but I'm sure in other terrible cases, that would make sense. In some instances it may be the best way to handle it, but in others especially with younger juveniles, I feel there is still a chance to teach them a lesson and rehabilitate them and be able to allow them back into society without them being a threat. Although murder is a heinous crime, I think that with a young child, there is still a possibility of rehabilitation.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Shana and David
ReplyDeleteOvercrowding in prisons is a problem, but I don't think when determining the punishment for someone, you should alter it because of space limitations. I agree with David in that the government needs to find a way to provide the space needed to keep all criminals in jail for their sentenced time. Those punishments are made based on what period of time in jail is needed to rehabilitate someone and make them fit to live in a society peacefully with others & if that sentence is not fully completely their punishment may not achieve its goal.
I found that I do agree with most of Beccaria's ideas. If someone commits a crime then their punishment should be similar to their crime in order to feel the same pain. Only, if someone commits a murder, I don't know if killing them is the right choice. I could go either way on this type of crime. If a murderers punishment is death then yes it would be a punishment similar to the crime, but would just killing them teach them a lesson? Although, I do think that killing them would provide more safety in the society because if we give them another chance we have no idea if he will just strike again. Killing him could prevent that, but I think that the best punishment for a murder is a life sentence in prison. That way they are away from society so no one else gets hurt, and they can learn their lesson while they are still alive in prison.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Charlie,
ReplyDeleteYes, everyone does deserve a second chance to reedem theirselves. Only, they must prove they won't screw up this one last chance. Jail time or even community service would show that they are trying to make a difference in the world. I would not a criminal being free in society unless he shows is some way that he is capable of doing good this time. There could be many reasons as to why that person committed the crime and for that everyone should get a second chance. I also agree with the death penalty only given if they screwed up their second chance. As far as the laws towards children go, sentencing a child for live is taking it a little far unless they too have committed a crime more than once. Children are young and do not know any better. They could have been raised up by bad influences or had a lot of terrible things happen to them in order to influence them to commit a crime of any type. If the kids were taught the right way to behave in society and toward others then I believe they should definitely be given a second chance. There minds are not as developed or experienced in society to know what is truly wrong or right, so they could easily be manipulated into doing what is right. Children are young and have plenty of time to change their life around.
-Kristen Lee
ReplyDeleteI agree with Beccaria in the sense that I think certain crimes should be punished on the basis of the level of the crime committed, however ultimately agree that most criminals should be given a second chance. I understand that there are some criminals out there who are unstable and incontrollable, and maybe in that situation, the death penalty could be a good solution, however in the case of children, they still have the ability to turn their life in the better direction. I feel that a life sentence for them would seem as if they were giving up, and it would be more useful to try and influence them to be a better person later in life, than a useless criminal in prison wasting space.
-Kristen Lee
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tess,
I agree in the arguments that the judicial system needs to make decisions more carefully in those circumstances, but I disagree in that I do not think that children should be sentenced for life. Making a mistakes is natural in a human's youth and that we should not be punished for that. Also, that yes in some situations, a life should be taken when one takes a life, but there are also situations that come with that, and should be taken as a punishment not as severe as that.
What is a crime so heinous that some say it deserves the ultimate punishment? Is it murdering another innocent? Is it viciously raping a woman and leaving her absent any dignity? Is it crudely wrenching out someone's kidney? Is it having an extra drink one night and knowingly getting into the car to drive, only later to find out you could have prevented hitting that person? Is it a doctor who stayed up a little later to watch TV and accidentally nicking an artery the next day in surgery? Is it a soldier on the battlefield who shoots down his enemy? There are an endless amount of things, premeditated and not that harm another person. Hundreds of actions taken can take the life of another, but when are they justified? How, do we decide which of them deserves a punishment so heinous that it can never be overturned? Does anything deserve ultimate death and horrific suffering? Can anyone here imagine knowing it is your last day to smell, breath, think, smile, or feel the warmth of a friend as they hug you? I can't! Imagine know its going to end. Imagine walking into that cold, bitter room with the "doctor's chair." The last thing you will see is the hating faces of those who watch you die. Those people who have come to see you leave this earth because they hate you. When the executioner, for lack of a better word, comes to inject you, you know that death is there. This cannot be a feeling that any human should have to endure. A person may have inflicted it on another person, but is it right for us to inflict utterly horrific suffering on them. Why is it our choice? Well I will tell you why it isn't.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing is financial reasons. If you say: Why should they be taking up space in our prisons? Why should they be wasting our taxpayers dollars? Why should we prefer them over others? Well, they are human beings. No matter how horrific the act they committed they live, breath, and think just as we do. It is utterly horrific to think of another person just as someone wasting our money and taking up space. Some advocate the death penalty precisely because they believe that the innocent person who was murdered deserves the life they lost. But I ask you, do you really think it is our job, our right, to decide when another lives or dies. Well I will tell you that it is not our right if we are advocating it because of money. Every person, no matter what they have done, is a person all the same and should not be discarded for financial reasons.
ReplyDeleteBut, if you think that finance is important. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that this is a reason to advocate for no death penalty. The United States spends about 10 times the amount of money on capital punishment, than it would imprisoning all of them for life. Additionally, if the government wanted to make sure that the everything they did while carrying out capital punishment was correct, the amount they would have to spend on the death penalty would be double what it is right now. The government could actually build many more prisons with the money they wouldn't be using on the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteThe next thing to think about is what punishment is really about. Punishment is meant to a) rehabilitate and b) deter. Capital punishment does neither. How many times have any of us said, can I please have second chance? I bet its a lot. Well there is no second chance when it comes to capital punishment. TO BE CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of Beccaria's thoughts especially concerning capital punishment because I do believe that we need to consider how the punishment will affect society and not only the effects on the criminal. I believe that "perpetual slavery" is a good alernative as it is a much longer-lasting statement to society than death penalty is. With regard to the article, I think that youths, especially those who do not commit murder, should be given a chance to redeem themselves when they are older and after an appropriate number of years in prison.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Daniel...
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your point about how crime is different today than it was in Beccaria's time. We obviously have more means like modern weapons, but I believe that humans still have the same motives for crime as they did back then, so I think his theories still apply today. Also, i agree with Charlie about the death penalty being for reoccuring crimes, but it would be nice to prevent more crimes by eliminating the criminal after their first one.
In response to rebecca-
ReplyDeleteI agree with her point on the death penalty. If someone commits an act of crime violent enough, they should be sentanced to death because it wastes the governments money as well as space in jail. However, I disagree with her point about children not being sentanced for life. First of all, at 17 you are still concidered a child but at 17 you are old enough to be held responsible for your actions. Also, if I put myself in the shoes of someone who is on the other end of the crime, (concidering that the crime is significant enough,) I would want that person gone out of fear for the safety of myself and my family and for the rest of my community.
I personally think that the death penalty is immoral, and completely unjustified. The government has no right to take another person's life, no matter what the case is. If someone has truly committed an extremely vile act, then they do deserve severe punishment. However, punishment shouldn't needlessly cause misery in the name of "justice" that is actually revenge. Taking another life will not bring back the life taken in the case of murder. A deplorable act such as this should not be met by meeting them down at the same level. All humans are always learning, and are prone to make grievous errors on occasion, whether it b an impulsive action, or a malicious one. However, these crimes should not lead to their death, but can instead lead to them being rehabilitated. Why should the life of a murderer be lees valuable than that of any other person? Why should the government have the right to choose when they can willingly commit murder or not? I think that these are fundamental points that should be taken into account, regardless of how heinous a crime has been committed. I agree with Beccaria's views, that capital punishment is wrong. In the modern world, we should understand that it is taboo to kill another human, as is being committed in the death penalty. Beccaria also touches on a fundamental concept of rehabilitation, which is extremely important. The government can only punish to rehabilitate, not for any other reason. A criminal needs to be taught and moved back onto the right path, not simply killed. Also, youth should not be imprisoned for life, as this is immoral. By giving a life sentence, the criminal's life has effectively been taken away from them, as they will have no future. I agree with the Supreme Court on their decision to reduce the sentence for jail for youth. Youth are not yet completely developed, and learn from their actions, and most importantly from their mistakes. This does not mean that they shouldn't be punished, but to lose the rest of your life in jail simply because they made a single mistake. The lives of all human's should be weighed equally.
ReplyDeletein response to Shana
ReplyDeleteI believe that all humans have a right to live above all else. Off all the things that the government may take, the one thing that they should never be allowed to take is your life. No one is actually evil, and they will likely feel a large amount of regret for their crime. Humans may murder a second time, especially since the first is likely formed from some kind of mental instability. However, this does not mean they should die for it. Jail is created to rehabilitate, not to inflict grievous harm on a person. If a person is not learning, then it is completely the government's fault, not theirs. Rehabilitation of criminals is one of the duties the government should be carrying out. Taxpayer's money and the space that is needlessly being used is the government's problem for not effectively rehabilitating. Also, taking a life because of money or space is absolutely no excuse, their murder should then be justifiable. Fear should not be an excuse to sink down to a criminal's level, or to ever take another's life. Mistakes are often made, and therefore should not be punished so severely, especially if they are still developing as youth.