AH Challenge - death penalty universally accepted

[Paul Spring]

With a POD no earlier than 1900, how could we get a world in 2005 where the death penalty is considered an appropriate punishment for homicide in virtually every country in the world, both western and non-western?

There can be some opposition to the death penalty, but this will be a minority sentiment almost everywhere, and regarded as a little crazy.

[Midgard]

With a POD no earlier than 1900, how could we get a world in 2005 where the death penalty is considered an appropriate punishment for homicide in virtually every country in the world, both western and non-western?

There can be some opposition to the death penalty, but this will be a minority sentiment almost everywhere, and regarded as a little crazy.

Would creating a different movement in psychology do? What I mean is something akin to Freud, Jung, or some other prominent psychologist from early XXth century whose views are considered canon for many years to come becomes extremely interested in criminal justice, and postulates a theory that people who commit certain crimes are not likely to be rehabilitated, and cannot be allowed to reenter society.

Fast forward a few years, and have a few high-profile cases where the convicted killers who served their time and were released get back to their old ways, and therefore an argument is made in most civilized countries that "once a killer, always a killer". Since in the minds of the people rehabilitation of hardened criminals is not possible, jail time sentencing becomes less preferential to execution, since if the purpose of justice is punishment, not rehabilitation, why waste effort on futile endeavor through jail time.

Now, the hard part is to distinguish between life sentencing and death penalty - but in order to do that, we would need to have a social concept that evil is mostly individual, and not institutionalized (therefore, less extremist Germany in WWII or even no WWII - or at least WWII fought for conventional, not ideological reasons), eventually converting this idea into more conformity with state ideologies. The OTL 1960s would never happen in this world, and liberalism as such would be considered subversive and dangerous. In other words, an average citizen would want the government to take care of the "bad people" instead of worrying about the possibility of government abuse of power, or the idea that his own government might not have the moral authority due to its own misdeeds and whatnot.

[Hendryk]

A TL in which the Nazis win WW2, or the Communists manage to take over most of the world, would be one in which the death penalty is universally accepted. Failing that, something along the lines of the Decades of Darkness TL, or possibly the harsher variants of the Draka TL, but those imply a POD before 1900.
Basically, in order for the death penalty to be universally accepted, one has to butterfly away the concept of human rights.

[jolo]

Though I prefer it the other way around (death penalty universally rejected), I give it a try:

A. Euthanasia, Eugenics and so on become normal everywhere. Therefore, severely handicapped or terminally ill people are routinely killed instead of helping them. What makes people murder others is generally considered a severe mental illness and genetic malfunction. Therefore, murderers are usually executed pretty quickly after the conviction.

B. Due to some reason, the Nazis and the Communists, with their extreme abuse of state power, never happen. Therefore, such horrors to be committed by "civilized" states is still unimaginable. The people trust their states, they don't trust criminals and the likes, so the death penalty is accepted by most people in nearly every country.

C. A little bit earlier than in the above rules, most revolutions become successful, leading to even more revolution. Due to hard fighting, the gun carrying farmer or craftsman is the most often encountered kind of people in nearly every country. They don't bother too much with feeding criminals.

D. Due to some minor incident (maybe an intrigue by a third country plays a role) a war happens between the US and GB at about 1900. Both countries fight hard and turn into some kind of military societies (with or without democracy). The world looses their two bastions of individual rights at once. The concept of more and more human rights never manages to get hold again.

[Derek Jackson]

One consequence of the continued existence of the Death Penalty would be to make Northern Ireland far more difficult.

On the Nationalist side the MARTYR idea is very powful. (People still sing about Roddy McAuley (hanged more than 200 years ago)

Besides actually being a peverse but real incentive for some IRA people (being at least in theory Catholics they would likely not take part in suicide operations but the UK state would do the job for them)

Then there is the fact that my government (The UK state) would likely have hanged something like 20 innocent people. I think in the climate of the times this fact would come out.

On the other hand this might stop acceptance of state killing cease to be unviersally accepted.

[Bulldawg85]

Now, the hard part is to distinguish between life sentencing and death penalty - but in order to do that, we would need to have a social concept that evil is mostly individual, and not institutionalized (therefore, less extremist Germany in WWII or even no WWII - or at least WWII fought for conventional, not ideological reasons), eventually converting this idea into more conformity with state ideologies. The OTL 1960s would never happen in this world, and liberalism as such would be considered subversive and dangerous. In other words, an average citizen would want the government to take care of the "bad people" instead of worrying about the possibility of government abuse of power, or the idea that his own government might not have the moral authority due to its own misdeeds and whatnot.

Another variant might be if they reserve the death penalty for people which you are 300% positive did something so heinous as to deserve it. What I mean by 300% is that there is absolutely no possibility that they are innocent. Over here in the U.S. several state governors have commuted sentences of convicted murderers on death row because there have been a few cases where DNA evidence has exonerated someone. But there have also been cases where the death penalty has not been used because the state didn't have it, not because there was a possibility of the person being not guilty. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer was an admitted murderer and cannibal, but he ended up getting in prison for life because Wisconsin doesn't have a death penalty. Of course, a couple of years after he got into prison one of the other prisoners gave him a knife between the ribs and killed him. Another example is the BTK killer. For those people overseas, BTK stood for Bind, torture, kill. He killed around 20-30 people over a 30 year period. He was given that name because of the letters he wrote the police to taunt them. He was just convicted and sentenced to several hundred years in prison. He didn't get the death penalty either because Kansas didn't have a death penalty when he committed the crimes.

[Mike Stearns]

A TL in which the Nazis win WW2, or the Communists manage to take over most of the world, would be one in which the death penalty is universally accepted. Failing that, something along the lines of the Decades of Darkness TL, or possibly the harsher variants of the Draka TL, but those imply a POD before 1900.
Basically, in order for the death penalty to be universally accepted, one has to butterfly away the concept of human rights.

I agree. Other then a "Hitler wins World War II" scenario, I really can't see this happening.

[Bulldawg85]

Basically, in order for the death penalty to be universally accepted, one has to butterfly away the concept of human rights.

Then by that same token, one should never be imprisoned because you are taking away any number of rights by subjecting a person to prison.

[Midgard]

What if the Soviet/Russian concept of crime and punishment, namely "better let a hundred innocents suffer than let one guilty run free" is accepted throughout the world, as opposed to more liberal one in the west (generally formulated as "better hundred guilty go free than one innocent suffer" - at least in theory, in practice usually it ends up falling short of the ideal). In the society where the objective of criminal justice is to eliminate all suspected of criminal activity, and where burden of proof of innocence lies with the defendant, not with the plaintiff, death penalty seems like more acceptable option. Let's start it in 1950s with worse McCarthy witchhunts in the US, and somehow McCarthy getting elected President later on. Cold War gets colder by just a notch, but sufficiently so that both sides are increasingly more and more so paranoid about the traitors in their midst. Say USSR lasts to present day, or is replaced by equally menacing looking entity, and there is a fertile climate for the above mindset.

[MerryPrankster]

A TL in which the Nazis win WW2, or the Communists manage to take over most of the world, would be one in which the death penalty is universally accepted. Failing that, something along the lines of the Decades of Darkness TL, or possibly the harsher variants of the Draka TL, but those imply a POD before 1900.
Basically, in order for the death penalty to be universally accepted, one has to butterfly away the concept of human rights.

When did the death penalty become a human rights issue? IIRC I never heard Amnesty or other such groups critcizing it until relatively recently.

[MerryPrankster]

Jolo's "Option B" seems sensible.

I have a theory that many Europeans are anti-death-penalty b/c in Europe, it was over-administered (according to De Tocqueville, someone could be executed in France pre-Revolution for growing their own tobacco), especially in recent years.

[Leo Caesius]

When did the death penalty become a human rights issue? IIRC I never heard Amnesty or other such groups critcizing it until relatively recently.Well, they've been criticizing it for as long as I've been around. The problem with the death penalty is that it often becomes abused; throughout history and throughout the world, in the hands of a corrupt administration, it becomes a convenient way of disposing with "undesirables." It is also almost always applied unevenly.

[carlton_bach]

When did the death penalty become a human rights issue? IIRC I never heard Amnesty or other such groups critcizing it until relatively recently.

ai has been anti-death penalty since its inception, and the death penalty has been a human rights issue pretty much since the 18th century (when, perversely, the Russian state abolished it), but until the second half of the twentieth century it had widespread acceptance and the debate took place largely in the rarefied air of academia, or in radical circles. It wasn't until the 30s and 40s that opposition to the death penalty on principle became a mainstream position, and even then it was hardly a majority-winner for decades (GB, for example, abolished the death penalty against the will of the majority).

As to the question of Europe, I think it is not so much the overapplication (most European governments tended to be quite judicious about hanging, and some had well-developed prison regimes earlier than some US States) as the feeling of *threat*. If you live in the US, chances are nobody in your family has living memories as the state as your oppressor or enemy (unless you're black, but I understand that there is more solid opposition to the death penalty among the black community than the population as a whole). Thus, the idea of the death penalty wouldn't seem threatening to you. If you lived in Europe - well, the lucky ones among us need to ask our grandparents. Some people my age remember personally.

[MerryPrankster]

As to the question of Europe, I think it is not so much the overapplication (most European governments tended to be quite judicious about hanging, and some had well-developed prison regimes earlier than some US States) as the feeling of *threat*. If you live in the US, chances are nobody in your family has living memories as the state as your oppressor or enemy (unless you're black, but I understand that there is more solid opposition to the death penalty among the black community than the population as a whole). Thus, the idea of the death penalty wouldn't seem threatening to you. If you lived in Europe - well, the lucky ones among us need to ask our grandparents. Some people my age remember personally.

I was actually thinking of something along those lines...

[Hendryk]

Then by that same token, one should never be imprisoned because you are taking away any number of rights by subjecting a person to prison.
Get back to us once you have checked what human rights are. A good place to start is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html). Especially Article 5:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Most people would agree that execution falls under that category.

Incidentally, here is the position of the European Union (http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/deathpenhome.htm) as regards the death penalty. A fundamental requirement for joining the EU is the abolition of capital punishment.

[Othniel]

Acualty I could see the death penalty being universally accepted but it being argued when it should be used depending on the serverity of the case if we had a string of violent dispictable crimes across the world. After all killing a criminal will stop that particular criminal from committing any more crimes.

[benedict XVII]

Do people in the US realize that they are rather the odd exception regarding death penalty, and that Europeans are quite mainstream in this respect? Would be much more enlightening to understand why it is still applied in the US, and not why it is not applied any more in Europe...

[Othniel]

Do people in the US realize that they are rather the odd exception regarding death penalty, and that Europeans are quite mainstream in this respect? Would be much more enlightening to understand why it is still applied in the US, and not why it is not applied any more in Europe...
Because the Europeans went overboard during the French Revolution and Inquestion with the Excutions, they took two world wars to get it out of their system completely. Simply put the Europeans don't want to puinsh each other anymore. Euros always did seem to take American ideas in a more extreme direction....

[Nicole]

Do people in the US realize that they are rather the odd exception regarding death penalty, and that Europeans are quite mainstream in this respect? Would be much more enlightening to understand why it is still applied in the US, and not why it is not applied any more in Europe...
Probably because in the US you still have alot of "Frontier Mentality", while the last time Europe was a Frontier was when Charlemagne pressed into the "uncharted wilds" of Germany...

[benedict XVII]

Because the Europeans went overboard during the French Revolution and Inquestion with the Excutions, they took two world wars to get it out of their system completely. Simply put the Europeans don't want to puinsh each other anymore. Euros always did seem to take American ideas in a more extreme direction....

It's funny, I'm saying you need to find an explanation for why the Americans are maintaining it, and you come up again with an explanation why Europeans don't (like most countries in the world, except such nice places as China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

[benedict XVII]

Probably because in the US you still have alot of "Frontier Mentality", while the last time Europe was a Frontier was when Charlemagne pressed into the "uncharted wilds" of Germany...

Probably a better explanation, indeed. Racism has also most likely played a role in the continuation of the practice.

[Othniel]

It's funny, I'm saying you need to find an explanation for why the Americans are maintaining it, and you come up again with an explanation why Europeans don't (like most countries in the world, except such nice places as China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
Thats because the Europeans are out of sync. Harsher punishments deter crime. You take away the death penalty and those become life in prison crimes, the life in prison crimes become 25-75 year crimes, those crimes go to 15-20 year crimes, which allow property crimes to go unchecked. Besides, what about Treason? Murder, or even serial killing?

Look if someone kills or steals something of equal or greater value is owed to the wronged party. Time isn't enough in most cases.

[Leo Caesius]

Then why is the violent crime rate so much higher in America than in Europe, and in those American states which have the death penalty as opposed to those that do not?

[Othniel]

Then why is the violent crime rate so much higher in America than in Europe, and in those American states which have the death penalty as opposed to those that do not?Are violent criminals repeating their crimes if they are dead? How many of these are being put to death on the same day that they are convicted? How many thieves pay double the amount they stole back to the owners? How many more die because the guilty walk the earth?

I can explain most states that support the death penalty's rise in violent crime, large amounts of population growth since the sixities in the Western United States is one of them. The states that generally have supported it are starting to grow much larger than before. You're likely to see those numbers get bigger intil they start to platue in population.

[benedict XVII]

Thats because the Europeans are out of sync. Harsher punishments deter crime. You take away the death penalty and those become life in prison crimes, the life in prison crimes become 25-75 year crimes, those crimes go to 15-20 year crimes, which allow property crimes to go unchecked. Besides, what about Treason? Murder, or even serial killing?

Look if someone kills or steals something of equal or greater value is owed to the wronged party. Time isn't enough in most cases.

You can't read, really... The US is the exception, not the Europeans.

Harsher punishment in the form of death penalty does not deter crime as Leo pointed out. The only thing that explains decline in crime in the US in recent years is demographics (fewer male youths in the most violent 16-30 year old group) and liberalization of abortion (though I'm loath to acknowledge the connection, but the evidence is undisputable).

The death penalty does not give back anything to anybody. It takes, and it's gone. Never seen the victim of a criminal resurrected after an execution.

In short, it is ineffective - counterproductive in fact, unfairly applied, irreversible in case of mistakes (and please don't serve me the BS that a good system will prevent all mistakes; perfection is not for this world) and barbarian. I'm glad to see more and more Americans realize this, and I can't wait for its re-abolition.

The only case in which I can see it justified if when society has no other means of protection against specific individuals. This could be the case in more precarious primitive societies, but clearly not in the US in the 21st century.

[Othniel]

So lets count abortion as the death penalty.

[Nicole]

So lets count abortion as the death penalty.
Then you are equating hardened criminals with an unborn child, which doesn't sound right to me.

[Othniel]

Then you are equating hardened criminals with an unborn child, which doesn't sound right to me. They are getting the same puinshment.

[Paul Spring]

Do people in the US realize that they are rather the odd exception regarding death penalty, and that Europeans are quite mainstream in this respect? Would be much more enlightening to understand why it is still applied in the US, and not why it is not applied any more in Europe...

Just because the US is the exception doesn't necessarily mean that the US is wrong. Rightness and wrongness of a policy doesn't have anything to do with how many countries support it or oppose it.

[Paul Spring]

Then why is the violent crime rate so much higher in America than in Europe, and in those American states which have the death penalty as opposed to those that do not?

Social differences, mainly. One of the downsides of a more individualistic, less group-minded society like the US is that you will probably get more violent crime from a fringe who take individualism to the extreme of thinking that they can do whatever they want to anyone.

[benedict XVII]

Just because the US is the exception doesn't necessarily mean that the US is wrong. Rightness and wrongness of a policy doesn't have anything to do with how many countries support it or oppose it.

I can follow the line of argument, though I am personnally convinced the states that keep and enforce the death penalty are wrong.

But this does not take away that the problem was not posed in the right way by trying to find an explanation why Europeans abolished it. It's a majority of the nations in the world that abolished it, save for the US and the roguest countries on this earth.

And the whole bogus about it coming from the Ancien Régime and the Terreur, please... Don't insult your own intelligence!

[Grey Wolf]

Well, to address the POD you need to get rid of the Enlightenment and the Humanist revival, whose theories underpin the basic ideas of human rights as they are found today

Grey Wolf

[Paul Spring]

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the death penalty was considered perfectly compatible with human rights well into the 20th century by the majority of people in Europe as well as the US. I don't think that it was really until after WWII that the consensus opinion in most of Europe really turned against ANY use of the death penalty. To me, that suggests that a different 20th century in Europe could definitely lead to a present day where European attitudes toward capital punishment were much closer to US attitudes.

[Leo Caesius]

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the death penalty was considered perfectly compatible with human rights well into the 20th century by the majority of people in Europe as well as the US.That's not my understanding of the situation.

[benedict XVII]

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the death penalty was considered perfectly compatible with human rights well into the 20th century by the majority of people in Europe as well as the US. I don't think that it was really until after WWII that the consensus opinion in most of Europe really turned against ANY use of the death penalty. To me, that suggests that a different 20th century in Europe could definitely lead to a present day where European attitudes toward capital punishment were much closer to US attitudes.

Many European countries had already abolished death penalty in the 19th century, if not in theory, then in practice. Very few Western European countries still applied it post WWII (except for the occasional dictatorship), France being an odd exception, but the cases had become so rare and hence arbitrary that it got abolished there as well.

I fully concur with Grey Wolf on this. Enlightenment was bound to lead to the abolishment of death penalty.

And again, why trying to find the explanation in Europe? The death penalty has been maintained today only in the most brutal regimes on earth and in the US. This is why the US case is so odd, and this is what you need to find an explanation for.

[Paul Spring]

Many European countries had already abolished death penalty in the 19th century, if not in theory, then in practice. Very few Western European countries still applied it post WWII (except for the occasional dictatorship), France being an odd exception, but the cases had become so rare and hence arbitrary that it got abolished there as well.

I fully concur with Grey Wolf on this. Enlightenment was bound to lead to the abolishment of death penalty.

And again, why trying to find the explanation in Europe? The death penalty has been maintained today only in the most brutal regimes on earth and in the US. This is why the US case is so odd, and this is what you need to find an explanation for.

Convicted murderers weren't being executed in, say, the UK, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, etc., etc., during the 1920s? That's not what I've read. Are you sure we're talking about the same timeline?

As I said before, most people in both Europe and the US considered the death penalty to be perfectly acceptable throughout the 18th and 19th centuries and well into the 20th. After World War II, this suddenly changed. In that sense, Europe diverged sharply from the path that virtually the entire world had followed up until that time. Some other countries, presumably influenced by the example of European countries, followed. This is actually a pretty sudden and drastic change in attitudes, which does not seem to be connected to the Enlightenment of almost 200 years earlier.

[raharris1973]

they're first world and they have it.

What share of non-OECD countries have it? Just rogues or a fair share of the world's poor countries.

[benedict XVII]

Convicted murderers weren't being executed in, say, the UK, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, etc., etc., during the 1920s? That's not what I've read. Are you sure we're talking about the same timeline?

As I said before, most people in both Europe and the US considered the death penalty to be perfectly acceptable throughout the 18th and 19th centuries and well into the 20th. After World War II, this suddenly changed. In that sense, Europe diverged sharply from the path that virtually the entire world had followed up until that time. Some other countries, presumably influenced by the example of European countries, followed. This is actually a pretty sudden and drastic change in attitudes, which does not seem to be connected to the Enlightenment of almost 200 years earlier.

I don't know of all the details country by country, but the last time death penalty was applied in Belgium (outside times of war) was in the 1850's, closer in time to Enlightenment than to WWII. And it was not considered especially odd, I think. Would need to do some research for other countries.

In any case, it was not a sharp turn, but rather a very evolutionary one, with countries abolishing (or not applying) death penalty one after the other over the course of 150 years. It also usually happened gradually in a given country, with death penalty becoming more and more uncommon, then staying in the books but never applied sometimes for decades, etc.

Now, you still did not answer why other countries "followed Europeans" (I think it's technically not true as some South American countries had abolished death penalty in the 19th century as well) rather than stick to the "normal" American course. I would actually argue that by-and-large, the abolition of death penalty followed the pattern of democratization of th various nations. Again making the US case so bizarre.

[benedict XVII]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/abret2.html

Look at this link. Latin America was really the pioneer for abolition of the death penalty. You have multiple European countries having de facto abolished death penalty in the 19th or early 20th centuries. Please take into account that executions in the late 1940's in Belgium, Norway, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc. were a temporary resurgence targeting the traitors who collaborated with the Nazi occupiers, after long periods of abolishment.

I also read the case for the UK, where you can see that ever since the 1820's, the scope of death penalty had continuously been reduced, until it stopped being put in practice in 1964.

And Michigan was the first state to abolish death penalty in 1847...

All that evidence shows clearly that the abolition of death penalty is linked to the Enlightenment and Human Rights' movement, tather than WWII. Check also the list of countries that still have it, the US is in nice company...

[Paul Spring]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/abret2.html

Look at this link. Latin America was really the pioneer for abolition of the death penalty. You have multiple European countries having de facto abolished death penalty in the 19th or early 20th centuries. Please take into account that executions in the late 1940's in Belgium, Norway, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc. were a temporary resurgence targeting the traitors who collaborated with the Nazi occupiers, after long periods of abolishment.

I also read the case for the UK, where you can see that ever since the 1820's, the scope of death penalty had continuously been reduced, until it stopped being put in practice in 1964.

And Michigan was the first state to abolish death penalty in 1847...

All that evidence shows clearly that the abolition of death penalty is linked to the Enlightenment and Human Rights' movement, tather than WWII. Check also the list of countries that still have it, the US is in nice company...

Well, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea are prosperous "first world" countries that still have it.

Interesting overall, though. It does seem to have gradually faded in many European countries, although there were upswings on some occasions and actual abolition was well after WWII for a lot of countries.

[Leo Caesius]

Come to think of it, Singapore does seem to be a favorite for Republicans. They do seem to be taking Lee Kwan Yew's nanny state as their model for the future of the US. The only difference, of course, is that the Singaporeans seem to be much better at doing whatever it is that they do.

[Paul Spring]

Come to think of it, Singapore does seem to be a favorite for Republicans. They do seem to be taking Lee Kwan Yew's nanny state as their model for the future of the US. The only difference, of course, is that the Singaporeans seem to be much better at doing whatever it is that they do.

For the strong neocon "law and order" types, yes. That's not necessarily all Republicans, but they dominate the party at this particular point.

[Leo Caesius]

For the strong neocon "law and order" types, yes. That's not necessarily all Republicans, but they dominate the party at this particular point.Social conservatives too. It's called the nanny state for a reason.

[Hendryk]

And again, why trying to find the explanation in Europe? The death penalty has been maintained today only in the most brutal regimes on earth and in the US. This is why the US case is so odd, and this is what you need to find an explanation for.
I concur entirely.
Look, Paul, this thread has less and less to do with AH by the hour, it has turned into a debate of the legitimacy of the death penalty, which I guess isn't what you had in mind. If you want to come up with a TL in which the death penalty is still the norm rather than the exception, fine. Just don't try to make it look like OTL is in any way aberrant in that regard. The abolition, whether de jure or de facto, of capital punishment, is a logical and historically normal consequence of the higher respect for human life that came out of the Enlightenment and the spread of liberal democracy. In OTL, you have one democracy in which the death penalty is both on the books (and not even in all states) and routinely applied, and that's the USA. It's in the not altogether honorable company of fundamentalist theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, totalitarian regimes like North Korea, and assorted dictatorships like Syria, Pakistan and China. If you, as an American, can live with that, at least keep in mind that your country is the aberration here, and that the burden of explanation rests on you.

[Hendryk]

Thats because the Europeans are out of sync. Harsher punishments deter crime. You take away the death penalty and those become life in prison crimes, the life in prison crimes become 25-75 year crimes, those crimes go to 15-20 year crimes, which allow property crimes to go unchecked. Besides, what about Treason? Murder, or even serial killing?
So Othniel turns out to be yet another pro-lifer who endorses the death penalty.

[Othniel]

Only because I care.

Wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have a temper when it came to criminals. But quite frankly there are crimes worthy of death and I'd be prefectly happy to deal with some of them. There are some that do things that do deserve the puinshment.

Put me in a room full of conservatives and I can argue that the death penalty doesn't give the repentant a chance to show they've changed. I can argue that anyone can be changed and their lives can take a three hundread sixty degree turn. But I just brather have it around if we need it. Just like Europe will bring it back next time there is a war, or something incredible dispicable does happen.

Nobody advocates using the death penalty liberially. It something that takes lots and lots of time, and evidence to convict someone, and then even more time to measurre whether this crime fits the desciption in which the death penalty should be used. It should only be used when murder is intentional, deliberate, proven, without remorse or mercy, not in defense, but when the purpose is to clearly take the life of someone.

[Othniel]

35 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Another 18 have abolished the punishment for all but exceptional offences such as wartime crimes. Another 27 countries and territories no longer carry out executions

40% eh? If you take away all except the 35, you only have thirty five countries with the death penalty abolished. Those other 35 have not completely abolished it, however it is on the books, and they can still practice it if need be. I appuald those 27 that no longer have to carry out excutions, but still have it there if need be... lets model our systems of law after those that are prepared to use it, but don't in most cases.

If people get caught a lot more often they'll see a drop in crime. If the socio-economic area improves you'll see a drop in crime. What if a state that had a lower crime rate had even 80% of the crimes not reported...well reported? What would happen if witnesses came forward in New York after every single crime? What if every assult, every rape, every murder was reported in these countries?

What would happen if we could keep habitual criminals in prison?

[Justin Green]

I concur entirely.
Look, Paul, this thread has less and less to do with AH by the hour, it has turned into a debate of the legitimacy of the death penalty, which I guess isn't what you had in mind. If you want to come up with a TL in which the death penalty is still the norm rather than the exception, fine. Just don't try to make it look like OTL is in any way aberrant in that regard. The abolition, whether de jure or de facto, of capital punishment, is a logical and historically normal consequence of the higher respect for human life that came out of the Enlightenment and the spread of liberal democracy. In OTL, you have one democracy in which the death penalty is both on the books (and not even in all states) and routinely applied, and that's the USA. It's in the not altogether honorable company of fundamentalist theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, totalitarian regimes like North Korea, and assorted dictatorships like Syria, Pakistan and China. If you, as an American, can live with that, at least keep in mind that your country is the aberration here, and that the burden of explanation rests on you.

But the US has a radically different history then that of France or the rest of Europe. I think that Europeans have been molded by the horrors of both World Wars as well as civil wars and numerous Revolutions. I mean, I honestly think that on average a German and a Frenchman would have more in common culturally and morally then with either of them with the average American.

[Dave Howery]

But the US has a radically different history then that of France or the rest of Europe. I think that Europeans have been molded by the horrors of both World Wars as well as civil wars and numerous Revolutions. I mean, I honestly think that on average a German and a Frenchman would have more in common culturally and morally then with either of them with the average American.
I'll agree with this... this is probably the best explanation for not only why the US disagrees with Europe on the death penalty, but in also every other way in why we're different from Europe...

[MerryPrankster]

Well, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea are prosperous "first world" countries that still have it.

Interesting overall, though. It does seem to have gradually faded in many European countries, although there were upswings on some occasions and actual abolition was well after WWII for a lot of countries.

I think that the claim of anti-death-penalty types that "the first world" has abandoned the death penalty, when only Europe and a few other states have done so, is evidence of Eurocentrism on their part.

[carlton_bach]

I think that the claim of anti-death-penalty types that "the first world" has abandoned the death penalty, when only Europe and a few other states have done so, is evidence of Eurocentrism on their part.

Well, the 'first world' only consists of (parts of) Europe and a few other states, really. But it's true, opposition to the death penalty seems more rooted in cultural than economic soil.

[Lord Douglas]

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the death penalty was considered perfectly compatible with human rights well into the 20th century by the majority of people in Europe as well as the US. I don't think that it was really until after WWII that the consensus opinion in most of Europe really turned against ANY use of the death penalty. To me, that suggests that a different 20th century in Europe could definitely lead to a present day where European attitudes toward capital punishment were much closer to US attitudes.

In the UK the opinion polls tend to suggest that most of the population want to reinstate the death penalty. I suppose part of that is due to the media attention paid to child murders and so on. In fact, the people of Britain are much more socially conservative or 'conservative with a small c' than most gove them credit for. They are certainly more conservative than Continental Europeans.

But to get to a point where the death penalty is widely accepted then you need to wipe away the governments that severely abused it during the twentieth century. Perhaps have a conservative authoritarian government take power in Germany in the 1930s rather than Hitler, and a more benign Soviet regime. Either than or you get extreme paranoia during the Cold War about Communist traitors in the West, and generally more socially conservative/authoritarian governments around the world. Either way, the Enlightenment can't happen in the way it did, or at least not take such a strong hold on the populations of the world.

[benedict XVII]

I think that the claim of anti-death-penalty types that "the first world" has abandoned the death penalty, when only Europe and a few other states have done so, is evidence of Eurocentrism on their part.

Let us look calmly at the facts, continent by continent. Please note I have included as abolitionists also the countries that keep the death penalty only under exceptional circumstances (typically, for military courts in times of war, and for treason), and those that have not proceeded to any excecution in a long time, though death penalty may still be in the books.

America's: abolished by all countries, save the US, Cuba (nice company!) and other small island states from the Gulf of Mexico (Jamaica, Barbados, Bahamas, etc.); as a matter of fact, Latin American countries were the first to abolish death penalty de jure or de facto, starting in the 19th century with Venezuela first in 1863

Europe: abolished in all countries, including Russia, FRY, Turkey, etc., with the only exception of Belarus (nice company again, the last Soviet-style dictatorship in the world).

Africa : Mixed picture, with a majority of states retaining death penalty. Note however that the more liberal / democratic regimes on the continent (such as South Africa, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Mauritius, Senegal, Namibia, etc.) have abolished it in law or in practice

Middle East : In this hotbed of democracy and liberalism, only the rogue state of Israel has abolished death penalty (including for terrorists and former Nazi's, mind you)

Asia : The Continent of death penalty, where it has been abolished in only 8 countries : Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and the Seychelles, plus the territory of Hong Kong. Note however that there have been no executions in South Korea since 1997, and that a majority in their Parliament supports a bill to abolish death penalty. Note also that India has had only one execution in the last 9 years; when such number drop so low, the cases become so controversial that abolition is usually around the corner...

Oceania - Pacific : Abolished everywhere, save for US dependencies and Indonesia (nice company again!)

All in all, death penalty has been abolished in 120 countries in law or in practice, and is retained in only 76 countries. Among the OECD countries, only the US and Japan have retained it (and Japan has a rate of executions which is about three times smaller than the US as compared to population). Far from being Eurocentric, the abolishment of death penalty has been historically intiated in Latin America, and is now the dominant rule in the America's, Europe, Oceania-Pacific. Abolition is also making constant progress in Africa and Asia (Nepal, South Korea, India, etc.) Aside from the US and Japan, the strongholds of retentionism include the last Communist dictatorships in the world (Cuba, China, North Korea, Laos, Viet Nam, Belarus and the USSR successor states in Asia), bloody African dictatorships and the Arab-Muslim world.

So, do you now see why the US case looks so odd?

[benedict XVII]

40% eh? If you take away all except the 35, you only have thirty five countries with the death penalty abolished. Those other 35 have not completely abolished it, however it is on the books, and they can still practice it if need be. I appuald those 27 that no longer have to carry out excutions, but still have it there if need be... lets model our systems of law after those that are prepared to use it, but don't in most cases.

Sorry, in Amnesty International's accounting, the 35 that have not abolished it for all crimes, kept it only for matters of national security: military personnel in times of war or high treason. If you check India, where the Supreme Court allows it "onlly for the rarest of rarest crimes" in its own words, and where only one execution has taken place since 1996, it is classified as "retentionist" by AI.

And for the 27 that still have it on the books, but don't apply it, I think you misinterpret what is going on there. And I can speak for it, coming for a country where it's been on the books for almost 140 years without application (except again military personnel in case of war, and treason). Basically, the reasons why they stay on the book tend to be amongst those two:

1. Death penalty retains strong supporters with public opinion, and politicians want to avoid a nasty debate with populist politicians hijacking the issue to their own benefit.

2. Public opinion, or a large share of it, views the non-application of death penalty as an act of mercy, rather than of justice. Basically, convicts can still be condemned to death by the judicial system ("you deserve death because of what you did"), but it gets automatically commuted into life emprisonment ("but out of mercy, we won't execute the sentence").

You can be confident that when AI puts country in that category, that's a country where death penalty is quite unlikely to reappear in practice. In Belgium, if the King had refused to graciate a convict before death penalty was formally abolished, you would have had an uproar in public opinion, and members of the jury would have probably come out and said they did not mean the sentence to be applied and would never have voted for it if they had known...

Oh, and by the way, your numbers are a bit outdated. We now have 120 abolitionists vs. 76 retentionists (with South Korea to switch sides in the coming months).

If people get caught a lot more often they'll see a drop in crime. If the socio-economic area improves you'll see a drop in crime. What if a state that had a lower crime rate had even 80% of the crimes not reported...well reported? What would happen if witnesses came forward in New York after every single crime? What if every assult, every rape, every murder was reported in these countries?

What would happen if we could keep habitual criminals in prison?

What does this have to do with death penalty?

[benedict XVII]

I'll agree with this... this is probably the best explanation for not only why the US disagrees with Europe on the death penalty, but in also every other way in why we're different from Europe...

But again, this is not a US vs. Europe thing. It's a US + Japan + dictatorial/authoritarian governments vs. Rest of the World.

Main explanations for the US, IMHO, are the following:

1. Frontier mentality (goes hand-in-hand with 2nd amendment, etc.)

2. Racism. This plays in two ways: chances of being condemned to death for murdering a White is 5-6 times higher than for murdering a Black, and chances to get capital punishment if you are a Black defendent is 3 to 10 times higher (depending on the states) than if you're a White. In fact, if you interpret those statistics right, if the US was a racially homogeneous country, death sentences would have become very uncommon at this stage. Usually the last step before de facto, and then de jure, abolishment.

3. Lack of proper substitute system for defendants who can't afford a lawyer.

[benedict XVII]

Nobody advocates using the death penalty liberially. It something that takes lots and lots of time, and evidence to convict someone, and then even more time to measurre whether this crime fits the desciption in which the death penalty should be used. It should only be used when murder is intentional, deliberate, proven, without remorse or mercy, not in defense, but when the purpose is to clearly take the life of someone.

But to do that,

1. You'd have to assume the judicial system would be perfect. Sorry, this is not for hereunder, and the US system has quite some proven deficiencies with respect to death penalty. And how to you define "proven" - any condemnation must be for facts proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" anyway, or "deliberate" - how can you know for sure what is going on in people's hearts and minds?

2. You would need to spend even more money than today on investigations, trials (fo instance, paying a decent lawyer to defendents) and appeals. Already today, death penalty cases cost much much more than others, and cover largely the money that could be required to keep the convicts in jail for life. And that money is taken away from the system where it could be used to more fruitful purposes (such as more cops on the streets, more means to conduct investigations, etc.)

[benedict XVII]

In the UK the opinion polls tend to suggest that most of the population want to reinstate the death penalty. I suppose part of that is due to the media attention paid to child murders and so on. In fact, the people of Britain are much more socially conservative or 'conservative with a small c' than most gove them credit for. They are certainly more conservative than Continental Europeans.

But to get to a point where the death penalty is widely accepted then you need to wipe away the governments that severely abused it during the twentieth century. Perhaps have a conservative authoritarian government take power in Germany in the 1930s rather than Hitler, and a more benign Soviet regime. Either than or you get extreme paranoia during the Cold War about Communist traitors in the West, and generally more socially conservative/authoritarian governments around the world. Either way, the Enlightenment can't happen in the way it did, or at least not take such a strong hold on the populations of the world.

You do get everywhere the occasional poll where a majority of the people seem to want to reinstate death penalty. But as soon as you add "even if you can have life detention without parole", those percentages drop abysmally. Thatcher did actually try to reinstate death penalty in the '80s, and it failed quite miserably.

As for the impact of Nazism and Communism on European opinions, again I don't think this holds. I have personnally never heard of this being used in public debates regarding death penalty. Abolitionists have always made it an issue of human rights, supported with rational arguments about its unfairness, irreversibility and ineffectiveness. If anything, you had a temporary resurgence of death penalty in several European countries for crimes of treason in the aftermath of WWII. The history of the abolition of death penalty shows the roots are to be found in XVIIIth century Enlightenment and the spread of liberal democracy. Even the US came close to abolish it 30 years ago.

[Michael Canaris]

If anything, you had a temporary resurgence of death penalty in several European countries for crimes of treason in the aftermath of WWII.Why can't that exception (which is about all I'd allow) stay on the books?

[benedict XVII]

Why can't that exception (which is about all I'd allow) stay on the books?

I could live with that as well, though I don't really see the point of executing people for treason when they are not a danger any more (after the war). there was after all abuse in the repression in many European countries after WWII: people arrested and sentenced in 1945-46 were much more likely to get capital punishment than in 1949-50, for the same offence.

[Justin Green]

But again, this is not a US vs. Europe thing. It's a US + Japan + dictatorial/authoritarian governments vs. Rest of the World.

Main explanations for the US, IMHO, are the following:

1. Frontier mentality (goes hand-in-hand with 2nd amendment, etc.)

2. Racism. This plays in two ways: chances of being condemned to death for murdering a White is 5-6 times higher than for murdering a Black, and chances to get capital punishment if you are a Black defendent is 3 to 10 times higher (depending on the states) than if you're a White. In fact, if you interpret those statistics right, if the US was a racially homogeneous country, death sentences would have become very uncommon at this stage. Usually the last step before de facto, and then de jure, abolishment.

3. Lack of proper substitute system for defendants who can't afford a lawyer.

No but it is. Clearly this is a cultural thing. Africa and Asia doesnt have it because they were EUROPEAN colonies up until the last half of the 20th century. Most of Latin America doesnt have it strictly because they are heavily influenced by Europe, becuase if they look "civilized" maybe they can get some cash.

[benedict XVII]

No but it is. Clearly this is a cultural thing. Africa and Asia doesnt have it because they were EUROPEAN colonies up until the last half of the 20th century. Most of Latin America doesnt have it strictly because they are heavily influenced by Europe, becuase if they look "civilized" maybe they can get some cash.

Sorry, you're twisting facts. I said Africa and Asia were the continents where death penalty was still pretty well-penetrated, with a degree of correlation between death penalty and the authoritarian nature of their regimes (at least in Africa). And the main European colonial powers, France and the UK, still had the death penalty and applied it at the time of decolonization.

Many Latin American countries did abolish death penalty well before most European countries, so your "cash" argument does not hold. Along that reasoning, the US was also under European influence for a long time, and has definitely more of a European make-up in it population and fabric than most African and Asian countries... Please provide evidence of countries being deprived of cash from Europe for maintaining death penalty?

I do however agree culture plays a role, give the correlation between abolition and the democratic / liberal nature of the regime. Those ideas find their roots in Enlightenment, a movement shared by the US and Europe. The US is just today an odd point on the map. Admit that oddness, and argue for death penalty on the merit of the case, not on the delusional idea that Europe is the one that came up with this strange idea because of its peculiar history and is now twisting the arm of other countries around the world to impose it.

[Wendell]

Get back to us once you have checked what human rights are. A good place to start is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html). Especially Article 5:


Most people would agree that execution falls under that category.

Incidentally, here is the position of the European Union (http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/deathpenhome.htm) as regards the death penalty. A fundamental requirement for joining the EU is the abolition of capital punishment.
Yet, what is your feeling on Euthanasia?

[Faeelin]

Yet, what is your feeling on Euthanasia?

Euthenesia, of course, is a voluntary choice, so I don't see what the relevence is.

[Wendell]

Euthenesia, of course, is a voluntary choice, so I don't see what the relevence is.
It is the premature death of an individual, not unlike the Death Penalty

[carlton_bach]

It is the premature death of an individual, not unlike the Death Penalty

Sorry, but that's nonsense. The point to the death penalty is not that it is premature. Who would get to decide what constitutes premature in the first place? The point is that it is involuntary and inflicted deliberately by other humans.

[Wendell]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. The point to the death penalty is not that it is premature. Who would get to decide what constitutes premature in the first place? The point is that it is involuntary and inflicted deliberately by other humans.
premature as in before one would naturally die. Abortion is inflicted usually not by the woman, but by her physician, yet I'm sure you will weasel your way into trying to justify that practice along the same lines, despite the obvious contradiction. Is it really your contention that a person cannot be euthanized involuntarily?

[Justin Green]

Sorry, you're twisting facts. I said Africa and Asia were the continents where death penalty was still pretty well-penetrated, with a degree of correlation between death penalty and the authoritarian nature of their regimes (at least in Africa). And the main European colonial powers, France and the UK, still had the death penalty and applied it at the time of decolonization.

Many Latin American countries did abolish death penalty well before most European countries, so your "cash" argument does not hold. Along that reasoning, the US was also under European influence for a long time, and has definitely more of a European make-up in it population and fabric than most African and Asian countries... Please provide evidence of countries being deprived of cash from Europe for maintaining death penalty?

I do however agree culture plays a role, give the correlation between abolition and the democratic / liberal nature of the regime. Those ideas find their roots in Enlightenment, a movement shared by the US and Europe. The US is just today an odd point on the map. Admit that oddness, and argue for death penalty on the merit of the case, not on the delusional idea that Europe is the one that came up with this strange idea because of its peculiar history and is now twisting the arm of other countries around the world to impose it.

Whatever. I;m not going to beleive your European superiourtiy complex.

[Hendryk]

I think a fundamental factor in the status of capital punishment is the sacralization of the State. The norm, in Europe as pretty much everywhere else until the last couple of centuries, was to consider the State as an extension of the ruler, who more often than not held his/her legitimacy from some divine right (or a Mandate of Heaven, which boils down to the same thing). The State was therefore perceived as sacred, and with a right of life and death over its subjects. The ideas of the Enlightenment and their political implementation in the form of liberal democracy gradually put an end to that; pseudo-mystical or pseudo-scientific attempts to "re-sacralize" the State (respectively Fascism and Communism) were ultimately doomed efforts to counter that long-term historical trend. A feature of mature democracies is that they no longer imbue the State with any sacred dimension, and therefore deny it the right to put people to death. Add to that healthy skepticism regarding the objectivity of the judicial process, desirable as an objective but regrettably elusive in reality, and you end up with countries that either formally abolish the death penalty or simply let it slide into obsolescence.
Seen in that light, the problem with the USA is that it still holds the State as sacred, what with the countless rituals (Pledge of Allegiance, showing the flag, etc.) that amount to a de facto civic religion, complete with its own dogmas and claims of infallibility.
As to the reason for that, I'm frankly at a loss. I don't think it's the "new country", "pioneer spirit" or any such thing. Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc. are also new countries with a pioneer spirit, but they don't share certain American states' infatuation with the death penalty.

Whatever. I;m not going to beleive your European superiourtiy complex.
I know Americans aren't too fond of geography, but that's the first time I hear that Latin America is in Europe.

[benedict XVII]

Whatever. I;m not going to beleive your European superiourtiy complex.

OK, if you decide to take the debate out of the factual and into the emotional, dialogue becomes difficult.

This said, I don't feel it's a matter of European superiority, since, as I said, abolition started in Latin America and some US states, and has now spread into Asia and Africa. There was a chance in the 1970's that the US could be among the forerunners of abolition, as the Supreme Court had suspended executions for a while. Things went off course for a variety of reasons, among which the multi-racial fabric of the US was a component. And trusting the fundamental decency of the American people and its core values, I am quite confident that it will be abolished in the US also in some time.

Part of growing up is also acknowledging your country can't be right on everything...

[Justin Green]

OK, if you decide to take the debate out of the factual and into the emotional, dialogue becomes difficult.

This said, I don't feel it's a matter of European superiority, since, as I said, abolition started in Latin America and some US states, and has now spread into Asia and Africa. There was a chance in the 1970's that the US could be among the forerunners of abolition, as the Supreme Court had suspended executions for a while. Things went off course for a variety of reasons, among which the multi-racial fabric of the US was a component. And trusting the fundamental decency of the American people and its core values, I am quite confident that it will be abolished in the US also in some time.

Part of growing up is also acknowledging your country can't be right on everything...

I beleive a majority of Americans support the death penalty. And the reason they support it is because if a person breaks those most fundamental of laws, they desearve to pay with there life. Life imprisonment only taxes the public. We dont need to decrease the amount of blacks executed but increase the amount of white bastards who DONT know basic human rights.

[benedict XVII]

I beleive a majority of Americans support the death penalty. And the reason they support it is because if a person breaks those most fundamental of laws, they desearve to pay with there life. Life imprisonment only taxes the public. We dont need to decrease the amount of blacks executed but increase the amount of white bastards who DONT know basic human rights.

OK, now that's more clear. You're arguing based on the merits of death penalty. We can dialogue again.

I see death penalty has for you two justifications: (1) retribution; (2) cost. At least you are not arguing about its effectiveness to deter crime, because there is plenty of evidence it is counterproductive there.

In terms of cost, I am afraid you are mistaken. The cost of death penalty cases in terms of investigation and trial range in the multi-million dollars, given all the precaution the judicial system feels compelled to take in such cases. This is well enough to lock up said criminals for a couple of hundred years.

So, we are left with retribution. I can't really argue with that one, as it is an issue of core beliefs and values. I simply have the vision that death penalty is not a proper form of retribution. This said, I can argue in terms of the price you need to pay to maintain that form of retribution, as it translates not inly in terms of financial cost, but also in higher crime rates and a more violent society in general. It may be the trade-off chosen by the American people today (though I'm afraid it is not the best informed on facts about the issue), but it is not mine. I am more pragmatic in this respect.

[NapoleonXIV]

I think a fundamental factor in the status of capital punishment is the sacralization of the State. The norm, in Europe as pretty much everywhere else until the last couple of centuries, was to consider the State as an extension of the ruler, who more often than not held his/her legitimacy from some divine right (or a Mandate of Heaven, which boils down to the same thing). The State was therefore perceived as sacred, and with a right of life and death over its subjects. The ideas of the Enlightenment and their political implementation in the form of liberal democracy gradually put an end to that; pseudo-mystical or pseudo-scientific attempts to "re-sacralize" the State (respectively Fascism and Communism) were ultimately doomed efforts to counter that long-term historical trend. A feature of mature democracies is that they no longer imbue the State with any sacred dimension, and therefore deny it the right to put people to death. Add to that healthy skepticism regarding the objectivity of the judicial process, desirable as an objective but regrettably elusive in reality, and you end up with countries that either formally abolish the death penalty or simply let it slide into obsolescence.
Seen in that light, the problem with the USA is that it still holds the State as sacred, what with the countless rituals (Pledge of Allegiance, showing the flag, etc.) that amount to a de facto civic religion, complete with its own dogmas and claims of infallibility.
As to the reason for that, I'm frankly at a loss. I don't think it's the "new country", "pioneer spirit" or any such thing. Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc. are also new countries with a pioneer spirit, but they don't share certain American states' infatuation with the death penalty.


I know Americans aren't too fond of geography, but that's the first time I hear that Latin America is in Europe.

That's about the best delineation of the real reasons behind the DP I've heard yet. Particularly telling is the "claims of infalliblity" statement. I talk to so many DP supporters who act honestly offended that those proven wrongly convicted aren't just killed anyway, and I've never been able to understand their reasoning until now.

[carlton_bach]

premature as in before one would naturally die. ... Is it really your contention that a person cannot be euthanized involuntarily?

Firstly, define 'naturally'. I don't think you can.

Secondly, this presupposes you subscribe to the idea that existing facts have normative power - you die at a given point in time because you are *supposed* to die. I do not believe that. Death is a natural process, but the point at which it occurs is governed by so many variables that the only way a 'right time' could exist would be to assume our fate is predestined. That is a presumption based on which I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion.

As to the question whether a person can be euthanised agasinst his will, that would depend on your use of the word 'euthanasia'. If used in the sense the Nazis and eugenics movement did, yes, euthanasia is possible against a person's will. If you use it in its legal context, though (which would equate the German 'Sterbehilfe', roughly speaking) it is not possible because accordance with the person's stated (or presumed) will is a basic requirement. Lacking that, you are looking at homicide, the same way an execution, in the absence of guilt, becomes homicide. So this is a question of semantics. It is obvious, however, that a) a patient can be killed by a doctor against his will an b) this is illegal.

[carlton_bach]

That's about the best delineation of the real reasons behind the DP I've heard yet. Particularly telling is the "claims of infalliblity" statement. I talk to so many DP supporters who act honestly offended that those proven wrongly convicted aren't just killed anyway, and I've never been able to understand their reasoning until now.

An interesting point in the 'life sentencing' debate in Germany has been made a while ago that, I think, translates well into the death penalty debate as well: punishment needs to be seen to occur in order to restore societywide trust in the enforcement of norms. The debater in question argued that Germany's habit of conducting trials largely outside the public gaze and dispensing with any kind of ritual left people uncertain as to whether their social coordinate system was being upheld (which is NOT a given - every functioning macrosociety is an achievement. Afghanistan is the human norm). The death penalty seems to have taken on a similar symbolic value similar to 'Sicherheitsverwahrung' (maximum security life without any option of release) in germany - if anything, more emotional. Thus, to many defenders the question whether to abolish the death penalty is not the largely administrative issue it is (horrifically frequent though they are, the excutions in the US affect a vanishingly small number of the prison population. Dispensing with the system for 'life without parole' would have no great effect on the lives of most Americans), but it calls into question the judicial system's defense of moral order. This view casts every execution as a victory against chaos, and every commution, clemency or successful appeal as a defeat.

[Justin Green]

Whatever. Someone hurts my family, and if the state wont do what is neccesary, I will.

[Kit]

Seen in that light, the problem with the USA is that it still holds the State as sacred, what with the countless rituals (Pledge of Allegiance, showing the flag, etc.) that amount to a de facto civic religion, complete with its own dogmas and claims of infallibility.

I think its probably related to America's self-identification as a nation made-up of immigrants. To be a 'nation', citizens obviously need some sort of strong, shared, national belief system. In most countries that would be a shared culture. But in the US, with people coming from all over the world to be Americans, that couldn't apply, so the ideal of the state substitued for it (ironic of course, given traditional American suspicion of government).

Such a faith in the infallibility has its upside - its much easier to assimilate immigrants this way. But, as you outlined, it also has some drawbacks.

[NapoleonXIV]

This view casts every execution as a victory against chaos, and every commution, clemency or successful appeal as a defeat.

Yes, exactly. I like to remind people that the best kind of deterrence under this system would be the one I read about in a SF story. The government had put up execution devices in most public areas which could detect any thought of crime and reacted instantly, killing the offender. In actual fact, they just went off randomly, but the effect on the public was the same.

[Hendryk]

Whatever. Someone hurts my family, and if the state wont do what is neccesary, I will.
The whole point of justice is that is does away with vendetta. In a civilized society, people accept to renounce private vengeance. If a loved one has been a victim of a crime, I agree it's hard to do. The thirst for retribution may be acute indeed. But such is the price we pay for not living in a Hobbesian state of anarchy.

[Justin Green]

The whole point of justice is that is does away with vendetta. In a civilized society, people accept to renounce private vengeance. If a loved one has been a victim of a crime, I agree it's hard to do. The thirst for retribution may be acute indeed. But such is the price we pay for not living in a Hobbesian state of anarchy.


Whatever man. In my viiw, society lives by rules, that what makes us better than animals. When you break the basic rules you are no longer a man, just an animal. So I guess why I don't see this as against human rights is because humans arent being executed. Animals are.

[Satyrane]

Whatever man. In my viiw, society lives by rules, that what makes us better than animals. When you break the basic rules you are no longer a man, just an animal. So I guess why I don't see this as against human rights is because humans arent being executed. Animals are.I'm not sure how you square this with the "Someone hurts my family, and if the state wont do what is neccesary, I will" school of thought. As you and Hendryk rightly say, society/justice works because we impose rules upon ourselves and abide by them in the face of animalistic desires like revenge (and greed and lust and anything that can prompt us to act outside the demands agreed). We choose the rule over our impulse.

If you propose unilaterally to punish one who has injured you, rather than seeking a societal mandate for their punishment through a system of justice, you are failing to distinguish your act from theirs. 'He started it' is a childish or animalistic rather than a mature, human response.

This is also, in my view, the big problem with the death penalty: society demands that human life be respected above all other considerations, and it seems ... well, frankly bizarre, not to mention hypocritical, to suggest that the best way to foster this respect is to kill those who fail to show it.

[benedict XVII]

Whatever man. In my viiw, society lives by rules, that what makes us better than animals. When you break the basic rules you are no longer a man, just an animal. So I guess why I don't see this as against human rights is because humans arent being executed. Animals are.

I am sorry for whatever happened in your family that causes such grief, and I understand now better why you are taking the issue so much to heart. But I can only concur with Hendryk and Satyrane, renouncing the individual right to kill is a besic tenet of constructing a civilized society.

I can empathize with your anger, but I cannot accept you call another human being an "animal". A killer is still somebody who is capable of feeling, believing, loving, being lovede, reasoning, crying, ... everyhting that makes us human. He has committed the worst possible violation, but that does not take humanity away from him. Doing so is a slippery slope you should be careful of. You may argue that human beings deserve being put to death under certain circumstances, but please do not de-humanize them. And as regard to your anger, there are many testimonies of vicitms' families who say they did not find in the execution of the assassin the consolation they had expected from it. It required harder work on yourself, I'm afraid, though public recognition of the wrongdoing and proper retribution is an important step in the healing.

[sikitu]

My opinion is that there are some cases where the death penalty is absolutely justified. If someone is, beyond any doubt, convicted of murder because he e.g. killed ten people (or a hundred), or because he raped, brutalised and killed several women, the death penalty is justified.

However, there is one big problem with the death penalty: It is irreversible. So if your jury made the wrong decision, someone is dead for ever, and can never be restored to life. This is the reason why I think that the death penalty should be very very rarely used.

[Dave Howery]

well, getting back to the original question and ignoring all the debates over whether it's proper or not.... you somehow have to get the majority of people in all nations against it... not just the US, but everywhere.... that's tough to do... if the vast majority of people in a nation favor it, why will the govt. abolish it? Using the US as an example, I think (but am not sure) that there has always been at least a slim majority in favor of it, and you have to go back and change this. Outside the US, it's even tougher....

[Justin Green]

I'm not sure how you square this with the "Someone hurts my family, and if the state wont do what is neccesary, I will" school of thought. As you and Hendryk rightly say, society/justice works because we impose rules upon ourselves and abide by them in the face of animalistic desires like revenge (and greed and lust and anything that can prompt us to act outside the demands agreed). We choose the rule over our impulse.

If you propose unilaterally to punish one who has injured you, rather than seeking a societal mandate for their punishment through a system of justice, you are failing to distinguish your act from theirs. 'He started it' is a childish or animalistic rather than a mature, human response.

This is also, in my view, the big problem with the death penalty: society demands that human life be respected above all other considerations, and it seems ... well, frankly bizarre, not to mention hypocritical, to suggest that the best way to foster this respect is to kill those who fail to show it.

But the rules exist to punish and destroy those who break them. If a person kills 3 people and the state doesnt kill them, society has failed, and it is the individuals right to make sure real justice is done.

[Justin Green]

I am sorry for whatever happened in your family that causes such grief, and I understand now better why you are taking the issue so much to heart. But I can only concur with Hendryk and Satyrane, renouncing the individual right to kill is a besic tenet of constructing a civilized society.

I can empathize with your anger, but I cannot accept you call another human being an "animal". A killer is still somebody who is capable of feeling, believing, loving, being lovede, reasoning, crying, ... everyhting that makes us human. He has committed the worst possible violation, but that does not take humanity away from him. Doing so is a slippery slope you should be careful of. You may argue that human beings deserve being put to death under certain circumstances, but please do not de-humanize them. And as regard to your anger, there are many testimonies of vicitms' families who say they did not find in the execution of the assassin the consolation they had expected from it. It required harder work on yourself, I'm afraid, though public recognition of the wrongdoing and proper retribution is an important step in the healing.

But why doesnt it? What is human about destroying innocence, breaking families? Nothing. No right minded person would do it. They dont have a conscience, they are not human. They might look like us and play a farce acting like us but behind there eyes is a rabid animal needing to be put down.

[NapoleonXIV]

But the rules exist to punish and destroy those who break them. if a person kills 3 people and the state doesnt kill them, society has failed, and it is the individuals right to make sure real justice is done.

Bloody hell, I surely hope that's not why they're there, I've broken a few in my time.

Rules exist to keep order by telling us what we can and can't do in an orderly way. In the vast majority of cases even societal rules are akin to game rules in that the only real punishment is to stop or limit participation in the game. In any case, penalty, while often necessary, is not the point.

A good example of this happened in my home state of MD some years ago. We had a fellow named John Thanos. Now Thanos had committed another crime before this one and didn't want to return to prison above all else. So he killed two adolescents working in a convenience store. He said he did it because he wanted to die and was afraid to do it himself. He got his wish.

Now your brand of justice was served there, and yet, according to the statement of a man who had no other motivation in any case, the blood of those two children is, functionally, on the law itself, for, whatever else you might say, the fact remains that without a death penalty in MD at that time they would both be alive today. In this case the actual worse, and therefore in most people's opinion more just, penalty would have been life imprisonment without parole.

And this may not be an isolated case. Police speak of a 'suicide by cop', where people wield guns at several armed policemen. I wonder how much there might be of 'suicide by jury'. Probably not a lot, admittedly, since it takes so long to actually execute someone but even one is, in this case, too many, since we are in fact ENCOURAGING murder in these cases.

Actual criminal conduct remains, thankfully, on a level of extreme rarity from a statistical point of view, although the amount of attention we pay to it makes it seem as if its more. Even the most at risk of us is still unlikely to be a victim of a crime. If you are, it's actually VERY important to your mental health that you DON'T seek vengeance, for if you do you remain a victim; this is why literature is replete with stories of vengeance, even if achieved, being so unsatisfying, because it in fact reinforces the victim's status as such. The perpetrator, after all, is still controlling you

I have no problem killing people like this BTK fellow, IF we are ABSOLUTELY sure they are indeed the perpetrator. I don't see how such a person could ever live with themselves, even if they were somehow totally reformed, and don't see why we should either

[Wendell]

Firstly, define 'naturally'. I don't think you can.

Secondly, this presupposes you subscribe to the idea that existing facts have normative power - you die at a given point in time because you are *supposed* to die. I do not believe that. Death is a natural process, but the point at which it occurs is governed by so many variables that the only way a 'right time' could exist would be to assume our fate is predestined. That is a presumption based on which I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion.

As to the question whether a person can be euthanised agasinst his will, that would depend on your use of the word 'euthanasia'. If used in the sense the Nazis and eugenics movement did, yes, euthanasia is possible against a person's will. If you use it in its legal context, though (which would equate the German 'Sterbehilfe', roughly speaking) it is not possible because accordance with the person's stated (or presumed) will is a basic requirement. Lacking that, you are looking at homicide, the same way an execution, in the absence of guilt, becomes homicide. So this is a question of semantics. It is obvious, however, that a) a patient can be killed by a doctor against his will an b) this is illegal.
No where did I imply predestination, but you do agree that there are ways for people to force their own demise?

[Max Sinister]

When I read the topic I had a crazy (or maybe not that crazy?) idea: WI capital punishment is made the penalty for the worst cases of corruption? (I'm talking about stealing several millions of $ here.) Could Liberals accept capital punishment if it was possible to, let's say, execute Ollie North for what he did, or the Enron guys?

[Derek Jackson]

When I read the topic I had a crazy (or maybe not that crazy?) idea: WI capital punishment is made the penalty for the worst cases of corruption? (I'm talking about stealing several millions of $ here.) Could Liberals accept capital punishment if it was possible to, let's say, execute Ollie North for what he did, or the Enron guys?


I am opposed to Capital punishment. However given his involvement in support for terrorists who did murder many innocent people in Nicaragua if capital punishment existed one could argue for killing North.

Oh and Ribbetrop was hanged for launching an aggressive war. Care to rethink your views on the death penalty GW?


Seriously capital punishment does NOT deter. Any judicial system which sometimes convicts people will sometimes convict the innocent.

Plus there is the question as to whether Society is morally at the same level as murderers.

I notice that nobody responded to my point earlier in this thread about how much more difficult capital punishment would have made dealing with Northern Ireland.

[benedict XVII]

But why doesnt it? What is human about destroying innocence, breaking families? Nothing. No right minded person would do it. They dont have a conscience, they are not human. They might look like us and play a farce acting like us but behind there eyes is a rabid animal needing to be put down.

They may kill, and still have a conscience. Be careful with that kind of reasoning, you don't know what you are capable if put under certain circumstances. Ever heard of Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil"?

[Othniel]

What does this have to do with death penalty?
Serial killers.

[Othniel]

America's: abolished by all countries, save the US, Cuba (nice company!) and other small island states from the Gulf of Mexico (Jamaica, Barbados, Bahamas, etc.); as a matter of fact, Latin American countries were the first to abolish death penalty de jure or de facto, starting in the 19th century with Venezuela first in 1863
So Venezula is nice company for the Europeans eh?

Europe: abolished in all countries, including Russia, FRY, Turkey, etc., with the only exception of Belarus (nice company again, the last Soviet-style dictatorship in the world).
So the case of Kosovo didn't count as instating the death penalty?

Africa : Mixed picture, with a majority of states retaining death penalty. Note however that the more liberal / democratic regimes on the continent (such as South Africa, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Mauritius, Senegal, Namibia, etc.) have abolished it in law or in practice
Many of the places listed are not exactly that liberial in their democracy acualtly. If you look at how Mauritius commits business I'm sure it would be very admirable.. :rolleyes:


Middle East : In this hotbed of democracy and liberalism, only the rogue state of Israel has abolished death penalty (including for terrorists and former Nazi's, mind you)
And you might point out that Isreal is more European than the rest of them as well...

Asia : The Continent of death penalty, where it has been abolished in only 8 countries : Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and the Seychelles, plus the territory of Hong Kong. Note however that there have been no executions in South Korea since 1997, and that a majority in their Parliament supports a bill to abolish death penalty. Note also that India has had only one execution in the last 9 years; when such number drop so low, the cases become so controversial that abolition is usually around the corner...
Of the eight countries listed I would not exaclty call them bastions of democracy. Just saying....

Oceania - Pacific : Abolished everywhere, save for US dependencies and Indonesia (nice company again!)

All in all, death penalty has been abolished in 120 countries in law or in practice, and is retained in only 76 countries. Among the OECD countries, only the US and Japan have retained it (and Japan has a rate of executions which is about three times smaller than the US as compared to population). Far from being Eurocentric, the abolishment of death penalty has been historically intiated in Latin America, and is now the dominant rule in the America's, Europe, Oceania-Pacific. Abolition is also making constant progress in Africa and Asia (Nepal, South Korea, India, etc.) Aside from the US and Japan, the strongholds of retentionism include the last Communist dictatorships in the world (Cuba, China, North Korea, Laos, Viet Nam, Belarus and the USSR successor states in Asia), bloody African dictatorships and the Arab-Muslim world.

So, do you now see why the US case looks so odd?
No I don't why is it that you allow murders and rapeists to walk on your streets?

[benedict XVII]

So Venezula is nice company for the Europeans eh?

You may not like Chavez, but he was democratically elected. And we're talking about 19th century Venezuela here. Venezuela was for a long time a fairly liberal and democratic country.

So the case of Kosovo didn't count as instating the death penalty?

To my knowledge, death penalty was abolished in Kosovo in 1999 by the UN administration. Serbia-Montenegro, of which Kosovo is part, abolished death penalty in 2002. So, I don't see what you're talking about.

Many of the places listed are not exactly that liberial in their democracy acualtly. If you look at how Mauritius commits business I'm sure it would be very admirable.. :rolleyes:


Of the eight countries listed I would not exaclty call them bastions of democracy. Just saying....

I did'nt say those places were great. But if you had to live in Africa, they'd probably rank better than most other places on that continent. And regarding Asia, didn't I say it was still the continent the most prone to capital punishment?


And you might point out that Isreal is more European than the rest of them as well...

Look, you are trying to do nitpicking in a way that's frankly not very convincing. Look at the big picture, go back to the list whose link I posted, rank the countries by your favorite democracy / human rights index, shade abolitionist countries in blue and retntionist countries in red, and if you still don't get it, I would advise you go to an ophtalmologist for a severe case of color-blindness.

No I don't why is it that you allow murders and rapeists to walk on your streets?

Rapists don't get death penalty in the US if it was not associated with murder. And as to vicious murderers, we keep them locked up at least until they're too old to do any harm, not on the streets.