Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Justice?! Message-ID: <1106@dciem.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Sep-84 17:11:35 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1106 Posted: Fri Sep 7 17:11:35 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Sep-84 21:14:42 EDT References: <1105@dciem.UUCP> Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 62 ============== Mark Thompson writes: Why spend $40,000 odd a year keeping these killers in prison when all too often if they are released they go on to kill again. I am sorry but I cannot feel any compassion for these criminals. All my compassion is given to their victims ============== What does it have to do with compassion? I understand the argument that we spend more money keeping criminals alive than we would spend to kill them, but it doesn't seem to me a sufficient argument to get me to support capital punishment. If you are talking compassion, I think killing someone quickly is more compassionate than sentencing them to a life in prison. It is said that some murderers kill IN ORDER TO BE KILLED, perhaps to get out of a life in prison when killing a guard gets the death sentence. How does capital punishment help the dead guard? How does it help the next guard to be killed? The arguments that would sway me are ones based on the effectiveness of the punishment. We know that prisons are training schools for crime, especially violent crime. Hence it is probably not a good idea to send someone non-violent to prison. If you do send someone to prison, it is probably not a good idea ever to let them out. But in that case, why not kill them and save the money? One reason is that, for all of what Henry Spencer says, such evidence as there is suggests that there will be more murders if you kill murderers than if you don't (even allowing for the ones you let out after they finish their sentences). The evidence of which I am aware is not strong, but I know of none pointing the other way. I also worry somewhat about where the limit should or would be placed between capital and non-capital crimes. There are lots of people wthout whom society would be better off (but the names of those people depend on who is listing them). Should we allow society (the government, courts appointed by the government, or some other power-driven subgroup) to choose? Treason has been a crime subject to the death penalty (maybe it still is [Dave Sherman listening?]), but who defines treason? Perhaps John Turner might have thought quite a few Canadians committed treason last Monday! We have had a few episodes in the States in which treason was defined not much differently. If capital punishment is allowed for murder, the only reason can be revenge. An eye for an eye. You might say that at least that person would not kill again, but then very few killers do, anyway, except for those that killed many times before they were caught. Killing the killer might give the relatives of a murder victim some satisfaction, but it doesn't do the victim much good. Mark's comment about his compassion being for the victim is reasonable, but not helpful. What I want is to be able to go around with the lowest possible likelihood of being murdered, by my wife, by a mugger, or by a terrorist (in rough order of social likelihoods). I don't think restoring capital punishment will achieve this state. I am willing to pay a little to keep killers alive in jail, if thereby I improve my chances of staying alive a little longer. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt