The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Refereeing Life: The Death Penalty
FirstComradeStalin
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
While talking in SE about last meals if you were on death row, the issue of the death penalty came up. I'm pretty sure it's been discussed and debated here before, but it's a topic worth retreading. There are a number of things to debate about it, but there is really one central question that needs to be answered:
Is it the right thing to do to give someone the death penalty if they've performed a sufficiently horrible crime?
In my own opinion, it isn't. We have no right to take away someone's life, even if that person doesn't play by those same rules. It solves nothing and propagates a culture of violence. Prison is still a valid punishment, and still removes that person from society even if they are completely hopeless cases.
But that's my view. What is your own?
Is it the right thing to do to give someone the death penalty if they've performed a sufficiently horrible crime?
In my own opinion, it isn't. We have no right to take away someone's life, even if that person doesn't play by those same rules. It solves nothing and propagates a culture of violence. Prison is still a valid punishment, and still removes that person from society even if they are completely hopeless cases.
But that's my view. What is your own?
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Posts
the way the death penalty is administered now in the u.s. sucks.
conceptually however, i have no problems with capital punishment. life in prison is too light a sentence for some criminals.
But is it only expensive because they can spend upwards of 10 years on Death Row before being pushed off this mortal coil after a quick Wendy's take-out? Would it be more cost-effective if the guilty was shot right there in the court room just after the verdict was written out?
I'm not sure that it's a deterrent though. I think there could be many more uses for criminals that keeps them alive, and yet acts as a deterrent. We could use them as lab-rats for new and cool drugs. That'd get PETA off the backs of many researchers. Maybe not the human rights guys, but then my personal opinion is that when you start hacking innocent people up and raping their corpses you lose your fucking rights.
If both those options fail, I suggest some "Liberty City Survivor" type game... you know, gladiators with guns. I'd watch that puppy.
The last person to be executed in Britain ended up getting a posthumous pardon.
This is why we have the appeals process, people; our justice system fucks up waaay more often than we'd like to admit, so it's necessary to have provisions in place to correct for it when it happens.
Assuming this is true, then yea I think it should be done away with. Though in principle I don't really have a problem with it.
Same here.
I think we need to institute some "Running Man" like scheme where you get life imprisonment, or you run the Gauntlet in a vicious and brutal game which will most likely end in your death, but will please the bloodthirsty masses as the whole thing is televised for everyone's viewing pleasure.
Interesting stuff from Wikipedia:
Blue = Abolished for all offenses (88)
Green = Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (11)
Orange = Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (30)
Red = Retains death penalty (68)
Kind of interesting when you consider how "different" a lot of people assume the US to be from these countries.
Why? It shouldn't be there for exacting retribution. It should be there to remove the people from society or rehabilitate them.
Well yes but then we have no appeals process. A rather important part of the justice system of any country.
It sounds like you're a big fan of Demolition Man. I watched the movie probably about 30 times when I was a kid (It was on the Movie Network for 3 months).
Using Demolition Man as horrible, horrible example, would you be open to putting someone on ice for X years, doing behaviour modification on a cellular level (brain cells), and then releasing them in the future?
Bit of a tangent, I admit.
Honestly, I think every aspect of our justice system needs a lot of work, and that should we finally create a system wherein prisoners are incapable of harming other prisoners, and incapable of escape, then and only then should we abolish the death penalty.
As others have said, the level of deterrance it offers is debatable, and once you cross the line and commit a crime which will get you the death penalty, there's no reason not to simply kill everyone you come into contact with in an effort to avoid being caught. There's certainly the argument that the threat of death makes a criminal more dangerous, rather than less.
For the time being, I would say it should not be used except in cases where there is absolutely undeniable proof that the right guy is in custody (ie, caught in the act, clear video footage, undeniable DNA evidence, etc)
I agree. Which is why, as much as I don't like rapists, whenever someone suggests they should get the death penalty, I have to wonder if they're really thinking that one through.
How many ways have they tried to come up with killing people "neatly"? Electric chairs, gas chambers, lethal injection, &c. Nobody else has ever bothered with that, they just hang 'em high.
The "not cost-effective" argument is a bit of a red herring - it's expensive because of the lengthy appeals process and the lawyers' fees. Though it kind of begs the question; does this mean that people with a "mere" life sentence don't get the same opportunity to appeal their conviction and sentence?
Anyway, what's more compelling to me is that it is simply not a deterrent. Most crimes - especially murders - are spur of the moment crimes of passion, and nobody is thinking about the potential impacts. Moreover, I've seen research that has shown an increase in the murder rate due to the death penalty. The reasoning is that when it becomes acceptable and commonplace for the state to kill people, the mental barrier to kill is eroded for some people - the same has been seen in times of war. If the state of Texas can kill that guy, why can't I? If the government can kill those folks in Vietnam, why can't I?
I still support it for international crimes (though the ICC doesn't). Think Saddam Hussein. My reasons are that these crimes are premeditated and could be deterred, and it can help make up for the vast gap between crimes committed and crimes actually brought to justice.
To be the devil's advocate, I think that arguing that the death penalty increases murders because "hey, I'm going to die anyway" is a bit of a slippery slope. By that logic we should abolish life sentences, because "hey, I'm going to spend 40 years in prison, anyway."
Does anyone know on average how many appeals death row inmates get? Also, what about the crimes committed?
We need another Australia.... The Moon?
New York?
I'm not sure I see how keeping inmates who would otherwise be executed from murdering their fellow inmates is "an impossible standard".
my 2 cents I guess
Brilliant! I can see the News Reports now:
"Earlier today, Richard "Brutus the Butcher" Einhorn was involved in an accident on the Moon Penal Colony. Apparently Richard, best known for killing 85 women and 3 cats, wandered into a restricted area, got stuck in an airlock, and somehow managed to release the airlock, killing him...
And in other news, Georgia the Panda had twins today at the San Diego Zoo!..."
If this is too brutal and uncivilized, then we should abolish the thing all together. State sponsored murder is state sponsored murder no matter how we dress it up to make ourselves feel better about it. If it won't serve any real use other than some delayed sense of vengeance, then it should be done away with in its entirety.
I've never been particularly happy with the "punitive" aspects of the penal system. By that I mean I'm all for imprisonment (and restitution, where appropriate, e.g. theft) as a consquence to keep people out of society who obviously can't abide by society's rules, but primarily to protect society from those people, and with the hope that the imprisonment can provide the imprisoned an opportunity to turn their life around and actually change them into a productive citizen upon release.
Vengeance, however, is a non-starter for me since it contradicts (what I see as) the basic philosophy of laws: everyone is guaranteed a certain level of protection from harmful activities by others. When we execute someone we're violating the basic idea behind homicide laws, that no one should have their life ended (by other people) against their wishes. Further examples: those convicted of assault aren't beaten up by the state in return, and those convicted of rape aren't sentenced to be raped in retaliation.
b) Mistakes are frequently made in the justice system.
c) Nearly everyone can be reformed and made a productive member of society.
It's pretty cut and dry to me.
hur hur
This is kind of an important point that I think a lot of people casually overlook. Life in prison does not mean that they're totally removed from society. They're in there with the drug addicts, the assaulters, the gang members who are trying to be rehabilitated. Most likely, they're continuing the same or similar behavior behind bars because... hell... they're already in there for life, who cares? This gets passed on to the people with short jail terms who very likely could be pretty painlessly rehabilitated and makes the process less effective, more expensive, etc etc.
I'm still confused however, on the purpose of death row. I can understand it's use if the case is reasonably in doubt. But having people like Tim McVeigh or whatever his name is on there for months, when there was basically NO DOUBT he commited the OHC bombings is complete bullshit.