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.
Maybe we all should agree that being a Murderer & Rapist is an occupational hazard that your execution may not go as planned.
It is the death penalty (a sentence of legal punishment available to the courts in some jurisdictions.)
Since clearly everyone does not agree with the death penalty, your idea will not work.
The easiest thing actually would be to give up the death penalty, then there wouldn't be any botched executions or the active opposition that leads to prolonged appeals processes that make the death penalty more expensive than life imprisonment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 04:03:21
Maybe we all should agree that being a Murderer & Rapist is an occupational hazard that your execution may not go as planned.
It is the death penalty (a sentence of legal punishment available to the courts in some jurisdictions.)
Since clearly everyone does not agree with the death penalty, your idea will not work.
The easiest thing actually would be to give up the death penalty, then there wouldn't be any botched executions or the active opposition that leads to prolonged appeals processes that make the death penalty more expensive than life imprisonment.
I agree. The death penalty is kind of severe. no one deserves death. Not Even Hitler. People only deserve prison and a chance to redeem themselves. We can't go back to stupid ideas like eye for an eye. It just doesn't work. Not in todays society. We cannot degenerate ourselves to our pervious levels of humanity.
Justice does not mean eye for an eye, it means serving justice and not degenerating ourselves to the criminal's level
Why should we go down to their level. Humanity is better than that.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
LordofHats wrote: If someone can't be rehabilitated, then keeping them locked up for life is a waste of taxpayer dollars
People will point out that it costs more to kill someone than to imprison them for their lives, but if you ask me both sides are missing the key point - the cost of executing these people or imprioning them for the rest of their lives is utterly trivial to government. There are rounding errors in government accounts that are bigger than the cost of this.
The decision to kill or not kill prisoners in no state or nation on Earth was ever decided on account of money. Not one. People may have claimed that, but they were looking for reasons, no-one started first by looking to save a hundred million off the budget and said 'ha! if we just kill those dozen people we've got locked up for life it'll save 5 million!'
States choose to have systems to kill people because they want to kill them, because they believe it is good to have a final, absolute punishment for people who do truly repulsive things. Similarly, states choose not to kill people because they don't believe that it is moral to choose to kill someone who is locked up and under your control.
Both positions are reasonable, and both stand alone as sensible, moral ways of looking at the issue, and are at the core of why anyone takes either side of the issue. Everything else like money is a justification invented for a position that people have already decided one way or the other.
and only gives them more chances to kill people (prisoners may be prisoners but they're still human).
If you wanted safer, more secure prisons, then you could achieve that easily just by increasing funding for larger and more modern facilities and greater numbers of guards. That you don't says a lot about how much that reason really matters is the choice to kill criminals.
A lot of punishments serve a function of revenge. What makes it justice is that it benefits society as well.
What makes is justice is that it is carried out by an organisation that we as a society have empowered to carry out justice on our behalf. Which is a tautology of course, but that's the point.
This doesn't make it wrong, by the way. It is similarly justice and not revenge when we lock someone up in a cell for five years, for no reason other than we as a society have deemed to call it such.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Of course killing any human being is unethical even in self defense.... We are part of each other and we are human beings.
Sorry, I don't agree with you that self-defense killing is unethical. Personally I see it as one of the most ethical things to do.
To put this in a situation: say someone breaks into my home. my wife, kids and myself are there. This person goes after one of my kids. By your reasoning, I should let this fether do whatever the hell they want with my kids, because killing them on sight is "unethical". No. Protecting myself (and by extension, my kids are myself, because they do not possess the capacity to defend themselves) and my family is the most ethical thing that I can do as a father and a man in Western Society.
The decision to kill or not kill prisoners in no state or nation on Earth was ever decided on account of money. Not one. People may have claimed that, but they were looking for reasons, no-one started first by looking to save a hundred million off the budget and said 'ha! if we just kill those dozen people we've got locked up for life it'll save 5 million!'
Perhaps for some folks, they see the money thing in more the opposite way. Especially where the privatized prisons are operating. Ie. they look and say, "ha! if we kill off these 5 prisoners, that will free up space where we can put 5 or 10 more prisoners, which will make us more money on our contract!"
Not that it's any less fallacious than "saving" money. And, to my knowledge the maximum security/death row type prisons are still actually government run (though if someone knows for sure, please feel free to enlighten us)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 04:17:55
LordofHats wrote: Personally, I would like to see a much higher burden for justifying the death penalty. Some people we execute are people who I disagree should have been executed.
And that's actually my problem with the death penalty - I don't think it's possible to add such a higher burden, and instead by adding the option of the death penalty we make the case so much more emotive that we increase the chance of a miscarriage of justice.
I think there is a big difference in the statements 'a crime was committed that was horrible and we think this person did it' and 'a crime was committed that was so horrible we need to kill the person who did it and we think this person did it'. It's a big enough difference that I think it accounts for a fair percentage of the number of people sitting on death row who didn't commit the crimes in question.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
The best solution would be to make it harder to get the Death penalty, but to limit the number of appeals and set a hard deadline. The execution date is fixed, you have till then to prove your innocence.
And make the execution much simpler. Its pretty hard to go wrong with a large caliber bullet at point blank range. You can guarantee they won't feel a thing.
There are criminals who must simply be removed from this earth, not having the Death Penalty is simply not a viable option. Take the guy who shot up that kids camp in Sweden(?), no death penalty. He'll either rot away his life indefinitely in a cushy prison(hardly justice, he has a platform to spew his rubbish), and the horrifying possibility exists that he'll get released eventually by some future review panel.
If someone commits deliberate premeditated murder, as far as I am concerned they have given up any rights they were previously deserved. Human life is at the most basic level equal with all other human life, and that is the very reason the death penalty should exist. Otherwise, someone can take a life and continue with their own, which basically says that their continued existence matters more than the life they destroyed. It creates a statement that the murders life is more valued than his victim. The death penalty says the lives are equal and that committing murder means you must lose your own life in exchange.
The same for any other heinous crimes. At a point, you lose your right to continue to exist.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
No one brought up the unique ways that North Korea has on executing people yet....
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Redbeard wrote: Whoever said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be executed" was a moron. With a recidivism rate of even only 4%, letting 1000 guilty people go free would result in 40 additional innocent victims. Last time I checked, 40 innocent victims was more than one innocent victim.
There are few guarantees in life, but one thing I can absolutely guarantee anyone out there is that anytime the death penalty is brought up, someone will pretend that the alternative to execution is letting the person go, that they will suddenly forget that you can actually lock people up for the rest of their lives if you want to.
This is miles away from any of the silliest assumptions I've ever seen on the internet, but it deserves its place in the internet hall of bad arguments just because it is absolutely, 100% guaranteed to always get mentioned.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
But locking an innocent man away for life is no better than executing him. In a way its worse because he's being confined indefinitely.
And no, the possibility that he'll get exonerated isn't an upside. He'd still have lost potentially decades of his life. You might as well have killed him.
You've also exposed him to the criminal elements in prison, now he's more likely to actually become a real criminal.
The possibility of executing someone who is innocent is low enough that its an acceptable risk. yes, the justice system needs reform. cutting the death penalty isn't part of that.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Asherian Command wrote: Of course killing any human being is unethical even in self defense....
In any situation the action that causes the least harm & injustice is the most ethical course of action. If we ignore that, then the only way to be ethical is to just lucky enough to never get stuck in a difficult situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: There's always the mortor option as pioneered by North Korea!
Which we always mention everytime this thread comes up, and it never fails to make me smile
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 04:45:13
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I think there is a big difference in the statements 'a crime was committed that was horrible and we think this person did it' and 'a crime was committed that was so horrible we need to kill the person who did it and we think this person did it'. It's a big enough difference that I think it accounts for a fair percentage of the number of people sitting on death row who didn't commit the crimes in question.
Now, what about those certain people who through various means, we KNOW are horrible, horrible people, yet they just sit there rotting away? I mean, guys like Charles Manson are still alive, even though the evidence fits, there's confessions of guilt, and there's a complete lack of repentance in the guilty's actions/words/demeanor, yet due to their locale, we must give them 3 hots and a cot.
I'm fairly certain that some other serial killers have gone to death row, and been expidited a bit (I think Ted Bundy out in Florida was executed, no?) but we still run into certain characters who are still around, even though I think your statements fairly well cover them to a point where execution is a perfectly viable option.
Grey Templar wrote: The best solution would be to make it harder to get the Death penalty, but to limit the number of appeals and set a hard deadline. The execution date is fixed, you have till then to prove your innocence.
That's completely abhorrent.
"What's that? People working for your defence are in the process of getting DNA evidence re-examined under new methods recently invented... well too bad times up in the chamber you go!"
There are criminals who must simply be removed from this earth, not having the Death Penalty is simply not a viable option.
You are free to want the death penalty and your state is free to have it, but to claim that there are people who must be removed from this Earth, and that the death penalty is not viable is just basic ignorance of how much of the world works.
Now, if you'd said that you personally believe that some criminals should be removed from the earth, and that you personally do not want the death penalty removed... then that'd be reasonable, but attempting to put some kind of assertion about how things have to be made your claim just plain wrong.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Personally I'm all for death by explosion. Even over a bullet in the head, with enough explosive you're pretty much guaranteed an instant, pain free death. Sure it'd be gruesome, but you're killing a person, why get squeamish about it?
Well, I've previously said in this thread and elsewhere that I have very mixed opinions on the death penalty and I've given the usual reasons for it. That being said, I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about if if this were the method of execution.
"What do you think about capital punishment?"
"Well, it's a tragedy, of course, but also, it's awesome as feth".
Asherian Command wrote: The death penalty is kind of severe. no one deserves death. Not Even Hitler. People only deserve prison and a chance to redeem themselves.
I respect your stance as much as I disagree with it My mother feels the same way, opposition to the death penalty regardless of the circumstances. I myself think there are plenty pf people who deserve to die.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 05:19:22
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Now, what about those certain people who through various means, we KNOW are horrible, horrible people, yet they just sit there rotting away?
I don't believe there's a process possible where you can draw a line and say 'these are the people were are absolutely certain did the crime and these are the people who we just think did it beyond a reasonable doubt'. We have cases of appalling crimes committed, where multiple people put the accused around the location of the crime, and the accused even confessed to the crime, who was later found out to be innocent.
And yeah, so the person sits there, just rotting away. So what? What awful things they've done is done, and there's no un-doing it. At this point, to my reckoning, the question about what to do with the killer is not much of an important question at all, he sits in a cage forever or you kill him, either way he's wasted his life as well as the lives of his victims.
Now that doesn't mean I'm opposed to the death penalty as much as uninterested in it, do it or don't, just make sure you've got the right person. And to my mind, offering up the death penalty increases the chance that there might be a miscarriage of justice for reasons I've mentioned above, and that's why I oppose the death penalty.
But that said, I'm by no means certain that my argument is a complete argument, as there's never been anything definitive to prove that the death penalty increases the number of miscarriages of justice, just the observations of some trial lawyers (most of whom, like Geoffrey Robertson, are well and truly on the left when it comes to matters of justice). And on the other hand, it could be argued that the reason so many death penalty cases are reversed on appeal is that people actually bother to give those full and extensive appeals, unlike life in prison cases which attract nothing like the same level of pro bono work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: "What do you think about capital punishment?"
"Well, it's a tragedy, of course, but also, it's awesome as feth".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 05:18:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
As far as I know, research has shown the death penalty (as well as severity of punishment in general) has no discernible effect on the crime rate, and that what actually modifies the crime rate is the chance of being caught. The idea that it actually reduces crime appears to be bunk.
Personally, I think the state murdering someone is worse than a citizen murdering someone. The state has (collectively) much greater power than a citizen and it needs to be better controlled as a result. Power needs safeguards, and the best safeguard we can have in this case is not allowing the state to execute people. There's no benefit to it anyway since it doesn't reduce crime, so it seems like an easy choice.
If you think locking people up for the rest of their lives is inhumane then I think making imprisonment less awful is probably the way to go. You should still be able to live your life in some way in prison. I don't think - and research seems to support - that doing so will increase the crime rate, and if being locked up is a better life than not then your society probably has some pretty serious issues anyway. Then with that baseline in place we can look into recidivism, causes of crime and rehabilitation.
Sorry, I'll clarify. "Good" killing is killing via war, execution, (possibly) self-defence. "Bad" killing is murder.
Self-defense is always "good". Sorry, but you really ought to be able to defend yourself with as much force as a situation merits.
Sure, that's why I said possibly. It depends on what you are defending yourself from. Murder? a beating? robbery? Some nutjob screaming in your face?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
feeder wrote:
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
The repeated kind. I'm willing to give someone a chance to prove that what they did was due to an error of judgement, a lapse of reasoning, whatever. I believe the primary purpose of any penal system should be the rehabilitation and eventual re-admittance of the prisoner into society. But I also believe that you only get to fool me once, and if you prove, through your actions, that you don't want to be a part of a civilized peaceful society, then you can be executed, and that it is in societies best interest to do so.
sebster wrote:
There are few guarantees in life, but one thing I can absolutely guarantee anyone out there is that anytime the death penalty is brought up, someone will pretend that the alternative to execution is letting the person go, that they will suddenly forget that you can actually lock people up for the rest of their lives if you want to.
Did you read any of the rest of this thread, because I haven't seen anyone pretend that the alternative is to lock them up forever. Rather, we believe that the "lock them up forever" approach is both a less humane solution than an execution, and is also more costly than an appropriately implemented death penalty.
Why not make it life in prison with the option of asking to be executed? That way the prisoner can decide for him- or herself if death is preferrable to life in prison.
Further, since this is a very US phenomenon, if you guys want a weaker government wouldn't it make sense to not let the state decide if someone deserves to live?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why not make it life in prison with the option of asking to be executed? That way the prisoner can decide for him- or herself if death is preferrable to life in prison.
Further, since this is a very US phenomenon, if you guys want a weaker government wouldn't it make sense to not let the state decide if someone deserves to live?
Americans don't want a "Weaker Government", though I guess I understand why it could seem like that from the outside. The small government types are certainly a very vocal minority. They also want the government to be smaller only in very specific ways that support a conservative worldview.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why not make it life in prison with the option of asking to be executed? That way the prisoner can decide for him- or herself if death is preferrable to life in prison.
Further, since this is a very US phenomenon, if you guys want a weaker government wouldn't it make sense to not let the state decide if someone deserves to live?
Who said anything about a weaker government? I'd like a more active government that actually regulated certain problem industries (such as the for-profit prison network), rather than being beholden to all the corporate interests that seem to have bought and paid for the status quo.
I'm glad the Michael Portillo documentary was posted on page one. Well in d-usa!
I always think that Ian Hislop provides a concise and logical reason to be against the death penalty in this QT episode.
It's quite amazing to think that executing the wrong people is seen as an acceptable part of the system, rather than just replacing it with "life with no chance of release"
It's quite amazing to think that executing the wrong people is seen as an acceptable part of the system, rather than just replacing it with "life with no chance of release"
To be fair, personally, I'd rather die than actually suffer a full life term in prison, especially if I didn't commit the crime.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm glad the Michael Portillo documentary was posted on page one. Well in d-usa!
I always think that Ian Hislop provides a concise and logical reason to be against the death penalty in this QT episode.
...
It's quite amazing to think that executing the wrong people is seen as an acceptable part of the system, rather than just replacing it with "life with no chance of release"
I think it's amazing to think that we're willing to institute a poor solution to a problem because we're too lazy to fix another problem within the system.
"Oh no, what if you kill the wrong people" is not an argument against the death penalty, it's an indication that other aspects of your justice system are seriously flawed.
You cannot tell me that someone who has been wrongly convicted and released after spending half their life in a tiny cell has not suffered as much, if not more, than someone executed for the same wrong conviction. You make it sound like the opportunity to let them go after that experience fixes all ills. Maybe if the consequence of getting it wrong were more severe, we'd see more of an effort made not to make these mistakes in the first place.
If the justice system is in an inadequate state to put people in prison for long stretches or for the rest of their lives, as you suggest, wouldn't it make sense to postpone it's lethal elements first? A person can live out the rest of their lives once released, it isn't ideal but it's at least an option that would otherwise be denied to them.
What would be the positive outcome of killing somebody for a crime they didn't commit?
I sense you're going at this for the greater good in society angle, so I hope when your time comes to die for a crime you didn't commit you accept your position as a statistic and allow the state to get on with it.
It's quite amazing to think that executing the wrong people is seen as an acceptable part of the system, rather than just replacing it with "life with no chance of release"
To be fair, personally, I'd rather die than actually suffer a full life term in prison, especially if I didn't commit the crime.
To some people, then, a life sentence would be a greater deterrent than a death sentence.
Medium of Death wrote: If the justice system is in an inadequate state to put people in prison for long stretches or for the rest of their lives, as you suggest, wouldn't it make sense to postpone it's lethal elements first? A person can live out the rest of their lives once released, it isn't ideal but it's at least an option that would otherwise be denied to them.
Yeah, I suppose they could spend those years in jail, being raped and beaten and otherwise tortured at the hands of other inmates. They could contracts HIV or hepatitis. Because being in prison is so much fun.
What would be the positive outcome of killing somebody for a crime they didn't commit?
There is no positive outcome of killing someone for something they didn't do. There is, however, less of a negative outcome than imprisoning them indefinitely for a crime they didn't commit. The dead cease suffering. Again, there's the whole quality of life thing. You really think being locked in a cage for a crime you didn't commit, being forced to dwell on that day after day, is preferable?
I sense you're going at this for the greater good in society angle, so I hope when your time comes to die for a crime you didn't commit you accept your position as a statistic and allow the state to get on with it.
I don't put myself in a lot of situations where this is likely. However, on the off-chance that it were to happen, I would absolutely request to be executed, rather than spending the rest of my days in a box.
This is what I don't get about the "what if we get things wrong crowd". Either you're pedantically worried about a very small number of cases where we actually get things wrong, or you've got blinders on to the larger problem that get things wrong too often. I'm not actually worried, at all, about being convicted of a crime I didn't commit, because I don't believe this is a common occurrence. I think that in the few cases where someone is wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit, it's either because they had committed a different crime, placing them in suspicion, or it is a result of further criminal activity.
In the latter case, and I acknowledge that this happens, too often even, if a prosecutor or police officer lies, or withholds evidence that leads an innocent person to be convicted, that is a crime of no less importance than murder itself. I don't suggest designing a penal system based on criminal behaviour among those expected to run it, that just doesn't make sense.
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
The repeated kind. I'm willing to give someone a chance to prove that what they did was due to an error of judgement, a lapse of reasoning, whatever. I believe the primary purpose of any penal system should be the rehabilitation and eventual re-admittance of the prisoner into society. But I also believe that you only get to fool me once, and if you prove, through your actions, that you don't want to be a part of a civilized peaceful society, then you can be executed, and that it is in societies best interest to do so.
Your bloody-minded approach to a civil society certainly is at odds with your cuddly-wuddly squiggoth avatar!
This "one strike and you're out forever" policy would require a massive shift in social spending and priorities, the prison system especially, or the government would be executing hundreds of people a day, essentially for the crime of being poor and/or addicted and desperate.
Rather, we believe that the "lock them up forever" approach is both a less humane solution than an execution, and is also more costly than an appropriately implemented death penalty.
I would rather be alive and in prison, praying for a miracle, than dead in the ground if I was convicted of a capital crime I didn't commit.
Hope is a powerful thing, it's why we have lotteries.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 15:13:35
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
You know those people who have been proven innocent after a long stint in prison seem pretty happy and not criminal. I suppose we should interview those who were executed and see how they think...
There is a sad case in Japan where a man was convicted of murder 48 years ago, and has been on death row ever since. DNA testing has now shown that the evidence against him may have been fabricated, and he has been released.
