Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

18 months? Lets slow down there bro, the justice system isn't a sports car! It's more like, a model-T

 LordofHats wrote:
18 months? Lets slow down there bro, the justice system isn't a sports car! It's more like, a model-T

Except oddly enough the Sports Car is cheaper to operate in this situation.

My point is that 18 months might not even be enough time for an appeal to run its course (I'm not a lawyer) but it can take years for an appeal to run its way to the Supreme Court, so surely limiting the stay to 18 months, might be too short a time period for proper due process.

Even once convicted, a criminal does have a right to due process.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And you want to make sure that no innocent man doesnt get killed.
Like this
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
TLDR: Basically they killed an innocent man with faulty evidence, even when new evidence came to light, they ignored it.

I'll see your innocent man and raise you a few guilty ones that got out and killed again, in several cases these guys killed more than one person after they got out:

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

 Mr Nobody wrote:
From a pure efficiency point of view, a corpse needs neither feeding, a bunk or a yard for exercise. Much cheaper than putting him in stone box and waiting for time to kill him for you.

Morally and ethically, it's much more complicated.

He does, however, need a lengthy appeal process to ensure the accuracy of the sentence and this can often be more expensive than simply leaving them in prison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
After sentencing, you have 6 months till execution, during which time you may file an appeal which will extend the date of execution by another 6 months. You may appeal 3 times. After which no more appeals may be made.


So essentially you have 18 months to prove innocence after the original sentencing before you are executed.


As it is, the Death Sentence is practically no different from Life, except it costs more for the state due to unlimited appeals.

That's a great theory, but the backlog of cases and limited time mean you'll almost never get that hearing within 6 months.

"I'd like to file an appeal"

"Very well, the next available appeal hearing is in July 2015."

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Upping the Dosage could possibly be worse, I say, if we are dead set on killing them, firing squad.

Or just replace the sedative with more kill juice, let the fether scream, I'm sure his victim was during the last moments of his/her life.
"I can tell from all the internet traffic this is a very special termination."
"yes, very special, I've been told the mixture this evening is one hundred percent toxin and no sedatives. if all goes well our murderer should suffer to the very end."
cookie for reference.

Ok, So we let the guy scream, just like his victims? And how does that make use better then them?

we didn't kill anyone without due process. and honestly I was joking a bit. but firing squad is actually a better idea honestly, and so is hanging, because you can donate the organs afterward.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
From a pure efficiency point of view, a corpse needs neither feeding, a bunk or a yard for exercise. Much cheaper than putting him in stone box and waiting for time to kill him for you.

Morally and ethically, it's much more complicated.

Actually it's much more expensive to execute someone as there's more money being spent in the trial for someone being executed. So capital punishment doesn't really do much for society it's a gakky crime determent, you run the risk of putting innocent people in jail and it's more expensive.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20067_5-b.s.-political-arguments-you-hear-every-election-season.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/us/25death.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

We can reeducate them for the good of society....they can learn while in the Arctic...

 Ironklawmadgutsmek wrote:
I must have a very (black and white) approach to things, drug him up with morphine etc and shoot, job done. How P C the world is becoming that you cant be inhumane when doing a execution.

How PC is the world getting? What?

Uh, more humane execution has been something people have been moving towards for centuries. You know why they invented the guillotine? To make more execution faster and more humane. The electric chair was invented for the same reason, and so was the gas chamber and lethal injection.

I mean, just, fething hell. Maybe instead of just making up PC fantasies in your head you could read about some of this stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anyway, I still don't understand why we don't just shoot them instead. A big round at close range to the skull will ensure instant death with no question of pain. So its a little messy and the family can't have an open casket viewing afterwards, who cares?

We don't like making a mess. At some point we decided we were happy to kill people, but it was only civilised to do it with no blood.

I figure if we're going to have execution, let it be death by explosion. Might as well be honest about what's happening.

 Jihadin wrote:
We can reeducate them for the good of society....they can learn while in the Arctic...

That's a great idea, in fact Norway is doing similar things and it's had great results.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison

 LordofHats wrote:
Death row is only so expensive because people can sit on it for twenty+ years. I.E. We pay the cost of a 20 year prison sentence and then the cost of the execution.

This is a problem for the justice system, because lets face, an inmate should not be allowed to stave off a legally rendered verdict for so long, but a solution for said problem isn't exactly forthcoming.

Arguably we might as well sentence them to prison time anyway, cause that's just what they often times end up serving.

Well, ultimately, once they've committed an abhorrent crime, there's already at least one victim, then an incredibly expensive trial and a long series of appeals, then 20 years of sitting in maximum security, followed by either execution or more time sitting in maximum security, waiting to die.

No matter what happens, there's at least two lives and a gak ton of public money wasted. Seems to me the only way to stop it from being anything than an ugly situation is to look at what happens to cause people to commit abhorrent crimes in the first place. And yet we don't do that, and instead spend a whole lot of time debating whether we should kill the perpetrator or leave him in prison until he dies of old age.

The other crazy idea....Does the French Foreign Legion still not do background checks?

They've probably changed that by now...

 sebster wrote:


We don't like making a mess. At some point we decided we were happy to kill people, but it was only civilised to do it with no blood.

I figure if we're going to have execution, let it be death by explosion. Might as well be honest about what's happening.

It appears the North Koreans do some executions that way:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/24/north-korean-army-minister-reportedly-executed-for-drinking-during-mourning/?test=latestnews

It does work as a deterrent.

It stops THAT offender from re-offending.

The recidivism rate on executed prisoners is pretty close to zero (there's bound to be some statistical anomaly out there that throws a curve into the mix).

Deterrent on anyone else is dubious.

As for "moral high ground" or "us being betterest than them" or other hogwash - it doesn't make us anything other than human - except we're the living ones and they aren't.
It isn't morally superior to kill them without them feeling it.
It doesn't make us better.

It does remove one more small threat from society - and as nature abhors a vacuum, a hole that will be filled soon enough anyway.

 chromedog wrote:
It does work as a deterrent.

It stops THAT offender from re-offending.

The recidivism rate on executed prisoners is pretty close to zero (there's bound to be some statistical anomaly out there that throws a curve into the mix).

Deterrent on anyone else is dubious.

I'll just repeat myself on this one. It not only stops THAT offender from killing again, it just might save some lives:

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

Konrad Curze's strategy worked for a while.

Ironklawmadgutsmek wrote:I must have a very (black and white) approach to things, drug him up with morphine etc and shoot, job done. How P C the world is becoming that you cant be inhumane when doing a execution.

Being "PC" is not the issue. An execution is meant to be a necessary yet regrettable event devoid of viciousness.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:If he's a chubby SOB I'd suggest a hanging. A quick drop and a sudden stop is only made faster by a big fat

I think this statement betrays your lack of understanding both of how a hanging, and gravity, works.




Also:
According the Beccaria, proper deterrence requires three factors to all work in harmony: severity, celerity and certainty. That is, the punishment must be severe enough to persuade other potential offenders to not commit that crime; the punishment must come quickly in response to the crime; and there must be no question about the offender avoiding the punishment.

Currently, it is the latter of these three which drops the ball.

Really, why does it matter how an execution is carried out?

It seems like it really wouldn't matter in the grand scheme, so why not go with the fastest and most humane way. Not to mention cheapest.

One bullet and perfect location for instant kill. No downsides


The best part is we know where a bullet can kill instantly with no pain. The brain is instantly destroyed at a speed fast then the pain receptors can transmit the message.

With a chemical we can never be 100% sure its without pain, only that there is no visible response.

I actually don't favor execution...

I don't think it serves enough deterance.

I'd re-institute chain-gangs and put them to work. Make their existence miserable AND publicize it so that it's not only transparent to the public, but serves as a true deterance...

 chromedog wrote:
It does work as a deterrent.

I disagree it stops that one person from repeating crime sure, but in many statistics it has been shown that a death penalty does not reduce criminal behavior in society.

I've never figured how being executed humanely and in a timely fashion is worse than spending the rest of your days locked in a cell with no ability to interact the outside world. One would assume that solitary confinement would have a rate of recidivism similar to that of executed criminals, without the risk of killing an innocent man. Plus, as has been mentioned, it's cheaper, so why not?

 whembly wrote:
I actually don't favor execution...

I don't think it serves enough deterance.

I'd re-institute chain-gangs and put them to work. Make their existence miserable AND publicize it so that it's not only transparent to the public, but serves as a true deterance...

Maybe if the Execution was less humane, more public, and more common it would be more effective no?

I would wager that if we could go back in time to when it was an everyday occurence to watch a Hanging the crime rate for serious crimes was much lower then it is today.


Perhaps the Death Penelty doesn't work today because its too distant. It doesn't seem real enough.

We don't get to witness the consequence of the action. Instead its hidden behind closed doors to avoid offending people's sensibilities.

 prime12357 wrote:
I've never figured how being executed humanely and in a timely fashion is worse than spending the rest of your days locked in a cell with no ability to interact the outside world. One would assume that solitary confinement would have a rate of recidivism similar to that of executed criminals, without the risk of killing an innocent man. Plus, as has been mentioned, it's cheaper, so why not?

Because some people are unreasonable or they don't like to challenge traditions of society even if it would benefit them to do so.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I actually don't favor execution...

I don't think it serves enough deterance.

I'd re-institute chain-gangs and put them to work. Make their existence miserable AND publicize it so that it's not only transparent to the public, but serves as a true deterance...

Maybe if the Execution was less humane, more public, and more common it would be more effective no?

I would wager that if we could go back in time to when it was an everyday occurence to watch a Hanging the crime rate for serious crimes was much lower then it is today.


Perhaps the Death Penelty doesn't work today because its too distant. It doesn't seem real enough.

We don't get to witness the consequence of the action. Instead its hidden behind closed doors to avoid offending people's sensibilities.

In that case, go medieval... what's more scary than being disembowe'ed, then drawn and quarter'ed... blech...

 whembly wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I actually don't favor execution...

I don't think it serves enough deterance.

I'd re-institute chain-gangs and put them to work. Make their existence miserable AND publicize it so that it's not only transparent to the public, but serves as a true deterance...

Maybe if the Execution was less humane, more public, and more common it would be more effective no?

I would wager that if we could go back in time to when it was an everyday occurence to watch a Hanging the crime rate for serious crimes was much lower then it is today.


Perhaps the Death Penelty doesn't work today because its too distant. It doesn't seem real enough.

We don't get to witness the consequence of the action. Instead its hidden behind closed doors to avoid offending people's sensibilities.

In that case, go medieval... what's more scary than being disembowe'ed, then drawn and quarter'ed... blech...

I like

Perhaps Frazzled can provide us with some fearsome beasts to do the honors.

Yeah, the whole 'humane' thing really does seem to be as much about the people watching as the person going through it. Otherwise we'd just sit them down on a good sized surplus artillery shell and set the thing off. No fuss, no worry about his size, it'd be instant red mist.

Excellent, the selling point of that plan is there is clean up necessary and you save on grave fees.