国外网友QA：应该废除死刑吗？

Tim Dees
I think we should abandon the death penalty. My rationale is as follows:The death penalty does not act as a deterrent any better than other punishments. If it did, death penalty states would have lower rates of murder than non-death penalty states. This is not the case.The death penalty is hugely expensive. Keeping an adult inmate in prison for life costs about $1 million (although there is considerable variance here). Prosecuting a death penalty case from trial to exhaustion of all appeals and execution costs typically $5 million, as the government is paying the costs for both sides in the case. An appeals process is especially critical in capital cases, as there is no way to go back and make an executed prisoner whole again.With the possible exception of Texas, the death penalty is seldom used. California has 725 inmates on death row. They have not executed anyone in six years, and only a handful in the last 30 years.

回答1：
我觉得应该废除死刑，理由如下:
1.  死刑的威慑作用并不比其他刑罚强. 如果死刑有那么强的威慑作用的话，有死刑的国家，谋杀率应该比废除死刑国家的谋杀率低才对. 然而现实并非如此.
2.  审判死刑的费用废除昂贵.
将一名成年囚犯监禁终身.
其成本约为100万美元(这里的数据虽然各地不太相同，但也大致如此).
而要审判死刑的话，从审判、上诉、再判、再上诉等，
到执行死刑，整一套过程下来，耗费大约达到500万美元.
因为原告、被告双方的诉讼费用，都是由政府承担的.
而死刑审判，又特别强调上诉程序，原因不言而喻，
你总不能对一个人执行死刑之后，一旦发现冤杀了再让他活过来吧.
3.  除了德克萨斯州例外，其他州很少执行死刑.
加州有725名死囚，六年来，他们没有处决任何人，
在过去30年里也只有少数人被处决.

Because states won't re-open cases once an inmate has been executed, it's impossible to determine positively if an innocent man has ever been executed. However, 18 people who were exonerated of their charges through The Innocence Project after conviction served time on death row. It seems almost certain to me that some people executed before DNA evidence became available were wrongly convicted. There is no way to fix that.The death penalty satisfies the need some people have for retribution--an eye for an eye. We don't exact this kind of retribution for other crimes. Rapists aren't thrown helpless to people who will rape them; drunk drivers who injure or kill others in accidents aren't made to stand in front of speeding cars.Prisons incapacitate the offender from victimizing more people, and that is probably about the best we're going to do for now. Rehabilitation efforts are hit and miss, and there's little evidence that harsher penalties have a deterrent effect on offenders. The other costs and hazards of the death penalty don't justify  the benefit of making a few people satisfied a killer has paid the ultimate price. Knowing that you're going to die in prison and never again walk as a free man is a pretty harsh penalty in itself.

4.  因为一旦犯人被执行死刑，各州就不会再重新审理案件，
所以，无法排除是否有无辜的人被执行过死刑.
然而，有18个在死囚区服刑的人在定死刑罪后被改判为无罪.
在我看来，几乎可以肯定的是，
有些人在获得DNA证据之前就被执行死刑了，结果却是判错了.
误判这个问题，是没有办法解决的.
5.  死刑满足了一些人的报复心理——以眼还眼.
但是，其他的一些罪行，我们也并没有遵从以眼还眼原则的.
比如，强奸犯，我们也没有把强奸犯绑定，然后扔给被强奸的人.
再比如，醉酒司机，他们引起交通事故，造成死伤了，
我们也没有绑定这些司机送到高速路上让别人撞还他啊.
把罪犯关进牢里，让他们不能再出来害人，
这可能是目前我们能做到最好的事情了.
犯人改邪归正还是做恶到底，那并不是人为能控制的.
几乎没有证据表明，严刑苛法对罪犯有威慑作用.
满足少数人以眼还眼的报复心理，让谋杀犯付出最终代价，
这种好处并不能抵消掉审判死刑所付出的成本，以及死刑有可能误判的危险性，
让罪犯知道自己将老死在监狱里，再也不能以自由人的身份行走，
这本身就已经是一种相当严厉的惩罚了.

Mark Eichenlaub
I agree that the death penalty is probably not an effective deterrent and that it ought to be abolished. However, point #1 is a logical fallacy. It could well be that states with naturally high murder rates (for whatever reason) are more likely to institute the death penalty. The death penalty might lower murder rates, but not enough to bring these states down to lower murder rates than the rest of the US. In fact, it seems pretty likely to me that people who live in states with high murder rates would be more likely to support the death penalty.

评论：
我同意死刑可能不是一种有效的威慑，应该废除死刑.
然而，你所说的第一点是逻辑谬误的.
很有可能，谋杀率较高的州(无论出于何种原因)更有可能实行死刑.
死刑可能会降低谋杀率，但不足以使这些州的谋杀率低于美国其他州。
事实上，在我看来，生活在谋杀率高的州的人更有可能支持死刑.

Harold Kingsberg
Between 1972 and 1979 , capital punishment was under an effective moratorium in the United States. Here's what the crime rates in the country looked like from 1960-2012.  United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2012  One notices that the the homicide rate was already ascendant when capital punishment was banned, that it dropped the first few years of the moratorium and that it was only in the mid-1990s that it began to fall back down. One cannot find a trend that suggests the homicide rate in the US is correlated with the presence or absence of the death penalty.

1972年至1979年，美国暂停死刑.
以下链接是1960年至2012年美国的犯罪率表单.
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2012
人们注意到，死刑被废除时，杀人犯罪率已经上升.
取消禁令后，直到20世纪90年代中期杀人犯罪率才开始回落.
人们找不到一种趋势表明，美国的谋杀率与死刑的存在或不存在相关。

Joe Sanchez
I'd wager that the death penalty the way it should be, would deter quite a bit.  Tim makes a very good and valid point, that it doesn't really deter. As a proponent of the death penalty, I think the point he makes is especially important. What's the point of the punishment if it isn't served correctly? Criminals know, even if they have the book thrown at them, they'll end up just spending life, and dying in prison, a natural death. None of the deterrence of death remains; it just stands as a bashing post for people to say how ineffective the death penalty is. In reality, the way it should be, is that the courts should speed up the process. Where there isn't enough evidence, their should be a fair and quick investigation. Where there is clear evidence, the death should be served in a timely manner, within weeks. The guy put a hatchet in his wife's gut? You take him to the kill room, put some plastic on the floor and put a hatchet through him. An eye for an eye. Straight up. Try that and call me if crimes don't go down. Our justice system is so incredibly fu##ed up, it's amazing. The innocent get the book thrown at them, and the guilty, like the Tsarnev guy, get to spend years living comfortably on the Tax payer's dime Ridiculous, I tell you. The death penalty as it is in incredibly inefficient, ineffective, and utterly useless.

我敢打赌，死刑对罪犯起到相当大的威慑作用.
1楼Tim的观点很好，也很有道理，但是并不能说服我.
作为死刑的支持者，我认为他提出的观点特别重要。
刑罚若是不能有效地威慑罪犯，那刑罚还有什么意义呢.
罪犯们知道，即使观众向他吐口水，他也不会被处死，
而是活着在牢里度过余生.
死刑成为了人们互相抨击对方立场的借口，被人们说成无效的刑罚.
事实上，在现实里应该加强的事是：
法院应该加快审判进程.
如果没有足够的证据，他们应该进行公正和快速的调查。
有明确证据的，应当在数周内及时执行.
那家伙拿斧头砍死妻子？ 
好，你把他带进杀戮室，在地板上放一些塑料，然后用短柄小斧砍死他。
以眼还眼.
试试这样砍几个谋杀犯看看，如果犯罪率不下降你就打电话给我.
我们的司法系统是如此的令人难以置信，令人惊讶.
无辜的人会受到惩罚，而有罪的人，就像那个萨纳夫，
几年来就靠纳税人的钱过着舒适的生活.
我告诉你，这很荒谬。
死刑（的审判）变成得非常低效的，甚至无效，几乎完全没用！

Sebastian Hong
Originally Answered: Should death penalty be allowed?
The paramount concern should be whether the death penalty serves the interests of JUSTICE. For there to be justice the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Some crimes are so heinous that it cries out for the ultimate punishment to be applied. It is to these crimes that the death penalty should always exist as an option of punishment.Many arguments have been forwarded against the death penalty. I find them to be less than cogent and some of them even fatuous.Dubious reason: The death penalty doesn’t deter crime.How exactly can one verify this statement? If you say that in societies which have the death penalty the crime rate is still high how do we know that this is not because of other reasons, for example, a corrupt police force, income disparity, high unemployment, etc? How do you explain societies which have the death penalty but where crime is low? Singapore, Japan.I submit that it is not possible to state with certainty whether the death penalty deters or does not deter other criminals. But what we can be certain is that the person executed will not commit any future crimes. If you think this is facetious, consider that if he were imprisoned, he could be released, paroled or he might escape and go on to commit more crimes. He could also commit crimes while still serving his sentence.

回答2：
最重要的问题应该是死刑是否符合正义.
因为要伸张正义，有罪就必有罚.
有些罪行是十恶不赦的，必须要执行最严厉的处罚.
正是因为有这些十恶不赦的罪行存在，所以必须要有死刑来威慑.
人们提出了许多反对死刑的论点，
但是，我觉得这些论点并不那么令人信服，有些论点甚至是非常愚蠢的.
第一个疑点：死刑不能阻止犯罪.
铁口咬定的说法，却不知如何证实？
如果你说在有死刑的社会中犯罪率仍然很高，
那么，就就要问了，我们如何知道这不是因为其他原因？
比如腐败的警察队伍，收入差距，高失业率等等?
你又如何解释一个有死刑但犯罪率低的社会呢? 比如新加坡、日本.
我认为，我们无法肯定死刑是否有威慑罪犯的作用，
但是，我们可以肯定的是，被处决的人绝不可能再犯任何罪行！
若果你觉得这很荒谬，那么，想想看，
如果罪犯没被处死而只被关押，那么，他就有可能被释放出来，
假释或逃狱，然后再来危害社会.
甚至他在服刑期间都有可能再犯罪.

For those who quote criminologists’ studies or FBI statistics that purportedly show that the death penalty does not deter crime, please at least summarise the methodology used and the reasoning behind such conclusions. I could very well accept that the death penalty does not deter crime. However, I will still assert that the death penalty is needed for justice and is not merely to deter crime.Dubious reason: The death penalty costs tax payers more.While I am of the opinion that costs should not be a factor in justice, this statement requires more careful study. If it is true, why is it so?If a person is found guilty of a heinous crime and the death penalty is not an option, the logical alternative can only be life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). Now imprisoning a person for life costs a lot too. Not only is security expensive, you have to feed and pay for his medical and dental needs. This could last for decades. When he is old, geriatric care and treatment adds to the tax payer’s bils. Has all this been considered?

对于那些引用犯罪学家的研究结果或联邦调查局的统计数据，
声称死刑不能阻止犯罪的人，
请至少总结一下所使用的方法和这些结论背后的推理.
我可以接受死刑并不能阻止犯罪的观点.
然而，我仍然坚持认为，死刑是正义所需要的，而不仅仅是阻止犯罪.
第二个疑点：死刑消耗纳税人更多的费用.
虽然我认为审判罪犯的成本不应该成为影响正义的因素，
但这一说法，仔细推究的话，也站不住脚的.
如果审判罪犯的成本过高的话，那么，就得问问为什么过高？
如果某人被判犯有十恶不赦的罪行，并且不能判处死刑，
那么合乎逻辑的选择只能是关押终身不得假释.
现在，把一个人关到牢里养一辈子，也要花很多钱的.
不仅关押费用昂贵，其他的，你还必须给他提供医疗服务，
牙科服务也不能少，他还吃饭呢？ 所有还得提供食物.
这个不是供个一年半载就完的，而是供养他一辈子，几十年！
这罪犯老了之后，老年的护理和治疗费就更高了，直接加重了纳税人的负担.
所有这些因素，你们都考虑过了吗？

Compare this to an accused on death row. Is not the costs of his upkeep the same as if he were in life imprisonment? If it is more expensive to the tax payers, is it because the legal process allows the lawyers to drag the appeal process for decades? Or is it a characteristic in the appeal process? All the additional costs are purely legal costs. In a more efficient legal systems, the appeal process is faster and costs less. An accused should be able to bring his case to the highest courts in less than 10 years (5 would be better), without any loss to the justice of the process.In short, if the death penalty appeal process is expensive, look to improving the legal system. It is not correct to say that a long legal process of appeals and more appeals means more justice and fairness. On the contrary, a quick, not rushed, process of appeals to successively higher courts, is what is needed. A truly innocent accused would welcome this too. A knowingly guilty person would only want to game the system to keep alive.

现在来比较一下死囚所耗的费用.
养一个死囚的费用和终身监押他的费用，难道不是一样的吗？
若果说，审判某死囚的费用更贵的话，
贵的原因难道不是因为法律程序允许律师将上诉程序拖上几十年吗?
拖个几十年，是上诉过程的必要特征？
其实，所有的这些额外费用，纯粹就是耗在法律诉讼上面了.
若是在一个高效的法律体系中，上诉过程就快多了，
那么，花费还能有这么多吗？
（应该规定）要在10年内（最好是5年内）将（死囚的）案件提交到最高法院. 这对司法程序没有造成任何损失的.
简而言之，如果死刑上诉程序耗资巨大，那么就可以考虑改进法律制度。
如果说，法律程序多，上诉次数多，正义和公平就多，这不对！
相反，我们向更高法院上诉的过程，应该是迅速而不仓促.
真正无辜的被告也会对此表示欢迎.
而明知有罪的人，则为了活下来，会极力玩弄法律制度.

Plausible reason: You may execute an innocent person. Misleading reason: The death penalty is irreversible.When a person is executed, and he is found to be innocent later on, you cannot bring them back to life. This is what is meant by the death penalty being irreversible. This is correct but a person who has served 10, 20 or 30 years in prison, and is then found innocent, cannot have his 10, 20 or 30 years back. He may be compensated but you cannot say that the time spent in jail is reversible.With regards to the problem of error, the better course would be to raise the bar for crimes where the death penalty would be applicable. Secondly, judges should use their discretion and substitute the death penalty with LWOP if there is any inkling of doubt.In the most heinous crimes, there is usually no question of who the guilty party is. Either the perpetrator is proud of his act and is happy to admit to it or the evidence is so overwhelming and he might as well confess in the hope of receiving a lighter sentence. For examples, think of Dylan Roof, the Boston bomber, mass murderers and the most notorious serial killers. In the last 48 hours one such mass killing has occurred. Is there any probability that the justice system would incriminate the wrong person here?

第三个看似有理的疑点： 你可能冤杀一个无辜的人.
理由是:死刑是不可逆转的.（这个理由有误导性）.
如果某人被处死刑，后来又发现他是无辜的，我们再也无法让他复活过来.
这是死刑不可逆转的含义.
这没错.
但是，某人被关在牢里10年、20年或30年，然后发现他是无辜的，
难道他就能回到10年、20年或30年以前重新开始生活？
你会说，他能得到补偿，但是，在监狱里度过的时光又如何补偿？
耗掉的时光同样是不可逆的.
所以，防止误判的问题，较好的方法是提高判死罪的标准.
其次，若案件还有疑点的话，法官应该使用他们的自由裁量权，
判罪犯终身监禁，不得假释.
在最令人发指的罪行中，通常不存在谁是罪犯的问题。
要么是罪犯对自己的行为感到骄傲，并乐于承认，要么是证据太充分，他也可能会坦白，希望得到更轻的判决.
举个例子，想想迪伦鲁夫(Dylan Roof)、波士顿爆炸案(Boston bomber)、大屠杀凶手和最臭名昭著的连环杀手.
在过去的48小时内，这样的大规模屠杀案发生了.
像这种情况，司法系统还无法确定罪犯，冤杀无辜的人吗?

Dubious reason: The application death penalty is racist is nature and hence unjust.If there is any proof that the death penalty is applied in an unjust and racist manner, treat racism in the system. If the death penalty is replaced with LWOP, would we next say that the application of LWOP is racist and unjust and we should do away with LWOP?Dubious reason: Drugs to carry out the death penalty are hard to come by.Hanging and bullets work very effectively in other countries and have been working well for decades.Dubious reason: The death penalty is state sanctioned murder.Such an emotive word murder. The death penalty is not murder if it is allowed by legitimate law. Similarly killing in war is not murder.

第四个疑点： 死刑会被种族主义因素渗透，因此是不公平的.
没有任何证据表明，死刑受到种族主义的干扰.
反过来问问就明白了：如果用终身监禁的处罚来代替死刑的话，
那么，我们又是否可以说，终身监禁也是被种族主义干扰而变得不公平了？ 
然后我们就可以废除“终身监禁”的刑罚了？
第五个疑点：用注射法给死囚执行死刑，其药物很难找到.
对这个质疑点，（我们可以参考别的国家）绞绳和子弹就非常有效，其他国家已经这么搞了，几十年来一直都很有效.
第六个疑点：死刑是国家批准的谋杀.
“谋杀”这个词，充满了感情色彩.
但是，要知道，法律允许，死刑就不是谋杀.
同理，在战争中杀人也不是谋杀.

Fatuous reason: The death penalty is revenge.Yes but so what if it is revenge? Why is that a reason to do away with the death penalty? Imprisonment can be revenge too can it not? Should we do away with imprisonment too?And if you say imprisonment is not revenge but the death penalty is, how do you make the distinction between what is revenge and what is not? I asked this question of a gentleman and he said the death penalty is not civilised. If I had persisted and asked him why it is not civilised, I have a strong feeling he would say because it’s revenge.I believe that if they are honest, opponents of the death penalty will admit that their true and only reason as to why they are against the death penalty is a moral one.

第七个疑点：死刑是复仇.
是，就是复仇，怎么啦？
为什么复仇就成为废死的理由？
难道监禁就不是复仇吗？ 我们又为什么不非常监禁呢？
如果你说监禁是复仇，而死刑是复仇，
那么，请告诉我，你是如何区分什么是复仇的，什么又不是复仇.
我问过一个绅士这个问题，他回答说，死刑是不文明的.
如果我坚持再问他为什么死刑是不文明的，
我强烈感觉到，他会回答说：因为这是复仇.
我相信，如果反死刑的人够坦白的话，
他们会承认，他们反对死刑的真正且唯一的理由是：道德！

They believe that the taking of life is a wrong, a sin. Even though western society is less religious now then in the past, the commandment “Thou shall not kill” lies buried deeply in the psyche of many.Without the death penalty there can be no real justice and hence no real morality. There is justice if we do not over-punish nor under-punish the guilty. We must apply a punishment that fits the crime. Victims expect this. Otherwise they will be tempted to take the law into their own hands and avenge the wrongs they have suffered. Think about the outrage that followed the Brock Turner sentencing. Think of the outrage many people feel because the perpetrators of the 2008 financial crisis remain unpunished.The use of the death penalty in the most heinous of cases is the morally correct path to take.Thanks for reading.ps. For a short piece on this matter, may I suggest this fine article in the NYT.Opinion | Justice? Vengeance? You Need Both
Edit: If you wish to comment, please don’t ask me to read this book or that website or report. Just answer directly the points above would be fine. A nutter, who insists on being called a Lord, keeps sending me his literature. Had to ban the lunatic.

他们认为夺取一个人的生命是一种错误，也是一种罪恶.
尽管现在的西方社会已经不像过去那么笃信宗教了，
但“不可杀人”的戒律却深深埋藏在许多人的心中.
（但是，我要说的是：）没有死刑，就没有真正的正义，也就没有真正的道德.
如果我们不滥用刑罚，也不放过罪犯，那么，这就是正义！
我们必须使罪犯罪有应得，受害者在指望着正义呢.
如果罪没有应得的话，
受害者就会冤屈不平，从而会采取极端的报复手段为自己伸冤.
想想布鲁克·特纳(Brock Turner)被判刑后的（大众的）愤怒吧.
想想许多人因为2008年金融危机的肇事者仍然逍遥法外而感到的愤怒吧。
在令人发指的案件中使用死刑是道德上正确的做法！
感谢大家的阅读.
另：关于该案件的一篇文章，我推荐《纽约时报》上的这篇好文章给大家看看：
Opinion | Justice? Vengeance? You Need Both
又：如果你想讨论这个问题，请直接回应我上面的论点即可，不要让我去看哪本书或哪个报告或看哪个网站什么的.
一个坚持称自己是“救世主”的家伙，一直给我寄来他的文学作品.
我不得不拉黑这个疯子.

Jon Mixon, Murican..I am
Yes,it should.
Here are some additional reasons not touched upon in Tim Dees excellent summation opposing this:Fairness - Or rather the perception of fairness. Quite simply the famous and the wealthy will never be subjected to the death penalty. Bruno "Lupke" Buchalter and a drug kingpin named Juan Garza are likely the only two wealthy Americans who have received the death penalty (and been executed) in the last 75 years. If you are wealthy and popular, the likelihood of your receiving the ultimate penalty for murder (or murders) no matter how gruesome are so insignificant as to be improbable. Poor criminals are far more likely receive the death penalty.

回答3：
是的，应该废除死刑.
出了一楼提到的那些理由之外，还有以下一些理由，一楼没有提及：
1.   公平！ ——或者更确切地说，是对公平的感知.
很简单，名人和富人永远不会被判处死刑。
布鲁诺·布克特(Bruno“Lupke”Buchalter)
和一个名叫胡安·加尔萨(Juan Garza)的毒枭可能是过去75年里仅有的两个被判处死刑(并被执行)的美国富人.
如果你很有钱又有名，无论你犯下多么残忍的谋杀罪，
你都几乎不可能被判死刑.
穷人犯罪是更有可能被判死刑的.

The majority of advanced countries in the world no longer use the death penalty - If the US intends on retaining its sense of "moral superiority" it needs to adopt moral stances which place it with or above the countries it purports to "lead." You can't set a moral example with immoral behavior.Criminals may use fear of the death penalty to advance "lesser" crimes into murders - If a single person is accidentally killed during the commission of a felony,why would any rational or semi-rational criminal leave additional witnesses if he/she would receive a death penalty, regardless? If being a "drug kingpin" is a capital offense, why not simply murder your opposition rather than injure or intimidate them? The death penalty increases the likelihood that worse crimes will becommitted to avoid it.The execution of an innocent (or innocents) has already occurred - While many death penalty advocates attempt to avoid the topic, it's a virtual certainty that innocent men and women have been executed for the crimes that they did not commit. That fact alone should be the primary reason that any death penalty should be abolished: Its abolition might work to address wrongs which were committed in the past.

2.   世界上大多数发达国家都已经废除死刑了.
——如果美国还打算保持其“道德优越感”，
那么，美国就得采取“（废除死刑的）有道德”的立场.
要高举道德旗帜，将道德旗帜置高于国家的地位.
你不能用不道德的行为来为世人树立道德标杆.
3.   罪犯可能出于对死刑的恐惧，
将本来“较轻”的罪行提升为谋杀.
如果受害人被杀死，罪犯就被判死刑的话，
那么罪犯在犯罪的过程中就绝不会再留活口来当证人.
如果贩毒就一定被判死刑，那么黑老大为啥还费精神去恐吓或伤害竞争对手（以抢地盘），直接杀了对手岂不更省事？ 反正都是死.
因此，死刑增加了为避免死刑而犯下更严重罪行的可能性.
因死刑而被冤杀的案例，已经发生过——尽管许多支持死刑的人试图回避这种冤杀话题，但毫无疑问，无辜的男人和女人因为他们没有犯罪而被处决了.
仅因有过冤杀案例，就应成为废除死刑的主要理由：废除死刑可能有助于解决过去犯下的错误.

Samantha Bennet
In addition to this it's also important to reflect on the devastating impact that the execution would have on the family of the person executed. I would never wish that pain on anyone.

评论：
除此之外，思考死刑对被执行人的家庭产生的毁灭性影响也很重要.
我决不希望任何人遭受那种痛苦.

Jorrit Heijma
Your fourth point is the reason why capital punishment was outlawed in the UK.

你的第四点理由（冤杀），就是英国废除死刑的原因.