The death penalty

[dxcxdzv]

I saw a lot of debates here - some a bit odd - but never one concerning death penalty. I'm not going to explain the thing, I think everybody here knows what it is and what it implies.

What people expect from death penalty :
-A strong justice.
-The possibility to suppress an individual because his crime is simply too horrible.
-Prevent from other potential criminals to do something bad.
-Relieve the overcrowding problem in prisons (even if our honest citizens don't like to explicitly say it).

What death penalty does :
-It kills (sometimes innocent people).
-It is not dissuasive.
-It is a barbarian practice.
-Most of the people concerned about it are simply "sick" or are just criminals due to the forces of the circumstances.
-Nothing humanly justify to suppress these condemned individuals.
-It costs millions.

Nice pdf : http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

So, should death penalty be legal? Or illegal?
Personally the simple fact of living somewhere the state can legally execute me scares me at the highest levels.

I know that this topic regularly came out from the abysses but it is always forgotten (the most recent one almost got a year since nobody answered!) and I didn't find some posts of people I'd like to have the opinion (yes phuckphace and Judean Zealot I'm talking about you guys, also I guess than in 11 months some new heads are here - including me! - and never expressed themselves about this topic, at least with people living where it is legal).

In the US there is only 19 states where the death penalty has been abolished.

[Gwen]

If people wanted justice surely it would be better to let a criminal get a life sentence and spend his entire life in a small concrete shack wallowing in their own depressing future for a good 60 years. I know I can get my feel of justice from that depressing end to life rather than giving them a injection that ends in minutes. If the whole point of the death penalty is to get revenge or in some way make the offending party suffer for their crimes, it was a poorly thought out way. A quick painless death is something that plenty of people wish for.

[Uniquemind]

I'm not against the concept of it, but in the reality with the obstacles it faces now, which has people sitting way to long on death row, and the monetary cost of society, I'd have to be against it as it is practiced now.

OR I'd be for it, once it has major reforms, and the process is sped up much faster.

At school I was actually on the anti-death penalty side of a debate, and from the data I gathered it seemed that the ones who were "put to death, but where probably innocent or confirmed innocent in time" tended all to be from eras where forensic science of crime scene data was NOT to the same standards that they are today.

A lot of death row inmates I found who shouldn't have been there were originally from crimes and convictions from the 1970-80's era or before.

---

There's also a parallel debate that life in prison, and solitary confinement are also "inhumane" and constitute the definition of torture.


If both debates are coming down the pipeline society could be without a death penalty, and life in prison without parole...

I'm okay with abolishing the death penalty if society can have life without parole with solitary confinement as a tactic a prison can use....but not if both are planning to go away on a "inhumane/too costly" legal argument.

[thatcountrykid]

There wouldn't be such high costs of society stopped being so soft and decided to go cheaper and spend 50 cents on a bullet or bring back the old multi use rope

[tonymontana99]

It should stay legal and actually should be on a federal level. Of course it dissuades criminals from acting. Maybe not all of them, but I'm a sure the majority is. The reduction of prison overcrowding is another thing that could be lowered down -- even if a bit -- if we were to execute some convicted murderers or rapists who deserve absolutely no chance at being let loose in the public again. We should, however, make sure the ones who are to be executed have been convicted on a 100% certainty that they indeed were the perpetrators of whatever crime it was they commited.

Personally, I don't see it as barbaric; only a simple way to cut down the "excess fat" in our society and prison system. If it were up to me, they'd either go to forced labour camps to build government infrastructures, or to pave roads, for example, or they'd be offered the death penalty. No death row whatsoever; you are convicted and after that it's straight from the courtroom to the nearest facility with sodium thiopental.

What are the arguments against the death penalty other than "muh human rights"?

Oh, and OP, why are you so scared to live in a state that can legally execute you? I'm sure you are a law-abiding citizen, aren't you? Nothing to worry about.

[dxcxdzv]

Complicated : Sure. But revenge is not justice.
Uniquemind : Hopefully Science is getting better everyday.
tonymontana99 : What "muh human rights"? Are you even conscious of what you are saying? How can you speak so lowly about human rights?
And nope. It is not dissuasive at all, show me a concrete proof that it is dissuasive.
"Cut the excess fat", I will not even argue against that. I remind you that we are talking about human lives. Even if the acts of an individual are horrible, human life is human life.

And if you don't want to talk about human rights - and financial aspects - fine.
Let's see the technical way.
To prevent any public - and not productive - reflexion (the stupidity of the masses) from taking the decisions we built all a alleged impartial judicial system with an expert, the judge, choosing the sentence.
And here's the question : Can the State kill its citizens?
Only by taking a representative democratic system like ours there shouldn't even be any question but let's leave the idea for now : Can the State this far decide of your life?
If you start from the idea that any life is precious and that nobody should decide of who deserves to die and who deserves to live answering by the death is de facto excluded.
A state extolling happiness for everybody and maintaining death penalty is simply contradictious.

Oh and why does it scare me? Because the law says that the state can f***ing kill me. And it's not because I'm not raping women and killing babies that it doesn't scare me. It is absolutely disturbing and I'm glad that I live in Europe for that.

[Jaffe]

I think that solitary confinement for life would be worse than death, and would be a much better punishment.

I do not believe that anyone, even the State, has the right to kill another person.

Third and most important: I cannot imagine what the people, the individuals, who carry out the execution go through. They have to live with the fact that they killed another human being. Yes, it was their job, they "had" to do it to make a living and support their families... but they still must suffer a huge mental and emotional anguish and trauma for having taken another person's life. This alone should be reason enough to dispose of the death penalty.

[tonymontana99]

Complicated : Sure. But revenge is not justice.
Uniquemind : Hopefully Science is getting better everyday.
tonymontana99 : What "muh human rights"? Are you even conscious of what you are saying? How can you speak so lowly about human rights?
And nope. It is not dissuasive at all, show me a concrete proof that it is dissuasive.
"Cut the excess fat", I will not even argue against that. I remind you that we are talking about human lives. Even if the acts of an individual are horrible, human life is human life.

And if you don't want to talk about human rights - and financial aspects - fine.
Let's see the technical way.
To prevent any public - and not productive - reflexion (the stupidity of the masses) from taking the decisions we built all a alleged impartial judicial system with an expert, the judge, choosing the sentence.
And here's the question : Can the State kill its citizens?
Only by taking a representative democratic system like ours there shouldn't even be any question but let's leave the idea for now : Can the State this far decide of your life?
If you start from the idea that any life is precious and that nobody should decide of who deserves to die and who deserves to live answering by the death is de facto excluded.
A state extolling happiness for everybody and maintaining death penalty is simply contradictious.

Oh and why does it scare me? Because the law says that the state can f***ing kill me. And it's not because I'm not raping women and killing babies that it doesn't scare me. It is absolutely disturbing and I'm glad that I live in Europe for that.

"Muh human rights" are obstacles in these cases because they are artificial blockades that pervent getting things done. Do you think a terrorist conspiring against your country's people should be treated "humanely"? Don't you think he should be strapped to a chair and have the everlasting shit beaten out of him to try to prevent the loss of innocent, productive human lives? Same thing with a murderer -- except we don't need to interrogate him. Don't tell me that, as a citizen, you would not agree to torture captured terrorists if you knew bombs had been placed in a couple of schools throughout the country.

You immediately start off wrong by saying "Human life is human life." Lol, are you seriously going to tell me that -- let's say -- Bill Gates' life, or Steve Jobs' life is/was of equal worth as some crackpot who kills his family or a street thug who shoots a 7-11 clerk in the face?

We save more money and give a better example by executing people who already proved to their country they cannot act normally in society than having to pay the food and utility bills to essentially take care of them until they die. I also don't get why you're so scared of the State being allowed to execute you... If you're not doing anything wrong, it's like worrying if a unicorn is going to run over you one day...

PS: This is off-topic, but what was your reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre? I have a feeling you think "they had it coming".

I think that solitary confinement for life would be worse than death, and would be a much better punishment.

I do not believe that anyone, even the State, has the right to kill another person.

Third and most important: I cannot imagine what the people, the individuals, who carry out the execution go through. They have to live with the fact that they killed another human being. Yes, it was their job, they "had" to do it to make a living and support their families... but they still must suffer a huge mental and emotional anguish and trauma for having taken another person's life. This alone should be reason enough to dispose of the death penalty.

What mental and emotional anguish? They are doing a service to society by getting rid of the filth that threatens the normal course of living. Your only argument is based on emotion. It's literally pressing a lever/injecting a chemical and it's done. It probably gets repetitive and boring after a while. When you say the "mental and emotional anguish" should alone be a reason to dispose of the death penalty is like saying criminals shouldn't go to jail because it will cause mental and emotional anguish to them and their relatives.

[sqishy]

Does terrorism have to come into this?

[tonymontana99]

Does terrorism have to come into this?

Are you actually going to provide some input or just continue posting single sentences that provide absolutely no way of continuing this debate? (SPOILER: it's called shitposting)

[sqishy]

Are you actually going to provide some input or just continue posting single sentences that provide absolutely no way of continuing this debate? (SPOILER: it's called shitposting)

You think that because I'm not going to go and engage in full-on discussion/argument on this against you, who I have opposing opinions with, is shitposting????

I'm asking if terrorism has to come into this - it was not rhetorical. Even if it was, saying it has absolutely no value for the discussion is sudden. Nobody else has replied to this yet, so how do you know?

[tonymontana99]

You think that because I'm not going to go and engage in full-on discussion/argument on this against you, who I have opposing opinions with, is shitposting????

It's shitposting because you essentially jump in to the middle of the conversation, post a pointless comment and then go back to Reddit. A virtual version of eavesdroping a conversation and then saying a random comment that leaves the people who were talking to each other confused.

[sqishy]

It's shitposting because you essentially jump in to the middle of the conversation, post a pointless comment and then go back to Reddit. A virtual version of eavesdroping a conversation and then saying a random comment that leaves the people who were talking to each other confused.

Not everyone is on Reddit..
To please thyself and to avoid making this thread go offtopic, I will leave.

[Uniquemind]

Also nobody has mentioned using gas chambers (like carbon monoxide, or CO2) as a less expensive way to carry out the death penalty.


If you're arguing for it from a costs perspective regarding the drug's expense to produce.....we have tons of CO2, and many accidental deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning happen every year from malfunctioning cars.

It obviously works, and is painless if you fall asleep and get gassed and then don't wake up no more.

-

This being said, let's also not forget it's tactically smart to keep some prisoners alive in life in prison purely because they can be referenced for interviews regarding other cases, in trade for plea-bargins.

Also in cases of war, including the war on terror, a strong incentive to keep prisoners alive is for prisoner swaps.


So let's take a more pragmatic look besides the "thirst for revenge" angle because it seems that's where the discussion was headed.


There are many factors to consider, and I only responded simply because the original OP posed the question simply of what did I think about the death penalty.


Now it seems we are debating the merits of it's existence and the trade-offs executing someone brings.


My point are cons:

1. If killed you lose that prisoner as an information resource.

2. You lose them as a potential prisoner swap.

[tonymontana99]

Also nobody has mentioned using gas chambers (like carbon monoxide, or CO2) as a less expensive way to carry out the death penalty.


If your arguing for it from a costs perspective regarding the drug's expense to produce.....we have tons of CO2, and many accidental deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning happen every year from malfunctioning cars.

It obviously works, and is painless if you fall asleep and get gassed and then don't wake up no more.

We can't use gas chambers because of the 6,000,000,000,000,000,000. You know that, Mrs. Berg. But yes, there must be a cost-benefit analysis made as how much we can save by executing convicts and what's the best way to do it.

[dxcxdzv]

DEATH PENALTY AND ALLEGED SCIENTIFICAL ETHIC ARE NOT THE SAME THING tonymontana99
They are not artificial blockades.

And yes, human life is human life. What individuals do is another thing. The multi-billionaire or the monster (pleonasm hehe) have both a human life that it is independent of everything they have done, are doing, and will do.

I will not agree with torturing anybody. I am against this. It is barbarian.
Thinking that people who do horrible things shall just be idiotically tortured is a limited reflexion that hopefully human consciousness forgot.

What you don't seem to understand is that the crime committed is not the most important in it. There are a lot of other factors to keep in mind, and I already enunciated some.

People shouldn't need examples, people should act intelligibly, in a clever way and with feeling towards the others. And when I say the others I mean EVERYBODY.

It's not a question about "I'm not doing anything wrong", it's a question about what exists. Sorry but I will not restrain my views at my nose or what I just see with my eyes.

I not really care about Charlie Hebdo. I never liked this magazine but I also didn't like that some people tried to kill freedom of expression as well as I didn't like all that public rassemblements shit as well as I didn't like that some people have been arrested for tweeting that they support the terrorists who did this.

[tonymontana99]

DEATH PENALTY AND ALLEGED SCIENTIFICAL ETHIC ARE NOT THE SAME THING tonymontana99
They are not artificial blockades.

And yes, human life is human life. What individuals do is another thing. The multi-billionaire or the monster (pleonasm hehe) have both a human life that it is independent of everything they have done, are doing, and will do.

I will not agree with torturing anybody. I am against this. It is barbarian.
Thinking that people who do horrible things shall just be idiotically tortured is a limited reflexion that hopefully human consciousness forgot.

What you don't seem to understand is that the crime committed is not the most important in it. There are a lot of other factors to keep in mind, and I already enunciated some.

People shouldn't need examples, people should act intelligibly, in a clever way and with feeling towards the others. And when I say the others I mean EVERYBODY.

It's not a question about "I'm not doing anything wrong", it's a question about what exists. Sorry but I will not restrain my views at my nose or what I just see with my eyes.

I not really care about Charlie Hebdo. I never liked this magazine but I also didn't like that some people tried to kill freedom of expression as well as I didn't like all that public rassemblements shit as well as I didn't like that some people have been arrested for tweeting that they support the terrorists who did this.

Well, clearly this is something the two of us will never agree with. You go by the theory that all human life is of equal worth -- whether they were ingenious entrepeneurs and tech titans, or lunatic murderers -- I don't. You think it's barbarian to torture one person in order to potentially save dozens or hundreds of others who have not yet been given a chance to flourish in society. If it were your kid whose school had been bombed, and he had died -- would you have said "Oh, welp. Human life is still human life. He killed innocent children, but he was a good boy, he dindu nuffin'"?

You say people should act in an intelligible way and with feelings towards one another -- yeah, right. Tell that to the guy that'll point you a shotgun to the face at a gas stop. I'm sure he'll give you a hug.

[dxcxdzv]

Well, clearly this is something the two of us will never agree with. You go by the theory that all human life is of equal worth -- whether they were ingenious entrepeneurs and tech titans, or lunatic murderers -- I don't. You think it's barbarian to torture one person in order to potentially save dozens or hundreds of others who have not yet been given a chance to flourish in society. If it were your kid whose school had been bombed, and he had died -- would you have said "Oh, welp. Human life is still human life. He killed innocent children, but he was a good boy, he dindu nuffin'"?
I'm talking about human life given by our Creator (God, the Nature or whatever you want it to be). Success in life is another thing of which we will not talk about here.

It is totally barbarian. The justification and the circumstances are - once again - another thing. Sorry to say that, but I don't see in what torturing or killing the guy who killed my children will be productive. For sure I'll be angry (or maybe not, another feeling I guess, because angriness comes due to a lack of reflexion) but no. I'll not wish this person to be demolished, maybe I'll want to kill him (who knows?) but I don't want to live somewhere the state will help me to commit a crime.

You say people should act in an intelligible way and with feelings towards one another -- yeah, right. Tell that to the guy that'll point you a shotgun to the face at a gas stop. I'm sure he'll give you a hug.
This kind of things only happens in the United States and third world countries.
Haha, little joke (that is true). I'll not be in hate with this person neither.

Also you are talking here in a revenge context whereas most of the people committing awful crimes need a psychiatric help, or at least to be kept apart from the society (the zombie one), not killed.

[Jaffe]

What mental and emotional anguish? They are doing a service to society by getting rid of the filth that threatens the normal course of living. Your only argument is based on emotion. It's literally pressing a lever/injecting a chemical and it's done. It probably gets repetitive and boring after a while. When you say the "mental and emotional anguish" should alone be a reason to dispose of the death penalty is like saying criminals shouldn't go to jail because it will cause mental and emotional anguish to them and their relatives.

Of course it is based on emotion. Much of life is. Without emotion, we are just the same as machines, to a degree.

Some people, perhaps yourself included based on your statements, feel no compunction about taking human life if they judge that life to have no value. But I do not believe that I have the right to make that judgment. Vigilante justice is based on the same idea, but that is not lawful, thankfully.

And no, I am not saying anything about the mental anguish of the criminal. I was speaking of the anguish for the executioners, regardless of the method of taking that life. In most cases, personally administering an injection. Perhaps a job requirement needs to be complacency in killing.

[Gwen]

Complicated : Sure. But revenge is not justice.
Uniquemind : Hopefully Science is getting better everyday.
tonymontana99 : What "muh human rights"? Are you even conscious of what you are saying? How can you speak so lowly about human rights?
And nope. It is not dissuasive at all, show me a concrete proof that it is dissuasive.
"Cut the excess fat", I will not even argue against that. I remind you that we are talking about human lives. Even if the acts of an individual are horrible, human life is human life.

And if you don't want to talk about human rights - and financial aspects - fine.
Let's see the technical way.
To prevent any public - and not productive - reflexion (the stupidity of the masses) from taking the decisions we built all a alleged impartial judicial system with an expert, the judge, choosing the sentence.
And here's the question : Can the State kill its citizens?
Only by taking a representative democratic system like ours there shouldn't even be any question but let's leave the idea for now : Can the State this far decide of your life?
If you start from the idea that any life is precious and that nobody should decide of who deserves to die and who deserves to live answering by the death is de facto excluded.
A state extolling happiness for everybody and maintaining death penalty is simply contradictious.

Oh and why does it scare me? Because the law says that the state can f***ing kill me. And it's not because I'm not raping women and killing babies that it doesn't scare me. It is absolutely disturbing and I'm glad that I live in Europe for that.

If revenge isn't justice then how can you say the death penalty a "strong justice"? I don't remember putting people to death being seen as behaviour or treatment either. I've never lived in a country that still used the death penalty and it just doesn't make sense to me how killing someone is the best way to deliver justice.

[Vlerchan]

A lot of death row inmates I found who shouldn't have been there were originally from crimes and convictions from the 1970-80's era or before.
Define '[a] lot' please.

is possible that the death-sentencing rate of innocent defendants has changed over time. No specific evidence points in that direction, but the number and the distribution of death sentences have changed dramatically in the past 15 y (22). One change, however, is unlikely to have much impact: the advent of DNA identification technology. DNA evidence is useful primarily in rape rather than homicide investigations. Only 13% of death row exonerations since 1973 (18 of 142) resulted from postconviction DNA testing (13), so the availability of preconviction testing will have at most a modest effect on that rate.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230.full

There wouldn't be such high costs of society stopped being so soft and decided to go cheaper and spend 50 cents on a bullet or bring back the old multi use rope
You're forgetting the legal costs that make up the bulk of the expenses.

Of course it dissuades criminals from acting.
From what I've gathered from the literature it would seem that capital punishment has little impact on homicide rates.

So no, it would seem.

The reduction of prison overcrowding is another thing that could be lowered down -- even if a bit -- if we were to execute some convicted murderers or rapists who deserve absolutely no chance at being let loose in the public again.
In normal cases I would argue that making drug use an issue for the department of health as opposed to the department for justice would help disable of problem of overcrowding in prisons. But I recognise in advance this isn't an argument that's going to work so I'm just going to ignore this point for the rest of the debate.

No death row whatsoever; you are convicted and after that it's straight from the courtroom to the nearest facility with sodium thiopental.
Because judges never get it wrong. Here's a blast from the past.

An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt - and doubt has always been an incredibly ambiguous term legal-wise. The opposite is not-guilty - i.e., there is not convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt. You'll find that the term innocent is never used in place of it. Why? Because you can never be entirely certain whether someone is truly innocent or not.

Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary. Between 1973 - 1999 there was on average 3.1 exonerations from Death Row per year and between 2000 - 2007 there was an average 5 exonerations per year - that's an awful lot of people almost murdered right there.

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2602261&postcount=27

Check those Jean Poutine posts from the pre-authoritarian days.

What are the arguments against the death penalty other than "muh human rights"?
It's not certain that those convicted have committed the crimes as a definitional aspect of the sentencing process.
It costs an astronomical amount but that astronomical amount seems to be required to protect against the failings of our judicial systems.
There seems to be more efficient means of using the spare human capital.
It raises philosophical concerns surrounding governments being able to take what these governments can't give or return.
Big Government in general.
Etc. Literally I can keep going.

Considering your consistent invocation of the second amendment in gun control arguments I also found this point amusing.


We save more money and give a better example by executing people who already proved to their country they cannot act normally in society than having to pay the food and utility bills to essentially take care of them until they die.
Neither of these ideals are strictly true.

In fact the evidence seems to indicate they are wrong.

I also don't get why you're so scared of the State being allowed to execute you... If you're not doing anything wrong, it's like worrying if a unicorn is going to run over you one day...
I have a feeling Reise poses those arguments from a contractualist perspective. In order for our states and societies to come about the individual must restrict a number of her natural freedoms. It would seem a stark proposition considering our enlightened age to be required to restrict our natural freedom to live.

It's shitposting because you essentially jump in to the middle of the conversation, post a pointless comment and then go back to Reddit.
Paraxiom's point seemed valid to me. The introduction of Charlie Hebdo seems an attempt to capitalise on both emotion and disgust.

[dxcxdzv]

Complicated :
I was talking about "what people expect from death penalty". Which is different from what I mean trough my personal views.

[Gwen]

Complicated :
I was talking about "what people expect from death penalty". Which is different from what I mean trough my personal views.

I misconstrued what you had typed, sorry. I was also trying to say if people wanted that type of misguided justice not having the death penalty would be the smartest way to obtain it. Having a criminal die for his crimes in a quick timely manner by execution is just a symbol while having them locked away for the rest of their life.

Also to the people trying to bring cost into this, not sure if you've ever done Legal Studies or anyone of you is a Law student but it doesn't cost a gun and a bullet for the state to execute someone. You can do some research yourself (I suggest you do it is a interesting topic and if you do have interest in becoming a Law student this will 100% come up for an assignment or subject of debate) but just to put it into easy to straight numbers; "California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment." Link to article (http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42). Unless you plan on also changing the Constitution you'll always be throwing so much more money at trying to execute criminals rather than house them indefinitely. Going through the judicial system is extremely expensive and this isn't likely to change ever since it puts good money into the pockets of courthouses.

[tonymontana99]

I'm talking about human life given by our Creator (God, the Nature or whatever you want it to be). Success in life is another thing of which we will not talk about here.

It is totally barbarian. The justification and the circumstances are - once again - another thing. Sorry to say that, but I don't see in what torturing or killing the guy who killed my children will be productive. For sure I'll be angry (or maybe not, another feeling I guess, because angriness comes due to a lack of reflexion) but no. I'll not wish this person to be demolished, maybe I'll want to kill him (who knows?) but I don't want to live somewhere the state will help me to commit a crime.


This kind of things only happens in the United States and third world countries.
Haha, little joke (that is true). I'll not be in hate with this person neither.

Also you are talking here in a revenge context whereas most of the people committing awful crimes need a psychiatric help, or at least to be kept apart from the society (the zombie one), not killed.

It will be productive to torture/kill him because he will either give up valuable intel on possible future strikes or will die. And then it's one less lunatic we have to worry about. At the end of the day, it's a cost-benefit analysis. I'm completely okay with prohibiting the death penalty as long as it's proved that we can put the prisioners to work/building and, in the long run, it becomes less expensive and productive.

Of course it is based on emotion. Much of life is. Without emotion, we are just the same as machines, to a degree.

Some people, perhaps yourself included based on your statements, feel no compunction about taking human life if they judge that life to have no value. But I do not believe that I have the right to make that judgment. Vigilante justice is based on the same idea, but that is not lawful, thankfully.

And no, I am not saying anything about the mental anguish of the criminal. I was speaking of the anguish for the executioners, regardless of the method of taking that life. In most cases, personally administering an injection. Perhaps a job requirement needs to be complacency in killing.

I never said I think life has no value. Of course it has value. But you earn your value. And most murderers and criminals lose their value when they commit atrocities and prevent other people from earning their value. Much of life is based on emotion -- but when emotion deters you from thinking clearly, that's where things stop being funny.

[thatcountrykid]

Define '[a] lot' please.

is possible that the death-sentencing rate of innocent defendants has changed over time. No specific evidence points in that direction, but the number and the distribution of death sentences have changed dramatically in the past 15 y (22). One change, however, is unlikely to have much impact: the advent of DNA identification technology. DNA evidence is useful primarily in rape rather than homicide investigations. Only 13% of death row exonerations since 1973 (18 of 142) resulted from postconviction DNA testing (13), so the availability of preconviction testing will have at most a modest effect on that rate.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230.full


You're forgetting the legal costs that make up the bulk of the expenses.


From what I've gathered from the literature it would seem that capital punishment has little impact on homicide rates.

So no, it would seem.


In normal cases I would argue that making drug use an issue for the department of health as opposed to the department for justice would help disable of problem of overcrowding in prisons. But I recognise in advance this isn't an argument that's going to work so I'm just going to ignore this point for the rest of the debate.


Because judges never get it wrong. Here's a blast from the past.

An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt - and doubt has always been an incredibly ambiguous term legal-wise. The opposite is not-guilty - i.e., there is not convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt. You'll find that the term innocent is never used in place of it. Why? Because you can never be entirely certain whether someone is truly innocent or not.

Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary. Between 1973 - 1999 there was on average 3.1 exonerations from Death Row per year and between 2000 - 2007 there was an average 5 exonerations per year - that's an awful lot of people almost murdered right there.

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2602261&postcount=27

Check those Jean Poutine posts from the pre-authoritarian days.


It's not certain that those convicted have committed the crimes as a definitional aspect of the sentencing process.
It costs an astronomical amount but that astronomical amount seems to be required to protect against the failings of our judicial systems.
There seems to be more efficient means of using the spare human capital.
It raises philosophical concerns surrounding governments being able to take what these governments can't give or return.
Big Government in general.
Etc. Literally I can keep going.

Considering your consistent invocation of the second amendment in gun control arguments I also found this point amusing.


Neither of these ideals are strictly true.

In fact the evidence seems to indicate they are wrong.


I have a feeling Reise poses those arguments from a contractualist perspective. In order for our states and societies to come about the individual must restrict a number of her natural freedoms. It would seem a stark proposition considering our enlightened age to be required to restrict our natural freedom to live.


Paraxiom's point seemed valid to me. The introduction of Charlie Hebdo seems an attempt to capitalise on both emotion and disgust.

Give a single appeal a month after the sentence is issued, if the appeal fails, take them to the back, execute

[Vlerchan]

Give a single appeal a month after the sentence is issued, if the appeal fails, take them to the back, execute
I'm not going to support putting the life of potential innocents at gross risk like this so that the state can save a few bucks. Considering the literature on false inditements this proposal doesn't sound reasonable at all.

I'm also not sure of judges can be charged with criminal negligence but I think the trial judge that directs this given the empirical evidence would be in with a chance.

[ComfortableInChaos]

If there's enough hard evidence, I think it should be done. Then again, I'm from the south and a lot of us are thought to believe in "barbaric practices" and shit like that... But that's not the point I'm making, the point I'm making is that if someone killed someone, they shouldn't be wasting our (American) tax money in jail, putting a damn roof over their head, giving them food and water, sometimes giving them a TV and internet access... What kind of punishment is that?

[Uniquemind]

Oh what do I expect from the death penalty?


1. A tool to decrease the human population in an infinitesimally small degree.
Vlerchan I'll have to go dig up my old projects research if I can find it. I hope I didn't throw it out; I might've in which case I'm out of luck.

I can only tell you that from the case studies I used, it always seemed those exonerated tended to be from convictions made against them in older decades, aka: before the first iPod was invented.

I haven't seen as many wrongful convictions and exonerations from people in the last 10 years for crimes made post 2004-5) for death row.

[Jaffe]

If there's enough hard evidence, I think it should be done. Then again, I'm from the south and a lot of us are thought to believe in "barbaric practices" and shit like that... But that's not the point I'm making, the point I'm making is that if someone killed someone, they shouldn't be wasting our (American) tax money in jail, putting a damn roof over their head, giving them food and water, sometimes giving them a TV and internet access... What kind of punishment is that?

I think most "studies" on this indicate that the cost of an execution far exceeds the cost of keeping someone in prison for life.

[sqishy]

I think most "studies" on this indicate that the cost of an execution far exceeds the cost of keeping someone in prison for life.

Though I am not for the death penalty at all, the actual execution itself can be done with asphyxiation of breathing pure nitrogen for a few minutes (those few minutes being way more than necessary; only a few breaths are needed for knockout). That it extremely cheap; I don't understand how there is so much of an issue regarding what chemical agents to use to execute people. Yes, I know many want the person to be executed to not feel euphoria or a general feeling of wellbeing that pure nitrogen gives, but in that case, find another chemical to add pain. I've hardly ever given an opinion assuming I am with what I am actually opposed to, but I'm just putting this out there.

If you don't see nitrogen asphyxiation as an effective agent of execution, I give this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation . If yet you're still skeptical, watch the BBC Horizon documentary on the death penalty, it should be around online. Those two things are not what changed my mind on this - I already knew pure nitrogen was a clearly reasonable option for executions.

[and for god's sake, my posts are not shitposting. you know who you are sir (not you Jaffe)]

[Jaffe]

Though I am not for the death penalty at all, the actual execution itself can be done with asphyxiation of breathing pure nitrogen for a few minutes (those few minutes being way more than necessary; only a few breaths are needed for knockout). That it extremely cheap; I don't understand how there is so much of an issue regarding what chemical agents to use to execute people. Yes, I know many want the person to be executed to not feel euphoria or a general feeling of wellbeing that pure nitrogen gives, but in that case, find another chemical to add pain. I've hardly ever given an opinion assuming I am with what I am actually opposed to, but I'm just putting this out there.

If you don't see nitrogen asphyxiation as an effective agent of execution, I give this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation . If yet you're still skeptical, watch the BBC Horizon documentary on the death penalty, it should be around online. Those two things are not what changed my mind on this - I already knew pure nitrogen was a clearly reasonable option for executions.

[and for god's sake, my posts are not shitposting. you know who you are sir (not you Jaffe)]


The methodology and the drugs, although very expensive, are a minor part of the cost of execution in the US. Legal expenses and insurance are the two largest expenses, I believe (I will do a bit more research to confirm). They have to have lots of insurance, as in the past, the states have been sued for causing undue suffering (such as when the drugs didnt work well and the guy went into convulsions for an hour before dying), and every person involved (doctor, executioner, all the prep people) have to be insured against possible suits from the criminals family (or possibly someone else, who knows? Americans are court-happy people).

The execution itself is relatively inexpensive. It is all the surroundings and staging that costs money.

[sqishy]

The methodology and the drugs, although very expensive, are a minor part of the cost of execution in the US. Legal expenses and insurance are the two largest expenses, I believe (I will do a bit more research to confirm). They have to have lots of insurance, as in the past, the states have been sued for causing undue suffering (such as when the drugs didnt work well and the guy went into convulsions for an hour before dying), and every person involved (doctor, executioner, all the prep people) have to be insured against possible suits from the criminals family (or possibly someone else, who knows? Americans are court-happy people).

The execution itself is relatively inexpensive. It is all the surroundings and staging that costs money.

True yes, most of the money spent is on everything going on 'around' it, nevertheless the actual execution can be simplified greatly. Some money can be saved (this implies that the complexity of the execution drugs is not intentional of course).

[Vlerchan]

Then again, I'm from the south and a lot of us are thought to believe in "barbaric practices" and shit like that...
Interesting point this. I wrote a paper on differing political cultures in the North and South of the U.S. and resulting trends in human rights recognition in last year. One of the points I focused on was capital punishment. The abolitionist movements of the 1800s shocked European contemporaries but these never quite managed to penetrate the South. One quite convincing argument regarded slave holding practices. The movement started in the South with the modest goal of de-barring slave holders from executing [killing] their slaves.

Slave holders and their supporters resisted this - on the grounds of their rights - and that formed the basis of a split in U.S. thought on the issue that embedded a resistance that continues after the original motivations have been removed.

[ComfortableInChaos]

I think most "studies" on this indicate that the cost of an execution far exceeds the cost of keeping someone in prison for life.

So putting someone in an electric chair, lethal injection, or a hanging is more expensive than keeping a person alive with TVs and sometimes internet? How is that...?

[Professional Russian]

I like Ron Whites skit on the death penalty "Here in Texas we have the death penalty AND WE USE IT. If you come to Texas and kill someone we will kill you back. It's out policy. There's a piece of legislation going that if there's more than 3 credible witnesses to a murder you get to the front of the line. That's right if 3 people saw you do what you did you ain't sitting on death row for 15 years, you're straight to the front of the line. Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty... My states putting in an express lane" but anyways I do believe in the death penalty. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It costs alot of tax payer money to keep a murderer in jail for life. Let me tell you, comparatively bullets are cheap and rope is cheaper, the trees free. I mean if you're serious about killing someone jt may not stop you but if you're pissed and you want to literally kill them youd probably think "oh life in prison? That doesnt seem to bad. Free food free everything I could do that" especially if your poor. Now if we used the death penalty and you thought about it might go something like "well if I kill this guy then the states going to kill me and I just want them dead not myself" death is a very powerful tool and if you threaten people with death it alot more likely they'll do what you want

[jessie3]

I don't want to get very into the discussion but Yes, i do think the death penalty should stay. I think it is much cheaper to execute someone, then to waist thousands waiting on his life to end. I don't think the death penalty is barbaric, if you want barbaric then maybe go to the middle east where they bury you in dirt all the way to your head only to stone you with rocks, or maybe publicly gun you down in a barrage of bullets in front of hundreds including your family.

[Microcosm]

Perhaps a better question is: Are there some people that deserve to die?

I'd say there are. Hitler, Eichman, you'd agree that they deserve to die, right?

Now that we admit that they deserve death, on what practical level can the death sentence be applied?

For instance, does someone who shoots up a school and murders 30 people in cold blood deserve death?

This is a hard question for me to answer. I'm going to say it should be legal, but should be a very limited activity that is only used in cases where (a)we are 100% positive that the individual committed such a horrendous crime and (b)some group of mostly unbiased, intelligent, and perhaps even forgiving(I say this because even the most forgiving people should be able to agree that the crime is punishable by death) individuals has determined by at least something like a three-fourths majority that the crime that has been committed deserves such a punishment.

[hesaidhesaid]

*WARNING: YOU MAY FIND WHAT I SAY CONTROVERSIAL, BUT I HAVE A SERIOUS CONVICTION SO DON'T TAKE THIS LIGHTLY*
I am a huge believer in the death penalty. I believe it resorts criminals to where they belong- in a place where we don't have to come into contact with them, each other or the society which we try to run to make it peaceful and fruitful. We don't have emotional connections with killers, rapists and fraudsters- but I believe strongly that we're not just going to allow barbarians and such imbeciles to be taking our "precious air" (in the words of Tintin's Captain Haddock).

I live in a society (Australia) where we are founded on a fair go. For the record, I am also a half Christian, half Humanist. Forgiveness in Christianity is one of the core values- it's a line of the Apostles Creed and is repeated some three or four times at every mass. But do we forgive criminals? Who are using our taxpayer money to stay in jail to supposedly "learn their wrongdoings?". I'll have you know that in the past month, two criminals have escaped from maximum security prisons in this country. The good news is that they were caught- the even better news is that they didn't cause (at least reportable) harm to our society, let alone the areas they went to. Both people are back in custody.

The death penalty solves two things- irrational humans and their disgusting and vile actions. Who needs forgiveness? Stop the problem right now before you use your "forgiveness" argument and they do something else. I leave you with a quote from Karl Marx:

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy- then as farce."

I then give you an altered version of this same quote:

"Crime repeats itself, first as the taking of lives- then as threatening everything else we have in society."

I'm sorry if this appears harsh- but this is the way I think of it. Criminal punishment and sentencing as we understand it is incredibly flawed and needs much more radical solutions. And I think this is the best of what we've got. As for justification of this policy- we have it here and now- the removal of persons from society who cause harm...

.....besides....the world's overpopulated.

[Uniquemind]

Well as it stands now there was news from the USA, out of Oklahoma state, that they messed up an execution.

They injected the inmate with the wrong drug, probably because the drug was mislabeled as another drug.

This was initially reported yesterday from The Rachel Maddow show of MSNBC.

Basically the prisoner was strapped in the chair basically wondering why he was still alive....

Also from months ago, Oklahoma figured out in an autopsy report that they injected someone with the wrong chemical which caused them a violent painful death.


There's the legal side to this topic, and then there is the restrictions by which the law forces government to carry out the death penalty a specific way.

The legal way is by a particular chemical, which no company wants to manufacture for the purposes of death penalty executions.

There's a supply chain breakdown...this should be discussed.

[phuckphace]

I used to approach the death penalty delicately, supporting it only in the most extreme and gruesome cases, but as of the last couple of years I've come round to a hang them all and let God sort them out approach.

I understand most people these days are triggered by mean words on the Internet, so it's unlikely that many share my enthusiasm for the return of public executions. still, there's something to be said for a society that does not tolerate disorder within itself, and aggressively (or to be super-hardcore, prophylactically) stamps out troublesome elements with the noose while a crowd looks on. not just murderers, but meth peddlers, thieves and embezzlers too.

our political/judicial system is designed for a society of adult WASPs, but in practice that's not the case, rendering it incapable of curating our society the way it was designed to. time to get medieval.

[tonymontana99]

I used to approach the death penalty delicately, supporting it only in the most extreme and gruesome cases, but as of the last couple of years I've come round to a hang them all and let God sort them out approach.

I understand most people these days are triggered by mean words on the Internet, so it's unlikely that many share my enthusiasm for the return of public executions. still, there's something to be said for a society that does not tolerate disorder within itself, and aggressively (or to be super-hardcore, prophylactically) stamps out troublesome elements with the noose while a crowd looks on. not just murderers, but meth peddlers, thieves and embezzlers too.

our political/judicial system is designed for a society of adult WASPs, but in practice that's not the case, rendering it incapable of curating our society the way it was designed to. time to get medieval.

I agree with you. I'd pay top dollar to see criminals being publicly executed during the Super Bowl half-time, I'm not even joking. We should see criminals as what they are: criminals. Not some sort of unfortunate people who dindu nuffin. Our government needs to set an example; and that example must be one of zero tolerance towards crime. Particularly to murderers, drug dealers and gang members.

[Uniquemind]

I used to approach the death penalty delicately, supporting it only in the most extreme and gruesome cases, but as of the last couple of years I've come round to a hang them all and let God sort them out approach.

I understand most people these days are triggered by mean words on the Internet, so it's unlikely that many share my enthusiasm for the return of public executions. still, there's something to be said for a society that does not tolerate disorder within itself, and aggressively (or to be super-hardcore, prophylactically) stamps out troublesome elements with the noose while a crowd looks on. not just murderers, but meth peddlers, thieves and embezzlers too.

our political/judicial system is designed for a society of adult WASPs, but in practice that's not the case, rendering it incapable of curating our society the way it was designed to. time to get medieval.

Yeah I have a fear that the message won't get across to society anymore.

I suspect if we went back to public executions, it would become a sort of entertainment thing after a while and lose it's shock and taboo.

We're used to seeing graphic things now in high definition no less.

[phuckphace]

unfortunately the NFL is getting stuffed into a wood chipper upon my ascension to power.

not sure where I was going with that but, public executions are a grim reminder to the public about the penalties for fucking up badly. a permissive society (muh freedom) ends up with lots of crime because impulsively bad folks aren't reigned in like they used to be. the more rights you give to criminals, the less effective you are at catching them, the process being bogged down by da R001 0f LaW. in criminal prosecution, the proceedings are hampered by dem loiyahs and oh fuck we didn't get a warrant first, welp I guess this blood-covered knife is INADMISSIBLE!11! *chucks into trashbin*

tl;dr ayy lmao "rights"

[Vlerchan]

So putting someone in an electric chair, lethal injection, or a hanging is more expensive than keeping a person alive with TVs and sometimes internet? How is that...?
Yes.

Because of legal and insurance costs. That - and bulk purchases of the mentioned isn't expensive.

---

It costs alot of tax payer money to keep a murderer in jail for life. Let me tell you, comparatively bullets are cheap and rope is cheaper, the trees free.
Like mentioned despite the cheapness of some methods of execution this expense isn't the problem.

Now if we used the death penalty and you thought about it might go something like "well if I kill this guy then the states going to kill me and I just want them dead not myself" death is a very powerful tool and if you threaten people with death it alot more likely they'll do what you want
It would seem from the literature that capital punishment doesn't have a recognisable impact on homicide rates.

I would imagine it's because most people don't think they'll be caught but at a micro-level I think it's impossible to be sure.

---

I think it is much cheaper to execute someone, then to waist thousands waiting on his life to end.
Well, you're wrong.

I don't think the death penalty is barbaric, if you want barbaric then maybe go to the middle east where they bury you in dirt all the way to your head only to stone you with rocks, or maybe publicly gun you down in a barrage of bullets in front of hundreds including your family.
This is called whataboutism. For example it doesn't matter that some Mexicans might get discriminated against in the U.S because look at apartheid SA.

Regardless it's ineffective reasoning. If we're deciding that someone's life is valueless - and I feel this is a required stance to take when we choose to end it - then it shouldn't matter whether the means of execution is 'humane' or not.

---

I'd say there are. Hitler, Eichman, you'd agree that they deserve to die, right?
I don't see what we'd actually gain from it.

Now that we admit that they deserve death, on what practical level can the death sentence be applied?
I'm not going to address the rest of this argument since I don't agree with the statement I just quoted.

Except.

(a)we are 100% positive that the individual committed such a horrendous crime
Impossible. Even if we have multiple sources of video evidence it's impossible to be certain of the mens rea.

---

I am a huge believer in the death penalty. I believe it resorts criminals to where they belong- in a place where we don't have to come into contact with them, each other or the society which we try to run to make it peaceful and fruitful.
I see no reason that this necessitates capital punishment.

I live in a society (Australia) where we are founded on a fair go. For the record, I am also a half Christian, half Humanist. Forgiveness in Christianity is one of the core values- it's a line of the Apostles Creed and is repeated some three or four times at every mass. But do we forgive criminals? Who are using our taxpayer money to stay in jail to supposedly "learn their wrongdoings?". I'll have you know that in the past month, two criminals have escaped from maximum security prisons in this country. The good news is that they were caught- the even better news is that they didn't cause (at least reportable) harm to our society, let alone the areas they went to. Both people are back in custody.
I'm not quite sure how the first part of this paragraph connects to the second. Would you mind rewording and/or clarifying? Thank you.

It's also awful when dangerous convicts escape prison confinement but that's the reason that their capture tends to be prioritised.

The death penalty solves two things- irrational humans and their disgusting and vile actions.
Except it doesn't. Because it seems to have no impact on humans being irrational or engaging in vile acts. It also then occurs post-facto.

Who needs forgiveness?
I don't think a single person here has argued that we should necessarily forgive people.

---

My sensitive, liberal mind can't even begin to wrap itself around what phuckphace is suggesting.

[tonymontana99]

unfortunately the NFL is getting stuffed into a wood chipper upon my ascension to power.

not sure where I was going with that but, public executions are a grim reminder to the public about the penalties for fucking up badly. a permissive society (muh freedom) ends up with lots of crime because impulsively bad folks aren't reigned in like they used to be. the more rights you give to criminals, the less effective you are at catching them, the process being bogged down by da R001 0f LaW. in criminal prosecution, the proceedings are hampered by dem loiyahs and oh fuck we didn't get a warrant first, welp I guess this blood-covered knife is INADMISSIBLE!11! *chucks into trashbin*

tl;dr ayy lmao "rights"

Ayy lmao indeed. We should bring back public executions and remind the population that they must obey authority or face the consequences. Too many people whining about "muh freedum" and "muh human rights" when they should be silenced or move out of the way and let the big guys take care of their master plan.

[phuckphace]

My sensitive, liberal mind can't even begin to wrap itself around what phuckphace is suggesting.

"the noose" was metaphorical by the way, I'm more of a lethal injection kind of guy.

[Vlerchan]

"the noose" was metaphorical by the way, I'm more of a lethal injection kind of guy.
Oh right. That makes it all better.

(I also think that if it comes to it then we should line them up against a wall and shoot them.)

[jessie3]

I agree with you. I'd pay top dollar to see criminals being publicly executed during the Super Bowl half-time, I'm not even joking. We should see criminals as what they are: criminals. Not some sort of unfortunate people who dindu nuffin. Our government needs to set an example; and that example must be one of zero tolerance towards crime. Particularly to murderers, drug dealers and gang members.


Wow, your statement about seeing "Criminals being publicly executed during the Super Bowl half-time show" is in my words in all idiotic and down right stupid.

The Super Bowl is about having fun and cheering on for a favorable team.

If the reasoning you have is that we should see criminals as who they are "Criminals" and that all criminals should be executed, then i guess every person who gets caught speeding, using obscene profanity, getting caught with a small possession of drugs, having open bottles of alcohol in your car, public urination, failure to stop at a stop sign, failure to use proper turn signals and any other small charges should be executed right?

I mean they are in your words criminals. So should people who break a few of those small laws really be executed?

Your theory is that if everybody breaks a law then everybody should be executed. That theory is in it self not possible. Your talking about spending millions on equipment, drug cocktails, medical cost and expenses. If your theory where to come true then there'd be no more use in having prisons or jails.

If you want that, then we here in America might as well become almost in a way dictatorship.

[Microcosm]

I don't see what we'd actually gain from it.


Because people like that that aren't killed off always have the potential to continue to commit the crime, we gain the safety of not having to worry about them doing it again.

Also, the "being 100% sure" thing was a bit exaggerated. What I meant was that we'd need to be convinced that they did it.

Ayy lmao indeed. We should bring back public executions and remind the population that they must obey authority or face the consequences. Too many people whining about "muh freedum" and "muh human rights" when they should be silenced or move out of the way and let the big guys take care of their master plan.

lol.

[Vlerchan]

Because people like that that aren't killed off always have the potential to continue to commit the crime, we gain the safety of not having to worry about them doing it again.
If it's the case that Hitler et al. were tried in the ICC and then incarcerated in some isolated Island-based prison it would be hard to see those worries as reasonable.

Also, the "being 100% sure" thing was a bit exaggerated. What I meant was that we'd need to be convinced that they did it.
I'll just take it to refer to people being convinced to within a reasonable doubt.

[Typhlosion]

^ That guy right above me gave all the reasons not to support the penalty here: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2936409&postcount=60

I did learn from last time ;)

[tonymontana99]

Wow, your statement about seeing "Criminals being publicly executed during the Super Bowl half-time show" is in my words in all idiotic and down right stupid.

The Super Bowl is about having fun and cheering on for a favorable team.

If the reasoning you have is that we should see criminals as who they are "Criminals" and that all criminals should be executed, then i guess every person who gets caught speeding, using obscene profanity, getting caught with a small possession of drugs, having open bottles of alcohol in your car, public urination, failure to stop at a stop sign, failure to use proper turn signals and any other small charges should be executed right?

I mean they are in your words criminals. So should people who break a few of those small laws really be executed?

Your theory is that if everybody breaks a law then everybody should be executed. That theory is in it self not possible. Your talking about spending millions on equipment, drug cocktails, medical cost and expenses. If your theory where to come true then there'd be no more use in having prisons or jails.

If you want that, then we here in America might as well become almost in a way dictatorship.

I was talking about murderers and terrorists, not petty thieves. Don't say my "theory" is that everybody who breaks a law should be executed, I never said that.

[everlong]

This poll is very close, which is kind of cool. I've always thought the death penalty is a bit much. There are some awful things you can do, but I don't know if being murdered is the answer.

[mattsmith48]

Its not because someone kill someone else you have the right to kill that someon

[Plane And Simple]

Please keep it respectful and serious. This is not a place for bashing or advanced sarcasm, we're treating people's lives.

Thank you guys

[phuckphace]

Oh right. That makes it all better.

(I also think that if it comes to it then we should line them up against a wall and shoot them.)

in all seriousness, what's the actual objection to executions being public, notwithstanding the usual objections to the penalty itself? the death penalty only works as a deterrent when it is used consistently and "in-your-face." obfuscating it behind layer upon layer of bureaucracy and appeals, not so much.

"all a man has will he give for his life" - everything else can be taken away without consequence, and criminals are aware of this on some level. do you fear "justice" if you know there's a high chance you can wriggle out of it or at least delay it a couple of decades?

[Vlerchan]

in all seriousness, what's the actual objection to executions being public, notwithstanding the usual objections to the penalty itself?
I've argued before that issuing capital punishment requires a fundamental de-valuation of someone's life. Once we've reached the conclusion that someone's life matters to the extent that it becomes just to eliminate it then distinctions between methods become meaningless. Then I precede to argue that if we're to call for capital punishment then there's no valid basis to exclude the option of a public stoning of the criminal.

So in the spirit of that argument I'm indifferent to it's public or not. Considering that it might be best for someone that supports capital punishment to argue against public executions. Though I do think at the same time that some thought should be offered towards the families of those convicted and the trauma suffered at witnessing their son or daughter or whatever killed as public spectacle.

I also wonder what consequences it has for the public psych. But I've no clue there since it's never been an area of interest.

the death penalty only works as a deterrent when it is used consistently and "in-your-face." obfuscating it behind layer upon layer of bureaucracy and appeals, not so much.
Source please.

"all a man has will he give for his life" - everything else can be taken away without consequence, and criminals are aware of this on some level.
I think people that commit homicide fall within 3 categories.
Impulsive killers.
Killers of passion.
Killers that kill for personal gain.
The last group are the one that it can be considered capital punishment might act as a deterrent towards. The literature at the moment seems to indicate that this isn't the case.

I have a feeling that's because when these people commit murder they don't expect to be caught. If they did I can't imagine they would commit murder.

[Uniquemind]

Let me also add that I agree the death penalty also doesn't work as a deterant.

Idk if this group is considered under Vlerchan "killers of passion" but the profile of a terrorist would see themselves as martyrs, thus fueling inspiration to follow in their footsteps.

In the same psychological/criminological sense this is why we have "copycat" killers that do it for fame's sake or why the war on terror hasn't ended yet.


To be honest even though my last few posts seem a bit contradictory about if I believe the death penalty should be practiced, and as it is practiced now I don't agree with it, I will say we have to look no farther to look at a country who practices it well other than "N.Korea".

North Korea has absolutely mastered public executions, to the point where the population is so terrified that the overall country can't function, those who have gotten state sponsored media tours describe those they witness in society as complete zombies.

From those who have escaped that country they tell stories of how there is no love between the family structure and child will turn against parent, even if it means parents public torture and death, for an extra bite of food.

The other example is China, where society flourishes, but those with death wishes/penalties on them simply have government covert ops, kidnap and kill the target quietly and out of public eye.

Semi-relatedly, in China, if you violated their "one child policy" by being pregnant again, you could've been abducted, taken to a clinic or even in your very own living residence, ushered to see a doctor who would forcefully abort your fetus even despite your desire to keep the child. That's a death penalty in a sense given the context of a national overpopulation problem: everybody gets one child and that's it.


In some ways there's a case that the idea you could be taken and vanish from society at any time when you act out of line, is more a deterrent to shape desired behavior, than public executions ever will be.

But let's look at the trade offs, you get a country that embraces the act of execution and you lose the relaxed environment in the psyche of a country to be free and creative and unafraid to make mistakes. That's going to negatively affect the economy, nobody can insure that someone who disappears covertly was taken in any justifiable way, and that tends to freak the general populace out.


Also since we're headed into dark part of human behavior, we should reference the famous Stanford prison experiment.

It's findings really do make you realize people who question things independently are rare, and that people all to easily go with the flow of authority and after a while get drunk on their own power and end up torturing the subordinates, and taking a sick enjoyment out of it.

Anybody has the potential to be a psychopath, it all comes down to what excuses you tell yourself that justify your actions, so you can sleep at night.


In a sense that's what the death penalty is, we're justifying the evil we have inside us, upon justified piñatas.

-----

That being said I could be a bit creative and propose that instead of the death penalty the ultimate punishment would be for those convicted of rape and murder to repay society back by losing their freedom, and serve as a blood donation supply for a nation's hospitals.

As long as a criminal convict's body is healthy, no std's, no weird diseases, proper blood type is identified they could serve as a positive for society instead of a negative.


Cause let's face it blood donation is a vital resource to help save lives.

Also to inject humor into this thread, someone in general society could crack a joke they have a convict's blood running in their veins after a trip from the hospital.

[Vlerchan]

From those who have escaped that country they tell stories of how there is no love between the family structure and child will turn against parent, even if it means parents public torture and death, for an extra bite of food.
From what I gathered through reading interviews from NK defectors this wasn't the case.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/defectors-what-we-miss-most-about-life-in-north-korea

[CupcakeLuv101]

I remember having to write a persuasive essay during my freshman year of high school about this topic and we had to choose a side lol
I chose the NO it shouldn't be legal side because people shouldn't be sentenced to death for committing a crime no matter how big it is and the person killing the criminal is just as guilty for using the death penalty as the criminal him/herself.
Also in the bible, God made murder a sin as one of the 10 commandments and he did that for a reason. So I would still say no the death penalty shouldn't be used.

[Judean Zealot]

in all seriousness, what's the actual objection to executions being public, notwithstanding the usual objections to the penalty itself? the death penalty only works as a deterrent when it is used consistently and "in-your-face." obfuscating it behind layer upon layer of bureaucracy and appeals, not so much. ?

I think the gut recoil comes from the mental images of rowdy London drunkards cheering some hanging or another, or Madame Defarge calmly knitting in front of the guillotine. When executions become standard entertainment for the rabble it means your society is in bad shape.

Of course, this can be averted by the enforcement of solemnity by such events, such as a mandatory silence and standing at attention.

Also in the bible, God made murder a sin as one of the 10 commandments and he did that for a reason. So I would still say no the death penalty shouldn't be used.

It's a fine day to pick some cherries (http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-6.htm), don't you agree?

[Uniquemind]

I remember having to write a persuasive essay during my freshman year of high school about this topic and we had to choose a side lol
I chose the NO it shouldn't be legal side because people shouldn't be sentenced to death for committing a crime no matter how big it is and the person killing the criminal is just as guilty for using the death penalty as the criminal him/herself.
Also in the bible, God made murder a sin as one of the 10 commandments and he did that for a reason. So I would still say no the death penalty shouldn't be used.

Actually no, that commandment reads that shall not murder, not though shall not kill.


If you assume it is the latter, you end up with a biblical contradiction with one verse of scripture with another line of scripture...that indicates you understood your bible wrong when you read it the first time.

God's completely okay with death penalty, but he could swing for forgiveness as well. It's a case by case basis dependent on if the person who sins repents of sin and sins no more.

[PinkFloyd]

I said yes, but my actual answer is both. Consider this: If you find out a friend of yours say.... had with your girlfriend and you shot them for it, you'd get put on death row. In that case, a life sentence would do fine. HOWEVER, say someone were to kill and eat 17 confirmed people, (Jeffrey Dahmer, ladies and gentlemen) then they deserve to die in my opinion. In short, if you kill someone, no; if you are a serial killer or in that ballpark, then yes.

[Uniquemind]

I said yes, but my actual answer is both. Consider this: If you find out a friend of yours say.... had with your girlfriend and you shot them for it, you'd get put on death row. In that case, a life sentence would do fine. HOWEVER, say someone were to kill and eat 17 confirmed people, (Jeffrey Dahmer, ladies and gentlemen) then they deserve to die in my opinion. In short, if you kill someone, no; if you are a serial killer or in that ballpark, then yes.

So you're saying we need a scale to measure crime heinousness + chance of re-offensive to rate people/criminally accused, and from there Execute them or send them to life in prison without parole.

What about the other details raised by other posters in the thread? The pros and cons of even the super guilty no longer being a resource to interview in the future for new clues and investigative leads?

[ChaosEarthquake]

The death penalty is TOO easy for heinous crimes.
Personally, I want people that commit those heinous crimes to be tortured.