Amnesty Thailand debunks 'myths' about capital punishment

[Thakkar]

Opposing the death penalty isn't just about "sparing" the criminal, though that is virtually impossible to parse from the bigger objective of preserving our humanity as a species and as a culture.

The history of civilization is the history of increasing:

tolerance, respect for life.

It's absurd to argue that we can create a better world, a better civilization through state-sanctioned violence. Taking a life diminishes the humanity in each of us. An eye for an eye leaves us all little more blind.

T

[robblok]

Your point on innocent people being executed is well taken and yes as a Dutch guy I know of those cases. However I would not have seen those as cases where death penalty should be done. I did not consider the evidence that strong. I feel for capital punishment the burdon of proof should be even higher. But in this case that it is all about the evidence is strong and he is a repeat offender.

With this case you probably refer to the rapist/killer in the train. As far as i know he was a repeat offender of selling and using drugs, not of raping or murdering.

Anyways, I think we agree for 99% and the last 1% is the extreme cases you want to apply capital punishment for; I can have peace with that.

In the news he admitted to having raped 2 times before and then one of the 2 cases the lady said it was not rape The other was still rape. So a repeat offender in rape. (though not convicted for it before).

I am sure we agree for 99% because i too see the dangers of capital punishment. I would be crazy if i did not.

[Docno]

FACT...Once the offender has been executed..he wont do it again... FACT

True, but only relevant if punishment is about revenge not deterrence. Deterrence is more about discouraging others from committing crime because they fear the punishment associated with getting caught. I suspect that capital punishment can be a deterrent for crimes of reason (where the person thinks through the risks and benefits of a certain act) but not for crimes of passion (where the person acts on the spur of the moment or under the influence of drugs or alcohol). Unfortunately, most of more heinous crimes of violence fall into the latter category. To be more concrete: the severity of state punishment may influence a person's decision to smuggle drugs, but probably won't prevent them from stabbing someone to death during a drunken barroom brawl. Applying the death penalty in the latter case will likely not have a deterrent effect, rather it simply comforts the victim's family and the public much in the same way that revenge killings did back before we had a developed justice system.

[Docno]

I wrote this in another thread, but it fits better in this more general discussion of justice and punishment:

All the people here baying for public hangings, extra-judicial beatings, and good old fashioned capital punishment ought to read Steven Pinker's Angels of our Better Nature. He points out, for instance, that the homicide rate in western Europe in the Middle Ages was between 50-100 per 100,000 whereas today, it is around 1 per 100,000 (and he shows that it's not simply about modern medicine saving more victims). Now those Middle Ages were also the age of public (and sadistic) executions: evisceration, breaking on the wheel, drawing and quartering, etc. But all that public punishment didn't seem to make a dent in rates of violent crime. He identifies a number of things that did, however, make a difference, and one of those is consistent and fair administration of justice by the state... it's not so much the severity of the punishments but the fair application of them that makes the difference. The scions of rich families shouldn't be let off the hook for their crimes, and someone smoking weed at home should not receive a longer sentence than a drunk driver.

So I think this is what Thailand needs to focus on. Not coming up with more severe punishments, but creating a justice system that is actually just and is seen as so by the population. When people feel they can rely on the justice system to get it right, they are less likely to take matters into their own hands. And when the mob takes matters into it's own hands, they often get it wrong. That's why civilisations have justice systems in the first place.

Yeah, easy to say, but not easy to do....

[Thai at Heart]

Opposing the death penalty isn't just about "sparing" the criminal, though that is virtually impossible to parse from the bigger objective of preserving our humanity as a species and as a culture.

The history of civilization is the history of increasing:

tolerance, respect for life.

It's absurd to argue that we can create a better world, a better civilization through state-sanctioned violence. Taking a life diminishes the humanity in each of us. An eye for an eye leaves us all little more blind.

T

Reasonable point. Which raises anothet issue.

If the state is going to have capital punishment for people that are under the influence of drink and drugs,.surely it needs to do more in order to prevent the consumption of these things.

[Seastallion]

explains how the death penalty does not deter ("evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime. For example, in Canada the homicide rate has fallen by 40 per cent since 1975; the death penalty was abolished for murder in 1976") and why people might say "don't shoot, i surrender" even though they did someone that might land them the death penalty ("many crimes are committed on the spur of the moment, leaving little opportunity for potential punishments to influence whether the crime is committed in the first place, as criminals do not believe they will be caught and held to account").

Just because in Canada the crime rate dropped when they stopped the death penalty does not mean you are right. Correlation does not prove causation. Every good scientist knows that and just one country.. wow big sample.

Of course it deters and his example is valid it shows that people want to live if they did not care about their life they would have let themselves get shot after a chase. So loosing your life is a big deterrent.

Fact anti capital punishment people love to twist data a lot.

Putting someone to death is expensive in the US so its more expensive all over the world. That kind of reasoning just can't be taken serious by anyone with half a brain and you expect us to buy it. Putting someone to death does not have to be more expensive it depends how its done, how long the wait is and what costs are included in the calculation. Just because the US sytem is more expensive does not make it so all over the world.

Fact

Anti capital punishment people love cherry picking (taking Canada and the US in an other example just because its in their favor. You know the world is a big place)

The US has the death penalty. The violent crime rate in the US has dropped by about 50% in the past 20 years.

There is no provable correlation between death penalty and the crime rate. According to the OP, the US crime rate shouldn't have dropped more than Canada's but it did.

Look at the 4th column over - number of violent crimes per 100,000 people. The United States FBI.

The death penalty is the proper way for society to prove its outrage in horrific cases.

I think it's important that capital punishment is not performed for any public outrage. That infers killing in response to emotions.

Capital punishment should be a considered and well-thought out action; The criminal is a danger to society. The criminal has no positive contribution to make to society. The criminal is likely to reoffend. The criminal committed an offence that was so vile and has no mitigation.

[Bpuumike]

Myth number 13: the prisons are not full of RE-OFFENDERS

Obviously not or there wouldn't be room for first time offenders.

[EyesWideOpen]

Myth number 13: the prisons are not full of RE-OFFENDERS

Prisons are in fact full of re-offenders. Can't be bothered to look it up,

but I recall it is around 80 %...

[GuestHouse]

Two observations that point to the single biggest problem with capital punishment:

1. The death sentence cannot be revoked once enacted.
2. The justice system is fallible.

Those clambering for the death sentence ought to spend some time contemplating the dichotomy in these two observations.

Rest assured, enact the death penalty for a case of obvious guilt and sometime in the very near future innocent people will be tried, found guilty and executed - And all the while we know too that guilty people kill and buy their way out of the consequences, hide in a Singapore Hospital, skip over the boarder or are shielded by family and power.

The fix Thailand needs, is not the death penalty, but a complete overhaul of the justice system based on justice for all. Get that fixed and then come back to the capital punishment debate.

Edited July 11, 2014 by GuestHouse

[GuestHouse]

Myth number 13: the prisons are not full of RE-OFFENDERS

Prisons are in fact full of re-offenders. Can't be bothered to look it up,

but I recall it is around 80 %...

They are, but that's not the whole story.

Reoffending rates amongst prisoners world wide, are drastically reduced by providing ex prisoners with access to training and work.

If locking them up, releasing them and then locking them up is not working - try something else..... http://www.greatbusiness.gov.uk/timpsons-life-changing-recruitment-policy

Thimpsons UK, out of nearly 300 excons they have employed only 7 have re-offended.

A re-offending rate in the order of 2%

The answer to crime might not be more prison.

[Card]

They forgot to mention the rate of re-offending by those convicted.

The death penalty is 100% effective at preventing re-offending.

The death penalty is also 100% effective in preventing justice when the wrong person is convicted, as often happens.

The rate of re-offending would be 0% if the death penalty was replaced by full life terms.

[Card]

In subjects like this you can't just compare the advantages with the disadvantages.

If you start thinking logically sending people to jail often also has more disadvantages than advantages.

People often leave jail worse than they entered.

People are not sent to jail to improve only, it's a punishment.

Same is true for death penalty, it's not some kind of tool to help society to save money or to reduce the number of crimes.

It's a punishment, which gives society a feeling of justification.

It's a way to be assured they extremely bad people are for once and forever removed from it world.

In extreme cases like this I am in favor of the death penalty (if there's hard evidence and no possible doubt).

So, I agree with the points of amnesty international, but they are not relevant factors when deciding if someone should get death penalty or not.

This case makes me think about the guy that killed 2 children in Pattaya because he felt jealous the home owner took his girlfriend to a bar.

One of the children, a 6 years old was a school friend of my son. The other child was 2 years old.

I hope the one that did it will be removed from this world.

Unfortunately, the death penalty is often given on the basis of a confession, which many people assume is enough because who would admit to such a crime if they were innocent? death penalties in the vast majority of countries only applies to the poor who don't have the resources to provide bail or good legal reps. Look at Thailand. The death penalty does not allow for new evidence to prove innocence. It should be replaced by full life terms.

[Card]

5 myths written about... great article.

Let's go with the facts, or even one of them. This <deleted>er raped and killed a 13 year old girl.

FACT: He won't be mentioned again once he's been executed, AND will NEVER be a martyr

FACT: He doesn't derserve a second chance, as he'd already done it twice - three times and out!

FACT: Execution does have an affect upon costs. The myth is rubbish, and I rubbish it here now. Each and every offender costs money. Get rid of one, and you save the very expensive cost of one. That is a FACT.

I could go on, but I bet there are a lot more logical facts in opposition to the few myths presented in the OP.

And those innocents who are wrongly convicted? And the rich and influential in Thailand?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Card

[Card]

Between 1996 and 2006 in the UK alone, 175 people accused of either murder (138) or manslaughter (37) subsequently had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.

If the death penalty was in force, it could have resulted in 175 innocent people being put to death.

If mistakes like that (remember all will have been tried before a jury which was convinced of their guilt), can happen in the UK alone, what mistakes are being made around the world where the standards of justice are relative poor?

[Card]

With enough checks in cases which are very clear and not political (Freedom fighter vs. Terrorist) it is right to remove the worst from the society.

Unfortunately that seldom happens and is seldom seen to happen.

[Gandtee]

They forgot to mention the rate of re-offending by those convicted.

The death penalty is 100% effective at preventing re-offending.

Yes, but how many innocent people were executed?

[Card]

Let's face it, as is the case of most religions in this world where its adherents ignore the moral teachings, when you have a society which basis its morality and guide for daily living on the five precepts in order to live a better life, and chooses to ignore them, I doubt that the fear of the death penalty or any other "punishment" will affect how they behave on a daily basis. Morality is not something that is in their thoughts when they commit their acts of greed and self enrichment (vs. self enlightenment). How many of the following do we see broken on an ongoing basis?

1. To refrain from taking life (non-violence towards sentient life forms),
2. To refrain from taking that which is not given (not committing theft);
3. To refrain from sensual (including sexual) misconduct;
4. To refrain from lying (speaking truth always);
5. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness (specifically, drugs and alcohol).

Basically, most humans are greedy, and the most greedy have no moral compass. Thus, there is no law, threat of imprisonment or death that will deter them from satisfying their primitive animalistic needs and desires. The death penalty satisfies those who want to kill for the right reasons in what they consider a civilized manner, and yes the executed will not repeat their offences. However, it does nothing to deter certain people from committing the same barbaric acts in the future. I don't think anyone has the answer or solution to this problem, but somehow stopping hypocritical behaviors from those leaders who are entrusted with worldly and spiritual guidance would be a good start.

Each one of your points is open to interpretation, often religious interpretation.

[Card]

It ain't about deterring crime. It's about killing off the gene that makes violent criminals. The world would be far better off without the billion psychos running around.

So there is a murder gene is there? Please tell us more.

[Card]

Why is deterrent even an issue?

Who would care if it is a deterrent?

Even in America, I've never seen a pro-capital punishment politician push the deterrent issue. Usually they say what I say, the world is just a better place without people who have no regard for the lives of others.

Usually that type of person mascarades as pro-capital punishment politicians.

[GuestHouse]

Between 1996 and 2006 in the UK alone, 175 people accused of either murder (138) or manslaughter (37) subsequently had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.

If the death penalty was in force, it could have resulted in 175 innocent people being put to death.

If mistakes like that (remember all will have been tried before a jury which was convinced of their guilt), can happen in the UK alone, what mistakes are being made around the world where the standards of justice are relative poor?

And that is in a country with arguably one of the most reliable justice systems in the world.

Take a look at Thailand's convictions - essentially poor people with no power or money to buy themselves off. On the flip side we all know of many cases in Thailand in which wealthy people have committed murder and yet go un punished.

Thailand needs to fix its justice system before it starts executing people for crimes.

[northernjohn]

It doesn't deter? Then, somebody tell me why, when the police are chasing some guy running away from a horrific crime, the criminal will usually throw his hands up and say, "don't shoot, I surrender."

Not sure how the death penalty relates to people saying "don't shoot, I surrender". Maybe it sounded logical when you thought of it.

But you should read the article again as it explains how the death penalty does not deter ("evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime. For example, in Canada the homicide rate has fallen by 40 per cent since 1975; the death penalty was abolished for murder in 1976") and why people might say "don't shoot, i surrender" even though they did someone that might land them the death penalty ("many crimes are committed on the spur of the moment, leaving little opportunity for potential punishments to influence whether the crime is committed in the first place, as criminals do not believe they will be caught and held to account").

There is studies out that say when the murders are planned the large majority of the killers would prefer the death penalty to life in Prison.

Many murders are not planned they are accidental or spontaneous and the perpetrator does not reason out the penalty.

[The Deerhunter]

It doesn't deter? Then, somebody tell me why, when the police are chasing some guy running away from a horrific crime, the criminal will usually throw his hands up and say, "don't shoot, I surrender."

The appearance of the police with guns in their hands would focus his attention on consequences, whereas a few minutes or longer ago when he was in the midst of the commission he was not even thinking about getting caught. Our railway employee's focus, fueled by alcohol & possibly ya-ba would have been on fulfilling his perverted lust (strangling & raping a 13yo girl.). Typically, he probably never entertained or considereed the idea of being caught. Saw the girl. Realised the opportunity. Did the deed and threw the body out the window in a panic after the event, when his lust was assuaged.. You are making a reasonable, logical, sane and sober rationalization, unlike the average violent criminal. The focus of these monsters is always on the deed, not the consequences. The only rapist/murderers who think it through are the psychopaths and they do it sober with a full plan and frequently get away with it for years.

[Morakot]

They forgot to mention the rate of re-offending by those convicted.

The death penalty is 100% effective at preventing re-offending.

Forgot to mention the death penalty is 100% ineffective for rectifying a miscarriage of justice in case of wrongly convicted.

[peecee]

I agree with Amnesty International on this one. It mirrors the evidence of my own country in which the death penalty is legal is most states.

And it is so Final. They cannot say Sorry we were wrong and let you out!!! There is a lot of posthumous pardons going through in the USA now that DNA is available to disprove many executed convictions. In my own country (not USA) there are several murders over the last 30 years where there were more than two trials or trials & appeals and later they found out he did'nt do it and was released. One was released a month or two ago after DNA evidence disproved his conviction & 20 years imprisonment. But he is still alive. He wouldn't be if they still had capital punishment.

I agree, it is so final; DNA today does provide evidence of guilt as well as innocence, but I'm not willing to send someone to meet their maker without very positive proof. Who knows if the day will come when DNA is found to implicate many more people than at present?

Some states have only one sentence for Murder & that's death. Many years ago Judge Cecil Havers had his hands tied in such a way and passed a death sentence on Ruth Ellis, he then wrote to the home secretary requesting clemency. She was hanged for the crime, but many people still feel that this was manslaughter and the law wrong. Havers & the executioner were profoundly troubled by her sentence and the judge helped pay for Ellis's child upbringing!

[kurnell]

It ain't about deterring crime. It's about killing off the gene that makes violent criminals. The world would be far better off without the billion psychos running around.

So there is a murder gene is there? Please tell us more.

There's numb nuts gene too did you know?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[northernjohn]

It ain't about deterring crime. It's about killing off the gene that makes violent criminals. The world would be far better off without the billion psychos running around.

So there is a murder gene is there? Please tell us more.

There's numb nuts gene too did you know?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Actually there is an extra gene in many of the criminals. Or chromosome difference. Can't remember that was over 30 years ago. I believe it is an extra Y or X not sure.This is a scientific fact.

It is far out of proportion to the normal population.

[NeverSure]

I agree with Amnesty International on this one. It mirrors the evidence of my own country in which the death penalty is legal is most states.

And it is so Final. They cannot say Sorry we were wrong and let you out!!! There is a lot of posthumous pardons going through in the USA now that DNA is available to disprove many executed convictions. In my own country (not USA) there are several murders over the last 30 years where there were more than two trials or trials & appeals and later they found out he did'nt do it and was released. One was released a month or two ago after DNA evidence disproved his conviction & 20 years imprisonment. But he is still alive. He wouldn't be if they still had capital punishment.

I agree, it is so final; DNA today does provide evidence of guilt as well as innocence, but I'm not willing to send someone to meet their maker without very positive proof. Who knows if the day will come when DNA is found to implicate many more people than at present?

Some states have only one sentence for Murder & that's death. Many years ago Judge Cecil Havers had his hands tied in such a way and passed a death sentence on Ruth Ellis, he then wrote to the home secretary requesting clemency. She was hanged for the crime, but many people still feel that this was manslaughter and the law wrong. Havers & the executioner were profoundly troubled by her sentence and the judge helped pay for Ellis's child upbringing!

I'm confused. States? I know of only one Ruth Ellis who was executed she was executed in the UK in the 1950's.

If you're referring to US states, I know of none in which the judge makes the call. Some states do and some don't even have the death penalty. Only the most heinous murders might get the death penalty, but that call is up to the jury.

In the United States, mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional. See Woodson v. North Carolina.

12 people have to vote unanimously to convict, and all have to vote unanimously to apply the death penalty. They usually deliberate together for days before reaching that verdict.

A judge can overrule and reduce the death penalty to life. But he can't work the opposite and overrule not guilty, or change a lesser sentence to death. He is just a safety valve for the accused.

[rametindallas]

Let's face it, as is the case of most religions in this world where its adherents ignore the moral teachings, when you have a society which basis its morality and guide for daily living on the five precepts in order to live a better life, and chooses to ignore them, I doubt that the fear of the death penalty or any other "punishment" will affect how they behave on a daily basis. Morality is not something that is in their thoughts when they commit their acts of greed and self enrichment (vs. self enlightenment). How many of the following do we see broken on an ongoing basis?

1. To refrain from taking life (non-violence towards sentient life forms),
2. To refrain from taking that which is not given (not committing theft);
3. To refrain from sensual (including sexual) misconduct;
4. To refrain from lying (speaking truth always);
5. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness (specifically, drugs and alcohol).

Basically, most humans are greedy, and the most greedy have no moral compass. Thus, there is no law, threat of imprisonment or death that will deter them from satisfying their primitive animalistic needs and desires. The death penalty satisfies those who want to kill for the right reasons in what they consider a civilized manner, and yes the executed will not repeat their offences. However, it does nothing to deter certain people from committing the same barbaric acts in the future. I don't think anyone has the answer or solution to this problem, but somehow stopping hypocritical behaviors from those leaders who are entrusted with worldly and spiritual guidance would be a good start.

It would be a kind, Buddhist act to send the most heinous offenders to have their souls recycled/reincarnated (via execution). That way they may have a chance of being born into a better environment and they would have a chance to lead a better life. Why leave them to live tormented lives? Put them out of their (our?) misery.

[dudleysharp]

Amnesty has no clue what they are talking about.

1) We don't measure deterrence by murder rates. Amnesty has no clue. All sanctions deter some, regardless of crime or murder rates. All countries would have less net murders with the death penalty and more net murders without it, as detailed.

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?
A Review of All Innocence Issues

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

2) My guess is Amnesty fact checked nothing regarding costs. Responsible protocols, as with Virginia and others, would result in the death penalty being less expensive than a life sentence, as detailed.

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

Edited July 11, 2014 by dudleysharp

[hawker9000]

Between 1996 and 2006 in the UK alone, 175 people accused of either murder (138) or manslaughter (37) subsequently had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.

If the death penalty was in force, it could have resulted in 175 innocent people being put to death.

If mistakes like that (remember all will have been tried before a jury which was convinced of their guilt), can happen in the UK alone, what mistakes are being made around the world where the standards of justice are relative poor?

"If the death penalty was in force, it could have resulted in 175 innocent people being put to death."

In the UK, were there still a death penalty, you'd get death for manslaughter, even voluntary manslaughter, even low degree of provocation manslaughter? Who says so?

And conviction of murder always carried with it a mandatory death of sentence, never life ?

So all of those 138 + 37 would all have been sentenced to death?? I doubt it. It's purely hypothetical at best. You're just making it up.

See, this is precisely the kind of misinformation and diversion and "speculative data" anti-capital punishment advocates just love to toss around as fact.

The death penalty, when awarded, generally takes into account a convict's criminal history as well as the crime for which he's actually being sentenced. So when you say "175 innocent people", I sort of doubt these were 175 otherwise law-abiding/no previous violent offenses/"innocent" people. And, sadly, in our modern age of endless legal technicality, the overturning of a conviction is, as are some acquittals, often more a matter of some violation of an accused's rights than an actual determination of "innocence" based on all the facts (including ones which were later determined to be "inadmissible" for one reason and another). Like anyone else, I have a great concern for abuse of police powers, but honestly wouldn't weep much over a conviction & subsequent execution which should have been thrown out because the police, perhaps even unknowingly or unintentionally or just out of carelessness, engaged in unlawful search & seizure or whatever or over some fine point of prosecutorial misconduct. The real injustice in a case like that is that the police and prosecutors are encouraged to continue in their abuse of authority & trust rather than the execution of someone who really was actually guilty of the crime, but for technical reasons shouldn't have been convicted.

And this idea that the victims, that is, the families and friends of a murder victim, should be deprived of any voice in the process (because of the "revenge factor"), while the convicted murderer has a forum to say anything he wants, is just plain evil. What you, the anti-cp crowd, call "revenge", I call a search for justice for the violent intentional deprivation of a loved one's companionship, love, support and friendship. Civil law is based on "squaring accounts" and on reparations for damage done. Why should criminal law have to entirely abandon that well-enshrined principle?

Most importantly though, and that which overrides all other arguments on the subject, is the FACT that an executed murderer cannot murder again. And once having murdered, a person can no longer offer society any reliable assurance that he won't do the same thing again. Society has no obligation - other than a self-imposed one - to house, feed & care for such a person, but DOES have a right to be free of the ongoing threat such a person poses. Commit murder, and you label yourself a predator; for life. It's a line you simply must not cross.

Parenthetically, how many people went ahead and committed murder in the face of a death penalty doesn't tell you as much about deterrence as death penalty opponents customarily claim, because you really don't know, and can't know, how many people actually WERE deterred, might OTHERWISE have proceeded to murder but did not, and so DON'T get counted. It's an oft-repeated fallacy. It just tells you in how many the violent motivation was strong enough to overcome the deterrence factor (or perhaps just didn't think they'd ever be caught or successfully tried & convicted, which again says less about deterrence, and more about a lack of belief in the efficacy of the justice system; to them a death penalty which they never expect to see is the same as no death penalty at all... The existence of an active movement to eliminate the death penalty actually helps nurture this sureness that the death penalty will never actually be imposed on them.).

Edited July 11, 2014 by hawker9000