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.

I'm not sure federal executions even functionally exist anymore. There hasn't been a federal execution in 13 years, and only 3 in the last 28.

Still on the books though. I wonder if the Federal Law trumps State Laws on Execution. As in the States must meet or exceed the standards set by Federal laws concerning Executions

 Jihadin wrote:
Still on the books though. I wonder if the Federal Law trumps State Laws on Execution. As in the States must meet or exceed the standards set by Federal laws concerning Executions

I wouldn't think so honestly. I think that states and the federal government get to do their own thing for the most part, and the only "federal standard" is whatever the SCOTUS decides at any given point.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

sebster wrote:
When a 100 pound, 70 year old dude can get the death penalty for poisoning his wife, but a guy with a long rap sheet of violent attacks inside and outside of prison will only get years for killing someone in a bar fight... it should be clear that the death penalty has nothing to do with how much of a danger someone is, but is about inflicting the most extreme kind of punishment on people society thinks really need punishment.

Got to agree with that statement...it does indeed come down to what society thinks of the crime.

Just playing off his example: society is so numb to violence that a violent repeat offender is nothing new. But an old man who kills his wife is horrifying because society doesn't see it coming.

Punishment is conveniently low hanging fruit for politicians to pluck for their constituents. It's the same here in the UK as it is in the states.

I'm not reading the 106 page report, but I doubt it said anything particularly good about the practice.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm not reading the 106 page report, but I doubt it said anything particularly good about the practice.

It doesn't really say anything about the practice at all and reading it I really didn't detect any kind of anti-death penalty bias in it. They recommended switching to a different way of carrying out the death penalty, but didn't make any recommendation to get rid of it. They honestly did a good job keeping the report about "what went wrong here" and not "what is wrong with the death penalty".

With your background in law, as well as your background in hating Oklahoma as a Texan, you would probably enjoy reading it. It's a clusterfeth of government incompetency.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm not reading the 106 page report, but I doubt it said anything particularly good about the practice.

It doesn't really say anything about the practice at all and reading it I really didn't detect any kind of anti-death penalty bias in it. They recommended switching to a different way of carrying out the death penalty, but didn't make any recommendation to get rid of it. They honestly did a good job keeping the report about "what went wrong here" and not "what is wrong with the death penalty".

With your background in law, as well as your background in hating Oklahoma as a Texan, you would probably enjoy reading it. It's a clusterfeth of government incompetency.

I'd rather not. I find the subject distasteful. Besides I don't hate Oklahoma. I admire its position as the flattest location on the planet. Gulf Coast Texas is flat too, but we just have a slight angle to let the water drain. Now New Mexico...talk about a rad filled mutie paradise!
Besides, as a coworker's wife said to him once: "don't worry, you'll only suffer if I want you to suffer. Else you'll just have a nice insulin reaction..."
ER docs are interesting people.

Wow I just had a scary thought. There's a bayou behind my house. Egyptian crocs have been found in Florida. Could there be a baby Egyptian crocodile growing behind my house, just waiting...waiting...

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm not reading the 106 page report, but I doubt it said anything particularly good about the practice.

It doesn't really say anything about the practice at all and reading it I really didn't detect any kind of anti-death penalty bias in it. They recommended switching to a different way of carrying out the death penalty, but didn't make any recommendation to get rid of it. They honestly did a good job keeping the report about "what went wrong here" and not "what is wrong with the death penalty".

With your background in law, as well as your background in hating Oklahoma as a Texan, you would probably enjoy reading it. It's a clusterfeth of government incompetency.

I'd rather not. I find the subject distasteful. Besides I don't hate Oklahoma. I admire its position as the flattest location on the planet. Now New Mexico...talk about a rad filled mutie paradise!
Besides, as a coworker's wife said to him once: "don't worry, you'll only suffer if I want you to suffer. Else you'll just have a nice insulin reaction..."
ER docs are interesting people.

Been to Lawton a few times...not only flat...it does have some negative winding ravines...rolling plain my arse...

Carbine is way way cheaper

Wait, just to recap, most people here think child raping, killing, wastes of skin and tissue should live out the rest of their lives with 3 meals a day, a bed and all on my dime???? Am I hearing this correctly?

Yes. Because we're better than the criminals as a society, and we don't need a system devoted to vengeance.

Proportional force is not vengeance.

Not at all, however, just in the way you talk, you're not interested in that, you're interested in "getting" them back. Vengeance.

Nope, not getting them back. Just not paying for them to eat more meals per day than I did on top of a mountain in Afghanistan doing the right thing. (Lawfully). It's why I agree with the method of injection. There is no show, no sensationalism.

However if you wanted it to be an actual deterrent, then bring back hanging. But that's another discussion.

Give them the appeals, allow them full rights under law, then quietly execute the sentence, and quit paying for bed and board.

Also punish severely the kind of incompetence shown in this report, once again as a deterrent.

Okay, so if I can make an assumption, you're saying it's cheaper to execute than to feed? Well, if you're going to allow proper appeals, a death row inmate is more expensive than a life sentence inmate.

Sure if they are old. 19 yo life sentence, add up the cost. 19yo death row, add up the cost. Also public servants get paid a salary, in truth other than the cost of paper, numbers become inflated when you add in man hours for a particular thing, when they get paid regardless. War or not, I get paid every month. Some weeks I work 80 hours, some 60. Same pay either way. If you no sizzle cost analyzed it, cheaper to execute.

Also, do I care about them, their feelings, or desire to live, no. But when you as a human, knowing the consequences of your actions choose to commit a capital crime, you do forfeit your life. Otherwise anyone would feel free to commit many acts that threat of dire consequences prevents them from doing.

If only someone decided to see if death penalties have any kind of deterrent effect of any kind, then we may finally know the truth...

Except that the death penalty has been shown to not actually work as a deterrent for crime.

I'm glad that this age old mystery was finally solved.

Neither does threat of life in prison, what are your suggestions. I was told by a wise leader a long time ago, do not just give peoblems, also give solutions.

 redleger wrote:
Neither does threat of life in prison, what are your suggestions. I was told by a wise leader a long time ago, do not just give peoblems, also give solutions.

See post #1.

Fair enough, here's my solution.

Reform the prison system. But I'll go deeper. Reform the prison system in such a way that it follows better methods of rehabilitation so that the recidivism rate is reduced. Rehabilitation over punishment is the central goal in my solution. This also includes abolishing of the death penalty, as it has shown that it:

Is not cost-efficient
Is inaccurate
Is (as this article shows) prone to the follies and errors of staff
Does not deter crime

The facts lay out quite plainly that capital punishment does not have appreciable or useful impacts. Therefore, it goes.

d-usa wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Neither does threat of life in prison, what are your suggestions. I was told by a wise leader a long time ago, do not just give peoblems, also give solutions.

See post #1.

I agree with that post as far as use the effective, least likely to upset peoples sensibilities, and can ultimately be considered more humane method. Just don't agree that it should be abolished. I mean, people go to prison their whole lives and are wrongfully incarcerated, although the percentage is low, it happens. there are warriors out there that would rather die than live in a cage.

curran12 wrote:Fair enough, here's my solution.

Reform the prison system. But I'll go deeper. Reform the prison system in such a way that it follows better methods of rehabilitation so that the recidivism rate is reduced. Rehabilitation over punishment is the central goal in my solution. This also includes abolishing of the death penalty, as it has shown that it:

Is not cost-efficient
Is inaccurate
Is (as this article shows) prone to the follies and errors of staff
Does not deter crime

The facts lay out quite plainly that capital punishment does not have appreciable or useful impacts. Therefore, it goes.

d-usa wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Neither does threat of life in prison, what are your suggestions. I was told by a wise leader a long time ago, do not just give peoblems, also give solutions.

See post #1.

Is not cost effecient how? I know pharmaceutical companies make a killing, but really, can't cost that much, and Im sure you could easily streamline the process.

Inaccuricies happen every where in life. Hell, even GPS guided munitions occasionally miss.

Humane error can not be eliminated, however I would say in this scenario that was criminal negligence, hence I feel they should be harshly punished.

Please elighten me on how it has, or can be proven to not be a deterrent. Because I promise you the death penalty and jail in general have deterred me from visiting violence on many a person.

I jacked up the multiquote. Sorry.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, left out, how the heck do you reform someone who literally is incapable of remorse, or is a sociopath. I mean, I have met some truly horrible people, and although I blame another horrible institution, religion, for their hatred, they were only reformable after their heart stopped beating. Please layout this amazing reform system.

Does the system need to be changed, oh hell yes, I would not argue its perfect, but I am looking at changing the for profit prison system for one. If you do not have a life sentence, then yes, educate them, give them a fighting chance. Problem is, no one hires former convicts. Now, how do you change society. You see its deepr than any thing that can be fixed without major social reform. All the while, some scumbag who brutalized and removed someones kid from the face of existence is gonna sit in his cell, work out, and get amenities because we do not want to meet his deeds with proportional force, only in a more humane way.

Sure, I'll provide citations, let's go one by one:

Cost-efficiency:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty - This is a broad source, but provides some useful clues. However, this isn't the only source, another quote from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.V05L1uTbvcs puts execution at costing 10 times as much as life imprisonment. Granted that source is somewhat dates at 2009, but I think it is a pretty clear statement.

You say we can "easily" streamline the process. My answer to that is asking you how and where? After all, a lot of the costs are in appeals and court time. If we streamline there, we eliminate appeals. Is that something you want to do, given that the accuracy of the death penalty is already in question?

Inaccuracy:

A nice supply of articles is here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/research-death-penalty

While we could go through them, the bottom line is that between DNA testing and the nature of the court and justice system as they are now, the accuracy of capital punishment to not solid enough to ensure that the right person is rightfully executed. And frankly, being flippant with "inaccuracies happen" misses the mark quite fairly, as we've shown that there's nothing to be gained from execution. Would you be willing to use the "hey, this stuff happens" line on someone you kill that turns out to be the wrong person? I noticed in an earlier post that you said you were military, would that explanation you give be acceptable if you opened fire on something that turned out to not be an enemy?

We agree on the error aspect, so I think we can safely skip it. If you want to go into it more, let me know and I'll happily move back to it.

Deterrence:

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82

It's something of a dated study (2006), however, the numbers are telling. While we can go through them, I'd prefer brevity and to cut right to the matter. States that have the highest execution rates also happen to have the highest murder rates. If capital punishment was a deterrent, that would not be the case. Likewise, states with low execution rates also have lower murder rates. Telling.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent

Another nice survey. While certainly not hard data, the word of experts in the field should be given a degree of credence, don't you think?

http://www.newsweek.com/does-death-penalty-deter-killers-364164

This, however, is the most telling because it offers a wonderful side-by-side case study on the deterrence effects of the death penalty. By comparing Hong Kong and Singapore (which abolished and increased capital punishment rates respectively at the same time), it shows that increasing executions does not have an effect on deterring crime.


As for your edit, yes, there are people who are beyond rehabilitation. But that's why life imprisonment exists. The argument for this on my end, other than pointing out the factual evidence that shows it has no effect on other crime, is pretty simple. If it has no effect on preventing crime, saving money or otherwise helping, the death penalty exists only as a tool of vengeance, and we as a society are to be better than that.

I fully plan on reading every source, I could learn a thing or two, and I am not above learning, however it is late, and I get up and get to fire a few hundred rounds of 155 in the morning, so I better get some sleep as to prevent human error. ( sorry couldnt resist, Im really not an Ahole I promise.)

However one thing right off the bat strikes me as odd. Higher murder rates could whats leading to higher execution rates, wouldnt you say. It would make sense. So if murder is happening at a higher rate, then the stated increases the number on death row, which then leads to an increase of executions, vs high execution rates are not preventing murder. I would definitely say that it is a deterrent. Ask around, see how many say the death penalty is definitely a factor in the decision making process, no matter how minute, when deciding whether lethal force is appropriate in a given instance.

I would also argue, that anyone who has intent to commit harm is going to do so, whether you have a reform system, or a death penalty system, because at that point in the decision making process, neither is being weighed. So how do we make it so that that person has no choice but to weigh the consequences in their mind since those consequences are so dire as to prevent them from taking such action.

I am not going to lie. I think cane-ing (not sure how to spell it) is a great idea. I tell you when I was a teenager, and heard about that guy in thailand who got caned for the vandilism, I knew right then and there I would never ever vandilize anything, and we dont even do that.

Before anything else, I'd like to thank you. You're very respectful and willing to have this conversation. It's a rare trait, especially in political discussions and ESPECIALLY in internet political discussions. So I have great respect for you for treating this seriously and also being open to the ideas.

And as a matter of fact, that is actually something I considered as well. You're absolutely correct in noticing that on the murder rates. That's why I dug a little deeper for something more. I think the most telling is the Newsweek article, as we have that comparison between Hong Kong and Singapore, which I think is very strong.

But you raise a point. If someone who is going to commit a capital offense has already gone past the point of deterrent, does that not undermine the death penalty further? After all, they don't care about the punishment, so the death penalty does not deter them. And if we look at places without the death penalty, there is not really a lot of evidence to suggest that the absence of capital punishment is an open invitation to horrible crimes.

 redleger wrote:
Neither does threat of life in prison, what are your suggestions. I was told by a wise leader a long time ago, do not just give peoblems, also give solutions.

Do you have anything to support your claim?

 redleger wrote:
But when you as a human, knowing the consequences of your actions choose to commit a capital crime, you do forfeit your life. Otherwise anyone would feel free to commit many acts that threat of dire consequences prevents them from doing.

Except extremely few people make anything like a sensible cost benefit analysis before committing a major crime. In many cases they act with little or no ability to even appreciate the long term consequences, and in most other cases they assume they will get away with it.

 redleger wrote:
Is not cost effecient how? I know pharmaceutical companies make a killing, but really, can't cost that much, and Im sure you could easily streamline the process.

The simplest way to appreciate how the death penalty can cost more is to consider that good quality criminal lawyer can earn several hundred thousand, and there will be many good quality criminal lawyers involved in both sides of each appeal, while a prison guard can be paid as little as $30,000, and there aren't that many guards for each prisoner in maximum security.

While the legal processes before execution could be streamlined, I don't think anyone is that comfortable with the idea of reducing the legal protections for a man you're about to kill. And that probably touches on the bigger issue with the 'cost' of life imprisonment - it's only cheaper because we're not spending any time reviewing their cases in anywhere near the same level of detail. I think if we're going to give someone a life sentence we should be just as vigilant about their legal protections as someone facing the death penalty.

Anyhow, the cost thing is something of a red herring. The financial difference between life imprisonment or the death penalty is tiny when measured against the resources of even the tiniest state in the union. Whichever option people prefer will cost basically the same amount in terms of the state's budget. It's a rounding error.

This is why you'll never find someone say 'I would be opposed to the death penalty, but it's such a great saving!' Or similarly you'll never find anyone saying 'I was in favour of the death penalty but then I found out how much it cost'. Cost is just used by one side or the other as an argument to prop up something they want anyway.

 redleger wrote:
Proportional force is not vengeance.

The US legal system is garbage. Too much chance we get it wrong. This has been proven.

I have no problem with vengeance. My family is a big believer...
My issue is not about vengeance, but its about about the fact that the legal system is not good.

 redleger wrote:
there are warriors out there that would rather die than live in a cage.

I don't know what this means, but it should be used in all KFC commercials. In Comic Sans. Over chickens fighting to the death and then being served in a family sized bucket.

With biscuits and gravy, naturally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
Wait, just to recap, most people here think child raping, killing, wastes of skin and tissue should live out the rest of their lives with 3 meals a day, a bed and all on my dime???? Am I hearing this correctly?

You must be new here. Surely your use of multiple question marks will persuade the masses.

With biscuits and gravy, naturally.

Now I'm hungry, you besterd!