1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Should the death penalty be used as a bargaining chip?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by haven, Aug 7, 2003.

Tags:
  1. haven

    haven Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 1999
    Messages:
    7,945
    Likes Received:
    14
    This topic is not meant to start an argument about the death penalty. Rather, it's use as a bargaining chip. The prosecutor in the Petersen case is saying he'll seek the death penalty if Petersen doesn't plea bargain.

    This seems wrong to me. If the prosecutor A. believes that the DP is an appropriate, just punishment and B. that Petersen has done something so atrociously horrible as to deserve it, then shouldn't he just seek it? Should Petersen making the case easier for him really have any bearing on the decision?

    I mean, this is *the* ultimate punishment. No takebacks. You lose... everything. I don't think it should be something that is subject to negotiated.

    If there's even the slightest (non metaphysical) doubt... it shouldn't be sought. If there's any confusion... it shouldn't be sought. But if you're that sure it's appropriate, then anything less seems wrong to me.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/06/peterson.case/index.html
     
    #1 haven, Aug 7, 2003
  2. Legendary21

    Legendary21 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    That´s like a.. a.. a death threat. No I can´t discuss this. Capital punishment disgusts me.
     
    #2 Legendary21, Aug 7, 2003
  3. bobrek

    bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 1999
    Messages:
    36,288
    Likes Received:
    26,645
    Unfortunately any capital murder case is quite expensive to try and there is no guarantee of a conviction. Death penalty cases also draw a lot of controversy and the appeals process can also be quite lengthy and expensive. Generally, anytime you can exchange the death penalty for a guaranteed life imprisonment, you should try and get the defendant to accept.
     
    #3 bobrek, Aug 7, 2003
  4. mrpaige

    mrpaige Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2000
    Messages:
    8,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    It's not, "You'd better take a plea or we'll go for the death penalty." It's "We're going for the death penalty in a trial, but if you want to save us the time and expense of a trial and just plead guilty, we'll give you something for saving us the time, as well as save the rest of the family of the victims from having to go through a trial."

    But I'm no fan of the death penalty, either.
     
    #4 mrpaige, Aug 7, 2003
  5. bobrek

    bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 1999
    Messages:
    36,288
    Likes Received:
    26,645
    The death penalty should only be used as a last resort in undeveloped countries that cannot reasonably keep a dangerous threat to society incarcerated.

    The U.S. should change the laws to allow for more readily available "life without parole" sentences.

    Years ago, I knew someone on a jury for a death penalty case. When discussing the punishment phase, they were not allowed to take into consideration that a life sentence MAY allow the criminal to receive parole. In essence, they had to pretend that life meant life.
     
    #5 bobrek, Aug 7, 2003
  6. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    Exactly. In fact, I think the prosecutors are trying to do the right thing by Laci's family by pursuing this. Granted, death penalty cases in Cali are problematic at best, but what would rather do if you were his defense team? Plead to a lesser charge and receive a definite life without parole prison term.....or have the all-or-nothing trial where you could be convicted of greater charges and then get some of Dr. Kevorkian's party mixer in your arm? Either way, the scumbag is pure evil.
     
    #6 bamaslammer, Aug 7, 2003
  7. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    38,288
    Likes Received:
    29,811
    I thought haven said this wasn't a thread for arguing about the Death Penalty.

    Anyways, I think mrpaige hit it right on. It's about saving time and money, and all the griefs connected to a DP trial.
     
    #7 Easy, Aug 7, 2003
  8. haven

    haven Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 1999
    Messages:
    7,945
    Likes Received:
    14
    Of course it's about efficiency.

    But my problem is that such concerns really should be irrelevant, regardless of how you feel on the issue.

    I think Kant put forth the best retributive theory of the death penalty: that one could only take human ethical behavior seriously if you matched crimes w/reciprocal punishments. Otherwise, one did not fully respect the moral self-legislative capability of the criminal.

    Just about everyone who believes in the DP (my father is an exception ;) ) buys into a retributive theory to some extent. On an issue of such importance, should a moral imperative really give way to efficiency?

    And of course, for those of us who feel the opposite way... it's grotesque to see that a man (who may or may not be innocent) must choose between the possibility of death and life in prison. If life is truly sacred, then it shouldn't be bargained over.

    I perfectly understand the practical side... but think it's unethical.
     
    #8 haven, Aug 7, 2003
  9. mrpaige

    mrpaige Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2000
    Messages:
    8,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    Well, haven, if plea bargaining is unethical in death penalty cases, in your opinion, is it also unethical on lesser charges? At least maybe in terms of the retributive philosophy.

    For example, if a prosecutor files 3rd Degree Felony theft charges against someone, is it unethical for him to say "If you plea, I'll knock it down to an A misdemeanor"?

    I know it isn't making someone choose between life in prison and death several years down the line, but the overall issue is the same. If the punishment for the specific crime is what comes from a 3rd Degree Felony (and our punishments all have at least some retributive element), is knocking the punishment down to some lesser charge giving up the moral imperative that governs our setting of punishments for various crimes?
     
    #9 mrpaige, Aug 7, 2003
  10. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    Gots to agree fully with this post. If you ignore the whole issue of whether the death penalty is just, then you're really discussing whether plea bargains are appropriate.

    The 'death penalty' angle is really moot.
     
    #10 bnb, Aug 7, 2003
  11. haven

    haven Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 1999
    Messages:
    7,945
    Likes Received:
    14
    1. Nah. The DP is different, in kind, from any other sort of penalty.

    Imprisonment (and many other crimes) are a matter of degree. I fail to see an intrinsic difference between 5 years and 10 years relating to ethics. Moreover, these penalties are reversible and in some cases recompensible if error occurs.

    Certainly, there is an appellate process for the DP. But once the penalty is exacted, it's final.

    2. Moreover, there are many values that go into the sentencing process: possibility of rehabilitation, mercy, practicality, and justice being the primary ones, imo. But if you truly believe the DP is appropriate, then you're essentially saying that the retributive element of justice, in this case, overrides everything else. The crime is so horrible that the rest is irrelevant. If this is true, then the other criteria shouldn't "re-enter" the equation once the justification is attained. That's a flawed logical process - because if any other punishment is appropriate, then the death penalty cannot be -they're exclusive, because they're different in kind.
     
    #11 haven, Aug 7, 2003
  12. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    38,288
    Likes Received:
    29,811
    haven,

    I disagree that the DP is different in kind in terms of justice. It's like saying that making 100% in an exam is different in kind with all other scores. It's not different in kind. It's just the maximum possible punishment the government can decree.

    I believe in the retributive philosophy of justice. But I don't think justice is *only* about retribution. There are other things that need to be put into consideration, such as social harmony, victim recompensation, healing, rehabilitation, deterance, etc.
     
    #12 Easy, Aug 7, 2003
  13. haven

    haven Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 1999
    Messages:
    7,945
    Likes Received:
    14


    Actually, even your analogy fails. In terms of the analogy, the 100% in the exam would be a life sentence.

    Death - or dying - is ultimate beyond being incarcerated for a few years. There's an ontological distinction between living (albeit w/o freedom) and being dead.

    You can't get around that. Death is the antithesis of life, and the DP renders one... well, dead... as opposed to having life in prison.

    Me too, of course (actually, I'm not much for retribution, but that's not relevant here). But once you reach the conclusion that the DP is appropriate, you've already said: in this case, retribution trumps all other motivations. And you'd better be damned sure, given the gravity of the situation. But in this case, the prosecutor is hypothetically saying:

    "What Scott Petersen did merits death. No other consideration can mitigate the punishment, what he did was so horrendous as to make all other interests moot. But, oh, wait... in the interests of efficiency, if he agrees to a plea bargain, I'll hold the death penalty."

    That's absurd.
     
    #13 haven, Aug 7, 2003
  14. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    38,288
    Likes Received:
    29,811
    haven,

    I see your point. I would say that it is ethically acceptable to *reduce* a punishment in exchange for other goods. It is not acceptable to punish someone more in the name of bringing some other goods.
     
    #14 Easy, Aug 7, 2003
  15. voice

    voice Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    the death penalty is inhumane. it's a violation of human rights
    and should be treated as such. only god can judge us.
     
    #15 voice, Aug 12, 2003
  16. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    38,288
    Likes Received:
    29,811
    Interestingly, some people here http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62896 think that the death penalty is too humane for this guy. :confused:
     
    #16 Easy, Aug 12, 2003
  17. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,317
    Likes Received:
    33,036
    how is this different than beating a confession out of a person
    or
    holding a gun to their head?

    Rocket River
     
    #17 Rocket River, Aug 13, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page