From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:42:26 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:

}Fine, I'll bite.  I think even in a clearcut case of first degree
}homocide, the death penalty is morally wrong.  What is the purpose of
}the criminal justice system?

}	(1) Deterrence.  Other people will see what has happened to a
}	    criminal, and will be scared of committing the same crime.
}	(2) Rehabilitation.  Teach the criminal to be a good citizen
}	    and he won't do it again, or if he's mentally ill, try and
}	    cure him.
}	(3) Protection.  Keep the criminal off the street for a while.
}	(4) Revenge.

        (5) Punishment.

}Which of these does capital punishment serve?

}	(1) I doubt it.  Somebody who doesn't put a significant value
}	    on somebody else's life probably doesn't put much on his
}	    own either.  Are drug dealers deterred by the death
}	    penalty, when they are much more likely to get killed by
}	    rivals, or die from a drug overdose?

I think a big reason that the death penalty is not a deterrent is because
it doesn't exist.  How long has it been since the last execution in this
state?  What criminal in their right mind (or any other mind) would bother
to fear something THAT DOESN'T EXIST?

}	(2) No chance.
}	(3) A life term in prison with no possibility of parole would
}	    serve just as well, except for the rare possibility of
}	    escape.  Life in solitary confinement wouldn't be
}	    unreasonable as an "ultimate" punishment.

And then you've got nothing more than a totally wasted life.  Not to
mention the expense, time, and trouble to the state to keep the criminal
there for the rest of his life.

}	(4) Yes.

        (5) Yes.

}Revenge seems to be the only real purpose of the death penalty.  It's
}fine to watch revenge movies in the theater, but do we, as a society,
}want to encourage and make a part of our judicial system an emotion
}that is as damaging to the society getting the revenge as the
}individual who is killed?  I don't think this is a good thing.

I think it's a fine thing, when combined properly with the deterrent
effect that would exist should the death penalty exist, and when combined
with the attitude that punishment goes a small way towards putting a small
amount of fairness into the world.  I don't know how else to explain my
feelings on the matter other than that.  If you commit a crime, it is
just plain FAIR that you pay the price for it.  And if that price be your
death, then so be it.  Nothing can bring back the victims of those who
WILLINGLY chose to kill, but killing said criminals in turn goes a small
way towards restoring the balance.

I also think that revenge has gotten an undeserved bad name in our
"enlightned" society.  What is so wrong about a desire for revenge?
Even the bible speaks of "an eye for an eye".  Those who loved the
dead victim deserve some consideration.  If satisfying their desire
for revenge can give them a little bit more peace, if it sets their
minds just a tad more at ease, if it allows them to sleep just a little
bit better at night, then the revenge has served a purpose.  I simply
cannot understand those who spout that "we're above it" crap.  The
desire for revenge exists, pure and simple; getting on a moral high
hourse about it doesn't make it go away.  As long as the revenge is
satisfied in a lawful, equitable, above-board manner, I have no problem
with it.

--James Preston