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.

Relapse wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not saying kill em all for the warm fuzzies it gives. There are some who are just too dangerous to let live, though.

How about stop saying that like it's an established fact?

Relapse wrote:

Just to be clear, I am not saying kill em all for the warm fuzzies it gives. There are some who are just too dangerous to let live, though.

I'm sorry, but I disagree wholly with that argument.

With solitary confinement, and a proper working prison, people can be prevented from causing further damage without the need for additional deaths. I am of the belief that we are better than that as a society. But I also understand where you're coming from, I used to be pro-capital punishment until only a few years ago, so I get the thinking and I see it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not saying kill em all for the warm fuzzies it gives. There are some who are just too dangerous to let live, though.

How about stop saying that like it's an established fact?

It is an established fact, though:

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Just to be clear, I am not saying kill em all for the warm fuzzies it gives. There are some who are just too dangerous to let live, though.

I'm sorry, but I disagree wholly with that argument.

With solitary confinement, and a proper working prison, people can be prevented from causing further damage without the need for additional deaths. I am of the belief that we are better than that as a society. But I also understand where you're coming from, I used to be pro-capital punishment until only a few years ago, so I get the thinking and I see it.

I have quite a bit modified my stance on capital punishment, also, over the years. Based on the nature of certain murders and people committing them, though, I think execution is the only recourse for the safety of the public or fellow inmates.
Just to restate, I don't think all murderers should be executed.

That list doesn't mean your opinion is fact.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That list doesn't mean your opinion is fact.[/quote



What does it mean to you?

Saying this:

Just to restate, I don't think all murderers should be executed.

Doesn't making saying this:

Relapse wrote:
Based on the nature of certain murders and people committing them, though, I think execution is the only recourse for the safety of the public or fellow inmates.

Any less disturbing or dangerous.

How does life without parol not achieve the same thing, but without the risk of killing someone innocent (which has happened many times) and at a lower cost, and lower risk. Death row is massively expensive and also hugely more dangerous, due to the fact that inmates have nothing to lose. The death sentance achieves nothing other than giving people a feeling of eye for an eye justice. It is purely retribution, not justice. It is indicative of the attitude of the whole US justice system, one that is one of the most violent in the world, and one of the most punitive. Until the US system starts to see criminals as people it will continue to make the problem worse, not better. The willingness to kill is just one example of this view.

We have some of the same issues in the UK, but nothing like the same scale. Part of it is down to societal inequality, which in itself breads violence, but the prison system that works as a feedback loop and breeding ground also have a part to play.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Saying this:

Just to restate, I don't think all murderers should be executed.

Doesn't making saying this:

Relapse wrote:
Based on the nature of certain murders and people committing them, though, I think execution is the only recourse for the safety of the public or fellow inmates.

Any less disturbing or dangerous.

I think the people on that list and the BBC list are disturbing and dangerous, not the concept of eliminating them before they kill someone else.
On the otherhand, there are also cases where I think the death penalty should just be life inprisonment.

There was very little outcry when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed by a fellow inmate (both were life imprison)

There's truly evil and there's evil. Do both warrant execution. The guy I think who killed Dahmer just had another life sentence tacked on top of four life sentence

On the subject of that list, I decided to read through it and make some notes on it.

First thing that jumped at me was that, as you got to the bottom of the list, the details became more sparse and the agenda of the list was far more obvious. Lots of fingers pointed at Furman, the ACLU and making emotional pleas over factual ones. But that's not what all that interests me.

I took a count of the math and the cases that went on:

The list counted out approximately 55 cases.

Of these 55 cases, 9 were after escapes.
Of these 55 cases, 14 all occurred inside prison walls.
Of these 55 cases, 6 were either out of the country or were mostly unrelated.

This leaves 26 cases where you might have an argument that releasing people who cause more damage. Not a great statistic, but still a viable one. However, many of the cases were not that of those sentenced to death, but instead given other sentences. But we come around to the main question I had about this whole list, and that is what exactly is the argument?

Is it for more executions? If so, how do you account for due process? After all, a good portion of these, 41%, happened either in prison walls or as a result of escapes. If I am interpreting the tone correctly, it seems that it wants more or less instant executions. Is that true?

 curran12 wrote:
On the subject of that list, I decided to read through it and make some notes on it.

First thing that jumped at me was that, as you got to the bottom of the list, the details became more sparse and the agenda of the list was far more obvious. Lots of fingers pointed at Furman, the ACLU and making emotional pleas over factual ones. But that's not what all that interests me.

I took a count of the math and the cases that went on:

The list counted out approximately 55 cases.

Of these 55 cases, 9 were after escapes.
Of these 55 cases, 14 all occurred inside prison walls.
Of these 55 cases, 6 were either out of the country or were mostly unrelated.

This leaves 26 cases where you might have an argument that releasing people who cause more damage. Not a great statistic, but still a viable one. However, many of the cases were not that of those sentenced to death, but instead given other sentences. But we come around to the main question I had about this whole list, and that is what exactly is the argument?

Is it for more executions? If so, how do you account for due process? After all, a good portion of these, 41%, happened either in prison walls or as a result of escapes. If I am interpreting the tone correctly, it seems that it wants more or less instant executions. Is that true?

My concept is that some murderers, not all, should be executed. As I have been saying, this is not to scratch a revenge itch, but for the safety of others.

Okay, then let me ask this.

How do you determine which murderers qualify for that? Do we simply make a judgment call on horrible-ness? Do we wait for them to attack again (which rather renders the whole idea moot)?

Relapse wrote:I think the people on that list and the BBC list are disturbing and dangerous, not the concept of eliminating them before they kill someone else.

So you want to punish people before they commit a crime?

On the otherhand, there are also cases where I think the death penalty should just be life inprisonment.

How would one go about deciding which person is likely to commit another crime if they were released?

Relapse wrote:My concept is that some murderers, not all, should be executed. As I have been saying, this is not to scratch a revenge itch, but for the safety of others.

Right, how's that old saying go... The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

You're essentially promoting social Darwinism-esque ideas here.

 curran12 wrote:
Okay, then let me ask this.

How do you determine which murderers qualify for that? Do we simply make a judgment call on horrible-ness? Do we wait for them to attack again (which rather renders the whole idea moot)?

I would say killing someone in the heat of passion would easily be distinguished from murders that involve torture or some other depravity on a scale.

A case where the death penalty was well deserved:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders

How do you determine depravity?

And is it as easy as you say to distinguish these? And really, what difference is there?

Edit: Had an additional thought.

And if the goal is to prevent repeat offenses, does depravity and premeditation correlate to repetition?

 curran12 wrote:
How do you determine depravity?

And is it as easy as you say to distinguish these? And really, what difference is there?

You didn't think the link about the Hi Fi murders outlined depravity? The Tate murders? Someone who abducts, tortures and rapes children, then kills them? Depravity of that nature is fairly easy to distinguish from an incident of the type where someone gets into an argument at a bar and shoots another person.

But that isn't about what your original point. You've gone from a line about safety and reduction of repetition of crime to what I'd call a "they're depraved and need to be put down" line. These are not the same.

 curran12 wrote:
But that isn't about what your original point. You've gone from a line about safety and reduction of repetition of crime to what I'd call a "they're depraved and need to be put down" line. These are not the same.

Actually, it is the same. Someone like that has proven they don't see other people as human, so have no qualms about killing.

Relapse wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
But that isn't about what your original point. You've gone from a line about safety and reduction of repetition of crime to what I'd call a "they're depraved and need to be put down" line. These are not the same.

Actually, it is the same. Someone like that has proven they don't see other people as human, so have no qualms about killing.

But where is the proof of that? Now it's certainly true that a despicable person does things like this, but what is the rate of recidivism there? These are items that can be proven with statistics. Likewise, how do you deal with mental illness in these cases?

Deleted

Relapse wrote:
Convicted murderers never escape and kill other people!

Statistically, no, not really. I did some quick looking at numbers and there have been about 20 prison breaks over the last 20 years or so. Out of those, approximately 100% were recaptured or killed. With a prison population in the US of 2.2 million or so, the chances of you hitting the lottery look pretty good compared to you escaping from prison.

For comparison, about 50 people a year in the US are killed by lightning, but you never really see people basing policy positions around it.

 Ouze wrote:
For comparison, about 50 people a year in the US are killed by lightning, but you never really see people basing policy positions around it.

What? Outrageous! Clearly we must develop a weather dominator to prevent these deaths?

Personally I think many of the really disturbing murderers are better kept alive and locked up. Some people would like to see Norwegian mass murderer Breivik shot, decapitated or burned at the stake, for example. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but it would make him a martyr for the other crazies that think like he does.

And he is a case where guilt wasn't in doubt. Judges and juries do sentence innocent people from time to time. You can never make up for executing the wrong person, a prisoner can at least be set free and given compensation if new evidence proves his innocence.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
For comparison, about 50 people a year in the US are killed by lightning, but you never really see people basing policy positions around it.

What? Outrageous! Clearly we must develop a weather dominator to prevent these deaths?

Toddler shoot more people than that each year, let's get our priorities straight.

But a weather dominator would be so cool. How dare sound social policy take precedence over the Rule of Cool!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Hanging would be quicker and cleaner than this. Why is lethal injection considered superior?

For some reason our measures of 'humane' seems to worry little about the suffering of the executed, but a lot about how much of a mess they're body is in after the event. Drawing blood or disfiguring the neck is inhumane, but a chemical injection that can sometimes cause considerable pain before eventual death is seen as more humane.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
We've already had some reoffend. I have to keep telling myself only a small segment of society are habitual criminals. But when you see the same faces year after year it makes you lose faith.

You have to treat the sources and causes of crime, not just lock people up and then release them right back into the same situation again (or worse as they now have a criminal record and are unlikely to find work to support themselves/their families) and telling them not to do it again.

My repeat customers aren't doing their deeds out of necessity. That would create sympathy. They do idiotic things with no plausible explanation. I hear them try to stammer out an excuse in front of the sentencing judge. I've never prosecuted someone who sold drugs to feed their family or stole food.

Relapse wrote:
That being said, there are still those that do need to be executed for the safety of the public and fellow inmates.

This is a thing lots of people say, but actually has no relation to reality. At the simplest level, whether an in-mate is a threat to guards or other prisoners isn't a criteria for execution. If prisoner sentences included some kind of judgement about whether or not a person was going to be dangerous in prison, then you might have a point. But it doesn’t, only the nature of the crime inflicted is considered.

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.

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.

Two version at play here. State Execution and Federal Execution.